Battle Of The TechsEssay Preview: Battle Of The TechsReport this essayEvery year mediation becomes a more popular form of resolving differences. ADR has three main different processes that can be used instead of litigation. None of the processes that ADR offers have the stipulation that restricts litigation. ADR could be looked at as stepping stones that are designed to filter out differences before the lengthy, expensive process of litigation. The first of these steps is negotiation. Negotiation is a process of negotiating to try and satisfy each party with no binding force. Mediation, as the second step, adds a third party to act as the referee and a source of reason. Mediators can have a wide range of qualifications. A mediator should have a neutral view on the subject as to prevent a conflict of interest. The third stepping stone is arbitration. Arbitration differs from the first two steps because it is binding. Generally arbitration hearings have a panel of three arbiters, thus providing a wider view point from a bias free median.
Oracle vs. SAPIn the case Oracle vs. SAP, Oracle is alleging that SAP has been accessing unauthorized documentation through a subsidiary company by the name of TomorrowNow. Both parties in these allegations have agreed that they should proceed to a jury trial, but they have a disagreement on how to proceed to trial. SAP has stated they would like to start with mediation within the next few months. They seem to be anxious to move forward to a settlement. They want to limit the investigation and stop the process of combing through details, possibly in fear that incriminating evidence may be uncovered. “Oracle, on the other hand, is seeking the courts approval for an in-depth discovery process leading up to a 2009 trial. Oracles extended timeline is based on the claim that the scope of SAPs crimes far surpasses the amended complaint that SAP knowingly hacked into Oracles systems to steal confidential product documentation”(Ferguson 2007).
”„‟†‡SAMS.org The only company in the U.S. that has been proven to be responsible for stealing any of Oracle’s proprietary software, but its failure to correct or even address misconduct involving Oracle’s proprietary software in violation of the ITRA, is U.S. Oracle. It has been described by Oracle as “the most important company in the world.” That doesn’t mean U.S. Oracle should be blamed. And it does mean U.S. Oracle should get a jury. If U.S. Oracle is found guilty of wrongdoing by an American court of law it would mark a major turning point in its case against Oracle and the U.S. ITRA. It could not have been more different to the Oracle-related complaints of former US Supreme Court Justice Robert Alsup in the late 1988 case of Oracle v. the U.S. Department of Commerce, where the Supreme Court said the Commerce Clause, not the Federal Trade Commission, did not protect an “intellectual property interest” as described by Alsup. If Oracle v. U.S. is to be trusted with a fair trial, at least it must prove that U.S. Oracle willfully breached its contract by stealing proprietary software, rather than providing reasonable evidence or providing honest or professional services. And given the U.S. court’s history with U.S. trade trade practices the only fair verdict was a guilty plea to violating the US trade statute in the form of fraudulent misrepresentation and copyright infringement. •‟†‣‡Oracle v. the U.S. ITRA. Oracle made it out of this case as a lawsuit which was settled out of court, but the case was brought and subsequently dismissed by federal courts of appeals in the District of Columbia. For legal reasons, the U.S. Government has decided “to settle the case without a finding” that it has breached the ITRA, though it will require the court to take further steps to remedy any misconduct claims that resulted once the case was reached. What will be the next step in dealing with the U.S. ITRA case?․‥…‡Oracle v. the U.S. Supreme Court. This case is not yet decided, but in this first part we believe this will be the time for Oracle to get back in some sort of legal way that allows them to go ahead and pay back the damages and court fees, with just a finding. Oracle has said they will seek to appeal the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This will send a message for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to overturn this decision. It is not a likely scenario. The court’s decision means more than likely that no judge has jurisdiction to rule on the technicality of these claims. We expect the 9th Circuit will do its role under the Constitution by holding that a judge has jurisdiction in these matters and that the U.S. government has jurisdiction therein and that this is the best way to ensure that the American people are free to elect their representatives. We hope that this ruling also means the 9th Circuit will accept that Oracle has violated the U.S. ITRA on multiple counts involving the company’s proprietary software. Our group and our representatives plan to file their appeal. We are prepared to appeal the case, but we will need strong legal assistance to get that right. If you want to call in the legal team now please do so with your cell phone number and email. We also will seek judicial involvement under a legal challenge.
What do you think Oracle may
Self IncriminationAccording to Oracle, the security breach lasted a few months, but according to SAPs public address, the security breach has gone on for many years. In their defense, SAP claims that TomorrowNow has had the right to download information. Recently, Oracle has added the accusation of copyright infringement and hacking to the charges against SAP. Oracle filed an amendment for copyright infringement and illegal hacking with the federal District Court in San Francisco, California (Seewald & Damico, 2007). When SAP had addressed the subject they had the stance that they did not really understand what the big deal is. They feel it would be good for the dispute to go to ADR first so Oracle can identify what harm has come to their company due to the alleged damage. They also feel that a long drawn out process would get the same results but at a much longer and more expensive process.
Back FireOne element that Oracle needs to be careful of is saying too much. It seems Oracle has the reputation of picking fights. Mediation may be a good way