Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1201

Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 1182 Statement Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier iso Joint Statement Regarding Exhibit Objections filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35, # 36 Exhibit 36, # 37 Exhibit 37, # 38 Exhibit 38, # 39 Exhibit 39, # 40 Exhibit 40, # 41 Exhibit 41, # 42 Exhibit 42, # 43 Exhibit 43, # 44 Exhibit 44, # 45 Exhibit 45, # 46 Exhibit 46, # 47 Exhibit 47, # 48 Exhibit 48, # 49 Exhibit 49, # 50 Exhibit 50, # 51 Exhibit 51, # 52 Exhibit 52, # 53 Exhibit 53, # 54 Exhibit 54, # 55 Exhibit 55, # 56 Exhibit 56, # 57 Exhibit 57, # 58 Exhibit 58, # 59 Exhibit 59)(Related document(s) 1182 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 8/2/2012)

EXHIBIT 29

A-6086

From

Brian

Sent

Tuesday

To

charlesphlIIIps@OraclecOm

Subject

Starhub

Mitchell

decision

AM

309

20 2007

February

point

Charles

We

We

had

have

flow

they

that

have

needs

deitain

pdce

have

copied

Proposed

months

before

If

we want

Whilst

DO

do

this

is

and

to

SAP

keep

on License

place

temil

gaps

in

this

take

will

PL

of

the

our

It

It

all

does

than

the

SAP

appear

The

have

not

senior

the

case

worst

to

would be

it

majority

the

of

$1

cost

issue

we gave

If

the

$800It

and work

Given

shop

Oracle

prematurind

when

$750K

and

outcome

stops

too

is

case

$550k

case

if

SAP

that

engagement

one

Probable

an

this

would

It

day

management

discussion

between

take

making

rited

little

the

solution

more

account

worst

be

to

may win

functIonality

Clearly

cr1

Ut

assume

ORM

four

additional

poinis

we should

think

Siebel

for

think

offr

To go to
discussion notaSrvices

Llcens

should

we

out

expense

order

big

we
the

cost

us

Ucense

the

of

continue

are

this

in

account

the

lat

for

point
Is

what

Is

the

there

see

from
fix

also

It

below

One

will

decision

wuldbe

it

hit

big

and about

the

is

but

Starhub

bEwkground

niessages

the

financially

solution

the

that

bout

there

get

point

thle

as

but

compelling

and

Starhub

SAP

to

value

further

known

could

thn

zero

to

reflect

some

So

services
or

the

response

we

to

Financlale

have

may

Undir

is

to

below

management

License

desire

Peoplesoft

with

discussions

of

strong

quite

are back

now

ariumber

is

better

for

Pioplesoit

have

they

HR

then

move

We

important

result

can

Oracle
to

ULA

your thoughts

Appreciate

brian

Regards

Brian

Following

this

through

Starhub

with

email

Charles

of

receipt

engagennerlt

and

1000

time

Suggested

to

Stathub

he proposed

am SC

Frank

Natasak
response

time

Andrew

Starbub

to

20

Tuesday

from the
earnings
nlyslf reviewed
email We propose
cOn

avid

based

on Chades

Pleaseadvice

February

this

if

lime

suits

or

an

past
call

walk

to

alternative

Prqwse
The

CEO ba

Starhub

proposal

Peoplasoft

USD$02M

their

We

2006

late

see two

icr

options

Reduce
would

the

be

see

told

current

very
as

our

us
to

partners

implementation

Confidenfial

is

is

open

with

tcontlnuirig

financials

Peopiesolt

if

commercially

it

The

attractive

current

for

license

intelligence

they

Starhub

3M 006

USD$1

Our

he

stated

In

the

response

USD$1

attractive
ftinctionaJiy

SAP

reduce

aM

to

bid

$0.tiM

higher

We

do

not

than

035

bId

We

believe

would

not

know

Oracles

the

value

but
of

wn1

subsequently

they

SAPs

ourrent

back

to

proposal

Starhub

license

Starhub
superior

was

further

proposal

their

and

whilst

SAP

LJSD$1

solution

Therefore

we

total

cost

of

USD$OSM

of
difference
be enough
need to go back to them

for

with

and

license

move

to

away

afigure

OCS
what

from

between

$0.5

0R0L00361 642

InformaUon
UNITED

NORTHERN
Case

DISTIUCT COURT
STATES
DISTRICT OF CALWORNIA

No

PJWBDL

4O1-cv-01658

DEFENDANT

Exhibit

No

A-6086

Date

Admilted

By

________________________
Nicole

_____________________

fleocca

Ucputy

Clefic

Sl.OM

and

the

Change
that

is

both

for

therefore

the

CRM

ULA we

of

the

based

go ahead

still

LILA

and

grant

has

an

employee

been

not

their

determined
metric

revenue

or

The

Technology

and

finatised

not as yet

has

Technology
on

ERP ORM

incorporating

Starhub

portions

ORM

for

sizing

ELNULA

an

proposing

Technology

arid

couLd

the value

monetising

by

and

configuration

propose

Past

SAP

On

game

stage

this

at

we

but

and

we wanted

If

the dsk

stand

here

difficuRy

architecture

future

not

of

to

fully

Starhub

to

Enqgement

Five key

issues

Starhub
level

had

of

negative

lifespan

of

Support

their

available

ORM

was

for

$1

Also

strategy

Oracle

took

the cost

and

over

visit

around

the

issue

was

related

to

2005

Sales Appe
2005

with

an

LOl

meet John Wookey

to

Tech

pre-sales
Slarhub

October

in

Oracle

presented

wa.s primarily

March

organised

cross-LOB

management

This

secondary

Peoplesoft

maintenance

of

Oracle

an

senior

November 2005

Peoplesoft

and

linanciats

OracLe

requirements

in

with

intent

the
10

pre-sales
placed

subsequently

their

stating

Starhub

Starhub

with

proceed

to

on

the
did

thorn Oracle

10

level

not have

cl

that

left

further analysis

constant

Peoplesoft

meet

could

their

meet Starhubs

not

005

the Starhub

for

path

of

and

and

feedback

team

technical

to

but no

out

ASEAN

was

further

pro-sales

and

consulting

in

Peoplesoft
Financials

Peoplesoft

upgrade

roadmap

Peopiesoft

pre-sales
with

carried
tor

limited

could

Peoplesoft

license

custonisation

future

satisfied

meeting

that

team

support

sufficient

about

discuss

to

communication

work being

on

technice.l

extensive

mobile
vs SAP

and

cable

systems

need

to

2006

September
Starhub

by the Singapore

was

there

management

senior

raised

also

financial

concerns

seen

out on

analysis

two

their

Peoplesoftwas

requirements

lime

this

During

consolidate

to

organised

ViSit

team found

perception

negative
apparent

Starhubs

areas The

critical

communication
Starhubs

meet

Singapore

weeks

took

intention

evaluation

takenCVC

Action
to

ability

requirements

their

competing
meet Starhubs requirements

financials

Peoplesoft

2006

After

to

ability

March

in

SAP

and

off-the-shelf

became

and

taken CVO

Action

out with Starhub

technology

announced

Starhub

carried

when

the region

emerged

have

CRM

Peoplesoft
Starhub

OSM

Starhub

Peoplesoft
in

solution

and

strategy

briefing

order

of

opinion

Vanlive

Fusion

with

engagement

support

product

discuss

an

the past

regarding

reinforced

as

it

resources

team
of 005
Pre Sales Sales
lead by the ACE
taken
cross LOB team consisting
address
Starhubs technical questions in
The team was formed
rn specifically
was Jormed
primarily Andy Loh
in
008
resources
the region
On the issue of the lack of Peoplasoft Financials enabled
consulting
our proposal
KE Systems in Malaysia
with Starhub
the opportunity
to
use
also discussed
has drawn in Hexaware We have
the region

in

Sierra

trans

Work

done

Starhub

with

ASEAN

the

Oracle

direct

and

CRM

Tech

interest

of

an

Oracle

EIAN
ORAC.E

focused
whole

as

is

LILA

to

sales

ORM
that

coordinated

on

AVENUE

049

Pflcoe

Fn

Oi

Mcbt

0811

r.ww.oracle

rnnfidan

491

wor.rrh

more extensive

Charles

with

and

Starhub

until

and

team

and

AVUE

in

Tech

incuded

the ganis

change

meeting
flare

their

sales

ASIA

NSW

term

teams

ERPCRM

on

Brian

senior

SAP

individual

importantly

the short

the organisational

M1OH1LI
SENOF4
VCE PRSiOLW1
Fit t.11El
COrlPoPAnN

.JIJ1.US

with

engagement

opportunity

one

example

structuring

where

continuous

OCS

disadvantaging
prime

communicated

as

been

has

the account

than

management at
12 months Action
last

senior

management

The

the

in

especially

to

be set up not

just

communicating

team

project
missed

across

and

TechMahendra

and

partner

with Starhub

understood

or

need

Action

Ic

want

goals

has

to

the Financials

and

Oracle

pursue
In

beginning

one

no

the authority

ensure

Technology
change

for

their

to

as

current

reviewing

team

looked

decision

execute

whole

because

deal

sales

remained

deals

the account

in

each
at
that

strong

Starhub
history

sales

what
could
in

unit
in

is

the

mean
account

separately
sales

ERP

the best

teams

rather

than

objectives

FY07

PACEO

IS

13Th

27

089
.com

nfnrrnfinn

npri

nn14q