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. 5

EXHIBIT E
Dockets.Justia.com

SAFRA CATZ March 27, 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 SAFRA CATZ

FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 2009

HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

REPORTED BY:

HOLLY THUMAN, CSR No. 6834, RMR, CRR (1-416874)

Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

SAFRA CATZ March 27, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 14
08:16:32 08:16:34 08:16:40 08:16:42 08:16:45 08:16:47 08:16:50 08:16:53 08:17:01 08:17:04 08:17:06 08:17:08 08:17:11 08:17:13 08:17:15 08:17:18 08:17:22 08:17:26 08:17:32 08:17:35 08:17:37 08:17:43 08:17:44 08:17:45 08:17:48

Page 16
08:19:02 08:19:05 08:19:09 08:19:12 08:19:14 08:19:15 08:19:17 08:19:20 08:19:22 08:19:27 08:19:33 08:19:37 08:19:42 08:19:45 08:19:49 08:19:53 08:19:56 08:19:58 08:20:01 08:20:01 08:20:02 08:20:04 08:20:08 08:20:13 08:20:18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. If you were to go back to your desk and attempt to quantify the harm, what metric would you use? A. I don't I don't know where I would start. Q. Who would you ask to help you with that project, again, putting aside the lawyers? A. The problem is that no one actually knows how badly and widespread it was, because it's not just lost customers. It's even customers that were kept that don't buy as much from us because they're unhappy with us, because they're having they're buying from us at a higher price than they could buy our stuff from SAP. So it would be very hard to quantify. Q. You mentioned "buying our stuff" in that last answer there. What stuff are you talking about? A. Our other products. Q. Meaning what? A. Well, if we had an ERP customer, PeopleSoft ERP customer, or a J.D. Edwards ERP customer, because they all of a sudden felt that we that they could have spent less by buying support from

Page 15
08:17:50 08:17:58 08:18:04 08:18:10 08:18:13 08:18:14 08:18:17 08:18:20 08:18:24 08:18:25 08:18:27 08:18:30 08:18:33 08:18:36 08:18:38 08:18:41 08:18:42 08:18:43 08:18:47 08:18:50 08:18:51 08:18:53 08:18:54 08:18:58 08:19:01 2 2 2 2 2 2 08:20:23 08:20:28 08:20:31 08:20:36 08:20:38 08:20:43 08:20:47 08:20:51 08:20:54 08:20:56 08:21:02 08:21:03 08:21:06 08:21:11 08:21:16 08:21:21 08:21:26 08:21:30 08:21:37 08:21:39 08:21:41 08:21:45 08:21:47 08:21:52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Page 17
TomorrowNow, but they stayed with us for whatever their reasons were, they may still have a bad taste in their mouth and then not want to buy CRM, which is another product, from us. And we wouldn't even know necessarily why they didn't choose us for CRM. They would just still have a -- you know, be annoyed with us.

j

y

08:21:54

5 (Pages 14 to 17) Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]

SAFRA CATZ March 27, 2009 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 26
08:31:51 08:31:53 08:31:59 08:32:01 08:32:01 08:32:04 08:32:06 08:32:09 08:32:11 08:32:16 08:32:24 08:32:30 08:32:32 08:32:36 08:32:40 08:32:43 08:32:53 08:32:56 08:32:58 08:32:59 08:32:59 08:33:01 08:33:03 08:33:10 08:33:12 08:34:38 08:34:42 08:34:50 08:34:53 08:34:58 08:35:01 08:35:02 08:35:03 08:35:10 08:35:17 08:35:21 08:35:24 08:35:29 08:35:33 08:35:37 08:35:41 08:35:42 08:35:52 08:35:55 08:35:58 08:36:01 08:36:03 08:36:14 08:36:20 08:36:22

Page 28

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Q. And did the fact that TomorrowNow was able to win over 300 customers impair in any way the value of the PeopleSoft acquisition to Oracle? A. Yeah. Q. How? A. By it undermines the whole rationale for buying PeopleSoft, which is the customer base, the maintenance base, the upsell opportunity, the incumbency advantage you have when it's an existing customer. It's terrible.

Page 27
08:33:14 08:33:18 08:33:19 08:33:20 08:33:23 08:33:25 08:33:28 08:33:33 08:33:34 08:33:39 08:33:45 08:33:53 08:33:58 08:34:04 08:34:06 08:34:09 08:34:12 08:34:14 08:34:15 08:34:17 08:34:20 08:34:22 08:34:24 08:34:31 08:34:34
08:36:25 08:36:29 08:36:32 08:36:35 08:36:37 08:36:43 08:36:44 08:36:45 08:36:49 08:36:49 08:36:50 08:36:51 08:36:54 08:37:04 08:37:08 08:37:12 08:37:19 08:37:22 08:37:24 08:37:27 08:37:30 08:37:33 08:37:38 08:37:40 08:37:42

Page 29

8 (Pages 26 to 29) Merrill Legal Solutions [phone]