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

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

Oracle had previously announced that in January 2005 it would complete its acquisition of PeopleSoft. a software company acquired by PeopleSoft.” Another mused. “Oracle Corp. SAP’s own statements confirmed it. combining features from the PeopleSoft and JDE1 software and its CEO Larry Ellison has been vocal about his intentions to take market share away from SAP. Oracle said it has thousands of developers building the new application suite. As a result of this illegal activity. and support technicians. 10. copyrighted Software and Support Materials. (b) consulting relating to the implementation and operation of the software. this theft appears to be an essential – and illegal – part of SAP’s competitive strategy against Oracle. One industry analyst stated that. in 2003. called Project Fusion. Industry observers noted this fundamental shift in the competitive landscape. In January 2005. 5 COMPLAINT . SAP AG spokesman Bill Wohl vowed that SAP AG would use SAP TN to “keep the pressure on 1 “JDE” refers to J. 1 ranked SAP. 12. * 11.” 13.1 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. Not by coincidence. an independent software support company founded by former PeopleSoft software engineers. SAP AG acquired SAP TN. new customers of SAP TN – SAP AG’s and SAP America’s software support subsidiary whose sole purpose is to compete with Oracle. Edwards World Solutions. aimed at taking market share from No. consulting. increasing Oracle’s potency as a competitor to SAP AG for enterprise applications software. * * In the world of enterprise software applications. Oracle officially became a player on SAP’s turf. Inc. SAP AG’s hasty acquisition of SAP TN was widely perceived as a response to the new competitive threat from Oracle. developers. and support. As explained below. SAP apparently has now warehoused an extensive library of Oracle’s proprietary. is developing a ‘super set’ of applications. through SAP America. “After the acquisition of PeopleSoft earlier this year. revenue comes from three basic activities: (a) license of the underlying software. and (c) support contracts to keep the software updated and upgraded.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior to downloading Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s support websites. the user agrees to accept and comply with these Special Terms of Use. 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 . If you do not have a confidentiality agreement in effect with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. The terms of use explicitly describe the confidential nature of the material on Customer Connection: “the information contained in the Materials [on Customer Connection] is the confidential proprietary information of Oracle. 40.” 39. 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.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. other than to support your authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which you hold a supported license from Oracle….” (emphasis supplied) 38. Access to the secured areas of Customer Connection is also governed by Special Terms of Use. or otherwise copy in any form or by any means the information contained in the Materials for any purpose. disclose. You may not use. transmit. By using the secured website. 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. The Special Terms of Use provide that access is only permitted via the user’s “personal username and password” and that all materials on the secured website are confidential and proprietary. The Legal Download Agreement also puts the user on notice as to the confidential. 37. reproduce.

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

broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. despite not owning any of the software code for.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. how the nearly 50. As SAP AG reeled. 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. these same products. or intellectual property rights to. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. testified on June 23.000 business applications software customers throughout the world. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. at its headquarters with more than 48. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle offered. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled.” After the merger. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. 45. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. Richard Knowles.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. On January 7. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. 2005. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. 44. and geographic and product scope. SAP AG’s top executives publicly downplayed the threat that a combined Oracle and PeopleSoft entity would pose to its competitive position for business software applications. but now Oracle offered a deeper. 14 COMPLAINT . 46. One way was to hit at Oracle’s customer base – and potentially increase its own – by acquiring and bankrolling a company that claimed the ability to compete with Oracle support and maintenance services on Oracle’s own software products. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. size.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23.

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

SAP America’s CEO. to lure the support business over. “We're owned by SAP. After the acquisition. ease integration with SAP NetWeaver(TM) and begin the process of innovating their businesses today. SAP AG’s CEO. Colin Sampson. 52. SAP TN agreed to the deal and cast its lot with SAP AG. SAP AG’s top executives unveiled SAP AG’s acquisition of SAP TN as the centerpiece of its new “Safe Passage” scheme. identified SAP TN as instrumental to the parent company’s “Safe Passage” program.” 51. Second. First. at the SAP AG annual meeting. Andrew Nelson. SAP would offer cut-rate pricing combined with the promise of essentially unlimited future support to former PeopleSoft and JDE support customers. On January 19. SAP AG would try to use SAP TN as a means of “speeding-up” the migration of PeopleSoft and JDE users to SAP platforms.” A month later. The CEOs stated the proposition more bluntly.” 16 COMPLAINT . SAP TN’s new parent companies directed it to begin to implement a two-phase plan to increase SAP’s enterprise application market share. SAP 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. in connection with converting Oracle customers to SAP support (via SAP TN). in barely a month. stated. publicly indicating that SAP TN was authorized and intended to implement SAP AG’s goals.” The Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SAP Asia Pacific. Bill McDermott. In April 2005. We want them to be successful.” And SAP TN certainly knew its role was to achieve SAP AG’s ends: as SAP TN’s CEO. 50. admitted that the SAP TN acquisition was “an integral part” of SAP’s Safe Passage program. publicly vowed to bankroll this effort to undermine Oracle by putting “a lot of additional resources into TomorrowNow. Henning Kagermann. which in turn was part of SAP’s “ongoing strategy to compete with Oracle. SAP America CEO Bill McDermott claimed “The SAP Safe Passage offering gives companies an affordable way to protect their current investments. SAP would aggressively campaign to migrate those customers to an SAP enterprise software platform.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 deal about to close – the “magic phone call” conveyed terms rich enough that. 2005. As SAP AG Managing Director Alan Sedghi admitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. Over 2. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. In the three months prior to that date. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. Merck. More than 5. 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. one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP TN’s website as a client. 77.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007. Honeywell. 76.000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. Merck & Company. But. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there.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. Inc. 2007. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. (“Merck”). users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9. a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the nature and extent of SAP’s theft. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. 25 COMPLAINT . after switching to SAP TN. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. Then. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day.

OCE-Technologies B. authorization or other right to access and download the 5.1 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.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” “9999999999. in some cases. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. authorization. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products. Canadian Payroll.V. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. Like the other companies. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. Homebuilder Management.” Similar to the other customer examples. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. “TNL-02. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. These downloads included over 3. “TN-DL03. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. 26 COMPLAINT . OCE. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL.” In many cases. Texas. 78.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose.” 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. false user names) and downloaded over 12.

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

§§ 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4) & a(5)) (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 82. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. § 1030(a)(4) by knowingly. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) by knowingly causing the transmission of a program.C. and by obtaining information from such a protected computer. Using Oracle’s own protected property to unfairly compete against and undercut Oracle. current. 18 U. and never disavowed it. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. information. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. § 1030(a)(2)(C).S. First Claim for Relief Violation of Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U. or command and as a result intentionally causing damage without authorization to a protected computer owned by Oracle. SAP has thereby caused significant damage to Oracle through its SAP TN subsidiary. by intentionally accessing a computer used for interstate commerce or communication. interference with Oracle’s business relationships. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 18 U.C. ratified it. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. accessing a protected computer. and prospective customers and the associated license and support revenue to artificially inflate its market share. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. trespass on Oracle’s support website. 28 COMPLAINT .S. including but not limited to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. and related computer fraud. 83.C. code.S. and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained one or more things of value. in addition to the irreparable harm caused by Defendants’ unfair competition. SAP has illegally converted Oracle’s former. and with intent to defraud Oracle. 85.C. 18 U.S. 84.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 download scheme.

taking. recklessly or without due regard for their actions. computer system. 89. data. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) by knowingly and fraudulently.S. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.S. 29 COMPLAINT . § 1030(e)(2). Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(6) by knowingly.C. in any event. §§ 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii) & (iii) by intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization. programs. and without permission providing.S. Second Claim for Relief Computer Data Access and Fraud Act . Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(3) by knowingly. fraudulently. § 1030(g). fraudulently. 92. without limitation.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 86. and/or computer network. The computer system or systems that Defendants accessed as described above constitute a “protected computer” within the meaning of 18 U. 91. entitling Oracle to remedies including injunctive relief as provided by 18 U. but. 93. including. and making use of programs. Defendants will continue to commit such acts. Defendants’ unlawful access to and theft from Oracle’s computers also have caused Oracle irreparable injury. 88. and/or computer network. harm to Oracle’s data. Penal Code § 502 (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 90. and computer systems and other losses and damage in an amount to be proved at trial. and files from Oracle’s computers. in an amount well over $5000 aggregated over a one-year period. and without permission. a means of accessing Oracle’s computers. 87. causing damage to Oracle.C.Cal. or assisting in providing. Unless restrained and enjoined.C. and without permission accessing and using Oracle’s computer services. Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for these inflicted and threatened injuries. copying. 18 U. Oracle has suffered damage and loss by reason of these violations. accessing. computer system. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oppressive. ratifying. these wrongful acts was willful. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain any value they obtained as a result of their wrongful conduct. that agreement and/or furthered the conspiracy by cooperating. but not limited to. Ninth Claim for Relief Civil Conspiracy (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 145. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 expense of Oracle. computer fraud concerning. Defendants willfully. Oracle is accordingly entitled to full restitution of all amounts in which Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Oracle’s expense. loss. 149. and in furtherance of. and commission of. Oracle has suffered injury. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 38 COMPLAINT . 146. The wrongful conduct committed pursuant to the conspiracy was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 144. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. Defendants’ intentional agreement to commit. damage. and knowingly agreed and conspired with each other to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct. As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Defendants did the acts alleged pursuant to. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses for Oracle’s software programs. 148. 147. intentionally. and harm. including. or adopting the acts of the others. malicious. encouraging. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights.

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful