Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the between-the-lines dept.

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."

30 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. rofl by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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?

    1. Re:rofl by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff."

      Umm, I don't think copyright works like that.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:rofl by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Another possibility is that the Navy thought the 38 licenses were for concurrent use a la network licenses, or were restricted to specific users or hardware tokens, meaning that having the software on 550,000 machines isn't the same as being able to use it on all 550,000 machines at the same time, or by 550,000 users.

    3. Re:rofl by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 2

      38 is DOD-speak for 1.

    4. Re:rofl by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2

      Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Sailors - not Soldiers. And as the Navy is the only US armed force that owns and operates a nuclear powered rail gun, I would much rather take my chances with the Soldiers...

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    5. Re:rofl by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:rofl by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Marines which for some reason people forget are actually part of the Navy and not a separate branch.

    7. Re:rofl by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Marines which for some reason people forget are actually part of the Navy and not a separate branch.

      Not for almost 200 years, if this is to be believed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      In 1834, the United States Marine Corps came under the Department of the Navy.[46] Historically, the Navy has had a unique relationship with the USMC, partly because they both specialize in seaborne operations. Together the Navy and Marine Corps form the Department of the Navy and report to the Secretary of the Navy. However, the Marine Corps is a distinct, separate service branch[47] with its own uniformed service chief – the Commandant of the Marine Corps, a four-star general.

    8. Re:rofl by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Umm, I don't think copyright works like that.

      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.

    9. Re:rofl by jittles · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:rofl by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they're creating one huge standardized install image containing all software which could conceivably be needed, and installing it on all their computers to simplify IT administration. Mainly to eliminate the need for someone to have to dig through the basement of a warehouse or run to the store to find an install disk when they suddenly find out they need a program and it isn't on the computer - kinda important when you're in the middle of the Pacific ocean. And they only paid for 38 licenses because that's how many computers they're actually planning to use it on at this time.

    11. Re:rofl by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's what the Navy claims in its official answer to the claims by the plaintiffs.

      15. [...] Defendant denies that the licenses were limited to installation of BS
      Contact Geo on a total of 38 Navy personal computers, and Defendant further avers that the
      Navy procured concurrent-use network-installation licenses of BS Contact Geo.

      By the way, avers means asserts. So the sentence should read as "Defendant further asserts that the Navy procured concurrent-use network-installation licenses...".

  2. Was anybody actually using the software? by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Copying the software to those machines might be a technical violation of the license, but was there any evidence that those unlicensed copies were ever actually used?

    Otherwise, this is more of a theoretical violation as opposed to showing that the Navy was using software that it just didn't want to pay for.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by Calydor · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems pretty unlikely that less than 0.1% of the total installations would be used at any given point in time. I mean, you can install on multiple machines to make things easier and faster, but THAT MANY?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by shaitand · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't matter if they were used or not. It is copying that is restricted by copyright law and requires a violation not use, you can use copyrighted material however you like copyright grants no control over that to the software producer. They could have burned 40 copies of the disk and stuck them on a shelf gathering dust and still be guilty of 39 copyright violations (you get one backup under fair use provisions, you lose it in practice under the DMCA if they've used copy protection on it thought).

    3. Re:Was anybody actually using the software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. Contract Law 101 by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't sue parties armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Contract Law 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm German and living in a cave. Most of us are. There are a few that aren't, but they are the outcasts.

      Maybe try learning some FACTS.

    2. Re:Contract Law 101 by Coisiche · · Score: 2

      Although their assets are rather tied up in inventory. Which does admittedly have a resale value but there will be other laws governing who would make an acceptable buyer. I don't think it's a long list.

      $600 million? Maybe they're set on 425 cruise missiles as settlement?

  4. What Happened To NMCI? by HangingChad · · Score: 2

    NMCI was supposed to prevent all that. Is it gone now or still not working?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  5. Re:We bought 38 licences! by rastos1 · · Score: 2

    I wonder why does Navy need 550k computers that need to do 3D modeling. That is more than one per man in service.

  6. We didn't! by MarcoPon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never underestimate the negotiating potential of a fully armed aircraft carrier. Or more than one.

    --

    SeqBox
  7. Concurrent users vs installations by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

    Part of the user discussion on the article is about whether the licenses are for concurrent users or installations.

    Now the software uses a central Flexnet licensing server and that supports a license pool and concurrent users. It depends on the terms of the license, but if the Flexnet allows an instance to start, then by my definition, that instance is licensed.

    --
    Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    1. Re:Concurrent users vs installations by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, when deployed, seats cannot be pinging the internet over a ship's intranet (and the severely limited internet connection), it's seen as a security threat, and from my own experience working on the NMCI contract, vendors WILL hear about it.

  8. Re:Soverign Immunity by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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....

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  9. Arr matey by mu51c10rd · · Score: 5, Funny

    The US Navy are pirates? Can't wait for the new whites and blues to be issues with eye patches...

  10. Re: Network Licensing by Entrope · · Score: 2

    When it comes down to that, the story is awfully vague on what those 38 licenses were for: Named users? Node locked? Floating? Site? Enterprise? Creation? Playback?

  11. Written Contract vs Oral Contract by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    I'm no expert, but if the representative on the phone promises something that makes it an oral contract, and could potentially supersede the written contract and especially any EULA. For example, if they specifically asked whether the contract meant 38 concurrent users vs 38 installs and they were told it was concurrent users. Of course, proving it in court is a different story.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  12. Re:What license? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Site License by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oracle tried to do this when I was ATT Wireless, we had a site license for oracle. When we ran a contact address book with multiple users, oracle tried to make us pay per server, then tried pay per user for millions of users. Oracle kept calling me in operations to try to get me to pay, I passed it onto legal and they smacked the shit outta them.

    We had a great deal, 5 or so million a year for an unlimited license, and you can believe me, everywhere a database was needed, we ran mostly oracle.

    (This was 10+ years ago, so Who knows now)