Oracle Rejects Damages from SAP, Opts For TomorrowNow Retrial

February 13, 2012 Alex Woodie

Here we go again. Last week, Oracle–still hoppin’ mad that a Federal judge reduced by more than $1 billion the damages awarded from its civil suit against SAP and its now-defunct TomorrowNow subsidiary–formally rejected the $272 million from SAP and requested that a new trial be granted in the case, which began nearly five years ago.

A jury awarded Oracle $1.3 billion in damages in November 2010, a figure that was appealed by SAP. The German software giant had admitted in late 2007 that TomorrowNow had acted inappropriately (it shut down the third-party support unit in 2008), and all the legal haggling over these years has been over how much SAP would pay Oracle. SAP insisted that the damages inflicted by TomorrowNow were between $28 million and $41 million, while Oracle argued that damages were between $288 million and $3 billion.

In September 2011, a judge in the Oakland Division of the Northern California District of U.S. District Court ruled that the $1.3 billion awarded to Oracle was “grossly excessive.” Judge Phyllis Hamilton lowered the amount by more than $1 billion, and said that if Oracle didn’t accept the lowered damages (the remittitur) of $272 million, she would suggest a new trial.

As expected, Oracle didn’t take the money and instead opted for a retrial. Oracle explained its reasoning in a court filing last week:

“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 Court’s decision on the motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial,” Oracle’s attorney states. “Oracle’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 Oracle’s intellectual property rights as a copyright owner. Accepting the remittitur would be contrary to this objective.”

Oracle says TomorrowNow violated its intellectual property rights by improperly downloading and distributing software patches and updates that Oracle put on its technical support website for PeopleSoft and JD Edwards customers. Oracle claimed that this “storehouse” of stolen code enabled TomorrowNow to offer technical support services at a fraction of the cost that Oracle charged.

Oracle based its damages on the amount that TomorrowNow’s customers would have paid if they obtained the code and support from Oracle. This “hypothetical” calculation of damages will be a central element of the retrial, as the judge who overthrew the $1.3 billion said the jury didn’t have enough evidence to grant Oracle such hypothetical licenses.

RELATED STORIES

Oracle Loses to SAP in Appeals Court

Jury Says SAP Owes Oracle $1.3 Billion Over TomorrowNow Theft

Oracle and SAP Talk Settlement on TomorrowNow Legal Fees

The Oracle vs. TomorrowNow/SAP Courtroom Drama Goes on as Scheduled

Oracle to Put New HP CEO on the Stand in TomorrowNow Lawsuit

SAP Bows to Oracle on TomorrowNow, Argues Damages

SAP Shuts Down TomorrowNow Support Biz

Oracle-SAP Suit: TomorrowNow Acted Improperly, Admits SAP

Oracle Sues SAP Over ‘Corporate Theft on a Grand Scale’

                     Post this story to del.icio.us
               Post this story to Digg
    Post this story to Slashdot

Tags:

Do the Math When Looking at IBM i Hosting for Cost Savings

COVID-19 has accelerated certain business trends that were already gaining strength prior to the start of the pandemic. E-commerce, telehealth, and video conferencing are some of the most obvious examples. One example that may not be as obvious to the general public but has a profound impact on business is the shift in strategy of IBM i infrastructure from traditional, on-premises environments to some form of remote configuration. These remote configurations and all of their variations are broadly referred to in the community as IBM i hosting.

“Hosting” in this context can mean different things to different people, and in general, hosting refers to one of two scenarios. In the first scenario, hosting can refer to a client owned machine that is housed in a co-location facility (commonly called a co-lo for short) where the data center provides traditional system administrator services, relieving the client of administrative and operational responsibilities. In the second scenario, hosting can refer to an MSP owned machine in which partition resources are provided to the client in an on-demand capacity. This scenario allows the client to completely outsource all aspects of Power Systems hardware and the IBM i operating system and database.

The scenario that is best for each business depends on a number of factors and is largely up for debate. In most cases, pursuing hosting purely as a cost saving strategy is a dead end. Furthermore, when you consider all of the costs associated with maintaining and IBM i environment, it is typically not a cost-effective option for the small to midsize market. The most cost-effective approach for these organizations is often a combination of a client owned and maintained system (either on-prem or in a co-lo) with cloud backup and disaster-recovery-as-a-service. Only in some cases of larger enterprise companies can a hosting strategy start to become a potentially cost-effective option.

However, cost savings is just one part of the story. As IBM i expertise becomes scarce and IT resources run tight, the only option for some firms may be to pursue hosting in some capacity. Whatever the driving force for pursing hosting may be, the key point is that it is not just simply an option for running your workload in a different location. There are many details to consider and it is to the best interest of the client to work with an experienced MSP in weighing the benefits and drawbacks of each option. As COVID-19 rolls on, time will tell if IBM i hosting strategies will follow the other strong business trends of the pandemic.

When we say do the math in the title above, it literally means that you need to do the math for your particular scenario. It is not about us doing the math for you, making a case for either staying on premises or for moving to the cloud. There is not one answer, but just different levels of cost to be reckoned which yield different answers. Most IBM i shops have fairly static workloads, at least measured against the larger mix of stuff on the public clouds of the world. How do you measure the value of controlling your own IT fate? That will only be fully recognized at the moment when it is sorely missed the most.

CONTINUE READING ARTICLE

Please visit ucgtechnologies.com/IBM-POWER9-systems for more information.

800.211.8798 | info@ucgtechnologies.com

Article featured in IT Jungle on April 5, 2021