In a statement, Oracle has said that acquisition of Sun is essential for competition in the high end server market, for revitalizing Sparc and Solaris and for strengthening the Java development platform. The transaction does not threaten to reduce competition in the slightest, including in the database market.

The EC statement of objections reveals a profound misunderstanding of both database competition and open source dynamics. It is well understood by those knowledgeable about open source software that because MySQL is open source, it cannot be controlled by anyone. That is the whole point of open source.

The commission said that a combination of Sun's MySQL database product and Oracle's products could hurt competition in the database market, Sun revealed in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

The database market is intensely competitive with at least eight strong players, including IBM, Microsoft, Sybase and three distinct open source vendors. Oracle and MySQL are very different database products. There is no basis in European law for objecting to a merger of two among eight firms selling differentiated products. Mergers like this occur regularly and have not been prohibited by United States or European regulators in decades.

The US Department of Justice carefully reviewed the proposed acquisition during the normal Hart-Scott-Rodino review and considered it again when the EC initiated a second phase review. On both occasions the Justice Department came to the conclusion that there is nothing anti-competitive about the deal, including specifically Oracle’s acquisition of the MySQL database product. The US Department of Justice approved the acquisition without conditions and terminated the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act on August 20, 2009.

Oracle added that Sun’s customers universally support this merger and do not benefit from the continued uncertainty and delay. Oracle plans to vigorously oppose the commission’s statement of objections as the evidence against the commission’s position is overwhelming. Given the lack of any credible theory or evidence of competitive harm, we are confident we will ultimately obtain unconditional clearance of the transaction.

What is your opinion of this subject?

Have your say and discuss with your peers on the InfoGrok community.