For years, many businesses interested in renting computers running Microsoft software to third parties have faced a dilemma: either (1) commit to a complicated and potentially expensive Microsoft Services Provider License Agreement (SPLA), which until recently was the only license agreement under which Microsoft has allowed its software to be rented, (2) rent the computers outside a SPLA relationship and risk the exposure that such activity can entail in the form of an audit by Microsoft or by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), or (3) forego the revenue that might be realized from the rental business. Many other business owners have been unaware of the prohibition against renting in most Microsoft license agreements until discovering, in the context of a BSA audit, that the BSA typically treats a breached license as no license at all for the purpose of calculating the penalty to be paid to resolve a software audit. Worse, after paying that penalty to the BSA, affected businesses have been forced to enter into a SPLA in order to continue offering rental services, or else run the risk of losing the release from liability that they purchased with the settlement payment.

However, in a comparatively rare move toward licensing simplification, as of January 1, 2010, Microsoft is offering Rental Rights as an additive license for certain Windows operating system and Office productivity software licenses purchased under its Open and Select volume licensing programs. Now, instead of signing up for a SPLA, Microsoft’s compliance-minded volume licensing customers will be able to purchase rental rights along with other additive licenses (such as, for example, Software Assurance) when they purchase the underlying license for an eligible software product. The rental rights will be valid for the term of the underlying software license or for life of the system on which the software is installed.

More information on the new Rental Rights is available here:

https://partner.microsoft.com/40104043

The current pricing appears to be such that businesses with larger fleets of rental computers may want to stay with the more scalable SPLA licensing requirements. However, smaller businesses or those with a more limited number of rental systems should work with counsel or a licensing consultant to determine whether Rental Rights will be an appropriate mechanism to stay in compliance with licensing obligations.

Tags:

Microsoft’s Services Provider License Agreement (“SPLA”) is a popular licensing framework for businesses delivering hosted or rented software solutions to their customers. However, as with many software license agreements pertaining to resale or other business channel partnership programs, the SPLA typically includes audit rights language giving Microsoft the ability to review a SPLA partner’s records regarding software deployments and entitlements and to demand compensation – usually at a mark-up over standard reseller pricing levels – for any deployments found to be excess of the business’ past monthly SPLA reporting.

Businesses that deploy software under one or more SPLAs should strongly consider working with an attorney experienced in publisher-initiated software audits before disclosing any information to Microsoft in response to a SPLA audit engagement. Many businesses discover during the course of a SPLA audit that in the past they have either under-licensed or over-licensed some or all of their deployments based on an incomplete grasp of Microsoft’s complex distributed software licensing rules. Learning this information before disclosing any audit results to Microsoft can help to avoid a protracted dispute over past licensing discrepancies. In addition, a third-party software audit taking place at a company’s offices may represent a significant disruption to business activities. For others businesses, unprotected access to or disclosure of company information regarding software deployments and entitlements entails confidentiality concerns that are greater in scope and significance than the concerns that all businesses should keep in mind when disclosing information to a party that could, in some cases, end up on the other side of the aisle in a litigated dispute.

Experienced counsel should have a familiarity with both the substantive licensing rules under SPLA and with the audit procedures Microsoft typically uses in these matters. They also should have a good idea of the various alternative procedures to which Microsoft may be willing to agree in order to resolve the audit request in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on a company’s business operations. Especially in light of the financial exposure that SPLA audits can entail and the business-critical nature of the software products often licensed under a SPLA, attorney consultation in these matters often is vital to achieving a mutually agreeable outcome.

Tags:

Businesses that receive software audit demand letters from auditing entities such as the BSA or SIIA, or from software companies like Autodesk or Microsoft, often contend they cleaned up their network after receipt of the letter and should be released from any further obligation to conduct an audit or communicate with the auditor.  Audited business should keep in mind, however, that the auditing entities typically are focused only on the targeted businesses’ software license-compliance status as of the audit effective date – the date on the first letter those entities send to a targeted business.  The auditing entities usually will seek confirmation that the businesses were compliant on the effective date, and on no other date.

Because computer networks may change rapidly, the auditors need to identify a moment in time for which they can ask the audited business, “Did you have all of the licenses for the software installed on your computers?”  If the answer is yes, the auditing entity will typically close its file.  If the answer is no, the auditing entity will claim the business engaged in copyright infringement on the effective date.  The business’ representation that it was compliant after the effective date has no bearing on whether the business engaged in copyright infringement on the effective date.  If the matter proceeds to a lawsuit, the auditor likely would claim that the business infringed its or its members’ copyrights on the effective date.

The auditing entity typically demands proof of purchase documentation that demonstrates the ownership of a sufficient number of licenses on or before the effective date.  Software purchased after the effective date is not relevant to the audit.  Locating, reviewing, and compiling the proof of purchase documentation is a collective effort that often requires coordination among various individuals and departments within an organization.  In addition, identifying and listing all of the software on the company’s computers as of the effective date may be made doubly difficult when computers contain large amounts of software irrelevant to the audit. It is also important to keep in mind that software environments change as computers are added, decommissioned, and rebuilt with the ebb and flow of HR turnover.

If you have been contacted by an auditing entity such as the BSA, the SIIA, or a software publisher, you should proceed with caution and should familiarize yourself with the typical process for such software audits.  Experienced counsel can help to guide you through that process and to avoid unnecessarily large expenses.

Tags: