“As HP has said repeatedly, Oracle had ample opportunity to question Léo in the two years after he gave a full-day deposition,” a spokesperson told me Friday evening. “Léo was never asked to give an additional deposition. As HP and SAP have noted, Oracle chose not to include Léo as a live trial witness until after he was named CEO of HP. Léo had a limited role in the matter and Oracle’s current stance is clear proof that they have been trying to harass Léo and interfere with his work at HP.”

Point meet counterpoint. That said, Oracle likely would have been most interested in deposing Apotherker a second time after SAP’s stipulation to liability for contributory infringement. And that didn’t occur until October 29, 2010.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

In a statement this afternoon, Boies reiterated the importance to Oracle of getting Apotheker in front of the jury, an effort thwarted so far because he has stayed out of range of a subpoena.

“[Former SAP director] Shai Agassi identified Leo Apotheker as being responsible for Safe Passage, with TomorrowNow as its cornerstone,” Boies said. “Werner Brandt [SAP director and CFO] did the same and testified that Mr. Apotheker was a member of the SAP AG Executive Board that fully supported the acquisition of TomorrowNow. He is clearly a very important witness in this case, especially now.

“When he testified at his deposition more than two years ago, it was before SAP and its wholly owned subsidiary TomorrowNow admitted infringing Oracle’s intellectual property through massive downloading and copying of PeopleSoft, JD Edwards and Siebel software. We think it is very important that Mr. Apotheker testify now, as a live witness in court, to explain his and SAP’s conduct.”

And if Apotheker still can’t be found? What then?

“Maybe we’ll just let the jury know that they’ve hidden him,” Boies said earlier. “I think it may be better for the jury to know that, here’s this guy who was at the center of all this [and we can't find him].”

In other words, jurors’ imaginations might be more powerful than the actual contents of Apotheker’s now very dated deposition. Better to tell them that the exec has been sequestered, and allow them to conclude that his testimony must be very damaging.

Of course, the flip side of this is that Apotheker and his deposition are inconsequential to the case and Oracle’s main goal in pursuing him has been to create a media circus around him to embarrass HP–which is what HP and SAP have been saying all along. And indeed, SAP repeated it again today in response to Boies’s comments. Said a spokesman, “Oracle’s heightened interest in Mr. Apotheker as a live witness came only after his appointment as HP’s CEO, a PR sideshow that has little to do with the real issues of this case–the actual damages from the limited operations of TomorrowNow.”

UPDATE: Reached for comment on Boies’ statement, HP maintained that Oracle’s efforts to put Apotheker on the stand are harassment and nothing more.

“As HP has said repeatedly, Oracle had ample opportunity to question Léo in the two years after he gave a full-day deposition,” a spokesperson told me. “Léo was never asked to give an additional deposition. As HP and SAP have noted, Oracle chose not to include Léo as a live trial witness until after he was named CEO of HP. Léo had a limited role in the matter and Oracle’s current stance is clear proof that they have been trying to harass Léo and interfere with his work at HP.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Called as a witness for Oracle, Catz reiterated an earlier point made by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, saying that had SAP licensed the materials that its TomorrowNow subsidiary ultimately pilfered, it would have cost “billions.” She also reminded SAP’s legal team that her email on SAP/TomorrowNow as a competitive threat was written without knowing about TomorrowNow’s copyright infringement.

Worse, she dismissed SAP’s offer of $40 million in damages as laughable. “SAP paying us damages of $40 million would be a reward for their bad behavior. “It’s like taking someone’s $2,000 watch and hocking it for $20, and then offering to give us $20. It’s crazy. It completely undervalues the entire basis for our industry.”

A powerful jab, and one that’s making the rounds in media reports on the trial today.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Sources in a position to know tell me that the PIs rumored to be searching for Apotheker are actually PSs–process servers, agents charged with delivering subpoenas to their intended recipient. And, as federal law dictates, their search extends no farther than 100 miles from the location of the trial, because if Apotheker is outside that 100-mile radius, they can’t serve him. And Oracle can’t compel him to testify. Which means it’s not really worth the company’s time or effort to hire Dog the Bounty Hunter to track him down in some Schwarzwald hideout.

As Oracle attorney David Boies said during a press conference after Monday’s proceedings, “Because of his role, we think it’s important for the jury to be able to see him live. But evidently, the embarrassment of avoiding trial is less than the embarrassment of testifying. We are trying to serve him. Still.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

On the stand in an Oakland, Calif., courtroom today, Ellison was such a picture of moderation and restraint that you almost wondered if his handlers had shot him up before his appearance–like sedating a dog for air travel. As one SAP rep told me, Ellison “was anti-climatic given his vituperative statements of the last weeks.”

Which is true. But his testimony was still quite damning–to my ears anyway. For one thing, he said that Oracle could have charged SAP $4 billion to license the programs that its TomorrowNow subsidiary wrongfully downloaded. For another, he said Oracle would have had trouble paying its employees if it allowed its rivals unfettered access to the software and support libraries at issue in this case.

“I’m not sure we would go out of business but pretty close to going out of business,” Ellison said during questioning by attorney David Boies. “If they could get that software for nothing, we’d have a hard time paying 100,000 employees.”

If that was the case, then why didn’t Oracle make a bigger stink over SAP’s acquisition of TomorrowNow when it was first announced? SAP’s legal team was quick to pick up on this and hammered Ellison, claiming there’s “not a shred of documented evidence” demonstrating Oracle’s concerns. But they didn’t get much of anywhere with that because it turned out there is some.

“When SAP announced the TomorrowNow acquisition,” Ellison said, “I made a public statement….I thought they might cheat around the edges in terms of our copyrights…and I publicly warned them that while they have every right to support our software, they have to respect our intellectual property–[they] can’t just redistribute it without paying for it.”

And, indeed, Ellison did do this during the company’s 2005 analyst day. “SAP has every right to provide support for PeopleSoft applications as long as they don’t violate our intellectual and contractual property rights,” he said. “It might make it awkward for them. That’s our intellectual property, and they should be cautious.”

Driving those remarks was Ellison’s fear at the time that with TomorrowNow, SAP might do Oracle real harm. “I thought this was a major program with a huge potential to do severe damage to Oracle,” Ellison said today, adding that his vision of how SAP planned to go about it wasn’t quite how things played out. “It was a brilliant idea to take our customers, but to execute it properly they had to go out and hire hundreds, if not thousands, of engineers to maintain PeopleSoft and JD Edwards and Siebel. That was going to be expensive. I certainly didn’t think they would simply take our intellectual property and then resell it to their own customers. I never thought that could happen.”

SAP’s attorney, Tharan Lanier, challenged Ellison on these points as well, suggesting Oracle is exaggerating when it claims that TomorrowNow’s infringement jeopardized as much as 20 to 30 percent of Oracle’s customers from its acquisition of PeopleSoft and 10 percent of those from the later acquisition of Siebel Systems. And in the end, Ellison conceded that only about 350 customers were lost as a result of TomorrowNow’s infringement. But he also managed to again suggest that potential losses were far, far greater.

“I think taking our intellectual property is a two-edged sword,” he said. “For [SAP] it means they have access to all our engineering output. They have regulatory updates at the same moment we have them. They have new versions of our software at the same time we have them. They have bug fixes at the same time we have them. So they should be able to provide the same quality of support that we’re providing except that they’re doing it at a very low cost, while Oracle bears the cost of all that engineering.”

The other side of that sword is running an irrational risk by taking our software. That’s a risk I certainly would never, ever undertake.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

[Image credit: Pre-Ellison Samurai image by Artem Mirolevioch]

“I guess you know you’ve made it in software when Microsoft is protesting your event. Or maybe when they’ve sued you. This is the greatest thing that’s ever happened in my career.”

– Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff

Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff says Microsoft is a patent troll. Looks like it takes one to know one. On Thursday, the company answered Microsoft’s charges of patent infringement with patent-infringement charges of its own.

In a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware, Salesforce accuses Microsoft of willfully violating five of its patents and using them in everything from Windows 7 to the Windows Live authentication system. And the company is really going for the neck here: Not only is it seeking triple monetary damages, it has hired David Boies, the former U.S. Justice Department attorney who successfully argued the agency’s antitrust case against Microsoft, to represent it.

But if Microsoft (MSFT) finds this disconcerting, the company isn’t letting on. Reached for comment, Horacio Gutierrez, vice president and deputy general counsel, said it’s still intent on taking Salesforce (CRM) to the mat over this. “We are reviewing Salesforce.com’s filing, which we have just received,” he said. “We remain confident about our position and will continue to press ahead with the complaint we initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.”

As BoomTown readers know, I have been adamant that Yahoo’s online ad outsourcing deal with Google is troublesome on a lot of levels. Although, so is government intervention.

From giving advertisers less choice to creating a de facto monopoly to its potential for stifling innovation, the deal–which was struck as a parry to Microsoft’s attempt to buy Yahoo (YHOO) and is set to begin next month–gives me the heebie-jeebies, given the pair control 80 percent of the online search ad market.

