Sun rejects IBM buyout, IBM withdraws offer

[jharby]

The Java future are already in the hands of the JCP and SUN's reference
implementations are open source, so IBM could not do much.

IBM would own the Java trademarks and thereby making sure that
Microsoft did not buy them.

I think that is about it.

Arne

I think if you look into the JCP you'll find Sun really still owns it
for the most part.

 

[Lew]

I think if you look into the JCP you'll find Sun really still owns it
for the most part.

That is consistent with what Arne said and does not affect his
conclusions.

 

[jharby]

That is consistent with what Arne said and does not affect his
conclusions.

Read it again and connect the dots. If IBM were to own Sun and
therefore the majority of the JCP, I think they could do "much". It
would take a lawyer to really say but I guess they don't show up here
too often.

 

[Lew]

Read it again and connect the dots.

Ooh, snap! You are the master of rhetoric!

I notice that you don't present any hint of evidence or logical
argument that your statement in any way contradicts, or even affects
the points that Arne made.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what
you said, nor even that I'm wrong. You have absolutely no basis to
conclude that I failed to "connect the dots", as you so cutely put
it. Now I suggest that you follow your own advice.

Here, I'll help you:

If IBM were to own Sun and therefore the majority of the JCP, I think they could do "much". It
would take a lawyer to really say but I guess they don't show up here
too often.

Name me one open-source project not owned by its copyright holder.

What is the point of your fear-mongering?

Sure IBM could do much if they owned Java. So can Sun right now,
since they already own Java. So what?

Do you really think either company will kill the goose that lays the
golden eggs? And now that the product is open source, neither one can
kill the language if the programming community doesn't want them to.

Nothing in the ownership of Java invalidates the points that Arne
said.

 

[jharby]

Ooh, snap!  You are the master of rhetoric!

I notice that you don't present any hint of evidence or logical
argument that your statement in any way contradicts, or even affects
the points that Arne made.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what
you said, nor even that I'm wrong.  You have absolutely no basis to
conclude that I failed to "connect the dots", as you so cutely put
it.  Now I suggest that you follow your own advice.

Here, I'll help you:


Name me one open-source project not owned by its copyright holder.

What is the point of your fear-mongering?

Sure IBM could do much if they owned Java.  So can Sun right now,
since they already own Java.  So what?

Do you really think either company will kill the goose that lays the
golden eggs?  And now that the product is open source, neither one can
kill the language if the programming community doesn't want them to.

Nothing in the ownership of Java invalidates the points that Arne
said.

I've posted this link numerous times on these groups:

http://www.jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf

Now is this agreement for participation in the JCP between one party
and some independent organization or does it say "Sun Microsystems"?
As I said I was really looking for someone
with the legal knowledge to interpret these docs. Since the deal
didn't go through I have
no reason to post on this any further.

 

[Lew]

I've posted this link numerous times on these groups:

http://www.jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf

Yes, you have. What you have not done is shown in any way how this
affects anything.

Let's say IBM or Google or anyone purchases or merges with Sun. The
new entity would replace Sun as the party of the second part. That
entity would behave just as Sun does, or could do.

Now is this agreement for participation in the JCP between one party
and some independent organization or does it say "Sun Microsystems"?

Uhhhhh. That's a rhetorical question, right?

As I said I was really looking for someone
with the legal knowledge to interpret these docs. Since the deal
didn't go through I have
no reason to post on this any further.

The docs would mean the same thing regardless of who the party of the
second part is.

Posit that someone buys or merges with Sun. Just becauxe IBM pulled
out (so far) doesn't mean a similar deal will not happen, perhaps even
in the near future.

Java will continue to be a popular language, that is, until it ceases
to be useful, just like now. It will continue to be open source, just
like now, only more so. The new owner will continue to have the
choice to expand or alter it, just like now. The JCP agreement will
continue to mean just what it does now, but it could change just like
it could under Sun's ownership.

It turns out that the future of Java under a new owner looks just like
the future of Java under Sun's ownership.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I think if you look into the JCP you'll find Sun really still owns it
for the most part.

No. SUN is just 1 out of 16 members of the executive committee.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Read it again and connect the dots. If IBM were to own Sun and
therefore the majority of the JCP, I think they could do "much". It
would take a lawyer to really say but I guess they don't show up here
too often.

Check:
http://jcp.org/en/participation/committee#membership

SUN 1 vote
IBM 1 votes
other 14 votes

No majority.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I've posted this link numerous times on these groups:

http://www.jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf

Now is this agreement for participation in the JCP between one party
and some independent organization or does it say "Sun Microsystems"?
As I said I was really looking for someone
with the legal knowledge to interpret these docs.

It only means that SUN does the paperwork.

Decisions about JSR's are made by the executive commitee.

Where SUN only has one vote meaning that SUN can be voted
down.

In fact SUN has been voted down. I remember at least one
occasion.

And since the voting results are public, then you can check
yourself.

Arne

 

[diffeomorphism]

It only means that SUN does the paperwork.

Decisions about JSR's are made by the executive commitee.

Where SUN only has one vote meaning that SUN can be voted
down.

In fact SUN has been voted down. I remember at least one
occasion.

And since the voting results are public, then you can check
yourself.

Arne

I think Sun has legal control over the underlying structure of the JCP
in terms of forward development. This means if IBM were to acquire Sun
and wished to control the Java direction then they could restructure
the agreements of the JCP and dictate what goes into EJB 3.x where 3.x
is greater than the current spec under the JCP. I don't think they
would be able to affect current or prior JSR specifications.

 

[Lew]

I think Sun has legal control over the underlying structure of the JCP
in terms of forward development. This means if IBM were to acquire Sun
and wished to control the Java direction then they could restructure
the agreements of the JCP and dictate what goes into EJB 3.x where 3.x
is greater than the current spec under the JCP. I don't think they
would be able to affect current or prior JSR specifications.

That seems correct.

Likewise, if no one purchases Sun or its rights to the JCP, then Sun
"could restructure the agreements of the JCP and dictate what goes
into EJB 3.x where 3.x is greater than the current spec under the
JCP".

However, much as Postgres rose from the ashes of Ingres to become a
robust and successful open-source platform, it could also be that a
variant of Java under a different aegis could arise from the open-
source version and undercut Sun's or IBM's control of the language as
it's actually used.

For Sun or anyone else to undercut the current directions of Java
would be foolish. Many companies are making a good bit of income from
Java because of the language's popularity and utility. Those in turn
stem from the community ownership of the language and its growth, and
from the underlying focus on pragmatism. Mess with the community and
you reduce your revenues. It looks to me like IBM, Sun, Oracle and
the rest are smart enough to recognize that and not to muck with the
process too much.

 

[diffeomorphism]

That seems correct.

Likewise, if no one purchases Sun or its rights to the JCP, then Sun
"could restructure the agreements of the JCP and dictate what goes
into EJB 3.x where 3.x is greater than the current spec under the
JCP".

However, much as Postgres rose from the ashes of Ingres to become a
robust and successful open-source platform, it could also be that a
variant of Java under a different aegis could arise from the open-
source version and undercut Sun's or IBM's control of the language as
it's actually used.

For Sun or anyone else to undercut the current directions of Java
would be foolish.  Many companies are making a good bit of income from
Java because of the language's popularity and utility.  Those in turn
stem from the community ownership of the language and its growth, and
from the underlying focus on pragmatism.  Mess with the community and
you reduce your revenues.  It looks to me like IBM, Sun, Oracle and
the rest are smart enough to recognize that and not to muck with the
process too much.

The big difference between IBM and Sun with respect to Java and the
JCP is that IBM controls
a significant portion of the multi-billion dollar enterprise Java
space and has large competitors
such as Oracle/BEA. I think many of us on the JEE side had concerns
that IBM could attempt to gain
more ground in that area via the Sun acquisition. Of course, this
could really be isolated to the
JEE side and the JVM along with other areas could be unaffected.

 

[Lew]

Please do not quote sigs.

The big difference between IBM and Sun with respect to Java and the
JCP is that IBM controls
a significant portion of the multi-billion dollar enterprise Java
space and has large competitors
such as Oracle/BEA. I think many of us on the JEE side had concerns
that IBM could attempt to gain
more ground in that area via the Sun acquisition. Of course, this
could really be isolated to the
JEE side and the JVM along with other areas could be unaffected.

I think all this fear-mongering is nervous-Nelly nonsense.

IBM isn't stupid. They market systems based on Linux and Java, both either
open-source or free products. They have already shown a commitment to such
tech. On what basis could anyone conclude they will be any worse than Sun?

As for having "concerns that IBM could attempt to gain more ground ... via the
Sun acquisition", well, duh, of course! Why else would they have considered
it? And more power to them!

I'd be a lot more concerned about the fate of Java if IBM or some other angel
*doesn't* acquire Sun, since Sun hasn't been showing to much in the way of
business smarts. What if Sun goes belly-up, hm?

I don't think people are really thinking through this question. I think it
more likely that acquisition of Sun by IBM would be the best thing that could
happen for Java.

 

[diffeomorphism]

Good point about Sun going belly-up, I suppose it would be a crapshoot
as to the fate of Java were that to happen. But I disagree with your
rhetorical "fear-mongering" attempts at belittling. I can see very
well why IBM would want to capture the Enterprise Java Market and
would go to almost any lengths to do so. The revenue is huge
especially when you combine the products and services. And when
someone uses JBoss, they don't use WebSphere which is a loss for IBM.
So where you say:

"IBM isn't stupid. They market systems based on Linux and Java, both
either
open-source or free products. They have already shown a commitment to
such
tech. On what basis could anyone conclude they will be any worse than
Sun?"

IBM could be considered very stupid by many if they miss on the
opportunity to take the Enterprise Java market. Commitment? What
commitment? In business the only commitment I know of is a binding
contract and I sincerely doubt IBM has entered any such agreement to
hold their current views on open source. Of course a coup on the
Enterprise Java market has nothing to do with Linux either and
possibly could avoid much influence on the JVM. Maybe your last name
is Gerstner and you have some love for IBM, personally I just look at
motive and potential. Can they do it and would it make business sense
for them to do so? Seems affirmative to me and many others I know.

 

[Lew]

... I disagree with your
rhetorical "fear-mongering" attempts at belittling. I can see very

It's not belittling, it's description. When people talk in dire terms
about IBM taking over Java without providing any evidence or even
reasoning behind the predictions, as they've done in this thread, that
meets the objective definition of "fear-mongering".

well why IBM would want to capture the Enterprise Java Market and
would go to almost any lengths to do so. The revenue is huge

And that is a problem because ...?

especially when you combine the products and services. And when
someone uses JBoss, they don't use WebSphere which is a loss for IBM.
So where you say:

"IBM isn't stupid.  They market systems based on Linux and Java, both
either
open-source or free products.  They have already shown a commitment to
such
tech.  On what basis could anyone conclude they will be any worse than
Sun?"

IBM could be considered very stupid by many if they miss on the
opportunity to take the Enterprise Java market. Commitment? What
commitment? In business the only commitment I know of is a binding
contract and I sincerely doubt IBM has entered any such agreement to

I see commitment evidenced by IBM's behavior. For several years
they've been selling and supporting systems based on Linux and Java.
Now they have contracts for those systems, thus meeting your
definition, and shown a success by doing this strategy. They did all
this without initially having contracts, showing they deemed it a
viable strategy. Their success with that strategy bears out their
reasoning.

hold their current views on open source. Of course a coup on the

Has Sun?

Enterprise Java market has nothing to do with Linux either and
possibly could avoid much influence on the JVM. Maybe your last name
is Gerstner and you have some love for IBM, personally I just look at

I'm just going by their publicly observable behavior. And my last
name is Bloch, not Gerstner.

motive and potential. Can they do it and would it make business sense
for them to do so? Seems affirmative to me and many others I know.

Can they do what, exactly?

What evidence do *you* have for their motives?

