Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Oracle Businesses Databases Programming Software The Internet Security IT

SAP Admits to 'Inappropriate' Downloading of Oracle Code 149

netbuzz writes "SAP's CEO Henning Kagermann uses the undoubtedly lawyered term 'inappropriate download' to describe the company's questionable actions. Henning blames a rogue business unit, but there can be no mistaking the fact that Oracle caught SAP with its hand in the IP jar on this one. The legal proceedings that will follow should prove interesting. 'The admission hurts SAP's reputation in the battle with Larry Ellison's Oracle in the $56 billion market for software that manages tasks such as payroll. The rivalry between SAP and Oracle escalated when Oracle filed its March 22 lawsuit claiming SAP workers hacked into a Web site and stole software codes on a grand scale.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SAP Admits to 'Inappropriate' Downloading of Oracle Code

Comments Filter:
  • by EveryNickIsTaken ( 1054794 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:26PM (#19732047)
    I did not have inappropriate downloads with that source code!
  • Oracle has pr0n embedded in it's downloads.
  • by Random BedHead Ed ( 602081 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:28PM (#19732071) Homepage Journal

    and stole software codes on a grand scale

    They stoles codes? Oh noes!

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by L7_ ( 645377 )
      they have stolen the codes!

      one of my pet peeves is pluralizing codes. its like broadcasting to the world "i do not know what i am talking about!". unless you are talking abuot the interwebnet codes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      ...software codes...
      <blink> <blink>
      (checks again)
      (pounds head on desk)
      • Re:Codes plural? (Score:4, Informative)

        by IWannaBeAnAC ( 653701 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @04:43PM (#19735479)

        It depends on the subculture. In scientific computing and high-performance computing, it is common to refer to programs as 'codes'. This language originates from one of the original supercomputer applications, hydrocodes [afrlhorizons.com].

        If you went to the system administrator of a large computing cluster and asked "what codes are you running now?", he would immediately grok that you know what you're talking about. I wouldn't be at all surprised if big iron Oracle people used the same terminology.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Dachannien ( 617929 )
      Yep, they downloaded one code over each internet.
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      most people do not use the term in this light, but "codes" is actually common jargon in high-end supercomuting. It does in fact refer to "code", but as it is being run distributed across thousands of processors. I suspect that the term is derived from the pluralisation actually. It's usage has been falling out of favor though due to confusion with poor english.
    • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
      What makes me raise eyebrows is the verb "steal" more than the pluralization of "code". No doubt that this action is illegal but the use of "steal" is just inaccurate. Why can't we stick to "illegal download" ?
      • Because there is legal jargon and laymen terms. In laymen terms, they took/copied/downloaded something to which they have no right to take/copy/download. Thusly, most people consider that stealing or theft. It's a concept everyone understands. Common sense says that's stealing or theft. Legally, it can fall into different categories. If you want to be legally pedantic...fine, but a thief is a thief is a thief. If it makes you feel better to argue semantics, fine no one cares, but it buys you nothing
        • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
          Precise wording make for more elaborate and less ambiguous thinking. As soon as you have labelled someone "thief", you can easily say that he his victim has lost money, it requires attention to not see the fallacy of this conclusion. Equally, when you label someone a "pirate" because he has broken into a system it sounds as if his actions were unequivocally illegal, but we all know that the "black hat" vs "white hat" crackers was a hot debate.

          I am not American, I don't know about OJ case and the Wikipedi
          • Precise wording make for more elaborate and less ambiguous thinking.

            But usually makes for confussion when things where completely clear and unambiguous until "precise wording" is used. In this case, saying it was stolen clearly and unambiguously conveys what happened. Conceptually, the depiction is completely accurate so describing a legal technicality makes absolutely no sense what so ever. The meat or spirit of the crime has been effectively communicated. And since effective communication is the inten
    • Of course. They downloaded the codes over the internets.
    • Wouldn't it be nice if Slashdot editors actually lived up to the name? If a summary is mostly good but contains one glaringly stupid bit, edit it. Or, if that's just too much work, reject it and wait for a better one to come around. There are way too many dupe submissions to justify accepting the first one that looks like it might have been written by an english-speaker.
  • Bah (Score:2, Insightful)

    Just a little harmless copyright infringement. There shouldn't be a problem here.
  • by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:30PM (#19732109)

    I believe that the Slashdot zeitgeist is that the word "stole" is used incorrectly here -- many Slashdotters believe that the term "to steal" should only be applied to an instance where a physical item is moved from one place to another, and should not be applied to instances of copyright infringement or unauthorized duplication -- although I presume that exceptions can be made for "theft of service," "identity theft," "you stole my thunder," "stolen kisses" and the like.

    So -- was the code really stolen?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by johnw ( 3725 )
      It's not a question of belief - the term "theft" has a very precise definition, and it doesn't include making unauthorised copies of someone else's software or films, despite what F.A.C.T. and F.A.S.T. would want you to believe.

      That doesn't mean that copyright infringement isn't wrong or illegal - it just isn't theft.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > Was the code stolen?

      No. Theft is the removal of property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. This is not removal of property, it is the illegal copying of IP. Therefore, illegal, but not theft. "Stole", "Stealing", etc. seem to have a less theft-y connotation than "theft", in general use, and tend to pass in these cases without much argument, but that needs to stop. Theft is theft, and infringement is not.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by abigor ( 540274 )
        So what you're saying is, if I break into your house and write down the combination for your safe, I haven't stolen the combination? I think the popular use of the word "theft" would cover such a case. I've stolen the secrecy, which is the value in a secret combination.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by The-Ixian ( 168184 )
          However, you have not deprived the owner of the combination and he/she is able to change it.
        • The US has different laws to cover ideas that are publicly known (copyright) and held privately (trade secrets). One can steal a trade secret (by making it un-secret), but not a copyrighted work.

        • No, you HAVEN'T stolen anything. You're guilty of breaking and entering. If you use that code to his safe to take anything out of it THEN you'll be guilty of theft.

          Just knowing his safe code is not a crime; obtaining it through illegal means (the aforementioned breaking and entering) is the part that is against the law.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          > So what you're saying is, if I break into your house and write down the combination for your safe, I haven't stolen the combination?


          Pretend now that my safe is on display at the end of my driveway, and you, passing by, happen to see the combination written on the front of it. Have you stolen it? No. The only thing you've done illegally in your example is Break and Enter.

          Pretend I leave my wallet open on a table, and you read my credit card number. Have you 'stolen' the 'se
        • by misleb ( 129952 )
          I'm pretty sure "secrecy" is not something that can be stolen. I can't sue (or press charges against) someone just because they found out something about me that I didn't want them to know. Breaking and entering is the only crime in this particular hypothetical case.

        • by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @01:19PM (#19732765) Homepage

          So what you're saying is, if I break into your house and write down the combination for your safe, I haven't stolen the combination? I think the popular use of the word "theft" would cover such a case. I've stolen the secrecy, which is the value in a secret combination.

          I don't follow you. Can you try again with a car analogy?

          • Well, it would be akin to breaking into your house and taking high detail photos of your car keys.
          • by homer_s ( 799572 )
            I don't follow you. Can you try again with a car analogy?

            Stop this already. Car analogies do not work when applied to software or copyright issues.

            Using a car analogy to explain copyright issues is like adding a Pontiac engine to a Honda.

          • I don't follow you. Can you try again with a car analogy?

            Okay, so, like, imagine you take your car. And you leave the key in the ignition with the doors unlocked and the windows down.

            But that's like totally okay, because you're actually in the car, driving it.

            So, like, then imagine you drive your car to a library. You know, like the kind with books. And, like, with photocopiers. I'm sure you see where this is going, right? So you take a book down off the shelf - say, an illustrated guide t

        • So what you're saying is, if I break into your house and write down the combination for your safe, I haven't stolen the combination? I think the popular use of the word "theft" would cover such a case. I've stolen the secrecy, which is the value in a secret combination.

          To use popular terminology, sure, you've "stolen" the combination. But legally you haven't. You've engaged in breaking and entering and trespass. But writing down something you've seen isn't a crime and you can't be charged for it. Heck

    • by dattaway ( 3088 )
      So -- was the code really stolen?

      They should have used Bill Gates' precident: removing code from a dumpster. That went unchallenged for years and now that method is not enforceable.
    • ...that's stealing. People may try to justify stealing because the laws are bad (and the laws may need to be changed) but that doesn't change the fact that we steal things that don't belong to us.

      We are stone-cold thieves. That's the human condition.
    • by javilon ( 99157 )
      Well, you can even get the consensus opinion from SAP lawyers. They said "innapropiate download" as opposed to "stealing of code" so there you go.
    • by bobcat7677 ( 561727 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:52PM (#19732403) Homepage
      Oh for pete's sake! The article writer obviously had no clue what they were talking about. No "Code" or "codes" were "stolen" or otherwise questionably acquired by SAP. Some guys in a support center used logins that weren't theirs (but they were given permission to use) to gain access to software patches and support documents that Oracle was too stingy to give them access to in the first place. They were just trying to do their job and help out customers. At worst it could be considered trespassing...but "stealing code"??? Thats really stretching the definitions of both the term "code" and the term "stealing".
      • by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @01:25PM (#19732831) Journal
        SAP & Oracle both provide support for Oracle systems. So, it goes a little deeper than you would suggest, since the patches etc were then further distributed. Furthermore, the code in question went beyond the scope of the support being provided to the client.

        The issue here is that SAP used underhanded (and illegal, likely) tactics to derive an advantage over a direct competitor in the support space -- they "stole" trade secrets.

        Sure, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but remember that Oracle paid developers to write and test that code -- and SAP got an easy hand up in building similar patches / support mechanisms for what they address.
        • I don't know about you, but I would feel really betrayed and cheated if I found out my software vendor was purposely withholding patches and support documents for their own gain. Especially patches. If the software is broken then the maker should have a responsibility to make any existing fixes freely available to all clients/users (implied warranty). You shouldn't have to pay a company to release a patch to you that they are holding for ransom. Oracle's anti-competitive practices are hurting their cus
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Red Flayer ( 890720 )

            You shouldn't have to pay a company to release a patch to you that they are holding for ransom.

            Well, there are differences between essential patches and non-essential ones. Security holes, operating flaws, sure -- I agree with you. But a lot of other patches are to introduce more functionality or to improve efficiency, and if you choose to buy software as-is, and then go elsewhere for support -- well, then, why should you have access to those patches? You certainly aren't contributing financially to the

        • by McWilde ( 643703 )
          I think you could do away with the quotes around stole in the case of trade secrets. While the original information is still available to Oracle, it is no longer a secret. So the secrets where actually stolen in the slashdot zeitgeist meaning of the word.
        • Furthermore, the code in question went beyond the scope of the support being provided to the client.
          If that's the case, why were the SAP guys able to access it using the (end) clients logons?
      • Some guys in a support center used logins that weren't theirs (but they were given permission to use) to gain access to software patches and support documents

        I don't know if I should be thankful that someone finally put all that into perspective or disgusted that so many other people run with the spin ("they stole code" as if they made off with an entire codebase repository and turned it into a multi-billion dollar OS after chaning the --version string) and try to make it stick as hard as possible.

        Parent needs to be +5 and reindexed to the top of the page.

    • "identity theft,"

      Well, as dictionary.com defines it:
      1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

      With identity theft, you are taking someone else's reputation/credit and depriving them of it (by ruining it)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kebes ( 861706 )
      Yes, you're quite right. This is not "theft" in any useful sense. Certainly in regards to the law, "theft" has a specific meaning. The present actions, if true, are probably illegal, but are not theft.

      Similarly, the other examples you gave: "theft of service," "identity theft," "you stole my thunder," "stolen kisses". None of those are "theft" in the legal sense (in fact half are not even illegal). Moreover, if you were trying to have a refined argument about any one of those topics, I believe most rational
    • Sure it is stealing. Check dictionary "Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission." It doesn't have to be physical. Besides if they print the code on a paper, there you go, it is physical now :)
      • by Znork ( 31774 )
        Intellectual 'property' is an intentionally applied misnomer, with the exact purpose of confusing people to think exactly as you appear to do. Copyright and other such legal constructs arent 'property' as such, but government granted temporary monopolies.

        As it isnt property, that dictionary definition obviously does not apply.

        Perhaps you could come up with some other word to define 'to violate someones government granted monopoly without right or permission'. Stealing, however, just isnt it.
        • Nope I am not confused, I know what I am saying. If some guys spent hours to create a software (or any intellectual property), of course it should be protected and using it without their permission is indeed stealing. No need to play with words. After all, we are not talking about patenting 'one click shopping' or such silly things. A full system of code must be protected if the author wants so.
    • You can't have your identity stolen, because according to the government, your identity is not within you, it's some intangible record. It can be misappropriated though, in the sense that someone other than you can use it. It's a flaw that criminals take advantage of to view private information, take your stuff, or take actions on behalf of you, and THAT is the actual problem.

      As for stealing code, I think the problem is not actually that the code is stolen but that the copyright and license have been vi
    • by misleb ( 129952 )
      It doesn't sound like it was "code" at all. The TFA mentioned "fixes and support documents." Perhaps Oracle was not providing good enough support so SAP took it upon themselves to get the information they needed? Who knows.

    • Well, did they "remove" the code from all of oracles servers and backups or in anyway harm the original code? If so, it wasn't stolen.

      If they merely copied, then no, nothing was stolen.

      Why does the press refer to IP infringement as theft? It gets the common folk riled up. Remember the press is tied directly to the 'media' which desperately needs this to move their agenda along.
    • Huh? Of course it's not. And now we got even the seal of approval from the industry. Taking content that doesn't belong to you is not stealing. It's "inappropriate downloading".
    • should not be applied to instances of copyright infringement or unauthorized duplication

      While the term "intellectual property" has little collective meaning, there are four types of government protection that is generally classified as "IP":

      Trade Secret

      Slashdot seems unable to grasp the existence of the fourth one. When a copyright is infringed on, it is ... copyright infringement. However, when a trade secret is stolen it is ... theft. The two different types of protection have c
    • by Kjella ( 173770 )
      Note: This isn't about law, but about what's natural to say. In general, making copies is copyright infringement either if it's your own or your buddy's CD you're copying. But I think there's a rather long-standing history for using the word "steal" when you break into someone else's property to find that first copy. E.g. "stealing the manuscript to the latest Harry Potter movie", "stealing trade secrets" or "stealing customer databases", "stealing social security numbers" etc. Note that this isn't the same
    • by TheLink ( 130905 )
      If the usual theft laws don't apply and the Courts etc would need to use a Copyright/Patent/"Anti-Hacking" Law to make it illegal, then it isn't theft (by legal definition). Similarly for plagiarism and fraud.

      Of course if people keep having a muddled thinking about stuff then the definition of words could change and then the lawyers and judges could then interpret the laws differently.

      The *AA naturally would be happy if their preferred meaning of theft is spread.

      In fact, retroactive extensions of copyright
    • Quote: "So -- was the code really stolen?"
      No, the code wasn't stolen: the code was potentially unlawfully duplicated (Since they haven't been convicted for the fact yet)

      But I doubt it would make an exciting headline.
  • Honeypot? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:30PM (#19732111) Homepage
    How likely is it that Oracle left a honeypot for SAP, MS, MySQL, or any other competitor to walk into, so that they could get rid of that competitor, or at least ruin their reputation and get some money? The fact that their was code on a website accessible to the outside world seems a little suspicious to me. Who leaves code on a publicly accessible server? I think that Oracle would at least be security savvy enough not to let their code be stolen. Anyway, not to start any conspiracy theories or anything, but I just find it a little odd.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vancorps ( 746090 )
      This is pretty common practice with Oracle, this is why people pay good money for Metalink access. It's a very valuable tool if you have to work with Oracle products. We used it extensively to get our in-house application working flawlessly with Oracle 10g. There is tons of sample code up there. I doubt they found any actual DBMS code.
      • If it's pretty common practice for them to give out this code to their users, then why was SAP in the wrong with downloading it. Are they complaining that SAP downloaded some code off of Oracle's website that was right out in the open for their customers to download? The article seems to be a little light on the details, so what did SAP actually download, and how hard was it for them to "hack" in to the Oracle website containing the code?
        • by Fox_1 ( 128616 )
          Both Companies, SAP and Oracle make money supporting each others products for their customers, kind of a 1 Support solution even though there is more then 1 Vendor involved. SAP was able to download product patches and updates that allowed them to provide support for Oracle products, but they were downloading files meant for Oracle customers who had paid Oracle for Support. SAP was able to use those files to support customers who had not paid Oracle for support, but had chosen SAP for Support. It's just
    • I think it's the more likely explanation. What company with a major product like Oracle would allow code to be available for a website hacker? I can tell you that all my developmental stuff is not on a machine that one could just hack into via the web server to grab the code.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by OG ( 15008 )
      From a quick perusal of news stories, that doesn't seem be the case. It looks like some TomorrowNow employees used credentials from their clients to access information from Oracle's website that they would not otherwise have access to. As to what the did with it...the only concrete thing I've seen so far is republishing Oracle info for some fix with the TomorrowNow logo and representing it as their own work.
      • As to what the did with it...

        Since the evidence that they stole the code is overwhelming, they've admitted to that. But, of course, after going through the trouble of stealing their biggest competitor's code, they didn't actually do anything with it that could be illegal... No.

        In other words, they didn't inhale.
    • by mhwelsh ( 969682 )
      Read the article please. They didn't download source code to Oracle Products. Its sample code that is available to their customers. Most large software packages have similar websites. Oracle's happens to be the best I've used. However, the code and examples give a lot of insight into the nitty gritty workings of the Oracle products. This is a trade secret, that is useful to both customers and competitors, and they have a reasonable expectation that SAP will stay out. Most large companies with any sor
  • Confused (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Reason58 ( 775044 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:35PM (#19732175)

    SAP workers hacked into a Web site and stole software codes
    Am I the only one confused as to why Oracle would be keeping source code on a production web server?
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Probably. Makes perfect sense to me. As a Windows Vista developer in Redmond I always post the full OS source code to developer.microsoft.com. I like it better than the local store because the password is "msrulez" and I find that easier to remember than the long passwords they make us use on the internal systems. (Mine currently is "Dev0944438766****" - annoying, isn't it? I had to throw my social security number in there to get it to the length the admins required.)
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Am I the only one confused as to why Oracle would be keeping source code on a production web server?

      That is how Oracle sends out updates to it's ERP software. The customer uses a user ID and password to log into a secure site and then the customer is free to download any patch necessary.

    • by OG ( 15008 )
      As someone else stated, the code that was downloaded probably wasn't Oracle DBMS code. Rather, it was coding examples like people would usually find on a developer network site, such as MSDN.
  • by Trails ( 629752 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:35PM (#19732183)
    Inappropriate? Inappropriate is when my boss caught me photoshopping my buddy's head onto a screen cap of the Pamela and Tommy video (It was for his bachelor party, I swear it).

    This is illegal and perhaps fradulent (ie they claimed they were customers seeking service). But what gets me the most about this is how blisteringly stupid it is. "There's no way they could know it's us! Well, there's no way, apart from the webserver logs, that they could know it's us!".

    From the article:

    Oracle said TomorrowNet used identities of Oracle customers and phony users to gain access to its systems. Customers for whom SAP allegedly conducted illegal downloads include Merck & Co. and Bear Stearns & Co., according to the March 22 lawsuit.
    So not only are they picking a legal fight with Oracle, pissing of the DOJ, and destroying their reputation, but they've basically shown they're not above pretending to be their customers. I bet the SAP CEO is turfed before the end of the next quarter.
    • None of that matters in the long run.

      FTA (emphasis mine):

      ``Although many will see the legal teams as the cavalry in this battle, the troops that really matter are the PR special forces contingent,'' Ovum Plc analyst David Mitchell said. ``PR is where this battle will be won or lost.''

      That is most certainly the case.

      And now for the snark. Wtf? PR special forces? What kind of training does that require? Going seven days without using buzzspeak or powerpoint? Writing press releases and giving presentatio

    • Inappropriate? Inappropriate is when my boss caught me photoshopping my buddy's head onto a screen cap of the Pamela and Tommy video (It was for his bachelor party, I swear it).
      Would have less inappropriate if it hadn't been *Pamela's* body you chose to paste his head onto...
    • It's not terribly clear to me why that should be inappropriate at all. It seems their services company (TomorrowNet) would download patches from Oracle servers for Oracle customers. So if I understand this correctly, the customer (e.g. Merck) would call TomorrowNet (who they have a support contract with) and ask them to help them with some problem on their Oracle installation (which they bought and have the right to receive patches for). So now the TomorrowNet employee using Merck's login downloads the patc
  • Too bad... (Score:2, Funny)

    by rootology ( 905480 )
    Just think how many problems like this could be solved if someone went and invented some sort of free software licensing system, and everyone adopted it...
    • Yes! Yes! The best way to ensure that people's rights aren't violated is to take those rights away!
      • Yes, because releasing code under something like the GFDL is obviously a release of your own rights to profit off your code.
    • As long as the license creator didn't throw a fit when someone tried to make money off of the license in a way he didn't think of, and feels the need to write a new license that locks out those people. Oh yeah and basically acts like a spoiled baby.

      I'm all for free software licensing. I just don't think the people at the forefront of the free software licensing are the people who should have any control over it at all.
  • not that I'm a tin foil hat guy, but what if oracle paid someone in SAP to hack the site, opened up the hole for the purpose, and then let the whole thing go down? what's a few mil when then there's billions to grab.
    • by Trails ( 629752 )
      Then, if that ever came out, the reputational and legal implications for Oracle would be disastrous.

      While it's feasible someone with "pull" at Oracle is dumb enough to try something like that, it's not within the realm of reasonable probability. Courtesy of Sorbannes-Oxley, companies have checks and balances built in to prevent just these types of things (audits and reviews), meaning that the collusive elements required to pull this off would be fairly distributed, and difficult to contain.
    • by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      I think you qualify for a tinfoil hat license now.

      Seriously, though. If they HAD paid someone to do that... Would that person not be sitting on a ton of blackmail? Oracle could never get away with it.
  • Not Source Code (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:52PM (#19732393)
    There was no source code on the website!
    It was Technical Support documents and patches that SAP was downloading. The only "theft" here is that SAP did not have support contracts to download the patches and documents.
  • Heh (Score:4, Funny)

    by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @12:54PM (#19732431) Homepage
    "Unbreakable", my ass.
    • by Fex303 ( 557896 )

      "Unbreakable", my ass.

      That's what she said.

      Sorry. Had to be done.

  • by Marcika ( 1003625 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @01:29PM (#19732909)
    The article summary by "netbuzz" is plain flamebait. As TFA says, SAP was authorized to download materials from Oracle's Web site on behalf of customers. The SAP support people made "inappropriate downloads" of fixes and support documents without direct customer need, but they don't state anywhere that there was any hacking or any "stolen" code or "intellectual property" beyond what Oracle specifically made available for support purposes!
  • Information wants to be free. Does not it?

  • It seems to me that this is as much an embarrassment for Oracle as it is for SAP. Don't they have that "unbreakable" os and software there? :) I guess no matter how secure your software is, if your human personel place your intellectual property on a web server or connect it into your network to the same subnet as the web server you still have huge security holes!
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I used to work for SAP's IT dept. TomorrowNow is a third party support provider for Oracle products, including PeopleSoft and JD Edwards. SAP purchased them to provide a support bridge for products Oracle would be sunsetting, and hopefully bring those customers to SAP's product line as they eventually migrated away from the legacy products.

    Clever idea, but this sort of situation was always a concern. How do you provide support for your competitors' products without getting dangerously close to (actual or

  • > Henning blames a rogue business unit

    Uhhh yeah. That would be your "Industrial Espionage Division."

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."