![]() ![]() Under the old rule, where only the application in file was needed, the ability to recover attorney fees and statutory damages we largely lost. If software vendors begin to apply for and secure copyrights upon the creation of software (as they should), they will be entitled to attorney fees and statutory damages (recovery up to $150K per infringement without proving actual damages). This changed the rule in many areas of the country that allowed for the copyright holder to simply have an application on file. ![]() ![]() In March, the Supreme Court clarified that to bring a copyright infringement case, the copyright holder must have the copyright registration in hand. The Recent Supreme Court may increase Software copyright disputes. The user simply would not have used the software in the first place, had it known of this change and is now in the process of removing the software from its product. In one case, we saw the license go from free to thousands of dollars per user. However, some of the open source licensing is being modified without the user’s knowledge, creating significant legal and financial issues.įor example, some software licenses have clauses along the lines of “ expressly reserves the right to modify the Terms of Service at any time in its sole discretion by including such alteration and/or modification in these Terms of Service, along with a notice of the effective date of such modified Terms of Service.” The issue is that the individual in an organization that approves licenses is typically not the user that would encounter the “modified Term of Services.” So terms change without the company’s knowledge. ![]() Software developers, that charge for their time, turn to open source for efficiencies that can increase profits and allow savings to be passed to customers. We are also seeing license terms being used aggressively where some vendors are seeking to make up for lost revenues caused by the open source model. The GLPv2 license requires that all the source code be made public, which completely removes any ability to prevent others from using your source – an outcome not very popular with most software vendors seeking to license their software. Vendors are changing their licensing terms.įor example, Java, one of the most widely adopted programming languages (Indeed reported in 2016 that it was the second most sought after skill for programming) had its license changed so that Oracle JDK is free to individuals for use, development, testing, prototyping and demonstrations, but now requires a commercial license to avoid the GPLv2+CE license. As more and more software moves to the cloud and license agreements are not updated, we can expect to see license disputes increase. When creating, distributing or using software, it is wise to focus on the licensing model being used as well as how it fits into the existing IT system. In response, software vendors are seeking to identify the actual number of user or copies by exercising their audit rights which users typically try to resist, thus creating tension between the vendor and the user. License agreements that were user based, seat based or even enterprise based do not fit well with the cloud/virtualization model. The technological changes that are at the root of this increase in disputes include the rapid increase in cloud computing and virtualization of software. Technology is creating a need to modify and update license agreements. This problem is aggravated by either current license agreements not being updated to reflect these changes or by vendors making license terms more onerous for users. It seems that the main reason for the increase in disputes is the change in technology, which has changed the way in which software is created, distributed and used. In our practice we are seeing an increase in software license disputes between software vendors and users. By Kim, Lahey & Killough Law Firm Increase in Software License Disputes Expected to Continue in 2019 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |