The ruling -- issued Thursday by Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif. -- called the original award "grossly excessive" in light of the evidence presented, The New York Times reported.
For its part, Oracle said it would fight for the entire $1.3 billion. SAP, meanwhile, appears relieved to have found a sympathetic ear.
"We believed the jury's verdict was wrong and are pleased with the significant reduction in damages," the company said in a statement. "We are hopeful that this ruling will move the case toward an appropriate final resolution."
Wishful thinking? I think so. Oracle has never granted mercy to its enemies and SAP has long ranked up there with Microsoft
There's also the uncertainty principle to consider. No, not the quantum mechanics theory that says it's impossible to simultaneously measure the velocity and position of a subatomic particle, but rather the idea that litigation distracts from innovation and worries customers. More worry means more opportunity for Oracle to poach clients.
Sound harsh? Too much like a conspiracy theory? Maybe both. Just remember that Ellison is well-known for doing whatever he must to win, even if that means digging through Microsoft's trash, issuing personal attacks on competing executives, or hiring ethically questionable executives who possess an otherwise good record for making moola.
SAP can breathe a sigh of relief for now, but this battle isn't even close to over. Do you agree? Disagree? Please weigh in using the comments box below. You can also keep tabs on Oracle's war with SAP by adding these companies to your Foolish watchlist: