Even if he's not involved in this particular decision, he certainly sets the tone with which Oracle treats with third party (users, developers, competitors, etc...)
By that logic, he also is responsible for making software that people want and for those people wanting it because using it is profitable. Oracle is hardly the only company in Silicon Valley, much less the world, known for ruthlessly pursuing intellectual property claims [it's hardly the only company in the valley with a reputation for requiring developers to dance to its tune, either].
It's not that I am greatly concerned that Larry Ellison's feelings will be hurt. What I care about is that the post is a template for the sort of comments which debase HN's discussions. It's mean for the sake of internet points, and nobody is better informed or inspired to deeper insight for having read it.
The meanness and shallowness of such posts only invites more meanness and shallowness. There are lots of other places on the internet where that provides the majority of entertainment value. It's not why people come to HN.
>Oracle is hardly the only company in Silicon Valley, much less the world, known for ruthlessly pursuing intellectual property claims [it's hardly the only company in the valley with a reputation for requiring developers to dance to its tune, either].
Does a company have to be the only exemplar of a bad behavior for it to be pointed out? That's a very hard standard to meet that would suppress any discussion of corporate decisions.
