Most learned judge, a sentence! Come prepare!
Tarry a little, there is something else.
This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
The words expressly are “a pound of flesh.”
(painting by Alexandre Canbanel. The Merchant of Venice)
The jury has decided. SAP owes Oracle 1.3 Billion dollars. I’ll leave others to speculate on whether SAP appeals, if is a fair sum, or whether there will be other legal ramifications.
Watching it all has been fun. Good theatre, with some dramatic performance and and even more dramatic absence. Tabloid stuff.
- The amount, while breaking records for copyright infringement, will not impact SAP’s ability to do business. It has plenty of cash, and there is a serendipitous symmetry with the recent 1,5 billion dollar credit facility. While it could slow down share buybacks, I doubt that it will have a real impact on its development or marketing spend. It would be wrong for SAP to shrink into cost cutting mode to fund this, but I don’t think they will anyway.
- The case illustrates the hyper-competitive and ruthless nature of the industry. Neither firm emerges Persil white from the process. I’m not sure that it will really make a difference to how CIO’s view SAP or Oracle. Most CIO’s know that this is a pretty ruthless and aggressive business. Oracle’s field will have a bit of fun in the sales cycle with this, but I doubt it will really impact business.
- Most software executives and developers have minimal understanding of copyright law and its implications. Coming out of this, I’d hope that software developers think a little bit more about intellectual property and IT law generally. This would be a good thing. I’d like to see software companies funding more IT law research and studies, but then I’m biased.
- Software companies using intellectual property to beat each other up in court isn’t new, but this judgment will encourage more of the same.
- The judgment was not about the legality of third party maintenance. The SAP-Oracle case and Rimini Street –Oracle case will be quite different. I don’t think we should conflate them. The SAP-Oracle case was good entertainment, but it was just about damages. In the long run the Rimini Street case is more important for the whole industry. I ‘m not assuming that just because SAP admitted that TomorrowNow was toxic, all third party maintenance is somehow tainted.
These are my musings, rather than a formal Gartner position.
(Okay, the heading was from Romeo and Juliet, and the quote from Merchant of Venice)