1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP CHRISTOPHER B. HOCKETT (SBN 121539) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 chris.hockett@bingham.com geoff.howard@bingham.com zachary.alinder@bingham.com bree.hann@bingham.com DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JEFFREY S. ROSS (SBN 138172) 500 Oracle Parkway M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: (650) 506-4846 Facsimile: (650) 506-7114 dorian.daley@oracle.com jeff.ross@oracle.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation, and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, v. Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: (1) VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT; (2) VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT; (3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; (4) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;

SAP AG, a German corporation, SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, TOMORROWNOW, INC., a Texas corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(5) UNFAIR COMPETITION; (6) CONVERSION; (7) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS; (8) UNJUST ENRICHMENT / RESTITUTION; (9) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; (10) AIDING AND ABETTING; AND (11) AN ACCOUNTING. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc. (“Oracle USA”), and Oracle International Corporation (“OIC”) (together “Oracle” or “Plaintiffs”) for their Complaint against Defendants SAP AG (“SAP AG”), SAP America, Inc. (“SAP America”), TomorrowNow, Inc. (“SAP TN”), and Does 1 through 50 (collectively referred to as “SAP” or “Defendants”), allege as follows based on their personal knowledge as for themselves, and on information and belief as to the acts of others: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case is about corporate theft on a grand scale, committed by the

largest German software company – a conglomerate known as SAP. Oracle is a leading developer of database and applications software, and SAP is Oracle’s largest enterprise applications software competitor. 2. Oracle brings this lawsuit after discovering that SAP is engaged in

systematic, illegal access to – and taking from – Oracle’s computerized customer support systems. Through this scheme, SAP has stolen thousands of proprietary, copyrighted software products and other confidential materials that Oracle developed to service its own support customers. SAP gained repeated and unauthorized access, in many cases by use of pretextual customer log-in credentials, to Oracle’s proprietary, password-protected customer support website. From that website, SAP has copied and swept thousands of Oracle software products and other proprietary and confidential materials onto its own servers. As a result, SAP has compiled an illegal library of Oracle’s copyrighted software code and other materials. This storehouse of stolen Oracle intellectual property enables SAP to offer cut rate support services to 1 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

customers who use Oracle software, and to attempt to lure them to SAP’s applications software platform and away from Oracle’s. Through this Complaint, Oracle seeks to stop SAP’s illegal intrusions and theft, to prevent SAP from using the materials it has illegally acquired to compete with Oracle, and to recover damages and attorneys’ fees. 3. In late November 2006, there occurred unusually heavy download activity

on Oracle’s password-protected customer support website for its PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards (“JDE”) product lines. That website, called Customer Connection, permits licensed Oracle customers with active support agreements to download a wide array of copyrighted, proprietary software programs and other support materials. Oracle has invested billions of dollars in research, development, and engineering to create these materials, which include program updates, software updates, bug fixes, patches, custom solutions, and instructional documents – all copyrighted by Oracle – across the entire PeopleSoft and JDE family of software products (the “Software and Support Materials”). Customers who have contracted for support with Oracle have log-in credentials to access Customer Connection and download Software and Support Materials. However, Oracle’s support contracts limit customers’ access and download rights to Software and Support Materials pertaining to the customers’ licensed products. Customers have no contractual right to download Software and Support Materials relating to software programs they have not licensed from Oracle, or for which the customers did not purchase support rights. 4. The Software and Support Materials are a subset of the technical support

services that Oracle makes available to its customers that have licensed Oracle software programs and purchased the right to receive technical support services related to them. The full suite of technical support services (also known as “support” or “maintenance”) generally includes three types of offerings that Oracle, like most other enterprise software vendors, makes available to its licensed customers: (i) telephone or email access to Oracle’s support technicians regarding the operation of Oracle’s software; (ii) software program code for the customers’ licensed software programs which adds new functionality or features to the software (generally referred to as “software updates”), or that addresses errors or “bugs” in the software program (generally referred to as “software patches”); and (iii) “knowledge management” articles that 2 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

help with problem solving and provide suggestions relating to the customer’s use of licensed software programs. Because of the complexity of enterprise software applications and the business environments in which they run, regular software updates and patches and knowledge management articles are critical components of a software maker’s support offering. For purposes of this case, Oracle’s claims against SAP only concern Oracle’s Software and Support Materials, and not Oracle’s provision of telephone or online assistance in response to customers’ support queries. 5. The access and download activity Oracle observed on its systems in late

November and December 2006 did not resemble the authorized, limited access to which its customers were entitled. Instead, SAP employees using the log-in credentials of Oracle customers with expired or soon-to-expire support rights had, in a matter of a few days or less, accessed and copied thousands of individual Software and Support Materials. For a significant number of these mass downloads, the users lacked any contractual right even to access, let alone copy, the Software and Support Materials. The downloads spanned every library in the Customer Connection support website. For example, using one customer’s credentials, SAP suddenly downloaded an average of over 1,800 items per day for four days straight (compared to that customer’s normal downloads averaging 20 per month). Other purported customers hit the Oracle site and harvested Software and Support Materials after they had cancelled all support with Oracle in favor of SAP TN. Moreover, these mass downloads captured Software and Support Materials that were clearly of no use to the “customers” in whose names they were taken. Indeed, the materials copied not only related to unlicensed products, but to entire Oracle product families that the customers had not licensed. 6. For example, in January 2007, a user on an SAP TN computer signed in as

Oracle customer Honeywell International, Inc., a Fortune 100 technology and manufacturing company, to access Oracle’s support system and copy literally thousands of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials in virtually every product library in every line of business. This copying went well beyond the products that Honeywell had licensed and to which it had authorized access. In other examples, users from SAP TN logged in using the credentials of recently 3 COMPLAINT

