[HN Gopher] Court Orders U.S. Navy to Pay $154,400 in Software P...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Court Orders U.S. Navy to Pay $154,400 in Software Piracy Damages
        
       Author : gslin
       Score  : 32 points
       Date   : 2022-11-26 20:41 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (torrentfreak.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (torrentfreak.com)
        
       | egberts1 wrote:
       | Gee whiz, after all these years of ensigns, lieutenants, and lt.
       | commanders contributing to early Linux high speed, low-latency
       | ATM drivers toward the Linux kernel, ya think there can be an
       | offset or something?
        
       | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
       | It's cool that a German SW company can sue the US Navy and win.
       | Take a moment for that to sink in.
        
         | searealist wrote:
         | Poor choice of words.
        
       | whatshisface wrote:
       | > _This figure is lower than the $370 per install that was
       | negotiated earlier. However, the expert witness believes that
       | this is warranted due to the large volume of the deal and the
       | fact that the software company's cash position was rather low at
       | the time._
       | 
       | Interesting how the court is using the business' past financials
       | to reconstruct what would have been negotiated if the
       | infringement hadn't happened.
        
         | madsbuch wrote:
         | This seems reasonable as the US Navy likely hadn't bough
         | licenses for $155 mil, but had negotiated or accepted other use
         | patterns than en-masse installation.
         | 
         | Importantly, this should also be seen as precedence for private
         | piracy and that people with thousands of movies on their
         | harddrives naturally aren't liable for the sum of their retail
         | price.
        
           | kasztelan_ wrote:
           | >Importantly, this should also be seen as precedence for
           | private piracy and that people with thousands of movies on
           | their harddrives naturally aren't liable for the sum of their
           | retail price.
           | 
           | I don't think that holds. They installed all this software
           | automatically, when you download movies you have to manually
           | action each one. I mean, unless people are downloading movie
           | packs from torrent sites these days or whatever?
        
             | Kinrany wrote:
             | Automation is merely a tool. There's little difference
             | between running a script and clicking "download" blindly a
             | thousand times.
        
       | avereveard wrote:
       | It's super interesting to see the court go for active user and
       | not install when calculating damages, may be the first
       | acknowledgement ever that piracy distribution figures aren't a
       | reasonable source for calculating damages.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | colechristensen wrote:
         | Lots of commercial software is licensed that way
        
         | willnonya wrote:
         | Had this not been the government deferring to the government I
         | might agree with you.
         | 
         | As an entity with large legal and IT resources at its disposal
         | there is no reason for this scale of violation. Especially if
         | there is a per install license and acknowledgement.
        
       | flerchin wrote:
       | Jammie Thomas should have been so lucky.
        
       | willnonya wrote:
       | The problem I have with this type of verdict is that it's based
       | on a hypothetical version of what could have happened had the
       | Navy not actually violated the license agreement.
       | 
       | It reeks of deference to a favored party, in this case the Navy.
       | It's doubtful a commercial entity would have received this same
       | deference.
        
         | loloquwowndueo wrote:
         | Or Joe Random Pirate who always get an exemplary, harsh
         | penalty.
        
         | tzs wrote:
         | I don't know how common that method of figuring damages is in
         | copyright infringement cases, but it is often done in patent
         | infringement cases regardless of whether the defendant is the
         | government or a commercial entity.
        
       | kasztelan_ wrote:
       | That seems like a reasonable verdict. I wonder if the software
       | company tried to argue that there would be additional costs
       | associated if the deal really took place. Support, upgrades, etc.
        
         | cwillu wrote:
         | "Sounds like they saved your company the cost of those
         | services; we'll reduce the damages accordingly."
        
           | kasztelan_ wrote:
           | Yep, I can imagine that.
           | 
           | That got me wondering, if the software company was from US
           | and not Germany, how different would be the amount.
        
       | vkoskiv wrote:
       | "It's better to be a pirate than join the navy."
       | 
       | - S.J.
        
       | mywacaday wrote:
       | I once saw a true-up scan on banking software come up with a
       | million dollar bill. Turns out the software ended up on the new
       | starter form and most mangers checked the box in case it was
       | needed but nobody realised it was 5k a seat. I would also be
       | suspicious that the reason for the scan was due to the vendor
       | getting wind that they were being replaced. With the contract
       | being iron clan and no leverage the bill was paid.
        
       | pengaru wrote:
       | $154,400 is nearly zero in this context, no?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-11-26 23:01 UTC)