US Navy Faces $600M Lawsuit For Allegedly Pirating 3D VR Software (hothardware.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Navy Faces $600M Lawsuit For Allegedly Pirating 3D VR Software (hothardware.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday July 20, 2016 @08:45AM from the arrgh-matey dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from HotHardware: The U.S. Navy has been accused of pirating 3D software after first testing a software package offered by Germany company Bitmanagement Software GmbH. The company is suing the United States of America for nearly $600 million. HotHardware reports: "According to the court filing, Bitmanagement licensed its BS Contact Geo software for use on 38 Navy computers from 2011 to 2012. This limited rollout was 'for the purposes of testing, trial runs, and integration into Navy systems.' While this test period was underway, the Navy reportedly began negotiating to license the software for use on thousands of additional computers. However, even as the negotiations were ongoing, the Navy decided to go ahead and initiate its full-scale rollout without actually paying for the software. In total, the initial 38 computers allegedly swelled to 104,922 computers by October 2013. As of today, BS Contact GEO is claimed to be installed on 558,466 Navy computers, although 'likely this unauthorized copying has taken place on an even larger scale' according to the filing. As if the unauthorized installation of software onto hundreds of thousands of computers wasn't enough, Bitmanagement is alleging that the Navy during 2014 began disabling the Flexwrap software that is tasked with tracking the use of BS Contact Geo and helping to prevent it from being duplicated. When this software piracy was taking place, the retail price of a single BS Contact Geo license was $1067.76. With nearly 600,000 computers now in play, Bitmanagement is seeking a whopping $596,308,103 in damages. The lawsuit, which alleges willful copyright infringement was filed on July 15th."

115 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

offered by Germany company? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:48 · Score: -1

Well maybe they should use America company product instead?
1. Re: offered by Germany company? by ASDFnz · 2016-07-20 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Because American companies don't mind you pirating their software?
2. Re: offered by Germany company? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:02 · Score: -1
  
  Read again, please. "Germany" company? Maybe "German"? Maybe *a* German company?
3. Re: offered by Germany company? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  So the armed forces should only have access to 2nd best products ?
4. Re: offered by Germany company? by ASDFnz · 2016-07-20 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, you are one of those.... sorry, I mistook you for someone who would actually contribute to a conversation.
5. Re: offered by Germany company? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:08 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Correcting shit mistakes made by shit kids thinking they're shit geniuses *is* contributing to a conversation. Adults do not make this sort of stupid mistakes and if they do, we call them "retards" and have them locked away or put on a leash.
6. Re: offered by Germany company? by ASDFnz · 2016-07-20 10:38 · Score: 2
  
  Keep telling yourself that. You can put it on your CV when you are old enough to get a job;-
  * Corrects grammar in internet discussions.
  They will give you a medal or something for your important work.
7. Re: offered by Germany company? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:42 · Score: -1
  
  "these" sorts of stupid mistakes.
8. Re: offered by Germany company? by xevioso · 2016-07-20 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  "...these sorts of stupid mistakes.." rather than "this sort of stupid mistakes". This and sort refer to the singular, while mistakes is plural.
9. Re: offered by Germany company? by HiThere · 2016-07-20 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not an unreasonable answer. And immoral one, perhaps, but not unreasonable. You can't sue the US govt. in a US court unless it agrees to allow you to do so.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
10. Re: offered by Germany company? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-07-20 23:44 · Score: 1
  
  Am I the only one who sees the Irony "US Navy accused of Piracy"
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:52 · Score: 0

Bitmanagement Software's headquarters mysteriously exploded today.
1. Re: In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:13 · Score: -1
  
  It won't come to this. At the very worst chancellor Merkel will get a memo reminding her what the balance of power is, and some german businessmen and developers will get a visit from the Bundespolizei. And that will be all.
2. Re: In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:25 · Score: -1
  
  The EU is more powerful than the USA. If a war broke out between them, the USA would be a smoldering crater.
3. Re: In related news... by losfromla · 2016-07-20 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  LOL
  https://www.military1.com/all/...
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
4. Re: In related news... by saloomy · 2016-07-20 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  What the fuck are you smoking? The EU couldn't take care of its own backyard in Yugoslavia? You mean that NATO > US, and your right, since the US is a part of NATO. But NATO without US, or the EU alone? No. Not by a shot too far to measure.
5. Re: In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations! You have just managed to write something nobody has ever possibly said before. No one in the history of the world has been quite as stupid as you are. Way to go!
6. Re: In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  to be fair, if the EU were to go to war with the US, I suspect the Russians and Canada will be full participants
7. Re: In related news... by SuricouRaven · 2016-07-20 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  If any superpower goes to open war with any superpower, it doesn't matter who has the bigger army: Whichever side looks like they might lose would make use of their nuclear weapons, and then everyone loses.
8. Re: In related news... by dwillden · 2016-07-21 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly how would the EU accomplish that? The EU has no military of it's own, it has no nukes (we have thousands) it has no force projection capability (we have multiple carrier groups). It has no way to attack the US. We have combat troops and equipment stationed all throughout the EU. The EU wasn't even able to stop the genocide in Bosnia until the US decided to step in and help.
  
  Thanks for the laugh.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
9. Re: In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 00:53 · Score: 0
  
  On which side. Canada tends to side with the US. Something to do with a massively long unprotected border and very similar cultures.
10. Re: In related news... by Yvan256 · 2016-07-21 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  And don't forget that Canada has a maple syrup reserve. That stuff is super-sticky.
11. Re: In related news... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  While the parent post was insipidly stupid, your response comes close.
  While it could be argued that the Eurocorps is too small to be called a 'military' of its own, it does exist. Plus, every single European Union member state maintains its own military.
  The UK* and France have about 500-600 nukes between them. Mostly in the form of ballistic missiles that could easily reach the US (since they were originally designed to reach deep into Russia...).
  While you're correct that the EU would most likely lose a direct confrontation with the US (and most certainly in an all-out conventional war), you clearly don't understand the structure of the EU or its capability.
  *the UK is still technically a member state (for now)
Small potatoes by mrchaotica · 2016-07-20 08:53 · Score: 2

Given that the maximum penalty for copyright infringement in the US is $150,000 per instance, the Navy is about to be fined $83.7 trillion!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
1. Re:Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Given that the maximum penalty for copyright infringement in the US is $150,000 per instance, the Navy is about to be fined $83.7 trillion!
  $83.8 Billion, not trillion.
2. Re:Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Thus, solving world debt for the next 6 years! America #1. Best America is Best America.
3. Re:Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  They can hold VW to ransom and use half the loot to pay this. Or they can just say fuck you and keep all of it. It's America, fuck yeah!
4. Re:Small potatoes by jcochran · 2016-07-20 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  Nope. It's not $150,000 per instance, it's $150,000 per "infringed work". So if Bitmanagement Software were to go the statutory damages route, they could only sue for a maximum of $150,000 since only one work was infringed upon. What they're doing is going for actual damages (the license fee for each copy of their program) and since the fee is about $1,000 per copy and they're talking about 500,000 copies, that's quite a bit of money.
5. Re:Small potatoes by Gr8Apes · 2016-07-20 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  And apparently they should. Geez, 500K copies that are illegal 5 years later? I mean, the gov is slow, but they're not that slow.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
6. Re:Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  You have no idea how slow DoD procurement is.
  Started to procure a newly-released EMC SAN. By the time it arrived, it was at its sales EoL and three years from its mainstream support EoL.
7. Re:Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  Those kind of fines are for peons. You know, civilians. Doesn't apply to Government entities. They'll renegotiate the penalty to something far less.
  I find it great that the government is setting a good example for software and respecting copyright!
8. Re:Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  Given that the maximum penalty for copyright infringement in the US is $150,000 per instance, the Navy is about to be fined $83.7 trillion!
  $83.8 Billion, not trillion.
  either way it's the public that will be paying it.
9. Re:Small potatoes by GNious · 2016-07-20 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Good thing they didn't make the penalty for copyright infringement jail time
10. Re: Small potatoes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  And the public should have paid for it in the first place. They aren't asking for some insane payout for pain and suffering. They are saying "you installed our $1000 software on all these computers... pay the fee per computer." So it's not like the American Public is unfairly paying for the Navy's mistake. The Navy just has to pay for what it uses, and if it needs it, it was going to pay for it anyway.
Not Oculus "VR", Google Earth "VR" by im_thatoneguy · 2016-07-20 08:54 · Score: 2

http://www.bitmanagement.com/p...
Looks like a google earth/GIS type application for loading terrain and city data. It's not a stereo head tracked 360 "VR" application.
1. Re:Not Oculus "VR", Google Earth "VR" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Which made me wonder why they thought the Navy would need that on 600,000 computers.
Harvard Graphics by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:55 · Score: 0

The US Army pirated this program en masse and drove the company that produced it into bankruptcy. This is the origin of the "USG Restricted Rights" you see in license agreements - it came about from the Harvard Graphics lawsuit against the USG (which they won for a staggering amount of money).
unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:55 · Score: 0

wikipedia suggests that the US Navy only has 329,647 active duty personnel. I find it highly unlikely that every last one of their machines and some extra are being used for 3D VR.
1. Re:unlikely by losfromla · 2016-07-20 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  uh. Server farms, contractors,...
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
2. Re:unlikely by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-20 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  MS counts systems in ways where for 1 system you need an license on both a server and a workstation so 38 systems can = 76.
  Or even well that software in on the central repo servers so each system linked to that repo system must be licensed under OUR RULES.
3. Re:unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Civilian Employees/GS...
4. Re:unlikely by Gr8Apes · 2016-07-20 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I had numbers, there were more than 2M individuals attached 1 way or another with the Navy. The navy is much bigger than just active duty personnel.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
5. Re:unlikely by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, 500,000+ computers doesn't sound believable. Maybe some bug in their license spyware is reporting each computer multiple times.
just $1067.76 in damages? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:55 · Score: 1

$1067.76 per copy sounds a bit low compared to the typical damages per copied mp3. I'm sure they will come to an arrangement, but it would be fun if using is ok as long as you have the intention to eventually pay for it. maybe.
1. Re:just $1067.76 in damages? by gnasher719 · 2016-07-20 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  $1067.76 per copy sounds a bit low compared to the typical damages per copied mp3.
  
  That's because the law about statutory damages leads to strange consequences.
  
  Statutory damages are up to $150,000 _per infringed work_. If you make one copy of a CD with 20 songs illegally, that's 20 infringed works - up to $3,000,000 damages for ocpying a CD, which is ridiculous. If you make 10 million copies of a CD with 20 songs illegally and sell them, that's 20 infringed works. $3,000,000 for 10 million CDs sold, not bad. If you make 500,000 copies as is claimed here for software that is sold for $1076 per copy, that's _one_ infringed work. $150,000 maximum instead of buying the software for $500 million total, that's a bargain.
2. Re: just $1067.76 in damages? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  That's the damages calculation.
  The infringed copy still gets awarded. If you sell it for 1000 dollars, you get your damages (150,000) + lost income from not selling it.
  So 500,000 times $1000 plus $150k
  In this case it turns out the damages are much smaller than the raw infringement.
I'm torn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:55 · Score: -1

on one hand I support piracy and every violation of copyright law and will until the law is reformed. on the other hand i dispise the military and the war mongering that feeds it..
I kind of hope they both lose, is that an option somehow....
1. Re:I'm torn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:11 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  US Navy is forced to pay the full amount, and shortly thereafter somehow (as another poster mentioned) the BS Contact's HQ exploded because of an "accident" during a live drill.
2. Re:I'm torn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  on one hand I support piracy and every violation of copyright law and will until the law is reformed. ...
  What do you have against Linux and the GPL?
  Without strong copyright laws, you could pirate GPL software too.
3. Re:I'm torn by HiThere · 2016-07-20 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  People frequently pirate GPL software. When discovered the demanded payment is usually opening of the source code.
  I will grant that without copyright laws the GPL would be more like the BSD or MIT licenses. I wouldn't find that horrible...if there weren't any copyright laws. As it is, I prefer the GPL to ensure that the works written won't be copyrighted and claimed against the original authors.
  Another part of the problem is patent laws. The GPL2 wouldn't have any teeth without copyright laws, but the GPL3 attempts to ensure that patents also cannot be used to unreasonably attack GPL3 derivative works. Given patent laws I'm not sanguine about how well this would work, but it's an attempt.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Yeah, and what about W.W. II? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:57 · Score: -1

And W.W. I? Ya gonna ever pay for that? I didn't think so.
1. Re:Yeah, and what about W.W. II? by krlynch · 2016-07-20 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  They already did:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2. Re:Yeah, and what about W.W. II? by OzPeter · 2016-07-20 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  More relevant to this case is Vickers and Krupp where the British from Vickers owed the German from Krupp a royalty for the shells Vickers sold to the British government for shelling the Germans.
  
  After the war, at The Anglo-German mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Krupp demanded over £300,000 in unpaid royalties between 4th August 1914 and 30th September 1917 plus the interest for the whole non-payment period (1914 to 1926). Despite complaints from a variety of Government institutions about the case not coming to a conclusion, Vickers’ communications were slack. They usually answered, ‘we are consulting our solicitors.’ Their argument was that the Vickers-Krupp contracts specifically stipulated their German nature and therefore the validity of its cancellation during the war. Vickers also insisted it was the government’s responsibility to pay the post-war debts. Government lawyers estimated that should the Germans win the Tribunal case, the Treasury would be liable for half a million pounds sterling, of which Vickers would only contribute £180,000.
  After years of legal wrangling, in 1926, Vickers were allowed to negotiate debts directly with Krupp and agreed to pay through the British and German Clearing Offices. On 1st September 1926 Vickers paid £40,000. It seems to be quite a modest estimation of the number of shells made and fired. However, at the same time, Vickers informed the British Government they were purchasing British rights of a Clock Fuze and other patents from Krupp, which must have sweetened the blow.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
damn by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:57 · Score: 0

I didn't know you could 3-D print an entire battleship.
Why on earth would they want thousands? Much less hundreds of thousands.
Too bad by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:58 · Score: 0

Too bad it wasn't a software patent. Those deserve to be challenged by someone with deep pockets.
Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:58 · Score: 0

So the navy will have one less warplane this year.... In other news....
Military effectively exempt from IP law by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 08:59 · Score: 0

I've heard of numerous cases where a subcontractor will be hit with a patent infringement suit, only to have a notice from some TLA with the word "National Security" scribbled on it and the case goes away. (Presumably the justification is that the case would jeopardize a program, project, or case vital to national security)
There isn't any reason they could not do the same thing for software. They won't, as that would make it difficult to secure vendors that usually enjoy being paid, but I imagine the military can get away with whatever they want and negotiate fees later. - Point is this company isn't going to strong arm the Navy with limp BSA extortion style shenanigans.
1. Re:Military effectively exempt from IP law by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  So, every country in the world can now steal American technology and not have to worry about it so long as they say its "for national security "
tracking bad by magarity · 2016-07-20 08:59 · Score: 1

tracking the use of BS Contact Geo
Maybe military computers should license only special versions lacking this kind of thing in any software that otherwise sends usage reports back to the software vendor. That just might be a security risk.
1. Re:tracking bad by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  Ditto there is even specific rules set forth by DISA that say no phone home. There are other methods of tracking license use/software deployment and once the facts come out it will be interesting to see what those tools say...
Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:01 · Score: 0

Based on what someone told me many years ago, this isn't the first time they've rolled out software they had a limited license to en masse.
1. Re:Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Why would they not pay? I think a couple of torpedoes or depth charges would cost the same same as licensing this software for 500,000 computers.
2. Re:Not the first time by fsckinhippies · 2016-07-20 09:54 · Score: -1
  
  I am pretty sure DameWare lost their ass on the single license they sold to the Navy/Marine Corps.
Amex by zamboni1138 · 2016-07-20 09:06 · Score: 1

Well, shit. Do you guys take American Express?
Our card number is 3000-0000-0000-0001, expires 10/1971, zip is 20006.
The CVV is 000.
1. Re:Amex by D00MSlayer · 2016-07-20 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Well, shit. Do you guys take American Express?
  Our card number is 3000-0000-0000-0001, expires 10/1971, zip is 20006.
  The CVV is 000.
  More appropriately for AmEx: Card number 3000-000-00000-001 CVV is 0000
2. Re:Amex by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  CVV is 0000
  Most likely it'd have been CVV-71, as it would have replaced the Teddy Roosevelt in the construction list.
  But Reagan decided to go nuclear on us! NUCLEAR I TELL YOU!
Flexwrap software blocked due to non us IP and by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-20 09:09 · Score: 0

Flexwrap software blocked due to non us IP and there is no DMCA in the navy TS. PS we can send in navy seals can you?
1. Re:Flexwrap software blocked due to non us IP and by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Flexwrap software blocked due to non us IP and there is no DMCA in the navy TS. PS we can send in navy seals can you?
  mORON. nOT EVEN 14 YEAR OLD JUNIOR HIGH BOY FUNNY.
In a us court what about an German one? by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-20 09:11 · Score: 1

In a us court what about an German one?
1. Re:In a us court what about an German one? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Probably nothing there; they would find a disturbing lack of jurisdiction. That's likely why the suit was filed in a US Federal district court and not a German court.
2. Re:In a us court what about an German one? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  And what army are they going to send to collect that judgement?
3. Re:In a us court what about an German one? by xvan · 2016-07-20 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  They could distraint US assets on the UE, as from outside of the country this can be seen as an infraction made by the US government, not only the navy.
  (They could, but they would need a lots of $$$ and balls to obtain such a court rule)
This is hilarious by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:13 · Score: 0

Germany will learn the US Navy is just as shady China.
Wait a minute by wcrowe · 2016-07-20 09:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

600,000 computers? How big do they think the U.S. Navy is anyway? That's almost two computers for every active duty service member. That's over 2,000 computers per ship. I'm not saying the Navy didn't steal their software, I have no clue about that. I'm just saying that 600,000 installs is A LOT for such an obscure piece of software.

--
Proverbs 21:19
1. Re:Wait a minute by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-20 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they count each system that is part of the software repo system as an install even if it is not installed on each one. Even more so with the blocking of there tracking software so they think we can't tell what systems it is installed on due to that so we thing it is on all of them.
2. Re:Wait a minute by I4ko · 2016-07-20 09:28 · Score: 2
  
  It's probably somewhere in a SCCM and for whatever reason they count each start of the installer as a new instance. It is not uncommon to reimage less trusted machined each night, if not after each user uses them. - Deploy image, push all software via SCCM, done.
3. Re:Wait a minute by DRJlaw · 2016-07-20 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  600,000 computers? How big do they think the U.S. Navy is anyway? That's almost two computers for every active duty service member.
  You presume that the suit is limited to computers actually owned by the Navy. Add in Navy contractors running the software to support the Navy and the number doesn't seem so implausible. 28 USC 1498 requires that you sue the government for a contractor's copyright infringement if its done under the terms of their government contract.
4. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  You are not accounting for the shore commands computers, and if you factor in desktop replacement every couple of years, I can see how they got those numbers. The number of seats may be 200,000, but replace them three times and that is 600,000 unique installs.
5. Re:Wait a minute by DerekLyons · 2016-07-20 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  600,000 computers? How big do they think the U.S. Navy is anyway? That's almost two computers for every active duty service member. That's over 2,000 computers per ship.
  0.o
  
  There's more to the Navy than ships... there's hundreds of shore facilities and commands. In the same way, there's also untold number of DoD and DoN civilian employees and contractors at those facilities and commands.
6. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 13:11 · Score: 0
  
  I find the claim shady at best and it will be interesting to hear the facts once more are available. As far as deploying it to the entire network, its pretty far fetched. Even if it was distributed via something like SCCM, its still pretty unlikely that it was...
7. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 13:36 · Score: 0
  
  600,000 is a preposterous number. You could get there if it was installed on every NMCI workstation the Navy owns, which seems pretty unlikely since I have two and neither one have it installed.
8. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  Going by the name, it looks like it's some kind of smartphone application as well. Being able to have some application to help you find a way around a Navy base to collect or deliver supplies would be one use.
9. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  600K is easy to believe there are many thousands of civilians and contractors that work for the Navy. Only a small fraction who work for the Navy are active duty. If you have ever been on a military base you'd know that.
10. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  600,000 computers? How big do they think the U.S. Navy is anyway?
  The problem here is that all they know is how big the Navy is. They don't have any clue how much their software is being used. So they are taking the biggest number they can find.
  Paragraph 18 in their court filing references an email from a NAVFAC Deputy Program Manager "indicating the planned installation of BS Contact Geo on 558,466 Navy computers." I seriously doubt the email said anything like that. It's interesting that they don't actually attach the email to the court filing. Because it makes their claim fall apart.
  My take on this: The NAVFAC DPM said they wanted the program licensed as a NMCI-deployable application. That's all the email said. There are thousands of NMCI-deployable applications available, but they are not all installed on every NMCI workstation. NMCI has a bunch of requirements for deployable software, including NMCI tracks licensing. You don't roll your own license tracking software, and you don't include 3rd party license tracking software. So they disabled the Flexware stuff. They do that with all NMCI-deployed software.
  NMCI - Navy Marine Corps Intranet. It's the global network for the Navy, all networking, workstations, and software the Navy uses outside of R&D. It's pretty big.
  This company googled how big NMCI is, and then got disappointed when NAVFAC wanted to license fewer than 1,000 copies, because that's all NAVFAC needs. And maybe they even thought they were being scammed by the government.
  This company had fantasies of great big dollar signs, and then got disappointed by reality.
11. Re:Wait a minute by wcrowe · 2016-07-21 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I was in the Navy for eleven years. I was an AT in a light attack squadron, working on A-7's and F/A-18's, and served on an aircraft carrier. I am well aware how a fucking military base operates, smartass. No, 600K indifvidual installs is NOT easy to believe, not even counting civilians and contractors. I sincerely doubt every squid, civilian, and contractor is walking around with an install of this software. This is not Pokemon Go. This is 3D imaging software from a company no one has ever heard of. A lot of other people have offered better explanations for how that many installs could have occurred, and some of these seem plausible. Your explanation, however, is ridiculous.
  
  --
  Proverbs 21:19
12. Re:Wait a minute by wcrowe · 2016-07-21 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  This is a very thorough, and the best explanation I've read so far. Thank you. I think this is what's really going on.
  
  --
  Proverbs 21:19
13. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  In 2007-2008 the Navy Marine Corps Intranet had over 300k Windows-based computers. USAF at the same time had over 500k (side note: USAF was the basis of a whitepaper by Microsoft on enterprise image configuration standardization and IMO a lot of how tools like DISM works make more sense once you read it. http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/c/4/5c46c4a0-950f-40a9-9a8f-9af4a2869bc2/whitepaper_fdcc%20airforce.doc).
  I know the USAF grew significantly in device count since then. I wouldn't think that the filing's 558,466 number is unreasonable for the total Intranet of the Navy. I *would* be surprised if this software was just on any computer however. Doesn't make sense to have it deployed to every desktop that's just used for admin work.
  I'm with you though, they are probably getting this information from SCCM and are not factoring re-images. Which happen quite frequently.
Fishy case by HBI · 2016-07-20 09:20 · Score: 3, Informative

arf arf. But seriously, almost 600,000 copies of a piece of software when the Department of the Navy has fewer official user workstations than that...much fewer. That's Army level of personnel, not Navy.
Then, there's some data online about the system in question. Seems like it's a system to support infrastructure for Navy bases and such. Seems like Northrop Grumman is involved, as well as some smaller contractors. Like this one, Synergy Software Design, with the terrible web site. Also appears that Synergy is the sole vendor and technical support provider for Bitmanagement Software GmbH in the US.
The conclusion I come to is that Synergy fucked over Bitmanagement somehow, and the Navy is being held in.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
1. Re:Fishy case by DRJlaw · 2016-07-20 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  arf arf. But seriously, almost 600,000 copies of a piece of software when the Department of the Navy has fewer official user workstations than that...much fewer. That's Army level of personnel, not Navy.
  You cannot sue a government contractor for patent or copyright infringement separately and apart from the relevant government department or agency running the contract. 28 USC 1498 requires that you sue the government for the contractor's infringement of any copyright, such as in this case.
  The Department of the Navy may have fewer user workstations, but what happens when you add in the number of workstations plausibly involved on the contractor/supplier side? Exactly. Very large numbers begin to be involved.
2. Re:Fishy case by HBI · 2016-07-20 09:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  OK, I know this business, and I can tell you that the contractors supporting the system are doing so with minimum personnel, so that can't be it. Maximum of 500 people involved in dev and support, and probably less. The system itself is not useful to a general purpose user. Let's assume 50,000 people ever touch it, that's probably a generous estimate. I imagine if we saw their usage data, it would be in the four figures, not six.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
3. Re:Fishy case by DRJlaw · 2016-07-20 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the neat thing is that they claim to have have an email from NAVFAC Deputy Program Manager Alexandre Viana with a deployment schedule for installation onto 558,466 Navy computers.
  Either they have that email or they don't. Unless you have personal knowledge of this deal or could be qualified as an expert by a party with the approval of the court, your estimate is, frankly, meaningless.
4. Re:Fishy case by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  Are you serious? My local DoD contracted helpdesk has 300 people just for email and webgateway support. 300 people just to support the front end before they get to technical issues. The largest DoD contractors have hundreds of thousands of employees.
5. Re:Fishy case by HBI · 2016-07-20 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  They don't put thousands onto support for a single application. 500 max, and that's pushing it. For something like this, I would imagine the Post Production Software Support (PPSS) team to be under 100, actually. They don't need FSRs for this kind of thing, either.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
6. Re:Fishy case by HBI · 2016-07-20 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are you this much of a douche normally? Friends might be hard to come by, if so.
  It's my business and I know how such projects are run. I stand by the small numbers. Their letter is assuredly not representative of the actual number of clients installed.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
7. Re:Fishy case by Ultra64 · 2016-07-20 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  You're the one being a douche here.
8. Re:Fishy case by DRJlaw · 2016-07-21 00:58 · Score: 3
  
  Yes, in these situations, I am this much of a douche.
  If you'd bothered to read the complaint, Bitmanagement cites a specific email sent on a specific date by a specific NAVFAC employee with a specific document allegedly planning for deployment of the software onto a specific number of computers.
  Your first post in this chain demonstrates that you are not familiar with the Navy program, not familiar with the contractor(s) involved, and for some reason assume that contractors would only include software technical support rather than, say, the engineering services, construction services, and other services that would be incolved in assessing and repairing all that infrastructure.
  Then you double down and announce "OK, I know this business," which you clearly do not, and pull some numbers out of your nether regions that we should totally trust. You know better than the plantiff, who merely developed the software and was negotiating the agreement with the Navy. You also know better than the people who actually read the complaint and know that, no matter what, you do not make material misstatements of fact in documents that you submit to a Federal judge.
  Finally, when it's pointed out to you that the complaint identifies a specific basis for the numbers used, you announce "It's my business and I know how such projects are run" and
  I stand by the small numbers." You demonstrably do not know how this project is deployed and run, and your pseudononymous, fact-free postings do not "stand[] behind your numbers." I could create another Slashdot pseudonym tomorrow and then stand behind a claim that there are actually only 20 million people on the entire Earth. Neither the identify nor the self-declared expertise are verifiable, so there is nothing standing behind those posts.
  You are an uninformed blow-hard helicoptering into a dispute that will be resolved in a U.S. Federal Court based upon actual evidence. Yes, your estimate is meaningless, and I don't feel remotely "douchy" for pointing that out.
9. Re:Fishy case by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's for email and webgateway support, something that everybody uses. Not something of use to only limited numbers of personnel.
10. Re:Fishy case by luis_a_espinal · 2016-07-21 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  OK, I know this business, and I can tell you that the contractors supporting the system are doing so with minimum personnel, so that can't be it. Maximum of 500 people involved in dev and support, and probably less. The system itself is not useful to a general purpose user. Let's assume 50,000 people ever touch it, that's probably a generous estimate. I imagine if we saw their usage data, it would be in the four figures, not six.
  LOL, no. The minimum personnel is only used when the money begins to dry. Contractors will attempt to put as many bodies as possible and rake the hours. I've been in this business, too, and I've seen this unfold (with predictable results, mind you.)
11. Re:Fishy case by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Some things from experience and research (Navy Civ here, hense anon)
  -A deployment schedule doesn't mean deployed.
  -NAVFAC is the definition of lazy and ill prepared. Further, they don't deploy software--NMCI does for them.
  -The software indicated in this article isn't in DADMS, so it's not approved for either NMCI or standalone / RDT&E use in the Navy or USMC
  -Contractors pull shit all the time, it wouldn't surprise me if a smaller one is using a Navy contract to buy licenses and then resell them to make cash off the Govt without the Navy seeing the licenses. The Navy does review contracts frequently for this crap, so it's very possible the software retailer has the letter because they Navy let them know that a contractual breech involving them is being investigated. I would also not be surprised if the software company then turned around to sue the Navy because they have more money than the contractor pulling the scam (or the owner is of the mindset of some Germans that want the US military out of Germany).
  -DoD services have to make some procurements in back-assward ways. It is quite possible that some Navy group had a contractor buy software and "leased" computer to use the software without having to get full DoD certifications--particularly if the project timing didn't allow the 12+ months and thousands of extra $$ the certifications can take to process.
12. Re:Fishy case by HBI · 2016-07-21 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  To risk revealing who I work for, this software is in PPSS, which tells me that the money has indeed dried up. The dump trucks of cash are in the PDSS phase.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:25 · Score: 0

3D VR software pirates you!
So the biggest pirate fleet in the world? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:33 · Score: 0

This makes me ask: Has the US navy started flying the pirate flag now?
$84 TRILLION! Ban Ding Ou Bang Ding Ou by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 09:50 · Score: 0

Bang ding ou, bang ding ou ... hore fuk hore fuk!
Ha ha
thats industrial espionage tax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:28 · Score: 0

lol, with the amount of crap the Germans steal from us...
1. Re:thats industrial espionage tax by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Pfft, jah right. What would that be? Bad hamburgers and goofy politicians?
Virtual Machines by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 10:46 · Score: 0

Probably scaled so quickly because it was being deployed on hundreds of thousands of virtual machines. It's the only reason I can think of for such fast deployment and over abundance of installations. Funny thing is it got to that many installs before they realized every install was being tracked and billed even on VM's. Billing cost went through the roof and IT was told to do something about it. Rip out tracking on a system that's deployed on hundreds of thousands of servers, pay the bill, or start fresh with different solution. Lawsuit shows what option Navy chose. Someone up high in the Navy is gonna lose a stripe for this.
Comments don't need subjects by Ultra64 · 2016-07-20 10:52 · Score: 1

The government should be required to only use open source software.
1. Re:Comments don't need subjects by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  The government should be required to only use open source software.
  Completely unrealistic but easy to say and feel good about. Maybe for you and I, but for what papa fed does, there just are not enough viable GOTS replacements for COTS software.
Piracy by xororand · 2016-07-20 11:07 · Score: 1

I understand that this is about the Navy who is actually capable of piracy.
Reading further however makes it clear that it's just another case of copyright infringement.
Piracy is, in fact, an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...
you wouldn't download a ship by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 11:12 · Score: 0

why not not i'd download a car!
it's a cost cutting exercise by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 11:17 · Score: 0

now the US navy can arrest pirates without having to ever put out to sea.
Pirates? by colinrichardday · 2016-07-20 11:34 · Score: 1

Avast, we be no pirates. Make the lubbers walk the plank!
Steve Jobs said... by SeaFox · 2016-07-20 14:40 · Score: 1

"It's better to be a pirate, than join the Navy."
And now we can do both!
Gov't can take property via inverse-condemnation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-20 21:00 · Score: 0

If the military needs property, it can simply take it and pay for it later. They can apply for payment of the actual value of what was taken, but not punitive damages, attorney fees, etc. General Groves did not buy land from farmers for the Manhattan Project. Rather, he just moved people off, and they got paid something later, if they applied.
PROMIS redux? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-21 12:51 · Score: 0

Late last century, the US govt stole the very versatile and useful PROMIS from it's developers, decided that they would bankrupt and destroy the company rather than paying the contracted fees.
What's to keep a similar thing from happening here?