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

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

a software company acquired by PeopleSoft.” 13. an independent software support company founded by former PeopleSoft software engineers. One industry analyst stated that.” Another mused. Not by coincidence. and support. Oracle said it has thousands of developers building the new application suite. copyrighted Software and Support Materials. “Oracle Corp. * * In the world of enterprise software applications. SAP AG spokesman Bill Wohl vowed that SAP AG would use SAP TN to “keep the pressure on 1 “JDE” refers to J. new customers of SAP TN – SAP AG’s and SAP America’s software support subsidiary whose sole purpose is to compete with Oracle. Oracle had previously announced that in January 2005 it would complete its acquisition of PeopleSoft. “After the acquisition of PeopleSoft earlier this year. developers. 5 COMPLAINT . Inc. is developing a ‘super set’ of applications. this theft appears to be an essential – and illegal – part of SAP’s competitive strategy against Oracle. consulting. 1 ranked SAP. Industry observers noted this fundamental shift in the competitive landscape. revenue comes from three basic activities: (a) license of the underlying software. SAP apparently has now warehoused an extensive library of Oracle’s proprietary.D. 10. As a result of this illegal activity. aimed at taking market share from 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 were just about to become. in 2003. Edwards World Solutions. (b) consulting relating to the implementation and operation of the software. * 11. Oracle officially became a player on SAP’s turf. As explained below. called Project Fusion. through SAP America. 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. and support technicians. SAP’s own statements confirmed it. 12. and (c) support contracts to keep the software updated and upgraded. In January 2005. increasing Oracle’s potency as a competitor to SAP AG for enterprise applications software. SAP AG’s hasty acquisition of SAP TN was widely perceived as a response to the new competitive threat from Oracle. SAP AG acquired SAP TN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how the nearly 50.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. 46. size. Richard Knowles. 44. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. these same products. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. As SAP AG reeled. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. but now Oracle offered a deeper. 2005. On January 7. 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.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23. at its headquarters with more than 48. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. 45. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle offered. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. 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. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. and geographic and product scope. 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. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. testified on June 23. or intellectual property rights to.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. 14 COMPLAINT .000 business applications software customers throughout the world.” After the merger. despite not owning any of the software code for.

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

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

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

SAP AG’s CEO. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product offerings. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price. including through its September 12. 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. . At the same time. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions. By July 2006. As reported on Forbes. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. curiously. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. and more aggressive. “SAP AG plans to announce . boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well. maintenance services. SAP grew more desperate.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT . SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. By March 2006. Léo Apotheker. Henning Kagermann.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. technology.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 56. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage. SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its first year. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations. round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery. . However. Bill McDermott.” How SAP could offer instantaneous. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage. In a July 2006 earnings call. SAP America President and CEO.” 57.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. In October 2005.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. 58. companies and corporate cultures. including apparently instantaneous round the clock support from SAP TN – whose engineers at that time presumably had spent virtually no time to develop Siebel support software products. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems.

SAP continued to offer this comprehensive support to hundreds of customers at the “cut rate” of 50 cents on the dollar. 61. 60.” “fixes for serious issues. “30-minute response time. F. even after having expanded its ranks to 150 employees. 62.” By extending the Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. Oracle. most remarkably. The economics. and updates that comprise the advanced support services required by Oracle’s licensed customers. and other labor-intensive support items that a customer would need to maintain useful. by comparison. Although SAP put a brave face on its ability to compete with the increasingly potent Oracle applications offerings. could actually develop and offer the hundreds of regulatory updates. and in conjunction with opening new SAP TN offices around the world.” and. maintains a development force of more than 15. and purported to add full support for an entirely different product line – Siebel – with a wave of its hand. and the logic. 24x7x365” on software programs for which it had no intellectual property rights.” “full upgrade script support. A Deal Too Good To Be True 59.” E. 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 . bug fixes. To stave off the mounting competitive threat from Oracle. Oracle has now solved this puzzle. without infringing on Oracle’s intellectual property. patches. SAP unlawfully accessed and copied Oracle’s Software and Support Materials.000 software and support engineers to create and help implement the code fixes. Apotheker claimed that SAP now had “a global network of [SAP TN] capabilities” – enough to “gain[] significant traction. as it did on its website and its other materials. simply did not add up. “customized ongoing tax and regulatory updates. To compound the puzzle. patches. optimally functioning Oracle software. some industry analysts wondered whether a small company like SAP TN. Oracle Finds A Suspicious Pattern To analyze and improve on its industry leading support services. It was not clear how SAP TN could offer. The SAP Solution: Stolen Passage 1.1 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.

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

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

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

and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. SAP TN did so despite its knowledge that it had no legal right or legitimate purpose to access Oracle’s system at all after the customer’s support license lapsed. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements with its 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. 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. proprietary. SAP TN committed to abide by the same license obligations and usage terms and conditions described above applicable to licensed customers. 72. Further. and the confidential. 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. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions.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. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. the support website terms of use. 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. Further. 73. or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. 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 conducted these high-tech raids as SAP AG’s agent and instrumentality and as the cornerstone strategy of SAP AG’s highly-publicized Safe Passage program. 71. Indeed. Further. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT . those products. or need for. In short.

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

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

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

“tn-wts01. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December 10. Metro Machine Corp. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. In addition. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system. SAP TN. For the nine month period prior to October 2006. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT . between October and December 2006. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. Then. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN.” 80. Not coincidentally.” Many of these SPX downloads. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction. SPX. Metro Machine.700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. (“Metro Machine”) dropped all Oracle support effective on January 1.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. like the others. these users logged in using SPX credentials. listed on its website. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8. 2007 and switched to SAP TN. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above. In some cases. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than 800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. G. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle. These SPX downloads included over 1. users logging into Oracle’s support system with Metro Machine’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007.

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

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

fraudulently. Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. 95. entitling Oracle to injunctive relief. Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. 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. 101.1 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. and/or computer network. has no adequate remedy at law. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials obtained by Defendants as alleged above. or causing to be accessed. and due to the continuing threat of such injury. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. 97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within the meaning of California Penal Code § 502. 98. and without permission accessing. 100. 96. computer system. Oracle is therefore entitled to punitive damages. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by knowingly. Oracle is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(e). Oracle’s computers. there is a 30 COMPLAINT . Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software.

causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. This conduct. 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. but not limited to. These acts were undertaken by Defendants to obtain for themselves the software support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense.C.. violation of RICO.S. Oracle has suffered economic harm. receipt of stolen property. § 1962. and ultimately to migrate such customers away from Oracle’s software programs and onto their own. in some cases.S. wire fraud. renewed. Cal. Penal Code § 502.S.S. including. 106. unauthorized access to computers. for their enterprise software.C.C. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. 18 U. 102. conversion.C. § 1030 et seq. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. including. 18 U. and conspiracy. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. As a result of Defendants’ acts. 18 U. unjust enrichment. 18 U. and violation of the Stored Communications Act.C. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 substantial probability that Oracle support customers would have initiated. as alleged above. § 1343. On information and belief. loss of profits from sales or licenses to 31 COMPLAINT . and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. § 1029.S. the above-described relationships have been actually disrupted. Penal Code § 496. but not limited to. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. 104. 105. 18 U. 103. Cal. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. §§ 270111. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful