Posted 11/10/09 at 07:07:11 AM by Paul Lilly

Coming as a surprise to absolutely no one, the European Union on Monday formally objected to Oracle's proposed takeover of Sun. The EU's hard stance could throw a wrench in the $7.4 billion deal that had already been approved by U.S. officials.

The sole sticking point for the EU is that the deal would give Oracle control over Sun's free MySQL database software. Because Oracle sells its own database software, the EU fears the company would purposely hamstring MySQL in order to boost its own sales.

"The Commission's Statement of Objections reveals a profound misunderstanding of both database competition and open source dynamics," Oracle said in response to the objection. "It is well understood by those knowledgeable about open source software that because MykSQL is open source, it cannot be controlled by anyone. That is the whole point of open source."

Oracle will have an opportunity to respond to the EU's objections before it makes its final ruling on the deal by January 19. Even then, should the EU outright reject the deal, Oracle could file an appeal. The alternative is to back out of the acquisitionl, which would cost Oracle a $260 million breakup fee, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Read More

Posted 11/04/09 at 08:08:25 AM by Paul Lilly

Oracle knows it's in for a fight with the European Union over the U.S. company's planned $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun Microsystems, but appears ready to go the rounds, according to a Financial Times report.

The EU is mainly concerned about whay Oracle might end up doing with Sun's MySQL code base, such as killing it off or dropping support in order to push its own non-free database package. And according to FT.com, one person close to the process says the EU is ever-so-close to issuing an official statement of objection, which is step one in blocking the deal.

It's unlikely Oracle will back down, choosing instead to wait and see what the EU decides. Should the Commission object, Oracle could choose to offer concessions or take its fight to court.

The Sun acquisition has already been given the green light by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Read More

Posted 10/27/09 at 04:30:00 AM by Paul Lilly

One of the challenges facing Oracle in its $7.4 billion takeover bid of Sun Microsystems is in convincing the European Commission that it plans to devote just as much attention to the free, open-source MySQL database as it will on any of its own costlier parallel database products. So far Oracle has a hard time convincing the EC of that, so should Oracle drop MySQL altogether? Former MYSQL business adviser Florian Mueller seems to think so.

Mueller isn't alone, either. Members of the EC feel that owning MySQL through the acquisition of Sun presents a huge conflict of interest for Oracle, who is poised to become the owner of its biggest open-source competitor.

"Oracle is a high-priced cash cow in the parallel database business," Mueller said during a press conference on Monday. "Why then should it be the one entity that controls development, determines revenues, and controls an R&D budget of a competing product that it sells against directly in the database market?"

Naturally, Oracle has a different perspective. According to Oracle CEO and founder Larry Ellison, MySQL isn't a competitor at all, and he points out MySQL has its own market and following. Instead, Ellison says Microsoft SQL Server is Oracle's competition.

But no matter how Ellison feels, it's the EC who has the final word, at least in Europe. Without the EC's stamp of approval, Oracle won't be able to do business in Europe. As it stands, the EC has set a deadline of January 19, 2010 to make a final decision to sanction the deal or not, although it could decide even sooner.

Read More

Posted 10/26/09 at 11:00:56 AM by Paul Lilly

File sharers in France who get caught downloading pirated content could lose internet service for up to a year, and that's okay with the European Parliament, which dropped an amendment to its forthcoming telecoms legislation that would have protected citizens in such scenarios.

"Any such measures liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be taken in exceptional circumstances...and shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, including effective judicial protection and due process," the dropped amendment reads.

Going forward, individual countries have the green light to ask ISPs to disconnect users believed to be software pirates, and do so without any kind of court order.

This has been a hot topic in Europe, and at the core of the issue is whether or not Internet access can be considered a fundamental right. UK prime minister Gordon Brown put Internet access on the same plane as gas, water, and electricity in terms of entitlement, but there's been recent pressure to push through anti-piracy legislation. According to research firm Forrester, 14 percent of European Internet users are involved in illegal file-sharing. However, Forrester doesn't think the solution lies in tougher legislation.

"Piracy will not be solved by legislation alone. Without compelling services, piracy will not be beaten," said Mark Mulligan, an analyst for Forrester.

Read More

Posted 09/22/09 at 08:55:24 AM by Paul Lilly

Earlier this year, the European Commission nailed Intel with a record setting $1.45 billion fine for what it construed as anticompetitive practices, and on Monday the EC published a non-confidential version of its Intel Decision laying out all the details that led to the hefty fine.

The EC seems to have taken particular exception to conditional rebates offered by Intel, listing no less than five scenarios, including rebates to Dell from December 2002 to December 2005 in exchange for purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs. But according to the paper, Intel also dangled the conditional carrot in front of Acer, HP, NEC, Lenovo, and Media Saturn Holding during various times from 2002 up until as recently as 2007.

Not only did Intel dictate how much AMD-based product each OEM could sell, but the chip maker also had clear directions on how AMD systems could be sold, according to the paper. For example, Intel payments to Acer were conditioned on Acer postponing the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004. Lenovo was also advised to postpone a notebook launch, while payments to HP were conditioned on the OEM selling AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises, and only via direct distribution channels.

And that's only a portion of the paper. Get all the gory details here, then hit the jump and tell us whether you think the $1.45 billion fine was warranted or if Intel was doing what any company in its position would do.

Read More

Posted 07/23/09 at 11:00:42 AM by Paul Lilly

After an 8-year investigation, the European Union nailed Intel with a record-setting $1.45 billion fine this past May, finding the chip maker guilty of anticompetitive practices. As was expected, Intel has filed an appeal with Europe's second highest court, the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance.

"We believe the European Commission misinterpreted some evidence and ignored other pieces of evidence," Intel spokesman Robert Manetta said.

The $1.45 billion fine ranks as the highest ever imposed by the EU to a company, which represents 4.15 percent of Intel's 2008 turnover. Even worse (for Intel), some analysts say the Commission's finding could lead to its U.S. counterparts also taking legal action against the chip maker.

Read More

Posted 05/13/09 at 01:01:02 PM by Paul Lilly

When AMD heard the news that the European Commission had found Intel guilty of anticompetitive business practices and hit the No. 1 chip maker with a record setting $1.45 billion fine, we imagine the response behind closed doors was something along the lines, "Woohoo!!," followed by a series of high-fives. After all, AMD has been crying foul for years over allegations that Intel was issuing illegal rebates and other incentives to vendors and retailers to stop them from selling AMD chips. But while AMD execs are probably dancing on their desks in jubilation, the No. 2 chip maker's official response took on a decidedly more business-like (though no less giddy) tone.

"After an exhaustive investigation, the EU came to one conclusion - Intel broke the law and consumers were hurt," said Tom McCoy, AMD executive vice president for legal affairs. "With this ruling, the industry will benefit from an end to Intel's monopoly-inflated pricing and European consumers will enjoy greater choice, value, and innovation."

In a press release, AMD went on to say that Intel has so far failed to convince any antitrust enforcement agency that its business practices are lawful and pro-consumer. AMD points out past fines and rulings against Intel on similar matters, including a 26 billion won fine (about $25.4 million USD) in 2008, a ruling in 2005 by the Japan Fair Trade Commission finding that Intel had violated the country's anti-monopoly laws, and an ongoing investigation by the FTC here in the States with a trial scheduled for spring 2010.

Read More

Posted 05/11/09 at 02:00:59 PM by Paul Lilly

Citing "sources familiar with the case," Reuters reports that EU antitrust regulators believe Intel illegally paid computer makers to postpone or cancel the launch of AMD-based products.

An official statement from the EU regulators is expected to come this Wednesday, at which time it will have decided on an appropriate fine. There's been no indication so far of what amount it might be, however the largest fine ever handed out by the European Commission was 479 million euros, or $655 million, to Microsoft in 2004 for allegedly freezing out rivals in server software and products.

According to the report, EU execs will say that Intel gave rebates to computer makers in exchange for restricting the use of AMD chips, while also providing other incentives to retailers to sell just Intel-based systems. Sources say the ruling will order Intel to end the alleged illegal rebates by a certain date.

Read More