[afandian]

There's a comment on the article:

> I recall hearing recently something along the lines of- assuming you'd made the mistake of having signed up with Oracle in the first place- the contract you agreed to states that in the event of switching to another compatible variant, you're still required to pay Oracle their fees regardless. > I also vaguely recall that this clause was indefinite(?)

Can this be true?

[kevinmchugh]

If the contract says that I don't see how it could be enforceable. Where's the consideration?

[D13Fd]

Their lawyers will argue that the consideration was that the allowed you to use the Oracle software in the first place.

They'll probably also argue that you continue to benefit from using the Oracle software to develop your software even if you stop, although that's not necessary for consideration. That's more of an argument against unconscionability.

I don't know if their contract actually has that provision, but if so, it's another reason to stay away from Oracle altogether. I really don't understand the companies that seem to say "You know what would be great? Working with Oracle!" It seems insane to me.

[PedroBatista]

I don't know if that's true, but that would qualify as a "suckers clause".

Most people would not only laugh at that but also terminate every business with Oracle just because of that.

But.. there's a percentage of clients who just say "Ohh dear.. ok then." and in many of these organizations the people who make these decisions aren't even close to the source of revenue ( mostly public sector )