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

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

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

or even come close to it. SAP advertised this strategy as its “Safe Passage” program. SAP America’s CEO.000 illicit downloads from Customer Connection between September 2006 and January 2007.1 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. 14. following: · More than 10. by way of example. SAP TN did not appear to have the development capability to meet the support commitments advertised in the “Safe Passage” brochures at any price. much less the 50% discount promoted by SAP.” and a sign that “SAP has taken the gloves off. a program aimed at siphoning off valuable software maintenance revenue from Oracle and persuading Oracle customers to switch software products [to SAP].” Although SAP America President and CEO. Publicly.” In connection with the SAP TN acquisition. Bill McDermott. SAP stole much of the Software and Support Materials directly from Oracle. committed to throw “a lot of additional resources” behind SAP TN (which consisted of only 37 employees in total). · A systematic pattern of “sweeping” Oracle’s Customer Connection support website from SAP TN servers just days before. or the day of. As reported in industry publications. 15. Bill McDermott. Nevertheless. 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. It certainly did not match Oracle’s investment in development resources. crowed “There’s nothing that I love more than to win. the 6 COMPLAINT SAP’s unlawful copying and theft includes. SAP appeared to focus more on growing the SAP TN sales force rather than investing in or expanding SAP TN’s tiny development team. Indeed.” 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. SAP TN’s services “form[ed] the basis of [SAP AG’s] Safe Passage initiative. the . explicitly designed to transition customers away from Oracle products and onto the SAP software platform. industry observers deemed the “Safe Passage” program “measurably more aggressive. with indications that this number may go significantly higher if traced further back in time.

expiration of a new SAP TN customer’s support contract with Oracle. and its customers. 7 COMPLAINT . authorized customers or through normal access to Oracle’s Customer Connection system. · Accessing and downloading Software and Support Materials across multiple product lines in multiple lines of business available on the Customer Connection support website. Oracle has no adequate remedy at law for the harm threatened and caused by these acts. · On multiple occasions. 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.” SAP has been engaged in a systematic program of unfair. 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. the indiscriminate. its many employees.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. SAP has taken Oracle’s Software and Support Materials and apparently used them to insinuate itself into Oracle’s customer base. clearly-marked internal proprietary Oracle support documents not available even to licensed. in the purported name of customers that had never licensed those products and had no legal access to them. to try to “keep the pressure on Oracle. Through its illegitimate and illegal business practices. and theft of. These illegal business practices threaten to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. · The improper access to. and to attempt to convert these customers to SAP software applications. 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. unlawful. In short.

State of California. Germany.. 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. County of San Mateo. Walldorf. State of California. Oracle Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Redwood City. County of San Mateo. Oracle USA is a Colorado corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. Oracle USA develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services. 20. Texas. 18. OIC is the owner of the copyrights at issue in this action. 22. State of California. 21. 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. with its principal place of business in Redwood City. 19. SAP TN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP America. OIC is a California corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. Directly and through its subsidiaries. Inc. 8 COMPLAINT . Pennsylvania. (“PeopleSoft”) and JDE. 23.1 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. THE PARTIES 17. The corporate relationship of the three named defendants is set forth in the chart below. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are the licensees of the copyrights at issue in this action. with its only place of business in Redwood City. Oracle USA is the successor to PeopleSoft USA. Oracle Corporation develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services around the world. SAP America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG. SAP TN is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Bryan.

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

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

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

a user must also specifically agree to additional terms of use and restrictions specified in Oracle’s Legal Download Agreement: Your username and password are provided to you for your sole use in accessing this Server and are confidential information subject to your existing confidentiality agreement with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. transmit. By using the secured website. proprietary and copyrighted nature of the Software and Support Materials available for download: Any software that is made available to download from this server (“Software”) is the copyrighted work of Oracle / PeopleSoft / 12 COMPLAINT . 37. Access to the secured areas of Customer Connection is also governed by Special Terms of Use. 40. You may not use. The Special Terms of Use clearly provide that: “Use of such CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY information and materials for any other purpose is strictly prohibited. other than to support your authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which you hold a supported license from Oracle…. or otherwise copy in any form or by any means the information contained in the Materials for any purpose. 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. 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.” 39. If you do not have a confidentiality agreement in effect with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. 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. Prior to downloading Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s support websites. the user agrees to accept and comply with these Special Terms of Use.” (emphasis supplied) 38. reproduce. disclose. The Legal Download Agreement also puts the user on notice as to the confidential.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.

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

44. and geographic and product scope.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. at its headquarters with more than 48.1 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. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. On January 7. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle offered. testified on June 23. 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. these same products. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. but now Oracle offered a deeper. size. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. how the nearly 50. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. Oracle completed its acquisition of PeopleSoft to emerge as the second-largest provider of business software applications in the world and the first to rival SAP AG in market share.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23. 14 COMPLAINT . Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. 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.” After the merger. Richard Knowles. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. 46. As SAP AG reeled. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. 2005. or intellectual property rights to. Rather than improve its own products and offerings.000 business applications software customers throughout the world. 45. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. despite not owning any of the software code for.

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

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

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

the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. By July 2006. round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery. technology. However.” 57. including apparently instantaneous round the clock support from SAP TN – whose engineers at that time presumably had spent virtually no time to develop Siebel support software products. SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions. . . 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. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations. including through its September 12.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product offerings. By March 2006.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price. In October 2005.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees.” How SAP could offer instantaneous. and more aggressive. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage. Henning Kagermann. Léo Apotheker. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. 58. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems.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. SAP AG’s CEO. As reported on Forbes. SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its first year. SAP America President and CEO. SAP grew more desperate. companies and corporate cultures. “SAP AG plans to announce . At the same time. Bill McDermott. maintenance services. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. In a July 2006 earnings call.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT . curiously. boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well.

by comparison. 61. could actually develop and offer the hundreds of regulatory updates.” “full upgrade script support. To stave off the mounting competitive threat from Oracle. Although SAP put a brave face on its ability to compete with the increasingly potent Oracle applications offerings. 62.000 software and support engineers to create and help implement the code fixes. maintains a development force of more than 15. and the logic.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. The economics. To compound the puzzle. optimally functioning Oracle software. as it did on its website and its other materials. F. and in conjunction with opening new SAP TN offices around the world. 60. It was not clear how SAP TN could offer.” By extending the Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. even after having expanded its ranks to 150 employees. and other labor-intensive support items that a customer would need to maintain useful. patches.” “fixes for serious issues. Oracle Finds A Suspicious Pattern To analyze and improve on its industry leading support services. “30-minute response time. Apotheker claimed that SAP now had “a global network of [SAP TN] capabilities” – enough to “gain[] significant traction. bug fixes. some industry analysts wondered whether a small company like SAP TN. Oracle has now solved this puzzle. Oracle. simply did not add up. The SAP Solution: Stolen Passage 1. and purported to add full support for an entirely different product line – Siebel – with a wave of its hand.” E. 24x7x365” on software programs for which it had no intellectual property rights.” and. SAP unlawfully accessed and copied Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. most remarkably. SAP continued to offer this comprehensive support to hundreds of customers at the “cut rate” of 50 cents on the dollar. 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 . A Deal Too Good To Be True 59. patches. “customized ongoing tax and regulatory updates. and updates that comprise the advanced support services required by Oracle’s licensed customers. without infringing on Oracle’s intellectual property.

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

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

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

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

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

Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. (“Merck”). 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. Honeywell.000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. Merck. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP TN’s website as a client. Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. Over 2. But. Merck & Company. In the three months prior to that date. More than 5. users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007. In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software. 76.1 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. a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. 25 COMPLAINT .000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license. Then. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day. 2007. Inc. after switching to SAP TN. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. 77. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. 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. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products.

” In many cases. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. OCE.” 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. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. These downloads included over 3. “TN-DL03. Homebuilder Management. 26 COMPLAINT . 78. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. Texas.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. Canadian Payroll.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx.” Similar to the other customer examples. Like the other companies. authorization or other right to access and download the 5. OCE-Technologies B. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. false user names) and downloaded over 12. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. in some cases. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. “TNL-02. authorization. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products. From December of 2006 to January of 2007.V.” “9999999999.1 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.

” 80. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8. Metro Machine Corp. 2007 and switched to SAP TN. G. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. users logging into Oracle’s support system with Metro Machine’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. “tn-wts01. SAP TN. at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction. Not coincidentally. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. these users logged in using SPX credentials.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use). (“Metro Machine”) dropped all Oracle support effective on January 1. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT .700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle. In some cases. listed on its website. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. For the nine month period prior to October 2006. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software. Then. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December 10. like the others.” Many of these SPX downloads.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79. These SPX downloads included over 1. between October and December 2006. Metro Machine. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. SPX. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than 800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. In addition.

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

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

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

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. Penal Code § 502. Oracle has suffered economic harm. As a result of Defendants’ acts.C. 106. 103.S.S. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. 18 U. § 1962.C. Penal Code § 496. receipt of stolen property. §§ 270111. as alleged above. Cal. loss of profits from sales or licenses to 31 COMPLAINT . fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. violation of RICO. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. Cal. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. including. 18 U. including.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 substantial probability that Oracle support customers would have initiated. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants.S.S.C. § 1343. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted.S. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. 104. § 1030 et seq. 18 U. This conduct. renewed. but not limited to. 102. in some cases. and ultimately to migrate such customers away from Oracle’s software programs and onto their own. but not limited to.C. wire fraud. for their enterprise software. § 1029. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. 18 U. unjust enrichment. and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. 105. 18 U.C. unauthorized access to computers. and conspiracy.. conversion. These acts were undertaken by Defendants to obtain for themselves the software support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. On information and belief.

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

§ 1029. unjust enrichment. and software products. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted.S.S.C.S. receipt of stolen property. maintenance.C. but not limited to. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. Penal Code § 496. in some cases. Oracle has suffered economic harm. Penal Code § 502. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. 117. 114. 18 U. 115. 113. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials.. but not limited to. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support. § 1962. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. 18 U. § 1343. 18 U. including. as alleged above. wire fraud. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. including. Cal. 116. Cal. 18 U. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. conversion. §§ 270111. their actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. 33 COMPLAINT . As a result of Defendants’ acts.C. violation of RICO. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. This conduct. § 1030 et seq. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device.C.C.S. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.S. and conspiracy. for their enterprise software. 18 U. unauthorized access to computers.

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

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

or in the alternative. Oracle will seek its election of remedies at trial. and will continue to lose. At all times mentioned in this Complaint. 135. and the Software and Support Materials on that support system. 36 COMPLAINT . Oracle has lost. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefits received as a result of their wrongful acts would unjustly benefit Defendants at Oracle’s expense. In addition. Seventh Claim for Relief Trespass To Chattels (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 136. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. Defendants’ improper assumption and exercise of dominion and control over Oracle’s property and their likely sale and distribution of the same has and will continue to interfere with and diminish Oracle’s rights in that property. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. with interest. 132. in an amount to be determined at trial. 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 restitution of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. In addition. 133. or in the alternative. 137. Oracle is entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property. Since that time. its access-restricted internet-based support system. Oracle is entitled to an award of the value of the property taken. at the latest. profits from potential purchasers of Oracle support services and licensees of Oracle software products. and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Defendants have been in knowing and unauthorized possession and control of such property since at least between September 2006 and the present.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 131. as described above. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. 134. Oracle had legal title to and actual possession of Customer Connection.

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

but not limited to. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. Ninth Claim for Relief Civil Conspiracy (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 145. malicious. Oracle has suffered injury. ratifying. Defendants did the acts alleged pursuant to. intentionally. encouraging. including. loss. and in furtherance of. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. oppressive. that agreement and/or furthered the conspiracy by cooperating. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. Defendants’ intentional agreement to commit. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain any value they obtained as a result of their wrongful conduct. Oracle is accordingly entitled to full restitution of all amounts in which Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Oracle’s expense. As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. and knowingly agreed and conspired with each other to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct. 144. and harm. damage. and commission of. computer fraud concerning. these wrongful acts was willful. 147. 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. Defendants willfully. 149.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 expense of Oracle. The wrongful conduct committed pursuant to the conspiracy was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 148. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. 38 COMPLAINT . 146.

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful