Oracle president backpedals on 'oligopoly' report

The difference: Microsoft attained its monopoly on its own, whereas (according to the DOJ) Oracle would attain a monopoly through acquisition. The former can't really be prevented, only dealt with after the fact. The latter can be prevented by preventing the merger. Of course, that's assuming Oracle would really attain monopoly status by acquiring PeopleSoft; I'm not sure that's the case, and I don't think the DOJ should even be involved in this issue. I want to see PeopleSoft fight off Oracle, but not at the expense of getting the government even more involved in the industry.

Besides, who said the DOJ is "happy" with the MS monopoly? If I recall, a settlement was reached with Microsoft, entailing changes to Microsoft's business practices. One's unhappiness with the settlement doesn't mean capitulation by the DOJ. There are plenty of court rulings that I haven't liked, but that doesn't mean the judges and attorneys were corrupt; merely wrong.

Carl Rapson; Posted by: rapson Posted on: 06/19/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use