Any customers here who’ve had their legal dept look into whether oracle doubling the price of running oracle DB on AWS violated stars or federal predatory pricing laws? Would appreciate you sharing. Thanks!
22 replies (most recent on top)
So in other words, customer should just tell oracle to take a hike when it’s trying to double their costs - see you in court oracle!
Can't mention the name of my company but we did look into it and it's VERY BIG a problem. If you care not to believe me or think you know better, fine.
kindly do the needful.
Srini
Idiot ...
Typical indian troll:
no substance, no proof, no skill, nothing except stupid words:
100% idiot post ...
There is nothing to worry about, absolutely nothing, because I said do and that’s the truth no matter what the actual text of the law may say, just ignore it and trust me!
This is the dumbest thread on here.
very good answer vishnu, exactly what you you were teached to answer.
needful will be done with your salary increase.
you can post anything you want, but you post without any proof.
So you are a troll.
Enjoy trolling.
Think what you wish but we looked into it and there is no issue. You can keep posting but this is a non issue
let me help you ...
the name of your company starts with an "o", finishes with a "e" and is 6 letters, right ?
What you wrote is just stupid and you are right, we don't care and don't believe you.
You are just a f?ck?ng troll.
Enjoy trolling !!!
How is it not a problem? Please explain the legal thinking/ analysis that led to this conclusion
Can't mention the name of my company but we did look into it and it's not a problem. If you care not to believe me or think you know better, fine.
@1rff - whose legal dept would that be? Sound suspiciously like oracle’s trying to make us ignore the issue
Yes our legal dept looked into it and there was no issues.
Oracle was recently disqualified out of a massive public sector tender in Dubai. The pricing policy was mentioned but the main reason was the technical capability in hosting SLA.
It's an interesting post. I don't have any problem with it being here on the layoff site. I think anything that affects oracle's future prospects fits well here.
@rdk - chill it a little, will you!
are you a mod on this site ?
You should post this on oracle-l or some other list, like maybe theregister? This site is about layoffs.
Now is this an act of desperation? Yes. Will customers be happy? No. Will they buy less? Yes and this will lead to more layoffs. But it's still off topic.
Surprising AWS hasn’t sued oracle as ORACLE’s intent here is clearly to exercise monopoly power to prevent companies from hosting their DBs on AWS
I think it more antitrust as Oracle controls the production and distribution of the Oracle database and is attempting to create an atmosphere of unfair competition by gouging customers that go to a competitor. It is a clear violation of the spirit of the laws put forth by the Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Antitrust Act, Robinson–Patman Act.
Oracle would lose a lawsuit, but the are use to that. They are still appealing the 3 Billion dollars they lost in a lawsuit over MH and the non support of the itanium chip to HP. MH truly is the 3 billion dollar man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
Sherman Antitrust Act
The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.
The Clayton Antitrust Act, passed in 1914, prescribes certain additional activities that had been discovered to fall outside the scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act. For example, the Clayton Act added certain practices to the list of impermissible activities:
price discrimination between different purchasers, if such discrimination tends to create a >monopoly
exclusive dealing agreements
tying arrangements
mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce market competition.
The Robinson–Patman Act of 1936 amended the Clayton Act. The amendment proscribed certain anti-competitive practices in which manufacturers engaged in price discrimination against equally-situated distributors.