I see that IBM has made very good business out of Linux and Java for
years now, and if anything is increasing their involvement in those
areas. IBM is the primary funder and provider of human resources to
the Apache project and the Eclipse project. IBM incorporates Apache
and Eclipse technology in their products such as WebSphere and
Rational Application Developer. They are an early provider of JPA
(Java Persistence API) and Axis web services as built-in features of
WebSphere Application Server. They've been giving away software for
over a decade to developers. They maintain informative web sites like
DeveloperWorks at no charge to the community.

If that doesn't demonstrate commitment, what does?

Where's your solid evidence?

The evidence clearly indicates that IBM would be a better steward for
Java than Sun.

 

[Lew]

Maybe your last name is Gerstner ...

Did you mean to say "Palmisano"?

 

[diffeomorphism]

I think I have provided plenty of evidence to justify my concerns. Do
you deny the valuation of the Enterprise Java market? Do you deny that
many shareholders and others would consider it very good business
sense for IBM to craft the future enterprise java in a proprietary
fashion? Having viewed any available contractual documentation from
the JCP do you deny that an IBM proprietary move would be legally
possible from at least what is at hand?

You claim my statements are so absurd and fear-inciting but check out
threads elsewhere, e.g. theserverside.com. I am far from being the
only one to have such concerns.

I also never said that I was certain of anything as you seem to claim
with these sort of statements: "The evidence clearly indicates that
IBM would be a better steward for Java than Sun.". The use of the word
"would" indicates some questionable logic. "IBM could be a better
steward for Java" would make far more sense logistically. I choose to
deal in plausibility and likelihood rather than attempted claims of
absolutes.

 

[Lew]

I think I have provided plenty of evidence to justify my concerns. Do

You have provided no evidence whatsoever.

you deny the valuation of the Enterprise Java market?

I'm not sure I understand the question. What valuation? Are you
asking if I agree that it's a valuable market? Yes, it's a valuable
market.

Do you deny that many shareholders and others would consider it very good business
sense for IBM to craft the future enterprise java [sic] in a proprietary fashion?

I don't know about "many", but smart ones would not agree. Instead,
they would agree that IBM's current strategy of adhering to a
standards-based approach and supporting open-source development is the
"good business sense" strategy.

Having viewed any available contractual documentation from
the JCP do you deny that an IBM proprietary move would be legally
possible from at least what is at hand?

How is that any different from what Sun can do now?

My point was not that IBM couldn't take it in a proprietary direction,
but that that is not any different from what Sun can do now, and that
neither company shows any sign of doing so.

You claim my statements are so absurd and fear-inciting but check out
threads elsewhere, e.g. theserverside.com. I am far from being the
only one to have such concerns.

Just because there are other fear-mongers doesn't make them correct.

In any event, no one in this thread, least of all you, has presented a
shred of evidence that IBM *would* take things in a proprietary
direction, only that they *could*. Then they try to somehow conclude
that that in some way differs from and is worse than the status quo,
even though Sun has the exact same options now.

I also never said that I was certain of anything as you seem to claim
with these sort of statements: "The evidence clearly indicates that
IBM would be a better steward for Java than Sun.". The use of the word
"would" indicates some questionable logic. "IBM could be a better
steward for Java" would make far more sense logistically. I choose to
deal in plausibility and likelihood rather than attempted claims of
absolutes.

You choose to deal in possibility and panic. The evidence is that IBM
supports open source, sells open source, and believes in open source.
Absent any evidence to the contrary, and in the face of evidence like
IBM's support of Java, Apache and Eclipse, and given any support for a
distinction between Sun's current stewardship of Java and IBM's
putative stewardship, your arguments are devoid of substance or
credence.

You have refuted none of the evidence I provided, nor have you shown
any flaw in the chain of reasoning that shows that IBM tends to
support open standards and open source, nor any flaw in the chain of
reasoning that shows that IBM would make a good steward for Java. You
have provided no evidence that IBM would be otherwise, other than to
state that they could be otherwise. All you've done is state
conclusions and claim that that constitutes presentation of evidence.

I don't disagree that IBM could do what you say, only that they would,
or are any more likely to do so that Sun is now.

I won't ask again where your evidence is. If you had any, you'd've
offered it by now.

 

[diffeomorphism]

I think I have provided plenty of evidence to justify my concerns. Do

You have provided no evidence whatsoever.

you deny the valuation of the Enterprise Java market?

I'm not sure I understand the question.  What valuation?  Are you
asking if I agree that it's a valuable market?  Yes, it's a valuable
market.

Do you deny that many shareholders and others would consider it very good business
sense for IBM to craft the future enterprise java [sic] in a proprietary fashion?

I don't know about "many", but smart ones would not agree.  Instead,
they would agree that IBM's current strategy of adhering to a
standards-based approach and supporting open-source development is the
"good business sense" strategy.

Having viewed any available contractual documentation from
the JCP do you deny that an IBM proprietary move would be legally
possible from at least what is at hand?

How is that any different from what Sun can do now?

My point was not that IBM couldn't take it in a proprietary direction,
but that that is not any different from what Sun can do now, and that
neither company shows any sign of doing so.

You claim my statements are so absurd and fear-inciting but check out
threads elsewhere, e.g. theserverside.com. I am far from being the
only one to have such concerns.

Just because there are other fear-mongers doesn't make them correct.

In any event, no one in this thread, least of all you, has presented a
shred of evidence that IBM *would* take things in a proprietary
direction, only that they *could*.  Then they try to somehow conclude
that that in some way differs from and is worse than the status quo,
even though Sun has the exact same options now.

I also never said that I was certain of anything as you seem to claim
with these sort of statements: "The evidence clearly indicates that
IBM would be a better steward for Java than Sun.". The use of the word
"would" indicates some questionable logic. "IBM could be a better
steward for Java" would make far more sense logistically. I choose to
deal in plausibility and likelihood rather than attempted claims of
absolutes.

You choose to deal in possibility and panic.  The evidence is that IBM
supports open source, sells open source, and believes in open source.
Absent any evidence to the contrary, and in the face of evidence like
IBM's support of Java, Apache and Eclipse, and given any support for a
distinction between Sun's current stewardship of Java and IBM's
putative stewardship, your arguments are devoid of substance or
credence.

You have refuted none of the evidence I provided, nor have you shown
any flaw in the chain of reasoning that shows that IBM tends to
support open standards and open source, nor any flaw in the chain of
reasoning that shows that IBM would make a good steward for Java.  You
have provided no evidence that IBM would be otherwise, other than to
state that they could be otherwise.  All you've done is state
conclusions and claim that that constitutes presentation of evidence.

I don't disagree that IBM could do what you say, only that they would,
or are any more likely to do so that Sun is now.

I won't ask again where your evidence is.  If you had any, you'd've
offered it by now.

What evidence are you looking for? Someone who is willing to come here
and violate an NDA stating Palmisano's real intentions? That's not me,
sorry. I never claimed such power, foolishness or knowledge either. I
really don't care whether you accept it or not but those things I
mentioned such as the size of the enterprise Java market, etc. are
evidence. Evidence that some proprietary move by a large acquirer who
is a serious participant in said market is plausible and could make
sense for IBM as a business entity. I say plausible because I can't
read the future as you so claim. IBM could go belly up in a year, who
knows? Stop playing the usenet bully and throwing out these labels and
blanket statements. Some of those "fear-mongers" on theserverside are
actually on the JCP and may know something.

Direction of a company to participate in open source and standards can
change in a heartbeat when the almighty dollar is involved. Your
"evidence" is far from conclusive. There are mass murderers who didn't
kill anyone for some 20 years before they started, should we acquit
him based on the past?

 

[Lew]

Direction of a company to participate in open source and standards can
change in a heartbeat when the almighty dollar is involved. Your
"evidence" is far from conclusive. There are mass murderers who didn't
kill anyone for some 20 years before they started, should we acquit
him based on the past?

Should we then convict someone of murder who has not committed one
because he might soon do so?