Oracle to Court: Let’s Try SAP Again
Last year, the judge offered Oracle a choice: Accept a judgment of $272 million in damages, reduced from $1.3 billion awarded at trial, or seek a new trial. Oracle says in court filings that it wants a new trial.
The key passage of the two-page court filing reads as follows (the word “remittitur” refers to the judge’s previous order reducing the award):
Oracle has no choice but to elect a new trial, as accepting the remittitur would force Oracle to risk waiving its right to appeal the Courtâ€™s decision on the motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Oracleâ€™s objective is to obtain clarification of the law and, if it is right about what the law is and what the evidence supports in this case, to vindicate the verdict of the jury and Oracleâ€™s intellectual property rights as a copyright owner. Accepting the remittitur would be contrary to this objective.
And that means that the whole thing starts over again.
Calling the $1.3 billion award “grossly excessive,” U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton in February granted an SAP request to throw out the award. Hamilton said that Oracle never proved that it lost enough business to justify so large a judgment.
Oracle had won the award in November, after accusing SAPâ€™s now-shuttered TomorrowNow unit of copying its software without paying appropriate licensing fees. It had been the largest judgment ever in a copyright infringement case.
At trial, Oracle accused SAP’s now-shuttered TomorrowNow business unit of illegally downloading Oracle software and then making several thousand copies of it, in order to avoid paying the relevant license fees that are Oracle’s financial bread and butter. Oracle ultimately won the claim, but then the fight turned to damages.
Lawyers for Oracle had argued that the companyâ€™s damages should be tied to the value of a hypothetical license that TomorrowNow would have had to pay for the software, had it been properly licensed. For its part, SAP had argued that, as competitors, damages should have been calculated based on profits lost by Oracle and gained by SAP as a result of the infringement, and as such is in a much lower range than what Oracle argued for.
The case has caused a lot of personal enmity between Oracle and SAP, as well as with Hewlett-Packard, especially during the 11-month period when former SAP co-CEO LĂ©o Apotheker was CEO of HP. Apotheker’s first days on the job at HP were marred by his apparent absence from HP headquarters, in what couldn’t help but look like an attempt to avoid being served with a subpoena. Maybe Oracle will try again.