Here's a news story that broke yesterday: Oracle Corporation acknowledged that they had hired a private investigative firm (Investigative Group International) to find out if certain so-called "independent advocacy groups" where in fact Microsoft fronts. The groups investigated where ones that supported Microsoft in the recent Federal trial. IGI botched it enough that they both got caught and revealed their employer.

I've read two or three stories about this, in various publications, and the media is mixed between saying what an underhanded thing Oracle did to saying that it's just part of the game now. There was only slight mention that there was some evidence that at least one of the advocacy groups was mainly funded by Microsoft.

I also visited Slashdot.org which had a topic on this. Keeping in mind that the comments come from mostly Linux/Unix geeks (some of which hate Microsoft), the response was also mixed between saying that Oracle's actions are just as bad as Microsoft's to it's justified since it's against Microsoft to Oracle didn't really do anything wrong.

As an Oracle employee, the words I write may be taken wrongly. Let me say now that these are my opinions only, not Oracle's. We live in a free society and Oracle is quite good about letting its employees do and say what they want as long as they don't reveal company secrets or attempt to speak for the company.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. All they were trying to do was find out which pro-Microsoft groups are funded by Microsoft while claiming to be independent. They specifically told IGI not to break the law, and it was a specific investigation. Certainly any news organization or smaller independent group conducting its own investigation would not have brought up much notice.

This does point to the fact that Oracle and Microsoft are direct competitors. Although they have their own markets, they're each trying to capture the other's marketshare. I have no problem with trying to level the playing field by pointing out the underhanded things the other side does. I'm sure Oracle has a few questionable practices, but Microsoft is much more pervasive in that regard.

One of the facts that surprised me a bit was the amount of support Oracle has in the Slashdot community. There is a sizeable faction that points to Oracle's in general more open practices, more standards oriented than proprietary, and their better reputation considering its size. Oracle has achieved market dominance through better products and aggressive marketing, not by trying to destroy the competition with lies, built-in incompatibilities, or licensing terms. Oracle did not destroy Informix, Sybase, or SAP -- those companies' downfalls are their own fault for shady business practices or not adapting quickly to the marketplace. Oracle just happens to have been lucky enough to survive its own mistakes and so is now a market-dominant company.

In a larger sense, should companies resort to political tactics to achieve their aims? I don't particulary want businesses to get involved in politics, by funding candidates or political action committees or other groups. Companies should be able to take stances and have opinions on current and proposed policy, but that should be open, not through various fronts. I don't have anything against Bill Gates saying that breaking up Microsoft will be bad for the economy, I object to a Microsoft funded "independent group" claiming to represent an objective view and saying the same thing.