1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP CHRISTOPHER B. HOCKETT (SBN 121539) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JEFFREY S. ROSS (SBN 138172) 500 Oracle Parkway M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: (650) 506-4846 Facsimile: (650) 506-7114 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation, and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a California corporation, v. Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR: (1) VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT; (2) VIOLATIONS OF THE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT; (3) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; (4) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;
SAP AG, a German corporation, SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, TOMORROWNOW, INC., a Texas corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(5) UNFAIR COMPETITION; (6) CONVERSION; (7) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS; (8) UNJUST ENRICHMENT / RESTITUTION; (9) CIVIL CONSPIRACY; (10) AIDING AND ABETTING; AND (11) AN ACCOUNTING. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc. (“Oracle USA”), and Oracle International Corporation (“OIC”) (together “Oracle” or “Plaintiffs”) for their Complaint against Defendants SAP AG (“SAP AG”), SAP America, Inc. (“SAP America”), TomorrowNow, Inc. (“SAP TN”), and Does 1 through 50 (collectively referred to as “SAP” or “Defendants”), allege as follows based on their personal knowledge as for themselves, and on information and belief as to the acts of others: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This case is about corporate theft on a grand scale, committed by the
largest German software company – a conglomerate known as SAP. Oracle is a leading developer of database and applications software, and SAP is Oracle’s largest enterprise applications software competitor. 2. Oracle brings this lawsuit after discovering that SAP is engaged in
systematic, illegal access to – and taking from – Oracle’s computerized customer support systems. Through this scheme, SAP has stolen thousands of proprietary, copyrighted software products and other confidential materials that Oracle developed to service its own support customers. SAP gained repeated and unauthorized access, in many cases by use of pretextual customer log-in credentials, to Oracle’s proprietary, password-protected customer support website. From that website, SAP has copied and swept thousands of Oracle software products and other proprietary and confidential materials onto its own servers. As a result, SAP has compiled an illegal library of Oracle’s copyrighted software code and other materials. This storehouse of stolen Oracle intellectual property enables SAP to offer cut rate support services to 1 COMPLAINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
customers who use Oracle software, and to attempt to lure them to SAP’s applications software platform and away from Oracle’s. Through this Complaint, Oracle seeks to stop SAP’s illegal intrusions and theft, to prevent SAP from using the materials it has illegally acquired to compete with Oracle, and to recover damages and attorneys’ fees. 3. In late November 2006, there occurred unusually heavy download activity
on Oracle’s password-protected customer support website for its PeopleSoft and J.D. Edwards (“JDE”) product lines. That website, called Customer Connection, permits licensed Oracle customers with active support agreements to download a wide array of copyrighted, proprietary software programs and other support materials. Oracle has invested billions of dollars in research, development, and engineering to create these materials, which include program updates, software updates, bug fixes, patches, custom solutions, and instructional documents – all copyrighted by Oracle – across the entire PeopleSoft and JDE family of software products (the “Software and Support Materials”). Customers who have contracted for support with Oracle have log-in credentials to access Customer Connection and download Software and Support Materials. However, Oracle’s support contracts limit customers’ access and download rights to Software and Support Materials pertaining to the customers’ licensed products. Customers have no contractual right to download Software and Support Materials relating to software programs they have not licensed from Oracle, or for which the customers did not purchase support rights. 4. The Software and Support Materials are a subset of the technical support
services that Oracle makes available to its customers that have licensed Oracle software programs and purchased the right to receive technical support services related to them. The full suite of technical support services (also known as “support” or “maintenance”) generally includes three types of offerings that Oracle, like most other enterprise software vendors, makes available to its licensed customers: (i) telephone or email access to Oracle’s support technicians regarding the operation of Oracle’s software; (ii) software program code for the customers’ licensed software programs which adds new functionality or features to the software (generally referred to as “software updates”), or that addresses errors or “bugs” in the software program (generally referred to as “software patches”); and (iii) “knowledge management” articles that 2 COMPLAINT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
help with problem solving and provide suggestions relating to the customer’s use of licensed software programs. Because of the complexity of enterprise software applications and the business environments in which they run, regular software updates and patches and knowledge management articles are critical components of a software maker’s support offering. For purposes of this case, Oracle’s claims against SAP only concern Oracle’s Software and Support Materials, and not Oracle’s provision of telephone or online assistance in response to customers’ support queries. 5. The access and download activity Oracle observed on its systems in late
November and December 2006 did not resemble the authorized, limited access to which its customers were entitled. Instead, SAP employees using the log-in credentials of Oracle customers with expired or soon-to-expire support rights had, in a matter of a few days or less, accessed and copied thousands of individual Software and Support Materials. For a significant number of these mass downloads, the users lacked any contractual right even to access, let alone copy, the Software and Support Materials. The downloads spanned every library in the Customer Connection support website. For example, using one customer’s credentials, SAP suddenly downloaded an average of over 1,800 items per day for four days straight (compared to that customer’s normal downloads averaging 20 per month). Other purported customers hit the Oracle site and harvested Software and Support Materials after they had cancelled all support with Oracle in favor of SAP TN. Moreover, these mass downloads captured Software and Support Materials that were clearly of no use to the “customers” in whose names they were taken. Indeed, the materials copied not only related to unlicensed products, but to entire Oracle product families that the customers had not licensed. 6. For example, in January 2007, a user on an SAP TN computer signed in as
Oracle customer Honeywell International, Inc., a Fortune 100 technology and manufacturing company, to access Oracle’s support system and copy literally thousands of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials in virtually every product library in every line of business. This copying went well beyond the products that Honeywell had licensed and to which it had authorized access. In other examples, users from SAP TN logged in using the credentials of recently 3 COMPLAINT
Texas IP address used to access and download Oracle’s Software and Support Materials is connected directly to SAP’s computer network.com” and fake phone numbers such as “7777777777” and “123 456 7897. or 4 COMPLAINT
. Indeed. the access originated from an internet protocol (IP) address in Bryan. All of these customers whose IDs SAP appropriated had one critical fact in common: they were. Employing these techniques. and phone number) that did not match the customer at all. email address. SAP users effectively swept much of the contents of Oracle’s system onto SAP’s servers. and downloaded Software and Support Materials even after the customer had dropped its support rights with Oracle. to gain access to Oracle’s system under false pretexts. For example. In many instances. SAP employees
used the log-in IDs of multiple customers. The Bryan. Oracle’s server logs have recorded access through this same IP address by computers labeled with SAP identifiers using SAP IP addresses. Texas. 9. including the ones described above. These “customer users” supplied user information (such as user name.000 unauthorized downloads of Software and Support Materials relating to hundreds of different software programs. Across its entire
library of Software and Support Materials in Customer Connection. 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. Rather. Oracle has found many examples of similar activity. an SAP America branch office location and home of its wholly-owned subsidiary SAP TN. In some cases. like Metro Machine Corp.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.” Others used phony email addresses like “test@testyomama. combined with phony user log-in information. 7. This systematic theft of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials did not
originate from any actual customer location.. 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. some users logged in with the user names of “xx” “ss” “User” and “NULL. For example. this user information did not match anything: it was fake. SAP blended log-in information from multiple customers with fake information. Texas. Oracle to date has identified more than 10. 8.
