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

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

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

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

· The improper access to. These illegal business practices threaten to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. · On multiple occasions. the indiscriminate. Through its illegitimate and illegal business practices. In short.” SAP has been engaged in a systematic program of unfair. authorized customers or through normal access to Oracle’s Customer Connection system. and theft of. in the purported name of customers that had never licensed those products and had no legal access to them. 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. SAP has taken Oracle’s Software and Support Materials and apparently used them to insinuate itself into Oracle’s customer base. to try to “keep the pressure on Oracle. or in some cases on behalf of former Oracle customers with no access rights to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials whatsoever. and deceptive business practices that continues to this day. 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. and to attempt to convert these customers to SAP software applications. · Accessing and downloading Software and Support Materials across multiple product lines in multiple lines of business available on the Customer Connection support website. unlawful. expiration of a new SAP TN customer’s support contract with Oracle. and its 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 16. clearly-marked internal proprietary Oracle support documents not available even to licensed. 7 COMPLAINT . its many employees. Oracle has no adequate remedy at law for the harm threatened and caused by these acts.

22. 8 COMPLAINT . SAP TN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP America. OIC is the owner of the copyrights at issue in this action. County of San Mateo. with its only place of business in Redwood City.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. (“PeopleSoft”) and JDE.. Oracle Corporation develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services around the world. Oracle USA is the successor to PeopleSoft USA. OIC is a California corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. Directly and through its subsidiaries. County of San Mateo. 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. 20. Walldorf. with its principal place of business in Redwood City. Oracle USA develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services. Oracle USA is a Colorado corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. THE PARTIES 17. Germany. 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. 19. 23. State of California. Pennsylvania. State of California. 21. SAP TN is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Bryan. State of California. Inc. Texas. 18. County of San Mateo. The corporate relationship of the three named defendants is set forth in the chart below. Oracle Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Redwood City. SAP America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are the licensees of the copyrights at issue in this action.

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

3-2 (c) and (d). In addition. et seq.R.C. VI. 17 U.C. and each is legally responsible for the acts and omissions of the others. and in doing the things alleged. representation. Oracle is the world’s largest enterprise software company. a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district. and the first to receive J. Power & Associates’ global certification for outstanding service and support based 10 COMPLAINT .S. §§ 1030 et seq..C. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 31. Oracle will seek to amend this Complaint to add claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. Oracle’s Software and Support Materials 32. § 1338. III. because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in this district.D. and the Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the parties as alleged throughout this Complaint. JURISDICTION 28. and this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 18 U.C.C. each was acting within the scope of such agency. pursuant to 28 U. This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims under 28 U. Oracle’s first cause of action arises under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. or conspiracy.S. and the Court will have subjectmatter jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U. 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.. § 1331. affiliation. IV. service. § 1030(g) and 28 U.C. V. partnership. joint venture.S. Venue in this district is appropriate. §§ 101. employment. 29. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A.C.S. § 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. 18 U. § 1391.1 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.S.S. when the relevant copyright registrations issue. VENUE 30.S. Assignment is proper in this division under Civil L.

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

other than to support your authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which you hold a supported license from Oracle…. disclose. The Special Terms of Use clearly provide that: “Use of such CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY information and materials for any other purpose is strictly prohibited. reproduce. 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. Access to the secured areas of Customer Connection is also governed by Special Terms of Use. If you do not have a confidentiality agreement in effect 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. By using the secured website.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.” 39.” (emphasis supplied) 38. or otherwise copy in any form or by any means the information contained in the Materials for any purpose. 37. The Legal Download Agreement also puts the user on notice as to the confidential. a user must also specifically agree to additional terms of use and restrictions specified in Oracle’s Legal Download Agreement: Your username and password are provided to you for your sole use in accessing this Server and are confidential information subject to your existing confidentiality agreement with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. 40. the user agrees to accept and comply with these Special Terms of Use. Prior to downloading Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s support websites. 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. transmit. 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 . You may not use.

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

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

SAP TN 47. 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. As described in a glossy spread in a leading industry publication. just weeks before Oracle would close the PeopleSoft acquisition. but a calculated competitive move.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. SAP TN promised to offer such cheap support “because it is not investing millions of dollars in research and development for future versions of the software. SAP AG proposed to buy SAP TN outright and make it a wholly-owned – and wholly-beholden – subsidiary.” D. As one industry journalist explained.” Mackey made Nelson an offer “he couldn’t refuse. and later. Texas and founded by former PeopleSoft employees. JDE.” Aligning with SAP AG made little sense for SAP TN. by providing low-cost maintenance and support services to PeopleSoft and JDE customers running assorted versions of these software programs. To retain full control over every detail of its scheme to lure away customers from Oracle. So SAP AG had to make the price right. it instead focuses on simply keeping the software up and running for an annual fee. Oracle. but – with the Oracle/PeopleSoft 15 COMPLAINT . headquartered in Bryan. In December 2004. SAP AG has refused to disclose the terms of its SAP TN purchase. SAP Responds To Oracle Competition With Its “Safe Passage” Scheme 48. 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. often outdated. because to the extent SAP AG successfully undermined Oracle by having its customers move from Oracle’s software to SAP AG’s software. in December 2004. It claimed to compete with PeopleSoft. however.” 49. As one industry observer put it. SAP TN would eventually lose its customer base. SAP AG bought “another arrow in its quiver to hunt after Oracle’s customers. SAP AG’s “front man for SAP AG’s mergers and acquisitions strategy. Acquiring SAP TN was not a mere investment by SAP AG. and to use SAP TN to do it. SAP TN president Andrew Nelson got “the magic phone call” from Jim Mackey. SAP TN was a small software services company.

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

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

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

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

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

and the Legal Download Agreement. those customers do not directly appear to have engaged in the download activity. the Customer Connection Terms of Use. the customer or vendor would have called in right away to get its access reinstated. SAP TN appears to have downloaded virtually every file. Although it is now clear that the customers initially identified by Oracle as engaged in the illegal downloads are SAP TN customers. not expressly licensed and paid for by the Licensee. Several of these apparent customer users supplied misleading identification information as part of the log-on process to Oracle’s systems. Instead. http://hqitpc01. These terms included agreeing: · Not to access or use any portion of the Software. If the access and downloads had been legitimate. sprouted up almost immediately and the unlawful access and downloading resumed. also linked to SAP. including updates. 3. 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. When Oracle first noticed that the unlawful access and downloads originated almost exclusively from one IP address in Bryan. The wholesale nature of this unlawful access and downloading was extreme.tomorrownow. 69.1 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. Indeed. Oracle’s support servers have even received hits from URL addresses in the course of these unlawful downloads with SAP TN directly in the name (e. in every library that it could find. Despite this subterfuge. a new IP address. Oracle’s system violated the terms of the Oracle customers’ License Agreement. Oracle noticed that SAP TN did not even bother to change the false user information from customer to customer when it logged in. and taking from. Oracle has traced the illegal download activity to computers using an SAP IP address. which included false names and phone numbers. 21 COMPLAINT . 67. Texas. for many of these downloads.g. rather.com). 68. The users presumably intended this misinformation. the unlawful download activity observed by Oracle and described here originates directly from SAP’s computer networks. Oracle shut down access to that IP address.

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

72. 73. 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. In short. Indeed.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. Further. SAP TN committed to abide by the same license obligations and usage terms and conditions described above applicable to licensed customers. proprietary. 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. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. the support website terms of use. Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements with its customers. and the confidential. Further. the scope of the downloaded Software and Support Materials – across multiple libraries in multiple lines of business – for customers that had no license to take. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT . those products. Further. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. 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. or need for. and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. 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. 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. 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. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers.

OCE Technologies. Grupo Costamex.. and distribute these works.S. display. Merck & Co. Laird Plastics. and Yazaki North America. Ronis. Stora Enso. Caterpillar Elphinstone. 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. Helzberg Diamonds. B. 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. Mortice Kern Systems. National Manufacturing. Such acts constitute copyright infringement under 17 U. Interbrew UK. publish.S. offer for sale. 74. to comprehensively detail here. Bear. Herbert Waldman. Accordingly.. Berri Limited. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s protected intellectual property and the integrity of its computer systems. Metro Machine Corp. S. Smithfield Foods. § 501 and also willful and intentional copyright infringement under 17 U. 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. and therefore committed its theft knowingly and intentionally. 75.. reproduce. § 506. Distribution & Auto Service. §§ 101 et seq. Oracle has uncovered unlicensed downloads linked to SAP TN on behalf of numerous customers. Abbott Laboratories. With literally thousands of software programs available for licensing.A. and covers too many individual violations.. and impose strict confidentiality requirements.S. AbitibiConsolidated.C. SAP TN reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions on Oracle’s support website before proceeding. and taking from. Specific Examples Of SAP TN’s Unlawful Customer Downloads SAP TN’s improper access to. SAP TN’s acts violated Oracle’s exclusive rights to use.C. Border Foods.V. Oracle’s Customer Connection website is too pervasive. create derivative works.. Inc. NGC Management Limited. Honeywell International. 4. Texas Association of School Boards. 17 U. Stearns & Co. SPX Corporation. Fuelserv Limited..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.. Inc. including without limitation.C. VSM Group AB. By way of example 24 COMPLAINT .

000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. Over 2. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software. Merck & Company. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. after switching to SAP TN. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software.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. 25 COMPLAINT . Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP TN’s website as a client. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day. Inc. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9. 77. (“Merck”). Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. More than 5. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials.000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license. 76. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. Honeywell. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. Then. 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. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. 2007.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007. In the three months prior to that date. one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN. But. Merck.

SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials.” 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. OCE. OCE-Technologies B. “TN-DL03.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. false user names) and downloaded over 12. Like the other companies. These downloads included over 3.V. 26 COMPLAINT . (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. in some cases. “TNL-02. authorization.” In many cases. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. Canadian Payroll. authorization or other right to access and download the 5.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. Homebuilder Management. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. Texas.” Similar to the other customer examples. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897.” “9999999999. 78. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate.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. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business.

(“Metro Machine”) dropped all Oracle support effective on January 1. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software.” Many of these SPX downloads. Metro Machine Corp. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle. “tn-wts01. G. 2007 and switched to SAP TN.700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than 800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. In some cases. SPX. at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use). Then. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT .” 80. users logging into Oracle’s support system with Metro Machine’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. SAP TN. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. For the nine month period prior to October 2006. these users logged in using SPX 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 79. between October and December 2006. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. Not coincidentally. In addition. Metro Machine. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. like the others. These SPX downloads included over 1. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December 10. listed on its website. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN.

ratified it. 83. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. § 1030(a)(2)(C). accessing a protected computer. in addition to the irreparable harm caused by Defendants’ unfair competition. SAP has thereby caused significant damage to Oracle through its SAP TN subsidiary. information. and prospective customers and the associated license and support revenue to artificially inflate its market share. and related computer fraud. trespass on Oracle’s support website. current.S. including but not limited to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. 28 COMPLAINT . §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4) & a(5)) (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 82.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) by knowingly causing the transmission of a program. or command and as a result intentionally causing damage without authorization to a protected computer owned by Oracle. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. SAP has illegally converted Oracle’s former. 18 U. interference with Oracle’s business relationships.S. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. § 1030(a)(4) by knowingly. First Claim for Relief Violation of Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U. and by obtaining information from such a protected computer. 18 U. Using Oracle’s own protected property to unfairly compete against and undercut Oracle. and with intent to defraud Oracle.C. code.S. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 84.1 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. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. 85. and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained one or more things of value. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.C.S. by intentionally accessing a computer used for interstate commerce or communication. and never disavowed it. 18 U.C.

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

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

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

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

and conspiracy. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. including. § 1343. Cal. As a result of Defendants’ acts. but not limited to. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief. unjust enrichment. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. maintenance. receipt of stolen property. unauthorized access to computers.S. 18 U. and software products. in some cases. 18 U. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted. Penal Code § 496.C.C. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support. §§ 270111. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. § 1029. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 115.C. 114. This conduct. 18 U. Oracle has suffered economic harm.. 18 U.C. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. Cal. § 1030 et seq. as alleged above.C.S. wire fraud. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. 113. conversion. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm.S.S. Penal Code § 502. for their enterprise software. 117. 116. 33 COMPLAINT . § 1962.S. violation of RICO. but not limited to. their actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. 18 U. including. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients.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.

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

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

Allowing Defendants to retain the benefits received as a result of their wrongful acts would unjustly benefit Defendants at Oracle’s expense. Oracle is entitled to restitution of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. 134. 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. Oracle is entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property. In addition. At all times mentioned in this Complaint. or in the alternative. 132.1 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. Oracle had legal title to and actual possession of Customer Connection. Defendants have been in knowing and unauthorized possession and control of such property since at least between September 2006 and the present. in an amount to be determined at trial. 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. Seventh Claim for Relief Trespass To Chattels (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 136. profits from potential purchasers of Oracle support services and licensees of Oracle software products. or in the alternative. as described above. 36 COMPLAINT . Since that time. and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 133. at the latest. and the Software and Support Materials on that support system. Oracle will seek its election of remedies at trial. 135. and will continue to lose. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 137. with interest. its access-restricted internet-based support system. Oracle has lost. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. In addition. Oracle is entitled to an award of the value of the property taken.

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful