Whichever side you happen to be on in this case, there's a fundamental problem with the anti-trust angle: it's dead wrong. There are lots of pros and lots of cons to this now-epic battle, but anti-trust ain't the way to go.
At issue is an ironic truth that pits marketing rhetoric against marketing reality. The basis for any anti-trust action against Oracle is the notion that enterprise software "suite" vendors are few and far between, and will be even fewer if Oracle manages to swallow PeopleSoft.
Any anti-trust action by the DoJ or EU would have to prove that a combined Oracle-PeopleSoft would be in the position to control market competition by restricting the alternatives available to enterprise software buyers. In the reckoning of these august bodies, only a few companies -- SAP, Oracle, and PeopleSoft -- are able to sell a suite of products. And while three choices a competitive market make, two would be fodder for anti-trust.
That position is nonsense for three key reasons. The first is that SAP and Oracle-PeopleSoft would hardly be the only suite vendors in the market: my short list of other, highly successful and competent suite vendors would include IFS, QAD, Lawson, and SSA. Not to mention a little company called Microsoft and its Business Solutions products, Axapta, Great Plains, and Navision.
Each of these vendors has a suite of products to sell that span many, if not all, the major functions of the enterprise software world. Of course, not all suites are created equal, but when it comes to basic ERP, CRM, SCM, and other functionality that typically makes up an enterprise software suite, the five additional vendors on my short list all have what it takes or have a partner who can provide a plug-in solution. Narrowing the field by one other vendor wouldn't change the fact that, when it comes to suites, there's still an enormous amount of choice.
You've read Josh Greenbaum's opinion. What's yours? Let us know over at the IT Management Forum.