DM: Larry， when you look back， was there any one "spark" which set off this chain of innovation in your life， when you look back to the New York or Chicago days? Was there a flash， a moment of profound inspiration?
LE: I wish that were true. I wish that were true. No. It was just a series of--there were major， major decision points where either we were lucky or smart--you know Curtis LeMay's great line， "You can't tell the difference between lucky pilots and less smart pilots." You know， you don't know how to do it， and you don't have to. And we made a couple of very good choices.
When I started Oracle， what I wanted to do was to create an environment where I would enjoy working. That was my primary goal. Sure， I wanted to make a living. I certainly never expected to become rich， certainly not this rich. I mean， rich does not even describe this. This is surreal. And it has nothing to do with money. I mean， you buy clothes with money， and cars. But I really wanted to work with people I enjoyed working with， who I admired and liked. We used to have a rule at Oracle to never hire anybody you wouldn't enjoy having lunch with three times a week. Actually， we are getting back to some of our original ideals these days.
Because what we wanted to do was create an environment where not only were the people talented--and I think that is very important， so I can rely on your competence and your industry to do your part of the job， so we can work together as a team， so I can trust you. You will do what you say you are going to do--but also I like you personally. So when you succeed， that will not annoy the hell out of me. In fact， because I have so much affection for you， when you succeed， I will say， "You know， isn't that great. Look what Bob did. Isn't that fabulous." I'll get as much joy--or almost as much joy--out of your achievements as my own.
This is a much healthier climate than unthinned intramural competition. That was the early goal. And I think， as we got larger， we lost sight of a lot of that. And if you look at now， as we are kind of in our aduthood， I mean， we had a little bit of a rough time in our adolescence， you know， when we went through the billion-dollar mark in sales， and we will be around 2 billion this year. And as we came out of that adolescence， we forgot or lost track of our original ideals and objectives， which is wanting to create an environment where we all enjoyed working， an environment of mutual respect and mutual affection. And this sounds a little bit cliche， but it is essential in our business. The size of the engineering project we take on cannot be managed by one person. Therefore， you have to have groups of people working， all together， and working well over long periods of time. If there is intramural competition， that is death.
DM: Where did this idealism， this sense of teamwork come from? Were there key people that you admired or ideas or role models?
LE: Just exactly the opposite. I worked in a couple of start-ups in Silicon Valley. And I was the vice president of R&D of a couple of companies in Silicon Valley， and I saw this constant strife amongst the different managers. I mean， they were constantly one‑upping one another and in competition with one another， as if our company was large enough to accomodate intramural competition， compared to the rest of the world.
I mean， there are all these people outside to compete with， what are we doing competing internally? But I guess it is human nature. I mean， sibling rivalry exists， so it is not surprising that this exists inside of companies， and we compete more， you know. And， again， I think the Japanese have dealt with this magnificently. This is long before I had much knowledge of Japan. But this just did not make a lot of sense to me.
So after working for two star-crossed Silicon Valley companies--you know， ill-fated， whatever you want to call them--and a couple of CEO's who I did not think were as capable as they should have been--after all， they both ran their companies out of business--I thought， well， I don't need leadership to do that. I can run a company out of business all by myself. So I thought， next time， if the company was going to go down， I was going to be out front. So we wanted to start a small business， wanted to start our own company. And we were looking around for ideas， this landmark. The first idea was to start a company， again， to create this environment where we would enjoy what we did and who we did it with. And this paper was serendipitous， because it turned out to be the blueprint， our product blueprint， and allowed us to take our organizational ideas and combine them with a product idea， and we were off and running.
DM: What role did the context of the times in which all of this took place play? Do you believe innovative thinking is similar pretty much in any situation? Was it just the intersection of the right time and the right place?
LE: That is an interesting question. I don't know how I can answer that question as far as I'm concerned. I think I always would have gone out and started my own business. But it might have been in construction. I know， as a kid， I wanted to be an architect. That's before I read The Fountainhead. I mean it is hard to find a profession that pays worse than architecture. Even school teachers make more money than architects--except folks like Richard Meyer. It is such a wonderful profession. I mean， the act of creation is one of the most profound act we can have as living beings. And I think men are disadvantaged; we cannot have children. So our creation has to be our art or our engineering.
I am not sure I always wanted to have my own company; I always wanted to work in a company where I would be able to build things. And in fact， as a child， once again， I lost track of myself， where I really wanted to be an architect as a kid. And then， for some reason， I got the impression that i was a scientist. And I think it was seeing yourself and seeing the world as it should be， rather than as it really is. So I started seeing myself as a scientist. Because， after all， science， the pursuit of knowledge， was nobler， somehow， than being a mere engineer， than building things.
But whether it is bridges or trestles or skyscrapers of 50 years ago or the information highway and computers of the 1980's and 1990's， you know， studying theoretical physics or theoretical mathematics--the pure pursuit of knowledge. That is what I thought I should be doing. And I tried to do that. And I really had no enthusiasm for it and no enthusiasm for school， even though I tried. I thought this is what I should be.
If I had only realized that I was an engineer and a builder by nature. Because if I needed information to build something， I was relentless. I could not stop thinking about a problem that had to be solved in order to build something. I was obsessive. I certainly was never obsessive in the pursuit of knowledge， just knowledge. I liked solving problems and I loved building things. So I was a lousy student， but a good builder.
DM: You have been portrayed as the quintessential Attila the Hun capitalist on the one hand; on the other hand， and more recently， exactly the opposite: an absolute idealist， a visionary of a multimedia future. What I would like to have you talk about is about ideas， great ideas， the challenge of innovation， the act of creation that you talk about， mixed with the necessities of business. I mean， you talk about ideas that were so compelling， that just had to be done， and yet there is the nitty-gritty business side of doing that. Has that been a source of frustration or part of the challenge? LE: Quite the contrary. I think making a profit enforces the discipline that allows you to be idealistic. And I would much rather see the schools in the hands of private enterprise than in the hands of the government， which does not have to make a profit， does not have to show results， and can just raise taxes. In fact， we have an Oracle Education Foundation， where we give money to schools and we give computers to schools. Yet we probably will develop our educational software for a profit， because we think it will cost us less money and we will get better software and we will be able to deliver it for less.
And the pursuit of profit forces you to do things efficiently and competitively. If you take that away， you lose that discipline， you lose that market-imposed discipline， and you get sometimes just horrific results， like our wonderful public school system. And look what has happened to it. On the other hand sometimes you get wonderful things. You get public television， which is fabulous. So， again， I do not want to paint this with too broad a brush. Not a simple question.
DM: But a very good answer. What do you think is going to be the most striking innovation in information technology in， say， the next quarter century?
LE: It will be in the area of education. I think that technology has a chance to really solve our public school system's biggest problem， which is the fact that kids just get very little individual attention. But you can put an electronic， digital teaching system in every kid's desk and you can drill the most disadvantaged student in the basics that they did not get in the home‑‑the basics of mathematics and language. And then， with that foundation， they can continue their education. With the absence of those basics， it will just frustrate them as they try to learn more advanced and more complicated subjects. As big a deal as that is， I think a bigger deal--and it is going to sound very strange--is home shopping. (Laughter)
How can I possibly say that? I can just see that taken out of context: "Larry Ellison thinks that home shopping is far more important than education." (Laughter)
LE: But， you know， those are always funny to read afterwards. Well， maybe not so funny. But what happens when a village in China can manufacture wonderful silk shirts and sell them directly to consumers in New York City， in northern Virginia， in London， Paris， you know， for $50 or $40? And you get this wonderful， interesting video. I don't know if you saw the movie Judo. It is a fabulous film. I guess the Chinese filmmaker， whose name escapes me， has won a variety of awards at every film festival around the world. And Judo， without going into the detail of the story， but the cinematography is just absolutely fabulous. It takes places in an old wooden， silk factory， where there are these huge bolts of white silk hanging from these weathered， wooden rods in this wooden building with this dirt floor. So all this monochromatic palette. And it drops into this vat‑‑ all you can see is this dark vat ‑‑ and they pull this white bolt of silk out， and it's crimson or purple or intense yellows. Visually incredible.
You combine this kind of visual feast with an explanation of the silkworms munching on mulberry leaves， and then in their cocoon， and the machines unravelling the cocoon， and how their silk gets woven， and the characteristics， the wonderful tensile strength of silk， you know. And it is an extraordinary material， in how it is carefully crafted and dyed into these wonderful shirts. So you get a great black shirt or a great gray shirt or white. And you start selling these for less than you can buy a cotton shirt in Macy's. What happens to the world economy? What happens to that village in China? What happens to the villages in Central Africa， who can take their creations and vend them in electronic bazaars all over the world? We have truly a global market. We talk about global markets; we do not now have a global market.
And people， creative， industrious people， will be able to get their products to market anywhere. And we should have a world that is vastly more wealthy because of commerce and because of diversity of culture and exchange of information. And it should truly be a golden age. And it is back to: It is the economy. You know， Clinton saying: It is the economy， stupid. I mean， the alternative answer to your question would be about information technology and health care and information technology education--and I would like to take a second and talk about that in a moment. But I think those are really not as important as information technology and commerce. Because improved commerce would create vast wealth which would allow us to be a much more humane society. It is much easier to be altruistic when you have means.
Wealth in China will beget a political revolution eventually. The rise of middle classes have always been the worst nightmare for totalitarian leaders. And disasters in the economy have created the worst possible politics， whether it is Germany in the thirties or any number of other examples we can cite historically. So I think that is going to be just an incredible change on a global scale.
I think then you go into what I said earlier about education. And suddenly， everyone can take a physics course; the most gifted students can learn at an accelerated rate， because of personal digital tutors sitting on their desk and broadband connections， high-speed connections to all of the information in the world in all of its different forms.
And， finally， there is the small issue of health care. And here， on the small issue of health care， as a baby boomer， you know . . . we must look like the Sword of Damocles suspended over the necks of the next generation， because they are going to have to care for us. And we have increasing expectations as to the quality of health care we are going to get in our senior years. And there are so many of us and relatively so few of them that it is all going to be enormously expensive. This enormously rich nation just is not rich enough to support us in the manner we would like to be supported in our dotage. I probably should not use that term.
So what is the alternative to health care? I do not like the term "health care." It is really an issue of care versus cures. Suddenly， again， technology rises to the rescue. The culmination of information technology， mapping the human genome， databases of human genomes and biotechnology will allow us to address diseases that have proved intractable to science for most of this century. Whether it is cancer or Alzheimer's or multiple sclerosis， for the first time we have a real chance of not care， but cures， for these diseases.
And our technology， both the information technology， combined with biotechnology， really will yield nothing short of miracles. And cures are infinitely more humane than care and economically much more efficient. And I think that is going to be one of the great outcomes of this next 10 years. I would say this wonderful health care and this wonderful education， again， will--to disperse it throughout the world and make it available to everybody， to give everyone access--which， really， the Clinton's health care plan is about; it is not about health care at all; it is about access to health care--you need wealth. And the more wealth， the better. And the stronger the economy is， the more we can address the needs not only of the disadvantaged in our country， but， you know--I mean， the poor in our country are envied by the poor， by the middle-class even， of other countries.
And I don't mean to make light of their plight at all. But poverty exists outside the United States. And it would be nice if the wealth became so great on this planet we could address the poverty. You know， poverty not just north of the Rio Grande and south of the 49th， but around the world. And I think it will be possible. And， again， I think this technology will help create that wealth. And I think that is， again， the single most important thing.
DM: It almost seems like the problem solving we are hearing about and the way business in information technology is being done is very holistic--integrating very different disciplines to make it work. That's what it sounds like I have here.
LE: Yes. Again， I completely agree with that. Our two greatest sciences of this decade and probably in the last decade--information technology and biotechnology--are really now conspiring together to create miracles. And again， if life is a miracle， then I think that we can legitimately call these miracles. Because these are preservers of life. And I believe life is the only miracle.
DM: The last question before I ask you if there is anything you would like to talk about off the record: Is there any advice that you have for those following in your footsteps?
LE: Oh， that's interesting， because I'm going to talk to. . . I've thought about this， and I'm not sure exactly the precision of your question， but I think， for the first time， people who have decided to go into the sciences and mathematics and engineering， again， have a chance to contribute more to society's changes and society's improvements than the people who decided to go into leadership positions， let's say， in politics. And， for better or for worse， most of the people we have in Congress are trained as attorneys. And I'm just not going to render a value judgment on that. (Laughter)
But suddenly scientists and engineers are going to find themselves in the midst of the social revolution that can make the world vastly better. So I am envious. I am envious of the kids that are graduating from school right now， because they are right at the beginning of this revolution. And they will see these dramatic changes as we go to a true global market， as kids all over the world get individual attention in education， and we cure these horrible diseases of aging， which make our golden years not golden at all. Maybe I will refer to them as our lead years. And， again， I would just encourage that the brightest minds in our country and other countries to get involved in the act of creation， the act of creation of products， the act of the creation of art， in buildings， in ideas. So， again， as I say， sons and daughters who are going into architecture and engineering have my enduring respect and envy.
DM: Well， is there anything else you would like to talk about on the record or， alternately， anything that you would like to talk about off the record? Maybe you could talk a bit about heroes.
LE: You know， in Rome if they did not like somebody， they threw them to the lions in the coliseum. Today we have the media. The media feels it's their job to make sure they destroy anyone who gets larger than life. We have become egalitarian to the point that we do not like heroes. We have lost interest in heroes. Too many people go through life wanting to make certain that no one is better than they are， and look to the media to make sure anyone who is getting too big for their britches is torn down to size. So no one is taller than William Penn in Philadelphia， no one gets too big.
As a kid， I had tons of heroes. And it was great. Whether they were athletic heroes， like Sandy Koufax and Mickey Mantle or they were military heroes like Doug MacArthur， or they were the man who did nothing less than save Western civilization， Winston Spencer Churchill， who stood alone. And I retain these heroes to this day. And if you look at Churchill when he was alone and ridiculed by his own party， who stood alone， who， again， ignored conventional wisdom and had the courage and inspiration. And， again， I go back to the way you do something great; of course， Churchill's greatness was nothing less than saving Western civilization. And I think I can make a case that he did just that. He stood alone. George Bernard Shaw said everyone knew when England got into really serious trouble， they would go on bended knee and beg Winston Churchill to take over. Which is exactly what they did. Just in time. He did not succumb to conventional wisdom; he maintained his beliefs throughout his life， regardless of the fashion of the time. And the courage it took to be such an individual， to stand alone， and the great benefit all of us received because of his intellectual integrity and courage. That is so--at least for me--that is so inspirational.
Doug MacArthur， when he left the Philippines in a P.T. boat and made it down to Australia to take over the Army， the defense， trying to slow down the Japanese in World War II. . . and he had retired; he was in his mid-sixties. He was recalled by Roosevelt in a desperate situation， not unlike Churchill， who was recalled by his country in a desperate situation. And he all these young men around him， all his young staff officers around him， questioning his judgment， his tactics and strategies in fighting the Japanese. And MacArthur had almost no casualties. It was very interesting. You can look at MacArthur， and MacArthur lost less people in the entire war against Japan than Mark Clark lost during his invasion of Italy. So he was very economical with his troops. And his brilliance was so great. And it is not widely recognized， his brilliance was so great. Not only did he utterly demoralize the Japanese by bypassing their strong points， he saved American lives and Japanese lives as a result.
And， again， his staff kept criticizing his strategy， at least for the first five or six battles. Then they finally just said， "Okay， General， what do you want us to do? Just tell us." And， again， these inspirational heroes made me believe that anything is possible--that great things are possible.
DM: What are the upcoming great causes?
LE: Every generation has to find its own cause. I know that in the sixties we embraced， amongst other things， civil rights. The great upcoming causes? I hate to be repetitious， but right now we are so concerned about spreading democratic institutions throughout the world. And， again， I go back to， "It's the economy， stupid." If you can improve the wealth in China， if you can increase the wealth in China--and what is going on in southern China right now is nothing less than a revolution， with much greater impact than the Cultural Revolution. And it will forever change that country. And China is so large; people do not realize the Chinese economy， I think， is $2.4 trillion and the Japanese economy is $2.6 million. China is about to become the second largest economy in the world. And it is growing in double digits， I think. It is just an absolutely incredible rate. They certainly have not had a political democratic revolution in China yet. But it is certain to happen. And the economic revolution that precedes it will do more to end human suffering than democratic revolution that succeeds it ever will.
And， again， it is not very popular to think that commerce is more important than politics， but it is. It is not very popular to think that Ford Motor Company did more to help humanity than the Ford Foundation ever did， but it did.
And I really think what is going to change the world will be this great global economy， this great commercial revolution， the spread of technology all over the planet， this incredible increase of wealth that will just allow education for everybody， health care for everybody， better communications for everybody， you know， more comfortable lives， more interesting and diverse lives for everybody.
qq.com