Across its entire library of Software and Support Materials in Customer Connection.com” and fake phone numbers such as “7777777777” and “123 456 7897.” Others used phony email addresses like “test@testyomama.. Employing these techniques. this user information did not match anything: it was fake. Texas. email address.000 unauthorized downloads of Software and Support Materials relating to hundreds of different software programs. In some cases. The Bryan. Oracle to date has identified more than 10. In many instances. 9. Rather. SAP employees used the log-in IDs of multiple customers. an SAP America branch office location and home of its wholly-owned subsidiary SAP TN. Oracle’s server logs have recorded access through this same IP address by computers labeled with SAP identifiers using SAP IP addresses.” In other cases. and downloaded Software and Support Materials even after the customer had dropped its support rights with Oracle. some users logged in with the user names of “xx” “ss” “User” and “NULL. For example. combined with phony user log-in information. Texas IP address used to access and download Oracle’s Software and Support Materials is connected directly to SAP’s computer network. 8. Indeed. This systematic theft of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials did not originate from any actual customer location. SAP users effectively swept much of the contents of Oracle’s system onto SAP’s servers. or 4 COMPLAINT . 7. These “customer users” supplied user information (such as user name. For example. one user name connected to an SAP IP address appears to have logged in using the credentials of seven different customers in a span of just 15 days – all from SAP computers in Bryan.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 departed customers. Texas. to gain access to Oracle’s system under false pretexts. and phone number) that did not match the customer at all. Oracle has found many examples of similar activity. like Metro Machine Corp. including the ones described above. SAP TN is a company that purports to provide technical support services on certain versions of Oracle’s PeopleSoft and JDE software programs. All of these customers whose IDs SAP appropriated had one critical fact in common: they were. SAP blended log-in information from multiple customers with fake information. the access originated from an internet protocol (IP) address in Bryan.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 were just about to become. Not by coincidence. “Oracle Corp. new customers of SAP TN – SAP AG’s and SAP America’s software support subsidiary whose sole purpose is to compete with Oracle. through SAP America.” 13.” Another mused. SAP’s own statements confirmed it. 1 ranked SAP.D. called Project Fusion. Inc. a software company acquired by PeopleSoft. combining features from the PeopleSoft and JDE1 software and its CEO Larry Ellison has been vocal about his intentions to take market share away from SAP. Oracle said it has thousands of developers building the new application suite. SAP AG acquired SAP TN. developers. As explained below. and support technicians. Oracle officially became a player on SAP’s turf. and support. * * In the world of enterprise software applications. SAP AG spokesman Bill Wohl vowed that SAP AG would use SAP TN to “keep the pressure on 1 “JDE” refers to J. an independent software support company founded by former PeopleSoft software engineers. revenue comes from three basic activities: (a) license of the underlying software. aimed at taking market share from No. “After the acquisition of PeopleSoft earlier this year. consulting. Oracle had previously announced that in January 2005 it would complete its acquisition of PeopleSoft. * 11. and (c) support contracts to keep the software updated and upgraded. is developing a ‘super set’ of applications. copyrighted Software and Support Materials. One industry analyst stated that. Edwards World Solutions. In January 2005. SAP AG’s hasty acquisition of SAP TN was widely perceived as a response to the new competitive threat from Oracle. As a result of this illegal activity. in 2003. increasing Oracle’s potency as a competitor to SAP AG for enterprise applications software. SAP apparently has now warehoused an extensive library of Oracle’s proprietary. 12. (b) consulting relating to the implementation and operation of the software. Industry observers noted this fundamental shift in the competitive landscape. this theft appears to be an essential – and illegal – part of SAP’s competitive strategy against Oracle. 10. 5 COMPLAINT .

by way of example. industry observers deemed the “Safe Passage” program “measurably more aggressive. with indications that this number may go significantly higher if traced further back in time. SAP stole much of the Software and Support Materials directly from Oracle. committed to throw “a lot of additional resources” behind SAP TN (which consisted of only 37 employees in total). or even come close to it.” In connection with the SAP TN acquisition. or the day of. These facts raised questions about how SAP could offer the type of comprehensive technical support services on Oracle programs that customers of enterprise applications typically require. 14. SAP TN did not appear to have the development capability to meet the support commitments advertised in the “Safe Passage” brochures at any price. SAP advertised this strategy as its “Safe Passage” program. crowed “There’s nothing that I love more than to win. Bill McDermott. explicitly designed to transition customers away from Oracle products and onto the SAP software platform.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Oracle” by exploiting legacy PeopleSoft customers’ perceived unease about Oracle’s commitment to support legacy PeopleSoft software.000 illicit downloads from Customer Connection between September 2006 and January 2007. Bill McDermott. the 6 COMPLAINT SAP’s unlawful copying and theft includes. a program aimed at siphoning off valuable software maintenance revenue from Oracle and persuading Oracle customers to switch software products [to SAP]. the . 15. SAP TN’s services “form[ed] the basis of [SAP AG’s] Safe Passage initiative. much less the 50% discount promoted by SAP. Publicly. following: · More than 10. As reported in industry publications. · A systematic pattern of “sweeping” Oracle’s Customer Connection support website from SAP TN servers just days before.” But win at what cost? SAP appears to have taken a short cut to equip itself to support Oracle’s software programs at half Oracle’s price. It certainly did not match Oracle’s investment in development resources. Nevertheless. Indeed.” Although SAP America President and CEO.” and a sign that “SAP has taken the gloves off. SAP appeared to focus more on growing the SAP TN sales force rather than investing in or expanding SAP TN’s tiny development team. SAP America’s CEO.

· The improper access to. · Accessing and downloading Software and Support Materials across multiple product lines in multiple lines of business available on the Customer Connection support website. clearly-marked internal proprietary Oracle support documents not available even to licensed.” SAP has been engaged in a systematic program of unfair. These illegal business practices threaten to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. and deceptive business practices that continues to this day.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. In short. Through its illegitimate and illegal business practices. expiration of a new SAP TN customer’s support contract with Oracle. and its customers. SAP has taken Oracle’s Software and Support Materials and apparently used them to insinuate itself into Oracle’s customer base. and to attempt to convert these customers to SAP software applications. authorized customers or through normal access to Oracle’s Customer Connection system. unlawful. or in some cases on behalf of former Oracle customers with no access rights to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials whatsoever. · On multiple occasions. its many employees. wholesale copying of vast libraries of available Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s Customer Connection support website through downloads too rapid to permit any real-time use of the downloaded Software and Support Material. and theft of. Oracle has no adequate remedy at law for the harm threatened and caused by these acts. Oracle also has concerns that SAP may have enhanced or improved its own software applications offerings using information gleaned from Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. 7 COMPLAINT . to try to “keep the pressure on Oracle. in the purported name of customers that had never licensed those products and had no legal access to them. the indiscriminate.

State of California. with its principal place of business in Redwood City. SAP America is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of SAP AG is a German corporation with its principal place of business in business in Newtown Square. Inc. with its only place of business in Redwood City. 19. 21. County of San Mateo. The corporate relationship of the three named defendants is set forth in the chart below. Oracle Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Redwood City. Walldorf. 18. Pennsylvania. Directly and through its subsidiaries. (“PeopleSoft”) and JDE. 8 COMPLAINT .. County of San Mateo. State of California. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are the licensees of the copyrights at issue in this action. THE PARTIES 17. Texas. 23. 22.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. SAP TN is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Bryan. Germany. County of San Mateo. 20. Oracle USA is the successor to PeopleSoft USA. Oracle USA develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services. State of California. OIC is a California corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. Oracle Corporation develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services around the world. SAP America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG. SAP TN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP America. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are authorized to license to end users the copyrighted computer software programs and other works at issue in this action. OIC is the owner of the copyrights at issue in this action. Oracle USA is a Colorado corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California.

affiliate. At all material times. 26.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24. service.S. alter ego. whether individual. servant. negotiates certain software-related contracts directly with Oracle that contain provisions by which SAP AG consents to the jurisdiction of California courts and the application of California law. each of the Defendants. SAP America and SAP TN advertise. specifically in this judicial district. parent. Similarly. SAP AG negotiates and enters into software license and support agreements directly within the United States and. SAP AG (German Parent Corporation) SAP America (Wholly-owned U. SAP America had both the right and authority to control the actions of SAP TN. employee. and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. through its 100% ownership of SAP TN. At all material times. including Does 1 through 50. subsidiary. and specifically this judicial district. Subsidiary) SAP TN (Wholly-owned U. Oracle will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. sell. promote. and finances the sales and promotional activities of both SAP America and SAP TN throughout the United States and in California. or otherwise. partnership. Defendants all are doing business in and/or have directed their activities at California. SAP AG had both the right and the authority to control the actions of both corporations. or co-conspirator of the others. and support customers in California and in this judicial district. through its 100% ownership of both SAP America and SAP TN. California. 25. at all material times. was the agent. SAP AG also holds an annual meeting of its Board of Directors in Palo Alto. inclusive. representative. unincorporated association. joint venturer. partner. license. 27.S. Subsidiary) Oracle is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50. had full knowledge of and gave substantial 9 COMPLAINT . By way of example only. corporation.

and the Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the parties as alleged throughout this Complaint. et seq. partnership.C.C. representation. JURISDICTION 28. 18 U.C. § 1030(g) and 28 U. § 1367 because these claims are so related to Oracle’s claims under federal law that they form part of the same case or controversy and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.D. because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in this district. § 1391.S.S. § 1331.C. Assignment is proper in this division under Civil L. This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims under 28 U. 17 U. §§ 1030 et seq. and each is legally responsible for the acts and omissions of the others. §§ 101. and the Court will have subjectmatter jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U. Venue in this district is appropriate.S. Oracle’s Software and Support Materials 32. In addition. IV. VI. Oracle is the world’s largest enterprise software company. employment.. and this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 18 U.R. 3-2 (c) and (d). each was acting within the scope of such agency. because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in San Mateo County and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in San Mateo County. a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district. joint venture.. VENUE 30. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. when the relevant copyright registrations issue. § 1338.C.S. service. Oracle’s first cause of action arises under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 assistance to the alleged activities.C.S. Oracle will seek to amend this Complaint to add claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.S. or conspiracy. V. 29. pursuant to 28 U.C.S. affiliation. and the first to receive J. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 31. III. and in doing the things alleged. Power & Associates’ global certification for outstanding service and support based 10 COMPLAINT .

Oracle’s license agreements with its customers may vary according to the products licensed. use. Oracle does not sell ownership rights to its software or related support products to its customers. middleware. “software” specifically includes the update products made available to customers as part of the support contracts that customers purchased from Oracle. its object and source code. Oracle also restricts access to the Customer Connection technical support website. 34. As is typical in the enterprise software industry. 35. the Materials may not be used to provide services for or to third 11 COMPLAINT . and applications software programs. and use of. 33. any portion of the software not expressly licensed and paid for by the licensee. manufactures. through the terms of use: You agree that access to Customer Connection…will be granted only to your designated Oracle technical support contacts and that the Materials [on the support website] may be used solely in support of your authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which you hold a supported license from Oracle. but all of the relevant license agreements for what is now Oracle software set comparable rules for access to. those rules prohibit access to. or lease of the software to third parties. and typically do. Unless specifically provided in your licensing or distribution agreement with Oracle. distributes. without limitation. licensed customers can. rent. Oracle’s license agreements define Oracle’s confidential information to include. and services software designed to help its customers manage and grow their business operations. or patches to those software programs the customers have expressly licensed from Oracle and have the right to use. In addition. and any sublicense. Oracle’s software. including because the customers originally contracted with companies later acquired by Oracle. markets.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 on measuring customer satisfaction worldwide. Oracle’s software offerings include database. As defined in one illustrative license agreement. Oracle develops. and any associated documentation or service offerings. disclosure. or use of. bug fixes. 36. that software. Instead. purchase some set of technical support services that include the right to obtain upgraded products such as updates. Among other things. Oracle’s customers purchase licenses that grant them limited rights to use specific Oracle software programs with Oracle retaining all intellectual property rights in these works.

If you do not have a confidentiality agreement in effect with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parties and may not be shared with or accessed by third parties. The terms of use explicitly describe the confidential nature of the material on Customer Connection: “the information contained in the Materials [on Customer Connection] is the confidential proprietary information of Oracle. 37.” 39. disclose. The Legal Download Agreement also puts the user on notice as to the confidential. a user must also specifically agree to additional terms of use and restrictions specified in Oracle’s Legal Download Agreement: Your username and password are provided to you for your sole use in accessing this Server and are confidential information subject to your existing confidentiality agreement with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. transmit. the user agrees to accept and comply with these Special Terms of Use. The Special Terms of Use clearly provide that: “Use of such CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY information and materials for any other purpose is strictly prohibited. The Special Terms of Use provide that access is only permitted via the user’s “personal username and password” and that all materials on the secured website are confidential and proprietary. other than to support your authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which you hold a supported license from Oracle…. or otherwise copy in any form or by any means the information contained in the Materials for any purpose. you are hereby notified that your username and password are confidential information and may only be distributed to persons within your organization who have a legitimate business purpose for accessing the materials contained on this server in furtherance of your relationship with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. You may not use. proprietary and copyrighted nature of the Software and Support Materials available for download: Any software that is made available to download from this server (“Software”) is the copyrighted work of Oracle / PeopleSoft / 12 COMPLAINT . By using the secured website. reproduce. Prior to downloading Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s support websites. 40. Access to the secured areas of Customer Connection is also governed by Special Terms of Use.” (emphasis supplied) 38.

software action requests. such as a Software Application Request (“SAR”) through the SAR Search Web Application. provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear. 42.” To download a SAR. 13 COMPLAINT . WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING. The terms further provide that the “software is part of the Licensed Products under the License Agreement” and “is made available for downloading solely for use by licensed end users according to the License Agreement. The Legal Download Agreement further restricts use of documents downloaded from the website: Permission to use Documents (such as white papers. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited. All Software is confidential information of Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards and its use and distribution is governed by the terms of the software license agreement that is in effect between you and Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards (“License Agreement”). These terms notify the user that the software available to download from Oracle is Oracle’s copyrighted material. the user must click on a button indicating that it accepts these terms. The Software is made available for downloading solely for use by licensed end users according to the License Agreement and any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JDEdwards and/or its affiliates or suppliers. and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. press releases. 41. In addition. (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited. agree to additional legal restrictions. datasheets and FAQs) from this server (“Server”) is granted. product or upgrade announcements. COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. The Software is part of the Licensed Products under the License Agreement and may only be downloaded if a valid License Agreement is in place between you and Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. users accessing specific materials.

broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. how the nearly 50. despite not owning any of the software code for. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. SAP AG’s top executives publicly downplayed the threat that a combined Oracle and PeopleSoft entity would pose to its competitive position for business software applications. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. 14 COMPLAINT .000 people joining by Webcast and phone. One way was to hit at Oracle’s customer base – and potentially increase its own – by acquiring and bankrolling a company that claimed the ability to compete with Oracle support and maintenance services on Oracle’s own software products. and geographic and product scope. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. 46. 45. 2005. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. these same products. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle offered.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. As SAP AG reeled. On January 7. Oracle completed its acquisition of PeopleSoft to emerge as the second-largest provider of business software applications in the world and the first to rival SAP AG in market share.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23. testified on June 23. at its headquarters with more than 48. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. 44. but now Oracle offered a deeper.” After the merger. Richard Knowles. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. or intellectual property rights to. size.000 business applications software customers throughout the world.

