US Navy Denies Pirating Software on 550K Computers, Says It Had Bought Licenses For 38 Machines (arstechnica.com)

Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy was accused of pirating 3D software after testing a software package offered by Germany company Bitmanagement Software GmbH. The company had sued the United States of America for nearly $600 million. The U.S. Navy has now responded to the accusations, saying that though it did install the aforementioned software on "hundreds of thousands of computers within its network" without paying the German software maker for it, it did so with the consent of the software producer. Many might disagree, however. From a report on ArsTechnica: The Navy says that it could use the software on hundreds of thousands of computers with licenses for 38 machines. The Navy denied that a procurement official "acknowledged that additional licenses were necessary for it to distribute BS Contact Geo to its users." The government admitted that it had purchased 38 licenses, but "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff."

Comments

rofl

[shaitand]

"The Navy denied that a procurement official "acknowledged that additional licenses were necessary for it to distribute BS Contact Geo to its users." The government admitted that it had purchased 38 licenses, but "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff.""

Then why did they buy more than one?

Re:rofl

[shaitand]

It's possible but the Navy does this all kinds of things. They buy a handful of licenses that are absolutely not concurrent then roll it out in a desktop image to the thousands of machines. The Navy is big on copyright infringement. It isn't just software either, you'll find bootleg movies/music content being played to large groups in barracks all over the place.

Re:rofl

[jittles]

This is not just about copyrights. It is mostly about contract law. Have you read the purchase contract or license? No? Me neither. So anything either of have to say about this matter is pointless and meaningless.

We can, however, reasonably speculate whether the Navy's claims are plausible.

And as software developers, we can take this as a warning to make our contracts extra clear when dealing with the Navy.

Maybe the Navy is arguing that they had 38 seats that could be active at one time. Maybe they installed the software on 550k machines but only had 38 active users at a time? I don't know why they would install the software on so many machines, but who knows? Without the contract and an understanding of the software, we can only speculate.

Re:Soverign Immunity

[Half-pint HAL]

I don't even understand why the government buys software. With sovereign immunity copyright law doesn't apply to them. Just pirate it and be done with it.

I don't think the concept of "sovereign immunity" is part of the Berne Convention....

Re:Was anybody actually using the software?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never read a site license.

Don't feel too bad; nobody has except the DoD lawyers. Yes, I had to wait 2 months for legal to finish reading a license to let me buy a $12 piece of software.

And yes, nobody really cared that I spent $3K in lawyer time for a $12 piece of software.

Re:What license?

[Anubis IV]

A proprietary license written specifically for that project, since the plaintiff indicated that there were terms specific to the project that the Navy is in breach of. For instance, the license stipulates that the Navy agrees to keep some tracking functionality in place, presumably so that the company could track the number of installations during the trial phase in order to ensure that the Navy didn't engage in any shenanigans. After installing the software hundreds of thousands of times, the Navy disabled that functionality without having first negotiated a new contract that allowed them to do so, so the number of installations may actually be far higher than the 550K number that the plaintiff is aware of.