Sun rejects IBM buyout, IBM withdraws offer

[Lew]

What evidence are you looking for?
Any.

Someone who is willing to come here and violate an NDA stating Palmisano's real
intentions? That's not me,

No need - just use their publicly viewable behavior, as I have done.

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 the market is rich, but not that IBM would be the
monster you claim.

Evidence that some proprietary move by a large acquirer who
is a serious participant in said market is plausible and could make

You have not shown plausibility, only possibility, and no more than
what Sun has now.

sense for IBM as a business entity. I say plausible because I can't

Actually, the evidence is that it would *not* make sense for IBM to
take Java in a proprietary direction. IBM has shown that it
recognizes that open standards are what make it money.

read the future as you so claim. IBM could go belly up in a year, who

Sun is much more likely to go belly-up in a year than IBM is.

You, too, can read the future, if you are willing to read the
evidence. Since you now say that you cannot read the future, why
claim that IBM might harm Java if given ownership of it? Aren't you
invalidating your entire thesis by disclaiming the ability to reason
about the future?

knows? Stop playing the usenet [sic] bully and throwing out these labels and

Now, since you are unable to refute my logic, you are calling me
names. That pretty much seals it as far as demonstrating the weakness
of your arguments.

blanket statements. Some of those "fear-mongers" on theserverside are
actually on the JCP and may know something.

Do they? Why don't you cite their evidence here, then?

Arguments that IBM might harm Java if they owned it:
- IBM would have the same power as Sun has now to change their minds
about how to manage it.
- IBM would have the power to harm Java.
- Lew is a "usenet [sic] bully".

Arguments that IBM is unlikely to harm Java if they owned it:
- IBM has made a great success out of selling and supporting open-
source software.
- IBM has made a great success out of selling and supporting Java for
years now.
- IBM has been an active and strong supporter of open-source projects
for many years.
- IBM has been an active and strong participant in the direction of
Java for many years.
- IBM has been a strong supporter of free information and software to
developers for many years.
- IBM has a history of continuing to do things that have been
successful for them.
- IBM has a history of active and strong support for standards in the
enterprise software industry.
- IBM would have no different powers to harm Java if they owned it
than Sun does now.
- IBM would have the power not to harm Java.

 

[diffeomorphism]

What evidence are you looking for?
Any.

Someone who is willing to come here and violate an NDA stating Palmisano's real
intentions? That's not me,

No need - just use their publicly viewable behavior, as I have done.

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 the market is rich, but not that IBM would be the
monster you claim.

Evidence that some proprietary move by a large acquirer who
is a serious participant in said market is plausible and could make

You have not shown plausibility, only possibility, and no more than
what Sun has now.

sense for IBM as a business entity. I say plausible because I can't

Actually, the evidence is that it would *not* make sense for IBM to
take Java in a proprietary direction.  IBM has shown that it
recognizes that open standards are what make it money.

read the future as you so claim. IBM could go belly up in a year, who

Sun is much more likely to go belly-up in a year than IBM is.

You, too, can read the future, if you are willing to read the
evidence.  Since you now say that you cannot read the future, why
claim that IBM might harm Java if given ownership of it?  Aren't you
invalidating your entire thesis by disclaiming the ability to reason
about the future?

knows? Stop playing the usenet [sic] bully and throwing out these labels and

Now, since you are unable to refute my logic, you are calling me
names.  That pretty much seals it as far as demonstrating the weakness
of your arguments.

blanket statements. Some of those "fear-mongers" on theserverside are
actually on the JCP and may know something.

Do they?  Why don't you cite their evidence here, then?

Arguments that IBM might harm Java if they owned it:
- IBM would have the same power as Sun has now to change their minds
about how to manage it.
- IBM would have the power to harm Java.
- Lew is a "usenet [sic] bully".

Arguments that IBM is unlikely to harm Java if they owned it:
- IBM has made a great success out of selling and supporting open-
source software.
- IBM has made a great success out of selling and supporting Java for
years now.
- IBM has been an active and strong supporter of open-source projects
for many years.
- IBM has been an active and strong participant in the direction of
Java for many years.
- IBM has been a strong supporter of free information and software to
developers for many years.
- IBM has a history of continuing to do things that have been
successful for them.
- IBM has a history of active and strong support for standards in the
enterprise software industry.
- IBM would have no different powers to harm Java if they owned it
than Sun does now.
- IBM would have the power not to harm Java.

Ok let's reword my part here correctly (and I won't alter your
arguments, just comment)

Arguments that IBM might monopolize certain aspects of Java if they
owned it:
- IBM would have the same power as Sun has now to change their minds
about how to manage it.
- It could be extremely profitable for IBM to proprietize at least the
enterprise
side of Java.
- IBM is in a position with their current market share to utilize such
a position
to enact this type of thing (an Intel or Cisco probably couldn't since
they're not
currently even in the space).
- The IP being developed withing the JCP is done in agreement with Sun
which had the deal
gone through been IBM. Legally, it's hard to say but many were worried
that IBM would
be able to eliminate the individual participation and weaken its other
competitors giving
it a very strong competitive advantage in the future of the platform.

Arguments that IBM is unlikely to harm Java if they owned it:

- IBM has made a great success out of selling and supporting open-
source software. - no incentive at that time though, Sun was in the
way

- IBM has made a great success out of selling and supporting Java for
years now. - and they could potentially push this much further

- IBM has been an active and strong supporter of open-source projects
for many years. - but by giving up what potential revenue? And they
have
made use of the open source by embedding it in WebSphere and others.

- IBM has been an active and strong participant in the direction of
Java for many years. - All the more reason to make it their own.

- IBM has been a strong supporter of free information and software to
developers for many years. - I recall when the CICS manuals alone cost
in
the $1000's

- IBM has a history of continuing to do things that have been
successful for them. - and making the Java enterprise platform
proprietary could
be very successful.

- IBM has a history of active and strong support for standards in the
enterprise software industry. - this is really a dup of the one above.

- IBM would have no different powers to harm Java if they owned it
than Sun does now. - it's not a matter of harming Java, it's really
more of a
monopolization of its most lucrative markets.

- IBM would have the power not to harm Java. - Only someone with the
legal knowledge
could determine this, but I have not been claiming that IBM would
"harm Java" per se,
more that IBM could virtually monopolize markets such as Enterprise
Java because there
is a potential capability to do so via ownership of the base platform
and incentive
due to the size of the market and IBM's current leadership in this
market. Basically
stamp out the JBoss's and WebLogic's via control of the platform.

I'm not trying to take a shot at IBM here, I would have been saying
the same things if
Oracle had been the bidder.

 

[Thufir Hawat]

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?

Any change would be better than the limbo Java presently inhabits. A
bankrupt Sun would be ok for Java, I'm sure there'd be some sort of
Mozilla type foundation for Java. Else, IBM Java would be fine. In the
meantime, Sun is preoccupied with survival to the detriment of Java


-Thufir