Oracle in new bid to wring cash out of SAP in piracy spat
Cheers for the $426m offer, but we were thinking $1.3bn
Oracle has started its attempt to wring more than $306m in damages from SAP in the drawn-out TomorrowNow copyright infringement lawsuit.
The warring software firms have been at each other's throats for the last five years, and will be bickering on for another year or two as Oracle filed to appeal the last agreed damages in the case.
Oracle sued SAP in 2007, claiming that the German biz's TomorrowNow subsidiary illegally downloaded Oracle software and support documents in an effort to woo Oracle customers. SAP eventually admitted wrongdoing, and it shut down the maintenance subsidiary.
A SAP spokesperson told The Channel in an emailed statement this morning that the firm was disappointed that Oracle was dragging the whole thing out.
"We agreed to reasonable terms in this case, as we believe it’s gone on long enough," the spinner added.
SAP subsidiary TomorrowNow's pilfering ways already won Oracle a whopping $1.3bn in a jury trial, but a judge later overturned that sum and said Larry Ellison's firm could have $272m or a retrial.
To avoid going through the costly retrial process, particularly since Oracle's legal bills in the case are already $120m, the firms agreed SAP would pay a minimum of $306m in damages plus the reassuringly expensive lawyers' dues.
Now Oracle has filed an appeal, which is cheaper than a full retrial, in hope of convincing a judge that it should deserves more than the $426m SAP has promised. If Oracle is unable to get a beak to up the figure, or if damages are actually reduced in the appeal, SAP will still be on the hook for the earlier agreed sum.
Oracle had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. ®
Oracle just don't get it
Take the easy wins and keep it simple. I understand why businesses like Oracle stuff, but when they go off on one of their sue-fests, they aren't trying to appeal to business, they have to appeal to the ordinary people who sit on juries, who must look at these guys and think "What a bunch of ******* chancers!" So I cannot for the life of me work out why they won't take the $426m when they have a less than even odds of winning an appeal, especially since it looks awfully like they're trying to game the system to avoid the cost of a retrial, something I am sure won't sit well with the judges.