In the merger control case Oracle Corporation/Sun Microsystems (case COMP/M.5529), the Commission welcomed in a press release on 14 December, 2009 Oracle's promises related to the open source database MySQL. MySQL currently belongs to Sun and would be acquired by Oracle. Some observers consider this a strong signal that the Commission would treat those promises as "significant new facts" warranting unconditional clearance even though the Commission previously had serious doubts.

Firstly, MySQL is a key element of the Internet infrastructure. My own website, www.roithova.cz, also uses MySQL as its back-end database. Oracle has a conflict of interests because it sells the market-leading closed-source database and MySQL is the most popular free and open source database.

Secondly, in competition cases there should be a clear distinction between "facts" and "remedies". Oracle should file such promises as a formal remedy proposal. There should be a market test giving competitors and customers a chance to provide feedback to the Commission prior to a final decision.

What will the Commission do now to ensure that this case will not set a precedent that would encourage other companies in similar situations to make vague promises in the form of a press release as opposed to filing formal remedy proposals pursuant to the Commission's remedy guidelines?