As described in a glossy spread in a leading industry publication. As one industry observer put it. SAP TN would eventually lose its customer base.” D. JDE. Texas and founded by former PeopleSoft employees. often outdated. however.” 49. As one industry journalist explained. In December 2004. SAP TN claimed that it could cut customer maintenance and support bills in half and give customers a reprieve from software upgrade cycles by allowing customers to remain on older. because to the extent SAP AG successfully undermined Oracle by having its customers move from Oracle’s software to SAP AG’s software. To retain full control over every detail of its scheme to lure away customers from Oracle. just weeks before Oracle would close the PeopleSoft acquisition. headquartered in Bryan. Acquiring SAP TN was not a mere investment by SAP AG. but – with the Oracle/PeopleSoft 15 COMPLAINT . SAP Responds To Oracle Competition With Its “Safe Passage” Scheme 48.” Mackey made Nelson an offer “he couldn’t refuse. versions of PeopleSoft or JDE software rather than moving to later versions by implementing upgrades that the customers would receive by paying for support services from the software vendors themselves. but a calculated competitive move. in December 2004. by providing low-cost maintenance and support services to PeopleSoft and JDE customers running assorted versions of these software programs. It claimed to compete with PeopleSoft. So SAP AG had to make the price right. Oracle.” Aligning with SAP AG made little sense for SAP TN. SAP TN 47. SAP AG proposed to buy SAP TN outright and make it a wholly-owned – and wholly-beholden – subsidiary. SAP AG bought “another arrow in its quiver to hunt after Oracle’s customers. SAP TN promised to offer such cheap support “because it is not investing millions of dollars in research and development for future versions of the software. SAP TN was a small software services company. SAP TN president Andrew Nelson got “the magic phone call” from Jim Mackey. and to use SAP TN to do it. SAP AG’s “front man for SAP AG’s mergers and acquisitions strategy. SAP AG has refused to disclose the terms of its SAP TN purchase. it instead focuses on simply keeping the software up and running for an annual fee. and later.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C.

In April 2005. in connection with converting Oracle customers to SAP support (via SAP TN). On January 19. publicly vowed to bankroll this effort to undermine Oracle by putting “a lot of additional resources into TomorrowNow. which in turn was part of SAP’s “ongoing strategy to compete with Oracle. SAP would aggressively campaign to migrate those customers to an SAP enterprise software platform. publicly indicating that SAP TN was authorized and intended to implement SAP AG’s goals. 2005. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann confirmed: “We worked with [SAP TN] to very quickly set up a comprehensive program for SAP customers running PeopleSoft and JD Edwards solutions. SAP AG’s CEO. The CEOs stated the proposition more bluntly. in barely a month.” The Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SAP Asia Pacific. ease integration with SAP NetWeaver(TM) and begin the process of innovating their businesses today. SAP TN’s new parent companies directed it to begin to implement a two-phase plan to increase SAP’s enterprise application market share. identified SAP TN as instrumental to the parent company’s “Safe Passage” program. at the SAP AG annual meeting. Andrew Nelson. 50.” And SAP TN certainly knew its role was to achieve SAP AG’s ends: as SAP TN’s CEO. SAP TN agreed to the deal and cast its lot with SAP AG. stated. We want them to be successful. SAP America CEO Bill McDermott claimed “The SAP Safe Passage offering gives companies an affordable way to protect their current investments. Henning Kagermann. 52. “We're owned by SAP. Bill McDermott. SAP would offer cut-rate pricing combined with the promise of essentially unlimited future support to former PeopleSoft and JDE support customers. Second. SAP AG’s top executives unveiled SAP AG’s acquisition of SAP TN as the centerpiece of its new “Safe Passage” scheme. Colin Sampson. As SAP AG Managing Director Alan Sedghi admitted.” 16 COMPLAINT . First.” A month later. to lure the support business over.” 51. SAP America’s CEO. admitted that the SAP TN acquisition was “an integral part” of SAP’s Safe Passage program.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 deal about to close – the “magic phone call” conveyed terms rich enough that. After the acquisition. SAP AG would try to use SAP TN as a means of “speeding-up” the migration of PeopleSoft and JDE users to SAP platforms.

Beginning in January 2005. It deployed its salespeople to contact potential customers and push them to switch to SAP TN’s services. SAP AG’s “second wave” included “an intensive customer recruitment campaign. offering significantly lower cost maintenance alternatives to Oracle customers running PSFT/JDE solutions” through 70. the SAP AG sales personnel would pressure the customers to drop Oracle products outright in favor of SAP AG’s suite. To implement Phase Two of its plan (luring Oracle customers to the SAP enterprise software platform).” 54. officially “bundled” with SAP AG enterprise software as a centerpiece of the Safe Passage program.” SAP TN’s website confirms its acceptance and undertaking of the SAP-controlled Safe Passage program: “TomorrowNow can also provide our support services as part of the SAP Safe Passage Program. SAP implemented Phase One immediately. 55. quality support from Oracle. These lower cost alternatives advertised by SAP AG were to come directly through SAP TN. SAP AG did not simply sit back and leave the recruiting of potential Safe Passage customers to SAP TN’s sales force. JD Edwards.” (emphasis supplied) SAP America’s website promises that “SAP and TomorrowNow can cut your maintenance costs by as much as 50% through 2015. If customers declined to convert to SAP TN. To give teeth to these commingled sales efforts.000 direct mail solicitations to Oracle customers.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53. As reflected on SAP AG’s website: “SAP offers Safe Passage for PeopleSoft. it took a hands-on approach. SAP sales representatives unleashed a torrent of marketing materials designed to exacerbate and leverage perceived.” and elsewhere says that “Safe Passage maintenance and support are delivered worldwide through TomorrowNow. SAP AG offered maintenance support through SAP TN. Instead. albeit unfounded. and Siebel customers – If Oracle’s options have you worried. SAP provides solutions. consider another option: SAP. An April 2005 SAP AG press release apparently aimed to increase perceived doubt among Oracle customers by announcing a “second wave” of “Safe Passage. technology and maintenance services.” To exploit the fear it intended to create. PeopleSoft and JDE customer uncertainty about the prospects for long-term. 17 COMPLAINT .

