back to article Ellison grilled on $4bn SAP 'theft' claim

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison was cross examined on Monday during the ongoing cat fight between Oracle and rival SAP. An SAP attorney grilled Ellison over claims that in pilfering Oracle intellectual property, SAP subsidiary TomorrowNow cost his company up to 30 per cent of PeopleSoft and 15 per cent of Sieble customers. The model …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Jobs Horns

    ElReg vs. Oracle

    I`m enjoying the fight from here.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      El Reg has always been anti-Oracle

      Yeah, nothing like unbiased reporting, is there.

    2. Anonymous Coward

      Larry usually lies

      Interesting to see him on the stand. He enjoys streching the truth and out right lying when he knows no one can disprove him.

      "Exadata is the most successful product in Oracle history" - in reference to Exadata 1 which they only sold 25 in one year.

      "Exadata has a $1.5B sales pipeline" - when they have sold less than 100 according to IDC

      there is a long history of lies.....the SAP defense should bring him up and ask him questions to prove on stand where he can go to jail for lying to show all the lies he has told over the year.

      Obviously SAP did not cost them more than $100M....not $4B.

      East Liberty

  2. Wallyb132


    I hope they continue to make him look stupid... I used to once have respect for the man, that was way back when, now i think hes an arrogant pompous ass that needs to be knocked down a level or 2. I hope the jury awards Oracle shit for damages.

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    Aarrggh ! P.E.T.H. Alert !

    As President For Life and sole member of the People for Ethical Treatment of the Hyphen, I must raise my voice over the crude violation that you have so carelessly committed.

    Indeed, it is not "cross examined", but "cross-examined". The hyphen is not optional in this case.

    You are not yet a repeat offender, so this note will be the only sanction. If, however, you continue to grossly ignore the value of the hyphen, I must warn you that you might, one morning, wake up with the remains of a beheaded hyphen lying on your pillow.

    1. Hollerith 1

      I support you, sir.

      Adverbial and adjectival phrases must not be allowed to die of neglect of or mis-treatment of the hyphen. May I apply to P.E.T.H.? I will happily stand outside whatever institution is the worst offender, with a small tent, a badly-lettered but impeccably-punctuated cardboard sign, and with a megaphone in hand, making the sleeping public aware.

      I speak in jest, but I am in earnest.

  4. Anonymous Coward

    Is it just me

    Or does Ellison constantly come across as man with little grip on reality, coupled with an enormous ego?

  5. David Neil

    AC @ 9.45

    I don't think you know what the word bias means.

    By reporting the exchange in a courtroom, Ellison has himself admitted to hyperbole about the damages in this case.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Wasn't referring to just this article

      I wasn't referring to just this article (though El Reg's stories always have an anti-Oracle slant), and was also in reference to the title of the original comment - ie. El Reg vs Oracle.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So now it's okay?

    Good, so if Oracle had 'just' 300 customers stolen, it's suddenly back to being okay? How is that even logical, much less right? It doesn't really matter if SAP illegally stole away 300, 3 or 300 thousand customers away from Oracle, it's still illegal and it still doesn't make SAP any less culpable.

    Anyway, who are those 300 customers? Are those customers small fry and inconsequential, or were these large contracts? I can still imagine 15-30% customer base (in terms of financials).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ AC 11:38

      I thought SAP had already admitted culpability and that they're deciding on remuneration? In which case the number of customers is pretty crucial in working out damages

    2. Anonymous Coward

      I can still imagine...

      Penelope Cruz wandering around my penthouse apartment in her underwear. Doesn't make it true.

      Among the impressive number of mistakes you managed to cram into such a short post is the assumption that the 300 customers were "stolen", as opposed to choosing to migrate off of Siebel or Peoplesoft rather than face life under Larry. Yes, such things do happen. In fact, they are quite commonplace in the wake of acquisitions.

      Another huge blunder is your assertion that it doesn't matter how many customers they lured away. In order to be compensated, Oracle has demonstrate how much it was harmed. It can't simply claim every dollar it might ever have made from any of those customers -- unlike, say, the RIAA.

      1. toughluck

        Let me clarify a few things

        First of all, those customers did not migrate off of Siebel or Peoplesoft. The original assertion was that those customers migrated from Oracle support to SAP support, but did not change the software (which would be ridiculous otherwise and Oracle would have no case there).

        If you are considering damages, it does matter how many customers have been lured away. However, the number of customers lured away is inconsequential (it could very well be zero) when it comes to determining whether SAP was guilty of IP theft or not.

        Ellison did admit that the worst case scenario was averted, but you can't claim 300 customers (out of 300 thousand, give or take 299 thousand) is just a small bunch. The largest customers make up the bulk of the contract value.

    3. Tom 13

      If SAP stole 3000 customers from Oracle as a result of the breach,

      it is NOT okay for Oracle to be compensated for the theft of 300,000 customers, which is what Oracle claimed in their filings. It is appropriate for SAP to compensate only for the 3000 customers.

      Got it?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021