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

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

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

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).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. SAP TN’s services “form[ed] the basis of [SAP AG’s] Safe Passage initiative. explicitly designed to transition customers away from Oracle products and onto the SAP software platform. SAP America’s CEO.” 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. 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. Nevertheless. Bill McDermott. a program aimed at siphoning off valuable software maintenance revenue from Oracle and persuading Oracle customers to switch software products [to SAP]. Indeed. much less the 50% discount promoted by SAP. SAP appeared to focus more on growing the SAP TN sales force rather than investing in or expanding SAP TN’s tiny development team. 15. following: · More than 10. 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. by way of example. As reported in industry publications. Bill McDermott. 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. It certainly did not match Oracle’s investment in development resources. the 6 COMPLAINT SAP’s unlawful copying and theft includes. the . crowed “There’s nothing that I love more than to win. or the day of.” In connection with the SAP TN acquisition.000 illicit downloads from Customer Connection between September 2006 and January 2007. or even come close to it. Publicly. SAP advertised this strategy as its “Safe Passage” program.” Although SAP America President and CEO. · A systematic pattern of “sweeping” Oracle’s Customer Connection support website from SAP TN servers just days before.” and a sign that “SAP has taken the gloves off.

· 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. unlawful. 7 COMPLAINT . expiration of a new SAP TN customer’s support contract with Oracle. · On multiple occasions. 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. to try to “keep the pressure on Oracle. These illegal business practices threaten to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. and its customers. authorized customers or through normal access to Oracle’s Customer Connection system. the indiscriminate.” SAP has been engaged in a systematic program of unfair. its many employees. and deceptive business practices that continues to this day. and theft of. and to attempt to convert these customers to SAP software applications. Oracle has no adequate remedy at law for the harm threatened and caused by these acts. or in some cases on behalf of former Oracle customers with no access rights to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials whatsoever. in the purported name of customers that had never licensed those products and had no legal access to them. Through its illegitimate and illegal business practices.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. SAP has taken Oracle’s Software and Support Materials and apparently used them to insinuate itself into Oracle’s customer base. In short. 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. clearly-marked internal proprietary Oracle support documents not available even to licensed.

OIC is the owner of the copyrights at issue in this action. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are the licensees of the copyrights at issue in this action. Oracle USA develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services. Inc. THE PARTIES 17.. State of California. State of California. Oracle Corporation develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services around the world. OIC is a California corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. 18.1 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. with its principal place of business in Redwood City. SAP TN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP America. SAP TN is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Bryan. 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. Oracle USA is the successor to PeopleSoft USA. Germany. (“PeopleSoft”) and JDE. 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. Directly and through its subsidiaries. 19. Texas. with its only place of business in Redwood City. Pennsylvania. SAP America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG. County of San Mateo. State of California. 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. 23. 21. 20. County of San Mateo. 8 COMPLAINT . Oracle USA is a Colorado corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. County of San Mateo. 22.

At all material times. unincorporated association. 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. servant. affiliate. inclusive. Defendants all are doing business in and/or have directed their activities at California. joint venturer. had full knowledge of and gave substantial 9 COMPLAINT . 26. and finances the sales and promotional activities of both SAP America and SAP TN throughout the United States and in California. SAP AG had both the right and the authority to control the actions of both corporations. each of the Defendants. whether individual. 25. and support customers in California and in this judicial district. was the agent. Subsidiary) Oracle is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50. service. employee. At all material times.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. specifically in this judicial district. promote.S. or co-conspirator of the others. Similarly. Subsidiary) SAP TN (Wholly-owned U. SAP America and SAP TN advertise. partnership. subsidiary. corporation. and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. parent. through its 100% ownership of both SAP America and SAP TN. alter ego. through its 100% ownership of SAP TN. California. SAP AG negotiates and enters into software license and support agreements directly within the United States and. license.S. SAP America had both the right and authority to control the actions of SAP TN. partner. representative. By way of example only. SAP AG also holds an annual meeting of its Board of Directors in Palo Alto. including Does 1 through 50. 27. or otherwise. and specifically this judicial district. SAP AG (German Parent Corporation) SAP America (Wholly-owned U. sell. Oracle will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. at all material times.

joint venture. Oracle’s Software and Support Materials 32. VI. § 1331. each was acting within the scope of such agency. pursuant to 28 U. and the Court will have subjectmatter jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.D.C. Oracle is the world’s largest enterprise software company.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. representation. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 31. 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. et seq. Venue in this district is appropriate. In addition.S.C. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. and the first to receive J. Power & Associates’ global certification for outstanding service and support based 10 COMPLAINT .C. § 1391. affiliation. and in doing the things alleged.C. or conspiracy. 29. III.S.. service. § 1338. a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district.C.C. employment.. § 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. §§ 1030 et seq. because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in this district. and each is legally responsible for the acts and omissions of the others. Assignment is proper in this division under Civil L. VENUE 30. § 1030(g) and 28 U.S. 3-2 (c) and (d). IV. partnership. when the relevant copyright registrations issue. and this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 18 U. and the Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the parties as alleged throughout this Complaint.R.S. §§ 101.S. 17 U. JURISDICTION 28. Oracle will seek to amend this Complaint to add claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.C. V. 18 U.S. Oracle’s first cause of action arises under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.S. This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims under 28 U.

Oracle’s software. Instead.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. but all of the relevant license agreements for what is now Oracle software set comparable rules for access to. 34. As is typical in the enterprise software industry. 35. 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. and any associated documentation or service offerings. 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. Oracle’s software offerings include database. or patches to those software programs the customers have expressly licensed from Oracle and have the right to use. Oracle also restricts access to the Customer Connection technical support website. licensed customers can. 33. its object and source code. rent. or lease of the software to third parties. and applications software programs. Oracle develops. and typically do. and any sublicense. including because the customers originally contracted with companies later acquired by Oracle. As defined in one illustrative license agreement. distributes. 36. In addition. those rules prohibit access to. any portion of the software not expressly licensed and paid for by the licensee. Oracle does not sell ownership rights to its software or related support products to its customers. purchase some set of technical support services that include the right to obtain upgraded products such as updates. middleware. markets. Oracle’s license agreements with its customers may vary according to the products licensed. that software. disclosure. bug fixes. Oracle’s license agreements define Oracle’s confidential information to include. and use of. manufactures. the Materials may not be used to provide services for or to third 11 COMPLAINT . Unless specifically provided in your licensing or distribution agreement with Oracle. without limitation. or use of. and services software designed to help its customers manage and grow their business operations. “software” specifically includes the update products made available to customers as part of the support contracts that customers purchased from Oracle. use. Among other things.

By using the secured website. If you do not have a confidentiality agreement in effect with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. other than to support your authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which you hold a supported license from Oracle…. reproduce. You may not use. 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. 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. Access to the secured areas of Customer Connection is also governed by Special Terms of Use. The Legal Download Agreement also puts the user on notice as to the confidential. disclose. 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. 40.1 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.” (emphasis supplied) 38. 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 . 37. or otherwise copy in any form or by any means the information contained in the Materials for any purpose. 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. Prior to downloading Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s support websites. transmit.” 39.

and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. product or upgrade announcements. The Legal Download Agreement further restricts use of documents downloaded from the website: Permission to use Documents (such as white papers. (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. 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”). software action requests. the user must click on a button indicating that it accepts these terms. users accessing specific materials. 42. 13 COMPLAINT .” To download a SAR. COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. such as a Software Application Request (“SAR”) through the SAR Search Web Application. These terms notify the user that the software available to download from Oracle is Oracle’s copyrighted material. 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. press releases. In addition. agree to additional legal restrictions. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited. datasheets and FAQs) from this server (“Server”) is granted. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited. 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.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. 41. provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear. 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.

000 people joining by Webcast and phone. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. and geographic and product scope. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. these same products. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. size.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. 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. 45. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. 46. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. 44. how the nearly 50. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle offered. 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.000 business applications software customers throughout the world.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23. On January 7. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. Richard Knowles. 2005. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. at its headquarters with more than 48.” After the merger. testified on June 23. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. or intellectual property rights to. but now Oracle offered a deeper. despite not owning any of the software code for. 14 COMPLAINT . SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. As SAP AG reeled. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. 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. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG.

SAP AG has refused to disclose the terms of its SAP TN purchase. Texas and founded by former PeopleSoft employees. just weeks before Oracle would close the PeopleSoft acquisition. headquartered in Bryan. however.” Mackey made Nelson an offer “he couldn’t refuse. but – with the Oracle/PeopleSoft 15 COMPLAINT .” D. As one industry observer put it. Oracle. and later. 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. SAP AG bought “another arrow in its quiver to hunt after Oracle’s customers. 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. but a calculated competitive move. it instead focuses on simply keeping the software up and running for an annual fee. SAP TN would eventually lose its customer base. 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. As described in a glossy spread in a leading industry publication. SAP TN was a small software services company. So SAP AG had to make the price right. SAP AG’s “front man for SAP AG’s mergers and acquisitions strategy. SAP Responds To Oracle Competition With Its “Safe Passage” Scheme 48.” Aligning with SAP AG made little sense for SAP TN. often outdated. by providing low-cost maintenance and support services to PeopleSoft and JDE customers running assorted versions of these software programs. SAP TN president Andrew Nelson got “the magic phone call” from Jim Mackey. In December 2004. JDE. To retain full control over every detail of its scheme to lure away customers from Oracle. As one industry journalist explained. SAP TN 47. SAP AG proposed to buy SAP TN outright and make it a wholly-owned – and wholly-beholden – subsidiary. because to the extent SAP AG successfully undermined Oracle by having its customers move from Oracle’s software to SAP AG’s software. It claimed to compete with PeopleSoft. Acquiring SAP TN was not a mere investment by SAP AG.” 49.1 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 December 2004. and to use SAP TN to do it.

In April 2005. SAP AG’s CEO. stated. 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.” And SAP TN certainly knew its role was to achieve SAP AG’s ends: as SAP TN’s CEO. 2005. SAP AG would try to use SAP TN as a means of “speeding-up” the migration of PeopleSoft and JDE users to SAP platforms. which in turn was part of SAP’s “ongoing strategy to compete with Oracle. identified SAP TN as instrumental to the parent company’s “Safe Passage” program. We want them to be successful. As SAP AG Managing Director Alan Sedghi admitted. 52. 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. admitted that the SAP TN acquisition was “an integral part” of SAP’s Safe Passage program. to lure the support business over. Bill McDermott. Henning Kagermann. in connection with converting Oracle customers to SAP support (via SAP TN). publicly vowed to bankroll this effort to undermine Oracle by putting “a lot of additional resources into TomorrowNow.” 16 COMPLAINT .” 51. SAP would offer cut-rate pricing combined with the promise of essentially unlimited future support to former PeopleSoft and JDE support customers. SAP America CEO Bill McDermott claimed “The SAP Safe Passage offering gives companies an affordable way to protect their current investments. The CEOs stated the proposition more bluntly. SAP AG’s top executives unveiled SAP AG’s acquisition of SAP TN as the centerpiece of its new “Safe Passage” scheme. SAP America’s CEO. Andrew Nelson. Colin Sampson. “We're owned by SAP. at the SAP AG annual meeting. in barely a month. 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.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. On January 19. Second. 50.” A month later. After the acquisition.” The Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SAP Asia Pacific. SAP TN agreed to the deal and cast its lot with SAP AG. First.

17 COMPLAINT . it took a hands-on approach. offering significantly lower cost maintenance alternatives to Oracle customers running PSFT/JDE solutions” through 70. An April 2005 SAP AG press release apparently aimed to increase perceived doubt among Oracle customers by announcing a “second wave” of “Safe Passage.” To exploit the fear it intended to create. quality support from Oracle. Instead. To implement Phase Two of its plan (luring Oracle customers to the SAP enterprise software platform). consider another option: SAP. These lower cost alternatives advertised by SAP AG were to come directly through SAP TN. technology and maintenance services. 55. and Siebel customers – If Oracle’s options have you worried. PeopleSoft and JDE customer uncertainty about the prospects for long-term.” 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.” (emphasis supplied) SAP America’s website promises that “SAP and TomorrowNow can cut your maintenance costs by as much as 50% through 2015. the SAP AG sales personnel would pressure the customers to drop Oracle products outright in favor of SAP AG’s suite.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. JD Edwards. SAP provides solutions. SAP AG offered maintenance support through SAP TN.” 54. SAP implemented Phase One immediately. If customers declined to convert to SAP TN.” and elsewhere says that “Safe Passage maintenance and support are delivered worldwide through TomorrowNow. To give teeth to these commingled sales efforts. albeit unfounded. SAP AG did not simply sit back and leave the recruiting of potential Safe Passage customers to SAP TN’s sales force. SAP AG’s “second wave” included “an intensive customer recruitment campaign. officially “bundled” with SAP AG enterprise software as a centerpiece of the Safe Passage program. SAP sales representatives unleashed a torrent of marketing materials designed to exacerbate and leverage perceived. Beginning in January 2005.000 direct mail solicitations to Oracle customers. It deployed its salespeople to contact potential customers and push them to switch to SAP TN’s services.

. companies and corporate cultures. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage. However. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. By July 2006.1 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. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. SAP America President and CEO. boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well. round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery. curiously. In a July 2006 earnings call. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage. and more aggressive. As reported on Forbes. including through its September 12.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. . By March 2006. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems. SAP AG’s CEO. SAP grew more desperate. Léo Apotheker. 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. SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. Bill McDermott.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT . maintenance services.” 57. technology.” How SAP could offer instantaneous. 58. At the same time. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product offerings. 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 executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its first year. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. “SAP AG plans to announce . In October 2005. Henning Kagermann.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations.

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

would access Oracle’s system and download large quantities of Software and Support Materials. Given the extreme speed at which the activity occurred. the support system responds by offering the customer further options. 64. employing the customer’s log-in credentials.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. in the month before a customer’s Oracle support expired. including dozens. hundreds. continue search” option. 63. a user purporting to be that customer. or thousands of products beyond the scope of the specific customer’s licensed products and permitted access. Oracle also discovered that the downloaded Software and Support Materials included internal documents not available even to licensed customers and not available through normal. 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. authorized use of Customer Connection. Some of these apparent customer users even downloaded materials after their contractual support rights had expired. to take a copy of them all. In the course of this investigation. In late 2006. over and over again. Oracle discovered a pattern. 65. And. unexplained spikes in the number of customers on the online support website who had clicked the “No. these clicks could not reflect real responses from any human customers actually reading the solutions they had accessed. Oracle regularly compiles this data to assess whether its system helped customers resolve their support issues. 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. and Oracle discovered that each response – each answer by users pretending to be the customer – occurred in a matter of seconds or less. Frequently. These clicks numbered in the thousands for several customers. Instead. 2. If the customer selects the “No. Indeed. continue search” option. 20 COMPLAINT . Oracle soon discovered that many of these “customers” had taken massive quantities of Software and Support Materials beyond their license rights. with the aim of continually improving the support system for customers. Oracle noticed huge. apparently.

the Customer Connection Terms of Use. Several of these apparent customer users supplied misleading identification information as part of the log-on process to Oracle’s systems. which included false names and phone numbers. The users presumably intended this misinformation. Instead. 21 COMPLAINT . http://hqitpc01. in every library that it could find.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. the customer or vendor would have called in right away to get its access reinstated. 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.tomorrownow. Oracle has traced the illegal download activity to computers using an SAP IP address. 67. Texas. also linked to SAP. a new IP address. and the Legal Download Agreement. SAP TN appears to have downloaded virtually every file. 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.com). for many of these downloads. Indeed. Oracle shut down access to that IP address. including updates. rather. the unlawful download activity observed by Oracle and described here originates directly from SAP’s computer networks.g. SAP TN’s Access Was Unauthorized SAP TN’s access to. to mask from Oracle their true identity and the fact of their improper access to the Software and Support Materials. If the access and downloads had been legitimate. not expressly licensed and paid for by the Licensee. sprouted up almost immediately and the unlawful access and downloading resumed. These terms included agreeing: · Not to access or use any portion of the Software. 69. Although it is now clear that the customers initially identified by Oracle as engaged in the illegal downloads are SAP TN customers. The wholesale nature of this unlawful access and downloading was extreme. Oracle noticed that SAP TN did not even bother to change the false user information from customer to customer when it logged in. 3. and taking from. those customers do not directly appear to have engaged in the download activity. 68. Despite this subterfuge.

or lease the Software or Documentation. V. former PeopleSoft employees who work for SAP.P. disclose. Global PeopleSoft Support. appear to have applied their familiarity with the Customer Connection website to directly participate in and perfect the illegal 22 COMPLAINT . V. · That the Materials on the support website are confidential information subject to existing confidentiality agreements.P. (4) Mel Gadd. use. V. (2) Bob Geib. for third party use. relicense.D. · 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.P. who is reflected as the person performing many of the downloads at issue. or third party training. SAP TN’s management. such as Wade Walden. President and CEO. · Not to access the customer support system if it is not the customer’s authorized and designated Oracle technical support contact. formerly worked at PeopleSoft and JDE.P. or any portion thereof. Edwards Support. rent. (5) Nigel Pullan. six list prior employment experience with PeopleSoft.P. North American Sales. and a significant number of its employees. · 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. JDE. or Oracle.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. (3) Laura Sweetman. Quality. distribute. Of SAP TN’s tenmember management team. sublicense. including: (1) Andrew Nelson. and (6) Shelley Nelson. V. In addition. Global J. SAP TN has intimate familiarity with these important restrictions and conditions relating to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. · Not to directly or indirectly. · That the customer username and password are for the customer’s sole use in accessing this support server. V. International Sales.

those products. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. 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. Further. or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. and the confidential. 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. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. proprietary. 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. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT . Further. 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.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. 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. SAP TN committed to abide by the same license obligations and usage terms and conditions described above applicable to licensed customers. 73. and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. or need for. 72. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers. Indeed. 71. 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. Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements with its customers. Further. In short. the support website terms of use. 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.

17 U.C. Inc. § 506.1 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. Oracle’s Customer Connection website is too pervasive. Border Foods. Berri Limited..S. 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. 74.C. Oracle has uncovered unlicensed downloads linked to SAP TN on behalf of numerous customers.C. 4. 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. §§ 101 et seq. OCE Technologies. SAP TN’s acts violated Oracle’s exclusive rights to use. reproduce. VSM Group AB.A. and Yazaki North America. and covers too many individual violations. create derivative works. Bear. Abbott Laboratories. Distribution & Auto Service. and impose strict confidentiality requirements. and distribute these works. Such acts constitute copyright infringement under 17 U.. With literally thousands of software programs available for licensing.. display. to comprehensively detail here. Grupo Costamex. By way of example 24 COMPLAINT .. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s protected intellectual property and the integrity of its computer systems. National Manufacturing.. Fuelserv Limited. Inc. Interbrew UK..V. B. Laird Plastics. Stora Enso. § 501 and also willful and intentional copyright infringement under 17 U. including without limitation. Ronis. AbitibiConsolidated. publish. S. Smithfield Foods. 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. and taking from. 75. Texas Association of School Boards. Accordingly. Honeywell International. SPX Corporation. Merck & Co.S. Stearns & Co. Specific Examples Of SAP TN’s Unlawful Customer Downloads SAP TN’s improper access to.. Helzberg Diamonds. and therefore committed its theft knowingly and intentionally. Caterpillar Elphinstone. NGC Management Limited.S. offer for sale. Metro Machine Corp. SAP TN reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions on Oracle’s support website before proceeding. Herbert Waldman. Mortice Kern Systems.

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

In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps.V.” In many cases. Canadian Payroll. Texas.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. OCE. These downloads included over 3. authorization. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license.” Similar to the other customer examples. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. 78.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. Homebuilder Management.” 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. “TN-DL03. 26 COMPLAINT . these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. false user names) and downloaded over 12. OCE-Technologies B. authorization or other right to access and download the 5. in some cases. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. Like the other companies. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license.” “9999999999. “TNL-02.1 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.

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. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than 800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT . For the nine month period prior to October 2006. these users logged in using SPX credentials. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. In some cases. 2007 and switched to SAP TN. Metro Machine Corp.700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. These SPX downloads included over 1. Not coincidentally. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. Then. In addition.” 80. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. listed on its website. between October and December 2006. “tn-wts01. users logging into Oracle’s support system with Metro Machine’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. SPX. SAP TN. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. Metro Machine. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software.” Many of these SPX downloads.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. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. G. like the others. (“Metro Machine”) dropped all Oracle support effective on January 1. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December 10. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above.

by intentionally accessing a computer used for interstate commerce or communication.C. First Claim for Relief Violation of Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U. and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained one or more things of value. code. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. or command and as a result intentionally causing damage without authorization to a protected computer owned by Oracle. and by obtaining information from such a protected computer. ratified it. and prospective customers and the associated license and support revenue to artificially inflate its market share. accessing a protected computer. current. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) by knowingly causing the transmission of a program. and never disavowed it. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.C.S.C. and related computer fraud. in addition to the irreparable harm caused by Defendants’ unfair competition.S.S. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4) & a(5)) (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 82.1 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. 18 U. including but not limited to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. 28 COMPLAINT . information.C. trespass on Oracle’s support website. 18 U. § 1030(a)(2)(C). Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 18 U. 85. 83. § 1030(a)(4) by knowingly. and with intent to defraud Oracle. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer.S. 84. SAP has illegally converted Oracle’s former. interference with Oracle’s business relationships. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. SAP has thereby caused significant damage to Oracle through its SAP TN subsidiary. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Using Oracle’s own protected property to unfairly compete against and undercut Oracle.

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

96. 100. Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. 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. there is a 30 COMPLAINT . Oracle is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(e). fraudulently. and/or computer network. and due to the continuing threat of such injury. Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials obtained by Defendants as alleged above. and without permission accessing. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. has no adequate remedy at law. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. 101. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within the meaning of California Penal Code § 502. 95. or causing to be accessed. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. Oracle’s computers. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Oracle is therefore entitled to punitive damages. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by knowingly. 97. entitling Oracle to injunctive relief.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. 98. computer system. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software.

S. § 1962. 106. As a result of Defendants’ acts. Cal.S. and conspiracy. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. This conduct. § 1343. including. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted. 104. 18 U. Cal. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes.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. Oracle has suffered economic harm.. but not limited to. conversion.C. and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. 18 U. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. unjust enrichment. 18 U. including. as alleged above. § 1030 et seq. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. 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. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. but not limited to. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. 103. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. § 1029. Penal Code § 502. loss of profits from sales or licenses to 31 COMPLAINT . renewed.C. violation of RICO. and ultimately to migrate such customers away from Oracle’s software programs and onto their own.S.C. Penal Code § 496. 18 U.C.C. On information and belief.S. unauthorized access to computers. and violation of the Stored Communications Act.S. These acts were undertaken by Defendants to obtain for themselves the software support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense. 105. §§ 270111. wire fraud. 18 U. 102. for their enterprise software. in some cases. receipt of stolen property.

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

Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Penal Code § 496. their actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.S. as alleged above. but not limited to. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. 113. 18 U.S. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. 117. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. As a result of Defendants’ acts. Penal Code § 502. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. but not limited to.S. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. §§ 270111.C. 116.C. unjust enrichment. 33 COMPLAINT . § 1343. unauthorized access to computers.S. violation of RICO.C. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. § 1030 et seq. and conspiracy. Cal. 18 U. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted. including. in some cases. for their enterprise software. including. § 1029. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. Cal. Oracle has suffered economic harm. 18 U.S.C. 18 U. 18 U.. 115.1 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.C. maintenance. 114. wire fraud. § 1962. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. This conduct. conversion. and software products. receipt of stolen property.

C. The acts and conduct of Defendants constitute fraudulent. & Prof. intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. 18 U. 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. 34 COMPLAINT .S. unauthorized access to computers. § 1343. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. interference with business relationships. Bus. In light of Defendants’ conduct. Cal. 18 U. 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. §§ 1030 et seq.S. but not limited to.C. Code §§ 17200.. conversion.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. and other illegal acts and practices as alleged above. unlawful. and conspiracy. receipt of stolen property. 120. 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.C. & Prof. Defendants have improperly and unlawfully taken commercial advantage of Oracle’s investment in its confidential.Cal. all in an effort to gain unfair competitive advantage over Oracle. trespass. Defendants’ conduct constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes.C.C. 18 U. § 1962. negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. §§ 2701-11. Penal Code § 496. Cal. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. 123. 18 U. Penal Code § 502.S. 122.S. et seq. including. 18 U. and unfair competition as defined by California Bus. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. Defendants have engaged in unlawful business acts or practices by committing acts including computer fraud. § 1029. violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 119. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. proprietary. wire fraud. violation of RICO.S. Fifth Claim for Relief Unfair Competition . 121. conversion. unjust enrichment.

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

Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. or in the alternative. profits from potential purchasers of Oracle support services and licensees of Oracle software products. 133. Oracle has lost. Oracle is entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property. In addition. Since that time. and will continue to lose. 36 COMPLAINT . As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. in an amount to be determined at trial. and the Software and Support Materials on that support system. and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. In addition. or in the alternative. 132. Defendants have been in knowing and unauthorized possession and control of such property since at least between September 2006 and the present. 135. Seventh Claim for Relief Trespass To Chattels (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 136.1 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. its access-restricted internet-based support system. 134. 137. Oracle had legal title to and actual possession of Customer Connection. as described above. Oracle is entitled to an award of the value of the property taken. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. Oracle is entitled to restitution of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. at the latest. At all times mentioned in this Complaint. Oracle will seek its election of remedies at trial. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefits received as a result of their wrongful acts would unjustly benefit Defendants at Oracle’s expense. 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. 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. with interest.

in an amount to be determined at trial. and damage to the confidential and copyrighted nature of the information on Oracle’s website. Defendants’ trespass and interference proximately caused damage to Oracle. the integrity and functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. Defendants will continue to commit such acts and other competitors will be encouraged to sweep Oracle’s website. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. computer fraud concerning. for which Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted and threatened. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. Defendants unjustly received benefits at the expense of Oracle through their wrongful conduct. and conversion of the 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 28 138. Defendants’ trespass interfered with. Oracle is entitled to recover any and all damages it sustained as a result of such trespass. including. and the Software and Support Materials housed for licensed access through Customer Connection. Eighth Claim for Relief Unjust Enrichment/Restitution (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 142. Defendants continue to unjustly retain these benefits at the 37 COMPLAINT . which took substantial time and money for Oracle to develop. Defendants’ trespass therefore threatens to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. 139. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 141. but not limited to. 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 intentionally interfered with Oracle’s use or possession of both Customer Connection and Oracle’s related internal databases and systems. damage to the functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. Defendants caused Oracle’s property to greatly diminish in value and deprived Oracle of the intended use of its computer systems. As a result. 140. 143. damage to Oracle’s rights to dominion and control over its property. and damaged.

148. Defendants’ intentional agreement to commit. Oracle is accordingly entitled to full restitution of all amounts in which Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Oracle’s expense. encouraging. Ninth Claim for Relief Civil Conspiracy (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 145. 144. these wrongful acts was willful. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses for Oracle’s software programs. oppressive. 146. and knowingly agreed and conspired with each other to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct. or adopting the acts of the others. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. damage.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. 147. Defendants did the acts alleged pursuant to. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain any value they obtained as a result of their wrongful conduct. but not limited to. 149. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. 38 COMPLAINT . Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Defendants willfully. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. The wrongful conduct committed pursuant to the conspiracy was a substantial factor in causing this harm. intentionally. ratifying. that agreement and/or furthered the conspiracy by cooperating. malicious. and commission of. loss. Oracle has suffered injury. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. including. As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. and in furtherance of. and harm. computer fraud concerning. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices.

151. including. separately considered. 154. was wrongful in and of itself. but not limited to. 152. 153. 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. As a direct and proximate result of the aiding and abetting of these acts. 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. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. 150. computer fraud concerning. Defendants had full knowledge or should have reasonably known of the true nature of the wrongful conduct of each other Defendant. Defendants’ aiding and abetting of these wrongful acts was willful.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. including interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. As fully described above. Oracle has suffered injury. 39 COMPLAINT . oppressive. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. and aided and abetted such wrongful conduct. The wrongful conduct aided and abetted by the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing this harm. by providing substantial assistance and/or encouraging the others to act. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses to Oracle software programs. loss. and harm. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. malicious. Defendants also aided and abetted the described wrongful conduct of the other Defendants by giving substantial assistance and/or encouragement that. damage.

158. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. at Oracle’s expense. 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. without authorization or consent. Oracle respectfully prays for the following: A. 157. or using any property obtained from Oracle’s website. (b) Improperly. Defendants have obtained business through the use of unlawful conduct including. servants. Oracle is entitled. proprietary. (2) selling. proprietary. Oracle’s confidential. for the purpose of sabotaging Oracle’s ability to do business and compete in the market. and attorneys. Prayer For Relief WHEREFORE. in furtherance of their unlawful and deceptive scheme as described above. willfully. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. and valuable 40 COMPLAINT . distributing. (d) Fraudulently accessing and intentionally trespassing on Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection website. employees.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. Defendants have received money as a result of their misconduct. including data. Since at least September 2006. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants. and those in active concert or participation with any of them from: (1) accessing any Oracle restricted-access or customer website. and. but not limited to: (a) Intentionally and/or negligently interfering with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage with its existing and potential customers. therefore. including without limitation. and unlawfully taking commercial advantage of Oracle’s investment in its Software and Support Materials. including without limitation the Customer Connection website. internal documents. and that some or all of such money is rightfully due to Oracle. (c) Willfully converting Oracle’s confidential. agents. their officers. without Oracle’s authorization. to a full accounting.

internal documents. J. under oath. Oracle’s confidential. and valuable updates. patches. internal documents. fixes. and other computer code. patches. including data. including data. including. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. B. on the basis of their willful and deliberate unauthorized computer access. I. H. D. and other computer code. For an Order awarding Oracle such other and further relief as the . Court deems just and proper. 41 COMPLAINT For damages to be proven at trial. fixes. 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. and valuable updates. For an Order awarding Oracle its attorneys’ fees and costs. aiding and abetting and conspiracy. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. downloading or copying property from Oracle’s website without Oracle’s authorization. as set forth in this Complaint. For prejudgment interest. but not limited to Oracle’s confidential. 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. that Defendants took from Oracle. For an accounting. C. proprietary. setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction. without limitation. including. proprietary. intentional interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage. For restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains unjustly obtained and retained by Defendants through the acts complained of here. (3) removing. K. That the Court order Defendants to pay Oracle punitive damages in a sum to be determined at trial. G. F. patches. (4) otherwise engaging in acts of unfair competition and interference with Oracle’s business relationships. and. fixes. For an Order directing Defendants to return Oracle’s property.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful