Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 793

Declaration of Chad Russell in Support of 790 Memorandum in Opposition, to Defendants' Motions in Limine filed byOracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, 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, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG, # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II, # 36 Exhibit JJ, # 37 Exhibit KK, # 38 Exhibit LL, # 39 Exhibit MM, # 40 Exhibit NN, # 41 Exhibit OO, # 42 Exhibit PP, # 43 Exhibit QQ, # 44 Exhibit RR, # 45 Exhibit SS, # 46 Exhibit TT)(Related document(s) 790 ) (Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 8/19/2010)

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 793 Att. 19

EXHIBIT S
Dockets.Justia.com

CHARLES PHILLIPS April 17, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Page 1
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, Plaintiffs, vs. SAP AG, a German corporation, SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, TOMORROWNOW, INC., a Texas corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. ______________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-CV-1658 (PJH)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CHARLES PHILLIPS _________________________________ FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 2009

HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

REPORTED BY:

HOLLY THUMAN, CSR No. 6834, RMR, CRR (1-418649)

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

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
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

Page 120

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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. Yes. Q. 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. And how would you have calculated how much that was?

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

Page 121
12:55:48 12:55:59 12:56:02 12:56:03 12:56:06 12:56:08 12:56:12 12:56:14 12:56:16 12:56:17 12:56:20 12:56:23 12:56:25 12:56:57 12:56:57 12:56:59 12:57:00 12:57:03 12:57:05 12:57:10 12:57:12 12:57:15 12:57:20 12:57:22 12:57:26

MS. HOUSE: Calls for speculation. THE WITNESS: 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.

31 (Pages 118 to 121) Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]