“Oracle Corp. “After the acquisition of PeopleSoft earlier this year. * *
In the world of enterprise software applications. Oracle said it has thousands of developers building the new application suite. One industry analyst stated that. and (c) support contracts to keep the software updated and upgraded.” Another mused. 10. Industry observers noted this fundamental shift in the competitive
landscape. this theft appears to be an essential – and illegal – part of SAP’s competitive strategy against Oracle.” 13. SAP AG acquired SAP TN. a software company acquired by PeopleSoft. Inc. Oracle officially became a player on SAP’s turf. SAP’s own statements confirmed it. 1 ranked SAP. revenue comes from three
basic activities: (a) license of the underlying software. consulting. increasing Oracle’s potency as a competitor to SAP AG for enterprise applications software. SAP AG’s hasty acquisition of SAP TN was widely perceived as a
response to the new competitive threat from Oracle. an independent software support company founded by former PeopleSoft software engineers. new customers of SAP TN – SAP AG’s and SAP America’s software support subsidiary whose sole purpose is to compete with Oracle. 12. Oracle had previously announced that in January 2005 it would complete its acquisition of PeopleSoft. and support technicians. * 11. in 2003. 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.D. As a result of this illegal activity. As explained below. Not by coincidence. called Project Fusion. through SAP America. aimed at taking market share from No. SAP apparently has now warehoused an
extensive library of Oracle’s proprietary. and support. (b) consulting relating to the implementation and operation of the software.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
were just about to become. developers. copyrighted Software and Support Materials. Edwards World Solutions. In January 2005. 5 COMPLAINT
. is developing a ‘super set’ of applications. SAP AG spokesman Bill Wohl vowed that SAP AG would use SAP TN to “keep the pressure on
“JDE” refers to J.
Publicly. or the day of. As reported in industry publications.” 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. industry observers deemed the “Safe Passage” program
“measurably more aggressive.” Although SAP America President and CEO.” and a sign that “SAP has taken the gloves off. crowed “There’s nothing that I love more than to win. Indeed. the 6 COMPLAINT SAP’s unlawful copying and theft includes.000 illicit downloads from Customer Connection between September 2006 and January 2007.” In connection with the SAP TN acquisition. 15. with indications that this number may go significantly higher if traced further back in time. following: · More than 10. It certainly did not match Oracle’s investment in development resources. SAP appeared to focus more on growing the SAP TN sales force rather than investing in or expanding SAP TN’s tiny development team. Bill McDermott. by way of example. the
. explicitly designed to transition customers away from Oracle products and onto the SAP software platform. · A systematic pattern of “sweeping” Oracle’s Customer Connection support website from SAP TN servers just days before. Bill McDermott. 14. SAP stole much of the Software and Support Materials directly from Oracle.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Oracle” by exploiting legacy PeopleSoft customers’ perceived unease about Oracle’s commitment to support legacy PeopleSoft software. much less the 50% discount promoted by SAP. SAP advertised this strategy as its “Safe Passage” program. committed to throw “a lot of additional resources” behind SAP TN (which consisted of only 37 employees in total). SAP TN’s services “form[ed] the basis of [SAP AG’s] Safe Passage initiative. or even come close to it. These facts raised questions about how SAP could offer the type of comprehensive technical support services on Oracle programs that customers of enterprise applications typically require. a program aimed at siphoning off valuable software maintenance revenue from Oracle and persuading Oracle customers to switch software products [to SAP]. SAP America’s CEO. Nevertheless. SAP TN did not appear to have the development capability to meet the support commitments advertised in the “Safe Passage” brochures at any price.
. authorized customers or through normal access to Oracle’s Customer Connection system. and deceptive business practices that continues to this day. and theft of. SAP has taken Oracle’s Software and Support Materials and apparently used them to insinuate itself into Oracle’s customer base.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. clearly-marked internal proprietary Oracle support documents not available even to licensed. unlawful. its many employees. 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. · The improper access to. and to attempt to convert these customers to SAP software applications. and its customers. to try to “keep the pressure on Oracle. or in some cases on behalf of former Oracle customers with no access rights to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials whatsoever. Oracle has no adequate remedy at law for the harm threatened and caused by these acts. · On multiple occasions. In short. in the purported name of customers that had never licensed those products and had no legal access to them. These illegal business practices threaten to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. wholesale copying of vast libraries of available Software and Support Materials from Oracle’s Customer Connection support website through downloads too rapid to permit any real-time use of the downloaded Software and Support Material. the indiscriminate. · Accessing and downloading Software and Support Materials across multiple product lines in multiple lines of business available on the Customer Connection support website. Through its illegitimate and illegal business practices.
expiration of a new SAP TN customer’s support contract with Oracle.” SAP has been engaged in
a systematic program of unfair.
. 23. State of California. SAP America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP AG. County of San Mateo. County of San Mateo. 19.
. State of California. Oracle Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Redwood City. OIC is a California corporation duly authorized to do business in the State
of California. 21. with its principal place of business in Redwood City. Pennsylvania. 20. Oracle USA is a Colorado corporation duly authorized to do business in
the State of California. 18. Oracle Corporation and Oracle USA are authorized to license to end users the copyrighted computer software programs and other works at issue in this action. SAP TN is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in
Corporation and Oracle USA are the licensees of the copyrights at issue in this action. Walldorf. Germany. Oracle USA develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services. Oracle Corporation develops and licenses database and applications software programs and provides related services around the world. Inc. Texas.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
II. Oracle USA is the successor to PeopleSoft USA. SAP America is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of SAP AG is a German corporation with its principal place of business in
business in Newtown Square. Directly and through its subsidiaries.
THE PARTIES 17. SAP TN is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAP America. County of San Mateo. OIC is the owner of the copyrights at issue in this action. 22. The corporate relationship of the three named defendants is set forth in the chart below. with its only place of business in Redwood City. (“PeopleSoft”) and JDE. State of California.
25. Similarly. and specifically this judicial district. or otherwise. specifically in this judicial district. 26. inclusive. and finances the sales and promotional activities of both SAP America and SAP TN throughout the United States and in California. including Does 1 through
50. employee. had full knowledge of and gave substantial 9 COMPLAINT
. SAP AG had both the right and the authority to control the actions of both corporations. Oracle will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. sell. 27. SAP AG negotiates and enters into software license and support agreements directly within the United States and. 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. through its 100% ownership of SAP TN. At all material times. or co-conspirator of the others. was the agent. at all material times.S. license. Defendants all are doing business in and/or have directed their activities at
California. parent. service. and support customers in California and in this judicial district. through its 100% ownership of both SAP America
and SAP TN. Subsidiary)
Oracle is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of Does 1
through 50. corporation. affiliate. servant. By way of example only. subsidiary. joint venturer. SAP America had both the right and authority to control the actions of SAP TN. unincorporated association. each of the Defendants.S. California. SAP AG also holds an annual meeting of its Board of Directors in Palo Alto. and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. partner. whether individual. partnership. promote. At all material times. representative. Subsidiary) SAP TN (Wholly-owned U. alter ego.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 (German Parent Corporation) SAP America (Wholly-owned U. SAP America and SAP TN advertise.
18 U. VENUE 30. 3-2 (c) and (d). because
a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in this district. Oracle will seek to amend this Complaint to add claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. joint venture. Oracle is the world’s largest enterprise software company. V. This Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the pendent
state law claims under 28 U.
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. § 1030(g) and 28 U.C. a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district. affiliation. when the relevant copyright registrations issue. or conspiracy.S. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. In addition. § 1331.S. § 1338. and this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 18 U. Oracle’s first cause of action arises under the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act. Venue in this district is appropriate.. and in doing the things alleged. §§ 1030 et seq. § 1391.S. VI. § 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. and the Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the parties as alleged throughout this Complaint.C.S. Power & Associates’ global certification for outstanding service and support based 10 COMPLAINT
. §§ 101. IV.D. representation. and the first to
receive J. each was acting within the scope of such agency..S.S. 29. Oracle’s Software and Support Materials 32. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 31.1 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. service.C.C.R. and the Court will have subjectmatter jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.C.S. and each is legally responsible for the acts and omissions of the others. pursuant to 28 U.C. partnership. et seq. Assignment is proper in this division under Civil L. III. employment.C. JURISDICTION 28. 17 U.
those rules prohibit access to. Instead. manufactures. or patches to those software programs the customers have expressly licensed from Oracle and have the right to use. and use of. Unless specifically provided in your licensing or distribution agreement with Oracle. its object and source code. Oracle’s software. distributes. and any sublicense. use. As is typical in the enterprise software industry. any portion of the software not expressly licensed and paid for by the licensee. Oracle’s license agreements define Oracle’s confidential information to
include.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
. that software. 34. As defined in one illustrative license agreement. purchase some set of technical support services that include the right to obtain upgraded products such as updates. Oracle develops. disclosure. 33. Oracle’s license agreements with its customers may vary according to the
products licensed. and services software designed to help its customers manage and grow their business operations. Oracle does not sell
ownership rights to its software or related support products to its customers. without limitation. including because the customers originally contracted with companies later acquired by Oracle. or use of. or lease of the software to third parties. middleware. and typically do. bug fixes. In addition. markets. 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. licensed customers can. Oracle also restricts access to the Customer Connection technical support
The Legal Download Agreement also puts the user on notice as to the
confidential. You may not use. Access to the secured areas of Customer Connection is also governed by
on Customer Connection: “the information contained in the Materials [on Customer Connection] is the confidential proprietary information of Oracle. reproduce. 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
.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
Use for any other purpose is expressly prohibited. users accessing specific materials. In addition. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING. software action requests. press releases. the user must click on a button indicating that it accepts these terms. 41. 42. such as a Software
Application Request (“SAR”) through the SAR Search Web Application.
. 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. 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. agree to additional legal restrictions. All Software is confidential information of Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards and its use and distribution is governed by the terms of the software license agreement that is in effect between you and Oracle / PeopleSoft / JDEdwards (“License Agreement”). product or upgrade announcements. COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED. datasheets and FAQs) from this server (“Server”) is granted. 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. and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made. provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear. Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited. (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. These terms notify the user that the software available to download from Oracle is Oracle’s copyrighted material.” To download a SAR. 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.
but now Oracle offered a deeper.000 people joining by Webcast and phone. On January 7. how the nearly 50.000-strong combined workforce of Oracle and PeopleSoft would provide unparalleled innovation and support to 23. Oracle launched the newly-united company and unveiled. 2005. Oracle would “not [be] a competitor which could really hurt us. 46. Oracle completed its acquisition of PeopleSoft to
emerge as the second-largest provider of business software applications in the world and the first to rival SAP AG in market share. 45. 14 COMPLAINT
. broader product line of enterprise applications software programs to compete against SAP AG. or intellectual property rights to. despite not owning any of the software code for. SAP AG instead
considered how to undermine Oracle.” After the merger. the combination revitalized Oracle overnight as a competitor in the business software applications business. Rather than improve its own products and offerings. One way was to hit at Oracle’s customer base – and potentially increase its own – by acquiring and bankrolling a company that claimed the ability to compete with Oracle support and maintenance services on Oracle’s own software products. events unfolded at a rapid pace: eleven days after its announcement. As SAP AG reeled.000 business applications software customers throughout the world. Richard Knowles.
Oracle Threatens To Unseat SAP 43. 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. But SAP AG had no answer for the business proposition the new Oracle
offered. As SAP America’s Vice President of Operations. at its headquarters with more than 48. 44. these same products.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. 2004 at the trial on the Department of Justice’s unsuccessful effort to block Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann claimed that even with PeopleSoft. Not only do many SAP AG customers use Oracle’s superior database software programs. he even claimed to wish Oracle “good luck” in competing with SAP AG. SAP AG suddenly found itself in a far different competitive environment than the one in which it had grown comfortable. testified on June 23. and geographic and product scope. size.
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.” D. just weeks before Oracle would close the PeopleSoft acquisition. SAP TN claimed that it could cut customer maintenance and support bills in half and give customers a reprieve from software upgrade cycles by allowing customers to remain on older. but a calculated competitive move. but – with the Oracle/PeopleSoft 15 COMPLAINT
. SAP TN was a small software services company. SAP AG has refused to disclose the terms of its SAP TN purchase. it instead focuses on simply keeping the software up and running for an annual fee. 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. by providing low-cost maintenance and support services to PeopleSoft and JDE customers running assorted versions of these software programs. JDE. because to the extent SAP AG successfully undermined Oracle by having its customers move from Oracle’s software to SAP AG’s software. SAP AG’s “front man for SAP AG’s mergers and acquisitions strategy. in
December 2004. It claimed to compete with PeopleSoft.” 49. however.
SAP TN 47. As one industry journalist explained. SAP Responds To Oracle Competition With Its “Safe Passage” Scheme 48. and later. SAP AG proposed to buy SAP TN outright and make it a wholly-owned – and wholly-beholden – subsidiary. As one industry observer put it.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
C. SAP AG bought “another arrow in its quiver to hunt after Oracle’s customers. Acquiring SAP TN was not a mere investment by SAP AG.” Mackey made Nelson an offer “he couldn’t refuse. So SAP AG had to make the price right. often outdated. Oracle. To retain full control over every detail of its scheme to lure away
customers from Oracle. SAP TN president Andrew Nelson got “the magic phone call” from Jim Mackey. As described in a glossy spread in a leading industry publication. Texas and founded by former PeopleSoft employees.
headquartered in Bryan. SAP TN would eventually lose its customer base.” Aligning with SAP AG made little sense for SAP TN. In December 2004.
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. which in turn was part of SAP’s “ongoing strategy to compete with Oracle.” And SAP TN certainly knew its role was to achieve SAP AG’s ends: as SAP TN’s CEO. SAP would aggressively campaign to migrate those customers to an SAP enterprise software platform. admitted that the SAP TN acquisition was “an integral part” of SAP’s Safe Passage program. 50. ease integration with SAP NetWeaver(TM) and begin the process of innovating their businesses today. SAP would offer cut-rate pricing combined with the promise of essentially unlimited future support to former PeopleSoft and JDE support customers. SAP America’s CEO. We want them to be successful. 52. SAP AG’s top executives unveiled SAP AG’s
acquisition of SAP TN as the centerpiece of its new “Safe Passage” scheme. On January 19. 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.” The Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of SAP Asia Pacific. Andrew Nelson. The CEOs stated the proposition more bluntly. Bill McDermott. SAP AG’s CEO. SAP TN’s new parent companies directed it to begin
to implement a two-phase plan to increase SAP’s enterprise application market share. SAP
America CEO Bill McDermott claimed “The SAP Safe Passage offering gives companies an affordable way to protect their current investments. SAP AG would try to use SAP TN as a means of “speeding-up” the migration of PeopleSoft and JDE users to SAP platforms.” 16 COMPLAINT
. stated. publicly indicating that SAP TN was authorized and intended to implement SAP AG’s goals.” A month later. After the acquisition. in connection with converting Oracle customers to SAP support (via SAP TN). As SAP AG Managing Director Alan Sedghi admitted. Colin Sampson. Henning Kagermann. publicly vowed to bankroll this effort to undermine Oracle by putting “a lot of additional resources into TomorrowNow. identified SAP TN as instrumental to the parent company’s “Safe Passage” program. In April 2005. SAP TN agreed to the deal and cast its lot with SAP AG. 2005. in barely a month. to lure the support business over.” 51. First. at the SAP AG annual meeting. “We're owned by SAP. Second.
technology and maintenance services. Beginning in January 2005. PeopleSoft and JDE customer uncertainty about the prospects for long-term. 55. As reflected on SAP AG’s
website: “SAP offers Safe Passage for PeopleSoft. SAP provides solutions.” (emphasis supplied) SAP America’s website promises that “SAP and TomorrowNow can cut your maintenance costs by as much as 50% through 2015.” and elsewhere says that “Safe Passage maintenance and support are delivered worldwide through TomorrowNow. it took a hands-on approach. 17 COMPLAINT
. SAP AG did not simply sit back and leave the recruiting of potential Safe Passage customers to SAP TN’s sales force.000 direct mail solicitations to Oracle customers. albeit unfounded.” To exploit the fear it intended to create. SAP sales representatives unleashed a torrent
of marketing materials designed to exacerbate and leverage perceived. It deployed its salespeople to contact potential customers and push them to switch to SAP TN’s services. quality support from Oracle. the SAP AG sales personnel would pressure the customers to drop Oracle products outright in favor of SAP AG’s suite. offering significantly lower cost maintenance alternatives to Oracle customers running PSFT/JDE solutions” through 70. consider another option: SAP. SAP AG’s “second wave” included “an intensive customer recruitment campaign. and Siebel customers – If Oracle’s options have you worried. JD Edwards.
SAP implemented Phase One immediately.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. Instead.” 54. officially “bundled” with SAP AG enterprise software as a centerpiece of the Safe Passage program. An April 2005 SAP AG press release apparently aimed to increase perceived doubt among Oracle customers by announcing a “second wave” of “Safe Passage. SAP AG offered maintenance support through SAP TN. To give teeth to these commingled sales efforts. To implement Phase Two of its plan (luring Oracle customers to the SAP
enterprise software platform). If customers declined to convert to SAP TN.” SAP TN’s website confirms its acceptance and undertaking of the SAP-controlled Safe Passage program: “TomorrowNow can also provide our support services as part of the SAP Safe Passage Program. These lower cost alternatives advertised by SAP AG were to come directly through SAP TN.
SAP AG’s President of Customer Solutions and Operations. SAP AG boasted in a press release that more than 200 customers had signed up for Safe Passage. By July 2006. As reported on Forbes. investment protection and a clear road map to the next generation of business software.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
56. SAP America President and CEO. companies and corporate cultures.” but its services were expanded to support more Oracle product lines and a wider range of customers. . as Oracle continued to take market share and expand its product
offerings. and more aggressive. curiously.” including because SAP AG “extended the program in order to offer it as well to Siebel 18 COMPLAINT
.’s own products [the Siebel products] for a far cheaper price. 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. the program it implemented partly through SAP TN. including apparently instantaneous round the clock support from SAP TN – whose engineers at that time presumably had spent virtually no time to develop Siebel support software products.
SAP executives touted the Safe Passage program’s limited success in its
first year. SAP AG continued to tout the success of Safe Passage.” How SAP could offer instantaneous. that it will offer technical support for more of rival software maker Oracle Corp. At the same time. technology. . round the clock Siebel code support within a few weeks of Oracle’s acquisition announcement remained a mystery. promised SAP AG would use SAP TN and the Safe Passage program to “fight for” more customers. Henning Kagermann.” SAP’s “cheaper price” (referred to elsewhere as “cut rate” support) continued at “50 cents on the dollar for maintenance fees. including through its September 12. However. By March 2006. 58.com after Oracle’s announcement of its impending Siebel acquisition. SAP grew more desperate. and which it claimed “offers companies SAP solutions. “SAP AG plans to announce . In a July 2006 earnings call.” 57. 2005 announcement that it would acquire Siebel Systems. Léo Apotheker. In October 2005. Bill McDermott. maintenance services. SAP AG CEO Henning Kagermann conceded that SAP had
lost as much as 2% market share to Oracle. SAP AG’s CEO. boasted that Safe Passage “continues to do really well. SAP announced it would extend its Safe Passage program to Siebel customers.
even after having expanded its ranks to 150 employees. Oracle Finds A Suspicious Pattern To analyze and improve on its industry leading support services. It was not clear how SAP TN could offer. by comparison. maintains a development force of more than 15. “30-minute response time. some industry analysts wondered whether a small company like SAP TN. The economics. 24x7x365” on software programs for which it had no intellectual property rights. 61. as it did on its website and its
other materials. simply did not add up. Although SAP put a brave face on its ability to compete with the
increasingly potent Oracle applications offerings.” and. 60. and updates that comprise the advanced support services required by Oracle’s licensed customers. The SAP Solution: Stolen Passage 1. bug fixes. 62. patches. and other labor-intensive support items that a customer would need to maintain useful. 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.” “fixes for serious issues.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
customers.” By extending the Safe Passage program to Siebel customers. most remarkably. could actually develop and offer the hundreds of regulatory updates. “customized ongoing tax and regulatory updates. Oracle has now solved this puzzle.000 software and support engineers to create and help implement the code fixes. To stave off the mounting competitive
threat from Oracle. Oracle. without infringing on Oracle’s intellectual property. A Deal Too Good To Be True 59. To compound the puzzle. patches.” “full upgrade script support. SAP continued to offer this comprehensive support to hundreds of customers at the “cut rate” of 50 cents on the dollar. F. SAP unlawfully accessed and copied Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. and purported to add full support for an entirely different product line – Siebel – with a wave of its hand.” E. and the logic. Apotheker claimed that SAP now had “a global network of [SAP TN] capabilities” – enough to “gain significant traction. and in conjunction with opening new SAP TN offices around the world.
a user purporting to be that customer. These clicks numbered in the thousands for several customers. Oracle noticed huge. hundreds. including dozens. 20 COMPLAINT
. In the course of this investigation. authorized use of Customer Connection. 65. these clicks could not reflect real responses from any human customers actually reading the solutions they had accessed. Given the extreme speed at which the activity occurred. these click patterns showed that the users had employed an automated process to move with lightning speed through the entire library of Software and Support Materials on the Customer Connection website. continue search” option. unexplained spikes in the number of
customers on the online support website who had clicked the “No. with the aim of continually improving the support system for customers. or thousands of products beyond the scope of the specific customer’s licensed products and permitted access.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. Oracle regularly compiles this data to assess whether its system helped customers resolve their support issues. Frequently. If the customer selects the “No. Indeed. in the month before a customer’s Oracle support expired. And. over and over again. 64. 63. Oracle also discovered that the downloaded Software and Support Materials included internal documents not available even to licensed customers and not available through normal. In late 2006. to take a copy of them all. Oracle soon discovered that many of these “customers” had taken
massive quantities of Software and Support Materials beyond their license rights. 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. would access Oracle’s system and download large quantities of Software and Support Materials. the support system responds by offering the customer further options. Some of these apparent customer users even downloaded materials after their contractual support rights had expired. and Oracle discovered that each response – each answer by users pretending to be the customer – occurred in a matter of seconds or less. continue search” option. employing the customer’s log-in credentials. 2. Oracle discovered a pattern. apparently. Instead.
extreme. 68. Indeed. those customers do not directly appear to have engaged in the download activity. Oracle’s system violated the terms
of the Oracle customers’ License Agreement. not expressly licensed and paid for by the Licensee.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. http://hqitpc01. including updates. Although it is now clear that the customers initially identified by Oracle as
engaged in the illegal downloads are SAP TN customers. If the access and downloads had been legitimate. 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. 69. which included false names and phone numbers. rather. Oracle noticed that SAP TN did not even bother to change the false user information from customer to customer when it logged in. for many of these downloads. Texas. in every library that it could find.
Several of these apparent customer users supplied misleading
identification information as part of the log-on process to Oracle’s systems. Instead. 21 COMPLAINT
. and the Legal Download Agreement. Oracle has traced the illegal download activity to computers using an SAP IP address.com). 67. When Oracle first noticed that the unlawful access and downloads originated almost exclusively from one IP address in Bryan. sprouted up almost immediately and the unlawful access and downloading resumed. also linked to SAP. Oracle shut down access to that IP address. 3. The users presumably intended this misinformation.g. SAP TN’s Access Was Unauthorized SAP TN’s access to.tomorrownow. a new IP address.
formerly worked at PeopleSoft and JDE.
That the customer username and password are for the customer’s sole use in accessing this support server.
That the Materials on the support website are confidential information subject to existing confidentiality agreements. Quality. (3) Laura Sweetman. President and CEO. V. use. former PeopleSoft employees who work for SAP.
Not to directly or indirectly. (2) Bob Geib.P. V.
SAP TN has intimate familiarity with these important restrictions and
conditions relating to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. such as Wade Walden. Global J. and (6) Shelley Nelson. disclose.
Not to access the customer support system if it is not the customer’s authorized and designated Oracle technical support contact. North American Sales. In addition. rent.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 70. or lease the Software or Documentation.
That the customer username and password may only be distributed to persons in the customer’s organization who have a legitimate business purpose for accessing the materials contained on the support server in furtherance of the customer’s relationship with Oracle.P.
Not to use the Materials on the support website except in support of the customer’s authorized use of the Oracle Programs for which the customer holds a supported license from Oracle. sublicense. or Oracle. SAP TN’s management. six list prior employment experience with PeopleSoft. International Sales. V. appear to have applied their familiarity with the Customer Connection website to directly participate in and perfect the illegal 22 COMPLAINT
.P. Edwards Support.D.P. or third party training.P. or any portion thereof. (5) Nigel Pullan. Of SAP TN’s tenmember management team. (4) Mel Gadd. who is reflected as the person performing many of the downloads at issue. JDE. Global PeopleSoft Support. relicense. including: (1) Andrew Nelson. distribute. and a significant number of its employees. V. for third party use. V.
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. and copyrighted nature of Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. those products. or in a way that grossly violated the limited access rights it did have. 71. Indeed. which restrict access to 23 COMPLAINT
. during the period of time between when the customer’s support license lapsed and when Oracle decommissioned the customer’s password credentials. 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. proprietary. 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. suggests that SAP TN took the Software and Support Materials to stockpile a library to support its present and prospective customers. The rate that SAP TN accessed these materials – at intervals of just seconds or less – shows that no one used or reviewed those materials in real time. Further. SAP TN still accessed and downloaded Software and Support Materials using the old customer passwords. Notwithstanding SAP TN’s knowledge of Oracle’s license agreements
with its customers. 73. SAP TN conducted these high-tech raids as SAP AG’s agent and
instrumentality and as the cornerstone strategy of SAP AG’s highly-publicized Safe Passage program. Further. anyone accessing such Software and Support Materials on the Oracle support website must agree to Oracle’s terms and conditions. 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.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
74. Laird Plastics. and therefore committed its theft knowingly and intentionally.V. Abbott Laboratories. Accordingly. Oracle will amend its Complaint to add further copyright allegations and causes of action when the registrations for these copyrights issue from the United States Copyright Office. Stora Enso. Interbrew UK. including without limitation.. Oracle’s Customer
Connection website is too pervasive. National Manufacturing..C. The Software and Support Materials that SAP TN downloaded from
Oracle’s systems also included numerous works that are protected under the Federal Copyright Laws.C. § 501 and also willful and intentional copyright infringement under 17 U. 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.. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s protected intellectual property and the integrity of its computer systems. Texas Association of School Boards.. and Yazaki North America. Fuelserv Limited. Metro Machine Corp. Stearns & Co. AbitibiConsolidated. and covers too many individual violations. With literally thousands of software programs available for licensing. Inc.C. Mortice Kern Systems. and taking from.S. B. Border Foods.S. Berri Limited.S. Specific Examples Of SAP TN’s Unlawful Customer Downloads SAP TN’s improper access to. §§ 101 et seq. Grupo Costamex. Merck & Co. By way of example 24 COMPLAINT
. publish. Helzberg Diamonds. to comprehensively detail here. VSM Group AB. reproduce. Honeywell International. SAP TN reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions on Oracle’s support website before proceeding. offer for sale. Bear. 4. and impose strict confidentiality requirements. create derivative works. NGC Management Limited.. 17 U. S.. and distribute these works. OCE Technologies. Caterpillar Elphinstone. Ronis. Inc. SPX Corporation.A. Herbert Waldman. Oracle has uncovered unlicensed downloads linked to SAP TN on behalf of numerous customers. Smithfield Foods. Distribution & Auto Service.. § 506. Such acts constitute copyright infringement under 17 U. display.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. SAP TN’s acts violated Oracle’s exclusive rights to use. 75.
But. during which “Honeywell” was downloading almost 1800 solutions per day. Oracle subsequently connected many of the illegal downloads to an SAP TN IP address and to SAP TN’s employee. 2007 and nearly 400 more the next day. after switching to SAP TN. Users logging into Oracle’s support system with Merck’s credentials continued to download Software and Support Materials into March 2007. 77. 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. Merck & Company. More than 5. a user employing Honeywell’s log-in ID downloaded over 7. licenses and receives support for many Oracle software products. “Honeywell” downloaded over 450 distinct unlicensed solutions on January 16. Merck’s support rights for its JDE software products expired on January 1. In the approximately three and a half year period before Honeywell switched to SAP TN. Inc. In the three months prior to that date. Then. 2007. Honeywell. Oracle sets forth below illustrative instances of SAP TN’s illegal conduct regarding a few of its customers. 76. In one specific library containing solutions for Enterprise One software. users purporting to be “Merck” logged into the Oracle support system and downloaded over 9. Wade Walden – a former PeopleSoft employee now employed by SAP. one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies in the world. Honeywell used and licensed PeopleSoft software applications. the unauthorized downloads did not stop there. but Oracle discovered users downloading JDE products with Honeywell’s credentials. This unlawful downloading even stretched across product families. it averaged just over 20 downloads of Software and Support Materials per month. (“Merck”).000 Software and Support Materials in less than two weeks in January 2007. Merck. Most of these excessive downloads came during the course of four days. Over 2. 25 COMPLAINT
.000 of these downloads related to JDE software products for which Merck had no license.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.000 distinct Software and Support Materials for JDE software. Many of these “Merck” downloads came directly from an IP address in Bryan. Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) is listed on SAP
TN’s website as a client.000 of the Software and Support Materials taken in this period were solutions that Honeywell was not licensed to take at all.
” Neither Merck nor SAP TN had any license. using names such as “xx” “ss” and “NULL.” and phone numbers such as “4444444444” and “999 999 9999. There is little chance that SAP TN intended OCE as the beneficiary of these massive sweeps. From December of 2006 to January of 2007. and neither OCE nor SAP TN have any license. users employing OCE’s credentials downloaded a large number of Oracle products relating to US Payroll. Texas.” In many cases. authorization or other right to access and download the 5.000 distinct Software and Support Materials.” and even “xxx xxx xxxx. such as the name “user” and phone numbers such as “123 456 7897. SAP TN users employed fake identification information to download the Software and Support Materials. (“OCE”) is located in the Netherlands and
appears as a customer on SAP TN’s website. These downloads included over 3. OCE-Technologies B. and could serve no legitimate or lawful business purpose.000 distinct items for which OCE had no license. in some cases.V. OCE. and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title. Like the other companies.” 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.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. many of these “OCE” users entered phony identification information. 78. In the months leading up to the expiration of OCE’s support rights for its Oracle products.” “9999999999. including specifically to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.000-plus unlicensed Software and Support Materials from Oracle. “TN-DL03. Canadian Payroll. these illegal downloads are associated with the same IP address belonging to SAP TN in Bryan. authorization. or other right to access and download these Software and Support Materials. 26 COMPLAINT
. false user names) and downloaded over 12. since OCE does not run many of the software programs to which these downloads relate. “TNL-02. SAP TN users logged into Oracle’s support system using OCE’s credentials (and.” Similar to the other customer examples. Homebuilder Management. and Real Estate Management – none of which make sense coming from a European customer in support of its European business.
Oracle has traced these illegal and unauthorized downloads to the same SAP TN IP address employed for the Honeywell downloads described above. SPX Corporation (“SPX”) dropped all Oracle support on December
10. SPX averaged approximately eleven downloads per month from Oracle’s support system.” 80. originated from the same IP address belonging to SAP TN. Over 300 distinct downloads just on November 30. These SPX downloads included over 1.” Many of these SPX downloads. Nearly 400 of those downloads related to software programs that Metro Machine had not licensed from Oracle. SAP TN now claims to have delivered thousands of fixes and more than
800 tax and regulatory updates to Oracle’s former customers. 2007 and switched to SAP TN. SAP AG and SAP America directed this 27 COMPLAINT
. users purporting to represent Metro Machine logged onto Oracle’s support servers and downloaded nearly 6. illegally downloaded thousands of fixes and updates from Oracle’s restricted customer support website. listed on its website. users purporting to represent SPX accessed and downloaded over 8.000 distinct Oracle Software and Support Materials (far more than SPX could legitimately access or use). and some were traced to a computer with SAP TN’s initials in the title.700 distinct Software and Support Materials for which SPX had no license. as reflected on SAP TN’s website. 2006 were Software and Support Materials related to unlicensed Payroll software.
SPX. For the nine month period prior to October 2006. 2006 and became an SAP TN customer. Metro Machine. SAP Adds The Ill-Gotten Gains To Its Coffers 81. In some cases. at SAP AG’s and SAP America’s direction. but used fake identification information like the name “NULL” and phone numbers like “7777777777” and “999 999 9999. these users logged in using SPX credentials. Then. like the others. “tn-wts01. Metro Machine Corp. In addition. Not coincidentally. 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 2007.000 distinct Software and Support Materials. In the month before Metro Machine dropped its support rights with Oracle. (“Metro Machine”) dropped all
Oracle support effective on January 1. SAP TN. G.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
. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) & (a)(4) & a(5)) (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 82. 18 U. trespass on Oracle’s support website. and with intent to defraud Oracle. interference with Oracle’s business relationships.
§ 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) by knowingly causing the transmission of a program. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. ratified it. current.C.C. code. including but not limited to Oracle’s Software and Support Materials. and prospective customers and the associated license and support revenue to artificially inflate its market share. without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer. or command and as a result intentionally causing damage without authorization to a protected computer owned by Oracle. First Claim for Relief Violation of Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U. 18 U. Using Oracle’s own protected property to unfairly compete against and undercut Oracle. Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 18 U. accessing a protected computer. and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained one or more things of value.S. SAP has illegally converted Oracle’s former. and never disavowed it. §
1030(a)(4) by knowingly. 85. 83. in addition to the irreparable harm caused by Defendants’ unfair competition. SAP has thereby caused significant damage to Oracle through its SAP TN subsidiary.
§ 1030(a)(2)(C).1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
download scheme. by intentionally accessing a computer used for interstate commerce or communication.C. and by obtaining information from such a protected computer. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. and related computer fraud.S.S. 84. information.S.C.
fraudulently. in an amount well over $5000 aggregated over a one-year period. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(3) by
knowingly. copying. Oracle has suffered damage and loss by reason of these violations. 93. harm to Oracle’s data. and without permission providing. 92. in any event. or assisting in providing. but.C. The computer system or systems that Defendants accessed as described
above constitute a “protected computer” within the meaning of 18 U. and making use of programs.
Defendants have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. taking.C. and/or computer network. Second Claim for Relief Computer Data Access and Fraud Act . recklessly or without due regard for their actions. and files from Oracle’s computers. § 1030(e)(2). and/or computer network. causing damage to Oracle. a means of accessing Oracle’s computers. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(6) by
knowingly. entitling Oracle to remedies including injunctive relief as provided by 18 U.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
86. Defendants’ unlawful access to and theft from Oracle’s computers also
have caused Oracle irreparable injury. Penal Code § 502 (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 90. and without permission. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here.S. Defendants will continue to commit such acts. data. § 1030(g). 18 U.
§§ 1030(a)(5)(A)(ii) & (iii) by intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization. 89. Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) by knowingly
and fraudulently.S. and without permission accessing and using Oracle’s computer services. without limitation. 87. Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for these inflicted and threatened injuries. accessing. computer system. 91. programs. fraudulently.C.
including. and computer systems and other losses and damage in an amount to be proved at trial. 88. computer system.S. Unless restrained and enjoined.Cal. 29 COMPLAINT
95. 98. Oracle has also suffered irreparable injury from these acts. and without permission accessing. Oracle owns the data that comprises the Software and Support Materials
obtained by Defendants as alleged above. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. Third Claim for Relief Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 99. These relationships contained the probability of future economic benefit in
the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. and/or computer network. or causing to be accessed. 97. computer system.
Defendants have violated California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) by
knowingly. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct within
the meaning of California Penal Code § 502. 100. Oracle is also entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Penal Code § 502(e). has no adequate remedy at law. there is a 30 COMPLAINT
. Defendants have caused damage to Oracle in an amount to be proven at trial. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic
relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. entitling Oracle to injunctive relief. 101. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Oracle is informed and believes that the aforementioned acts of the
Defendants were willful and malicious in that Defendants’ acts described above were done with the deliberate intent to injure Oracle’s business and improve its own. 96. fraudulently. Oracle is therefore entitled to punitive damages. and due to the
continuing threat of such injury. 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
S. conversion. Cal. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials. §§ 270111. § 1029. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the
interference itself. wire fraud. 18 U. This conduct. 105. § 1343. 102. Cal. Oracle has
suffered economic harm. 106. § 1962. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. and ultimately to migrate such customers away from Oracle’s software programs and onto their own.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.C. 103.S. 18 U.S. On information and belief. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. These acts were undertaken by Defendants to obtain for themselves the software support contract revenue at Oracle’s expense. and conspiracy. § 1030 et seq. unjust enrichment. violation of RICO. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. As a result of Defendants’ acts. as alleged above. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. constitutes violations of numerous state
and federal statutes and codes. Penal Code § 496. Penal Code § 502. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. 18 U.C. and without the cost of competing fairly by independently developing the same support materials. the above-described relationships have
been actually disrupted.. loss of profits from sales or licenses to 31 COMPLAINT
.C. in some cases. 18 U. including. but not limited to.S. 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. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property. 104. 18 U. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. receipt of stolen property. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. renewed.S.C. but not limited to. for their enterprise software. unauthorized access to computers. including.C.
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. renewed. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. was willful. Defendants knew or should have known about the economic relationship. or expanded support contracts and software licenses with Oracle rather than Defendants. 111. there is a substantial probability that Oracle support customers would have initiated.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. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief. 108. their
actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. they used Oracle’s Software and Support Materials to obtain and retain for themselves software 32 COMPLAINT
. Fourth Claim for Relief Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 109. 110. These relationships contain the probability of future economic benefit in
the form of profitable support service contracts and software licenses. 107. as described above. Instead. Had Defendants refrained from engaging in the unlawful and wrongful conduct described in this complaint. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. oppressive. 112. Oracle has an expectancy in continuing and advantageous economic
relationships with current and prospective purchasers and licensees of Oracle’s support services and software. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. malicious. Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage
with its current and future customers. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care.
S. and used that property to obtain and retain Oracle’s current and prospective clients. violation of RICO. 114. as alleged above. Penal Code § 496. As a result of Defendants’ acts. for their enterprise software. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. 18 U. the above-described relationships have
been actually disrupted. 18 U. unjust enrichment. causing certain current and prospective support clients to contract with Defendants instead of Oracle for their software support and maintenance and. violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. constitutes violations of numerous state
and federal statutes and codes. § 1343. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. This conduct.S. Cal. and software products. in some cases. 113. 116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions.S. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support.C.C. §§ 270111. their
actions are likely to recur and will cause Oracle irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.S. but not limited to. conversion. Defendants gained unauthorized access to Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website through false or improper credentials.S. Cal. including. Penal Code § 502. maintenance. but not limited to. receipt of stolen property.
. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. § 1030 et seq. copied Oracle’s intellectual and contractual property.C. including. wire fraud. 115. and conspiracy. Oracle has
suffered economic harm.C.C. 18 U. § 1029.1 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. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. 18 U. unauthorized access to computers. Unless Defendants are restrained by appropriate injunctive relief.. Defendants’ conduct was wrongful by a measure beyond the fact of the
interference itself. 18 U. § 1962.
Defendants’ conduct constitutes violations of numerous state and federal
statutes and codes.C. fraud and related activity in connection with an access device. unjust enrichment. Penal Code § 502. 121. § 1029. § 1343. Code §§ 17200. Cal. intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.S. and conspiracy. §§ 2701-11. conversion. Defendants’ conduct also constitutes trespass to chattels. 18 U. 119. et seq. 120. conversion. receipt of stolen property. 18 U. § 1962.S.S. 123. 18 U. Cal. and other illegal acts and practices as alleged above. 34 COMPLAINT
. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. proprietary. 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.
Fifth Claim for Relief Unfair Competition . 122. including..C. violation of RICO. & Prof. unlawful. Defendants have engaged in unlawful business acts or practices by
committing acts including computer fraud. 18 U.S. but not limited to. Bus. The acts and conduct of Defendants constitute fraudulent. interference with business relationships. trespass. all in an effort to gain unfair competitive advantage over Oracle.Cal. unauthorized access to computers.C. violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. In light of Defendants’ conduct. wire fraud. 18 U.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 118.C. and
unfair competition as defined by California Bus.S. and violation of the Stored Communications Act. §§ 1030 et seq.C. & Prof. Penal Code § 496. Code § 17200 (By Oracle Against All Defendants) Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Defendants have improperly and unlawfully taken commercial advantage
of Oracle’s investment in its confidential. 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.
Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. Defendants should be compelled to disgorge and/or restore any and all
revenues. Oracle at no time consented. earnings. whereby Oracle has no adequate remedy at law. and should be enjoined from further unlawful. but not limited to. proprietary. This property is the sole and exclusive property of Oracle. 130. Instead of paying Oracle for the use of its property. unless Defendants are enjoined from such unfair competition. and deceptive business practices. compensation. to Defendants’
copying.. and benefits they may have obtained in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. Oracle’s confidential. or control. returning the value of the stolen property itself and any revenue earned from it. and all copies of such. retention. expressly or impliedly. will continue to suffer irreparable injury. Sixth Claim for Relief Conversion (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 127. 125. 128. As a result of such unfair competition. 35 COMPLAINT
. Oracle has an
exclusive right to possession and distribution of such property. but not limited to. custody. removal. downloading. in their possession. unfair.
Defendants’ unfair business practices have unjustly minimized Oracle’s
competitive advantage and have caused and are causing Oracle to suffer damages.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. 126. profits. which is valuable to Oracle and vital to its continued business operations. Defendants
intentionally and willfully entered Oracle’s password-protected Customer Connection support website without permission and took possession of Oracle’s property. all of which Oracle stored on its computer system. Defendants should further be ordered to return all materials taken from Oracle. 129. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. including. or distribution of such property. including. Oracle has also suffered irreparable
Seventh Claim for Relief Trespass To Chattels (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 136. Since that time. 134. with
interest. and the Software and Support Materials on that support system. 135. 36 COMPLAINT
. Defendants’ improper assumption and exercise of dominion and control
over Oracle’s property and their likely sale and distribution of the same has and will continue to interfere with and diminish Oracle’s rights in that property. Oracle is entitled to damages and repossession of the converted property. and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm. At all times mentioned in this Complaint. 132. 133. at the latest. Oracle has lost. 137. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions. In addition. Oracle will seek its election of remedies at trial.
and will continue to lose.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
131. Oracle is entitled to an award of the value of the property taken. its access-restricted internet-based support system. profits from potential purchasers of Oracle support services and licensees of Oracle software products. Allowing Defendants to retain the benefits received as a result of their
wrongful acts would unjustly benefit Defendants at Oracle’s expense. Defendants may have been obtaining unjust and substantial benefit from the sale and distribution of Oracle’s property to third parties without Oracle’s consent and without paying Oracle for the value of such property.
Defendants have been in knowing and unauthorized possession and
control of such property since at least between September 2006 and the present. In addition. Oracle is entitled to restitution of the Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. as described above. or in the alternative. or in the alternative. Oracle had legal title to and
actual possession of Customer Connection.
Defendants unjustly received benefits at the expense of Oracle through
their wrongful conduct. 140. and damage to the confidential and copyrighted nature of the information on Oracle’s website. 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. computer fraud concerning. As a result. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. Eighth Claim for Relief Unjust Enrichment/Restitution (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 142. for which Oracle’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate it for the injuries inflicted and threatened. 141. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. the integrity and
functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. Defendants continue to unjustly retain these benefits at the 37 COMPLAINT
. Defendants’ trespass interfered with. Defendants’ trespass and interference proximately caused damage to
Defendants intentionally interfered with Oracle’s use or possession of both
Customer Connection and Oracle’s related internal databases and systems. in an amount to be determined at trial. damage to the functionality of Oracle’s computer system and data. Oracle is entitled to recover any and all damages it sustained as a result of
such trespass.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. damage to Oracle’s rights to dominion and control over its property. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. including. and the Software and Support Materials housed for licensed access through Customer Connection. 139. 143. which took substantial time and money for Oracle to develop. Defendants will continue to commit such acts and other competitors will be encouraged to sweep Oracle’s website. Defendants caused Oracle’s property to greatly diminish in value and deprived Oracle of the intended use of its computer systems. Defendants’ trespass therefore threatens to cause irreparable harm to Oracle. but not limited to. and damaged.
encouraging. 144. The wrongful conduct committed pursuant to the conspiracy was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 149. or adopting the acts of the others. Oracle incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth here. and harm. Oracle has suffered injury. as well as Defendants’ trespass on. damage. intentionally. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials. 147. loss of profits from sales to current and potential customers of Oracle support services and licenses for Oracle’s software programs. including Defendants’ interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. loss. that
agreement and/or furthered the conspiracy by cooperating. Ninth Claim for Relief Civil Conspiracy (By Oracle Against All Defendants) 145. and knowingly agreed and conspired
with each other to engage in the alleged wrongful conduct.
. Defendants’ intentional agreement to commit. Defendants did the acts alleged pursuant to. malicious. including. and in furtherance of. and commission of. but not limited to.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
expense of Oracle. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. computer fraud concerning. As a direct and proximate result of the acts in furtherance of the
conspiracy. It would be unjust for Defendants to retain any value they obtained as a result of their wrongful conduct. 146. Defendants willfully. ratifying. these
wrongful acts was willful. Oracle is accordingly entitled to full restitution of all amounts in which
Defendants have been unjustly enriched at Oracle’s expense. oppressive. 148.
Defendants had full knowledge or should have
reasonably known of the true nature of the wrongful conduct of each other Defendant. including interference with Oracle’s business relationships and other unfair business practices. As fully described above. was wrongful in and of itself.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. 154. damage. and in conscious disregard of Oracle’s rights. 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. oppressive. and Oracle is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages to punish their wrongful conduct and deter future wrongful conduct. As a direct and proximate result of the aiding and abetting of these acts. Defendants’ aiding and abetting of these wrongful acts was willful. 153. by providing substantial assistance and/or encouraging the others to act. separately considered. and aided and abetted such wrongful conduct. and harm. The wrongful conduct aided and abetted by the Defendants was a substantial factor in causing this harm. 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. Defendants also aided and abetted the described wrongful conduct of the
other Defendants by giving substantial assistance and/or encouragement that. 39 COMPLAINT
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. computer fraud concerning. 150. 151. and conversion of the Software and Support Materials.
Oracle has suffered injury. but not limited to.
malicious. 152. including.
agents. Oracle is entitled. 158. without authorization or consent. Defendants have received money as a result of their misconduct. and. proprietary. internal documents. servants. to a full accounting. employees. and attorneys. willfully. The amount of money due from Defendants to Oracle is unknown to
Oracle and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of the income and gross profits Defendants have obtained through their wrongful and unlawful conduct. proprietary. and unlawfully taking commercial advantage
of Oracle’s investment in its Software and Support Materials. and those in active concert or participation with any of them from: (1) accessing any Oracle restricted-access or customer website. Defendants have obtained business through
the use of unlawful conduct including. without Oracle’s authorization. in furtherance of their unlawful and deceptive scheme as described above. and
copyrighted Software and Support Materials. at
Oracle’s expense. including without limitation. distributing. Oracle’s confidential. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. their officers. (b) Improperly. but not limited to: (a) Intentionally and/or negligently interfering with Oracle’s
prospective economic advantage with its existing and potential customers. and that some or all of such money is rightfully due to Oracle. (d) Fraudulently accessing and intentionally trespassing on Oracle’s
password-protected Customer Connection website. (2) selling. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining
Defendants. (c) Willfully converting Oracle’s confidential.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 the purpose of sabotaging Oracle’s ability to do business and compete in the market. or using any property obtained from
Oracle’s website. including data.
including without limitation the Customer Connection website. therefore. 157. Oracle respectfully prays for the following: A. Prayer For Relief WHEREFORE.
Since at least September 2006. and valuable 40 COMPLAINT
patches. J. and. but not limited to Oracle’s confidential. F. including data. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. fixes. fixes. without limitation. For an Order directing Defendants to return Oracle’s property. That the Court order Defendants to pay Oracle punitive damages in
a sum to be determined at trial.
including. B. 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. Court deems just and proper. as set forth in this Complaint. aiding and abetting and conspiracy. and other computer code. downloading or copying property from Oracle’s
website without Oracle’s authorization. proprietary. Oracle’s confidential. internal documents. under oath. (4) otherwise engaging in acts of unfair competition and
interference with Oracle’s business relationships. including. For restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains unjustly
obtained and retained by Defendants through the acts complained of here. For an accounting. including data. (3) removing. proprietary. and other computer code. For prejudgment interest. D. and valuable updates. That the Court order Defendants to file with the Court and serve on
Oracle within thirty (30) days after the service on Defendants of such injunction a report in writing. I. that Defendants took from Oracle. and other computer code. internal documents. patches. patches. setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the injunction. C. H. and copyrighted Software and Support Materials. For an Order awarding Oracle its attorneys’ fees and costs. For an Order awarding Oracle such other and further relief as the
. intentional interference with Oracle’s prospective economic advantage. fixes. G. on the basis of their willful and deliberate unauthorized computer access. 41 COMPLAINT For damages to be proven at trial. K.