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

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. including the ones described above. Oracle to date has identified more than 10. Rather. All of these customers whose IDs SAP appropriated had one critical fact in common: they were. or 4 COMPLAINT . the access originated from an internet protocol (IP) address in Bryan. Oracle’s server logs have recorded access through this same IP address by computers labeled with SAP identifiers using SAP IP addresses. Across its entire library of Software and Support Materials in Customer Connection. For example. In many instances. In some cases. This systematic theft of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials did not originate from any actual customer location.. 7.” Others used phony email addresses like “test@testyomama. 9. and phone number) that did not match the customer at all. Oracle has found many examples of similar activity. 8. Texas.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 departed customers. combined with phony user log-in information. SAP TN is a company that purports to provide technical support services on certain versions of Oracle’s PeopleSoft and JDE software programs. to gain access to Oracle’s system under false pretexts. SAP employees used the log-in IDs of multiple customers. SAP blended log-in information from multiple customers with fake information. an SAP America branch office location and home of its wholly-owned subsidiary SAP TN. Indeed. Texas. and downloaded Software and Support Materials even after the customer had dropped its support rights with Oracle. Employing these techniques.com” and fake phone numbers such as “7777777777” and “123 456 7897.” In other cases. some users logged in with the user names of “xx” “ss” “User” and “NULL.000 unauthorized downloads of Software and Support Materials relating to hundreds of different software programs. like Metro Machine Corp. The Bryan. These “customer users” supplied user information (such as user name. For example. this user information did not match anything: it was fake. Texas IP address used to access and download Oracle’s Software and Support Materials is connected directly to SAP’s computer network. SAP users effectively swept much of the contents of Oracle’s system onto SAP’s servers. email address.

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

explicitly designed to transition customers away from Oracle products and onto the SAP software platform. · A systematic pattern of “sweeping” Oracle’s Customer Connection support website from SAP TN servers just days before.” and a sign that “SAP has taken the gloves off. It certainly did not match Oracle’s investment in development resources. SAP TN’s services “form[ed] the basis of [SAP AG’s] Safe Passage initiative. much less the 50% discount promoted by SAP. the . crowed “There’s nothing that I love more than to win. the 6 COMPLAINT SAP’s unlawful copying and theft includes. 14.” In connection with the SAP TN acquisition. with indications that this number may go significantly higher if traced further back in time. SAP appeared to focus more on growing the SAP TN sales force rather than investing in or expanding SAP TN’s tiny development team. or the day of. SAP stole much of the Software and Support Materials directly from Oracle. SAP America’s CEO.” Although SAP America President and CEO. Bill McDermott. by way of example. Publicly. 15. As reported in industry publications. committed to throw “a lot of additional resources” behind SAP TN (which consisted of only 37 employees in total). SAP TN did not appear to have the development capability to meet the support commitments advertised in the “Safe Passage” brochures at any price. industry observers deemed the “Safe Passage” program “measurably more aggressive. Bill McDermott. or even come close to it. 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.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. Indeed. a program aimed at siphoning off valuable software maintenance revenue from Oracle and persuading Oracle customers to switch software products [to SAP]. SAP advertised this strategy as its “Safe Passage” program. following: · More than 10.000 illicit downloads from Customer Connection between September 2006 and January 2007.” 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. Nevertheless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAP TN agreed to the deal and cast its lot with SAP AG. SAP AG’s top executives unveiled SAP AG’s acquisition of SAP TN as the centerpiece of its new “Safe Passage” scheme. admitted that the SAP TN acquisition was “an integral part” of SAP’s Safe Passage program. Second. ease integration with SAP NetWeaver(TM) and begin the process of innovating their businesses today. 52. SAP would aggressively campaign to migrate those customers to an SAP enterprise software platform. SAP TN’s new parent companies directed it to begin to implement a two-phase plan to increase SAP’s enterprise application market share. First.” The Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SAP Asia Pacific. We want them to be successful. Colin Sampson. In April 2005. SAP would offer cut-rate pricing combined with the promise of essentially unlimited future support to former PeopleSoft and JDE support customers. in connection with converting Oracle customers to SAP support (via SAP TN). which in turn was part of SAP’s “ongoing strategy to compete with Oracle. The CEOs stated the proposition more bluntly.” 16 COMPLAINT . SAP America CEO Bill McDermott claimed “The SAP Safe Passage offering gives companies an affordable way to protect their current investments. 2005. 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. After the acquisition.” 51.1 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. On January 19. “We're owned by SAP. in barely a month. SAP AG would try to use SAP TN as a means of “speeding-up” the migration of PeopleSoft and JDE users to SAP platforms. Henning Kagermann. to lure the support business over. As SAP AG Managing Director Alan Sedghi admitted. SAP AG’s CEO. identified SAP TN as instrumental to the parent company’s “Safe Passage” program. at the SAP AG annual meeting. publicly indicating that SAP TN was authorized and intended to implement SAP AG’s goals. stated. 50.” And SAP TN certainly knew its role was to achieve SAP AG’s ends: as SAP TN’s CEO. publicly vowed to bankroll this effort to undermine Oracle by putting “a lot of additional resources into TomorrowNow. Andrew Nelson. SAP America’s CEO. Bill McDermott.” A month later.

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

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

Apotheker claimed that SAP now had “a global network of [SAP TN] capabilities” – enough to “gain[] significant traction. by comparison. To stave off the mounting competitive threat from Oracle. optimally functioning Oracle software. bug fixes. Oracle asks each customer searching for a solution on Oracle’s Customer Connection website to click on a button after each search to indicate whether or not a particular search result helped solve the 19 COMPLAINT .” “fixes for serious issues.” “full upgrade script support.” E. some industry analysts wondered whether a small company like SAP TN. Oracle has now solved this puzzle. without infringing on Oracle’s intellectual property. Oracle. 24x7x365” on software programs for which it had no intellectual property rights. could actually develop and offer the hundreds of regulatory updates. most remarkably.” and. “30-minute response time. To compound the puzzle. It was not clear how SAP TN could offer. and other labor-intensive support items that a customer would need to maintain useful. Although SAP put a brave face on its ability to compete with the increasingly potent Oracle applications offerings. and in conjunction with opening new SAP TN offices around the world. The SAP Solution: Stolen Passage 1.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 customers. and the logic. 60. even after having expanded its ranks to 150 employees.” By extending the Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. patches. SAP unlawfully accessed and copied Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. maintains a development force of more than 15. and purported to add full support for an entirely different product line – Siebel – with a wave of its hand. F. “customized ongoing tax and regulatory updates. and updates that comprise the advanced support services required by Oracle’s licensed customers. The economics. A Deal Too Good To Be True 59. as it did on its website and its other materials. 61. 62.000 software and support engineers to create and help implement the code fixes. SAP continued to offer this comprehensive support to hundreds of customers at the “cut rate” of 50 cents on the dollar. patches. Oracle Finds A Suspicious Pattern To analyze and improve on its industry leading support services. simply did not add up.

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

which included false names and phone numbers. those customers do not directly appear to have engaged in the download activity. and the Legal Download Agreement. Although it is now clear that the customers initially identified by Oracle as engaged in the illegal downloads are SAP TN customers. 3. Instead. Oracle’s support servers have even received hits from URL addresses in the course of these unlawful downloads with SAP TN directly in the name (e. the Customer Connection Terms of Use. Oracle noticed that SAP TN did not even bother to change the false user information from customer to customer when it logged in. Several of these apparent customer users supplied misleading identification information as part of the log-on process to Oracle’s systems. The wholesale nature of this unlawful access and downloading was extreme. Oracle shut down access to that IP address. the unlawful download activity observed by Oracle and described here originates directly from SAP’s computer networks. rather. also linked to SAP. including updates. to mask from Oracle their true identity and the fact of their improper access to the Software and Support Materials. SAP TN appears to have downloaded virtually every file. Oracle has traced the illegal download activity to computers using an SAP IP address. If the access and downloads had been legitimate. http://hqitpc01. 69.tomorrownow. not expressly licensed and paid for by the Licensee. These terms included agreeing: · Not to access or use any portion of the Software. 68.1 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. Oracle’s system violated the terms of the Oracle customers’ License Agreement. SAP TN’s Access Was Unauthorized SAP TN’s access to. the customer or vendor would have called in right away to get its access reinstated. for many of these downloads. 21 COMPLAINT . in every library that it could find. Indeed. Despite this subterfuge. 67. sprouted up almost immediately and the unlawful access and downloading resumed.com). When Oracle first noticed that the unlawful access and downloads originated almost exclusively from one IP address in Bryan. a new IP address. The users presumably intended this misinformation. and taking from.g. Texas.

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

the support website terms of use. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers. 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. Further.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 downloading scheme. Further. SAP TN conducted these high-tech raids as SAP AG’s agent and instrumentality and as the cornerstone strategy of SAP AG’s highly-publicized Safe Passage program. proprietary. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. to the extent SAP TN had any legitimate basis to access Oracle’s site as a contract consultant for a customer with current licensed support rights. those products. and the confidential. 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. 73. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. or need for. and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. 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. SAP TN committed to abide by the same license obligations and usage terms and conditions described above applicable to licensed customers. 71. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT . Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements with its customers. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. Indeed. 72. 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. 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. In short. or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have.

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

In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN. Then. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. But. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. Inc. Honeywell.000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license. 77. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP TN’s website as a client. Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. Over 2. In the three months prior to that date. 2007. Merck. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. 25 COMPLAINT . In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. (“Merck”). 76.000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all. users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9. More than 5. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day. 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. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. Merck & Company.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. after switching to SAP TN.

authorization or other right to access and download the 5. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and. 26 COMPLAINT . SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Texas that belongs to SAP TN. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. Homebuilder Management. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. in some cases. authorization.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license.V.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. Like the other companies. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business. 78. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. “TNL-02. false user names) and downloaded over 12. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” “9999999999. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL.” 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.” Similar to the other customer examples. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. “TN-DL03. OCE. These downloads included over 3. OCE-Technologies B.” In many cases. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose. Texas. Canadian Payroll.

These SPX downloads included over 1. G. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT . these users logged in using SPX credentials. “tn-wts01. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. For the nine month period prior to October 2006. 2007 and switched to SAP TN.” Many of these SPX downloads. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. Metro Machine.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. SPX. Then.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79. Metro Machine Corp. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. like the others. listed on its website. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than 800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. In some cases. between October and December 2006.700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. users logging into Oracle’s support system with Metro Machine’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. Not coincidentally. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December 10. at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction.” 80. (“Metro Machine”) dropped all Oracle support effective on January 1. In addition. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. SAP TN.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use).

without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. § 1030(a)(4) by knowingly. SAP has thereby caused significant damage to Oracle through its SAP TN subsidiary.S.C. 28 COMPLAINT . accessing a protected computer. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.S. code. First Claim for Relief Violation of Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U. or command and as a result intentionally causing damage without authorization to a protected computer owned by Oracle. by intentionally accessing a computer used for interstate commerce or communication. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. including but not limited to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. and related computer fraud. and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained one or more things of value.S. 85. 84. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4) & a(5)) (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 82.1 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.S. 83. Using Oracle’s own protected property to unfairly compete against and undercut Oracle.C. 18 U. interference with Oracle’s business relationships. ratified it. and prospective customers and the associated license and support revenue to artificially inflate its market share. and by obtaining information from such a protected computer. 18 U. § 1030(a)(2)(C). § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) by knowingly causing the transmission of a program. trespass on Oracle’s support website. current. and never disavowed it.C. information. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. and with intent to defraud Oracle.C. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 18 U. SAP has illegally converted Oracle’s former.

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

Oracle’s computers. Oracle is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(e). entitling Oracle to injunctive relief. 101. and due to the continuing threat of such injury. 95. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. and/or computer network.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. fraudulently. or causing to be accessed. 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. there is a 30 COMPLAINT . Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials obtained by Defendants as alleged above. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by knowingly. 98. computer system. Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. 100. 97. 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 is therefore entitled to punitive damages. Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. and without permission accessing. 96.

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

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

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

but not limited to. Penal Code § 496. 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. §§ 1030 et seq. proprietary. violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.Cal. conversion. conversion. receipt of stolen property. § 1962. & Prof. 18 U. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. 34 COMPLAINT . & Prof. Cal. and other illegal acts and practices as alleged above. unauthorized access to computers.. 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. 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.C. including. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. 123. 121.S. et seq. Fifth Claim for Relief Unfair Competition . 18 U. intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.S. Cal. The acts and conduct of Defendants constitute fraudulent.S. Bus. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials.C. 18 U. and violation of the Stored Communications Act.S. 18 U. § 1029. Defendants have improperly and unlawfully taken commercial advantage of Oracle’s investment in its confidential. §§ 2701-11. violation of RICO. Defendants have engaged in unlawful business acts or practices by committing acts including computer fraud. and conspiracy. Penal Code § 502.S. 120. 18 U.C. 119.1 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.C. interference with business relationships.C. all in an effort to gain unfair competitive advantage over Oracle. trespass. wire fraud. unlawful. In light of Defendants’ conduct. negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Defendants’ conduct constitutes violations of numerous state and federal statutes and codes. and unfair competition as defined by California Bus. 122. Code §§ 17200. unjust enrichment. § 1343.

unless Defendants are enjoined from such unfair competition. profits. compensation. proprietary. in their possession.. 129. or distribution of such property. 128. Oracle has an exclusive right to possession and distribution of such property. and should be enjoined from further unlawful. and deceptive business practices. all of which Oracle stored on its computer system. which is valuable to Oracle and vital to its continued business operations. and all copies of such. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 124. unfair. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. expressly or impliedly. Defendants’ unfair business practices have unjustly minimized Oracle’s competitive advantage and have caused and are causing Oracle to suffer damages. 126. Instead of paying Oracle for the use of its property. but not limited to. removal. As a result of such unfair competition. 35 COMPLAINT . Defendants intentionally and willfully entered Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website without permission and took possession of Oracle’s property. This property is the sole and exclusive property of Oracle. or control. will continue to suffer irreparable injury. Oracle’s confidential. 130. returning the value of the stolen property itself and any revenue earned from it. downloading. custody. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury and. including. Defendants should be compelled to disgorge and/or restore any and all revenues. Sixth Claim for Relief Conversion (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 127. whereby Oracle has no adequate remedy at law. including. to Defendants’ copying. retention. Defendants should further be ordered to return all materials taken from Oracle. but not limited to. 125. Oracle at no time consented. earnings. and benefits they may have obtained in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful