Oracle to produce 'key evidence' in court

WASHINGTON: Oracle Corp. has agreed to hand over documents that the U.S. government has been seeking to bolster its case against the company's proposed $9.4 billion acquisition of rival PeopleSoft Inc.

Under an agreement between Oracle and the U.S. Justice Department, which was endorsed by a federal judge late on Monday, Oracle will provide forms drawn up by Oracle sales people who wanted to give discounts to customers.

The department filed suit to block the hostile takeover Feb. 27 on antitrust grounds, charging it would eliminate one of only three players in the market for software sold to large business customers to manage finances, human resources, sales forces and other functions.

The government says the forms are "among the most important evidence" because they will demonstrate how Oracle discounts its software to compete with PeopleSoft and Germany's SAP.

Oracle has dismissed competition concerns as unwarranted, accusing the department of "gerrymandering" the market to make it look as if it includes only three companies when in fact there are many smaller software companies that can also compete for large customers.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in federal court in San Francisco on June 7.

Oracle turned over some of the discount forms to the Justice Department previously while it was reviewing the company's bid for PeopleSoft. But the department has said the company later refused its request to turn over more of the forms.

As part of the order issued on Monday, Oracle agreed to hand over additional discount forms and U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker told the two sides to negotiate further to determine exactly which ones and how many. He gave them a Friday deadline.

"We're hopeful we will have an agreement on this issue before further court action is required," said Dan Wall, an outside attorney, representing Oracle in the case.

Oracle has previously balked at turning over some of the discount forms on various grounds, including burden, relevancy and inconsistency with prior Justice Department positions.

© Reuters