Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Navy Under Fire In Mass Software Piracy Lawsuit (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the permission-granted dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: In 2011 and 2012, the U.S. Navy began using BS Contact Geo, a 3D virtual reality application developed by German company Bitmanagement. The Navy reportedly agreed to purchase licenses for use on 38 computers, but things began to escalate. While Bitmanagement was hopeful that it could sell additional licenses to the Navy, the software vendor soon discovered the U.S. Government had already installed it on 100,000 computers without extra compensation. In a Federal Claims Court complaint filed by Bitmanagement two years ago, that figure later increased to hundreds of thousands of computers. Because of the alleged infringement, Bitmanagement demanded damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. In the months that followed both parties conducted discovery and a few days ago the software company filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the U.S. Government is liable for copyright infringement. According to the software company, it's clear that the U.S. Government crossed a line. In its defense, the U.S. Government had argued that it bought concurrent-use licenses, which permitted the software to be installed across the Navy network. However, Bitmanagement argues that it is impossible as the reseller that sold the software was only authorized to sell PC licenses. In addition, the software company points out that the word "concurrent" doesn't appear in the contracts, nor was there any mention of mass installations. The full motion brings up a wide range of other arguments as well which, according to Bitmanagement, make it clear that the U.S. Government is liable for copyright infringement.

121 comments

  1. Oh, no! by hey! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hundreds of millions of dollars? Where will the DoD get that kind of money?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Oh, no! by umghhh · · Score: 2

      Yes that is a real worry. But they can claim that the German SW was flawed on purpose to hide CO2 footprint. That would fix it.

    2. Re:Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the US taxpayers, and more debt.

    3. Re:Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy - cut veterans' pensions.

    4. Re:Oh, no! by hey! · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of millions for climate mitigation? What planet do you live on?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait - the copyright lobby have yet to peer-review the maths involved. This will be complex because the plaintiff is German and not American, but I believe the formula they apply is something like:

      sue_for_losses = (actual_losses + made_up_losses) * 1000

      Then, because it's a German company:

      america_first_weighting = 0.0001
      sue_for_losses = sue_for_losses * america_first_weighting

      Next up comes the political stuff:

      sue_for_losses = apply_secret_sauce_no_one_understands(sue_for_losses)

      By the time all that gets done, the German state will end up bailing out Bitmanagement so it can be pay the US government for misuse of their equipment.

    6. Re:Oh, no! by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      Out of your pocket.
      While I am of the opinion that the U.S. Spends too much on the military, and there is a lot of waste in the military that can probably be cleaned up with some efficiencies, and the fact that they pull the you need to pay us more money or else you will be sorry scheme irresponsible.

      But this is just more money that will be wasted from our tax money and not go towards strengthening our military, paying our troops better salary. Or keeping us more secure.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Oh, no! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure."

      There goes puberty. Abandon hope, all ye in 10th grade.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:Oh, no! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      They could try piracy. Sail the seven seas drinking, murdering and looking for booty, then selling it on the black market.

      Better than the most heinous crime of software piracy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Borrow" from the Social Security Trust Fund. Again.

    10. Re: Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd call him an evil Nazi racist if he made Mexico pay for it.

      It surprises me how folks like you are constantly tricked by Trump over and over.

      The strategy is to demand something outrageous, far beyond what you actually want, then argue and haggle and eventually begrudgingly settle. It's classic Value theory...

      I'm not suggesting Trump is a mastermind 4d chess manipulator. He just figured out the same thing middle aged asian women did eons ago.

      I was already calling him a Nazi before he was elected. I wasn't tricked by him, I voted for the other person; the lesser of two evils perhaps. Eventually settle? You mean we're going to end up with a three foot chain link fence?

    11. Re: Oh, no! by hey! · · Score: 1

      Your argument would be cogent if people who oppose Trump believed Mexico would pay for the wall. The thing is, I think almost nobody believed Mexico would pay for the wall, even people who applauded when he said that. They were applauding the sentiment, not endorsing the belief.

      This is classic bullshit. Bullshit is a lie that isn't for believing, it's for going along with.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Oh, no! by retchdog · · Score: 1

      the whole point of damages is that the money is "wasted" by the defendant. if they got to keep it (after possibly a stern lecture), there'd be no incentive to follow the law.

      the german company is not, of course, going to get $number_of_installs*$cost_of_license in the end. they're just starting there because they can and they probably don't have any more information. we'll see how this goes; hopefully there's a semi-reasonable explanation and a settlement. maybe the sysadmin who thought this was a good idea will get fired, as would be appropriate.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    13. Re: Oh, no! by retchdog · · Score: 0

      the parent wasn't referring so much to Trump, as to his cuck followers who'll hang on every word to the point of pirouetting to keep up with the "danger of the day" while Hillary still roams freely, the Wall festers, and, presumably, Comet Pizza is still rounding up innocent children to rape and sell. really, it's hilarious in a way; at least our representatives get a measly chunk of pocket change in exchange for their flexible interests, while the "capitalist" "Christian" plebs sell their birthright for a reality tv show. hahahahahahahahaha

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    14. Re: Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I say he has no chance of actually making Mexico pay for it.

      If the wall is created, we will pay for it.

    15. Re:Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the US military. No way some rogue sysadmin did this without prompting. There is a chain of command.

    16. Re:Oh, no! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Can't do that, it's already full of IOUs disguised as T-bills.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:Oh, no! by retchdog · · Score: 2

      yes, this is the us military, you're right about that, and they'll throw whomever they need to under the bus, and if they complain about being thrown under the bus, they'll get a courts-martial instead of a warm and fuzzy civil trial. roflmao

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    18. Re:Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just print more money then!

    19. Re:Oh, no! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      They could try piracy.

      If you do it by yourself . . . you're a pirate.

      If you do it in contract of a country . . . you're a privateer.

      See Sir Francis Drake for details.

      Sail the seven seas drinking, murdering and looking for booty, then selling it on the black market.

      Booze is banned on US Navy ships. The other stuff is OK.

      I can't image a French navy ship without a wine cellar, or a German navy ship without beer taps.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    20. Re:Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have to sell one of those hammers.

    21. Re:Oh, no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Royal Navy (UK) continued to give its sailors a daily "Rum Ration" until 1970.

      Rum Ration

    22. Re:Oh, no! by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      Be thankful it was not a music track otherwise Germany would now own the US Navy.

    23. Re:Oh, no! by henni16 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe they can get the RIAA to do the math:
      150k of statutory damages per willful infringement multiplied by 100k infringements makes 15 billion in statutory damages.

      Which leads to the question of who do you call to repo a carrier group.

    24. Re:Oh, no! by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      the whole point of damages is that the money is "wasted" by the defendant. if they got to keep it (after possibly a stern lecture), there'd be no incentive to follow the law.

      The point of damages—restitution—is that the plaintiff is "made whole". Damages are not awarded to punish the plaintiff or to serve as a deterrent. Your actions damaged someone, so it's your responsibility to set things right. Punishment (retribution) is separate.

      Of course, this is a copyright case, so the idea that there could be "damages" in any real sense is laughable. The production or distribution of unauthorized copies does not make the copyright holder any worse off than they were before.

      One would at least hope that any punishment levied against the DoD for copyright infringement would be paid by those individuals responsible for the decision, and not the DoD itself (by which I obviously mean the taxpayers).

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    25. Re:Oh, no! by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      That depends on your jurisdiction. There is a well known concept of "punitive damage"

      --
      bickerdyke
    26. Re:Oh, no! by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      we could use a few ships in working condition...

      --
      bickerdyke
    27. Re:Oh, no! by retchdog · · Score: 1

      it's not just copyright infringement, dude. the navy didn't go buy a copy of this software off-the-shelf at best buy. your arguments against prosecuting software piracy in the large are kinda silly when applied to a single organization with, presumably, a legitimate contractual relationship (not just a dumbass click-through EULA) with the vendor.

      and, yes, paying someone to "make them whole" is wasting the money, unless you're the person being made whole. while i could have worded it better, your technical distinction is still meaningless.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  2. Wink Wink Nudge Nudge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing new here. Decades ago an "associate" worked for a US Gov agency that had a software library that included just about everything from Aldus Pagemaker to SPSS. Anyone on staff was allowed to check out any software to take home and "evaluate" it for work use. Uh-huh.

  3. How does it taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    As an American I hope this will teach the Us government to stop being douchebags about copywrite infringement. And about most everything else too.

    1. Re:How does it taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll just assume that the USTR will add the US to the Special 301 report, because we all know how important it is.

    2. Re:How does it taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they pay up, then they can continue to be aggressive about copyright with no apparent conflict. Not saying it's right, but this would be more of an example of the system working to those who believe in aggressive copyright, not an example of it being broken.

    3. Re:How does it taste? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It won't.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    4. Re:How does it taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they should cut off their Internet access permanently in addition to the hefty monetary penalties. On a positive note, their data would be much safer.

  4. Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Heh. I can remember, many moons ago, when Siebel sold very expensive licenses for MRI software on SGI hardware. They were quite miffed to discover that I had ported VNC to SGI IRIX, in order to allow clinicians to access the box remotely and use the software rather than buying each their own SGI Indigo box each with their own license. That was in.... dear lord, that was back in 2000. They were *miffed*, but I couldn't find anywhere in the licensing that forbade remote access.

    Now, I would *not* want to permit that on Navy computers, because remote X sessions with the fairly poor non-"/bin/login" password handling of VNC is.... well it's dangerous, and can leave idle non-managed sessions lying around for crackers to abuse. But it can be really useful, especially for clients that don't have a built-in X server. And yes, X servers and clients have the names backwards.

    1. Re:Been there, done that by locofungus · · Score: 1

      X servers and clients have the names backwards.

      ?

      Clients connect to servers.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    2. Re:Been there, done that by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many more moons before that, when you were limited to dialup connections, we set up tunnels for authorized clients, RADIUS and all. The stated purpose was to enable radiologists about 100 miles away to access the Solaris machines and read radiology images for diagnosis.

      Imagine our surprise when we saw connections (logging ANI for auditing) originating from India.

      Imagine further surprise when Sun tried to shut this down, claiming they were constrained from delivering the software offshore due to encryption and munitions regulations.

      Several lawyers later they went away, very disappointed in missing out on not only the licensing for few hundred thousand new end-users, but also for the licensing they missed out on when we figured out how other hospitals could share imaging and use our teleradiology services for the cost of a long-distance call. Which got cheaper when we partnered with a nascent DSL provider (NOT the ILEC, mind you), and they got AOL on the side.

      Good times. that odd adapter with the 02DEADBEEF20 MAC address drove me crazy for a few hours, though. And the infiltration of Ethernet into my pristine Token-Ring network, with all the joy that brought.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it can be really useful, especially for clients that don't have a built-in X server. And yes, X servers and clients have the names backwards.

      No, your understanding is backwards.

      The X server is where the display is happening ... the clients connect to the servers and ask them to display something for them.

      The server is the thing which waits for requests from clients to do work on its behalf.

      While the work may be happening on what is a server, and you consider yourself a client, in the X architecture, the application which is saying "Hey, will you draw this for me" is the client.

      X doesn't know or care what is on the other side is.

      So, no, it's not backwards, it's the architecture. The people who built it didn't get confused about what's a client and what's a server, they built clients and servers ... just because your client is connecting to a server and the X client is connecting to your X server on your local machine doesn't make it wrong.

      Those guys at MIT, they didn't have some brain fart and accidentally call a client a server. It's two different client/server relationships.

    4. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's confusing. You can argue that it is 'right', but it is still confusing. In X parlance, the software on the machine that you are sitting in front of is called the 'server' and the software running on the remote machine is the 'client'. That's backwards from what most people think of.

      From the Wikipedia page:

      The fact that the term "server" is applied to the software in front of the user is often surprising to users accustomed to their programs being clients to services on remote computers. Here, rather than a remote database being the resource for a local app, the user's graphic display and input devices become resources made available by the local X server to both local and remotely hosted X client programs who need to share the user's graphics and input devices to communicate with the user.

    5. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...for crackers to abuse"? How can this racist term still be in use? This is one outraged snowflake... wait a minute, snowflakes are white too... everything is racist!

    6. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clients connect to servers.

      Yes, but in Soviet Russia, servers connect to clients. The more better to spy on you with.

      And now it's true in the rest of the world, thanks to social media platforms.

    7. Re:Been there, done that by sjames · · Score: 1

      The client software "out there" connects to the server in front of you in order to receive the service of presenting an interface to the user.

      If more will contemplate that, they will expand their thinking and possibly even feel empowered. A server is not some mysterious thing "out there" beyond the reach of a mere mortal. It's just another computer that may not even be as powerful as the one on their desk.

    8. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the "X server" is, typically, the local display software of a service running on any other machine around the world. The display part of a service where one machine is running a program, and the other part is displaying the graphical output, is called a client for *every other software display in the world*, except X Windows.

      X describes it backwards, for no particularly good reason. VNC, SSH HTTP, and almost every other software project in the world describe it correctly, in terms of network traffic and command workflow.

    9. Re:Been there, done that by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's because the others have your local machine connect out to the remote machine. The machine that listens for connections is the server. The machine that initiates the connection is the client.

      Contemplate that and expand your understanding.

  5. But the US govenment is SPESHUL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell, government officials can commit perjury and get away with it

    Ex-spook Clapper celebrates 5yrs since lying to Congress, as statute of limitations expires

    Yeah, the choice of RT.com was deliberate - I'm trolling RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! fake-news fanatic BeauHD

  6. Remember Harvard Graphics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Army bankrupted this company due to rampant piracy of their software.

    That's the origin of the US GOV'T RESTRICTED RIGTS in the (c) messages.

    1. Re:Remember Harvard Graphics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they produce spell checkers?

  7. Reinterpreting license agreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both parties in this case changed what the license agreement means. Bitmanagement claims the license prevents the Navy from installing software on more than the "computers the Navy bought it for" and the Navy claims it can install software on as many machines as it wants as long as the number of active licenses doesn't exceed the ones it bought.

    Copyright wins again!

    1. Re:Reinterpreting license agreements by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm curious, how do you get from "bought software for use on 38 machines" to installing it on 100,000 while "the number of active licenses doesn't exceed the ones it bought"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Reinterpreting license agreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this software do that requires it to be installed on 100,000 machines?

    3. Re:Reinterpreting license agreements by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      I'm not at all the Army, but decades ago we had 2,000 PCs across 2 campuses, with like 600 copies of MS Word and Excel. (Not the Office bundle, individual copies.)

      With my manager and their manager (CIO) supporting me, we installed Funk (yep, look up Sideways for dot-matrix printers) AppMeter on our Novell v3 servers. I could track exactly who and how many people were running it at one time (it was the "boob curve" -- usage tracking during the day showed a large startup at 8, big drop-off at 5 , with a 2/3rd drop-off at noon. Yes, I was an adolescent.)

      If you weren't connected to the server, you didn't run it -- the software was installed locally but the actual executable was located on the server and it was counted and metered, so if you hit it at max I got an report and YOU got a "Try Later" prompt.

      Also we ran software reporting -- I got the signature data direct from the BSA. Ran it, looked at the report, and called and complained to high heaven.

      "Look, I'm scanning 2K PCs, but checking this just on my PC and I absolutely *know* there is software on it you're not reporting on."
      "Oh, well, our clients are too busy to always give us valid signatures to detect their software."
      "Look, we try to be honest. I'm using your software for our internal audits to make sure we're valid. Don't come complaining to me if you come in later and find things that your software won't locate for us." Reported this to my boss, we soon got a different and better scanner. BSA's was free but not worth what we could have paid for it.

      We tried to make sure everything was on the up-and-up. I'm sure we weren't actually pure at 100% but we tried hard to get there. Oh, and MS was NOT happy with us running their software metered on the server, but we had our lawyers look at the software licence and (at that time) it was a valid configuration -- the OFFICE suite wasn't, but the individual copies were. Or at least they told us to go ahead and (didn't expect to but) were willing to go to court to defend us, which was good enough.

      Back on topic, I think there's something wrong there too, but it's not like they literally COULDN'T have done it that way. They'd just need to provide actual configs and logs over time as proof.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  8. Why GFS is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Delightfully missing in TFS is that a library, not linked to any executable software, was on a common desktop image. Not an executable, much less a runnable installation.

    1. Re:Why GFS is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On bare copyright terms though, does that even make a difference? The restricted act is copying, not use or benefit.

    2. Re:Why GFS is misleading. by DCFusor · · Score: 2

      It's sad that it's a legal issue - not one that involves fairness, honesty, justice or any other thing the legal system wants us to believe.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    3. Re:Why GFS is misleading. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Or in the words of a whore, you don't have to sleep with me, you just have to pay me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Why GFS is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you find that? It's not in the article or the motion for summary judgement.

    5. Re:Why GFS is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, if the standard was use, a lot of pirates aren't guilty of much if any copyright infringement. They just d/l things because they might use them some day.

    6. Re:Why GFS is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On bare copyright terms though, does that even make a difference? The restricted act is copying, not use or benefit.

      It absolutely makes a difference. If true, it turns a potential major money lawsuit into potentially nothing, under the fair use rights provision of US copyright law. The defendant can say, yes, we technically infringed with those extra copies, but it was by accident and does not represent any lost income to the plaintiff, and therefore is a fair usage, end of case. Title 17, USC 107 - Limitations on Exclusive Rights.

      If not entirely true - if real infringement happened in addition to the accidental infringement - in other words both happened - it reduces the claim of the plaintiff and thus potential awards.

      There are limitations on fair use rights in the precedents - but the law is open ended, and further, some of precedents (not to mention a number of provisions in the DMCA) were created in violation of the 9th or 10th Amendments - which means they represent illegal precedent, ripe to be overturned.

  9. Now vee... by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    Now vee have zee Americans vhere vee vant dem.

    1. Re:Now vee... by Calydor · · Score: 2

      Over there, on the other side of the Atlantic.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  10. Meellions of dollars? Here's an offer on the table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll give back one spy/espionage agent, if your government drops those claims; no questions asked. And don't read anymore slashdot, USA. Roll your own tech paper/blog, FFS. Verdamt fool!

  11. From 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

    "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."

  12. why no, I didn't RTFA, why do you ask? by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Piracy?
    In the Navy?

    That's a serious problem.
    YAAAARRRRR!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:why no, I didn't RTFA, why do you ask? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Load the guns and Put up the sweeps! Prepare to come about and PAY THE BILL or we will take possession of one of your ships!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  13. Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that Germans are not capable of writing software, and all US government agencies are, de facto, completely blameless.

  14. Two points... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    1 - A hundred thousand workstations using VR software? This is a mainstream training tool now?

    2 - We are relying on a German company for must now be military mission-critical software?

    Clearly this is not a big deal. They should have bought and on-shored the company .

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Two points... by Gilgaron · · Score: 3

      Its probably just some lame program for training that got stuffed into the standard system image. Mission critical stuff probably only resides on individually validated systems.

    2. Re:Two points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are relying on a German company for must now be military mission-critical software?

      It very likely isn't.

      The fuckup here is that it looks like it's on some widely-shared disk image. And that means none of those computers can ever be used for anything critical, since they're running extra software that hasn't been (and never can be) audited.

      The Navy ought to just spring for an extra thousand dollars and install a file server. Then whatever workstations need the software, should just mount that drive and run it from there.

    3. Re:Two points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a gazillion things US companies just can't do, deal with it..

    4. Re: Two points... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      They got servers...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  15. phone-home software in the navy by vossman77 · · Score: 1

    For some reason, I seem more concerned that the navy would allow some piece of software to phone-home to the company than the fact that they installed the software on multiple machines. I assume that is how they know the navy had 100,000 installs of their software.

    Could the company then release an update that would essentially create a bot net of navy computers?

    1. Re:phone-home software in the navy by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      For some reason, I am not sure why you think that is how they found out.

    2. Re:phone-home software in the navy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I assume that is how they know the navy had 100,000 installs of their software.

      During the lawsuit the Navy stated they believed they had a license that would allow them to include this software in their standard PC deployment image and that the only restrictions were how many copies were running or in use at the same time.

      During the court case, the Navy admitted it has deployed that particular standard system image hundreds of thousands of times since the software inclusion.

    3. Re:phone-home software in the navy by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incorrect. They learned the scope of the problem through discovery and adjusted their claims to account for the much more massive copying (the original scope was just the single site where the trial happened). The DoD very much does not allow call home.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:phone-home software in the navy by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Meh.. ostensibly they don't on classified networks, but the unclass network is pretty porous and network configuration varies widely. In any event, it must have leaked through somewhere in order to tip them off in the first place.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    5. Re:phone-home software in the navy by bobbied · · Score: 1

      My guess is one of those "whistle blower" things where they encourage you to turn in your company for violating software licenses for a reward was involved...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  16. Obligatory Russian Reversal? by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet America, the Navy are the Pirates?

    --
    Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
    1. Re:Obligatory Russian Reversal? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And in the free world, the pirates are the Navy?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Obligatory Russian Reversal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privateers. Those who raid ships flying an enemy's flag are called privateers. This was very common long before the soviet union.

      I know you joke, but what, next you're going to try to tell me police theft takes more $ than criminal theft, and that puppet and foreign countries are part of the American Block, only in soviet America?

    3. Re:Obligatory Russian Reversal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Yes, I believe I will tell you that. Thank you for your invitation.

  17. Flex? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    There has been this company called flex (someone else owns them now I think) that can control software usage in every way imaginable.

    1. Re: Flex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is trivial to crack

  18. Aargh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just had to say that.

  19. Good Argument for Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This whole thing is a good argument for open source in government. The money that the Navy is going to have to pay to this company could support far, far more software in the open source. yes, sometimes, things are very specific to a task and need to be custom / paid for in a proprietary setting. This is not one of those cases. There are multiple viewers for 3D applications which they can put anywhere.

  20. Godwin wins again by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 0

    You'd call him an evil Nazi racist if he made Mexico pay for it....

    I was already calling him a Nazi before he was elected.

    Wow, so you're saying that he was Godwinized even before the election.

    The corollary to Godwin's law is "...and once the Hitler comparison is made, all useful discussion in the thread has terminated." That seems to be accurate.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re: Godwin wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The corollary to Godwin's law is "...and once the Hitler comparison is made, all useful discussion in the thread has terminated." That seems to be accurate.

      Nope. It is actually a misconception that is more revealing about those who use it for an excuse to avoid discussion.

      Wow, so you're saying that he was Godwinized even before the election.

      Before the nineties. Like Hitler, Trump is a grandstanding blowhard with pretentious arrogance, a tendency to scam, and a lot of plagiarism in his works.

      There are some differences. Hitler had a history of healthy eating, and a military service that reflected genuine courage rather than being a lard-ass that wolfs down fast food while boasting about feats of courage he would never perform.

      All in all, Hitler was probably a better person than Trump.

    2. Re:Godwin wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When in doubt, deflect. Thank you Dmitri, you may go to bed now, Your work day is over. Twitler's minions don't pay much for such weak trolling.

    3. Re: Godwin wins again by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Illustrating what I said: all useful discussion has concluded. It's all random insults now.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    4. Re: Godwin wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler = Nazi (NATIONAL SOCIALISM)

      Let that sink in for a bit...

    5. Re: Godwin wins again by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      You seem to be overlooking something like murdering and torturing 6 million people of a specific ethnicity, simply for being that ethnicity and posing no actual violent threat to the state or breaking any laws. But you go ahead and find admirable things about Hitler, that's just great.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re: Godwin wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your failure to participate usefully is your own willful choice, nothing more.

      Trying to portray it as something other than your own lack of effort is a sign of poor character.

    7. Re: Godwin wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be overlooking something like murdering and torturing 6 million people of a specific ethnicity, simply for being that ethnicity and posing no actual violent threat to the state or breaking any laws.

      Or do you not realize that Trump's bigotry and intolerance is reflecting an exploitable sentiment that runs through American politics throughout the history of the country?

      I have no doubt Trump would attempt the same scheme if it was brought to him.

      But you go ahead and find admirable things about Hitler, that's just great.

      Compared to Trump? Yes, even Adolf Hitler's art is more admirable than Trump's purchased self-images.

      Doesn't it just burn to know that?

    8. Re: Godwin wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, somebody going to rail at the evils of Socialism because of the name chosen by the original founder Anton Drexler?

      That just discredits your argument.

    9. Re: Godwin wins again by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      You are just whining because you are unwilling to think. Those are clearly not random insults and you know it. They are insults based on reasons (that reasonable people can agree or disagree with), mixed with a bit too much hyperbole (for my taste).

    10. Re: Godwin wins again by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      lol... Trump's legendary bigotry and racism, the meat and potatoes of CNN and HuffPost, and the choice strawman arguments of SJWs everywhere.
      You ascribe malice to what is just ignorance or simplicity.
      It doesn't burn, it just kind of tickles.
      BTW, I've seen some of A.H's paintings, they were really fairly amateur.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    11. Re:Godwin wins again by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > The corollary to Godwin's law is "...and once the Hitler comparison is made, all useful discussion in the thread has terminated." That seems to be accurate.

      Please, that is really not a corollary to the law, which in its original form claims that in any online discussion, there will inevitably be a comparison to Nazis. Mike Godwin made no claims that the comparison would be invalid, or that this was automatically the end of useful discussion. These added rules seem to be less effective and less powerful than the original rule. They are also often used as much to silence discussion as the original comparison is often used to horrify and end discussion.

    12. Re: Godwin wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol... Trump's legendary bigotry and racism, the meat and potatoes of CNN and HuffPost, and the choice strawman arguments of SJWs everywhere.

      Nothing legendary about it, it's rather banal in its pervasiveness. But it's entirely in keeping with the political coattails he's chosen to ride. Decades of history behind that too. Well, actually, over a century and a half at the least. They did once call themselves the Know-Nothing Party, and that's not an inaccurate description even today.

      Same with whining about "CNN" and "Huffpost" and even "SJW" the names may change, the method doesn't.

      You ascribe malice to what is just ignorance or simplicity.

      Oh no, it's actually maliciously chosen ignorance. Willful and deliberate.

      Practically all that's sincere about herr Grumpenfumer.

      BTW, I've seen some of A.H's paintings, they were really fairly amateur.

      Which says a lot about Trump's graven idols. And that's not even counting the doctored photos.

  21. so each reimgae counts as an install? daily by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    so each reimgae counts as an install? Some systems are re-imaged daily.

    Or do they count the software being in the software deployment system as an app listed for installation but not installed as being installed on each system?

  22. blame the reseller with EULA BS? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    blame the reseller with EULA BS? no an hard contract overrides any EULA

  23. Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking American hypocrites.

  24. Estimates by bestweasel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We need to scope out this Bitmanagement deployment, Lieutenant. How many PCs will need it?"
    "Several hundred thousand Sir".
    "That's a lot of licenses, is there any way we can get by with fewer?"
    "Well Sir, we could switch to a concurrent licensing model."
    "How many would we need then?"
    Scribble, scribble.
    "I make it 38 Sir."
    "That sounds better, we'll do that."

  25. We don't know enough yet by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The devil's probably in the details of the contract's wording.

    Bitmanagement argues that it is impossible as the reseller that sold the software was only authorized to sell PC licenses.

    That's probably not the Navy's fault. That's an issue between the vendor and reseller if the Navy only made their deal with the reseller.

    the software company points out that the word "concurrent" doesn't appear in the contracts, nor was there any mention of mass installations

    There are different ways to say the same thing. I suspect the contract is vague, which will come down to a judge's or jury's interpretation.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  26. Next step is obvious: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just declare it a matter of national security, works with steel, aluminum and cars, why not with software.
    Go, Donnie go, go, go.

  27. Re:so each reimgae counts as an install? daily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf? reimaging 38 computers over and over (daily, that would take over seven years to reach just 100k) didn't create the 100k+ installs. the navy, abusing their software licenses, did.

    that's about as absurd as the navy's claim they were concurrent licenses (seat) not per-workstation .. and that they could control, with over 100k computers having the software, across who-knows-how-many locations, that no more than 38 of them were ever used at the same time, ever. navy procurement ain't that good.

  28. BS Contact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they washed their hands after.

  29. Comcast should ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... block the Navy's internet access.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Comcast should ... by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      The navy wishes they had Comcast speeds. The infrastructure left behind by EDS (and then HP) was barely faster than dial-up. Back when I was in, it was called NMCI (Navy and Marine Core Intranet) and it was so bad that dealing with it was a bigger factor for getting out than getting deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan. It cost ~$300/month to lease a basic 5 year old workstation (all systems were leased btw). The email system had something like a 25MB limit, so we had to contract out file servers for contractors to upload large documents for review ... except NMCI would periodically stop supporting the file servers leaving the Navy in violation of a contract. Since we weren't allowed to "install" software to the computers, I set up my own XAMPP server to allow my contractors to upload documents - It took NMCI days to notice that before they shut down my LAN port and eventually caused them to realize that usb could be a vector for malware or spyware and ban them altogether (what made it worse was that they had autorun turned on) ... you could still do the same exact stuff with a CD/DVD though. It was ridiculous in other ways to, users couldn't even end their own stuck print processes because the spool directory was owned by admin. The selection of available software was extremely limited and the process for getting something that wasn't on the list was long and painful (it took about half a detail assignment). About 20-30% of the work day was spent dealing with inferior IT.

      Long story short, don't contract out your IT.

    2. Re:Comcast should ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The navy wishes they had Comcast speeds. The infrastructure left behind by EDS (and then HP) was barely faster than dial-up. Back when I was in, it was called NMCI (Navy and Marine Core Intranet) and it was so bad that dealing with it was a bigger factor for getting out than getting deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan. It cost ~$300/month to lease a basic 5 year old workstation (all systems were leased btw). The email system had something like a 25MB limit, so we had to contract out file servers for contractors to upload large documents for review ... except NMCI would periodically stop supporting the file servers leaving the Navy in violation of a contract. Since we weren't allowed to "install" software to the computers, I set up my own XAMPP server to allow my contractors to upload documents - It took NMCI days to notice that before they shut down my LAN port and eventually caused them to realize that usb could be a vector for malware or spyware and ban them altogether (what made it worse was that they had autorun turned on) ... you could still do the same exact stuff with a CD/DVD though. It was ridiculous in other ways to, users couldn't even end their own stuck print processes because the spool directory was owned by admin. The selection of available software was extremely limited and the process for getting something that wasn't on the list was long and painful (it took about half a detail assignment). About 20-30% of the work day was spent dealing with inferior IT.

      Long story short, don't contract out your IT.

      It's still the same. NMCI was supposed to be replaced in 2010 or so, but still hasn't been. its capabilities are far worse today than when it was originally deployed.

  30. GNU General Public License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Navy uses software covered by the GNU GPL, they won't have to pay any software license fees or settle any copyright lawsuits.

    Just sayin'...

  31. Do not worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under president Trump we will make software piracy great again...

    1. Re:Do not worry by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I think this happened under one of the Bushes. I seem to remember that this suit was originally filed quite a long time ago.

      OTOH, it could be just so similar to something that happened back then, that I've confused things. But it's not unusual for legal cases to take a long time. SCOx vs IBM may not be settled yet.

      That said, the summary indicates that this happened under Obama. And that's certainly possible. It just seems like something I read about a really long time ago. If someone said Regan, I'd've said "Well, not quite that long ago.".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  32. Anonymous [Re: Godwin wins again] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    https://www.penny-arcade.com/c...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Anonymous [Re: Godwin wins again] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least try for a creative description

  33. How did the vendor discover this piracy issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh ok, by calling the mothership just like Win10 and their MS Office Suite.

  34. long history of govt fraud and theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Remember PROMIS?

    (not that PROMIS, the older one-"Prosecutors Management and Information System".)

    A bit of software for mainframes and minis, that was comissioned by the US govt but never paid for. It was capable of reading/writing any database or record system at the time. The US govt, instead of paying for the software, instead of complying with court orders, destroyed the company, subverted bankruptcy proceedings to ensure the company was killed off. It likely cost the govt more to do this than to pay the company.

    This software was modified to add a backdoor and then sold by the govt to other nations. A spy tool.

    Who can you trust if not the government?

  35. Clearly, Bitmanagement made the fatal mistake ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of failing to buy the requisite number of key members of relevant House and Senate committees. There's really no excuse for this oversight: they're dirt cheap. An admiral or two wouldn't have hurt, either, although that would probably cost a bit more. And have they done enough advertising in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN? Rookie mistake. You've got to buy favorable media coverage, too. If you get all of your ducks in a row, like big American defense contractors do, you can make out like a f*cking bandit.

  36. So, the Obama administration, which... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    threw out the rule-of-law on so many subjects (like using the IRS FBI CIA EPA and DOJ against opponents, to not enforcing the border, doing DACA, subsidizing insurers under ACA without congressional appropriations, running assault rifles to Mexican drug gangs, shipping pallets of unmarked currency to Iran, etc) also went lawless on a pesky software license?!?!?!?

    Let me show you my shocked face.

    nope. just cannot get shocked enough to make a face.

    It may take a number of years (perhaps we need millenials to reach middle age), but hopefully the rule-of-law will be re-established in the USA at some point. Perhaps things have to get bad enough that a majority feels enough pain that everybody across the full political spectrum agrees to return to fixed standards of right and wrong. I'm not holding my breath.