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

like Metro Machine Corp. some users logged in with the user names of “xx” “ss” “User” and “NULL. 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. SAP employees used the log-in IDs of multiple customers. to gain access to Oracle’s system under false pretexts. These “customer users” supplied user information (such as user name. SAP TN is a company that purports to provide technical support services on certain versions of Oracle’s PeopleSoft and JDE software programs. including the ones described above. Texas. The Bryan.” Others used phony email addresses like “test@testyomama.000 unauthorized downloads of Software and Support Materials relating to hundreds of different software programs. Oracle has found many examples of similar activity. SAP users effectively swept much of the contents of Oracle’s system onto SAP’s servers. Indeed. 7.. 8.com” and fake phone numbers such as “7777777777” and “123 456 7897.1 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. For example. In many instances. combined with phony user log-in information. or 4 COMPLAINT . Rather. SAP blended log-in information from multiple customers with fake information. Oracle to date has identified more than 10. Texas IP address used to access and download Oracle’s Software and Support Materials is connected directly to SAP’s computer network. Employing these techniques. an SAP America branch office location and home of its wholly-owned subsidiary SAP TN. For example. All of these customers whose IDs SAP appropriated had one critical fact in common: they were. Across its entire library of Software and Support Materials in Customer Connection. 9.” In other cases. email address. this user information did not match anything: it was fake. and phone number) that did not match the customer at all. the access originated from an internet protocol (IP) address in Bryan. In some cases. Texas. This systematic theft of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials did not originate from any actual customer location. and downloaded Software and Support Materials even after the customer had dropped its support rights with Oracle. Oracle’s server logs have recorded access through this same IP address by computers labeled with SAP identifiers using SAP IP addresses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As SAP AG reeled. Richard Knowles. testified on June 23. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. size. 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. 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. 46.1 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. these same products. 2005. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. 14 COMPLAINT . and geographic and product scope. despite not owning any of the software code for. but now Oracle offered a deeper. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. On January 7.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. 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. at its headquarters with more than 48.000 business applications software customers throughout the world.” After the merger. 44. 45. 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. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. how the nearly 50. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. or intellectual property rights to. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23.

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

SAP TN’s new parent companies directed it to begin to implement a two-phase plan to increase SAP’s enterprise application market share. SAP America’s CEO. 52. which in turn was part of SAP’s “ongoing strategy to compete with Oracle. 2005. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann confirmed: “We worked with [SAP TN] to very quickly set up a comprehensive program for SAP customers running PeopleSoft and JD Edwards solutions. On January 19. “We're owned by SAP. ease integration with SAP NetWeaver(TM) and begin the process of innovating their businesses today.” And SAP TN certainly knew its role was to achieve SAP AG’s ends: as SAP TN’s CEO. at the SAP AG annual meeting. SAP AG would try to use SAP TN as a means of “speeding-up” the migration of PeopleSoft and JDE users to SAP platforms. in barely a month. Colin Sampson. We want them to be successful. Andrew Nelson. In April 2005. admitted that the SAP TN acquisition was “an integral part” of SAP’s Safe Passage program. After the acquisition. stated. First.” 51.” The Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SAP Asia Pacific. identified SAP TN as instrumental to the parent company’s “Safe Passage” program. SAP would offer cut-rate pricing combined with the promise of essentially unlimited future support to former PeopleSoft and JDE support customers. in connection with converting Oracle customers to SAP support (via SAP TN). SAP TN agreed to the deal and cast its lot with SAP AG. 50.1 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.” A month later. to lure the support business over.” 16 COMPLAINT . Henning Kagermann. publicly vowed to bankroll this effort to undermine Oracle by putting “a lot of additional resources into TomorrowNow. The CEOs stated the proposition more bluntly. SAP AG’s top executives unveiled SAP AG’s acquisition of SAP TN as the centerpiece of its new “Safe Passage” scheme. SAP AG’s CEO. publicly indicating that SAP TN was authorized and intended to implement SAP AG’s goals. SAP America CEO Bill McDermott claimed “The SAP Safe Passage offering gives companies an affordable way to protect their current investments. SAP would aggressively campaign to migrate those customers to an SAP enterprise software platform. As SAP AG Managing Director Alan Sedghi admitted. Second. Bill McDermott.

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

SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its first year. curiously. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage. including through its September 12.” How SAP could offer instantaneous. By March 2006. and more aggressive.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price. SAP America President and CEO. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT . As reported on Forbes.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 56. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. companies and corporate cultures. boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. 58. maintenance services. By July 2006. Léo Apotheker. confirmed that SAP intended to use the Siebel acquisition as another opportunity to lure Oracle customers to SAP stating that SAP is “not distracted by the challenges of integrating multiple code bases. .com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. Henning Kagermann. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. . SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations. In October 2005.” 57. SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. 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. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems. Bill McDermott.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. “SAP AG plans to announce . round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery. SAP AG’s CEO. technology. At the same time. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product offerings. However. SAP grew more desperate. In a July 2006 earnings call.

SAP continued to offer this comprehensive support to hundreds of customers at the “cut rate” of 50 cents on the dollar. It was not clear how SAP TN could offer. most remarkably. patches.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 customers. some industry analysts wondered whether a small company like SAP TN. “customized ongoing tax and regulatory updates. even after having expanded its ranks to 150 employees. Oracle Finds A Suspicious Pattern To analyze and improve on its industry leading support services. Oracle. F. and other labor-intensive support items that a customer would need to maintain useful.” “fixes for serious issues.” E. and purported to add full support for an entirely different product line – Siebel – with a wave of its hand. 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. Apotheker claimed that SAP now had “a global network of [SAP TN] capabilities” – enough to “gain[] significant traction. as it did on its website and its other materials. 24x7x365” on software programs for which it had no intellectual property rights. 62. 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 . could actually develop and offer the hundreds of regulatory updates. SAP unlawfully accessed and copied Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. without infringing on Oracle’s intellectual property.” and. 60. by comparison. and updates that comprise the advanced support services required by Oracle’s licensed customers. “30-minute response time. simply did not add up. and the logic. 61. optimally functioning Oracle software. To compound the puzzle.” By extending the Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. The economics.000 software and support engineers to create and help implement the code fixes. bug fixes. A Deal Too Good To Be True 59.” “full upgrade script support. Oracle has now solved this puzzle. maintains a development force of more than 15. To stave off the mounting competitive threat from Oracle. The SAP Solution: Stolen Passage 1. patches.

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

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

Global PeopleSoft Support.P. V. Of SAP TN’s tenmember management team. Quality. and a significant number of its employees. six list prior employment experience with PeopleSoft. disclose. or any portion thereof.P. (2) Bob Geib. (5) Nigel Pullan. V. who is reflected as the person performing many of the downloads at issue. SAP TN has intimate familiarity with these important restrictions and conditions relating to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. use. JDE. · Not to directly or indirectly. SAP TN’s management. for third party use.P. · That the Materials on the support website are confidential information subject to existing confidentiality agreements. (4) Mel Gadd. International Sales. relicense. including: (1) Andrew Nelson. such as Wade Walden. · Not to access the customer support system if it is not the customer’s authorized and designated Oracle technical support contact. V.P. (3) Laura Sweetman. · 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. and (6) Shelley 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 70. President and CEO.D. Edwards Support. or third party training. In addition. V. · 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.P. Global J. · That the customer username and password are for the customer’s sole use in accessing this support server. or lease the Software or Documentation. North American Sales. formerly worked at PeopleSoft and JDE. or Oracle. sublicense. V. appear to have applied their familiarity with the Customer Connection website to directly participate in and perfect the illegal 22 COMPLAINT . former PeopleSoft employees who work for SAP. rent. distribute.

Indeed. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers. The rate that SAP TN accessed these materials – at intervals of just seconds or less – shows that no one used or reviewed those materials in real time. or need for. In short. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. Further. Further. and the confidential. Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements with its 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. 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. Further. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT . or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. SAP TN committed to abide by the same license obligations and usage terms and conditions described above applicable to licensed 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. the support website terms of use.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. 73. Oracle has learned that SAP TN accessed and downloaded the Software and Support Materials when it either had no legitimate basis to access Oracle’s restricted website. 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. those products. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. proprietary. 72. 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. 71.

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

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

In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. 78. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. authorization or other right to access and download the 5. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. Texas. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. 26 COMPLAINT . or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. “TN-DL03. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Texas that belongs to SAP TN. Canadian Payroll.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999.” 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. authorization.” “9999999999. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. in some cases. OCE-Technologies B.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. Like the other companies. Homebuilder Management.V. false user names) and downloaded over 12. “TNL-02.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license.” In many cases. OCE. These downloads included over 3.” Similar to the other customer examples. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to Defendants’ copying. in their possession. unless Defendants are enjoined from such unfair competition. This property is the sole and exclusive property of Oracle. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 129. unfair. but not limited to. will continue to suffer irreparable injury. proprietary. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury and. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. Oracle at no time consented. removal. Oracle’s confidential. whereby Oracle has no adequate remedy at law. Defendants intentionally and willfully entered Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website without permission and took possession of Oracle’s property. compensation. but not limited to. and should be enjoined from further unlawful. As a result of such unfair competition. which is valuable to Oracle and vital to its continued business operations. 128. profits. 35 COMPLAINT . retention. including. returning the value of the stolen property itself and any revenue earned from it. earnings. Defendants should further be ordered to return all materials taken from Oracle. or control. 125. 126. all of which Oracle stored on its computer system. and all copies of such. and deceptive business practices. or distribution of such property. downloading. 130.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 124. expressly or impliedly. Oracle has an exclusive right to possession and distribution of such property. Defendants should be compelled to disgorge and/or restore any and all revenues. including. and benefits they may have obtained in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. Sixth Claim for Relief Conversion (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 127. custody. Defendants’ unfair business practices have unjustly minimized Oracle’s competitive advantage and have caused and are causing Oracle to suffer damages. Instead of paying Oracle for the use of its property..

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

Defendants caused Oracle’s property to greatly diminish in value and deprived Oracle of the intended use of its computer systems. in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants’ trespass interfered with. and the Software and Support Materials housed for licensed access through Customer Connection. Defendants unjustly received benefits at the expense of Oracle through their wrongful conduct. but not limited to. Eighth Claim for Relief Unjust Enrichment/Restitution (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 142. for which Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted and threatened. 139. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. and damage to the confidential and copyrighted nature of the information on Oracle’s website. damage to Oracle’s rights to dominion and control over its property. 140. which took substantial time and money for Oracle to develop. damage to the functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. Defendants will continue to commit such acts and other competitors will be encouraged to sweep Oracle’s website.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 138. 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. As a result. Defendants’ trespass and interference proximately caused damage to Oracle. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. Defendants’ trespass therefore threatens to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. and damaged. Defendants continue to unjustly retain these benefits at the 37 COMPLAINT . 141. computer fraud concerning. 143. Defendants intentionally interfered with Oracle’s use or possession of both Customer Connection and Oracle’s related internal databases and systems. the integrity and functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. including. Oracle is entitled to recover any and all damages it sustained as a result of such trespass.

The wrongful conduct committed pursuant to the conspiracy was a substantial factor in causing this harm. that agreement and/or furthered the conspiracy by cooperating. ratifying. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain any value they obtained as a result of their wrongful conduct. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. and commission of. including. encouraging. 148. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses for Oracle’s software programs. Ninth Claim for Relief Civil Conspiracy (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 145. damage. malicious. Defendants’ intentional agreement to commit. 146. loss. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. Defendants willfully. As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. 144. 147.1 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. and in furtherance of. and knowingly agreed and conspired with each other to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct. computer fraud concerning. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. 38 COMPLAINT . or adopting the acts of the others. Defendants did the acts alleged pursuant to. intentionally. oppressive. 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. 149. Oracle is accordingly entitled to full restitution of all amounts in which Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Oracle’s expense. Oracle has suffered injury. and harm. but not limited to. these wrongful acts was willful.

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful