Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 544

Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 543 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' Hypothetical License Damages Claim [UNREDACTED VERSION OF D.I. 431] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' Hypothetical License Damages Claim [UNREDACTED VERSION OF D.I. 431] DECLARATION OF THARAN GREGORY LANIER ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' HYPOTHETICAL LICENSE DAMAGES CLAIM [UNREDACTED VERSION OF D.I. 433] filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Related document(s) 543 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 11/5/2009)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 544 Att. 1

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page1 of 12

Dockets.Justia.com

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page2 of 12

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page3 of 12

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page4 of 12

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page5 of 12

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page6 of 12

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page7 of 12

CHARLES PHILLIPS April 17, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 117
12:50:13 12:50:15 12:50:20 12:50:24 12:50:25 12:50:27 12:50:32 12:50:47 12:50:57 12:50:59 12:51:02 12:51:06 12:51:12 12:51:14 12:51:18 12:51:22 12:51:25 12:51:30 12:51:33 12:51:36 12:51:41 12:51:43 12:51:47 12:51:51 12:51:55 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

information the lawyers may have provided to you, do you have any estimate of how often that happened? A. I don't know how often. I can't give you a

percentage. Q. Did the rate of that happening change

between January of 2005 and today? MS. HOUSE: THE WITNESS: MR. LANIER: Lacks foundation. I don't know. Q. Who at Oracle is

responsible, ultimately, for deciding whether Oracle will license its intellectual property to some other company? A. Well, a lot of people involved in But ultimately, anything

recommending things.

significant Larry would have to approve. Q. Back in January of 2005, when SAP bought

TomorrowNow, had SAP come to Oracle and said, we'd like a license for TomorrowNow to do what it does, who would have made the decision for Oracle, whether or not to grant that license? A. approval. Q. Do you know anything about what price or That probably would have required Board

pricing methodology would have been required in that scenario?

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

9d75cce5-eca2-4ef4-af65-aa831585f3d9

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page8 of 12

CHARLES PHILLIPS April 17, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 118
12:51:55 12:52:04 12:52:06 12:52:08 12:52:09 12:52:11 12:52:15 12:52:16 12:52:18 12:52:21 12:52:26 12:52:28 12:52:30 12:52:31 12:52:33 12:52:38 12:52:46 12:52:50 12:52:55 12:52:58 12:53:01 12:53:09 12:53:11 12:53:14 12:53:15 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

MS. HOUSE: THE WITNESS:

Calls for speculation. Not outside of what we've We've talked

already discussed with attorneys. about that. MR. LANIER: Q. Okay.

As you sit here

today -- well, I'll ask a different question, then I'll come back to that one. Would you have been involved, back in January of 2005, with the consideration of whether or not to grant such a license, a license to SAP? A. Q. Yes. Don't tell me anything you've discussed

with the lawyers. What areas or aspects of that decision would you have made a contribution to? A. Look at the impact on our business by

granting a competitor intellectual property, by not having those customers directly ourselves, lost license sales, and kind of reflect the point of view of what does it mean for ongoing future sales for the field if we do this. And if we do do this, we

better get enough to replace the lost sales that we're going to give up. Q. that was? And how would you have calculated how much

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

9d75cce5-eca2-4ef4-af65-aa831585f3d9

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page9 of 12

CHARLES PHILLIPS April 17, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 119
12:53:17 12:53:21 12:53:23 12:53:27 12:53:31 12:53:33 12:53:37 12:53:39 12:53:43 12:53:46 12:53:49 12:53:52 12:53:55 12:53:57 12:54:00 12:54:05 12:54:08 12:54:09 12:54:11 12:54:19 12:54:26 12:54:29 12:54:31 12:54:35 12:54:37 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

MS. HOUSE: THE WITNESS:

Calls for speculation. I probably would have modeled

the number of customers leaving, the -- looking at the growing size of the -- our product portfolio and all the cross-sell and up-sell we could have obtained over that -- in perpetuity, because you have to go out many, many years, because this is an ongoing thing, not just 3 or 5 years, but the next 20 years. Model in the related support revenue that

you get after you sell the license, model in the relationship benefit for future acquisitions, now that we have a great relationship, and they're standardizing our projects we can make other acquisitions and do the same thing with. So try to

model all that potential in and make sure that whatever we're getting is greater than that. MR. LANIER: Q. As you sit here today, do

you have any idea how big the number would be following the methodology you just described? A. I -- I've only looked at kind of through I didn't look forward for the next But that's where I came up with the

today, I guess. whatever years.

3 or 4 billion dollar number, just looking at the license sales we could have had historically the last 3 last 3 or 4 years. But going forward, it

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

9d75cce5-eca2-4ef4-af65-aa831585f3d9

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page10 of 12

CHARLES PHILLIPS April 17, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 120
12:54:41 12:54:43 12:54:45 12:54:47 12:54:49 12:54:51 12:54:53 12:54:57 12:54:59 12:55:00 12:55:03 12:55:06 12:55:10 12:55:14 12:55:16 12:55:19 12:55:20 12:55:25 12:55:32 12:55:34 12:55:35 12:55:36 12:55:38 12:55:40 12:55:43 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

would be a much bigger number. Q. A. Bigger than 3 or 4 billion. Yes. Because these are perpetual licenses

that last forever, which means the customers constantly add on to what they have. ongoing stream. Q. Assuming a price much bigger than 3 or 4 It's an

billion, would you have recommended granting such a license? A. If the price was right. We're businessmen;

if they're willing to pay it, and we could get that money up front rather than working on it over the next 20 years, sure, there would be some circumstances under which it makes sense. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Would you have recommended it? If the price was right. Would SAP have agreed to that price? Have to ask them that. I don't know. Not too

Let's look at a document or two.

many more to go. A. Q. Okay. This one has not been marked, it looks like

it's a presentation to the Board, it's got your name on it; we'll find out in a minute. It's got

production numbers ORCL311012 through -023.

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

9d75cce5-eca2-4ef4-af65-aa831585f3d9

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page11 of 12

Case4:07-cv-01658-PJH Document544-2

Filed11/05/09 Page12 of 12