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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

transmit.” (emphasis supplied) 38. you are hereby notified that your username and password are confidential information and may only be distributed to persons within your organization who have a legitimate business purpose for accessing the materials contained on this server in furtherance of your relationship with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. The terms 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. Access to the secured areas of Customer Connection is also governed by Special Terms of Use. You may not use.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 parties and may not be shared with or accessed by third parties. Prior to downloading Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s support websites. By using the secured website. other than to support your authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which you hold a supported license from Oracle…. 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. 37. the user agrees to accept and comply with these Special Terms of Use.” 39. a user must also specifically agree to additional terms of use and restrictions specified in Oracle’s Legal Download Agreement: Your username and password are provided to you for your sole use in accessing this Server and are confidential information subject to your existing confidentiality agreement with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. 40. If you do not have a confidentiality agreement in effect with Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. The Special Terms of Use clearly provide that: “Use of such CONFIDENTIAL and PROPRIETARY information and materials for any other purpose is strictly prohibited. disclose. The Legal Download Agreement also puts the user on notice as to the confidential. 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 . reproduce. or otherwise copy in any form or by any means the information contained in the Materials for any purpose.

the user must click on a button indicating that it accepts these terms. The Software is part of the Licensed Products under the License Agreement and may only be downloaded if a valid License Agreement is in place between you and Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited. users accessing specific materials. press releases. provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear. software action requests. 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. 13 COMPLAINT . WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING. agree to additional legal restrictions. product or upgrade announcements. datasheets and FAQs) from this server (“Server”) is granted. such as a Software Application Request (“SAR”) through the SAR Search Web Application. In addition.” To download a SAR. 42. (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. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited. 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. 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. 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”).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. COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. The Legal Download Agreement further restricts use of documents downloaded from the website: Permission to use Documents (such as white papers. 41.

Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. 45.000 business applications software customers throughout the world. 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. SAP AG instead considered how to undermine Oracle. 46. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle offered. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. On January 7. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. Richard Knowles. at its headquarters with more than 48. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. 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. these same products. how the nearly 50. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. but now Oracle offered a deeper. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43.1 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. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. 44. 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. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. despite not owning any of the software code for. testified on June 23.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23. and geographic and product scope. size. 14 COMPLAINT . As SAP AG reeled. 2005. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement.” After the merger. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. or intellectual property rights to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Manufacturing. and distribute these works. Mortice Kern Systems. Texas Association of School Boards. Oracle’s Customer Connection website is too pervasive.. display.S.. Smithfield Foods. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s protected intellectual property and the integrity of its computer systems.. 74.S. Bear. By way of example 24 COMPLAINT . S. publish. create derivative works. offer for sale. 75. Caterpillar Elphinstone. Merck & Co. including without limitation.. SAP TN’s acts violated Oracle’s exclusive rights to use.A. Interbrew UK. and therefore committed its theft knowingly and intentionally. § 506. and covers too many individual violations.C.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 support only for products that a company has licensed. 17 U. With literally thousands of software programs available for licensing. AbitibiConsolidated. Accordingly. SPX Corporation. § 501 and also willful and intentional copyright infringement under 17 U. Herbert Waldman. §§ 101 et seq. VSM Group AB. Berri Limited.C. Grupo Costamex. and taking from. and impose strict confidentiality requirements. 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. SAP TN reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions on Oracle’s support website before proceeding. Such acts constitute copyright infringement under 17 U. Laird Plastics. 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. Metro Machine Corp. reproduce. Stora Enso. 4. to comprehensively detail here. Inc. Helzberg Diamonds. Distribution & Auto Service. Border Foods.C.S. OCE Technologies. NGC Management Limited. Fuelserv Limited. and Yazaki North America. Oracle has uncovered unlicensed downloads linked to SAP TN on behalf of numerous customers. Stearns & Co. Inc.V. Honeywell International. B... Specific Examples Of SAP TN’s Unlawful Customer Downloads SAP TN’s improper access to. 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. Ronis. Abbott Laboratories..

a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. Over 2. users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. after switching to SAP TN. More than 5. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day. Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. (“Merck”). Merck. In the three months prior to that date. 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.000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN. 77.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007.000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license. Merck & Company. 2007. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. 25 COMPLAINT . one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP TN’s website as a client. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. Then. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products. Honeywell. In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there. But. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. 76. Inc. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft 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 of the nature and extent of SAP’s theft.

or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. 78.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. OCE.” “9999999999. Homebuilder Management. Canadian Payroll. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials. Texas.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. authorization. “TNL-02.” In many cases. Like the other companies. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business.V. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and.000 distinct Software and Support Materials.” This systematic sweep of products across numerous licensed and unlicensed Oracle product lines and libraries dramatically exceeded the access for which OCE (and SAP TN acting on its behalf) had any right or authority. authorization or other right to access and download the 5. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. These downloads included over 3.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999.1 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. OCE-Technologies B. “TN-DL03. false user names) and downloaded over 12. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. in some cases.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. 26 COMPLAINT .” Similar to the other customer examples. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll.

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

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

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

Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. Oracle’s computers. 96. Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. 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. 95. fraudulently. entitling Oracle to injunctive relief. or causing to be accessed. 101. computer system. there is a 30 COMPLAINT . Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Oracle is therefore entitled to punitive damages. 97. and due to the continuing threat of such injury. Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials obtained by Defendants as alleged above. 100. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by knowingly. and/or computer network. 98.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 94. Oracle is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(e). Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. and without permission accessing. has no adequate remedy at law. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within the meaning of California Penal Code § 502. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software.

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

and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. Fourth Claim for Relief Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 109. as described above. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. malicious. described above. Defendants knew or should have known about the economic relationship. was willful. 111. and knew or should have known that these relationships would be interfered with and disrupted if Defendants failed to act with reasonable care in their use of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. 112. their actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. oppressive. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief. 110. 107.1 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. Instead. Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage with its current and future customers. there is a substantial probability that Oracle support customers would have initiated. renewed. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. These relationships contain the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. they used Oracle’s Software and Support Materials to obtain and retain for themselves software 32 COMPLAINT . Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. 108.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but not limited to Oracle’s confidential. setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction. that Defendants took from Oracle. proprietary. patches. on the basis of their willful and deliberate unauthorized computer access. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. D. K. For restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains unjustly obtained and retained by Defendants through the acts complained of here. G. intentional interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. I. (4) otherwise engaging in acts of unfair competition and interference with Oracle’s business relationships. and valuable updates. That the Court order Defendants to file with the Court and serve on Oracle within thirty (30) days after the service on Defendants of such injunction a report in writing. patches. and other computer code. For an Order directing Defendants to return Oracle’s property. For an Order awarding Oracle its attorneys’ fees and costs. proprietary.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 updates. Oracle’s confidential. For an accounting. as set forth in this Complaint. patches. downloading or copying property from Oracle’s website without Oracle’s authorization. including data. fixes. For an Order awarding Oracle such other and further relief as the . For prejudgment interest. including. C. under oath. without limitation. B. aiding and abetting and conspiracy. and. H. and other computer code. including data. J. fixes. and valuable updates. (3) removing. internal documents. Court deems just and proper. 41 COMPLAINT For damages to be proven at trial. and other computer code. including. F. That the Court order Defendants to pay Oracle punitive damages in a sum to be determined at trial. fixes. internal documents.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful