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

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

SAP’s own statements confirmed it. * 11. 12. combining features from the PeopleSoft and JDE1 software and its CEO Larry Ellison has been vocal about his intentions to take market share away from SAP. developers. increasing Oracle’s potency as a competitor to SAP AG for enterprise applications software. aimed at taking market share from No. As a result of this illegal activity. “After the acquisition of PeopleSoft earlier this year. “Oracle Corp. SAP AG acquired SAP TN.” Another mused. Edwards World Solutions. Oracle had previously announced that in January 2005 it would complete its acquisition of PeopleSoft. Not by coincidence. and support technicians. and (c) support contracts to keep the software updated and upgraded. is developing a ‘super set’ of applications. As explained below. a software company acquired by PeopleSoft.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. this theft appears to be an essential – and illegal – part of SAP’s competitive strategy against Oracle. 10. through SAP America. Inc. and support. Oracle officially became a player on SAP’s turf. One industry analyst stated that. 5 COMPLAINT . 1 ranked SAP. copyrighted Software and Support Materials. new customers of SAP TN – SAP AG’s and SAP America’s software support subsidiary whose sole purpose is to compete with Oracle. SAP AG’s hasty acquisition of SAP TN was widely perceived as a response to the new competitive threat from Oracle. (b) consulting relating to the implementation and operation of the software. In January 2005. Industry observers noted this fundamental shift in the competitive landscape. Oracle said it has thousands of developers building the new application suite. in 2003. * * In the world of enterprise software applications. called Project Fusion. SAP AG spokesman Bill Wohl vowed that SAP AG would use SAP TN to “keep the pressure on 1 “JDE” refers to J. an independent software support company founded by former PeopleSoft software engineers.” 13. consulting.D. revenue comes from three basic activities: (a) license of the underlying software. SAP apparently has now warehoused an extensive library of Oracle’s proprietary.

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

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

19. 8 COMPLAINT . SAP America is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of SAP AG is a German corporation with its principal place of business in business in Newtown Square. SAP TN is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Bryan. 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. Pennsylvania. OIC is a California corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. Germany. Oracle USA is the successor to PeopleSoft USA. 23. THE PARTIES 17. 21. State of California. Oracle Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Redwood City. Oracle USA is a Colorado corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of California. County of San Mateo. Walldorf. 18. Oracle Corporation develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services around the world. Inc. State of California. Texas. SAP TN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP America. OIC is the owner of the copyrights at issue in this action. County of San Mateo. 22..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. with its only place of business in Redwood City. County of San Mateo. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are the licensees of the copyrights at issue in this action. SAP America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG. Directly and through its subsidiaries. with its principal place of business in Redwood City. The corporate relationship of the three named defendants is set forth in the chart below. 20. Oracle USA develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services. State of California. (“PeopleSoft”) and JDE.

At all material times. whether individual. SAP AG also holds an annual meeting of its Board of Directors in Palo Alto. Oracle will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. and specifically this judicial district. sell. specifically in this judicial district. Defendants all are doing business in and/or have directed their activities at California. partnership. 27. 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. At all material times. corporation. license. subsidiary. California. employee. Subsidiary) SAP TN (Wholly-owned U. through its 100% ownership of both SAP America and SAP TN. inclusive.S. Subsidiary) Oracle is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50. service. parent. and finances the sales and promotional activities of both SAP America and SAP TN throughout the United States and in California. or co-conspirator of the others. SAP America had both the right and authority to control the actions of SAP TN. representative. SAP AG (German Parent Corporation) SAP America (Wholly-owned U. and support customers in California and in this judicial district. unincorporated association. partner. servant. joint venturer. SAP AG had both the right and the authority to control the actions of both corporations. through its 100% ownership of SAP TN. had full knowledge of and gave substantial 9 COMPLAINT . was the agent. Similarly. By way of example only.S. and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. SAP America and SAP TN advertise. alter ego. 25. affiliate. each of the Defendants. 26. including Does 1 through 50.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24. SAP AG negotiates and enters into software license and support agreements directly within the United States and. or otherwise. promote.

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

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

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

Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING. In addition. 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. provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear. users accessing specific materials. 42. product or upgrade announcements. Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited. the user must click on a button indicating that it accepts these terms. 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. 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. and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made.” To download a SAR. press releases. (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. such as a Software Application Request (“SAR”) through the SAR Search Web Application. The Legal Download Agreement further restricts use of documents downloaded from the website: Permission to use Documents (such as white papers.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JDEdwards and/or its affiliates or suppliers. 13 COMPLAINT . 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. These terms notify the user that the software available to download from Oracle is Oracle’s copyrighted material. datasheets and FAQs) from this server (“Server”) is granted. 41. software action requests. 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”).

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

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

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

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

. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. At the same time.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. companies and corporate cultures.” How SAP could offer instantaneous. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. 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. Léo Apotheker. boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well. . 58. Bill McDermott. However. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage. By July 2006.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers. SAP AG’s CEO. maintenance services. 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.” 57. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT . “SAP AG plans to announce . In a July 2006 earnings call. SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. As reported on Forbes.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. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions. Henning Kagermann. round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery. as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product offerings. including through its September 12. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. SAP grew more desperate. technology. SAP America President and CEO. curiously. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems. In October 2005. SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its first year. By March 2006.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. and more aggressive. SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations.

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

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

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

(2) Bob Geib. and a significant number of its employees. or any portion thereof.P. such as Wade Walden. (5) Nigel Pullan. · That the customer username and password are for the customer’s sole use in accessing this support server. Global J. · Not to directly or indirectly. distribute. sublicense.P.P. (3) Laura Sweetman. In addition. SAP TN’s management. for third party use. V.D. · That the Materials on the support website are confidential information subject to existing confidentiality agreements. Of SAP TN’s tenmember management team. use. and (6) Shelley Nelson. former PeopleSoft employees who work for SAP. Quality. including: (1) Andrew Nelson. or lease the Software or Documentation. V. V. Edwards Support. Global PeopleSoft Support. · Not to access the customer support system if it is not the customer’s authorized and designated Oracle technical support contact. (4) Mel Gadd. who is reflected as the person performing many of the downloads at issue.P. V. rent. disclose. JDE. relicense. V. International Sales. SAP TN has intimate familiarity with these important restrictions and conditions relating to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials.P. · That the customer username and password may only be distributed to persons in the customer’s organization who have a legitimate business purpose for accessing the materials contained on the support server in furtherance of the customer’s relationship with Oracle. North American Sales. or Oracle. appear to have applied their familiarity with the Customer Connection website to directly participate in and perfect the illegal 22 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 70. · 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. President and CEO. formerly worked at PeopleSoft and JDE. or third party training. six list prior employment experience with PeopleSoft.

Further. 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. Indeed. 72. and the confidential. Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements with its customers. or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. proprietary. 71. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. 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. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers. or need for. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT . Oracle has learned that SAP TN accessed and downloaded the Software and Support Materials when it either had no legitimate basis to access Oracle’s restricted website. SAP TN 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. the support website terms of use. those products. Further. 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. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. the scope of the downloaded Software and Support Materials – across multiple libraries in multiple lines of business – for customers that had no license to take. SAP TN cannot credibly claim ignorance of Oracle’s access rules. In short. and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s 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 downloading scheme. 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. 73.

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

the unauthorized downloads did not stop there. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP TN’s website as a client. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. 25 COMPLAINT . a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. Then. 2007. Merck & Company. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. 77. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. Over 2.000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007. But. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007.000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license. (“Merck”). 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. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. Merck. one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day. Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software. Inc.000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. after switching to SAP TN. More than 5.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of the nature and extent of SAP’s theft. 76. Honeywell. In the three months prior to that date.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9.

Canadian Payroll. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.” 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.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. “TNL-02. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. “TN-DL03. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. Homebuilder Management.V. authorization. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and.” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. in some cases. 26 COMPLAINT . 78. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. These downloads included over 3. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL. false user names) and downloaded over 12.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. OCE-Technologies B. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products.” In many cases.” Similar to the other customer examples. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx.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. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. authorization or other right to access and download the 5.” “9999999999. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose. OCE. Texas. Like the other companies. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business.

users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8. G. between October and December 2006. users logging into Oracle’s support system with Metro Machine’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. Metro Machine Corp. 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. Not coincidentally.700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above. “tn-wts01. SAP TN. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December 10. In addition. (“Metro Machine”) dropped all Oracle support effective on January 1. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30.” 80. 2007 and switched to SAP TN. these users logged in using SPX credentials. at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. SPX. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. Metro Machine. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT . listed on its website. like the others. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. Then. These SPX downloads included over 1. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle.” Many of these SPX downloads. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software. For the nine month period prior to October 2006.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oracle is entitled to restitution of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. At all times mentioned in this Complaint. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefits received as a result of their wrongful acts would unjustly benefit Defendants at Oracle’s expense. 36 COMPLAINT . In addition. and will continue to lose. or in the alternative. profits from potential purchasers of Oracle support services and licensees of Oracle software products. Oracle will seek its election of remedies at trial. Oracle has lost. with interest. and the Software and Support Materials on that support system. Oracle is entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property. 135. as described above. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 132. or in the alternative. Oracle had legal title to and actual possession of Customer Connection.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. Defendants may have been obtaining unjust and substantial benefit from the sale and distribution of Oracle’s property to third parties without Oracle’s consent and without paying Oracle for the value of such property. In addition. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Oracle is entitled to an award of the value of the property taken. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. its access-restricted internet-based support system. Defendants’ improper assumption and exercise of dominion and control over Oracle’s property and their likely sale and distribution of the same has and will continue to interfere with and diminish Oracle’s rights in that property. Defendants have been in knowing and unauthorized possession and control of such property since at least between September 2006 and the present. Since that time. 137. Seventh Claim for Relief Trespass To Chattels (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 136. at the latest. in an amount to be determined at trial. 134. 133.

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful