Thread: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL.
The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to expend money to
slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has been
attacked, we should expect to be the next target.
Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend 1% of their revenue or net
income on attacking PostgreSQL. Given this financial statement:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ORCL&annual
that would be USD $20-100 million. (The Oracle financial statement will
eventually disclose the purchase price of InnoDB, and we can use that as
a minimum amount they would be willing to spend.)
Now, I think Oracle realizes that the database will eventually become a
commodity based on their purchase of Peoplesoft and other application
technology. However, every financial period they delay that time is
more profit for them, so it is a cost/benefit of how much it is worth to
slow down PostgreSQL. Obviously they thought the InnoDB purchase was
worth it to slow down or control MySQL. Our goal should be to make the
cost of attacks higher than the benefit.
Here are the three most likely attacks on our project:
o Hiring
Oracle could hire a large portion of our paid or volunteer developers,
thereby slowing down the project. Individuals would probably be
approach as "We like your work on PostgreSQL and would like your
expertise in improving Oracle", but of course once hired what they did
for Oracle would be unimportant. What would be important is what they
_don't_ do for PostgreSQL.
o Trademark
Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names. He could
be attacked, perhaps by hiring him to do a job, causing it to fail, then
suing him to obtain the trademark, and therefore the right to own the
domain names. The trademark has not been enforced, and it would be hard
to enforce at this stage, but I think it would be effective in gaining
control of the domain names.
o Patents
Most technology people agree the software patent system is broken, but
it could be a potent weapon against us, though we have shown we can
efficiently remove patent issue from our code.
There is probably nothing Oracle can do to permanently harm us, but
there are a variety of things they can do to temporarily slow us down,
and it is likely a attempt will be made in the future. There are also
possible threats to PostgreSQL support companies, though they are
somewhat independent of the project.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack us it actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a threat. At this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on how exactly the attacked. On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:04:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL. > > The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to expend money to > slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has been > attacked, we should expect to be the next target. > > Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend 1% of their revenue or net > income on attacking PostgreSQL. Given this financial statement: > > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ORCL&annual > > that would be USD $20-100 million. (The Oracle financial statement will > eventually disclose the purchase price of InnoDB, and we can use that as > a minimum amount they would be willing to spend.) > > Now, I think Oracle realizes that the database will eventually become a > commodity based on their purchase of Peoplesoft and other application > technology. However, every financial period they delay that time is > more profit for them, so it is a cost/benefit of how much it is worth to > slow down PostgreSQL. Obviously they thought the InnoDB purchase was > worth it to slow down or control MySQL. Our goal should be to make the > cost of attacks higher than the benefit. > > Here are the three most likely attacks on our project: > > o Hiring > > Oracle could hire a large portion of our paid or volunteer developers, > thereby slowing down the project. Individuals would probably be > approach as "We like your work on PostgreSQL and would like your > expertise in improving Oracle", but of course once hired what they did > for Oracle would be unimportant. What would be important is what they > _don't_ do for PostgreSQL. > > o Trademark > > Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names. He could > be attacked, perhaps by hiring him to do a job, causing it to fail, then > suing him to obtain the trademark, and therefore the right to own the > domain names. The trademark has not been enforced, and it would be hard > to enforce at this stage, but I think it would be effective in gaining > control of the domain names. > > o Patents > > Most technology people agree the software patent system is broken, but > it could be a potent weapon against us, though we have shown we can > efficiently remove patent issue from our code. > > > There is probably nothing Oracle can do to permanently harm us, but > there are a variety of things they can do to temporarily slow us down, > and it is likely a attempt will be made in the future. There are also > possible threats to PostgreSQL support companies, though they are > somewhat independent of the project. > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Jim C. Nasby wrote: > Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack us it > actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a threat. At > this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on how > exactly the attacked. Well, that was MySQL's reaction to it, but I think the harm far outweighs the good for them. Its more like, "Oracle finds MySQL a threat, what is MySQL going to do now!" We don't want that kind of outcome. Also, there are ways of attacking that do not show Oracle as an agreesor, like hiring PostgreSQL developers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:04:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL. > > > > The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to expend money to > > slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has been > > attacked, we should expect to be the next target. > > > > Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend 1% of their revenue or net > > income on attacking PostgreSQL. Given this financial statement: > > > > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ORCL&annual > > > > that would be USD $20-100 million. (The Oracle financial statement will > > eventually disclose the purchase price of InnoDB, and we can use that as > > a minimum amount they would be willing to spend.) > > > > Now, I think Oracle realizes that the database will eventually become a > > commodity based on their purchase of Peoplesoft and other application > > technology. However, every financial period they delay that time is > > more profit for them, so it is a cost/benefit of how much it is worth to > > slow down PostgreSQL. Obviously they thought the InnoDB purchase was > > worth it to slow down or control MySQL. Our goal should be to make the > > cost of attacks higher than the benefit. > > > > Here are the three most likely attacks on our project: > > > > o Hiring > > > > Oracle could hire a large portion of our paid or volunteer developers, > > thereby slowing down the project. Individuals would probably be > > approach as "We like your work on PostgreSQL and would like your > > expertise in improving Oracle", but of course once hired what they did > > for Oracle would be unimportant. What would be important is what they > > _don't_ do for PostgreSQL. > > > > o Trademark > > > > Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names. He could > > be attacked, perhaps by hiring him to do a job, causing it to fail, then > > suing him to obtain the trademark, and therefore the right to own the > > domain names. The trademark has not been enforced, and it would be hard > > to enforce at this stage, but I think it would be effective in gaining > > control of the domain names. > > > > o Patents > > > > Most technology people agree the software patent system is broken, but > > it could be a potent weapon against us, though we have shown we can > > efficiently remove patent issue from our code. > > > > > > There is probably nothing Oracle can do to permanently harm us, but > > there are a variety of things they can do to temporarily slow us down, > > and it is likely a attempt will be made in the future. There are also > > possible threats to PostgreSQL support companies, though they are > > somewhat independent of the project. > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 > > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > > -- > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Here is a followup to this email. A few people asked me questions off list, and here are my replies: [ Comment mentioning Open Office and Mozilla have not been attacked.] Cconsider that one thing that has restrained Microsoft (and previously IBM) was US Department of Justice oversight. Oracle does not have such oversight, so they are more likely to act aggressively. Basically, just because attacks have not happened in the Linux or Open Office areas (Microsoft territory) does not mean they will not happen in the database area. Oracle has a history of aggressive activity, and it has shown with MySQL now. I doubt many would have thought Oracle would have purchased technology that MySQL depends upon before it happened. Oracle certainly will not win, and I think they know that, but as project leaders, we should try to be defensive to prevent attacks from inflicting harm to the project. [ Comment asking what we can do to protect ourselves.] We can't do much, actually. The trademark thing can be secured, but other than that, I see no other defenses we could use. We can't prevent people from being hired, and we can't guard against patent attacks. I am willing to write up something for our web site if people think that would be helpful. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Momjian wrote: > We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL. > > The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to expend money to > slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has been > attacked, we should expect to be the next target. > > Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend 1% of their revenue or net > income on attacking PostgreSQL. Given this financial statement: > > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ORCL&annual > > that would be USD $20-100 million. (The Oracle financial statement will > eventually disclose the purchase price of InnoDB, and we can use that as > a minimum amount they would be willing to spend.) > > Now, I think Oracle realizes that the database will eventually become a > commodity based on their purchase of Peoplesoft and other application > technology. However, every financial period they delay that time is > more profit for them, so it is a cost/benefit of how much it is worth to > slow down PostgreSQL. Obviously they thought the InnoDB purchase was > worth it to slow down or control MySQL. Our goal should be to make the > cost of attacks higher than the benefit. > > Here are the three most likely attacks on our project: > > o Hiring > > Oracle could hire a large portion of our paid or volunteer developers, > thereby slowing down the project. Individuals would probably be > approach as "We like your work on PostgreSQL and would like your > expertise in improving Oracle", but of course once hired what they did > for Oracle would be unimportant. What would be important is what they > _don't_ do for PostgreSQL. > > o Trademark > > Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names. He could > be attacked, perhaps by hiring him to do a job, causing it to fail, then > suing him to obtain the trademark, and therefore the right to own the > domain names. The trademark has not been enforced, and it would be hard > to enforce at this stage, but I think it would be effective in gaining > control of the domain names. > > o Patents > > Most technology people agree the software patent system is broken, but > it could be a potent weapon against us, though we have shown we can > efficiently remove patent issue from our code. > > > There is probably nothing Oracle can do to permanently harm us, but > there are a variety of things they can do to temporarily slow us down, > and it is likely a attempt will be made in the future. There are also > possible threats to PostgreSQL support companies, though they are > somewhat independent of the project. > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:31:06PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack us it > > actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a threat. At > > this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on how > > exactly the attacked. > > Well, that was MySQL's reaction to it, but I think the harm far > outweighs the good for them. Its more like, "Oracle finds MySQL a > threat, what is MySQL going to do now!" We don't want that kind of > outcome. Also, there are ways of attacking that do not show Oracle as > an agreesor, like hiring PostgreSQL developers. Well, they effectively took a big chunk of MySQL's commercial technology away, something the'd have a harder time doing with PostgreSQL (unless we're violating patents). -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:52:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > We can't do much, actually. The trademark thing can be secured, but > other than that, I see no other defenses we could use. We can't prevent > people from being hired, and we can't guard against patent attacks. Actually, I think there's things that can be done in both cases. For patents, we need to ensure that we're not using technology that's covered by patents. But even so, this is really more of an issue for commercial entities using PostgreSQL. There's not very much Oracle could go after in the community. As for developers, the way that can be defended against is by keeping the developers in demand at companies that are commercializing PostgreSQL. The way that's done is by supporting those companies so that they're PostgreSQL operations are profitable and they have the desire to keep their talent around. Granted, Oracle has more money laying around than probably all current commercial ventures combined, but I would venture to guess that most people in the community would be very hesitant to even consider a job at Oracle. As an ironic aside, I actually turned down a job at Oracle about 18 months ago. Before anyone worries though, it was offered by a friend and PostgreSQL wasn't an issue at all. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
On 10/11/2005 6:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack us it >> actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a threat. At >> this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on how >> exactly the attacked. > > Well, that was MySQL's reaction to it, but I think the harm far > outweighs the good for them. Its more like, "Oracle finds MySQL a > threat, what is MySQL going to do now!" We don't want that kind of > outcome. Also, there are ways of attacking that do not show Oracle as > an agreesor, like hiring PostgreSQL developers. From the fact that there was first an Oracle announcement and then some "calming words" from MySQL we can tell that this wasn't friendly. If it would have been, they would have had a joint press release instead of this big grin from Oracle and that clenched teeth smile from MySQL in return. So I agree, they are in deep trouble. Now the much I agree that we should be carefull and watch out, I don't think we should be jumping to conclusions either. Nobody outside Oracle knows right now what their real plan and their real target with that acquisition is. Don't forget that only a part, although a substantial part, of Oracles revenue comes out of the database business. One possibility is that they try to do birth control against a low-cost R/3 backend, which undoubtedly would be very bad for their CRM and ERP business in several ways. After failing to build any open source community, SAP had found MySQL, who was willing to maintain the SAP-DB sourcecode for them. If Oracle squishes MySQL now, SAP is back to square one on that project. There are many R/3 installations out there that go well beyond 1/4 million dollars per year in DB license fees alone. So even if they can only delay this development by two to three years, it might pay off quite well. And look at it, all Oracle would have to do is to be so open source friendly that they make InnoDB GPL only. Can you imagine the confusion in the MySQL fan club if Oracle releases the next GPL version of InnoDB and MySQL AB announces that they ripped out InnoDB support and favor something with half the feature set instead? Jan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:04:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL. >> > >> > The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to expend money to >> > slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has been >> > attacked, we should expect to be the next target. >> > >> > Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend 1% of their revenue or net >> > income on attacking PostgreSQL. Given this financial statement: >> > >> > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ORCL&annual >> > >> > that would be USD $20-100 million. (The Oracle financial statement will >> > eventually disclose the purchase price of InnoDB, and we can use that as >> > a minimum amount they would be willing to spend.) >> > >> > Now, I think Oracle realizes that the database will eventually become a >> > commodity based on their purchase of Peoplesoft and other application >> > technology. However, every financial period they delay that time is >> > more profit for them, so it is a cost/benefit of how much it is worth to >> > slow down PostgreSQL. Obviously they thought the InnoDB purchase was >> > worth it to slow down or control MySQL. Our goal should be to make the >> > cost of attacks higher than the benefit. >> > >> > Here are the three most likely attacks on our project: >> > >> > o Hiring >> > >> > Oracle could hire a large portion of our paid or volunteer developers, >> > thereby slowing down the project. Individuals would probably be >> > approach as "We like your work on PostgreSQL and would like your >> > expertise in improving Oracle", but of course once hired what they did >> > for Oracle would be unimportant. What would be important is what they >> > _don't_ do for PostgreSQL. >> > >> > o Trademark >> > >> > Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names. He could >> > be attacked, perhaps by hiring him to do a job, causing it to fail, then >> > suing him to obtain the trademark, and therefore the right to own the >> > domain names. The trademark has not been enforced, and it would be hard >> > to enforce at this stage, but I think it would be effective in gaining >> > control of the domain names. >> > >> > o Patents >> > >> > Most technology people agree the software patent system is broken, but >> > it could be a potent weapon against us, though we have shown we can >> > efficiently remove patent issue from our code. >> > >> > >> > There is probably nothing Oracle can do to permanently harm us, but >> > there are a variety of things they can do to temporarily slow us down, >> > and it is likely a attempt will be made in the future. There are also >> > possible threats to PostgreSQL support companies, though they are >> > somewhat independent of the project. >> > >> > -- >> > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us >> > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 >> > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road >> > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 >> > >> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >> > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >> > >> >> -- >> Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com >> Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 >> vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 >> > -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
I agree with Jan. I think a good part of this whole situation has more to do with MySQL having a core part of its product be dependent on an external entity. Be they open source or not. I would think they have thought about this possibility at various points in the past. From where I sit, I dont see PostgreSQL having the same situation, but perhaps there's some other ridiculously popular extension to pg which I dont know about. I'd vote for just continuing to make a better product, compete aggressively on the pr front (where pg still has some way to go), and let the best player win. ___________________________________ Javier Soltero Hyperic | www.hyperic.net o- 415 738 2566 | c- 415 305 8733 javier.soltero@hyperic.net ___________________________________ On Oct 11, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Jan Wieck wrote: > On 10/11/2005 6:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >> Jim C. Nasby wrote: >> >>> Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack >>> us it >>> actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a >>> threat. At >>> this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on >>> how >>> exactly the attacked. >>> >> Well, that was MySQL's reaction to it, but I think the harm far >> outweighs the good for them. Its more like, "Oracle finds MySQL a >> threat, what is MySQL going to do now!" We don't want that kind of >> outcome. Also, there are ways of attacking that do not show >> Oracle as >> an agreesor, like hiring PostgreSQL developers. >> > > From the fact that there was first an Oracle announcement and then > some "calming words" from MySQL we can tell that this wasn't > friendly. If it would have been, they would have had a joint press > release instead of this big grin from Oracle and that clenched > teeth smile from MySQL in return. So I agree, they are in deep > trouble. > > Now the much I agree that we should be carefull and watch out, I > don't think we should be jumping to conclusions either. Nobody > outside Oracle knows right now what their real plan and their real > target with that acquisition is. > > Don't forget that only a part, although a substantial part, of > Oracles revenue comes out of the database business. One possibility > is that they try to do birth control against a low-cost R/3 > backend, which undoubtedly would be very bad for their CRM and ERP > business in several ways. After failing to build any open source > community, SAP had found MySQL, who was willing to maintain the SAP- > DB sourcecode for them. If Oracle squishes MySQL now, SAP is back > to square one on that project. There are many R/3 installations out > there that go well beyond 1/4 million dollars per year in DB > license fees alone. So even if they can only delay this development > by two to three years, it might pay off quite well. > > And look at it, all Oracle would have to do is to be so open source > friendly that they make InnoDB GPL only. Can you imagine the > confusion in the MySQL fan club if Oracle releases the next GPL > version of InnoDB and MySQL AB announces that they ripped out > InnoDB support and favor something with half the feature set instead? > > > Jan > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------ >> >>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:04:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> > We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL. >>> > > The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to >>> expend money to >>> > slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has >>> been >>> > attacked, we should expect to be the next target. >>> > > Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend 1% of their revenue >>> or net >>> > income on attacking PostgreSQL. Given this financial statement: >>> > > http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ORCL&annual >>> > > that would be USD $20-100 million. (The Oracle financial >>> statement will >>> > eventually disclose the purchase price of InnoDB, and we can >>> use that as >>> > a minimum amount they would be willing to spend.) >>> > > Now, I think Oracle realizes that the database will >>> eventually become a >>> > commodity based on their purchase of Peoplesoft and other >>> application >>> > technology. However, every financial period they delay that >>> time is >>> > more profit for them, so it is a cost/benefit of how much it is >>> worth to >>> > slow down PostgreSQL. Obviously they thought the InnoDB >>> purchase was >>> > worth it to slow down or control MySQL. Our goal should be to >>> make the >>> > cost of attacks higher than the benefit. >>> > > Here are the three most likely attacks on our project: >>> > > o Hiring > > Oracle could hire a large portion of our paid >>> or volunteer developers, >>> > thereby slowing down the project. Individuals would probably be >>> > approach as "We like your work on PostgreSQL and would like your >>> > expertise in improving Oracle", but of course once hired what >>> they did >>> > for Oracle would be unimportant. What would be important is >>> what they >>> > _don't_ do for PostgreSQL. >>> > > o Trademark >>> > > Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain >>> names. He could >>> > be attacked, perhaps by hiring him to do a job, causing it to >>> fail, then >>> > suing him to obtain the trademark, and therefore the right to >>> own the >>> > domain names. The trademark has not been enforced, and it >>> would be hard >>> > to enforce at this stage, but I think it would be effective in >>> gaining >>> > control of the domain names. >>> > > o Patents >>> > > Most technology people agree the software patent system is >>> broken, but >>> > it could be a potent weapon against us, though we have shown we >>> can >>> > efficiently remove patent issue from our code. >>> > > > There is probably nothing Oracle can do to permanently harm >>> us, but >>> > there are a variety of things they can do to temporarily slow >>> us down, >>> > and it is likely a attempt will be made in the future. There >>> are also >>> > possible threats to PostgreSQL support companies, though they are >>> > somewhat independent of the project. >>> > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http:// >>> candle.pha.pa.us >>> > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 >>> > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road >>> > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, >>> Pennsylvania 19073 >>> > > ---------------------------(end of >>> broadcast)--------------------------- >>> > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an >>> appropriate >>> > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so >>> that your >>> > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >>> > -- >>> Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com >>> Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 >>> vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 >>> > > > -- > #===================================================================== > =# > # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being > right. # > # Let's break this rule - forgive > me. # > #================================================== > JanWieck@Yahoo.com # > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> And look at it, all Oracle would have to do is to be so open source
> friendly that they make InnoDB GPL only. Can you imagine the confusion
> in the MySQL fan club if Oracle releases the next GPL version of InnoDB
> and MySQL AB announces that they ripped out InnoDB support and favor
> something with half the feature set instead?
ROTFL ... yes, you would have to give Oracle ten points out of ten for
style, if they did it that way.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Oracle certainly will not win, and I think they know that I think this too and that's why I'm here. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names. Minor point here, but the following domain names: postgresql.com postgres.com postgres.org ... were contributed back to the project by the late Great Bridge LLC, and are registered to the PGDG - with Tom as the admincontact, Marc as the tech contact. Marc/Hub.org has historically owned postgresql.org and postgresql.net, and it lookslike postgres.net got picked up by some guy who's sitting on it. Cheers, Ned
Ned, > and it looks like postgres.net got picked up by some > guy who's sitting on it. yeah, I'm not sure what he wants. Postgres.net currently directs people to PostgreSQL.org, and I've offered the contact of record money to buy it off him, with no response. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Hi, Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project with big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good path to earn a lot of money. So, new talented developers could join the project and see that as a path to high salary jobs?? Rgs, Jussi Bruce Momjian wrote: >Here is a followup to this email. A few people asked me questions off >list, and here are my replies: > >[ Comment mentioning Open Office and Mozilla have not been attacked.] > >Cconsider that one thing that has restrained Microsoft (and previously >IBM) was US Department of Justice oversight. Oracle does not have such >oversight, so they are more likely to act aggressively. Basically, just >because attacks have not happened in the Linux or Open Office areas >(Microsoft territory) does not mean they will not happen in the database >area. Oracle has a history of aggressive activity, and it has shown >with MySQL now. I doubt many would have thought Oracle would have >purchased technology that MySQL depends upon before it happened. > >Oracle certainly will not win, and I think they know that, but as >project leaders, we should try to be defensive to prevent attacks from >inflicting harm to the project. > >[ Comment asking what we can do to protect ourselves.] > >We can't do much, actually. The trademark thing can be secured, but >other than that, I see no other defenses we could use. We can't prevent >people from being hired, and we can't guard against patent attacks. > >I am willing to write up something for our web site if people think that >would be helpful. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >>We have entered a new phase in the possible attacks on PostgreSQL. >> >>The purchase of InnoDB clearly shows Oracle is ready to expend money to >>slow down competitive database technology. Now that MySQL has been >>attacked, we should expect to be the next target. >> >>Let's assume Oracle is willing to spend 1% of their revenue or net >>income on attacking PostgreSQL. Given this financial statement: >> >> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ORCL&annual >> >>that would be USD $20-100 million. (The Oracle financial statement will >>eventually disclose the purchase price of InnoDB, and we can use that as >>a minimum amount they would be willing to spend.) >> >>Now, I think Oracle realizes that the database will eventually become a >>commodity based on their purchase of Peoplesoft and other application >>technology. However, every financial period they delay that time is >>more profit for them, so it is a cost/benefit of how much it is worth to >>slow down PostgreSQL. Obviously they thought the InnoDB purchase was >>worth it to slow down or control MySQL. Our goal should be to make the >>cost of attacks higher than the benefit. >> >>Here are the three most likely attacks on our project: >> >>o Hiring >> >>Oracle could hire a large portion of our paid or volunteer developers, >>thereby slowing down the project. Individuals would probably be >>approach as "We like your work on PostgreSQL and would like your >>expertise in improving Oracle", but of course once hired what they did >>for Oracle would be unimportant. What would be important is what they >>_don't_ do for PostgreSQL. >> >>o Trademark >> >>Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names. He could >>be attacked, perhaps by hiring him to do a job, causing it to fail, then >>suing him to obtain the trademark, and therefore the right to own the >>domain names. The trademark has not been enforced, and it would be hard >>to enforce at this stage, but I think it would be effective in gaining >>control of the domain names. >> >>o Patents >> >>Most technology people agree the software patent system is broken, but >>it could be a potent weapon against us, though we have shown we can >>efficiently remove patent issue from our code. >> >> >>There is probably nothing Oracle can do to permanently harm us, but >>there are a variety of things they can do to temporarily slow us down, >>and it is likely a attempt will be made in the future. There are also >>possible threats to PostgreSQL support companies, though they are >>somewhat independent of the project. >> >>-- >> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us >> pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 >> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road >> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 >> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >> >> >> > > >
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jussi Mikkola wrote: > Hi, > > Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project with > big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good path to earn > a lot of money. So, new talented developers could join the project and see > that as a path to high salary jobs?? Wow, what a twisted way to look at it ... not entirely inaccurate, but twisted :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On 10/12/2005 6:18 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jussi Mikkola wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project with >> big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good path to earn >> a lot of money. So, new talented developers could join the project and see >> that as a path to high salary jobs?? > > Wow, what a twisted way to look at it ... not entirely inaccurate, but > twisted :) Oracle could even develop an exceptional interest in keeping PostgreSQL alive as it's "future DB engineer forge". Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jan Wieck wrote: > On 10/12/2005 6:18 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jussi Mikkola wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project >>> with big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good path >>> to earn a lot of money. So, new talented developers could join the project >>> and see that as a path to high salary jobs?? >> >> Wow, what a twisted way to look at it ... not entirely inaccurate, but >> twisted :) > > Oracle could even develop an exceptional interest in keeping PostgreSQL alive > as it's "future DB engineer forge". Definitely ... get new developers involved over here to 'cut their teeth' and then pull them over there once they are through the teething period :) Or, encourage them to work here wihle still in University, learn DB internals ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Jan Wieck wrote: > On 10/12/2005 6:18 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jussi Mikkola wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the >>> project with big money, would that not mean, that the project would >>> be a good path to earn a lot of money. So, new talented developers >>> could join the project and see that as a path to high salary jobs?? >> >> >> Wow, what a twisted way to look at it ... not entirely inaccurate, but >> twisted :) > > > Oracle could even develop an exceptional interest in keeping PostgreSQL > alive as it's "future DB engineer forge". Looks like a good reason why Oracle should sponsor PostgreSQL heavily :-) Regards, Andreas
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 08:52:58AM +0000, Andreas Pflug wrote: > Jan Wieck wrote: > >Oracle could even develop an exceptional interest in keeping PostgreSQL > >alive as it's "future DB engineer forge". > > Looks like a good reason why Oracle should sponsor PostgreSQL heavily :-) Heh. This gives me the thought that Oracle might be going after MySQL for no other reason than to stop them from instilling really bad ideas into people who then think they can design/develop against databases. Somehow I can see Tom Kyte (of AskTom fame) doing a dance around his office... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
> [ Comment asking what we can do to protect ourselves.] > > We can't do much, actually. The trademark thing can be secured, but > other than that, I see no other defenses we could use. We can't prevent > people from being hired, and we can't guard against patent attacks. Seems you could argue that if the success of the postgresql project is in the hands of so few then we've got issues regardless of Oracle. Those people could (heaven forbid) get hit by the proverbial bus. It would have the same effect on postgresql itself. Anyway, just something to keep in mind... > I am willing to write up something for our web site if people think that > would be helpful. I think it it might be worth mentioning (in response to the mysql/innodb/oracle issue) that there's nothing for Oracle to purchase that would limit postgresql in the future -- that postgresql doesn't rely on any commercially licensed code the removal of which would adversely affect postgresql itself. Anyway, that's my little 2 cents... :) -philip