Government Exhibit 3018 Non Designated Testimony Redacted
Ciandrini 01-16-04
| 00001 |
| 1 |
IN RE: |
| 2 |
THE MATTER OF ORACLE'S PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PeopleSoft |
| 3 |
CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE
DEMAND NO. 22795 |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
San Francisco,
California |
| 8 |
Friday,
January 16, 2004 |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Videotaped
Deposition of PAUL CIANDRINI, a |
| 14 |
witness herein, called for examination in the |
| 15 |
above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice, taken at the |
| 16 |
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Golden |
| 17 |
Gate Avenue, Room 10-010, San Francisco, California |
| 18 |
94102, beginning at 9:16 a.m. before Judith Ladd, RPR and |
| 19 |
CSR. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
|
00006
|
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
PAUL CIANDRINI, |
| 12 |
after being sworn by the Certified Shorthand |
| 13 |
Reporter, the Witness testified as follows: |
| 14 |
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE |
| 15 |
BY MR. LOHRER: |
| 16 |
Q. State your name for the record, please. |
| 17 |
A. Paul Ciandrini. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 00008 |
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Q. Who are you employed by? |
| 13 |
A. Oracle Corporation. |
| 14 |
Q. What is your job with Oracle Corporation? |
| 15 |
A. My title? |
| 16 |
Q. Title. |
| 17 |
A. My title is senior vice president of North |
| 18 |
American Application Sales. |
| 19 |
Q. North American Application Sales? |
| 20 |
A. That is correct. |
| 21 |
Q. How long have you had that title? |
| 22 |
A. Six months. |
|
00009
|
| 1 |
Q. Beginning when? |
| 2 |
A. Beginning June of 2003. |
| 3 |
Q. Was it June 1, 2003? |
| 4 |
A. Approximately. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 00195 |
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Q. Line 9, customer name Gartner, key competitor |
| 16 |
PeopleSoft. |
| 17 |
A. Um-hmm. |
| 18 |
Q. Is the key competitor accurate there? |
| 19 |
A. They were one of the key competitors, but they |
| 20 |
didn't really go down to the wire. They didn't make the |
| 21 |
final cut |
| 22 |
Q. Who made the final cut? |
|
00196
|
| 1 |
A. SAP. |
| 2 |
Q. Okay. And when did that deal close? |
| 3 |
A. That deal closed the end of the second |
| 4 |
quarter. So probably about a month later. |
| 5 |
Q. A couple of weeks ago, right? |
| 6 |
A. Yeah. No. We ended the quarter in November. |
| 7 |
Our Q2 ended November 30th. So it's like five weeks, |
| 8 |
six weeks ago. |
| 9 |
Q. Let's go back on -- let's forget about end of |
| 10 |
the quarter because I think the dates are off. Do you |
| 11 |
remember when that opportunity concluded? |
| 12 |
A. Yeah, approximately November 30th. |
| 13 |
Q. Okay. And was Oracle successful in that |
| 14 |
opportunity? |
| 15 |
A. Yes. |
| 16 |
Q. Okay. And in that case, Oracle was successful |
| 17 |
and SAP was a finalist that was unsuccessful? |
| 18 |
A. Correct. |
| 19 |
Q. And how is it that you know that information? |
| 20 |
A. From talking to the sales team about the |
| 21 |
opportunity and they talking to the client and the third |
| 22 |
parties, what I told you before. |
| 00197 |
| 1 |
Q. Right. And did you have information that |
| 2 |
indicated that SAP and Oracle were the two finalists? |
| 3 |
A. Yes. |
| 4 |
Q. And that PeopleSoft had been eliminated? |
| 5 |
A. I personally didn't really pay that much |
| 6 |
attention in that deal relative to early in the sales -- |
| 7 |
the procurement cycle. I usually get involved in them a |
| 8 |
little later on in the sales cycle. |
| 9 |
At that time I don't think I heard that |
| 10 |
PeopleSoft -- I'm sure PeopleSoft was looked at, you |
| 11 |
know, probably like Lawson, probably like outsourcing, |
| 12 |
all the other stuff. But in the heat of the battle when |
| 13 |
we had talked about this exhibit, when it got down to |
| 14 |
this kind of area -- |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 00198 |
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Q. The deal closed November 30th. When was |
| 7 |
that -- when was that point in time when you became |
| 8 |
involved? |
| 9 |
A. Oh, in November, approximately November or late |
| 10 |
September -- November. Not really late September, more |
| 11 |
like November. |
| 12 |
Q. So that explains why in September the key |
| 13 |
competitor information on Ciandrini Exhibit 7 might have |
| 14 |
been incorrect, correct? |
| 15 |
A. That is a plausible explanation for it |
| 16 |
Q. Any other explanation? |
| 17 |
A. It just was never changed. |
| 18 |
Q. It should have been changed to? |
| 19 |
A. Well, again, at this time, September 9th, this |
| 20 |
could have been the viable main competitor, okay. What |
| 21 |
we would need to do would be to look at this report |
| 22 |
closer to the actual conclusion date of this opportunity |
| 00199 |
| 1 |
to see if it was updated appropriately. |
| 2 |
Q. Right. And where else would we look for |
| 3 |
information on this particular opportunity? |
| 4 |
A. For competitive -- |
| 5 |
Q. Yes. |
| 6 |
A. Just where we're looking. |
| 7 |
Q. Right. You didn't meet -- did you meet in |
| 8 |
person with that CEO male we were talking about? |
| 9 |
A. I did. |
| 10 |
Q. You didn't meet in person with the Gartner CEO |
| 11 |
or Gartner -- high-level Gartner employees, did you? |
| 12 |
A. I did not. |
| 13 |
Q. Mr. Henley and Mr. Block did, correct? |
| 14 |
A. Yes. |
| 15 |
Q. And did you -- were you the primary person from |
| 16 |
your sales group preparing them for their meeting? |
| 17 |
A. No. |
| 18 |
Q. Who did that? |
| 19 |
A. I believe it was John Bouche. |
| 20 |
Q. Was there a meeting relating to this? |
| 21 |
A. There probably was a phone conversation. There |
| 22 |
could have been a meeting. I'm unaware. |
| 00200 |
| 1 |
Q. You didn't participate? |
| 2 |
A. No. |
| 3 |
Q. You delegated that to Mr. Bouche -- let me
take |
| 4 |
that -- let me withdraw that question. |
| 5 |
How was it that Mr. Bouche ended up with that |
| 6 |
responsibility as opposed to you would report directly |
| 7 |
to Mr. Block? |
| 8 |
A. This opportunity fells in his geography. Keith |
| 9 |
is out of Boston. John Bouche is out of Boston. |
| 10 |
We're -- we communicate. Keith, Bouch, me are a team. |
| 11 |
We kind of know how we work. Bouch handled it. |
| 12 |
Q. And do you think you met specifically with |
| 13 |
Mr. Block and Mr. Henley? |
| 14 |
A. I don't know that, that they met face to face. |
| 15 |
I don't know that |
| 16 |
Q. Would it come up in one of the forecast calls |
| 17 |
that they were going to meet? |
| 18 |
A. What would come up in a forecast call would |
| 19 |
be -- would be a dialogue about strategy on the deal, |
| 20 |
and from that strategy could be "We want to get Jeff |
| 21 |
and/or Keith in front of these guys." |
| 22 |
Q. Have you had a conversation like that, strategy |
| 00201 |
| 1 |
on the deal when we're in the range when we're |
| 2 |
negotiating price and terms -- |
| 3 |
A. Sure. |
| 4 |
Q. --with any of these customer names, these |
| 5 |
customer opportunities recently? |
| 6 |
A. Recently? |
| 7 |
Q. Pick one. |
| 8 |
A. Recently, Hallmark. |
| 9 |
Q. All right. Who was involved in that |
| 10 |
conversation? |
| 11 |
A. Myself and Matt Mills and Matt Renner. |
| 12 |
Q. Okay. And when did that conversation occur? |
| 13 |
A. Sometime in November. |
| 14 |
Q. Has that opportunity closed? |
| 15 |
A. Yes. |
| 16 |
Q. And what was the result of that opportunity |
| 17 |
closing, who got it? |
| 18 |
A. We did. |
| 19 |
Q. Okay. When did it close? |
| 20 |
A. Sometime in November. I'm not going to recall |
| 21 |
the exact date. |
| 22 |
Q. Do you recall the product? |
|
00202
|
| 1 |
A. Yeah. It was H.R. |
| 2 |
Q. And what was the conversation you had with -- |
| 3 |
was it the two Matts? |
| 4 |
A. Correct |
| 5 |
Q. What was the conversation? What do you recall |
| 6 |
about the conversation you had with the two Matts? |
| 7 |
A. I recall that there was some slight preference |
| 8 |
for Oracle. PeopleSoft understood that. They basically |
| 9 |
came in and did what they normally do, which is lowball |
| 10 |
the price to nowhere. And talking to them about steps |
| 11 |
to find out about where we thought that could be so |
| 12 |
that, you know, we didn't have to discount any more than |
| 13 |
we necessarily needed to to get the deal and leverage |
| 14 |
the positive differentiation that we thought Hallmark |
| 15 |
saw in our product over the PeopleSoft product |
| 16 |
Q. Did you discuss other competitors in that |
| 17 |
conversation with the two Matts? |
| 18 |
A. No. |
| 19 |
Q. And how did you arrive at the dollar figure? |
| 20 |
A. Through negotiation with the client, painfully. |
| 21 |
Q. How many different levels -- do you know, as we |
| 22 |
sit here today, the dollar amount that Oracle is going |
| 00203 |
| 1 |
to derive from that opportunity with Hallmark? |
| 2 |
A. I will give you an approximate amount. I |
| 3 |
believe it was a $1.2 million transaction. |
| 4 |
Q. Do you know what is involved in that? We |
| 5 |
talked about those four products that you sell. There's |
| 6 |
license, there's maintenance and the two types of |
| 7 |
professional services. |
| 8 |
A. That was comprised of license, services and |
| 9 |
maintenance. |
| 10 |
Q. What was PeopleSoft offering? |
| 11 |
A. Excuse me? |
| 12 |
Q. What was PeopleSoft offering? |
| 13 |
A. I'm sure the same things. |
| 14 |
Q. And how was it -- and again, the dollar amount |
| 15 |
that you arrived at in the end was what? |
| 16 |
A. I think, I think that the opportunity went for |
| 17 |
1.2 million for license. |
| 18 |
Q. Okay. Where did Oracle start with pricing this |
| 19 |
opportunity? |
| 20 |
A. I don't know specifically, I'm sure they |
| 21 |
quoted them some slight discount off of list |
| 22 |
Q. It was 1.2 million, correct, at deal's end? |
|
00204
|
| 1 |
A. We can validate that. That is my recollection. |
| 2 |
Q. Subject to check, the final amount is 1.2 |
| 3 |
million? |
| 4 |
A. Correct |
| 5 |
Q. Okay. And prior to arriving at 1.2 million, |
| 6 |
how does that painful negotiation with the customer take |
| 7 |
place? |
| 8 |
A. Ask me something specific. |
| 9 |
Q. Who is calling the customer? |
| 10 |
A. The sales rep, the RM, the RVP. |
| 11 |
Q. Everybody? |
| 12 |
A. GVP. Just depends. |
| 13 |
Q. I understand. Either of the two Matts? |
| 14 |
A. Both of the Matts were involved in it. |
| 15 |
Q. Right. And do you know which is the individual |
| 16 |
who said -- who conveyed to Hallmark "We will go to 1.2 |
| 17 |
million"? |
| 18 |
A. I believe subject to verification, it was Matt |
| 19 |
Renner. |
| 20 |
Q. What was Matt's number before he gave the 1.2 |
| 21 |
million number? What was Oracle's number? |
| 22 |
A. The original number quoted to them? |
| 00205 |
| 1 |
Q. Start with the original number. |
| 2 |
A. To be hosest, I will not recall what the |
| 3 |
original number was. |
| 4 |
Q. Okay. So let's try to recall the number prior |
| 5 |
to the 1.2 million number. |
| 6 |
A. Might have been -- from looking at this report, |
| 7 |
what I would say is that they probably started somewhere |
| 8 |
around 1.9 to $2 million, as articulated in line 26. I |
| 9 |
would presume that it was a step-down process of some |
| 10 |
sort. |
| 11 |
Q. Meaning not all at once but a number of steps |
| 12 |
to get to the l.9 to 2 million ballpark down to l.2? |
| 13 |
A. I would presume that to be the scenario. |
| 14 |
Q. Two or three steps? |
| 15 |
A. Again, subject to validation, approximately. |
| 16 |
Q. Okay. Were you involved in those steps? |
| 17 |
A. Yes. |
| 18 |
Q. How were you involved? |
| 19 |
A. We were just discussing strategy. |
| 20 |
Q. You were discussing the dollar figures, too? |
| 21 |
A. The dollar figures. But in these procurements |
| 22 |
the buyer, right, is working multiple angles, right. |
| 00206 |
| 1 |
They can talk to the -- they can get an offer from, in |
| 2 |
this instance, PeopleSoft. They can talk to an analyst |
| 3 |
like a Gartner. They can be talking to a third party |
| 4 |
implementer. |
| 5 |
Q. Right |
| 6 |
A. Right. So there's a lot of strategy around |
| 7 |
trying to identify what you are competing against |
| 8 |
because you don't usually know very specifically. |
| 9 |
There's strategy around how you try to validate the |
| 10 |
value of differentuation that one vendor has over |
| 11 |
another. |
| 12 |
Q. Did that differentiation of value occur in this |
| 13 |
Hallmark case? |
| 14 |
A. It occurs pretty much in every sales cycle. |
| 15 |
Q. Do you recall it occurring in this case? |
| 16 |
A. Sure. |
| 17 |
Q. And how did that play out? |
| 18 |
A. In what respect? |
| 19 |
Q. How did -- how was it that in your |
| 20 |
conversations with the Matts you strategized how to |
| 21 |
differentiate your value? |
| 22 |
A. By going back to events in the sales cycle |
| 00207 |
| 1 |
where we were told by the evaluation team that they |
| 2 |
preferred the way we handled this particular function or |
| 3 |
they preferred a particular feature. |
| 4 |
Q. Preferred to whom? |
| 5 |
A. To whomever they were looking at |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 00208 |
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Q. Now, in strategizing with the two Matts in |
| 9 |
trying to win the opportunity for the Hallmark business, |
| 10 |
what did you talk about in terms of the strategy for the |
| 11 |
price negotiation? |
| 12 |
A. Pretty much what I just said to you. Validate |
| 13 |
that Hallmark sees value in the feature function |
| 14 |
differentiation, in the product architecture, in the -- |
| 15 |
you know, preference to do business with Oracle versus |
| 16 |
another competitor, with the relationships that we have |
| 17 |
established, with the knowledge we had developed of |
| 18 |
their business. |
| 19 |
Q. I'm going to break that down to two -- all |
| 20 |
those reasons, I counted four. There's preference to do |
| 21 |
business and knowledge of business, and that goes to the |
| 22 |
expertise and the hard work your sales force has done |
| 00209 |
| 1 |
throughout the sales cycle, doesn't it? |
| 2 |
A. Knowledge of their business, of Hallmark's |
| 3 |
business become important. It could be references as |
| 4 |
well experience in that vertical. |
| 5 |
Q. Okay. And then there's the value associated |
| 6 |
with the features and function and the product |
| 7 |
architecture, and that certainly is part of the sales |
| 8 |
cycle that you testified about earlier that goes to |
| 9 |
meeting the customer's needs in term of functionality, |
| 10 |
right? |
| 11 |
A. Correct. |
| 12 |
Q. Okay. And so you strategized about those |
| 13 |
things and your strategy revealed, with respect to the |
| 14 |
customer functionality items, that what, that what, that |
| 15 |
Oracle was what? |
| 16 |
A. That what we had heard from Hallmark was there |
| 17 |
were areas of our functionality that they preferred. |
| 18 |
Q. Did you believe that? |
| 19 |
A. The reality of that situation is that there |
| 20 |
are -- in most instances, there's something in |
| 21 |
everyone's product that they prefer. |
| 22 |
Q. What did you tell Hallmark about your product |
| 00210 |
| 1 |
that might have made them think that? |
| 2 |
A. Not necessarily that we told them. It would |
| 3 |
have been something they would have seen in a |
| 4 |
demonstration based on their requirements. |
| 5 |
Q. Right. Okay. What do you believe about your |
| 6 |
functionality for Hallmark as compared to the |
| 7 |
functionality of PeopleSoft for Hallmark? |
| 8 |
A. In this instance, I specifically don't know |
| 9 |
what they preferred in Oracle's functionality versus |
| 10 |
PeopleSoft. |
| 11 |
Q. I didn't ask that. What I asked is what you |
| 12 |
believe about the functionality of PeopleSoft's offering |
| 13 |
as compared to the functionality of Oracle's offering to |
| 14 |
Hallmark, what do you believe? |
| 15 |
A. As the differentiation? |
| 16 |
Q. Yes. |
| 17 |
A. I don't really know. |
| 18 |
Q. Do you think they are the same? |
| 19 |
A. They are not the same. There are definitely |
| 20 |
differences. |
| 21 |
Q. What are the differences? |
| 22 |
A. I would say the architecture of the products. |
| 00211 |
| 1 |
Q. What does that lead to for someone in |
| 2 |
Hallmark's -- |
| 3 |
A. It may or may not lead to anything. |
| 4 |
Q. Does it go more towards a preference for how |
| 5 |
the software as opposed to absolute functionality versus |
| 6 |
non-functionality? |
| 7 |
A. Fit, preference is in the eyes of the beholder, |
| 8 |
the buyer. |
| 9 |
Q. No doubt that PeopleSoft at that point in |
| 10 |
time, was viewed as by Hallmark as functional,
correct? |
| 11 |
You have no doubt about that? |
| 12 |
A. They wouldn't be where they were they |
| 13 |
wouldn't -- if they weren't considered to be able
to do |
| 14 |
the job is my opinion. |
| 15 |
Q. Right. And it's because of that that Oracle |
| 16 |
was willing to cut price, correct? |
| 17 |
A. It was really because in this particular |
| 18 |
instance, to the best of my recollection, PeopleSoft |
| 19 |
realized they were losing the deal and they were
cutting |
| 20 |
their price to nothing to compete on price. |
| 21 |
Q. PeopleSoft was cutting it to nothing to compete |
| 22 |
on price? |
| 00212 |
| 1 |
A. Yeah. |
| 2 |
Q. But it was because PeopleSoft had already |
| 3 |
passed the functionality test Hallmark's term that |
| 4 |
Oracle was willing to compete on price? |
| 5 |
A. I would restate that to say PeopleSoft was |
| 6 |
probably one of two finalists. As the decision leaned |
| 7 |
towards Oracle, PeopleSoft realized they were losing and |
| 8 |
they cut prices as a point of differentiation because |
| 9 |
they could not find other points of differentiation. |
| 10 |
Q. What did they cut the price to? |
| 11 |
A. You know. I don't remember. I could totally |
| 12 |
speculate, but I won't because I don't remember. |
| 13 |
Q. I don't want you to speculate. But we have an |
| 14 |
example here where you're going from 1.9, 2.0 to 1.2, |
| 15 |
and these are strategy decisions that you make with your |
| 16 |
North American Sales Groups, a day-to-day thing, and the |
| 17 |
two Matts have got to do it? |
| 18 |
A. Right |
| 19 |
Q. Okay. So what range do you want to give me of |
| 20 |
where PeopleSofts? If your final number that's going |
| 21 |
to be the win, retrospective is 1.2? |
| 22 |
A. I think they were probably somewhere between |
| 00213 |
| 1 |
800 and a million. |
| 2 |
Q. And that was -- now that I put it in that |
| 3 |
context, do you recall now that that's where you and the |
| 4 |
two Matts thought they were? |
| 5 |
A. I would say that's approximately where we |
| 6 |
thought they probably were in the deal price-wise. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
|