In a July 2006 earnings call. maintenance services. Léo Apotheker.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 56. As reported on Forbes. . By March 2006. At the same time. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well. SAP grew more desperate. Bill McDermott. . However. including through its September 12.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price. In October 2005. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product offerings. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. By July 2006. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations. confirmed that SAP intended to use the Siebel acquisition as another opportunity to lure Oracle customers to SAP stating that SAP is “not distracted by the challenges of integrating multiple code bases. 58.” 57.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems. curiously. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. “SAP AG plans to announce . and more aggressive. Henning Kagermann. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. SAP AG’s CEO.” How SAP could offer instantaneous.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT . including apparently instantaneous round the clock support from SAP TN – whose engineers at that time presumably had spent virtually no time to develop Siebel support software products. SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. SAP America President and CEO. companies and corporate cultures. SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its first year. technology.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition. round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery.

The SAP Solution: Stolen Passage 1. A Deal Too Good To Be True 59. 24x7x365” on software programs for which it had no intellectual property rights.” “fixes for serious issues. SAP continued to offer this comprehensive support to hundreds of customers at the “cut rate” of 50 cents on the dollar. simply did not add up. and the logic. To stave off the mounting competitive threat from Oracle. It was not clear how SAP TN could offer. 61. F. “30-minute response time.” “full upgrade script support. by comparison. The economics. as it did on its website and its other materials. bug fixes. could actually develop and offer the hundreds of regulatory updates. even after having expanded its ranks to 150 employees. and in conjunction with opening new SAP TN offices around the world. most remarkably. Oracle asks each customer searching for a solution on Oracle’s Customer Connection website to click on a button after each search to indicate whether or not a particular search result helped solve the 19 COMPLAINT . To compound the puzzle. 62. Oracle. Apotheker claimed that SAP now had “a global network of [SAP TN] capabilities” – enough to “gain[] significant traction. some industry analysts wondered whether a small company like SAP TN. maintains a development force of more than 15.000 software and support engineers to create and help implement the code fixes. patches. optimally functioning Oracle software. “customized ongoing tax and regulatory updates. and other labor-intensive support items that a customer would need to maintain useful. SAP unlawfully accessed and copied Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. 60. patches. Oracle Finds A Suspicious Pattern To analyze and improve on its industry leading support services. Oracle has now solved this puzzle.” and. Although SAP put a brave face on its ability to compete with the increasingly potent Oracle applications offerings. without infringing on Oracle’s intellectual property.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 customers.” By extending the Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. and purported to add full support for an entirely different product line – Siebel – with a wave of its hand. and updates that comprise the advanced support services required by Oracle’s licensed customers.” E.

including dozens. 64. In late 2006. continue search” option. employing the customer’s log-in credentials. Oracle noticed huge. over and over again. Oracle discovered a pattern. And. unexplained spikes in the number of customers on the online support website who had clicked the “No. Instead. Oracle soon discovered that many of these “customers” had taken massive quantities of Software and Support Materials beyond their license rights. authorized use of Customer Connection. If the customer selects the “No. In the course of this investigation. 65. would access Oracle’s system and download large quantities of Software and Support Materials.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 customer’s problem. to take a copy of them all. these click patterns showed that the users had employed an automated process to move with lightning speed through the entire library of Software and Support Materials on the Customer Connection website. apparently. Oracle also discovered that the downloaded Software and Support Materials included internal documents not available even to licensed customers and not available through normal. in the month before a customer’s Oracle support expired. a user purporting to be that customer. with the aim of continually improving the support system for customers. Frequently. 2. 20 COMPLAINT . the support system responds by offering the customer further options. and Oracle discovered that each response – each answer by users pretending to be the customer – occurred in a matter of seconds or less. continue search” option. These clicks numbered in the thousands for several customers. hundreds. Oracle Discovers The SAP Link Oracle embarked on a time-consuming and costly investigation to assess the damage done to its customer response database and fully understand the sources of the unauthorized downloads. Indeed. Oracle regularly compiles this data to assess whether its system helped customers resolve their support issues. or thousands of products beyond the scope of the specific customer’s licensed products and permitted access. these clicks could not reflect real responses from any human customers actually reading the solutions they had accessed. 63. Some of these apparent customer users even downloaded materials after their contractual support rights had expired. Given the extreme speed at which the activity occurred.

SAP TN appears to have downloaded virtually every file. to mask from Oracle their true identity and the fact of their improper access to the Software and Support Materials. 67. rather. the Customer Connection Terms of Use. in every library that it could find. and taking from. http://hqitpc01. The wholesale nature of this unlawful access and downloading was extreme.com). 21 COMPLAINT . If the access and downloads had been legitimate. SAP TN’s Access Was Unauthorized SAP TN’s access to. Indeed. Oracle’s support servers have even received hits from URL addresses in the course of these unlawful downloads with SAP TN directly in the name (e. the customer or vendor would have called in right away to get its access reinstated. Several of these apparent customer users supplied misleading identification information as part of the log-on process to Oracle’s systems. Despite this subterfuge. which included false names and phone numbers. 68. The users presumably intended this misinformation. 3. Although it is now clear that the customers initially identified by Oracle as engaged in the illegal downloads are SAP TN customers. Oracle shut down access to that IP address. Oracle’s system violated the terms of the Oracle customers’ License Agreement. When Oracle first noticed that the unlawful access and downloads originated almost exclusively from one IP address in Bryan. 69. These terms included agreeing: · Not to access or use any portion of the Software. Oracle has traced the illegal download activity to computers using an SAP IP address. also linked to SAP. not expressly licensed and paid for by the Licensee. and the Legal Download Agreement. Instead. the unlawful download activity observed by Oracle and described here originates directly from SAP’s computer networks.g. those customers do not directly appear to have engaged in the download activity. including updates. for many of these downloads. sprouted up almost immediately and the unlawful access and downloading resumed. a new IP address. Texas.tomorrownow. Oracle noticed that SAP TN did not even bother to change the false user information from customer to customer when it logged in.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 66.

(4) Mel Gadd.D. (2) Bob Geib.P. appear to have applied their familiarity with the Customer Connection website to directly participate in and perfect the illegal 22 COMPLAINT . Of SAP TN’s tenmember management team. · That the Materials on the support website are confidential information subject to existing confidentiality agreements. or any portion thereof. International Sales. · That the customer username and password may only be distributed to persons in the customer’s organization who have a legitimate business purpose for accessing the materials contained on the support server in furtherance of the customer’s relationship with Oracle. V. who is reflected as the person performing many of the downloads at issue. former PeopleSoft employees who work for SAP. distribute. such as Wade Walden. or lease the Software or Documentation. including: (1) Andrew Nelson. for third party use. Global J. formerly worked at PeopleSoft and JDE. disclose. (3) Laura Sweetman.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 70. rent. and (6) Shelley Nelson. sublicense. (5) Nigel Pullan. SAP TN’s management. · Not to use the Materials on the support website except in support of the customer’s authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which the customer holds a supported license from Oracle. or third party training. JDE. · Not to access the customer support system if it is not the customer’s authorized and designated Oracle technical support contact. V. Global PeopleSoft Support. V. · Not to directly or indirectly. relicense. six list prior employment experience with PeopleSoft.P. or Oracle. Quality. North American Sales. President and CEO.P. use. In addition. Edwards Support.P. and a significant number of its employees. V. SAP TN has intimate familiarity with these important restrictions and conditions relating to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. · That the customer username and password are for the customer’s sole use in accessing this support server.P. V.

Oracle has learned that SAP TN accessed and downloaded the Software and Support Materials when it either had no legitimate basis to access Oracle’s restricted website. proprietary. 72. Indeed. Further. the scope of the downloaded Software and Support Materials – across multiple libraries in multiple lines of business – for customers that had no license to take. SAP TN conducted these high-tech raids as SAP AG’s agent and instrumentality and as the cornerstone strategy of SAP AG’s highly-publicized Safe Passage program. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. 73. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers. or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. to the extent SAP TN had any legitimate basis to access Oracle’s site as a contract consultant for a customer with current licensed support rights. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT . 71. In short. those products. Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements with its customers. and the confidential. SAP TN did so despite its knowledge that it had no legal right or legitimate purpose to access Oracle’s system at all after the customer’s support license lapsed. The rate that SAP TN accessed these materials – at intervals of just seconds or less – shows that no one used or reviewed those materials in real time. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. Further. SAP TN committed to abide by the same license obligations and usage terms and conditions described above applicable to licensed customers. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. the support website terms of use. Further.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 downloading scheme. or need for. SAP TN did not innocently download the Software and Support Materials – the obvious purpose was to copy them from Oracle’s Customer Connection support website and store them on SAP TN’s servers for its use in marketing and providing support services to Oracle customers.

National Manufacturing. OCE Technologies. Oracle’s Customer Connection website is too pervasive. display. including without limitation. and therefore committed its theft knowingly and intentionally. Oracle has uncovered unlicensed downloads linked to SAP TN on behalf of numerous customers. SPX Corporation.C. Bear. and Yazaki North America.S. Interbrew UK. The Software and Support Materials that SAP TN downloaded from Oracle’s systems also included numerous works that are protected under the Federal Copyright Laws. Stora Enso. §§ 101 et seq.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 support only for products that a company has licensed. Border Foods. Berri Limited. Caterpillar Elphinstone. and taking from. Accordingly. S. Helzberg Diamonds. B. 4. SAP TN’s acts violated Oracle’s exclusive rights to use.. Mortice Kern Systems.C. 17 U.A. create derivative works. Laird Plastics. By way of example 24 COMPLAINT .S. Specific Examples Of SAP TN’s Unlawful Customer Downloads SAP TN’s improper access to. Stearns & Co. VSM Group AB. 75. Grupo Costamex. Smithfield Foods.. § 506. Inc.V.. publish. Texas Association of School Boards. Merck & Co. SAP TN reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions on Oracle’s support website before proceeding. to comprehensively detail here. offer for sale. NGC Management Limited. With literally thousands of software programs available for licensing. § 501 and also willful and intentional copyright infringement under 17 U.. AbitibiConsolidated. 74. Distribution & Auto Service. Oracle does not typically obtain copyright registrations on all programs or related Software and Support Materials as it generally does not find itself in the position of having to enforce its copyrights through litigation to stop conduct constituting an intentional infringement of Oracle’s rights. reproduce. Fuelserv Limited..S. Inc. Oracle will amend its Complaint to add further copyright allegations and causes of action when the registrations for these copyrights issue from the United States Copyright Office.C. Such acts constitute copyright infringement under 17 U. and impose strict confidentiality requirements.. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s protected intellectual property and the integrity of its computer systems. and covers too many individual violations. Abbott Laboratories. Ronis. Metro Machine Corp.. and distribute these works. Herbert Waldman. Honeywell International.

000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license.000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all. These downloads spanned virtually every library in every line of business – far beyond the products to which Honeywell had authorized access as an Oracle customer. Inc. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. But. Over 2. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. 25 COMPLAINT . users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP TN’s website as a client. Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. Honeywell. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. Merck & Company. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. In the three months prior to that date.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007. 77. one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software. Merck. after switching to SAP TN. a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the nature and extent of SAP’s theft. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. 76. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN. (“Merck”). More than 5. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. Then. 2007.

including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. 78.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. false user names) and downloaded over 12. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. Homebuilder Management. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose. “TNL-02.V. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. authorization. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. Texas.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx.” This systematic sweep of products across numerous licensed and unlicensed Oracle product lines and libraries dramatically exceeded the access for which OCE (and SAP TN acting on its behalf) had any right or authority. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. 26 COMPLAINT . or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. authorization or other right to access and download the 5. “TN-DL03. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” “9999999999. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. Like the other companies. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. Canadian Payroll. OCE. in some cases.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. From December of 2006 to January of 2007.” In many cases.” Similar to the other customer examples. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Texas that belongs to SAP TN. OCE-Technologies B. These downloads included over 3.

between October and December 2006. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN. users logging into Oracle’s support system with Metro Machine’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. (“Metro Machine”) dropped all Oracle support effective on January 1. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. these users logged in using SPX credentials.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use). at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction. In addition. SAP TN. Not coincidentally. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. listed on its website.” Many of these SPX downloads. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT . Metro Machine. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8.” 80. Metro Machine Corp. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. In some cases.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than 800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. Then. like the others.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. 2007 and switched to SAP TN. G. “tn-wts01. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above. SPX. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December 10. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. These SPX downloads included over 1. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. For the nine month period prior to October 2006.700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle.

without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. 84. SAP has thereby caused significant damage to Oracle through its SAP TN subsidiary.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 download scheme. and with intent to defraud Oracle. 18 U. 18 U.C. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. trespass on Oracle’s support website.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) by knowingly causing the transmission of a program. ratified it. information. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 18 U. 85. and related computer fraud. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4) & a(5)) (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 82. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer.S.S. 28 COMPLAINT . SAP has illegally converted Oracle’s former. 83. and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained one or more things of value. accessing a protected computer.C. by intentionally accessing a computer used for interstate commerce or communication. Using Oracle’s own protected property to unfairly compete against and undercut Oracle.S. interference with Oracle’s business relationships. § 1030(a)(2)(C). Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. § 1030(a)(4) by knowingly. current. First Claim for Relief Violation of Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U. code. and by obtaining information from such a protected computer.C. and never disavowed it. in addition to the irreparable harm caused by Defendants’ unfair competition. including but not limited to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. and prospective customers and the associated license and support revenue to artificially inflate its market share. or command and as a result intentionally causing damage without authorization to a protected computer owned by Oracle.S.

29 COMPLAINT .S. entitling Oracle to remedies including injunctive relief as provided by 18 U. Penal Code § 502 (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 90. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) by knowingly and fraudulently. Second Claim for Relief Computer Data Access and Fraud Act .S. Defendants’ unlawful access to and theft from Oracle’s computers also have caused Oracle irreparable injury. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. data. 89. and files from Oracle’s computers. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. and computer systems and other losses and damage in an amount to be proved at trial. and without permission accessing and using Oracle’s computer services. taking. without limitation. 93. in an amount well over $5000 aggregated over a one-year period.C. accessing. causing damage to Oracle. Unless restrained and enjoined. 87. §§ 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii) & (iii) by intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization. Oracle has suffered damage and loss by reason of these violations. copying. Defendants will continue to commit such acts. including. 92. a means of accessing Oracle’s computers. in any event. 88.C. 18 U.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 86. programs. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(6) by knowingly. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(3) by knowingly.Cal. Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for these inflicted and threatened injuries.C. fraudulently. or assisting in providing. and/or computer network.S. The computer system or systems that Defendants accessed as described above constitute a “protected computer” within the meaning of 18 U. § 1030(g). fraudulently. recklessly or without due regard for their actions. computer system. and without permission providing. 91. but. harm to Oracle’s data. § 1030(e)(2). and without permission. and making use of programs. computer system. and/or computer network.

Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. has no adequate remedy at law. and without permission accessing. Oracle is informed and believes that the aforementioned acts of the Defendants were willful and malicious in that Defendants’ acts described above were done with the deliberate intent to injure Oracle’s business and improve its own. and/or computer network. entitling Oracle to injunctive relief. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. Oracle’s computers. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. 98. 97. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by knowingly. 100. fraudulently. and due to the continuing threat of such injury. 101. 96.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 94. Oracle is therefore entitled to punitive damages. Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials obtained by Defendants as alleged above. or causing to be accessed. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within the meaning of California Penal Code § 502. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 95. computer system. there is a 30 COMPLAINT . Oracle is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(e).

As a result of Defendants’ acts. including. § 1030 et seq. for their enterprise software. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants.C. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. Penal Code § 496. unjust enrichment. receipt of stolen property. and conspiracy. Oracle has suffered economic harm. These acts were undertaken by Defendants to obtain for themselves the software support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense. 18 U. but not limited to. loss of profits from sales or licenses to 31 COMPLAINT . § 1029. as alleged above.S. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted. 18 U. 18 U. 104.C.. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. but not limited to. 103. in some cases. Penal Code § 502.S. wire fraud. Defendants were aware of these economic relationships and intended to interfere with and disrupt them by unlawfully and wrongfully taking and using Oracle’s Software and Support Materials to obtain and retain Oracle’s own customers at little to no cost.S. including. 18 U. On information and belief. conversion. 102. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. and violation of the Stored Communications Act.S. renewed. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. 105.C. unauthorized access to computers.C. This conduct. § 1343. §§ 270111. and ultimately to migrate such customers away from Oracle’s software programs and onto their own. 106. and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. Cal.C. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. 18 U. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. Cal. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 substantial probability that Oracle support customers would have initiated.S. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. § 1962. violation of RICO. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions.

Fourth Claim for Relief Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 109. described above. These relationships contain the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. and knew or should have known that these relationships would be interfered with and disrupted if Defendants failed to act with reasonable care in their use of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. was willful. 108. Instead. Defendants knew or should have known about the economic relationship. 111. 112. their actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. they used Oracle’s Software and Support Materials to obtain and retain for themselves software 32 COMPLAINT . malicious. 107. renewed. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. oppressive. there is a substantial probability that Oracle support customers would have initiated. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. 110. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. as described above. Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage with its current and future customers.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 current and potential customers of Oracle support services and software programs.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm.C. Cal. Penal Code § 496. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. § 1030 et seq. 114. conversion. and conspiracy. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. but not limited to. § 1343. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients.S. their actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Penal Code § 502.S.C. 18 U. and software products.C. 18 U. violation of RICO. §§ 270111. 115. 18 U. Oracle has suffered economic harm. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. unjust enrichment. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. 117.S.S. As a result of Defendants’ acts. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support.S. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. in some cases. 113.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. 33 COMPLAINT .C. as alleged above. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. but not limited to. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted. unauthorized access to computers. for their enterprise software.. receipt of stolen property. 18 U. § 1029. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief. 18 U. Cal. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.C. This conduct. 116. maintenance. § 1962. wire fraud. including. including.

and unfair competition as defined by California Bus. 34 COMPLAINT . negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. it would be inequitable to allow Defendants to retain the benefit of the funds obtained though the unauthorized and unlawful use of Oracle’s property. The acts and conduct of Defendants constitute fraudulent. interference with business relationships. and other illegal acts and practices as alleged above. Cal. Fifth Claim for Relief Unfair Competition . violation of RICO. proprietary. 18 U.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 118.S. 122. Cal.C. all in an effort to gain unfair competitive advantage over Oracle. 121. Bus. Defendants have engaged in unlawful business acts or practices by committing acts including computer fraud. These unlawful business acts or practices were committed pursuant to business activity related to providing business applications software and related support and maintenance for that software. 123.S.Cal.S. violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In light of Defendants’ conduct. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. 18 U.S. 18 U. receipt of stolen property. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. 18 U. Penal Code § 502. 18 U. §§ 2701-11. and conspiracy. § 1962.C.C. trespass.S. conversion. unjust enrichment. including. et seq. unlawful. § 1343. conversion. Code §§ 17200. wire fraud. §§ 1030 et seq. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. unauthorized access to computers..C. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. 120. & Prof. § 1029. & Prof. but not limited to. 119. Defendants have improperly and unlawfully taken commercial advantage of Oracle’s investment in its confidential.C. Defendants’ conduct constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. Code § 17200 (By Oracle Against All Defendants) Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Penal Code § 496.

Instead of paying Oracle for the use of its property. to Defendants’ copying. Defendants should further be ordered to return all materials taken from Oracle. removal. but not limited to. Defendants intentionally and willfully entered Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website without permission and took possession of Oracle’s property. including. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. or control. including. returning the value of the stolen property itself and any revenue earned from it. which is valuable to Oracle and vital to its continued business operations. 130. Sixth Claim for Relief Conversion (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 127.. custody. Oracle has an exclusive right to possession and distribution of such property. unless Defendants are enjoined from such unfair competition. expressly or impliedly. in their possession. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury and. and all copies of such. and deceptive business practices. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. earnings. Oracle’s confidential. and should be enjoined from further unlawful. all of which Oracle stored on its computer system. proprietary. 128. 125. and benefits they may have obtained in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. 129. or distribution of such property. downloading. Defendants’ unfair business practices have unjustly minimized Oracle’s competitive advantage and have caused and are causing Oracle to suffer damages.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 124. whereby Oracle has no adequate remedy at law. Oracle at no time consented. 35 COMPLAINT . unfair. As a result of such unfair competition. Defendants should be compelled to disgorge and/or restore any and all revenues. will continue to suffer irreparable injury. but not limited to. retention. profits. This property is the sole and exclusive property of Oracle. 126. compensation.

36 COMPLAINT . Oracle will seek its election of remedies at trial. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. Oracle is entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property. with interest. Defendants have been in knowing and unauthorized possession and control of such property since at least between September 2006 and the present. Defendants’ improper assumption and exercise of dominion and control over Oracle’s property and their likely sale and distribution of the same has and will continue to interfere with and diminish Oracle’s rights in that property. Oracle has lost. as described above. 137. profits from potential purchasers of Oracle support services and licensees of Oracle software products. its access-restricted internet-based support system. and will continue to lose. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefits received as a result of their wrongful acts would unjustly benefit Defendants at Oracle’s expense. or in the alternative.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. 134. In addition. and the Software and Support Materials on that support system. 132. 135. Seventh Claim for Relief Trespass To Chattels (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 136. Oracle is entitled to restitution of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. in an amount to be determined at trial. In addition. 133. Defendants may have been obtaining unjust and substantial benefit from the sale and distribution of Oracle’s property to third parties without Oracle’s consent and without paying Oracle for the value of such property. at the latest. Since that time. and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Oracle is entitled to an award of the value of the property taken. At all times mentioned in this Complaint. Oracle had legal title to and actual possession of Customer Connection. or in the alternative. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.

and damage to the confidential and copyrighted nature of the information on Oracle’s website. potentially to the point of denying effective access to Oracle’s customers and preventing Oracle from using its systems and data for their intended purpose. Defendants will continue to commit such acts and other competitors will be encouraged to sweep Oracle’s website. computer fraud concerning. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. damage to Oracle’s rights to dominion and control over its property. Defendants’ trespass interfered with. Defendants continue to unjustly retain these benefits at the 37 COMPLAINT . and the Software and Support Materials housed for licensed access through Customer Connection. 141. damage to the functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. Defendants’ trespass and interference proximately caused damage to Oracle. Eighth Claim for Relief Unjust Enrichment/Restitution (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 142. Defendants caused Oracle’s property to greatly diminish in value and deprived Oracle of the intended use of its computer systems. Defendants unjustly received benefits at the expense of Oracle through their wrongful conduct. 143. Oracle is entitled to recover any and all damages it sustained as a result of such trespass. and damaged. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. but not limited to. Defendants’ trespass therefore threatens to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. Defendants intentionally interfered with Oracle’s use or possession of both Customer Connection and Oracle’s related internal databases and systems. in an amount to be determined at trial. for which Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted and threatened. which took substantial time and money for Oracle to develop. the integrity and functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. As a result. 140. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. including. 139.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 138.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. 146. intentionally. and knowingly agreed and conspired with each other to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct. oppressive. and in furtherance of. and commission of. but not limited to. 144. Ninth Claim for Relief Civil Conspiracy (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 145.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 expense of Oracle. The wrongful conduct committed pursuant to the conspiracy was a substantial factor in causing this harm. that agreement and/or furthered the conspiracy by cooperating. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain any value they obtained as a result of their wrongful conduct. Defendants willfully. computer fraud concerning. encouraging. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. ratifying. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. 147. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses for Oracle’s software programs. damage. malicious. Defendants did the acts alleged pursuant to. Oracle is accordingly entitled to full restitution of all amounts in which Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Oracle’s expense. 148. Oracle has suffered injury. these wrongful acts was willful. and harm. Defendants’ intentional agreement to commit. including. 38 COMPLAINT . and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. or adopting the acts of the others. loss. 149.

The wrongful conduct aided and abetted by the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 154. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. Defendants’ aiding and abetting of these wrongful acts was willful. including. separately considered. was wrongful in and of itself. Defendants had full knowledge or should have reasonably known of the true nature of the wrongful conduct of each other Defendant. 151. Eleventh Claim for Relief An Accounting (By Oracle Against All Defendants) Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. but not limited to. 153. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. loss. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. Oracle has suffered injury. and aided and abetted such wrongful conduct. by providing substantial assistance and/or encouraging the others to act. 150. computer fraud concerning. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses to Oracle software programs. 152. including interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. 39 COMPLAINT . and harm. As fully described above. Tenth Claim for Relief Aiding and Abetting (By Oracle Against All Defendants) Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 155. Defendants also aided and abetted the described wrongful conduct of the other Defendants by giving substantial assistance and/or encouragement that. damage. As a direct and proximate result of the aiding and abetting of these acts. malicious. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. oppressive.

The amount of money due from Defendants to Oracle is unknown to Oracle and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of the income and gross profits Defendants have obtained through their wrongful and unlawful conduct. Defendants have received money as a result of their misconduct. Oracle is entitled. 157. including data. internal documents. including without limitation. without authorization or consent. employees. Since at least September 2006. and unlawfully taking commercial advantage of Oracle’s investment in its Software and Support Materials. Prayer For Relief WHEREFORE. including without limitation the Customer Connection website. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. agents. and valuable 40 COMPLAINT . but not limited to: (a) Intentionally and/or negligently interfering with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage with its existing and potential customers. servants. their officers.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 156. proprietary. (c) Willfully converting Oracle’s confidential. at Oracle’s expense. (d) Fraudulently accessing and intentionally trespassing on Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection website. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. therefore. and that some or all of such money is rightfully due to Oracle. in furtherance of their unlawful and deceptive scheme as described above. and. (2) selling. 158. Defendants have obtained business through the use of unlawful conduct including. Oracle’s confidential. proprietary. to a full accounting. or using any property obtained from Oracle’s website. and attorneys. (b) Improperly. distributing. Oracle respectfully prays for the following: A. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants. for the purpose of sabotaging Oracle’s ability to do business and compete in the market. and those in active concert or participation with any of them from: (1) accessing any Oracle restricted-access or customer website. willfully. without Oracle’s authorization.

including. (3) removing. including data. internal documents. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. under oath. C. intentional interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage. patches. including. downloading or copying property from Oracle’s website without Oracle’s authorization. fixes. without limitation. G. as set forth in this Complaint. and other computer code.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 updates. but not limited to Oracle’s confidential. That the Court order Defendants to pay Oracle punitive damages in a sum to be determined at trial. Court deems just and proper. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. and valuable updates. B. proprietary. internal documents. and other computer code. proprietary. J. including data. and valuable updates. on the basis of their willful and deliberate unauthorized computer access. For an Order directing Defendants to return Oracle’s property. D. I. That the Court order Defendants to file with the Court and serve on Oracle within thirty (30) days after the service on Defendants of such injunction a report in writing. patches. For an Order awarding Oracle its attorneys’ fees and costs. F. that Defendants took from Oracle. setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction. 41 COMPLAINT For damages to be proven at trial. For an Order awarding Oracle such other and further relief as the . patches. and. For restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains unjustly obtained and retained by Defendants through the acts complained of here. aiding and abetting and conspiracy. For prejudgment interest. K. fixes. fixes. For an accounting. H. (4) otherwise engaging in acts of unfair competition and interference with Oracle’s business relationships. and other computer code. Oracle’s confidential.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful