Stealing Software
Companies pay the price for installing unlicensed programs.
April 30, 2006 at 08:00 PM
13 minute read
It began covertly. Someone with inside knowledge of Meritage Corp. quietly contacted the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a trade group that represents some of the country's biggest software companies, and reported that the homebuilder was using unlicensed software. BSA then demanded Meritage perform a software audit. The results weren't good.
The company couldn't prove it had purchased licenses for all its installations of Adobe, Microsoft, Sybase and Symantec software. “We clearly established through our audit that we had lots of properly licensed software, but the status of a fraction of our installations was less clear,” says Larry Seay, Meritage's CFO. “Rather than spending even more time to conclusively determine the status of this remaining software, BSA and Meritage opted to settle the matter.” That settlement cost Meritage $200,000.
Meritage isn't the only company that had to hand money over to BSA in recent months. MediMedia, a New Jersey-based health care company, recently paid $375,000. Wham-O Inc., Burt's Bees, LiveBridge Corp. and Fair Isaac Corp. all recently ponied up sizable amounts of money after audits revealed their computers were running unlicensed software.
“We have seen one hospital reach a $6 million to $7 million settlement,” says David Teske, an IP attorney in the Atlanta office of Alston & Bird. “It can be a significant financial event for a business.”
Such damages are only one of the burdens imposed on an accused infringer. The company also must confront attorneys fees, the costs of carrying out a hurried software audit and damage to its reputation. But despite these negative effects, companies are still being caught with unlicensed software.
“It remains a significant problem,” says Keith Kupferschmid, who heads the enforcement efforts of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), a trade group that represents more than 700 IT companies. “The fact that we have 200 active cases at any given time shows that.”
Growing Problem
Twenty-one percent of all software in the U.S. is pirated, according to a 2005 study conducted by IDC, a technology consulting company. Much of this unlicensed software is on businesses computers, though most aren't infringing intentionally.
“Even good, well-managed companies run into issues with software copyright compliance,” admits Jenny Blank, director of enforcement for BSA.
If a company has unlicensed software, there's a good chance it will be caught. Software vendors and the trade groups that represent them are constantly on the prowl for companies using unlicensed software. The SIIA even offers rewards of up to $200,000 for tips on unlicensed software use.
If a software organization suspects a company is using pirated software, it will ask the company to undergo an audit, pay a fine and then purchase licensed software. If the company declines to cooperate, the groups sue for infringement. If the company loses, it could face up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each unlicensed software title.
“We would advise companies to get smart and get compliant, because if they don't, we will come knocking on their door,” Kupferschmid says.
Keeping Track
The BSA maintains corporate infringement can be stopped relatively easily, so long as managers take the issue seriously. “Many companies just fail to give software sufficient attention,” Blank says.
Other experts, however, say the problem is far more complex and is caused by the software companies themselves. “It's 100 percent the responsibility of the software publishers in failing to make compliance easy,” says Robert Scott, a Dallas attorney whose firm, Scott & Scott, defends companies accused of software infringement.
The problem starts with the proliferation of software. “The average large corporation has 15,000 to 30,000 unique software titles,” Scott says.
Each of the software titles has its own license terms, and these terms can be quite tricky to follow. “For any piece of software, there are tons of complex licensing rules,” Scott says. “Moreover, a software license can't be understood just by reading the legal document.”
Some licenses, for instance, are tied to specific computers. So if the company replaces one of these computers, it can't just transfer the software, it must buy a new license. Some licenses for server software set limits on allowable processing power, so the company can violate licenses if it upgrades its servers.
Even if a company obeys all the terms of a software license, it can still run into trouble proving it paid for the license.
“My clients always say 'I bought this product, here's the credit card receipt.' But the software companies say that is not sufficient proof of purchase,” Scott says.
For software organizations, only detailed invoices and packing slips suffice as proof of purchase. And often, such proof simply isn't available.
Legal's Involvement
To minimize their risk of being caught using unlicensed software, companies need to develop policies that limit how employees add software to their work computers. The policy should come from upper management, and the rules on software use should be included in employees' regular refresher courses on ethics.
Companies may also want to implement processes for managing their software assets. Software used throughout the company, such as operating systems or word processing software, should be purchased and managed as part of a centralized software asset management program. Specialized software that only one division of the company needs should be purchased by the appropriate department. Although that department should be responsible for managing that software, it also should notify the company's central authority about the license, so that it can perform regular audits.
Lastly, the company's legal team should review all software licenses and explain what they mean to the procurement professionals. They also should work closely with the IT department to ensure that users are properly following the license terms and that the company regularly audits its software.
“The number one thing to understand is that this is not an IT problem, this is a legal problem,” Scott says. “A company's general counsel has to start taking ownership of this issue.”
It began covertly. Someone with inside knowledge of Meritage Corp. quietly contacted the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a trade group that represents some of the country's biggest software companies, and reported that the homebuilder was using unlicensed software. BSA then demanded Meritage perform a software audit. The results weren't good.
The company couldn't prove it had purchased licenses for all its installations of Adobe,
Meritage isn't the only company that had to hand money over to BSA in recent months. MediMedia, a New Jersey-based health care company, recently paid $375,000. Wham-O Inc., Burt's Bees, LiveBridge Corp. and Fair Isaac Corp. all recently ponied up sizable amounts of money after audits revealed their computers were running unlicensed software.
“We have seen one hospital reach a $6 million to $7 million settlement,” says David Teske, an IP attorney in the Atlanta office of
Such damages are only one of the burdens imposed on an accused infringer. The company also must confront attorneys fees, the costs of carrying out a hurried software audit and damage to its reputation. But despite these negative effects, companies are still being caught with unlicensed software.
“It remains a significant problem,” says Keith Kupferschmid, who heads the enforcement efforts of the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), a trade group that represents more than 700 IT companies. “The fact that we have 200 active cases at any given time shows that.”
Growing Problem
Twenty-one percent of all software in the U.S. is pirated, according to a 2005 study conducted by IDC, a technology consulting company. Much of this unlicensed software is on businesses computers, though most aren't infringing intentionally.
“Even good, well-managed companies run into issues with software copyright compliance,” admits Jenny Blank, director of enforcement for BSA.
If a company has unlicensed software, there's a good chance it will be caught. Software vendors and the trade groups that represent them are constantly on the prowl for companies using unlicensed software. The SIIA even offers rewards of up to $200,000 for tips on unlicensed software use.
If a software organization suspects a company is using pirated software, it will ask the company to undergo an audit, pay a fine and then purchase licensed software. If the company declines to cooperate, the groups sue for infringement. If the company loses, it could face up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each unlicensed software title.
“We would advise companies to get smart and get compliant, because if they don't, we will come knocking on their door,” Kupferschmid says.
Keeping Track
The BSA maintains corporate infringement can be stopped relatively easily, so long as managers take the issue seriously. “Many companies just fail to give software sufficient attention,” Blank says.
Other experts, however, say the problem is far more complex and is caused by the software companies themselves. “It's 100 percent the responsibility of the software publishers in failing to make compliance easy,” says Robert Scott, a Dallas attorney whose firm,
The problem starts with the proliferation of software. “The average large corporation has 15,000 to 30,000 unique software titles,” Scott says.
Each of the software titles has its own license terms, and these terms can be quite tricky to follow. “For any piece of software, there are tons of complex licensing rules,” Scott says. “Moreover, a software license can't be understood just by reading the legal document.”
Some licenses, for instance, are tied to specific computers. So if the company replaces one of these computers, it can't just transfer the software, it must buy a new license. Some licenses for server software set limits on allowable processing power, so the company can violate licenses if it upgrades its servers.
Even if a company obeys all the terms of a software license, it can still run into trouble proving it paid for the license.
“My clients always say 'I bought this product, here's the credit card receipt.' But the software companies say that is not sufficient proof of purchase,” Scott says.
For software organizations, only detailed invoices and packing slips suffice as proof of purchase. And often, such proof simply isn't available.
Legal's Involvement
To minimize their risk of being caught using unlicensed software, companies need to develop policies that limit how employees add software to their work computers. The policy should come from upper management, and the rules on software use should be included in employees' regular refresher courses on ethics.
Companies may also want to implement processes for managing their software assets. Software used throughout the company, such as operating systems or word processing software, should be purchased and managed as part of a centralized software asset management program. Specialized software that only one division of the company needs should be purchased by the appropriate department. Although that department should be responsible for managing that software, it also should notify the company's central authority about the license, so that it can perform regular audits.
Lastly, the company's legal team should review all software licenses and explain what they mean to the procurement professionals. They also should work closely with the IT department to ensure that users are properly following the license terms and that the company regularly audits its software.
“The number one thing to understand is that this is not an IT problem, this is a legal problem,” Scott says. “A company's general counsel has to start taking ownership of this issue.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readEx-Marathon General Counsel Takes Legal Reins of Another Energy Company
Trending Stories
- 1Appellate Division Rejects Third Circuit Interpretation of NJ Law, Says No Arbitration for Insurance Fraud
- 2'Merciless' Filing Deadline Dooms Cuban Americans' Property-Trafficking Suit Against BNP Paribas, SocGen
- 3In 2-1 Ruling, Court Clears Way for Decade-Old Wrongful Imprisonment Suit
- 4Trump Sentencing, TikTok Ban Welcome Justices Back to Work
- 5U.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250