Now, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Justice Department has quietly hired an outside litigator–former Walt Disney Vice Chairman Sanford Litvack–to contemplate whether the government should consider mounting an antitrust case against the search giant.

The article stresses that government regulators have not yet decided to move forward or whether they would simply focus on the Yahoo deal or cast their net more broadly concerning the huge market share of Google (GOOG) in search.

But, ironically, the move has echoes of the Justice Department suit against Microsoft 10 years ago for antitrust violations. Well-known litigator David Boies was hired as special counsel in that case.

Google has argued since it struck the deal that it keeps competition alive. In a statement to The Journal, the company said:

We voluntarily delayed implementation of this arrangement to give the Department of Justice time to understand it, and we continue to work cooperatively with them. While there has been a lot of speculation about this agreement’s potential impact on advertisers or ad prices, we think it would be premature for regulators to halt the agreement before we implement it and everyone can judge the actual impact.

Still, Google faces increasing headwinds. Major advertisers have been complaining about the implications of its Yahoo deal, including the Association of National Advertisers this week.

In an egregious pot-kettle move, Microsoft (MSFT) has also been very vocal about stopping the deal, including at Congressional hearings in Washington, D.C. in mid-July, which I attended.

Here are video interviews I did with the lawyers from Google, Yahoo and Microsoft at that hearing:

This kind of arguing will likely be taking place for a long time to come now with the Justice Department weighing in.

And even though what the government knows about the Internet could fit on a microchip, it is probably a good idea for regulators to at least poke around in this arena.

Because what I wrote back in April when the Yahoo-Google deal was revealed still stands:

And while it might be a long-cherished dream of Google’s to take over Yahoo search–and also get the chance to return to the scene of the crime, since Google got its first big push from doing Yahoo search, before Yahoo wised up too late–there is simply no way this will be allowed by regulators, nor should it.

Still, you have to almost admire the chutzpah of the search giant in making this move, if the sheer and unadulterated arrogance of it wasn’t so distracting.

Because while Google has almost none of the obvious menacing aggression that characterized Microsoft when it thoroughly dominated tech (although all those beach bikes on its campus inexplicably creep me out a little bit), the company still cannot be allowed to have a monopolistic share of the market.

It is bad for advertisers, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for innovation, no matter how well-intentioned Google is.

And no matter how many flashy moves Google and Yahoo make, it is flat-out wrong for one player to so dominate such an important sector (and I hope regulators look at the email domination in the case of a Yahoo-Microsoft union with a similar gimlet eye).”

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

For viewers just tuning in, so far this week on “As the Tiny-Incestuous-Petty-Juvenile-Digital World Turns,” Yahoo (YHOO) has been plenty busy:

An AOL (TWX) mashup deal!

A Google (GOOG) search-ad partnership!

Even–cue the trumpets!!!–the late entrance of that man-about-Silicon-Valley from Web 1.0, Frank Quattrone, working for Google, which is helping Yahoo on AOL (and, fun, snake-eating-itself fact: as a banker, Quattrone worked for Yahoo when it was contemplating buying eBay).

This is so deliciously sweet, in terms of geek soap opera, that I fear I may get a major cavity soon.

But like any hungry viewer, I want more! What, what, what could be the next twist and turn?

Here are three of my more creative brainstorms:

1. Reunite the dream team in United States v. Microsoft to scare the living daylights out of Steve Ballmer.

It will be like an antitrust version of “I Know What You Did Last Summer.” I am almost certain that Joel Klein, Janet Reno, David Boies and the ever-irascible Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (the latter two pictured here) still are capable of giving Microsoft (MSFT) the willies.

2. If you want make former Yahoo merger partner and now Microsoft merger parter News Corp.’s (NWS) Rupert Murdoch squirm, there’s nothing like adding yet another wizened media mogul to the mix. My No. 1 choice would be some kind of hopelessly complex mashup with the properties of Sumner Redstone (pictured here), who controls both CBS (CBS) and Viacom (VIA). I am thinking something that includes SpongeBob SquarePants and those irksome girls from “The Hills” (also pictured here) and, say, Katie Couric.

3. Of course, the most surefire way to get more money from Microsoft: Hire Mark Zuckerberg (pictured here). So far, the 23-year-old wunderkind and his team at Facebook (well played, Owen Van Natta, well played!) have been the only ones able to get Microsoft to fork over an ungodly amount of money for a chance to own a small part of a hope and a dream and not-a-very-impressive bottom line.

If Zuckerberg can get a $15 billion valuation by putting up only SuperPokes and news feeds as collateral, I would find what he is drinking and get me some for myself.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.