Read the Customer Letter about the latest developments in the HP v Oracle US trial.

Evolve your legacy system. A safe, rewarding path to HP Integrity

Content starts here

Customer Letters

Phase 1
Trial Actions

Post-Phase 1
Trial Actions

Phase 2
Trial Actions

January 10, 2013

Oracle will continue porting software to HP Integrity servers

On September 4, Oracle issued a statement Non-HP site

indicating it will continue porting its software portfolio to Itanium. This announcement comes as a result of the U.S. court’s August 28, 2012 final statement of decision Non-HP site

on the first phase of HP’s trial against Oracle, in which the court confirmed the existence of a contract between HP and Oracle that requires Oracle to continue to port its software products to HP’s platforms, including Integrity.

HP is very pleased that Oracle will comply with the ruling, and HP hopes that Oracle's announcement will once again enable HP Integrity customers to make their IT plans knowing that they will be able to utilize the most up-to-date versions of Oracle's suite of software products for HP-UX, OpenVMS and NonStop.

While this is a very positive development, it is important that the trial proceed to the second phase to end the uncertainty that Oracle’s March 22, 2011 announcement Non-HP site

caused and to address Oracle’s breach of the contract and the damages and/or remedies HP is entitled to receive.

On September 10, the U.S. court held a conference with HP and Oracle in which the judge scheduled the second phase of the trial to begin on February 4, 2013. However, on December 14 2012, the court reset the start date to April 8, 2013, primarily to allow both HP and Oracle additional time to conduct discovery regarding the theories of their respective damage experts. The second phase of the trial will address whether, in fact, Oracle breached the contract and if so, what damages and/or remedies HP would be entitled to receive as a result.

We remain committed to our 140,000 customers who run Oracle software and to our long-term mission-critical server roadmap, including Integrity, HP-UX, OpenVMS, and NonStop, as well as our new investments in x86, Windows, and Linux. Similarly, Intel has repeatedly reinforced its ongoing commitment to the Itanium roadmap.

You can continue to access this site to stay current with trial summaries and HP exhibits. You can also access external websites to view the U.S. court filings Non-HP site

and the U.S. case calendar Non-HP site

. We will continue to share relevant information as it becomes available. Thank you for your continued support.

Regards,

Ric Lewis
Vice President and Interim General Manager
HP Business Critical Systems

Trial Update week 1

HP v Oracle US Trial Summary

HP vs. Oracle U.S. Trial Schedule May 31 – June 26, 2012

HP vs. Oracle – The first phase of the U.S. trial began May 31 and is expected to end on June 26. The first phase is to address HP’s claim that Oracle is contractually obligated to continue to develop its software on Itanium.

Estimated timing of U.S. Trial events:

June 4: Opening statements from HP and Oracle
June 4 - 14: HP presents its witnesses
June 18 - 21: Oracle presents its witnesses
June 26: Rebuttal testimony and closing arguments on first phase of trial
July 16: Post-trial briefs from both HP and Oracle are due to the judge

Shortly after July 16: Judge issues statement of decision on first phase of trial; if HP prevails, judge will schedule second phase of trial to address whether Oracle violated the parties’ contract and the damages/remedies to which HP is entitled.

May 31, 2012 hearing highlights

The first phase of HP’s U.S. trial began, with Judge James Kleinberg holding argument on the parties’ evidentiary motions and addressing matters of trial logistics.

During the first phase, the Judge will determine whether Oracle is contractually obligated to port its suite of software products to HP's Itanium-based servers and whether HP reasonably relied to its detriment on Oracle’s promises to continue porting its software products to HP’s Itanium-based servers. There is no jury for the first phase of trial – only the judge will hear evidence and resolve these two issues. The first phase is expected to run through Tuesday, June 26.

In the second phase of trial, a jury will determine if the contract has been breached by Oracle and, if so, what the remedy should be (i.e., damages and/or specific performance).

June 4, 2012 hearing highlights

HP and Oracle made their opening arguments for the first phase of the trial. Read a transcript of the opening argument from Jeff Thomas from Gibson Dunn for HP. Also view key slides used during Jeff Thomas’ opening arguments regarding the reaffirmation of the HP-Oracle partnership as included in the Hurd Settlement agreement.

HP then called Ann Livermore as its first witness. Ms. Livermore testified on topics relating to HP’s business, including the UNIX server market generally, the relationship and course of dealing between the HP and Oracle, the negotiation of the contract at issue, and Oracle’s announcement in March 2011 that it would no longer develop its software products for the Itanium microprocessor. Read the Hurd Settlement agreement; the press release the parties issued following resolution of that litigation; and Oracle’s March 2011 Itanium press release and Itanium customers announcement.

June 5 hearing highlights

Ann Livermore described in detail the negotiations that took place between Ms. Catz and herself regarding paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement. In particular, she explained that the language grew out of both companies’ desire to preserve their relationship, founded on Oracle porting its software to HP servers (in the overwhelming majority of cases, without written agreements or payments between the parties), and to continue to work together as they had before. View the minutes of an April 16, 2010, HP/Oracle meeting in which Ms. Catz said that Oracle remained committed to its relationship with HP and running Oracle software on HP infrastructure.

Oracle's General Counsel, Dorian Daley, confirmed for HP in a contemporaneous email that the contract language that she -- Ms. Daley -- proposed reflected the discussions Ms. Catz and Ms. Livermore had about the companies’ continuing to work together, "with Oracle porting products to HP's platform and HP supporting the ported products." And it was essentially the very same language that Ms. Daley proposed that was ultimately included in the parties' final agreement. Read the e-mail from Ms. Daley and the attached draft settlement agreement.

Oracle has argued that HP's actions immediately following Oracle’s March 22, 2011 Itanium announcement proved that HP did not believe that Oracle had agreed to port its software to HP's Itanium-based servers. Ms. Livermore testified, however, that when she saw Oracle's announcement that it would no longer develop its software for Itanium servers, she called Ms. Catz to express her outrage over the announcement and informed Ms. Catz that Oracle had breached the Settlement Agreement signed by the parties just six months earlier. In response, Ms. Catz acted uninformed about the matter and said that she "had to go speak with Larry."

Ms. Livermore testified that she had spoken with Ms. Catz on March 18, 2011 -- four days before Oracle’s Itanium announcement -- and, as is reflected in this contemporaneous e-mail from Ms. Livermore, Ms. Catz gave no hint that this announcement was coming.

Contrary to Oracle’s position that it decided to stop developing software for the Itanium microprocessor because it allegedly was nearing the end of its life, Ms. Livermore explained that at the time of Oracle’s announcement HP-UX/Itanium platform comprised a third of the high-end Unix market, was extremely profitable for HP, and that HP’s roadmap and its agreements with Intel extended the life of the Itanium roadmap toward the end of this decade.

June 6 hearing highlights

Former HP General Counsel Michael J. Holston testified that the negotiating history of paragraph 1, including a very specific email from Dorian Daley, Oracle's general counsel, proved that Oracle undertook a commitment to continue porting its suite of software products to HP's Itanium-based servers.

During Mr. Holston’s testimony, Judge Kleinberg noted that Ms. Daley’s September 12, 2010, email makes it clear that Oracle understood paragraph 1 to be about porting, as Ms. Daley specifically described this provision as “an agreement to continue to work together as the companies have -- with Oracle porting products to HP's platform and HP supporting the ported products." The court indicated that this was a very important email from Ms. Daley and was central to interpreting the contract.

The final contract language reflects that understanding of the agreement, as it says that "Oracle will continue to offer its product suite on HP platforms . . . in a manner consistent with that partnership as it existed prior to Oracle's hiring of Hurd."

Mr. Holston explained that during the investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment asserted against Mr. Hurd by a former HP contractor, HP learned that Mr. Hurd had misused HP confidential information. HP believed that the misuse of HP confidential information continued even after Mr. Hurd had been forced to resign from HP and was ongoing at the time of Hurd's hire by Oracle.

Mr. Holston testified HP's lawsuit was intended to prevent Hurd from using or misusing such information on behalf of Oracle or in connection with the performance of his duties at Oracle.

Mr. Holston explained that immediately after HP sued Hurd, Oracle expressed an interest in getting the matter settled, and from the very first conversation between the parties and continuing thereafter, HP and Oracle discussed their mutual desire to continue their close business relationship. View a September 8, 2010, e-mail from Ms. Daley to Mr. Holston in which Ms. Daley writes: “we at oracle – including larry – appreciate the value of the relationship with HP and want to preserve that.”

As did Ms. Livermore, Mr. Holston confirmed that the central tenet of the HP-Oracle relationship was Oracle porting its software products to the HP-UX/Itanium platform and HP supporting Oracle's products by helping to sell them to customers.

HP software engineer David Tucker also testified. He described the long history of Oracle porting its software to HP's servers. He also testified that the porting of the Oracle database started before the Settlement Agreement was entered into and continued until Oracle's announcement in March 2011 that it would no longer develop its software products for Itanium. Lastly, Mr. Tucker explained that the few written porting agreements that existed resulted from special and unusual circumstances, and that the language concerning the porting of the software itself was simple because the software engineers always knew what to do to accomplish the port without the need for elaborate written specifications.

June 7 hearing highlights

David Tucker, an HP software engineer, described the HP/Oracle porting relationship prior to the time that Oracle hired Hurd. Tucker agreed that Oracle products had been ported to Itanium on thousands of occasions, and that all but four of those ports occurred without written contracts.

Tucker explained that written contracts were unnecessary as the engineers themselves knew exactly what work needed to be done without (as Oracle contends) elaborate specifications or milestones.

In addition to the language of the contract (that states that "Oracle will continue to offer its product suite on HP platforms"), this established course of conduct further proves that HP and Oracle agreed that Oracle would continue to port its software products to HP-UX/Itanium servers.

Ann Livermore also completed her testimony. In response to questions from Oracle's lawyer Ms. Livermore reiterated that she and Ms. Catz explicitly agreed that the two companies would continue to do business as they always had, which necessarily included Oracle porting its software to HP's platforms and HP supporting Oracle's products.

Finally, Timothy Aylott, an alliance manager, also testified about the consistent course of dealing regarding porting between Oracle and HP, with hundreds of Oracle products ported to HP-UX Itanium on hundreds of occasions without a contract between the parties and without charge to HP, and only a handful of those ports done pursuant to contract or payment.

Trial Update week 2

The trial was suspended Monday and Tuesday, June 11-12. It resumed on Wednesday, June 13.

June 13 hearing highlights

Timothy Aylott, an alliance manager, described the HP/Oracle porting relationship prior to the time that Oracle hired Hurd. Mr. Aylott confirmed that of the hundreds of occasions on which Oracle products were ported to HP-UX Itanium, approximately four were covered by written porting agreements. While Oracle contends that porting agreements are necessarily “really complicated and detailed,” Mr. Aylott testified that the Oblix porting agreement is but a single page with one single sentence about porting.

Mr. Aylott also testified that Oracle routinely assured customers that Oracle software would be available on the Itanium platform. See a few examples – email from May 2010, email from April 2007 and email from September 2010 – of the many letters that Oracle provided to HP to reassure customers inquiring about the future availability of Oracle software on HP’s Itanium platform.

Mr. Fink described his complete surprise when he heard about Oracle’s announcement that it would stop porting to Itanium. He explained that such an abrupt announcement is unheard of in the technology industry. Ordinarily such an announcement would be the product of a collaborative process between the software and hardware vendors so that customers would be provided with plenty of advance notice and informed about proposed plans for migration, the anticipated timetable, future support, and various contingency plans. Here, in contrast, Oracle simply issued the announcement late at night with no prior warning and, in doing so, caught HP and the companies’ customers completely off guard.

Mr. Fink explained that when HP launched the latest generation of Integrity servers in April 2010, BCS sales were strong and increasing. He testified that Oracle’s David Hicks provided a statement describing Oracle's enthusiasm for the product and Oracle’s commitment to testing and certifying Oracle software on Itanium.

Mr. Fink also explained that in November 2011, HP launched Project Odyssey as a path forward for Oracle’s Itanium customers. Project Odyssey is intended to redefine the future of mission-critical computing by enabling customers to continue using Integrity, Integrity NonStop, HP-UX and OpenVMS platforms while fortifying Linux and Windows on mission-critical x86 platforms with key HP innovations to deliver industry-leading availability, increased performance, and flexibility for HP customers.

June 14 hearing highlights

Martin Fink and David Donatelli testified. Both discussed a joint HP and Oracle meeting on Feb 26, 2010 that included HP executives and Oracle's EVP of software development, Thomas Kurian. The minutes of the HP and Oracle meeting state that the meeting objective was to discuss how HP and Oracle would work together post-Sun acquisition. They also state that it was agreed that Oracle would continue to offer its products on HP-UX with release and functional parity as compared with the other major UNIX platforms. Both testified that such parity cannot be achieved if Oracle refuses to port future versions of its software to HP-UX in the first instance.

Like Mr. Fink, Mr. Donatelli discussed the importance of the HP/Oracle alliance. He stated that many of the world's largest financial institutions, government agencies, and other large organizations that have a global presence rely on the combination of HP Integrity servers and Oracle software. If these products don't work together, the companies’ mutual customers take on serious risk. An abrupt change to stop development or drop support can force customers to spend up to tens of millions of dollars to change platforms without any benefit in performance or functionality while, at the same time, assume the considerable risk that accompanies changing platforms. Read Mr. Donatelli’s June 8, 2011, letter to Ms. Catz re Oracle’s Commitments to HP and Our Shared Customers.

Mr. Donatelli also described the events leading up to the K22 Itanium Collaboration agreement into which HP entered with Intel, including the reassurances HP received from Oracle about continuing to make Oracle software available on Itanium.

Trial Update week 3

June 18, 2012 Hearing Highlights

Today Oracle called its first witness, Oracle General Counsel Dorian Daley. Ms. Daley discussed the language she drafted for inclusion in Paragraph 1 of the Hurd Settlement Agreement. Ms. Daley explained that the language sent to HP reflected the discussions Ms. Catz and Ms. Livermore had about the companies’ continuing to work together, "with Oracle porting products to HP's platform and HP supporting the ported products." This was essentially the very same language that Ms. Daley proposed that was included in the parties' final agreement. However, Ms. Daley testified that when she wrote that Ms. Catz and Ms. Livermore discussed “an agreement to continue to work together as the companies have – with Oracle porting products to HP’s platform and HP supporting the ported products and the parties engaging in joint marketing opportunities – for the mutual benefit of customers,” she “made a reference to porting and joint marketing as examples of the kinds of things that would not become obligatory as a result of that reaffirmation provision.”

Ms. Daley’s testimony also reinforced the fact that Paragraph 1 held much greater significance beyond public relations, as Oracle now claims. The evolution of the language in Paragraph 1, and Ms. Daley’s email particularly, make it clear that Oracle understood Paragraph 1 to be about porting specifically. Further, on cross-examination Ms. Daley conceded that the language in Paragraph 1 that states that “Oracle will continue to offer its product suite on HP platforms” was compulsory, and that she did not include language reserving discretion to Oracle to port or not port as she has either included or at least seen in other commercial agreements.

After Ms. Daley testified on direct examination that the reaffirmation concept emerged for the first time in negotiations between Ms. Livermore and Ms. Catz on September 11, 2010, “and really as an afterthought,” Judge Kleinberg questioned Ms. Daley about an email she had sent Mr. Holston, HP’s General Counsel, on September 8, 2010, in which she had written, “I just want to emphasize that we at oracle – including larry – appreciate the value of the relationship with HP and want to preserve that.”

June 19, 2012 Hearing Highlights

Today Oracle President and Chief Financial Officer Safra Catz discussed the negotiations that took place regarding Paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement. In essence she contended that despite the express, compulsory language in Paragraph 1 that requires Oracle to port its software to HP-UX/Itanium, she believes that the paragraph means that Oracle will port its software to HP-UX/Itanium “if it wants to.”

Ms. Catz also testified that Oracle’s General Counsel, Dorian Daley, is a “first rate, careful lawyer.” At the same time, however, she claimed that an email sent by Ms. Daley to HP (that summarized a conversation between Ms. Catz and Ms. Livermore in which Oracle agreed to commit to a continuation of the companies’ longstanding partnership, which includes, at its core, Oracle’s porting its software products to HP’s platforms) was “not a perfect representation of the conversation.” Significantly, Ms. Livermore previously testified that Ms. Daley’s email did indeed correctly describe the conversation that she had with Ms. Catz.

Ms. Catz testified further testified that on the day after the Daley email was sent she advised Ms. Livermore that Oracle would not commit to porting its software to HP-UX/Itanium. However, the email that Ms. Catz prepared summarizing her conversation with Ms. Livermore does not support that claim. Moreover, while Ms. Catz testified that she then informed Ms. Daley about her conversation with Ms. Livermore, Ms. Daley did not tell Ms. Catz that she (Ms. Daley) had made a contrary representation to HP in the email that she sent or attempt to retract the representation that she had communicated to HP.

Ms. Catz claimed that she was unaware of letters provided to HP by Oracle – email from April 2007, email from May 2010 and email from September 2010 – for distribution to mutual customers, designed to assure customers that Oracle will continue to support customers with current and future versions of Oracle software on HP-UX/Integrity. However, these letters were approved by Oracle’s Legal Department and Finance Department, both of which report into Ms. Catz.

Ms. Catz confirmed that over the 10 calendar quarters ending with the second quarter of 2010, industry data showed HP Integrity servers consistently enjoyed nearly three times more sales than competitive Sun servers. Though she had testified on direct examination that Oracle’s decision to discontinue software development on the HP-UX on Itanium platform was a business decision based on that platform’s being “not an important business” for Oracle, Ms. Catz testified on cross examination that Oracle had no way of knowing whether its revenue from software sold on Itanium platforms materially exceeded the revenue from software sold on Sun platforms, as some internal Oracle analysis seemed to suggest.

During Ms. Catz’s testimony the court was also informed that, according to one of its written discovery responses, Oracle is not aware of an instance where it discontinued all software development for a microprocessor architecture while servers based on that architecture was still being sold to customers. It was noted that another of Oracle’s written discovery responses indicates that the company had never before discontinued support for a microprocessor architecture without some advance notice to the manufacturer.

June 20, 2012 Hearing Highlights

Today, Oracle called David Hicks, Vice President, Worldwide ISV & OEM Alliances. During his testimony, Mr. Hicks discussed a February 2010 email he sent to Oracle sales executives for the purpose of briefing them about an upcoming meeting with HP as well as minutes of the meeting he thereafter prepared.

The meeting minutes indicate that the objective was to “discuss direction of Oracle software on ESSN platforms post Sun acquisition in key areas of product availability, pricing, and release/function parity.” In addition to stating that HP and Oracle were to “remain strategic partners,” the minutes indicate that Oracle intended to provide HP-UX with release and functional parity vis-a-vis the other major operating systems, and to continue to treat HP as a “Tier 1” partner.

Mr. Hicks also testified that he approved the letters Oracle provided to HP – email from April 2007, email from May 2010 and email from September 2010 – to assure joint customers of Oracle’s intent to continue to develop software for HP-UX Integrity.

Oracle also called Thomas Kurian, the Executive Vice President of Software Development. Mr. Kurian described the software development process Oracle follows and the factors that Oracle takes into consideration in deciding whether to port its software to a particular platform or de-support a platform. Mr. Kurian conceded, however, that in all events all such decisions are made by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison.

As HP’s witnesses have repeatedly testified, Mr. Kurian confirmed that the “vast majority” of porting work done by Oracle occurs without a written porting agreement. Contradicting both HP’s witnesses and Oracle’s own witnesses, Mr. Kurian testified that Oracle had not performed any porting work on Database version 12c when it announced in March 2011 that it would no longer develop its software for the Itanium platform.

Mr. Kurian acknowledged meeting with HP’s Dave Donatelli in February 2010, saying it was one of several such meetings he had with large partners regarding their concern about what their future technological relationship with Oracle would be in light of its acquisition of Sun. Nonetheless, and despite the minutes mentioned above prepared by David Hicks, Mr. Kurian essentially testified that all he and Mr. Donatelli discussed was the future of Exadata and the availability of future Oracle patch sets.

June 21, 2012 Hearing Highlights

Today, live witness testimony was concluded with Thomas Kurian, Oracle’s Executive Vice President of Software Development. Though Mr. Kurian had described on direct examination the factors that Oracle usually takes into consideration in deciding whether to port its software to a particular platform or to stop supporting a platform, he conceded on cross-examination that he did not know the reasons for the March 2011 decision to stop all future software development for Itanium microprocessors.

HP introduced into evidence written discovery responses from Oracle contradicting Mr. Kurian’s testimony that Oracle had not performed any porting work on Database version 12c before announcing in March 2011 that it no longer would develop its software for the Itanium platform. Those responses state that:
- Before Oracle’s decision in March 2011 to stop all future software development for Itanium microprocessors, Oracle was building subsets of code unique to the major operating systems, including HP-UX, and running various validation tests of such builds. See Oracle’s Amended Superseding Response to HP’s Interrogatory No. 7.
- Oracle estimates that its initial efforts in porting Database version 12c to HP’s Itanium platform consumed the time of approximately 6 full-time engineers over a 10 month period. See Oracle’s Response to HP’s Interrogatory No. 12.
- Before the March 22, 2011 announcement, Oracle had begun porting efforts for several other future products, including the Oracle e-Business Suite 12.2 and Siebel 8.2.2. See Oracle’s Amended Superseding Response to HP’s Interrogatory No. 7.

Following Mr. Kurian’s testimony that all he and HP’s Dave Donatelli discussed at their February 2010 meeting was the future of Exadata and the availability of future Oracle patch sets, HP introduced the meeting minutes prepared by Oracle’s David Hicks,which indicate that the objective was to “discuss direction of Oracle software on ESSN platforms post Sun acquisition in key areas of product availability, pricing, and release/function parity.” In addition to stating that HP and Oracle were to “remain strategic partners,” the minutes indicate that Oracle intended to provide HP-UX with release and functional parity vis-a-vis the other major operating systems, and to continue to treat HP as a “Tier 1” partner.

Mr. Kurian testified that he was not involved in the decision to halt future software development for Itanium servers, but he acknowledged that on March 14, 2011, eight days before the announcement, he provided Safra Catz and Larry Ellison, among others, a list of the current versions of Oracle’s most popular software products available on HP Itanium servers, and the next versions that would not be made available on Itanium.

Mr. Kurian testified that, prior to the announcement in March 2011, all of Oracle’s major products had been ported to Itanium. He also confirmed that prior to March 2011, once Oracle had ported any product to the HP-UX on Itanium platform, all future releases of that same product were always – without exception – ported to the HP-UX on Itanium platform, with releases at or near the same time as they were offered on IBM AIX or Sun Solaris.

Mr. Kurian also confirmed that Itanium customers desiring to use upcoming versions of Oracle software products had no choice but to assume the expense and risk of moving to a different server platform.

Finally, HP introduced an email Mr. Kurian sent to Mr. Ellison on the heels of an executive committee meeting concerning the Itanium announcement. In the email Mr. Kurian stated that he had not provided the full list of customers outraged over Oracle’s Itanium decision during the executive meeting because “there are so many people on it.”

In its rebuttal case, HP introduced excerpts of the deposition testimony of Sumanta Chatterjee, Vice President of Engineering Development in Oracle’s database group, including Mr. Chatterjee’s testimony that Oracle began work to port the upcoming 12c database in May 2010, and the work continued after the March 22, 2011 announcement.

Trial Closing arguments

HP v Oracle US Trial Summary

June 26 Closing Arguments Highlights

In its closing argument today, HP emphasized the language of Paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement,which explicitly sets forth Oracle’s commitment to “continue to offer its product suite on HP platforms."

The Court has previously found that “it is not unreasonable to interpret the Reaffirmation Provision as imposing a prospective obligation on Oracle to continue to offer products for HP’s platforms; the plain language is readily susceptible to that interpretation.”

HP interprets this provision as imposing an obligation on Oracle to continue to offer on the HP-UX/Itanium platform future releases and updates of those software products that were available on the HP-UX/Itanium platform when the contract was signed. This interpretation is consistent with the parties’ contract negotiations and course of dealing.

In closing, HP walked the Court through a timeline of the parties’ contract negotiations, weaving together documentary evidence and witness testimony. See slides 18 - 45 of HP’s Closing Argument. Most importantly, HP noted, Oracle’s General Counsel, Dorian Daley, proposed the key language of Paragraph 1 (“Oracle will continue to offer its product suite on HP platforms…”) in an email to HP explaining that this language was meant to reflect the parties’ “agreement to continue to work together as the companies have – with Oracle porting products to HP’s platform and HP supporting the ported products and the parties engaging in joint marketing opportunities – for the mutual benefit of customers.” This key language was accepted by HP and was never altered as the parties completed the negotiations.

With respect to the parties’ course of dealing, the evidence adduced at trial established that Oracle’s nine major products were all available on the HP-UX/Itanium platform when the contract was signed; that from 2001 until the March 2011 announcement, once Oracle had ported a software product to the HP-UX/Itanium platform it always continued to port all future releases of that product to the HP-UX/Itanium platform; that Oracle had never before discontinued all software development for a microprocessor architecture while that architecture was still being sold to customers; and that Oracle had never before discontinued support for a microprocessor architecture without some prior notice to the hardware vendor. Indeed, Oracle continued porting its software products to HP’s Alpha and PA-RISC platforms long after HP announced the end of life of those platforms.

The press release issued in connection with the Settlement Agreement also bolsters HP’s position, as it stated that in entering into the Settlement Agreement HP and Oracle "reaffirmed their long-term strategic partnership" and their "commitment to delivering the best products and solutions to [their] more than 140,000 shared customers." Of course, the long-term strategic partnership between the companies was founded on Oracle porting its software to HP's servers. And the companies cannot provide the best products and solutions to their customers if Oracle does not port its products to HP's servers.

By contrast, Oracle’s interpretation of the contract as imposing no obligation on Oracle whatsoever is not consistent with the language of the contract itself.

In conclusion, the plain and simple language of Paragraph 1, the parties’ negotiations over that language, and the decades-long course of dealing between the two companies confirm HP’s interpretation, and refute Oracle’s interpretation, of the contract.

Monday, July 16, 2012

HP and Oracle submitted their post-trial proposed statements of decision to the Santa Clara California court. HP’s proposed statement of decision is available for review. We expect the judge’s ruling shortly.

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

August 1, 2012 - HP Wins Court Ruling in Itanium Litigation
Contract Requires Oracle to Port Its Software to Itanium-Based Servers

The U.S. court issued a proposed ruling on the first phase of HP’s trial against Oracle and confirmed the existence of a contract between HP and Oracle that requires Oracle to continue to port its software products to HP’s platforms, including Integrity. HP issued the following statement in response to today’s proposed ruling in the ongoing litigation with Oracle relating to the Intel® Itanium® platform:

“Today’s proposed ruling is a tremendous win for HP and its customers. The Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, has confirmed the existence of a contract between HP and Oracle that requires Oracle to port its software products to HP’s Itanium-based servers. We expect Oracle to comply with its contractual obligation as ordered by the Court.”

The Court ordered and declared as follows:

In this action for declaratory relief, the Court finds in favor of HP and against Oracle on both the breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes of action brought by HP.

The Settlement and Release Agreement entered into by HP, Oracle and Hurd on September 20, 2010, requires Oracle to continue to offer its product suite on HP’s Itanium-based server platforms and does not confer on Oracle the discretion to decide whether to do so or not.

The terms “product suite” means Oracle software products that were offered on HP’s Itanium-based servers at the time Oracle signed the September 20, 2010 Settlement and Release Agreement, including any new releases, versions or updates of those products.

Oracle’s obligation to continue to offer its products on HP’s Itanium-based server platforms lasts until such time as HP discontinues the sales of its Itanium-based servers.

Oracle is required to port its products to HP’s Itanium-based servers without charge to HP.”

Read the official ruling Non-HP site on the court website.

Thursday, August 16

Oracle filed its objections to the August 1 Proposed Ruling Non-HP site on August 16. You can read Oracle’s objections on the court website .
The next step in the process is the Court’s finalization of its ruling, and we expect that the Court will issue the final ruling as early as the end of August.

Additionally, the Court has moved the second phase pre-trial conference with HP and Oracle from August 22 to August 29. The pre-trial conference will address a schedule for the second phase of trial.

Friday, August 24, 2012

On August 24 HP submitted its response Non-HP site to Oracle’s objections to the August 1 Proposed Ruling on the first phase of HP’s trial against Oracle.

In its objections, Oracle stated it was willing to resume porting its software to HP’s Itanium-based servers, but only if the Court and HP allowed Oracle to take an immediate appeal from the Court’s ruling on the first phase of trial and thereby delay the start of the second phase of trial and completion of the case. HP believes that Oracle has no basis to continue to refuse to port its software to HP’s Itanium-based servers and should comply with the Court’s ruling and resume porting immediately and without conditions. HP is not willing to accept the delay associated with Oracle’s appeal proposal and believes this case needs to press forward as soon as possible to restore certainty in the marketplace.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

On August 28 the U.S. court issued a final statement of decision Non-HP site on the first phase of HP’s trial against Oracle confirming the existence of a contract between HP and Oracle that requires Oracle to continue to port its software products to HP’s platforms, including Integrity. The final statement of decision is consistent with the Court’s preliminary ruling in HP’s favor in all material respects.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

During a pre-trial conference on August 29, the U.S. court judge confirmed that the second phase of the trial will proceed in the near future. The judge also expressly rejected Oracle’s various arguments in its August 16 objections Non-HP site to the court’s Phase One Decision and additionally confirmed that the court’s findings from the Phase One trial will be binding on the parties in the Phase Two trial.

The judge intends to schedule the second phase of trial on September 10. HP expects that the date will be set for later this year and has requested a date as early as mid-October. The second phase of the trial will address whether in fact Oracle breached the contract and if so, what damages and/or remedies HP would be entitled to receive as a result.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 Oracle issued a statement Non-HP site indicating it will continue porting its software portfolio to Itanium as a result of the US court’s August 28, 2012 final statement of decision on the first phase of HP’s trial against Oracle, in which the court confirmed the existence of a contract between HP and Oracle that requires Oracle to continue to port its software products to HP’s platforms, including Integrity.

On behalf of our customers, HP is very pleased that Oracle will comply with the ruling, and HP hopes that Oracle's announcement will once again enable HP Integrity customers to make their IT plans knowing that they will be able to utilize the most up-to-date versions of Oracle's suite of software products for HP-UX, OpenVMS and NonStop.

Oracle Issues Statement Non-HP site
REDWOOD SHORES, Calif., September 4, 2012

Oracle issued the following statement today:

Previously, Oracle announced that it would stop developing new versions of its software on Itanium microprocessors. For example, that meant version 12c of the Oracle database due out in early 2013 would not be available on Itanium. However, a judge recently ruled that Oracle has a contract to continue porting its software to Itanium computers for as long as HP sells Itanium computers. Therefore, Oracle will continue building the latest versions of its database and other software covered by the judge's ruling to HP Itanium computers. Oracle software on HP's Itanium computers will be released on approximately the same schedule as Oracle software on IBM's Power systems.

Monday, September 10, 2012

On September 10, 2012 the U.S. court held a conference with HP and Oracle to set the date for the start of the phase two trial and the judge confirmed the phase two trial will begin on February 4, 2013. However, on December 14, the judge reset the date for the start of the phase two trial to April 8, 2013.

Friday, October 12, 2012

On October 12, Oracle filed a petition for a writ of mandate and a request for a stay of trial court proceedings with the California Court of Appeal.

By filing this petition, Oracle is asking that the appellate court delay proceedings in the trial court, including the scheduled February 2013 Phase 2 trial, and hear Oracle’s appeal of the trial court’s Phase 1 ruling now rather than at the conclusion of the case next year. Oracle’s petition is an extraordinary request and one that the appellate court rarely grants. However, if it were granted, the Phase 2 trial would be put on hold while the merits of the Phase 1 ruling are briefed before the appellate court. Although there is no set timetable for the appellate court to rule on Oracle’s petition, we expect a ruling within a few weeks.

HP opposes Oracle’s October 15 appellate filing and Oracle’s efforts to avoid the Phase 2 trial. HP believes that the trial court’s Phase 1 ruling was correct in all respects and that this case needs to press forward to completion as soon as possible to restore certainty in the marketplace.

Oracle’s October 15 appellate filing should not impact the decision by Oracle to resume building its suite of software products on HP’s Integrity Itanium-based servers.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

HP filed a preliminary opposition to Oracle’s appellate filing of October 12. HP’s preliminary opposition explains why Oracle’s petition for immediate appellate review of the trial court’s Phase 1 ruling is improper and unnecessary. The document also responds to certain misleading arguments in Oracle’s appellate filing.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

On December 14, 2012, the U.S. court issued a ruling resetting the date for the start of the phase two trial. Under the ruling, the phase two trial will now begin on April 8, 2013. The court’s primary reason for ordering the short delay is to allow the parties additional time to conduct discovery regarding the theories of their respective damages experts. A pre-trial hearing is planned for March 20, 2013.

Thursday, January 31, 2013

The California Court of Appeals issued an order summarily denying Oracle's October 12, 2012 petition for writ of mandate, which had sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court and reversal of the trial court's Phase 1 ruling in HP's favor. The Court of Appeal's denial of Oracle's petition is a rejection of Oracle's attempt to delay the Phase 2 trial and seek early appellate review of HP's Phase 1 victory. HP is pleased with this ruling and continues to believe that the case should press forward to completion as soon as possible.

Monday, September 10, 2012

On Monday, September 10, 2012, the U.S. court held a conference with HP and Oracle to set the date for the start of the phase two trial. The judge confirmed the phase two trial will begin on the earliest available date, February 4, 2013.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Thursday, January 31, 2013

The California Court of Appeal issued an order summarily denying Oracle’s October 12, 2012 petition for writ of mandate, which had sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court and reversal of the trial court’s Phase 1 ruling in HP’s favor. The Court of Appeal’s denial of Oracle’s petition is a rejection of Oracle’s attempt to delay the Phase 2 trial and seek early appellate review of HP’s Phase 1 victory. HP is pleased with this ruling and continues to believe that the case should press forward to completion as soon as possible.

Click here to read about Oracle's October 12, 2012 petition.

Monday, April 8, 2013

On August 28, 2012 the U.S. court issued a final statement of decision on the first phase of HP’s trial against Oracle confirming the existence of a contract between HP and Oracle that requires Oracle to continue to port its software products to HP’s platforms, including Integrity.

The second phase of HP’s trial against Oracle was set to begin on April 8, 2013 to address whether in fact Oracle breached the contract and if so, what damages and/or remedies HP would be entitled to receive as a result. On April 8, 2013, however, the trial was put on hold based on Oracle’s appeal of the court’s denial of Oracle’s “anti-SLAPP” motion as untimely. Oracle’s anti-SLAPP motion erroneously claimed that the court would violate Oracle’s exercise of its free-speech rights if the court awarded HP damages. HP’s position is that Oracle’s motion was completely baseless, untimely and filed for the sole purpose of triggering a right to appeal and avoiding trial. While the timing for when the California Court of Appeal will address Oracle’s appeal is uncertain at this time, HP intends to take all necessary steps to get the appeal promptly resolved in its favor so that trial can be rescheduled as soon as possible.

HP’s position is clear -- Oracle undeniably breached its contractual commitment to HP and ignored its repeated promises of support to our shared customers for the purpose of driving hardware sales from Itanium to Sun servers. It is therefore not surprising that Oracle would make every attempt to postpone the trial and extend the uncertainty in the marketplace. HP continues to look forward to presenting its case to a jury so it may decide whether Oracle breached the contract at issue and what amount HP should be awarded in damages.

HP Integrity Servers

Update for HP-Oracle Joint Customers

Oracle will continue porting software to HP Integrity servers

HP v Oracle US Trial Summary

HP vs. Oracle U.S. Trial Schedule May 31 – June 26, 2012

May 31, 2012 hearing highlights

June 4, 2012 hearing highlights

June 5 hearing highlights

June 6 hearing highlights

June 7 hearing highlights

The trial was suspended Monday and Tuesday, June 11-12. It resumed on Wednesday, June 13.

June 13 hearing highlights

June 14 hearing highlights

June 18, 2012 Hearing Highlights

June 19, 2012 Hearing Highlights

June 20, 2012 Hearing Highlights

June 21, 2012 Hearing Highlights

HP v Oracle US Trial Summary

June 26 Closing Arguments Highlights

Monday, July 16, 2012

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Thursday, August 16

Friday, August 24, 2012

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Monday, September 10, 2012

Friday, October 12, 2012

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Monday, September 10, 2012

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Monday, April 8, 2013