May 27, 2012, 7:30 AM — One of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of litigation is because of something we call discovery. Both sides get the opportunity to drill into each other's private correspondence and look for things neither remembers writing. Given that in litigation reality tends to get blown away by motives and creativity, this can be pretty dangerous.
This was highlighted last week when HP released some of the things that were said inside of Oracle. Most damning is one series of text messages that indicate that Oracle executives who were pitching Sun products thought they were crap and didn't want to pitch them.
When someone says product blows--wait, that isn't accurate, because they actually wrote "baaaallllloooooooows"--it isn't a compliment (but it will go down in history). They also said it was like putting lipstick on a pig and that it was clear that, in buying Sun, Oracle bought a dog. And they didn't mean a cute fluffy companion, they meant ugly mutt who peed on everything it touched.
You really need to see some of this stuff. It is clear that Oracle has made IT buyers the butt of a joke and I don't think any of us should be laughing. You can find the Oracle documents in order here and, if you are someone who fell for this scam, I'll bet it will make you a little mad because Oracle clearly appears to think we (and I do include myself) are idiots.
So what does this mean, other than your trust was misplaced I mean?
Oracle Knew Itanium Wasn't Dead
Whether you are talking Sparc, Power or Itanium, the reality is that each part is tied to the efforts of one vendor. The correspondence shows that HP, while Mark Hurd was still there, was not only fully behind Itanium it actually surprised how much Intel supported it. This is directly contrary to Oracle's allegations that Intel and HP were concealing a secret agenda to pull the plug. Not only weren't they pulling the plug, HP was still treating the technology as strategic and Intel apparently was as well.
Now I personally thought Intel had moved on from Itanium and was just continuing to support it because of the HP agreement, but the discovered documents clearly show that isn't the case. I had also given Oracle the benefit of the doubt because it had sent me a Xeon roadmap and argued that since Itanium wasn't on it that it clearly showed Intel was pulling the plug. I thought this was an honest mistake and that Oracle hadn't realized that the Xeon team wouldn't put Itanium on one of their charts any more than they would Core, Atom or Pentium because they don't own those lines either. However, the documents also showcase that they appeared to be moving against Itanium for competitive reasons and that chart doesn't seem to have any influence on that decision.
Sun Hardware Sucks, er, Baaaallllloooooooows