Technology: Cloud computing 101
Cloud computing is exploding worldwide
August 31, 2012 at 03:00 AM
10 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Cloud computing is exploding worldwide. Consider the following facts:
- The world's biggest datacenters occupy more than 1 million square feet, enough to house 17 football fields.
- 5.75 million new servers are installed annually just for online services.
- 36 percent of all data centers use cloud computing.
- Cloud users report saving 21percent on applications moved to the cloud.
The primary impediments to the adoption of cloud computing, in order of importance to consumers of cloud services, are: security, interoperability, vendor lock-in, regulatory compliance, reliability, complexity, privacy and pricing. These concerns raise contract drafting issues for cloud computing contracts. Part 1 will cover security, interoperability and vendor lock-in. Part 2 will address the remaining issues.
1. Security
Service level agreements (SLAs) should contain provisions describing the infrastructure and security for the cloud service. The customer should define the security parameters and security monitoring promised by the service provider in the SLA in specific and measurable ways. Without these specifics, it will be hard to evaluate security and to know whether the service provider is delivering the security promised. For example, provisions commonly describe what intrusion monitoring and incident reporting the vendor will provide. The SLA may also provide the customer with the ability to periodically audit the security of the provider. The SLA may contain provisions defining load testing parameters and data portability testing.
Surveys have shown that many consumers of cloud services do not monitor security aspects of their cloud services on a continuous basis, in spite of security being a top concern for respondents. For example, availability is frequently addressed in the SLA and monitored by the customer. Other security parameters are often not well-covered in the SLA or, if covered, are not monitored sufficiently. For example, if the SLA provides for penetration tests, failover or backup testing, the customer should implement a program to make sure the testing is actually performed and the results are reported. The program should be covered in the SLA. Another issue is that data portability testing is often overlooked and not tested. In all cases, security and testing reports should be reviewed and retained in case a problem develops.
Also consider whether there should be penalties for noncompliance. Many SLAs contain detailed security definitions and monitoring, but no specific provisions addressing the consequences for failing to comply. Boilerplate provisions addressing breaches of the contract are often too general to provide meaningful remedies for breaches of the SLA. Compliance and penalty provisions should be crafted to incentivize the vendor to provide the required service levels.
2. Interoperability
Interoperability refers to the ability of the cloud service to interact with other services. There are two aspects of interoperability for cloud computing: interoperability within a single cloud (vertical interoperability) and interoperability between clouds (horizontal interoperability). Interoperability within a single cloud is how the cloud software integrates with other applications or devices that the customer uses. Interoperability between clouds refers to the ability of the customer to transfer data to or switch to another cloud provider.
Vertical interoperability usually involves significant technical issues but relatively insignificant contract issues. The SLA and other contract documents should specifically address the technical issues: providing for the development of specific specifications, setting out the testing protocols, delineating acceptance signoffs, addressing bug fixes and setting out the implementation schedule. The contract should also address customization issues such as the cost of customization, how much customization is permitted (many cloud services only allow limited customization), how customizations will be addressed in major upgrades and service releases, and ownership of customizations or ancillary applications developed for the customer.
3. Vendor lock-in
Horizontal interoperability (also called portability) presents significant risk to customers and, therefore, presents significant contract issues. Some of the risks presented by using cloud services are:
- Unacceptable increases in cost at the time of contract renewal
- Prevention or delay in the ability to switch to the same or similar service at a lower price
- A provider goes out of business or ceases to offer services
- A business dispute with the provider.
The customer needs to address these issues in the contract and review the vendor provisions carefully. For example, many cloud contracts contain “data hostage clauses” that, in case of a dispute between the customer and the vendor where the vendor claims that the customer improperly terminated the contract, the vendor is permitted to hold on to the customer's data until the customer pays a termination fee or liquidated damages. Other areas to evaluate carefully and negotiate where appropriate are automatic renewal provisions and price escalation provisions. Often these issues are linked; the vendor wants to lock in the customer with automatic renewals and the customer wants protection from excessive price increases over time. A balance needs to be reached between these two interests.
The contract should specifically address how the customer can receive its data from the cloud provider in a usable format upon termination of the relationship, or if the provider chooses to discontinue all or part of the service. The contract should set out the cost of providing the data as well as the form and the logistics of doing so.
Cloud computing is exploding worldwide. Consider the following facts:
- The world's biggest datacenters occupy more than 1 million square feet, enough to house 17 football fields.
- 5.75 million new servers are installed annually just for online services.
- 36 percent of all data centers use cloud computing.
- Cloud users report saving 21percent on applications moved to the cloud.
The primary impediments to the adoption of cloud computing, in order of importance to consumers of cloud services, are: security, interoperability, vendor lock-in, regulatory compliance, reliability, complexity, privacy and pricing. These concerns raise contract drafting issues for cloud computing contracts. Part 1 will cover security, interoperability and vendor lock-in. Part 2 will address the remaining issues.
1. Security
Service level agreements (SLAs) should contain provisions describing the infrastructure and security for the cloud service. The customer should define the security parameters and security monitoring promised by the service provider in the SLA in specific and measurable ways. Without these specifics, it will be hard to evaluate security and to know whether the service provider is delivering the security promised. For example, provisions commonly describe what intrusion monitoring and incident reporting the vendor will provide. The SLA may also provide the customer with the ability to periodically audit the security of the provider. The SLA may contain provisions defining load testing parameters and data portability testing.
Surveys have shown that many consumers of cloud services do not monitor security aspects of their cloud services on a continuous basis, in spite of security being a top concern for respondents. For example, availability is frequently addressed in the SLA and monitored by the customer. Other security parameters are often not well-covered in the SLA or, if covered, are not monitored sufficiently. For example, if the SLA provides for penetration tests, failover or backup testing, the customer should implement a program to make sure the testing is actually performed and the results are reported. The program should be covered in the SLA. Another issue is that data portability testing is often overlooked and not tested. In all cases, security and testing reports should be reviewed and retained in case a problem develops.
Also consider whether there should be penalties for noncompliance. Many SLAs contain detailed security definitions and monitoring, but no specific provisions addressing the consequences for failing to comply. Boilerplate provisions addressing breaches of the contract are often too general to provide meaningful remedies for breaches of the SLA. Compliance and penalty provisions should be crafted to incentivize the vendor to provide the required service levels.
2. Interoperability
Interoperability refers to the ability of the cloud service to interact with other services. There are two aspects of interoperability for cloud computing: interoperability within a single cloud (vertical interoperability) and interoperability between clouds (horizontal interoperability). Interoperability within a single cloud is how the cloud software integrates with other applications or devices that the customer uses. Interoperability between clouds refers to the ability of the customer to transfer data to or switch to another cloud provider.
Vertical interoperability usually involves significant technical issues but relatively insignificant contract issues. The SLA and other contract documents should specifically address the technical issues: providing for the development of specific specifications, setting out the testing protocols, delineating acceptance signoffs, addressing bug fixes and setting out the implementation schedule. The contract should also address customization issues such as the cost of customization, how much customization is permitted (many cloud services only allow limited customization), how customizations will be addressed in major upgrades and service releases, and ownership of customizations or ancillary applications developed for the customer.
3. Vendor lock-in
Horizontal interoperability (also called portability) presents significant risk to customers and, therefore, presents significant contract issues. Some of the risks presented by using cloud services are:
- Unacceptable increases in cost at the time of contract renewal
- Prevention or delay in the ability to switch to the same or similar service at a lower price
- A provider goes out of business or ceases to offer services
- A business dispute with the provider.
The customer needs to address these issues in the contract and review the vendor provisions carefully. For example, many cloud contracts contain “data hostage clauses” that, in case of a dispute between the customer and the vendor where the vendor claims that the customer improperly terminated the contract, the vendor is permitted to hold on to the customer's data until the customer pays a termination fee or liquidated damages. Other areas to evaluate carefully and negotiate where appropriate are automatic renewal provisions and price escalation provisions. Often these issues are linked; the vendor wants to lock in the customer with automatic renewals and the customer wants protection from excessive price increases over time. A balance needs to be reached between these two interests.
The contract should specifically address how the customer can receive its data from the cloud provider in a usable format upon termination of the relationship, or if the provider chooses to discontinue all or part of the service. The contract should set out the cost of providing the data as well as the form and the logistics of doing so.
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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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