SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Technology StocksAll About Sun Microsystems


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Sr K who wrote (64834)4/21/2009 11:00:34 PM
From: Charles Tutt
   of 64865
 
So are they going to can MySQL?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Charles Tutt who wrote (64835)4/21/2009 11:02:20 PM
From: Sr K
   of 64865
 
IDKETA

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Arthur Tang4/22/2009 6:15:35 AM
   of 64865
 
Will Ellison move Java like peoplesoft? 2 bagger?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Don Green4/22/2009 9:04:20 AM
   of 64865
 
April 21, 2009 10:31 AM
Ex Microsoft strategist dissects Oracle-Sun deal: "Soracle"

Posted by Brier Dudley

Great analysis of Oracle+Sun by Charles Fitzgerald, who has a particularly good radar on this topic.

Until early 2008 he was Microsoft's former general manager of platform strategy -- playing industrial chess with Sun, Oracle and IBM.

Fitzgerald predicts Oracle will fob Sun's hardware business off to a company like Hewlett-Packard or Fujitsu.

His take on IBM:

"They got a good look at Sun, but in the end I suspect they're going to regret not doing this deal. They regretted giving Microsoft control of the software crown jewels for the PC; they may face similar situation now on the server. Oracle can have a lot of fun making IBM choose between open systems sanctimony and controlling their own destiny."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Don Green who wrote (64838)4/22/2009 2:13:39 PM
From: Mark O. Halverson
   of 64865
 
First, I think Sun is a good fit for Oracle, and Oracle can profit nicely. But is it a done deal?

In my view, IBM may be ruing its failure to acquire Sun. Perhaps not so much for what Sun could do for IBM, but for what NOT acquiring Sun might do to damage IBM. Imaging Sun's server line ultimately going to HP. Imagine Java, MySQL with Oracle who will know better than Sun what to do with them. And imagine Sun's storage line ending up with, well ... whatever IBM competitor. Can IBM really be happy about all this? It might be a bitter pill for IBM to admit it has erred in its penny pinching dealings and rejection of Sun, but I would not totally rule out IBM jumping back into the bidding. Keep in mind, the acquisition isn't a done deal until Sun shareholders approve the deal.

If IBM were to re-enter the bidding (or HP or whoever)I think that Oracle would respond. The Sun acquisition, being immediately accretive to Oracle with very nice long term possibilities, is a very sweet deal. In view of the above rationale, I am keeping some of my Sun shares for a while.

Best Mark

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Mark O. Halverson who wrote (64839)4/22/2009 3:23:12 PM
From: Sr K
   of 64865
 
Listen to the IBM Q1 cc Q&A (or maybe there is a transcript) and you'll change your mind.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Mark O. Halverson who wrote (64839)6/25/2009 8:09:49 PM
From: benshultz
   of 64865
 
I agree with you that Oracle is coming out of the merger in great shape. You mention that you are going to keep some of your Sun shares for a while but the merger is a cash buyout, you will get $9.50 for each of your shares. I am personally going to vote against the merger because, like many investors, I but puts as insurance against a collapse in my Sun shares price. Well, now that the merger was announced, my puts are out of the money. Oracle is not picking up the out of the money puts so they would expire worthless. It's better for me if no merger occurs. If it were an exchange of shares with Oracle, then I would be ok. I really think that Oracle should have offered more, they are getting a lot of cash in this deal, I think Sun is probably more financially sound then Oracle.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: benshultz who wrote (64841)6/26/2009 10:17:10 PM
From: Sr K
   of 64865
 
finance.yahoo.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: benshultz who wrote (64841)6/29/2009 11:00:22 PM
From: Mark O. Halverson
1 Recommendation   of 64865
 
I agree that Sun should have gotten more than $9.50 a share. However, Sun's dealings with IBM ruined Sun's chances to get a better deal, by massively disenchanting Sun's customers. The dealings with IBM was a disaster from start to finish. Well aware of the damage the IBM dealings had done to Sun, Oracle quickly scooped up Sun for IBM's lowest offer plus 10 cents. Great deal for Oracle. I have long since abandoned hope of a higher offer and have sold 3/4 my Sun to make other purchases. The rest I will likely hold until the takeover happens at $9.50 a share. Not the outcome I would have liked.

Best, Mark

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Arthur Tang6/30/2009 5:03:36 AM
   of 64865
 
A number of us reading Sun annual report knows that if you vote against the merger, you might get better appraised value than $9.50, because Sun is a Delaware corporation.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10