In a speech given at the Concurrences conference in Paris today, Almunia promised to take a hard line with the abuse of technology standards-related patents.

“When monopolies and tight oligopolies are allowed to occupy a market, they tend to resist change and often end up caring only about the preservation of their business models,” Almunia said. “Owners of such standards essential patents are conferred a power on the market that they cannot be allowed to misuse.”

And should they try, there will be hell to pay, because Almunia is fully prepared to use the EU’s antitrust powers to thwart them.

“I am determined to use antitrust enforcement to prevent the misuse of patent rights to the detriment of a vigorous and accessible market,” he said. “I have initiated investigations on this issue in several sectors and we will see the results in due time.”

Among those inquiries? A formal investigation into Samsung to determine whether it’s using standards-essential patents to manipulate the mobile market in Europe.

The company characterized the request as routine and shrugged off the notion the deal could be blocked.

“We’re confident the Commission will conclude that this acquisition is good for competition and we’ll be working closely and cooperatively with them as they continue their review,” Google said in a statement to AllThingsD.

Motorola shareholders have already approved selling to Google, though the transaction awaits antitrust approvals in the United States, EU and elsewhere.

“We requested information from both Apple and Samsung,” EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said today. “We have not yet received the answers. We need to look at this because IP rights can be used as a distortion of competition but we will need to look at the answers. In particular, in the IT sector, it is obvious it is not the only case. Apple and Samsung is only one case where IP rights can be used as an instrument to restrict competition.”

But with more than 20 cases in 10 countries, this fight is among the biggest out there right now, and it involves some standards-essential patents, so really it was only a matter of time before the European Commission took a look. If the EC ends up pursuing a case against either company, it could fine them up to 10 percent of their annual revenue.

Microsoft has established a new beachhead in its semantic set-to with Apple and rallied some new allies to its fight against genericide. On Thursday it challenged Apple’s rights to the trademarks “App Store” and “Appstore” in the European market, filing a formal application for declaration of invalidity in the EU’s Community Trade Mark office. That joins similar paperwork from HTC, Nokia and Sony Ericsson, all of whom argue that “app store” is too generic a term for anyone to trademark.

“Microsoft and other leading technology companies are seeking to invalidate Apple’s trademark registration for APP STORE and APPSTORE because we believe that they should not have been granted because they both lack distinctiveness,” a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement. “The undisputed facts establish that ‘app store’ means exactly what it says, a store offering apps, and is generic for the services that the registrations cover.”

This is, of course, the same argument Microsoft (and Amazon, for that matter) have been making in the States. That said, as I’ve noted here before, Apple was first to request a trademark on App Store and, as this Google Trend line shows, the phrase didn’t enter the vernacular until 2008, right around the time Apple began popularizing it.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Amazon to Apple: “App Store” is Generic; Just Ask Your CEO
• How About We Call It APP Store, as in “Amazon Portable Program Store”
• Like “Office” and “Word” Aren’t Generic…

That means smartphone giants like Apple Inc. and Google Inc. will likely have to obtain user consent before gathering the data, delete the information after a certain period of time and keep it anonymous.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission’s interest in Apple’s new subscription service is at a preliminary stage, and might not develop into either a formal investigation or any action against the company. But it comes as Apple has attracted growing antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. and Europe.

A spokeswoman for the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, said Thursday that the commission was aware of the new subscription service and was “carefully monitoring the situation.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Or wanted it–at least not the kind that Schmidt’s been offering recently, which was on display once again today in yet another PR gaffe.

Asked by the Sunday Telegraph about the European Commission inquiry into the company’s dominance in search, Schmidt spun the requests for information that Google received as part of that investigation as the beginnings of possible settlement discussions.

“I think it is in our interests and I would hope in their interests to do a quick analysis of concerns that have been raised by competitors, hopefully they are minor or they are not correct, and we’ll find out and make sure we are operating well within the law and the spirit of the law,” he said. “We understand we play a major role in Europe and we’re not denying that. We have a lot of meetings with appropriate government officials.”

We have a lot of meetings with appropriate government officials.

If that’s true, the officials to which Schmidt refers have nothing to do with the European inquiry into Google’s business practices. Because the European Commission today flat-out denied it is in antitrust resolution talks with the company. “There are no discussions,” commission spokeswoman Amelia Torres said in a statement. “The investigation is not finished.”

We have a lot of meetings with appropriate government officials. One more to add to Schmidt’s dubious canon.

The deal, which once approved would amount to the largest deal in Intel’s history, still faces scrutiny by the European Union’s antitrust regulators, who have expressed concerns. This is of course the group that handed down the largest antitrust fine in its history against Intel. An appeal by Intel against that fine is pending.

I still find this combination a little confusing. I certainly see the need for Intel to grow its business beyond its core of providing the world’s personal computers and servers with microprocessors, and to add security features to future chips. But making chips is what it does best, and history has shown that when Intel deviates from what it does best it often regrets it later.

When a member sees someone attempting to shoplift, he or she presses a button, alerting the store owner, who assesses the situation and awards the user points, depending on whether it was a false alarm, suspicious activity or a crime in progress.

Internet Eyes sweetens the deal by offering a prize of £1,000 to the month’s top point-scorer.
Having viewers pay a membership fee weeds out pranksters and troublemakers from the site, says Tony Morgan, founder and managing director of Internet Eyes.” We get people that really want to fight crime in this country, not just voyeurs that just want to press the button,” Mr. Morgan says.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The agency also closed a second investigation into Apple’s repair policies, which required iPhone warranty service to be performed in the country in which the device was purchased. Now that the company is offering cross-border iPhone warranty service, there’s no need to pursue that investigation any further, either.

Under those rules, search engines must anonymize user data after six months. And while most search engines have reduced their data retention periods, none have truly complied with EU regulations. Google (GOOG) keeps user data for nine months. Microsoft (MSFT) keeps it for six, but holds on to software cookies and whatnot for a year beyond that. And Yahoo (YHOO) eliminates user data after 90 days, but only partially.

“On behalf of the data protection authorities in the EU united in WP29, I call on you to improve the protection of the online privacy of users of your search engine services,” the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party said in its letters.

“Besides limiting the retention period of personal data,” the letters continue, “measures include a reduction of the possibility to identify users in the search logs and the creation of an external audit process to reassure users that you are delivering on your privacy promises, i.e. by involving an independent and external auditing entity.”

Regulators had a particularly stern rebuke for Google, whose privacy practices have come under intense scrutiny this month after the company admitted its Street View cars had been–heh heh–“inadvertently” collecting and storing payload data from unsecured private Wi-Fi networks for three years.

“Considering Google’s dominant position in almost every EU member state, with a market share of up to 95 percent in some national search engine markets, the company has a significant role in European citizens’ daily lives,” the regulators wrote. “The company’s apparent lack of focus in data retention is concerning.”

Consider this graphic from the New York Times, which shows the proliferation of options available in those tools (click chart to link to larger version on original site).

Addles the brain, doesn’t it?

As the Times notes, to opt out of full disclosure of most of their personal information, Facebook users must click through more than 50 privacy buttons, which then require making decisions about more than 170 options.

Facebook describes its privacy tools as “comprehensive and precise,” but that’s poor justification for something so ridiculously convoluted from a company that positions itself as a caretaker of identity.

Little wonder that Facebook is facing a barrage of criticism. As European Union’s Article 29 Working Party said in a scathing letter today, Facebook’s privacy practices are “unacceptable.”

The proposal is similar to rules recently enacted in the European Union on wireless companies, which require carriers to send a text message to subscribers who are racking up roaming charges or getting close to their plan’s roaming limit.

The Federal Communications Commission proposal also considers whether carriers should send real-time alerts to subscribers who are exceeding their monthly voice, data or text messaging limits.

“We’ve gotten hundreds of complaints about bill shock,” said Joel Gurin, head of the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, in a statement. He said the agency is looking at if “there’s any reason that American carriers can’t use similar automatic alerts to inform consumers when they are at risk of running up a high bill.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Earlier this week, Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz was all over the place talking up the company on the occasion of its 15th birthday.

Here’s a video of a longish interview she did with CBNC, embedded below, where she cracks wise a lot, but says little.

My favorite part: When the interviewer oddly asks if Yahoo (YHOO) is a trinket and Bartz pipes up that it is a bracelet!

Thankfully, we have the critical jewelry issue around Yahoo settled.

Bartz also gets a good one off about Facebook’s lack of revenue compared with Yahoo, after being asked why Yahoo was not as hot as the social networking phenom.

“Remind me, what’s their revenue?” she asked.

Bartz’s week also included a lunch with a group of reporters at its Sunnyvale, Calif., HQ–pretty much Lady BoomTown and a dozen dudes–Tuesday, at which she talked about a range of things, offered Sprinkles cupcakes and broke no substantive news.

She did give good quote though.

Bartz, for example, said she didn’t “wish antitrust on anybody,” when asked about Google (GOOG) and its issues with regulators in Europe.

She also noted, talking about the search giant’s recent conviction in Italy and its potential impact: “The [European Union] concerns me.”

But when talking about Google’s threat to leave China over censorship issues, Bartz was less kind. “It looked to me like it was more of a statement than an action,” she said. “If they wanted to pull out, they should have pulled out.”

Perhaps the most controversial remark was when she seemed to compare herself with Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs, pointing out that his innovative turnaround of the iconic Silicon Valley computer company took a lot of time after he returned in 1996.

“He knew the DNA better than anyone and it took him four years,” she declared, noting her tenure was just over a year.

Perhaps her most important quote was related to losing search market share and seeing Facebook’s user growth close in on Yahoo.

Bartz said the real point at Yahoo was more “the fight to get ad dollars around relevant users.”

As in, from a jewelry point of view: Finding a diamond in the rough.

Here’s the video of the CNBC interview with Bartz:

Oh, there’s no question in the often paranoid mind of BoomTown that Google is one scary company, mostly due to its huge market share in search across the globe.

Check out this eye-popping chart below from a story in The Wall Street Journal today on this very subject, for example, if you care to share my wariness.

Thus, there is no doubt that the preliminary scrutiny over antitrust complaints the company is getting from the European Commission, which Google (GOOG) has forcefully denied, is not untoward, even if those complaints have been leveled by companies affiliated with archrival Microsoft (MSFT).

There will be more to come, of course, as Google’s growing power is targeted by those interested in stopping its growth–both those with pure motives and not-so-pure.

But no matter how you slice the monopolistic pie, Google most certainly did not deserve, nor should anyone tolerate, the conviction in Italy of three of its execs on privacy violations.

A judge in Milan said the trio had not complied with Italian law because they allowed a disparaging video of a boy with Down Syndrome being harassed by other teens to be posted on the company’s former Google Video site, even though it was quickly yanked,

An appeal is already in the works, which is a good thing since it’s hard to imagine how such a ruling will stand and how any company can police itself so stringently given the mass of user-generated content.

While every online company must have strict rules to prevent such abuses, this case is a little like blaming the telephone company if one gets an abusive call.

And while Google most certainly deserves some of the legal attention it is getting, this ruling should make every U.S. Internet firm–including Microsoft–scared not of Google’s frighteningly powerful search algorithm, but of Italy’s horrifyingly idiotic legal system.

Italian-Americans–of which I am one–or anyone else can gripe all they want about “The Situation.”

But–make no mistake–this is the real situation.

“This week came news that the European Commission is investigating various aspects of Google’s conduct, including claims of retaliation, exclusivity and manipulation of search results to disadvantage rivals,” Heiner wrote. “Google’s public response to this growing regulatory concern has been to point elsewhere–at Microsoft. Google is telling reporters that antitrust concerns about search are not real because some of the complaints come from one of its last remaining search competitors….[But] ultimately what’s important is not who is complaining, but whether or not the challenged practices are anticompetitive.”

A great point, and one that makes Google’s inflammatory out-of-the-gate finger-pointing earlier this week seem a bit hysterical. And if Microsoft’s European properties did spur the EC’s preliminary investigation into Google, so what? As Heiner wryly notes, “Complaints in competition law cases usually come from competitors”–“dumbass” here is, presumably, implied.

So does Microsoft (MSFT) feel Google (GOOG) is worthy of antitrust scrutiny? Well, what do you think?

“Both search and online advertising are increasingly controlled by a single firm, Google,” Heiner wrote. “…Microsoft would obviously be among the first to say that leading firms should not be punished for their success. Nor should firms be punished just because a particular business practice may harm a rival–competition on the merits can do that, too. That is a position that Microsoft has long espoused, and we’re sticking to it. Our concerns relate only to Google practices that tend to lock in business partners and content (like Google Books) and exclude competitors, thereby undermining competition more broadly. Ultimately the competition law agencies will have to decide whether or not Google’s practices should be seen as illegal.”

Well, there you go. Obviously, the gloves are coming off here. Too bad for Google that it doesn’t take a punch very well.

In China, the search giant is battling hackers and the government, who may be one and the same. In Europe, the company is being hauled in front of an antitrust review. And Italy? Total disaster.

Yesterday, an Italian court convicted three Google (GOOG) executives of privacy violations in a case that stems from a clip uploaded to Google Video in 2006. The executives, who include former CFO George Reyes, have been sentenced to six-month prison sentences.

And that verdict follows a December ruling whereby an Italian court found the company guilty of copyright violations on YouTube, the video site it bought in 2006. Mediaset, the broadcaster that brought the suit–and which is controlled by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi–is looking for more than $730 million in damages.

Google has responded to the video convictions with an outraged blog post. Note that the language is more forceful than the company used to describe its China problem. But also note that the company isn’t threatening to pull out of Italy altogether. Maybe it should.

Serious threat to the web in Italy
2/24/2010 01:57:00 AM
In late 2006, students at a school in Turin, Italy filmed and then uploaded a video to Google Video that showed them bullying an autistic schoolmate. The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved. In these rare but unpleasant cases, that’s where our involvement would normally end.

But in this instance, a public prosecutor in Milan decided to indict four Google employees–David Drummond, Arvind Desikan, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes (who left the company in 2008). The charges brought against them were criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. To be clear, none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video. They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video’s existence until after it was removed.

Nevertheless, a judge in Milan today convicted 3 of the 4 defendants–David Drummond, Peter Fleischer and George Reyes–for failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. All 4 were found not guilty of criminal defamation. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. Throughout this long process, they have displayed admirable grace and fortitude. It is outrageous that they have been subjected to a trial at all.

But we are deeply troubled by this conviction for another equally important reason. It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming. European Union law was drafted specifically to give hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The belief, rightly in our opinion, was that a notice and take down regime of this kind would help creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them–every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video–then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.

These are important points of principle, which is why we and our employees will vigorously appeal this decision.

Posted by Matt Sucherman, VP and Deputy General Counsel–Europe, Middle East and Africa

In his memo, Hustinx criticizes the secrecy of the talks from which ACTA arose and worries that as an international treaty to fight digital piracy, the agreement is in danger of running afoul of European Union privacy and data protection law requirements.

“Privacy and data protection must be taken into account from the very beginning of the negotiations, not when the schemes and procedures have been defined and agreed and it is therefore too late to find alternative, privacy compliant solutions,” Hustinx wrote.

“While intellectual property is important to society and must be protected,” he added, “it should not be placed above individuals’ fundamental rights to privacy, data protection, and other rights such as presumption of innocence, effective judicial protection and freedom of expression.”

Evidently, that’s exactly where IP has been placed in the current draft of ACTA, which seems to be designed to encourage ISPs to monitor their customers’ Internet use for illegal file-sharing and potentially, to blackball repeat offenders on their networks.

“Insofar as the current draft of ACTA includes or at least indirectly pushes for three strikes Internet disconnection policies, ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the protection of personal data and privacy,” Hustinx wrote.

“The EDPS takes the view that three strikes Internet disconnection policies are not necessary to achieve the purpose of enforcing intellectual property rights,” he concluded. “The EDPS is convinced that alternative, less intrusive solutions exist or, at least, that the envisaged policies can be performed in a less intrusive manner or at a more limited scope, notably through the form of targeted ad hoc monitoring.”

Believe it or not, it’s been more than nine months since Oracle first announced their intent to acquire Sun in April, 2009. And the ‘interim’ period has been tough on everyone–on our employees, and our partners and customers. Thankfully, that interim period is coming to an end, with regulatory approval from the European Union issued today, and only a few hurdles remaining–before Oracle formally expands beyond software to become the world’s most important systems company.

Even though we’re not quite across the finish line, I wanted to leave you with a few final thoughts.

All in all, it’s been an honor and privilege to work together. In my more than twenty years in the industry, the last thirteen at Sun, I’ve had a chance to work with and around an enormous diversity of companies, from every sector you can imagine. I can say with conviction that Sun’s people have always stood apart as the brightest, most passionate, and most inspiring. I’ve never had a bad day in my thirteen years for one very basic reason–I’ve always been surrounded by the best and brightest individuals I’ve ever come across. That’s been an honor and privilege, for which I’m enormously thankful.

Technology from Sun, alongside our employees and partners, have changed the world. We’ve opened markets, elections and economies. We’ve helped build the world’s most important and valuable businesses. We’ve played a key role in discovering new drugs, in bringing education and healthcare to those in need, and supplying the world with an incredible spectrum of entertainment, from smartphones to social networking. I doubt any company has had such a significant influence over the way we see or experience the world. I once told Scott McNealy he was the Henry Ford of the technology industry, making remarkable innovations accessible to anyone, and creating an immense number of jobs around the globe for those that made use of them. I can’t begin to tell you how proud I am of my association with that cause and the people behind it, and the value we created for ourselves and those that exploited our innovations.

I also know we’ve had more than our share of very tough challenges. Amidst the toughest market and customer situations imaginable, I’m proud we’ve always acted with integrity, with a sense for what’s right, and not simply what’s expedient. Over the years, I’ve heard time and again, from those inside and outside the company, “I like and I trust Sun.” 

Building that good will is something to which you’ve all contributed. And you have every right to be very proud of it.

Make no mistake, it’s been an enormous asset.

So, to the sales and SE teams across the world who continually give their all to bring the numbers home–thank you for the trust you’ve built with customers, and the results you’ve delivered. I hope you’re prepared to have the wind at your back, you deserve it.

To the service professionals who every day build, maintain and run the world’s most important data centers–thank you for your excellence and discipline, 7×24.

To the professionals who run the functions and processes that are the company’s spinal column–thank you, we’d be paralyzed without you.

And lastly – to the engineers and marketers who’ve fostered a perpetual belief that innovation creates its own opportunity – thank you. You’re right. Innovation does create its own opportunity. Like Oracle, we’re an engineering company in our heart and soul, our potential together is limitless.

Now many of you know that I came to Sun when a company I helped to found was acquired in 1996. I’ve also led, and been a part of many, many acquisitions at Sun, both large and small. From those experiences, I’ve learned one very clear lesson–the single most important driver of a successful acquisition are the people involved–and how committed they are to the new owner’s mission.

And the most effective mechanism I’ve seen for driving that commitment begins with a simple, but emotionally difficult step. 

Upon change in control, every employee needs to emotionally resign from Sun. Go home, light a candle, and let go of the expectations and assumptions that defined Sun as a workplace. Honor and remember them, but let them go.

For those that ultimately won’t become a part of Oracle, this will be the first step in a new adventure. Sun has a tremendous reputation across the planet, well beyond Silicon Valley. It’s a great brand to have on your resume. We’re known as self-starters, capable of ethically managing through complexity and change, for delivering when called upon, and for inventing and building the future. With the world economy stabilizing, I’m very confident you’ll land on your feet. You’re a talented, tenacious group, and there’s always opportunity for great people.

For those that have roles at Oracle, may you start with a clean slate, ready to take on the myriad opportunities ahead. With the same passion and tenacity for Oracle’s success that you’ve had for Sun’s, and a renewed sense of energy around executing on a far broader mission. There is no doubt in my mind you, and Oracle, will be remarkably successful, beyond the market’s wildest expectations. But it’s important you come to work thinking, “Sun is a brand, Oracle’s my company.” Don’t look for ways to preserve or dwell in “how we used to do things.” Look for ways to help customers, grow the market, and improve Oracle’s performance. 

Sun is a brand, Oracle is your company.

And to that end, with nine months of getting to know them, I’ve found Oracle to be truly remarkable, led by remarkable people. From Larry on down, they understand the enormity of the opportunity before them, and they’re more than prepared to execute on it – across the board. I’ve seen their commitment and focus, now they need yours. I’m confident you’ll give it the 10,000% effort it deserves–and we’ll all see the end result.

So thank you, again, for the privilege and honor of working together. The internet’s made the world a far smaller place–so I’m sure we’ll be bumping into one another. 

Go Oracle!

Jonathan

FURTHER READING:

• Departing Sun Co-Founder to Employees: Kick Butt and Have Fun!
• Sun CEO Set to Resign
• EU Approves Oracle-Sun Deal
• EU Poised to Approve Oracle-Sun Deal
• Oracle Sack Half of Sun’s Workforce? Ridiculous, Says Sun.
• Q: What’s the Difference Between Neelie Kroes and Larry Ellison?
• Ellison: Oracle Is the New IBM
• Oracle: IBM, Come Out to Play-ee-ay
• Mr. Ellison Asks That His Burgers Be Served With Freedom Fries Until Further Notice

[Image credit: igrec /Fllickr]

Either way, the deal is likely to officially close in early February.  And when it does, Oracle (ORCL) and Sun (JAVA) will be well prepared. “The integration team have been working very hard to complete all of the planning and executives on both sides of the merger believe that deal will be approved,” one source told me. “The majority of the hiring decisions have been made and the bulk of the product decisions and organization structure is completed.”

As part of its preparation, Oracle has written three email announcements, which it plans to distribute to Sun employees. The first, a congratulatory note for employees who will keep their jobs after the transition. The second, a notice of termination alerting employees who will lose their jobs. The third, an offer of a temporary position working through the transition is most likely to be distributed to employees in finance and human resources.

For rank-and-file Sun employees, the second notice is obviously ugly news. Not so for executives: The cash payout at the VP and officer level for being let go is quite generous, and I’m told a certain number of “howls of whoopee” can be expected from those in senior positions hoping for a pink slip.

And just how many pink slips are to be distributed? That’s unclear. I’ve heard from some sources that a significant reduction in workforce is almost certain. Others tell me “layoffs are not going to be anywhere near predictions.”

For the sake of Sun’s long-suffering employees, let’s hope it’s the latter.

Reached for comment, Sun declined to offer on”. “Sorry, we do not comment on rumors or speculation,” a spokesperson told me.

The European Commission has settled its antitrust dispute with the software maker, accepting its proposal for a browser ballot within Windows (see full text below). Under terms of the settlement, Microsoft (MSFT) will rejigger Windows to give users a choice between its Internet Explorer and up to 11 other browsers from rivals like Mozilla, Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG).

The Commission said this new commitment from Microsoft will be binding for five years, and the ballot, or “choice screen,” will become available in March 2010.

European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes described the accord as an “early Christmas present for more than hundreds of millions of Europeans. Now, for the first time in over a decade, Internet users in Europe will have an effective and unbiased choice between Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and competing Web browsers,” she said.

“The (European) Commission has resolved a serious competition concern for a key market for the development of the Internet,” Kroes continued. “It is as if you went to the supermarket and they only offered you one brand of shampoo on the shelf, and all the other choices are hidden out the back, and not everyone knows about them. What we are saying today is that all the brands should be on the shelf.”

MSFT-EU –

“Larry Ellison: We’re a big fan of open source–in fact, we’ve had the major transaction engine to MySQL–it’s something Oracle bought years ago and has invested in it to a higher level than it was invested in before. We believe in open source, we’re a huge supporter of Linux. MySQL and Oracle do not compete–at all….There’s a long list of database machines and database software we compete against–we never compete against MySQL. They’re both called databases, they address very different markets–furthermore, it’s open source.

Ed Zander: If they ask you to spin it off, will you?

LE: No.

EZ: If they told you to spin it off, would you?

LE: No. We’re not gonna spin it off. The U.S. government cleared this, we think the Europeans are gonna clear this, and we are not going to spin anything off.”

– Excerpt from Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s September Churchill Club interview with former Sun CEO Ed Zander

Looks like Oracle has managed to ease European regulators’ antitrust concerns over its $7 billion acquisition of Sun–perhaps even enough for them to approve the thing.

This morning, Oracle (ORCL) and the European Commission both said they have had “constructive discussions” about the company’s plans for Sun (JAVA) and more specifically, its open-source MySQL database software.

Driving those discussions: A 10-point list of commitments from Oracle intended to ensure that MySQL will remain a competitive force in the database market. In the list, Oracle spells out plans for the database software, promising to boost spending on research and development, refrain from seeking commercial licenses from makers of MySQL storage engines and to establish a customer advisory board of MySQL users.

These concessions went over well with the EC, which is clearly warming to the idea of a Sun-Oracle union. “Today’s announcement by Oracle of a series of undertakings to customers, developers and users of MySQL is an important new element to be taken into account in the ongoing proceedings,” said the EC in its statement.

“In particular,” the EC continued, “Oracle’s binding contractual undertakings to storage engine vendors regarding copyright non-assertion and the extension over a period of up to 5 years of the terms and conditions of existing commercial licenses are significant new facts.”

European Union regulators have until late January to make their decision.

That’s why the Internet has sparked something of an arms race between the U.S. and Europe over the past decade, with governments vying to expand its availability and use, hoping that the next technology billionaires spring from somewhere outside of Silicon Valley.

In Europe, politicians have tried to engineer catch-up programs to rival U.S. dominance of the Internet. France and Germany jointly started Quaero in 2005, a state-funded search engine designed to rival Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT) offerings. European Union governments keep a particularly close eye on Internet usage and have been pushing to make Web access available in all corners of the bloc.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Should make for an interesting meeting given Oracle’s refusal to take the EC’s concerns about the future of Sun’s MySQL database seriously. Certainly, it’s difficult to imagine Oracle (ORCL) caving to the Commission’s demands when it has criticized the group’s findings as a “profound misunderstanding” of the database market and open source.

And if not that, then what? Would Oracle abandon the deal instead? That too seems unlikely because it would mean delaying CEO Larry Ellison’s plan to transform Oracle into the next IBM (IBM). As Ellison said in October, “T. J. Watson’s IBM was the greatest company in the history of enterprise in America because its combination of hardware and software was running most of the enterprises on the planet. We think with the combination of Sun technology and Oracle technology we can succeed and beat IBM. That’s our goal.”

Given the EC’s concerns about the Sun (JAVA) acquisition and Oracle’s refusal to address them, what other option is there?