1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP CHRISTOPHER B. HOCKETT (SBN 121539) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 chris.hockett@bingham.com geoff.howard@bingham.com zachary.alinder@bingham.com bree.hann@bingham.com DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JEFFREY S. ROSS (SBN 138172) 500 Oracle Parkway M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: (650) 506-4846 Facsimile: (650) 506-7114 dorian.daley@oracle.com jeff.ross@oracle.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation, and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, v. Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: (1) VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT; (2) VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT; (3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; (4) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;

SAP AG, a German corporation, SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, TOMORROWNOW, INC., a Texas corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.

COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(5) UNFAIR COMPETITION; (6) CONVERSION; (7) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS; (8) UNJUST ENRICHMENT / RESTITUTION; (9) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; (10) AIDING AND ABETTING; AND (11) AN ACCOUNTING. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc. (“Oracle USA”), and Oracle International Corporation (“OIC”) (together “Oracle” or “Plaintiffs”) for their Complaint against Defendants SAP AG (“SAP AG”), SAP America, Inc. (“SAP America”), TomorrowNow, Inc. (“SAP TN”), and Does 1 through 50 (collectively referred to as “SAP” or “Defendants”), allege as follows based on their personal knowledge as for themselves, and on information and belief as to the acts of others: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case is about corporate theft on a grand scale, committed by the

largest German software company – a conglomerate known as SAP. Oracle is a leading developer of database and applications software, and SAP is Oracle’s largest enterprise applications software competitor. 2. Oracle brings this lawsuit after discovering that SAP is engaged in

systematic, illegal access to – and taking from – Oracle’s computerized customer support systems. Through this scheme, SAP has stolen thousands of proprietary, copyrighted software products and other confidential materials that Oracle developed to service its own support customers. SAP gained repeated and unauthorized access, in many cases by use of pretextual customer log-in credentials, to Oracle’s proprietary, password-protected customer support website. From that website, SAP has copied and swept thousands of Oracle software products and other proprietary and confidential materials onto its own servers. As a result, SAP has compiled an illegal library of Oracle’s copyrighted software code and other materials. This storehouse of stolen Oracle intellectual property enables SAP to offer cut rate support services to 1 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

customers who use Oracle software, and to attempt to lure them to SAP’s applications software platform and away from Oracle’s. Through this Complaint, Oracle seeks to stop SAP’s illegal intrusions and theft, to prevent SAP from using the materials it has illegally acquired to compete with Oracle, and to recover damages and attorneys’ fees. 3. In late November 2006, there occurred unusually heavy download activity

on Oracle’s password-protected customer support website for its PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards (“JDE”) product lines. That website, called Customer Connection, permits licensed Oracle customers with active support agreements to download a wide array of copyrighted, proprietary software programs and other support materials. Oracle has invested billions of dollars in research, development, and engineering to create these materials, which include program updates, software updates, bug fixes, patches, custom solutions, and instructional documents – all copyrighted by Oracle – across the entire PeopleSoft and JDE family of software products (the “Software and Support Materials”). Customers who have contracted for support with Oracle have log-in credentials to access Customer Connection and download Software and Support Materials. However, Oracle’s support contracts limit customers’ access and download rights to Software and Support Materials pertaining to the customers’ licensed products. Customers have no contractual right to download Software and Support Materials relating to software programs they have not licensed from Oracle, or for which the customers did not purchase support rights. 4. The Software and Support Materials are a subset of the technical support

services that Oracle makes available to its customers that have licensed Oracle software programs and purchased the right to receive technical support services related to them. The full suite of technical support services (also known as “support” or “maintenance”) generally includes three types of offerings that Oracle, like most other enterprise software vendors, makes available to its licensed customers: (i) telephone or email access to Oracle’s support technicians regarding the operation of Oracle’s software; (ii) software program code for the customers’ licensed software programs which adds new functionality or features to the software (generally referred to as “software updates”), or that addresses errors or “bugs” in the software program (generally referred to as “software patches”); and (iii) “knowledge management” articles that 2 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

help with problem solving and provide suggestions relating to the customer’s use of licensed software programs. Because of the complexity of enterprise software applications and the business environments in which they run, regular software updates and patches and knowledge management articles are critical components of a software maker’s support offering. For purposes of this case, Oracle’s claims against SAP only concern Oracle’s Software and Support Materials, and not Oracle’s provision of telephone or online assistance in response to customers’ support queries. 5. The access and download activity Oracle observed on its systems in late

November and December 2006 did not resemble the authorized, limited access to which its customers were entitled. Instead, SAP employees using the log-in credentials of Oracle customers with expired or soon-to-expire support rights had, in a matter of a few days or less, accessed and copied thousands of individual Software and Support Materials. For a significant number of these mass downloads, the users lacked any contractual right even to access, let alone copy, the Software and Support Materials. The downloads spanned every library in the Customer Connection support website. For example, using one customer’s credentials, SAP suddenly downloaded an average of over 1,800 items per day for four days straight (compared to that customer’s normal downloads averaging 20 per month). Other purported customers hit the Oracle site and harvested Software and Support Materials after they had cancelled all support with Oracle in favor of SAP TN. Moreover, these mass downloads captured Software and Support Materials that were clearly of no use to the “customers” in whose names they were taken. Indeed, the materials copied not only related to unlicensed products, but to entire Oracle product families that the customers had not licensed. 6. For example, in January 2007, a user on an SAP TN computer signed in as

Oracle customer Honeywell International, Inc., a Fortune 100 technology and manufacturing company, to access Oracle’s support system and copy literally thousands of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials in virtually every product library in every line of business. This copying went well beyond the products that Honeywell had licensed and to which it had authorized access. In other examples, users from SAP TN logged in using the credentials of recently 3 COMPLAINT

” Others used phony email addresses like “test@testyomama. and downloaded Software and Support Materials even after the customer had dropped its support rights with Oracle. Across its entire library of Software and Support Materials in Customer Connection. one user name connected to an SAP IP address appears to have logged in using the credentials of seven different customers in a span of just 15 days – all from SAP computers in Bryan. this user information did not match anything: it was fake. or 4 COMPLAINT . 8. Oracle’s server logs have recorded access through this same IP address by computers labeled with SAP identifiers using SAP IP addresses. Oracle has found many examples of similar activity. Indeed. like Metro Machine Corp. SAP blended log-in information from multiple customers with fake information. and phone number) that did not match the customer at all. In some cases.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.. SAP TN is a company that purports to provide technical support services on certain versions of Oracle’s PeopleSoft and JDE software programs. For example. to gain access to Oracle’s system under false pretexts. SAP users effectively swept much of the contents of Oracle’s system onto SAP’s servers. Texas. The Bryan.” In other cases. Employing these techniques. These “customer users” supplied user information (such as user name. the access originated from an internet protocol (IP) address in Bryan.com” and fake phone numbers such as “7777777777” and “123 456 7897. 7. SAP employees used the log-in IDs of multiple customers. Oracle to date has identified more than 10. This systematic theft of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials did not originate from any actual customer location. an SAP America branch office location and home of its wholly-owned subsidiary SAP TN. combined with phony user log-in information. 9. including the ones described above. All of these customers whose IDs SAP appropriated had one critical fact in common: they were. Rather.000 unauthorized downloads of Software and Support Materials relating to hundreds of different software programs. email address. Texas. In many instances. Texas IP address used to access and download Oracle’s Software and Support Materials is connected directly to SAP’s computer network. some users logged in with the user names of “xx” “ss” “User” and “NULL.

Oracle said it has thousands of developers building the new application suite. revenue comes from three basic activities: (a) license of the underlying software. developers. 1 ranked SAP.” Another mused. As explained below. SAP apparently has now warehoused an extensive library of Oracle’s proprietary. and (c) support contracts to keep the software updated and upgraded. this theft appears to be an essential – and illegal – part of SAP’s competitive strategy against Oracle. and support technicians. One industry analyst stated that. a software company acquired by PeopleSoft. Oracle officially became a player on SAP’s turf. an independent software support company founded by former PeopleSoft software engineers. “Oracle Corp. Oracle had previously announced that in January 2005 it would complete its acquisition of PeopleSoft. through SAP America. 5 COMPLAINT . and support.” 13. 10. aimed at taking market share from No. SAP AG spokesman Bill Wohl vowed that SAP AG would use SAP TN to “keep the pressure on 1 “JDE” refers to J. increasing Oracle’s potency as a competitor to SAP AG for enterprise applications software. Edwards World Solutions. As a result of this illegal activity. “After the acquisition of PeopleSoft earlier this year.D. consulting. copyrighted Software and Support Materials. * * In the world of enterprise software applications. new customers of SAP TN – SAP AG’s and SAP America’s software support subsidiary whose sole purpose is to compete with Oracle. SAP’s own statements confirmed it. Not by coincidence. SAP AG acquired SAP TN. is developing a ‘super set’ of applications. 12.1 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. * 11. Industry observers noted this fundamental shift in the competitive landscape. in 2003. SAP AG’s hasty acquisition of SAP TN was widely perceived as a response to the new competitive threat from Oracle. called Project Fusion. Inc. (b) consulting relating to the implementation and operation of the software. In January 2005. 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.

following: · More than 10. by way of example. SAP advertised this strategy as its “Safe Passage” program.” In connection with the SAP TN acquisition. As reported in industry publications. SAP appeared to focus more on growing the SAP TN sales force rather than investing in or expanding SAP TN’s tiny development team. or the day of. SAP America’s CEO. SAP TN’s services “form[ed] the basis of [SAP AG’s] Safe Passage initiative. committed to throw “a lot of additional resources” behind SAP TN (which consisted of only 37 employees in total). Bill McDermott. 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. with indications that this number may go significantly higher if traced further back in time.000 illicit downloads from Customer Connection between September 2006 and January 2007. Nevertheless. much less the 50% discount promoted by SAP. Bill McDermott. the 6 COMPLAINT SAP’s unlawful copying and theft includes.” 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. It certainly did not match Oracle’s investment in development resources. crowed “There’s nothing that I love more than to win.” and a sign that “SAP has taken the gloves off. or even come close to it. the . Publicly. 15. Indeed.” Although SAP America President and CEO. explicitly designed to transition customers away from Oracle products and onto the SAP software platform. SAP stole much of the Software and Support Materials directly from Oracle. · A systematic pattern of “sweeping” Oracle’s Customer Connection support website from SAP TN servers just days before.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Oracle” by exploiting legacy PeopleSoft customers’ perceived unease about Oracle’s commitment to support legacy PeopleSoft software. SAP TN did not appear to have the development capability to meet the support commitments advertised in the “Safe Passage” brochures at any price. industry observers deemed the “Safe Passage” program “measurably more aggressive. 14. a program aimed at siphoning off valuable software maintenance revenue from Oracle and persuading Oracle customers to switch software products [to SAP].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44. size.000 business applications software customers throughout the world. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. 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. testified on June 23. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. 46. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. As SAP AG reeled. but now Oracle offered a deeper. despite not owning any of the software code for. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. these same products.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. Richard Knowles. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle offered. 45. On January 7.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. 2005. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. and geographic and product scope. or intellectual property rights to. 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. how the nearly 50.” After the merger. 14 COMPLAINT . the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. 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. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. at its headquarters with more than 48.

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

in connection with converting Oracle customers to SAP support (via SAP TN). 52.” 51. Henning Kagermann. First. SAP AG would try to use SAP TN as a means of “speeding-up” the migration of PeopleSoft and JDE users to SAP platforms. SAP 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. “We're owned by SAP.” 16 COMPLAINT . 2005.” A month later. In April 2005.1 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. The CEOs stated the proposition more bluntly. which in turn was part of SAP’s “ongoing strategy to compete with Oracle. Bill McDermott. SAP America’s CEO. SAP TN agreed to the deal and cast its lot with SAP AG. ease integration with SAP NetWeaver(TM) and begin the process of innovating their businesses today. After the acquisition. stated. SAP would offer cut-rate pricing combined with the promise of essentially unlimited future support to former PeopleSoft and JDE support customers. SAP would aggressively campaign to migrate those customers to an SAP enterprise software platform. Second. identified SAP TN as instrumental to the parent company’s “Safe Passage” program.” The Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SAP Asia Pacific. to lure the support business over. in barely a month. We want them to be successful. at the SAP AG annual meeting. SAP AG’s top executives unveiled SAP AG’s acquisition of SAP TN as the centerpiece of its new “Safe Passage” scheme. publicly vowed to bankroll this effort to undermine Oracle by putting “a lot of additional resources into TomorrowNow. On January 19. Andrew Nelson. SAP AG’s CEO. SAP TN’s new parent companies directed it to begin to implement a two-phase plan to increase SAP’s enterprise application market share. As SAP AG Managing Director Alan Sedghi admitted. Colin Sampson. admitted that the SAP TN acquisition was “an integral part” of SAP’s Safe Passage program. publicly indicating that SAP TN was authorized and intended to implement SAP AG’s goals. 50.” And SAP TN certainly knew its role was to achieve SAP AG’s ends: as SAP TN’s CEO. SAP America CEO Bill McDermott claimed “The SAP Safe Passage offering gives companies an affordable way to protect their current investments.

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

58. By July 2006. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations. 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. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition. In October 2005. SAP grew more desperate. curiously. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product offerings. companies and corporate cultures.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price. technology. SAP AG’s CEO. By March 2006. “SAP AG plans to announce . including through its September 12. However. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT . 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems. maintenance services. Léo Apotheker. SAP America President and CEO. As reported on Forbes. SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its first year. 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. boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well. Bill McDermott. At the same time. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 56. Henning Kagermann. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. . . In a July 2006 earnings call.” 57. SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers.” How SAP could offer instantaneous. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. and more aggressive.

Although SAP put a brave face on its ability to compete with the increasingly potent Oracle applications offerings. bug fixes. optimally functioning Oracle software. and purported to add full support for an entirely different product line – Siebel – with a wave of its hand. “30-minute response time. 24x7x365” on software programs for which it had no intellectual property rights. patches. To compound the puzzle. 61.” and. and updates that comprise the advanced support services required by Oracle’s licensed customers. even after having expanded its ranks to 150 employees. The SAP Solution: Stolen Passage 1. most remarkably. Oracle Finds A Suspicious Pattern To analyze and improve on its industry leading support services.000 software and support engineers to create and help implement the code fixes. 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 .” By extending the Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. SAP continued to offer this comprehensive support to hundreds of customers at the “cut rate” of 50 cents on the dollar. Oracle. patches. without infringing on Oracle’s intellectual property.” “full upgrade script support. SAP unlawfully accessed and copied Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. Oracle has now solved this puzzle. simply did not add up. by comparison. as it did on its website and its other materials. To stave off the mounting competitive threat from Oracle. It was not clear how SAP TN could offer. The economics. Apotheker claimed that SAP now had “a global network of [SAP TN] capabilities” – enough to “gain[] significant traction. A Deal Too Good To Be True 59. some industry analysts wondered whether a small company like SAP TN. 62.1 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.” E. 60. “customized ongoing tax and regulatory updates. F. and other labor-intensive support items that a customer would need to maintain useful. could actually develop and offer the hundreds of regulatory updates.” “fixes for serious issues. and in conjunction with opening new SAP TN offices around the world. maintains a development force of more than 15. and the logic.

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

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

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

or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. to the extent SAP TN had any legitimate basis to access Oracle’s site as a contract consultant for a customer with current licensed support rights. those products. Indeed. 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. or need for. 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. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. and the confidential. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT . Further.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. the support website terms of use. proprietary. In short. Further. the scope of the downloaded Software and Support Materials – across multiple libraries in multiple lines of business – for customers that had no license to take. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. 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. Further. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers. Oracle has learned that SAP TN accessed and downloaded the Software and Support Materials when it either had no legitimate basis to access Oracle’s restricted website. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. 72. 73. Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements with its customers. SAP TN committed to abide by the same license obligations and usage terms and conditions described above applicable to licensed customers. 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. 71.

17 U. Stora Enso. VSM Group AB. and distribute these works. SAP TN reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions on Oracle’s support website before proceeding. 4. and therefore committed its theft knowingly and intentionally. Oracle has uncovered unlicensed downloads linked to SAP TN on behalf of numerous customers. Inc. display. including without limitation. Helzberg Diamonds.S.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 support only for products that a company has licensed. Oracle 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. 75. Interbrew UK. offer for sale.V. § 506. and impose strict confidentiality requirements. Smithfield Foods. Mortice Kern Systems. Oracle’s Customer Connection website is too pervasive. Berri Limited. Metro Machine Corp. Inc.... AbitibiConsolidated. SAP TN’s acts violated Oracle’s exclusive rights to use. §§ 101 et seq. Abbott Laboratories. Herbert Waldman. Oracle does not typically obtain copyright registrations on all programs or related Software and Support Materials as it generally does not find itself in the position of having to enforce its copyrights through litigation to stop conduct constituting an intentional infringement of Oracle’s rights. and covers too many individual violations.. Fuelserv Limited. Specific Examples Of SAP TN’s Unlawful Customer Downloads SAP TN’s improper access to. With literally thousands of software programs available for licensing. Distribution & Auto Service. Such acts constitute copyright infringement under 17 U. § 501 and also willful and intentional copyright infringement under 17 U. SPX Corporation.. NGC Management Limited. and Yazaki North America. Grupo Costamex. Bear. S.C. OCE Technologies.S. Laird Plastics. 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.. Ronis..A. Border Foods. create derivative works. Merck & Co. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s protected intellectual property and the integrity of its computer systems. Honeywell International. B.C. Accordingly. By way of example 24 COMPLAINT . 74.S. reproduce. and taking from. Stearns & Co. Caterpillar Elphinstone. National Manufacturing. publish. Texas Association of School Boards. to comprehensively detail here.C.

Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007. 77.000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all. In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. Over 2. Inc. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. Honeywell. users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9. 25 COMPLAINT . it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there.000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license. 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. (“Merck”). during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day. Merck. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. But. In the three months prior to that date. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP TN’s website as a client. More than 5. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. 76. Then.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. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN. 2007. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. after switching to SAP TN. Merck & Company.

including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. Canadian Payroll. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. Homebuilder Management.” “9999999999. in some cases. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose. authorization or other right to access and download the 5. “TN-DL03. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” 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.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. 78. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’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 Texas that belongs to SAP TN.” Similar to the other customer examples. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. These downloads included over 3.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. OCE. 26 COMPLAINT .” In many cases. Texas. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. Like the other companies. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. authorization. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. false user names) and downloaded over 12.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. OCE-Technologies B. From December of 2006 to January of 2007.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. “TNL-02.V. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897.

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

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

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

Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials obtained by Defendants as alleged above. there is a 30 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 94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within the meaning of California Penal Code § 502. computer system. Oracle is informed and believes that the aforementioned acts of the Defendants were willful and malicious in that Defendants’ acts described above were done with the deliberate intent to injure Oracle’s business and improve its own. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by knowingly. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. fraudulently. 101. 97. entitling Oracle to injunctive relief. 95. Oracle is therefore entitled to punitive damages. has no adequate remedy at law. Oracle is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(e). 96. and without permission accessing. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. 98. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. and/or computer network. Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Oracle’s computers. 100. and due to the continuing threat of such injury. or causing to be accessed.

18 U. and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. 106. § 1029.S. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. receipt of stolen property. Cal. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. Penal Code § 496. 102.C. As a result of Defendants’ acts. 18 U. These acts were undertaken by Defendants to obtain for themselves the software support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense. in some cases. conversion. 18 U. as alleged above.C. and conspiracy. but not limited to. but not limited to. including. 105. 18 U. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted. unjust enrichment. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. On information and belief.C. for their enterprise software. Cal. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions.C. Penal Code § 502. 18 U. wire fraud. § 1030 et seq. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device.C.S. renewed. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. Defendants were aware of these economic relationships and intended to interfere with and disrupt them by unlawfully and wrongfully taking and using Oracle’s Software and Support Materials to obtain and retain Oracle’s own customers at little to no cost. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This conduct. loss of profits from sales or licenses to 31 COMPLAINT . violation of RICO.. including. § 1343. 103.S. unauthorized access to computers.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. and ultimately to migrate such customers away from Oracle’s software programs and onto their own. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and.S. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. 104. Oracle has suffered economic harm. § 1962. §§ 270111. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients.S. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials.

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

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

C. conversion. 18 U. § 1029. all in an effort to gain unfair competitive advantage over Oracle. et seq. §§ 1030 et seq. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. 18 U.C. 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. Penal Code § 502. Code §§ 17200.S.S. 120. violation of RICO.C. intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. including. 18 U. Defendants have improperly and unlawfully taken commercial advantage of Oracle’s investment in its confidential. violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Defendants have engaged in unlawful business acts or practices by committing acts including computer fraud. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. proprietary. The acts and conduct of Defendants constitute fraudulent. Defendants’ conduct constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. receipt of stolen property. but not limited to. and conspiracy. interference with business relationships. trespass. wire fraud.S. & Prof. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels.Cal. & Prof. Penal Code § 496.1 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. Bus.C.S. § 1962. and unfair competition as defined by California Bus. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. 34 COMPLAINT . Cal. unlawful. Cal.. §§ 2701-11.C. 18 U. In light of Defendants’ conduct. § 1343. 121. 119. 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. 18 U. conversion. 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. 123. unauthorized access to computers. negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. unjust enrichment.S. and other illegal acts and practices as alleged above. Fifth Claim for Relief Unfair Competition . 122.

custody. proprietary. retention. or distribution of such property. including. 130. will continue to suffer irreparable injury. compensation. but not limited to. whereby Oracle has no adequate remedy at law.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 124.. Instead of paying Oracle for the use of its property. downloading. and should be enjoined from further unlawful. and all copies of such. Defendants intentionally and willfully entered Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website without permission and took possession of Oracle’s property. Defendants should be compelled to disgorge and/or restore any and all revenues. As a result of such unfair competition. Defendants’ unfair business practices have unjustly minimized Oracle’s competitive advantage and have caused and are causing Oracle to suffer damages. earnings. including. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. all of which Oracle stored on its computer system. Oracle at no time consented. returning the value of the stolen property itself and any revenue earned from it. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. unfair. 129. 125. in their possession. which is valuable to Oracle and vital to its continued business operations. This property is the sole and exclusive property of Oracle. 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. removal. 35 COMPLAINT . expressly or impliedly. Oracle has an exclusive right to possession and distribution of such property. profits. to Defendants’ copying. but not limited to. unless Defendants are enjoined from such unfair competition. Oracle’s confidential. Defendants should further be ordered to return all materials taken from Oracle. or control. and deceptive business practices. 126. 128. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury and.

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

139. Defendants continue to unjustly retain these benefits at the 37 COMPLAINT . Oracle is entitled to recover any and all damages it sustained as a result of such trespass. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. and damage to the confidential and copyrighted nature of the information on Oracle’s website. Defendants caused Oracle’s property to greatly diminish in value and deprived Oracle of the intended use of its computer systems. damage to Oracle’s rights to dominion and control over its property. 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. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. Defendants will continue to commit such acts and other competitors will be encouraged to sweep Oracle’s website. Defendants’ trespass therefore threatens to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. computer fraud concerning. in an amount to be determined at trial. the integrity and functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. Defendants intentionally interfered with Oracle’s use or possession of both Customer Connection and Oracle’s related internal databases and systems. and damaged. 141.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 138. Defendants’ trespass and interference proximately caused damage to Oracle. damage to the functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. Eighth Claim for Relief Unjust Enrichment/Restitution (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 142. 140. and the Software and Support Materials housed for licensed access through Customer Connection. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. but not limited to. including. Defendants unjustly received benefits at the expense of Oracle through their wrongful conduct. 143. Defendants’ trespass interfered with. As a result. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. for which Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted and threatened. which took substantial time and money for Oracle to develop.

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

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

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

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