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

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

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

Bill McDermott. Publicly. SAP stole much of the Software and Support Materials directly from Oracle.” 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. As reported in industry publications. 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. Nevertheless.” In connection with the SAP TN acquisition. 15. industry observers deemed the “Safe Passage” program “measurably more aggressive. SAP TN’s services “form[ed] the basis of [SAP AG’s] Safe Passage initiative. Bill McDermott. SAP advertised this strategy as its “Safe Passage” program. It certainly did not match Oracle’s investment in development resources. 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. · A systematic pattern of “sweeping” Oracle’s Customer Connection support website from SAP TN servers just days before. committed to throw “a lot of additional resources” behind SAP TN (which consisted of only 37 employees in total). a program aimed at siphoning off valuable software maintenance revenue from Oracle and persuading Oracle customers to switch software products [to SAP]. with indications that this number may go significantly higher if traced further back in time. 14.” Although SAP America President and CEO. 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.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.” and a sign that “SAP has taken the gloves off. or even come close to it. or the day of. explicitly designed to transition customers away from Oracle products and onto the SAP software platform. crowed “There’s nothing that I love more than to win. the . SAP America’s CEO. Indeed. following: · More than 10. by way of example.000 illicit downloads from Customer Connection between September 2006 and January 2007.

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

The corporate relationship of the three named defendants is set forth in the chart below. County of San Mateo. Oracle Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Redwood City. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are the licensees of the copyrights at issue in this action. Inc. Walldorf. Directly and through its subsidiaries. SAP America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG.. Oracle USA is a Colorado corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. OIC is the owner of the copyrights at issue in this action. 19. State of California. (“PeopleSoft”) and JDE. Oracle Corporation develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services around the world. Texas. OIC is a California corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. with its principal place of business in Redwood City. 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. 22. County of San Mateo. SAP TN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP America. 18. Pennsylvania. State of California. SAP TN is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Bryan. THE PARTIES 17. with its only place of business in Redwood City. 21. County of San Mateo. 20. State of California.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. SAP 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. 23. Germany. 8 COMPLAINT . Oracle USA is the successor to PeopleSoft USA. Oracle USA develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services.

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

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

disclosure. manufactures. or lease of the software to third parties. Oracle does not sell ownership rights to its software or related support products to its customers. and any associated documentation or service offerings. the Materials may not be used to provide services for or to third 11 COMPLAINT . 34.1 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. As defined in one illustrative license agreement. Oracle’s software. Among other things. markets. that software. those rules prohibit access to. or patches to those software programs the customers have expressly licensed from Oracle and have the right to use. 33. 35. Instead. “software” specifically includes the update products made available to customers as part of the support contracts that customers purchased from Oracle. and any sublicense. and applications software programs. its object and source code. Oracle’s license agreements with its customers may vary according to the products licensed. bug fixes. without limitation. or use of. middleware. use. any portion of the software not expressly licensed and paid for by the licensee. 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 also restricts access to the Customer Connection technical support website. rent. Oracle’s software offerings include database. 36. In addition. purchase some set of technical support services that include the right to obtain upgraded products such as updates. and typically do. 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. Oracle develops. distributes. As is typical in the enterprise software industry. Unless specifically provided in your licensing or distribution agreement with Oracle. but all of the relevant license agreements for what is now Oracle software set comparable rules for access to. licensed customers can. and services software designed to help its customers manage and grow their business operations. including because the customers originally contracted with companies later acquired by Oracle. Oracle’s license agreements define Oracle’s confidential information to include. and use of.

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. Access to the secured areas of Customer Connection is also governed by Special Terms of Use.” (emphasis supplied) 38. the user agrees to accept and comply with these Special Terms of Use. Prior to downloading Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s support websites.” 39. The Special Terms of Use provide that access is only permitted via the user’s “personal username and password” and that all materials on the secured website are confidential and proprietary. 40. If you do not have a confidentiality agreement in effect with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. or otherwise copy in any form or by any means the information contained in the Materials for any purpose. 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.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parties and may not be shared with or accessed by third parties. The Legal Download Agreement also puts the user on notice as to the confidential. reproduce. 37. transmit. The Special Terms of Use clearly provide that: “Use of such CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY information and materials for any other purpose is strictly prohibited. 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 . 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. You may not use. disclose. other than to support your authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which you hold a supported license from Oracle…. By using the secured website.

and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. datasheets and FAQs) from this server (“Server”) is granted. 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.” To download a SAR. These terms notify the user that the software available to download from Oracle is Oracle’s copyrighted material. In addition. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING. The terms further provide that the “software is part of the Licensed Products under the License Agreement” and “is made available for downloading solely for use by licensed end users according to the License Agreement. provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear. The Software is 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. users accessing specific materials. COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. the user must click on a button indicating that it accepts these terms. software action requests. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited. agree to additional legal restrictions. such as a Software Application Request (“SAR”) through the SAR Search Web Application. 13 COMPLAINT . (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. 42.1 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. press releases. The Legal Download Agreement further restricts use of documents downloaded from the website: Permission to use Documents (such as white papers. product or upgrade announcements. 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”). 41.

testified on June 23. despite not owning any of the software code for. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle offered. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. 2005. these same products. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. One way was to hit at Oracle’s customer base – and potentially increase its own – by acquiring and bankrolling a company that claimed the ability to compete with Oracle support and maintenance services on Oracle’s own software products. 44.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable.” After the merger. but now Oracle offered a deeper. On January 7.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. SAP AG’s top executives publicly downplayed the threat that a combined Oracle and PeopleSoft entity would pose to its competitive position for business software applications. Oracle completed its acquisition of PeopleSoft to emerge as the second-largest provider of business software applications in the world and the first to rival SAP AG in market share. As SAP AG reeled. or intellectual property rights to. 14 COMPLAINT .000 business applications software customers throughout the world. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. 46. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. Richard Knowles. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23. 45. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. and geographic and product scope. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. at its headquarters with more than 48. how the nearly 50. size.

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

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

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

’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price. However. SAP AG’s CEO. SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. “SAP AG plans to announce . boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well. As reported on Forbes. Bill McDermott. 58.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers.” 57. companies and corporate cultures. 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. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. In October 2005. SAP grew more desperate.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 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 56. . Henning Kagermann. At the same time. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems. round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product offerings. Léo Apotheker. By July 2006. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its first year. including through its September 12. maintenance services. and more aggressive.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition. technology. By March 2006. In a July 2006 earnings call. SAP America President and CEO. .” How SAP could offer instantaneous. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. curiously. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

000 distinct Software and Support Materials.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. 26 COMPLAINT .” Similar to the other customer examples. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. “TNL-02. Like the other companies. false user names) and downloaded over 12.V. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products.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. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. 78. authorization or other right to access and download the 5. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. From December of 2006 to January of 2007.” 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. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL. OCE.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” In many cases. authorization.” “9999999999. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. Homebuilder Management. These downloads included over 3. OCE-Technologies B. Canadian Payroll.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. in some cases. Texas. “TN-DL03.

” Many of these SPX downloads. Then. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. In addition. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software. Metro Machine. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. For the nine month period prior to October 2006. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT . users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. “tn-wts01.” 80. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. (“Metro Machine”) dropped all Oracle support effective on January 1. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December 10.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use). like the others.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. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN. Not coincidentally. In some cases. SAP TN. 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. these users logged in using SPX credentials. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than 800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. listed on its website. G. between October and December 2006. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. 2007 and switched to SAP TN. at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction. Metro Machine Corp. These SPX downloads included over 1. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above.700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. SPX.000 distinct Software and Support Materials.

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

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

Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. Oracle is therefore entitled to punitive damages. 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. or causing to be accessed. there is a 30 COMPLAINT . and/or computer network. Oracle is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(e). computer system. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by knowingly. 97. Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials obtained by Defendants as alleged above. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. has no adequate remedy at law. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within the meaning of California Penal Code § 502. 100. 95. fraudulently. Oracle’s computers. entitling Oracle to injunctive relief. Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. and due to the continuing threat of such injury.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 94. 98. and without permission accessing. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. 101. 96.

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

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

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

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

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

in an amount to be determined at trial. Oracle has lost. or in the alternative. 135.1 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. Seventh Claim for Relief Trespass To Chattels (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 136. profits from potential purchasers of Oracle support services and licensees of Oracle software products. Oracle is entitled to an award of the value of the property taken. Defendants have been in knowing and unauthorized possession and control of such property since at least between September 2006 and the present. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. and the Software and Support Materials on that support system. Defendants may have been obtaining unjust and substantial benefit from the sale and distribution of Oracle’s property to third parties without Oracle’s consent and without paying Oracle for the value of such property. at the latest. 134. Oracle had legal title to and actual possession of Customer Connection. as described above. 133. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Oracle will seek its election of remedies at trial. In addition. Since that time. or in the alternative. and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. At all times mentioned in this Complaint. 132. and will continue to lose. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefits received as a result of their wrongful acts would unjustly benefit Defendants at Oracle’s expense. 36 COMPLAINT . In addition. with interest. Oracle is entitled to restitution of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. 137. Oracle is entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property. Defendants’ improper assumption and exercise of dominion and control over Oracle’s property and their likely sale and distribution of the same has and will continue to interfere with and diminish Oracle’s rights in that property. its access-restricted internet-based support system.

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

Defendants willfully. and harm. loss. Defendants did the acts alleged pursuant to. oppressive. 146.1 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. damage. encouraging. ratifying. 149. computer fraud concerning. or adopting the acts of the others. Oracle has suffered injury. Defendants’ intentional agreement to commit. including. and in furtherance of. that agreement and/or furthered the conspiracy by cooperating. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. and knowingly agreed and conspired with each other to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct. 38 COMPLAINT . these wrongful acts was willful. 147. The wrongful conduct committed pursuant to the conspiracy was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 144. As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. intentionally. but not limited to. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses for Oracle’s software programs. and commission of. 148. Oracle is accordingly entitled to full restitution of all amounts in which Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Oracle’s expense. malicious. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain any value they obtained as a result of their wrongful conduct. Ninth Claim for Relief Civil Conspiracy (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 145. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct.

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful