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 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org 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 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(5) UNFAIR COMPETITION; (6) CONVERSION; (7) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS; (8) UNJUST ENRICHMENT / RESTITUTION; (9) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; (10) AIDING AND ABETTING; AND (11) AN ACCOUNTING. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc. (“Oracle USA”), and Oracle International Corporation (“OIC”) (together “Oracle” or “Plaintiffs”) for their Complaint against Defendants SAP AG (“SAP AG”), SAP America, Inc. (“SAP America”), TomorrowNow, Inc. (“SAP TN”), and Does 1 through 50 (collectively referred to as “SAP” or “Defendants”), allege as follows based on their personal knowledge as for themselves, and on information and belief as to the acts of others: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case is about corporate theft on a grand scale, committed by the
largest German software company – a conglomerate known as SAP. Oracle is a leading developer of database and applications software, and SAP is Oracle’s largest enterprise applications software competitor. 2. Oracle brings this lawsuit after discovering that SAP is engaged in
systematic, illegal access to – and taking from – Oracle’s computerized customer support systems. Through this scheme, SAP has stolen thousands of proprietary, copyrighted software products and other confidential materials that Oracle developed to service its own support customers. SAP gained repeated and unauthorized access, in many cases by use of pretextual customer log-in credentials, to Oracle’s proprietary, password-protected customer support website. From that website, SAP has copied and swept thousands of Oracle software products and other proprietary and confidential materials onto its own servers. As a result, SAP has compiled an illegal library of Oracle’s copyrighted software code and other materials. This storehouse of stolen Oracle intellectual property enables SAP to offer cut rate support services to 1 COMPLAINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
customers who use Oracle software, and to attempt to lure them to SAP’s applications software platform and away from Oracle’s. Through this Complaint, Oracle seeks to stop SAP’s illegal intrusions and theft, to prevent SAP from using the materials it has illegally acquired to compete with Oracle, and to recover damages and attorneys’ fees. 3. In late November 2006, there occurred unusually heavy download activity
on Oracle’s password-protected customer support website for its PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards (“JDE”) product lines. That website, called Customer Connection, permits licensed Oracle customers with active support agreements to download a wide array of copyrighted, proprietary software programs and other support materials. Oracle has invested billions of dollars in research, development, and engineering to create these materials, which include program updates, software updates, bug fixes, patches, custom solutions, and instructional documents – all copyrighted by Oracle – across the entire PeopleSoft and JDE family of software products (the “Software and Support Materials”). Customers who have contracted for support with Oracle have log-in credentials to access Customer Connection and download Software and Support Materials. However, Oracle’s support contracts limit customers’ access and download rights to Software and Support Materials pertaining to the customers’ licensed products. Customers have no contractual right to download Software and Support Materials relating to software programs they have not licensed from Oracle, or for which the customers did not purchase support rights. 4. The Software and Support Materials are a subset of the technical support
services that Oracle makes available to its customers that have licensed Oracle software programs and purchased the right to receive technical support services related to them. The full suite of technical support services (also known as “support” or “maintenance”) generally includes three types of offerings that Oracle, like most other enterprise software vendors, makes available to its licensed customers: (i) telephone or email access to Oracle’s support technicians regarding the operation of Oracle’s software; (ii) software program code for the customers’ licensed software programs which adds new functionality or features to the software (generally referred to as “software updates”), or that addresses errors or “bugs” in the software program (generally referred to as “software patches”); and (iii) “knowledge management” articles that 2 COMPLAINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
help with problem solving and provide suggestions relating to the customer’s use of licensed software programs. Because of the complexity of enterprise software applications and the business environments in which they run, regular software updates and patches and knowledge management articles are critical components of a software maker’s support offering. For purposes of this case, Oracle’s claims against SAP only concern Oracle’s Software and Support Materials, and not Oracle’s provision of telephone or online assistance in response to customers’ support queries. 5. The access and download activity Oracle observed on its systems in late
November and December 2006 did not resemble the authorized, limited access to which its customers were entitled. Instead, SAP employees using the log-in credentials of Oracle customers with expired or soon-to-expire support rights had, in a matter of a few days or less, accessed and copied thousands of individual Software and Support Materials. For a significant number of these mass downloads, the users lacked any contractual right even to access, let alone copy, the Software and Support Materials. The downloads spanned every library in the Customer Connection support website. For example, using one customer’s credentials, SAP suddenly downloaded an average of over 1,800 items per day for four days straight (compared to that customer’s normal downloads averaging 20 per month). Other purported customers hit the Oracle site and harvested Software and Support Materials after they had cancelled all support with Oracle in favor of SAP TN. Moreover, these mass downloads captured Software and Support Materials that were clearly of no use to the “customers” in whose names they were taken. Indeed, the materials copied not only related to unlicensed products, but to entire Oracle product families that the customers had not licensed. 6. For example, in January 2007, a user on an SAP TN computer signed in as
Oracle customer Honeywell International, Inc., a Fortune 100 technology and manufacturing company, to access Oracle’s support system and copy literally thousands of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials in virtually every product library in every line of business. This copying went well beyond the products that Honeywell had licensed and to which it had authorized access. In other examples, users from SAP TN logged in using the credentials of recently 3 COMPLAINT
SAP blended log-in information from multiple customers with fake information. and downloaded Software and Support Materials even after the customer had dropped its support rights with Oracle. 9. The Bryan. the access originated from an internet protocol (IP) address in Bryan. 7. 8. combined with phony user log-in information. Employing these techniques. This systematic theft of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials did not
originate from any actual customer location. to gain access to Oracle’s system under false pretexts. an SAP America branch office location and home of its wholly-owned subsidiary SAP TN.com” and fake phone numbers such as “7777777777” and “123 456 7897. Texas..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
departed customers.” In other cases. like Metro Machine Corp. including the ones described above. Indeed. In many instances. SAP TN is a company that purports to provide technical support services on certain versions of Oracle’s PeopleSoft and JDE software programs. and phone number) that did not match the customer at all.000 unauthorized downloads of Software and Support Materials relating to hundreds of different software programs. Rather. some users logged in with the user names of “xx” “ss” “User” and “NULL. Across its entire
library of Software and Support Materials in Customer Connection. this user information did not match anything: it was fake. Texas IP address used to access and download Oracle’s Software and Support Materials is connected directly to SAP’s computer network. For example. These “customer users” supplied user information (such as user name. or 4 COMPLAINT
. In some cases. Texas. Oracle has found many examples of similar activity. For example. Oracle’s server logs have recorded access through this same IP address by computers labeled with SAP identifiers using SAP IP addresses. Oracle to date has identified more than 10. 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. All of these customers whose IDs SAP appropriated had one critical fact in common: they were. SAP employees
used the log-in IDs of multiple customers. SAP users effectively swept much of the contents of Oracle’s system onto SAP’s servers. email address.” Others used phony email addresses like “test@testyomama.
increasing Oracle’s potency as a competitor to SAP AG for enterprise applications software. SAP apparently has now warehoused an
extensive library of Oracle’s proprietary. through SAP America. 12. 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. called Project Fusion. and support. and support technicians. One industry analyst stated that. copyrighted Software and Support Materials. Oracle said it has thousands of developers building the new application suite. In January 2005. Edwards World Solutions. As a result of this illegal activity. developers. “Oracle Corp. * 11. consulting. and (c) support contracts to keep the software updated and upgraded.D. in 2003. 1 ranked SAP.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
were just about to become. SAP’s own statements confirmed it. Not by coincidence. SAP AG spokesman Bill Wohl vowed that SAP AG would use SAP TN to “keep the pressure on
“JDE” refers to J. Oracle had previously announced that in January 2005 it would complete its acquisition of PeopleSoft. Inc. new customers of SAP TN – SAP AG’s and SAP America’s software support subsidiary whose sole purpose is to compete with Oracle. SAP AG acquired SAP TN. Industry observers noted this fundamental shift in the competitive
landscape. 5 COMPLAINT
. this theft appears to be an essential – and illegal – part of SAP’s competitive strategy against Oracle. “After the acquisition of PeopleSoft earlier this year. aimed at taking market share from No. As explained below.” Another mused. * *
In the world of enterprise software applications. is developing a ‘super set’ of applications. Oracle officially became a player on SAP’s turf. 10. a software company acquired by PeopleSoft.” 13. revenue comes from three
basic activities: (a) license of the underlying software. an independent software support company founded by former PeopleSoft software engineers. SAP AG’s hasty acquisition of SAP TN was widely perceived as a
response to the new competitive threat from Oracle. (b) consulting relating to the implementation and operation of the software.
a program aimed at siphoning off valuable software maintenance revenue from Oracle and persuading Oracle customers to switch software products [to SAP]. 15. SAP stole much of the Software and Support Materials directly from Oracle.” and a sign that “SAP has taken the gloves off.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.000 illicit downloads from Customer Connection between September 2006 and January 2007.” Although SAP America President and CEO. following: · More than 10. industry observers deemed the “Safe Passage” program
“measurably more aggressive. Nevertheless. SAP TN did not appear to have the development capability to meet the support commitments advertised in the “Safe Passage” brochures at any price. 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. with indications that this number may go significantly higher if traced further back in time. by way of example. crowed “There’s nothing that I love more than to win. SAP TN’s services “form[ed] the basis of [SAP AG’s] Safe Passage initiative. It certainly did not match Oracle’s investment in development resources. SAP appeared to focus more on growing the SAP TN sales force rather than investing in or expanding SAP TN’s tiny development team. the
. the 6 COMPLAINT SAP’s unlawful copying and theft includes. Bill McDermott. Bill McDermott. Indeed. 14. SAP America’s CEO. Publicly. SAP advertised this strategy as its “Safe Passage” program. committed to throw “a lot of additional resources” behind SAP TN (which consisted of only 37 employees in total). · A systematic pattern of “sweeping” Oracle’s Customer Connection support website from SAP TN servers just days before. 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. or the day of. As reported in industry publications. much less the 50% discount promoted by SAP.” In connection with the SAP TN acquisition. explicitly designed to transition customers away from Oracle products and onto the SAP software platform.
unlawful. SAP has taken Oracle’s Software and Support Materials and apparently used them to insinuate itself into Oracle’s customer base. These illegal business practices threaten to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. its many employees. to try to “keep the pressure on Oracle. · The improper access to. · On multiple occasions.
. or in some cases on behalf of former Oracle customers with no access rights to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials whatsoever. authorized customers or through normal access to Oracle’s Customer Connection system. and deceptive business practices that continues to this day. In short. in the purported name of customers that had never licensed those products and had no legal access to them. Oracle has no adequate remedy at law for the harm threatened and caused by these acts.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. and theft of. Through its illegitimate and illegal business practices. 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. and to attempt to convert these customers to SAP software applications.
expiration of a new SAP TN customer’s support contract with Oracle. the indiscriminate.” SAP has been engaged in
a systematic program of unfair. and its customers. Oracle also has concerns that SAP may have enhanced or improved its own software applications offerings using information gleaned from Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. clearly-marked internal proprietary Oracle support documents not available even to licensed. · Accessing and downloading Software and Support Materials across multiple product lines in multiple lines of business available on the Customer Connection support website.
21. Pennsylvania. SAP TN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP America. SAP TN is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in
Bryan. Walldorf. County of San Mateo. 23. OIC is a California corporation duly authorized to do business in the State
of California. State of California. Oracle USA is a Colorado corporation duly authorized to do business in
the State of California. County of San Mateo. Oracle Corporation develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services around the world. (“PeopleSoft”) and JDE. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are authorized to license to end users the copyrighted computer software programs and other works at issue in this action. State of California. Oracle USA is the successor to PeopleSoft USA. Inc. Texas.. with its principal place of business in Redwood City.
THE PARTIES 17. 20. 19.
. SAP America is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of SAP AG is a German corporation with its principal place of business in
business in Newtown Square. County of San Mateo. Oracle Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Redwood City. Germany. 22.1 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
Corporation and Oracle USA are the licensees of the copyrights at issue in this action. with its only place of business in Redwood City. Directly and through its subsidiaries. State of California. The corporate relationship of the three named defendants is set forth in the chart below. 18. Oracle USA develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services. SAP America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG. OIC is the owner of the copyrights at issue in this action.
representative. SAP AG had both the right and the authority to control the actions of both corporations. at all material times.
SAP AG (German Parent Corporation) SAP America (Wholly-owned U. had full knowledge of and gave substantial 9 COMPLAINT
. parent. promote. 27. By way of example only. Defendants all are doing business in and/or have directed their activities at
California. SAP America and SAP TN advertise. Oracle will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.S. servant. each of the Defendants. alter ego. whether individual. or otherwise. through its 100% ownership of both SAP America
and SAP TN. or co-conspirator of the others. employee. Subsidiary) SAP TN (Wholly-owned U. SAP AG negotiates and enters into software license and support agreements directly within the United States and. inclusive. SAP AG also holds an annual meeting of its Board of Directors in Palo Alto. and specifically this judicial district. 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. subsidiary. including Does 1 through
50. California. At all material times. Subsidiary)
Oracle is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1
through 50. and finances the sales and promotional activities of both SAP America and SAP TN throughout the United States and in California. specifically in this judicial district. and support customers in California and in this judicial district. license. joint venturer. At all material times. service. SAP America had both the right and authority to control the actions of SAP TN.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24. partnership. 25. unincorporated association. partner. Similarly. 26. was the agent. corporation. through its 100% ownership of SAP TN. and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. affiliate.S. sell.
17 U.. partnership. §§ 101. et seq.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
assistance to the alleged activities. and the first to
receive J. Oracle is the world’s largest enterprise software company. Oracle’s first cause of action arises under the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act. Power & Associates’ global certification for outstanding service and support based 10 COMPLAINT
. JURISDICTION 28.C. Venue in this district is appropriate. representation.
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. VI. affiliation. and each is legally responsible for the acts and omissions of the others. 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. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 31.C. III. V.R. a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district.S. and in doing the things alleged. § 1331. 3-2 (c) and (d).C. employment.S. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. joint venture.S.S. and the Court will have subjectmatter jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U. § 1391. § 1338. service. when the relevant copyright registrations issue. because
a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in this district. and the Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the parties as alleged throughout this Complaint.S. pursuant to 28 U. This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent
state law claims under 28 U.C.C. In addition. VENUE 30. 29. §§ 1030 et seq. each was acting within the scope of such agency. § 1030(g) and 28 U.D. or conspiracy.. Assignment is proper in this division under Civil L.C. Oracle will seek to amend this Complaint to add claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. 18 U.S. and this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 18 U. IV.C.
Among other things. or use of. that software. and use of. Oracle also restricts access to the Customer Connection technical support
website.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
on measuring customer satisfaction worldwide. Oracle’s software offerings include database. 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. or patches to those software programs the customers have expressly licensed from Oracle and have the right to use. distributes. and typically do. Oracle’s software. 35. and services software designed to help its customers manage and grow their business operations. and any associated documentation or service offerings. licensed customers can. 33. rent. “software” specifically includes the update products made available to customers as part of the support contracts that customers purchased from Oracle. its object and source code. disclosure. As defined in one illustrative license agreement. Oracle’s license agreements define Oracle’s confidential information to
include. Oracle develops. Oracle does not sell
. without limitation. or lease of the software to third parties. 34. including because the customers originally contracted with companies later acquired by Oracle. manufactures. middleware. 36. and any sublicense. As is typical in the enterprise software industry. In addition. but all of the relevant license agreements for what is now Oracle software set comparable rules for access to. any portion of the software not expressly licensed and paid for by the licensee. Oracle’s license agreements with its customers may vary according to the
products licensed. bug fixes. use. those rules prohibit access to. Unless specifically provided in your licensing or distribution agreement with Oracle.
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
confidential. 37.1 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 Customer Connection: “the information contained in the Materials [on Customer Connection] is the confidential proprietary information of Oracle. transmit. You may not use. reproduce.” 39. Prior to downloading Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s
Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited. All Software is confidential information of Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards and its use and distribution is governed by the terms of the software license agreement that is in effect between you and Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards (“License Agreement”). WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited. COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
. The Legal Download Agreement further restricts use of documents
downloaded from the website: Permission to use Documents (such as white papers. In addition. agree to additional legal restrictions. and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. These terms notify the user that the software available to download from Oracle is Oracle’s copyrighted material. 42. datasheets and FAQs) from this server (“Server”) is granted. software action requests. such as a Software
Application Request (“SAR”) through the SAR Search Web Application. press releases. users accessing specific materials. provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear. 41. product or upgrade announcements. (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media. the user must click on a button indicating that it accepts these terms. 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 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.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.” To download a SAR. 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.
On January 7. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. 14 COMPLAINT
. SAP AG instead
considered how to undermine Oracle. 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. size. 2005. these same products.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23.” After the merger. but now Oracle offered a deeper.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. and geographic and product scope. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle
offered. testified on June 23. how the nearly 50. or intellectual property rights to. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled.000 business applications software customers throughout the world.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. 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. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. As SAP AG reeled. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. 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. Richard Knowles. 45. despite not owning any of the software code for.
Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. at its headquarters with more than 48. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. 46. 44.
In December 2004. in
December 2004. SAP TN president Andrew Nelson got “the magic phone call” from Jim Mackey. SAP TN would eventually lose its customer base. because to the extent SAP AG successfully undermined Oracle by having its customers move from Oracle’s software to SAP AG’s software. and to use SAP TN to do it. but a calculated competitive move. it instead focuses on simply keeping the software up and running for an annual fee. JDE. As described in a glossy spread in a leading industry publication. however.” 49. by providing low-cost maintenance and support services to PeopleSoft and JDE customers running assorted versions of these software programs. 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. just weeks before Oracle would close the PeopleSoft acquisition. Acquiring SAP TN was not a mere investment by SAP AG.” D. So SAP AG had to make the price right. To retain full control over every detail of its scheme to lure away
customers from Oracle.
SAP TN 47.” Mackey made Nelson an offer “he couldn’t refuse. SAP Responds To Oracle Competition With Its “Safe Passage” Scheme 48. Oracle.
headquartered in Bryan. SAP AG bought “another arrow in its quiver to hunt after Oracle’s customers. but – with the Oracle/PeopleSoft 15 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
C. 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.” Aligning with SAP AG made little sense for SAP TN. SAP AG has refused to disclose the terms of its SAP TN purchase. and later. SAP TN promised to offer such cheap support “because it is not investing millions of dollars in research and development for future versions of the software. SAP AG proposed to buy SAP TN outright and make it a wholly-owned – and wholly-beholden – subsidiary. Texas and founded by former PeopleSoft employees. SAP TN was a small software services company. SAP AG’s “front man for SAP AG’s mergers and acquisitions strategy. As one industry journalist explained. As one industry observer put it. often outdated.
ease integration with SAP NetWeaver(TM) and begin the process of innovating their businesses today. SAP AG would try to use SAP TN as a means of “speeding-up” the migration of PeopleSoft and JDE users to SAP platforms. publicly indicating that SAP TN was authorized and intended to implement SAP AG’s goals. 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.” And SAP TN certainly knew its role was to achieve SAP AG’s ends: as SAP TN’s CEO. 2005. stated. First. As SAP AG Managing Director Alan Sedghi admitted. to lure the support business over. SAP AG’s CEO. SAP America’s CEO. SAP
America CEO Bill McDermott claimed “The SAP Safe Passage offering gives companies an affordable way to protect their current investments. SAP TN’s new parent companies directed it to begin
to implement a two-phase plan to increase SAP’s enterprise application market share. 50. We want them to be successful. SAP TN agreed to the deal and cast its lot with SAP AG.” A month later. at the SAP AG annual meeting. “We're owned by SAP.” 16 COMPLAINT
. On January 19. Bill McDermott. Andrew Nelson.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
deal about to close – the “magic phone call” conveyed terms rich enough that.” 51. The CEOs stated the proposition more bluntly. admitted that the SAP TN acquisition was “an integral part” of SAP’s Safe Passage program. in connection with converting Oracle customers to SAP support (via SAP TN). In April 2005. in barely a month. SAP would aggressively campaign to migrate those customers to an SAP enterprise software platform. 52. SAP AG’s top executives unveiled SAP AG’s
acquisition of SAP TN as the centerpiece of its new “Safe Passage” scheme. Henning Kagermann. which in turn was part of SAP’s “ongoing strategy to compete with Oracle. Colin Sampson. Second. identified SAP TN as instrumental to the parent company’s “Safe Passage” program. publicly vowed to bankroll this effort to undermine Oracle by putting “a lot of additional resources into TomorrowNow. After the acquisition. SAP would offer cut-rate pricing combined with the promise of essentially unlimited future support to former PeopleSoft and JDE support customers.” The Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SAP Asia Pacific.
SAP AG’s “second wave” included “an intensive customer recruitment campaign. 55. These lower cost alternatives advertised by SAP AG were to come directly through SAP TN. To implement Phase Two of its plan (luring Oracle customers to the SAP
enterprise software platform). 17 COMPLAINT
. it took a hands-on approach. An April 2005 SAP AG press release apparently aimed to increase perceived doubt among Oracle customers by announcing a “second wave” of “Safe Passage. Beginning in January 2005. and Siebel customers – If Oracle’s options have you worried. SAP sales representatives unleashed a torrent
of marketing materials designed to exacerbate and leverage perceived.000 direct mail solicitations to Oracle customers. offering significantly lower cost maintenance alternatives to Oracle customers running PSFT/JDE solutions” through 70. JD Edwards. consider another option: SAP. the SAP AG sales personnel would pressure the customers to drop Oracle products outright in favor of SAP AG’s suite.
SAP implemented Phase One immediately. It deployed its salespeople to contact potential customers and push them to switch to SAP TN’s services.” SAP TN’s website confirms its acceptance and undertaking of the SAP-controlled Safe Passage program: “TomorrowNow can also provide our support services as part of the SAP Safe Passage Program. As reflected on SAP AG’s
website: “SAP offers Safe Passage for PeopleSoft. SAP AG offered maintenance support through SAP TN. SAP provides solutions. albeit unfounded. PeopleSoft and JDE customer uncertainty about the prospects for long-term. technology and maintenance services.” 54. If customers declined to convert to SAP TN.” and elsewhere says that “Safe Passage maintenance and support are delivered worldwide through TomorrowNow.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
53. SAP AG did not simply sit back and leave the recruiting of potential Safe Passage customers to SAP TN’s sales force. quality support from Oracle. Instead. officially “bundled” with SAP AG enterprise software as a centerpiece of the Safe Passage program.” To exploit the fear it intended to create. To give teeth to these commingled sales efforts.” (emphasis supplied) SAP America’s website promises that “SAP and TomorrowNow can cut your maintenance costs by as much as 50% through 2015.
” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. curiously. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product
offerings.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers. . “SAP AG plans to announce . By March 2006.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price.
SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its
first year. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. Henning Kagermann. At the same time. 58. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage. SAP America President and CEO. However. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. 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. As reported on Forbes. By July 2006. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had
lost as much as 2% market share to 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
56. In a July 2006 earnings call. Léo Apotheker. round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions. Bill McDermott. 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. SAP grew more desperate. and more aggressive. technology. SAP AG’s CEO.” 57. boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition.” How SAP could offer instantaneous. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage. including through its September 12. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. companies and corporate cultures. . SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. In October 2005. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations. maintenance services.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT
“30-minute response time. F. maintains a development force of more than 15. 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
. 62.000 software and support engineers to create and help implement the code fixes. most remarkably. and purported to add full support for an entirely different product line – Siebel – with a wave of its hand. some industry analysts wondered whether a small company like SAP TN. Oracle. 61.” and. by comparison. and in conjunction with opening new SAP TN offices around the world. without infringing on Oracle’s intellectual property. To stave off the mounting competitive
threat from Oracle. simply did not add up. The SAP Solution: Stolen Passage 1. A Deal Too Good To Be True 59. optimally functioning Oracle software. and other labor-intensive support items that a customer would need to maintain useful. Apotheker claimed that SAP now had “a global network of [SAP TN] capabilities” – enough to “gain significant traction. It was not clear how SAP TN could offer. Oracle Finds A Suspicious Pattern To analyze and improve on its industry leading support services. patches. SAP continued to offer this comprehensive support to hundreds of customers at the “cut rate” of 50 cents on the dollar.” E.” By extending the Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. and the logic. To compound the puzzle. Although SAP put a brave face on its ability to compete with the
increasingly potent Oracle applications offerings. SAP unlawfully accessed and copied Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. and updates that comprise the advanced support services required by Oracle’s licensed customers. even after having expanded its ranks to 150 employees. 24x7x365” on software programs for which it had no intellectual property rights. as it did on its website and its
other materials.” “full upgrade script support. “customized ongoing tax and regulatory updates. The economics. Oracle has now solved this puzzle. bug fixes.” “fixes for serious issues. patches.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
customers. 60. could actually develop and offer the hundreds of regulatory updates.
Oracle noticed huge. continue search” option. And. 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. These clicks numbered in the thousands for several customers. Oracle also discovered that the downloaded Software and Support Materials included internal documents not available even to licensed customers and not available through normal. 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. continue search” option. 20 COMPLAINT
. Indeed. to take a copy of them all. In the course of this investigation. Instead. Oracle discovered a pattern. employing the customer’s log-in credentials. in the month before a customer’s Oracle support expired. If the customer selects the “No. 65. unexplained spikes in the number of
customers on the online support website who had clicked the “No. Oracle regularly compiles this data to assess whether its system helped customers resolve their support issues. Given the extreme speed at which the activity occurred. or thousands of products beyond the scope of the specific customer’s licensed products and permitted access. would access Oracle’s system and download large quantities of Software and Support Materials. these clicks could not reflect real responses from any human customers actually reading the solutions they had accessed. the support system responds by offering the customer further options. including dozens. a user purporting to be that customer. and Oracle discovered that each response – each answer by users pretending to be the customer – occurred in a matter of seconds or less. 64. with the aim of continually improving the support system for customers. authorized use of Customer Connection. Some of these apparent customer users even downloaded materials after their contractual support rights had expired. 63. apparently. Frequently. 2. Oracle soon discovered that many of these “customers” had taken
massive quantities of Software and Support Materials beyond their license rights. In late 2006. hundreds. over and over again.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
which included false names and phone numbers. including updates. also linked to SAP. The users presumably intended this misinformation. to mask from Oracle their true identity and the fact of their improper access to the Software and Support Materials. 21 COMPLAINT
of the Oracle customers’ License Agreement. a new IP address. 3. Indeed. http://hqitpc01. Although it is now clear that the customers initially identified by Oracle as
engaged in the illegal downloads are SAP TN customers. These terms included agreeing: · Not to access or use any portion of the 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
66. rather. the customer or vendor would have called in right away to get its access reinstated.g. Instead. Texas. 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.tomorrownow. for many of these downloads. 69.com).
Several of these apparent customer users supplied misleading
identification information as part of the log-on process to Oracle’s systems. and the Legal Download Agreement. SAP TN’s Access Was Unauthorized SAP TN’s access to. The wholesale nature of this unlawful access and downloading was
extreme. Oracle shut down access to that IP address. SAP TN appears to have downloaded virtually every file. and taking from. If the access and downloads had been legitimate. 67.
North American Sales. sublicense.
Not to access the customer support system if it is not the customer’s authorized and designated Oracle technical support contact. V. Global PeopleSoft Support. International Sales.P.P. V. (5) Nigel Pullan. (2) Bob Geib. relicense. distribute. and a significant number of its employees. rent.
That the Materials on the support website are confidential information subject to existing confidentiality agreements. and (6) Shelley Nelson.
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.
SAP TN has intimate familiarity with these important restrictions and
conditions relating to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. President and CEO. or lease the Software or Documentation. use. disclose. JDE. (4) Mel Gadd. Quality. six list prior employment experience with PeopleSoft. former PeopleSoft employees who work for SAP. or third party training. formerly worked at PeopleSoft and JDE. appear to have applied their familiarity with the Customer Connection website to directly participate in and perfect the illegal 22 COMPLAINT
. V. Edwards Support. (3) Laura Sweetman. Of SAP TN’s tenmember management team. or 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 70. V.P.
Not to use the Materials on the support website except in support of the customer’s authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which the customer holds a supported license from Oracle. SAP TN’s management. V. Global J.
That the customer username and password are for the customer’s sole use in accessing this support server. for third party use.P. including: (1) Andrew Nelson. who is reflected as the person performing many of the downloads at issue. In addition. or any portion thereof. such as Wade Walden.D.
Not to directly or indirectly.P.
with 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
downloading scheme. 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. SAP TN committed to abide by the same license obligations and usage terms and conditions described above applicable to licensed customers. The rate that SAP TN accessed these materials – at intervals of just seconds or less – shows that no one used or reviewed those materials in real time. or need for. 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. 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. those products. and the confidential. SAP TN did so despite its knowledge that it had no legal right or legitimate purpose to access Oracle’s system at all after the customer’s support license lapsed. or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. In short. Further. SAP TN conducted these high-tech raids as SAP AG’s agent and
instrumentality and as the cornerstone strategy of SAP AG’s highly-publicized Safe Passage program. Further. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. 73. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT
. 71. Indeed. 72. proprietary. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. 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.
With literally thousands of software programs available for licensing. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s protected intellectual property and the integrity of its computer systems. Specific Examples Of SAP TN’s Unlawful Customer Downloads SAP TN’s improper access to. Herbert Waldman. Ronis. SPX Corporation. and covers too many individual violations. and impose strict confidentiality requirements. § 506.. Abbott Laboratories. display. Interbrew UK. Texas Association of School Boards. and therefore committed its theft knowingly and intentionally.C. to comprehensively detail here. Inc.A. S. 4. Helzberg Diamonds. VSM Group AB. Grupo Costamex. including without limitation. 17 U. Merck & Co. 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..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. AbitibiConsolidated. 74. 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. create derivative works.C. B.V. reproduce. Metro Machine Corp. and taking from. and Yazaki North America. OCE Technologies. Stora Enso. Such acts constitute copyright infringement under 17 U. Laird Plastics. Berri Limited.S. National Manufacturing. SAP TN’s acts violated Oracle’s exclusive rights to use. Accordingly. Mortice Kern Systems.. Honeywell International. 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. § 501 and also willful and intentional copyright infringement under 17 U.S.. §§ 101 et seq. offer for sale. publish. Bear.. 75. and distribute these works. Distribution & Auto Service.. SAP TN reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions on Oracle’s support website before proceeding. Oracle’s Customer
Connection website is too pervasive. NGC Management Limited. By way of example 24 COMPLAINT
. Caterpillar Elphinstone. Smithfield Foods..C. Fuelserv Limited. Oracle has uncovered unlicensed downloads linked to SAP TN on behalf of numerous customers. Stearns & Co.S.
Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP
TN’s website as a client. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. Merck. Then. users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9. one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies in the world. 2007. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. 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. More than 5.000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. But. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there. after switching to SAP TN. Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. (“Merck”). “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. Merck & Company. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
of the nature and extent of SAP’s theft. Over 2. 25 COMPLAINT
. 77. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. Honeywell.000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all. 76. Inc. In the three months prior to that date.
Texas. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials. authorization or other right to access and download the 5. in some cases. OCE. Homebuilder Management. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. “TN-DL03. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. false user names) and downloaded over 12. OCE-Technologies B.” Similar to the other customer examples.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. Like the other companies. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. authorization.” “9999999999. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. Canadian Payroll.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Texas that belongs to SAP TN. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL. 78. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and
appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. 26 COMPLAINT
.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. These downloads included over 3. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose.V. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials.” 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.” In many cases. “TNL-02.000 distinct Software and Support Materials.
700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT
. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle. In addition. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. “tn-wts01. these users logged in using SPX credentials. between October and December 2006. G. Metro Machine.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use). (“Metro Machine”) dropped all
Oracle support effective on January 1. users logging into Oracle’s support system with Metro Machine’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. SAP TN. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. In some cases. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software. listed on its website. Metro Machine Corp. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above.
SPX. as reflected on SAP TN’s website.” Many of these SPX downloads. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. These SPX downloads included over 1. Not coincidentally. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December
10. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than
800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. like the others.” 80. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. 2007 and switched to SAP TN. Then. For the nine month period prior to October 2006. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
79. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6.
S. 85. and by obtaining information from such a protected computer. 18 U. 18 U.S. ratified it.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
download scheme.C. 83.S. including but not limited to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. SAP has illegally converted Oracle’s former. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
. 84. by intentionally accessing a computer used for interstate commerce or communication. §
1030(a)(4) by knowingly. trespass on Oracle’s support website. SAP has thereby caused significant damage to Oracle through its SAP TN subsidiary.S. 18 U. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
§ 1030(a)(2)(C).C. and prospective customers and the associated license and support revenue to artificially inflate its market share. Using Oracle’s own protected property to unfairly compete against and undercut Oracle.C. interference with Oracle’s business relationships. and never disavowed it. or command and as a result intentionally causing damage without authorization to a protected computer owned by Oracle. and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained one or more things of value.
§ 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) by knowingly causing the transmission of a program. information. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4) & a(5)) (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 82. code. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. in addition to the irreparable harm caused by Defendants’ unfair competition. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. and related computer fraud. accessing a protected computer. and with intent to defraud Oracle. current.C. First Claim for Relief Violation of Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer.
§§ 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii) & (iii) by intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization.S. and files from Oracle’s computers. Second Claim for Relief Computer Data Access and Fraud Act . and/or computer network. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) by knowingly
and fraudulently. § 1030(e)(2).C. 88. Oracle has suffered damage and loss by reason of these violations. 89. fraudulently. in any event. § 1030(g). and computer systems and other losses and damage in an amount to be proved at trial. a means of accessing Oracle’s computers. The computer system or systems that Defendants accessed as described
above constitute a “protected computer” within the meaning of 18 U. taking. Unless restrained and enjoined. computer system. Defendants’ unlawful access to and theft from Oracle’s computers also
have caused Oracle irreparable injury. entitling Oracle to remedies including injunctive relief as provided by 18 U. data. and/or computer network.
Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 92. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(6) by
knowingly. or assisting in providing. recklessly or without due regard for their actions.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. 29 COMPLAINT
. 18 U.S. Penal Code § 502 (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 90. 91. harm to Oracle’s data. accessing.Cal. but. in an amount well over $5000 aggregated over a one-year period. Defendants will continue to commit such acts. and without permission. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(3) by
knowingly. 87. and without permission providing. programs.S. Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for these inflicted and threatened injuries.
including. fraudulently. and making use of programs. computer system. 93. copying. causing damage to Oracle.C. and without permission accessing and using Oracle’s computer services.C. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. without limitation.
Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials
obtained by Defendants as alleged above. Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. entitling Oracle to injunctive relief. has no adequate remedy at law. computer system. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in
the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. fraudulently. and due to the
continuing threat of such injury. 97. 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. 96. 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). there is a 30 COMPLAINT
. and without permission accessing. and/or computer network. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic
relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within
the meaning of California Penal Code § 502. 95. or causing to be accessed.
Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by
knowingly. Oracle is therefore entitled to punitive damages. 101. 98.1 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. Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. Oracle’s computers.
.S. 18 U. constitutes violations of numerous state
and federal statutes and codes. but not limited to.C. loss of profits from sales or licenses to 31 COMPLAINT
. and ultimately to migrate such customers away from Oracle’s software programs and onto their own. §§ 270111. 106. for their enterprise software. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. 103. Defendants were aware of these economic
relationships and intended to interfere with and disrupt them by unlawfully and wrongfully taking and using Oracle’s Software and Support Materials to obtain and retain Oracle’s own customers at little to no cost. Penal Code § 496. 18 U. including. 18 U.S. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels.S. 104. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. § 1962. renewed. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. Cal. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device.C. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. but not limited to. § 1030 et seq. in some cases. Cal.C. 105. Oracle has
suffered economic harm. unauthorized access to computers.C. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the
interference itself. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. unjust enrichment. These acts were undertaken by Defendants to obtain for themselves the software support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense. Penal Code § 502. as alleged above. and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. conversion. including. On information and belief. As a result of Defendants’ acts. wire fraud. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. and conspiracy. 18 U. This conduct. 18 U.C. § 1029.S. violation of RICO. receipt of stolen property. § 1343.S. the above-described relationships have
been actually disrupted. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. and violation of the Stored Communications Act.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. 102.
there is a substantial probability that Oracle support customers would have initiated. 112. 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. 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. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. Defendants knew or should have known about the economic relationship. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Instead. renewed. malicious. was willful. their
actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic
relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. 108.
described above. 111. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. they used Oracle’s Software and Support Materials to obtain and retain for themselves software 32 COMPLAINT
. 110. Fourth Claim for Relief Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 109. as described above. 107. Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage
with its current and future customers. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. oppressive. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. These relationships contain the probability of future economic benefit in
the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses.
conversion. 18 U. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm.C. and conspiracy.
actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. but not limited to.C. 18 U. Penal Code § 502. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.. for their enterprise software. receipt of stolen property. but not limited to. 117.C. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. wire fraud. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions.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. the above-described relationships have
been actually disrupted. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. Oracle has
suffered economic harm. 115. This conduct.S.C. constitutes violations of numerous state
and federal statutes and codes. 113.S. unauthorized access to computers.C. § 1029. 18 U.S. unjust enrichment. 114. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. 18 U. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. and software products. as alleged above. Penal Code § 496. § 1030 et seq. violation of RICO. Cal. As a result of Defendants’ acts. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support. maintenance.S.S. § 1343. 116. in some cases. including. 18 U. §§ 270111. § 1962. including. Cal. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the
interference itself. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief.
unjust enrichment. 18 U. 121. Code §§ 17200. Penal Code § 502.S. & Prof. 119. conversion.S. unlawful. Defendants’ conduct constitutes violations of numerous state and federal
statutes and codes. § 1343. §§ 1030 et seq. 18 U. Defendants have engaged in unlawful business acts or practices by
committing acts including computer fraud.C. The acts and conduct of Defendants constitute fraudulent. trespass. 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.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. et seq. interference with business relationships.. and conspiracy.C. negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. all in an effort to gain unfair competitive advantage over Oracle. § 1029.S. intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. 120. unauthorized access to computers. proprietary. § 1962. 34 COMPLAINT
. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. 123. violation of RICO. & Prof. 18 U. In light of Defendants’ conduct.S. 18 U. it would be inequitable to allow Defendants to retain the benefit of the funds obtained though the unauthorized and unlawful use of Oracle’s property. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. and other illegal acts and practices as alleged above.C.
Fifth Claim for Relief Unfair Competition . conversion.C. 122. receipt of stolen property. wire fraud. 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. §§ 2701-11. 18 U.Cal. Penal Code § 496.C. violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Bus. Cal. and
unfair competition as defined by California Bus. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. but not limited to. Cal.S. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. Defendants have improperly and unlawfully taken commercial advantage
of Oracle’s investment in its confidential. including.
or control. 128. This property is the sole and exclusive property of Oracle. 126. proprietary. profits. including. Defendants should be compelled to disgorge and/or restore any and all
revenues. As a result of such unfair competition. 125. or distribution of such property. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. which is valuable to Oracle and vital to its continued business operations. 130. removal. Instead of paying Oracle for the use of its property. unfair. 129. Defendants should further be ordered to return all materials taken from Oracle. expressly or impliedly. all of which Oracle stored on its computer system. but not limited to. downloading. compensation. but not limited to. to Defendants’
copying. and all copies of such. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. including. Sixth Claim for Relief Conversion (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 127. whereby Oracle has no adequate remedy at law. custody. will continue to suffer irreparable injury. earnings. Oracle has also suffered irreparable
injury and. and deceptive business practices.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. retention.. Defendants
intentionally and willfully entered Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website without permission and took possession of Oracle’s property. in their possession. and benefits they may have obtained in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. 35 COMPLAINT
Defendants’ unfair business practices have unjustly minimized Oracle’s
competitive advantage and have caused and are causing Oracle to suffer damages. and should be enjoined from further unlawful. unless Defendants are enjoined from such unfair competition. Oracle has an
exclusive right to possession and distribution of such property. Oracle’s confidential. Oracle at no time consented. returning the value of the stolen property itself and any revenue earned from it.
and the Software and Support Materials on that support system. and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. with
interest. Oracle will seek its election of remedies at trial.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
131. Oracle is entitled to restitution of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. Oracle had legal title to and
actual possession of Customer Connection.
Defendants have been in knowing and unauthorized possession and
control of such property since at least between September 2006 and the present. 134. 133. Oracle is entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property.
and will continue to lose. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. In addition. Oracle is entitled to an award of the value of the property taken. or in the alternative. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. as described above. or in the alternative. 36 COMPLAINT
. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Seventh Claim for Relief Trespass To Chattels (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 136. 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. Defendants’ improper assumption and exercise of dominion and control
over Oracle’s property and their likely sale and distribution of the same has and will continue to interfere with and diminish Oracle’s rights in that property. its access-restricted internet-based support system. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefits received as a result of their
wrongful acts would unjustly benefit Defendants at Oracle’s expense. profits from potential purchasers of Oracle support services and licensees of Oracle software products. Since that time. 132. At all times mentioned in this Complaint. 135. at the latest. 137. in an amount to be determined at trial. In addition. Oracle has lost.
and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. including. 143. Defendants unjustly received benefits at the expense of Oracle through
their wrongful conduct. 140. which took substantial time and money for Oracle to develop. and damage to the confidential and copyrighted nature of the information on Oracle’s website. in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants’ trespass therefore threatens to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. Defendants’ trespass interfered with. As a result. the integrity and
functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. computer fraud concerning. Defendants’ trespass and interference proximately caused damage to
Oracle. damage to the functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. Defendants continue to unjustly retain these benefits at the 37 COMPLAINT
. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. 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. 139. for which Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted and threatened. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. but not limited to.
Defendants intentionally interfered with Oracle’s use or possession of both
Customer Connection and Oracle’s related internal databases and systems. Defendants caused Oracle’s property to greatly diminish in value and deprived Oracle of the intended use of its computer systems.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
138. and the Software and Support Materials housed for licensed access through Customer Connection. and damaged. damage to Oracle’s rights to dominion and control over its property. 141. Oracle is entitled to recover any and all damages it sustained as a result of
such trespass. Eighth Claim for Relief Unjust Enrichment/Restitution (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 142. Defendants will continue to commit such acts and other competitors will be encouraged to sweep Oracle’s website.
wrongful acts was willful. 148. damage. Oracle has suffered injury. Defendants willfully. ratifying. malicious. but not limited to. and harm. 147. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. including. loss. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses for Oracle’s software programs. Defendants did the acts alleged pursuant to. Ninth Claim for Relief Civil Conspiracy (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 145. Oracle is accordingly entitled to full restitution of all amounts in which
Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Oracle’s expense. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. encouraging. Defendants’ intentional agreement to commit. and knowingly agreed and conspired
with each other to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct. or adopting the acts of the others. 146. As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the
. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. that
agreement and/or furthered the conspiracy by cooperating. and in furtherance of. intentionally. computer fraud concerning. 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. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain any value they obtained as a result of their wrongful conduct. and commission of. oppressive. 144. 149. The wrongful conduct committed pursuant to the conspiracy was a substantial factor in causing this harm.
and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. including. but not limited to. was wrongful in and of itself. 151. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. Defendants had full knowledge or should have
reasonably known of the true nature of the wrongful conduct of each other Defendant. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. Defendants’ aiding and abetting of these wrongful acts was willful. 39 COMPLAINT
. separately considered. by providing substantial assistance and/or encouraging the others to act. computer fraud concerning. As a direct and proximate result of the aiding and abetting of these acts.
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. and aided and abetted such wrongful conduct. 150. 154. oppressive. 153. The wrongful conduct aided and abetted by the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing this harm. Defendants also aided and abetted the described wrongful conduct of the
other Defendants by giving substantial assistance and/or encouragement that.
Oracle has suffered injury.
malicious. damage.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 155. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. loss. Eleventh Claim for Relief An Accounting (By Oracle Against All Defendants) Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 152. including interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. As fully described above. and harm. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses to Oracle software programs.
employees. 158. and
copyrighted Software and Support Materials. Defendants have obtained business through
the use of unlawful conduct including. Oracle respectfully prays for the following: A. without Oracle’s authorization. and attorneys. but not limited to: (a) Intentionally and/or negligently interfering with Oracle’s
prospective economic advantage with its existing and potential customers. or using any property obtained from
Oracle’s website. Prayer For Relief WHEREFORE. therefore. Oracle’s confidential. 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. internal documents. proprietary. (b) Improperly. including data. at
Oracle’s expense. distributing. without authorization or consent. (c) Willfully converting Oracle’s confidential. Defendants have received money as a result of their misconduct. and valuable 40 COMPLAINT
. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining
Defendants. willfully. proprietary. (2) selling. to a full accounting. their officers. including without limitation. in furtherance of their unlawful and deceptive scheme as described above. 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. 157. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials.
including without limitation the Customer Connection website. and. and unlawfully taking commercial advantage
of Oracle’s investment in its Software and Support Materials. Oracle is entitled. and those in active concert or participation with any of them from: (1) accessing any Oracle restricted-access or customer website. (d) Fraudulently accessing and intentionally trespassing on Oracle’s
password-protected Customer Connection website. servants.
Since at least September 2006. agents.
H. and. fixes. on the basis of their willful and deliberate unauthorized computer access. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. K. fixes. 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. fixes. aiding and abetting and conspiracy. I. Oracle’s confidential. 41 COMPLAINT For damages to be proven at trial. patches. without limitation. and valuable updates. patches. For an Order directing Defendants to return Oracle’s property. as set forth in this Complaint. and other computer code. internal documents. (4) otherwise engaging in acts of unfair competition and
interference with Oracle’s business relationships. B. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials.
including. setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction. but not limited to Oracle’s confidential. For prejudgment interest. intentional interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage. that Defendants took from Oracle. For an accounting. including. including data. Court deems just and proper. proprietary. For an Order awarding Oracle such other and further relief as the
. D. patches. 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. under oath. downloading or copying property from Oracle’s
website without Oracle’s authorization. F. C. That the Court order Defendants to pay Oracle punitive damages in
a sum to be determined at trial. G. J. For restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains unjustly
obtained and retained by Defendants through the acts complained of here. For an Order awarding Oracle its attorneys’ fees and costs. internal documents. and other computer code. and valuable updates. and other computer code. (3) removing. proprietary.