There are several resources for collecting software inventories that range from free to expensive. Large enterprises often have tools already in place that can provide the relevant information about the installations on the network. Some companies that use outside vendors to manage their IT environments want the existing vendors to assist with some aspects of the audit. In that case, the vendor should execute a non-disclosure agreement preventing the disclosure of any information related to the audit.
Because the use of outside vendors during a software audit could potentially waive the attorney-client privilege, it is important to proceed carefully to preserve the privilege, if it is possible. The inventory report must provide information on all software installations for each individual computer rather than a more general summary of the total quantities of software installed across the network. This allows a deeper examination of the installations to determine whether any software is a trial version, free reader, or other free tool rather than a full installation.
Additionally, information about the operating system for each machine must be collected. If a customer has any virtualized computers, those must be inventoried as well even if the only software installed is a Windows operating system. Once the company collects its inventory data, is collected, it should confirm that all machines have been scanned and included in the results. If any machines are missing, they must be re-scanned and included with the data.
The BSA has a very specific set of requirements for documentation that demonstrates ownership of the software licenses. The documentation must include the date and price of the software, the quantity, and the name of the company on the receipt. The following is a list of documentation the BSA will not accept:. Extension of time within which to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits to and including January 26, Consent to the filing of amicus briefs in support of either party received from counsel for the respondent.
Consent to the filing of amicus briefs in support of either party received from counsel for the petitioners. Extension of time within which to file respondent's brief on the merits to and including March 10, Record received from U.
Read more. CRN India, January 12, BSA is the leading advocate for the global software industry before governments and in the international marketplace. Learn More. In addition, because this amendment was originally proposed in part to address concerns with the Federal Circuit's "general rule," it remains to be seen whether the eBay decision affects the status of this provision of H.
It is worth keeping in mind that Justice Thomas' opinion was the opinion of the Court in eBay and was joined by all of its members, including Justice Samuel Alito, who did not join either of the concurrences. While Justice Kennedy's concurrence raises skepticism over the validity of some business-method patents and implies patent holding companies may not be irreparably harmed in the absence of an injunction, this view did not receive the support of a majority of the Court's members and thus lacks the precedential value of the Court's opinion.
Similarly, Justice Roberts' concurrence, which appears to favor injunctive relief except in rare instances, received the endorsement of only two other justices. Therefore, despite the unanimity of the eBay Court in invalidating the Federal Circuit's "general rule," the division among the justices as evidenced by the concurrences may contribute to uncertainty among the lower courts regarding whether to apply "historical practice" or to consider technological, legal, and business developments that may "affect the calculus" of equity when determining whether to award injunctive relief in patent infringement cases.
Journal, Jan. Research In Motion, Ltd. NTP, Ltd. LEXIS Prior to the Court's decision in eBay , the Federal Circuit's "general rule" precedent loomed over the district court judge in the BlackBerry case, and an injunction order was thus likely imminent in the aftermath of the injunctive relief hearing. However, there is no statutory requirement that a patentee make, use, or sell its invention.
Rite-Hite Corp. Kelley Co. Hughes Tool Co. Oil Co. Cyanamid Co. Westview Instruments, U. The patent is U. Patent No. Romero-Barcelo, U. Activated Sludge , 69 F. The court in this case refused to issue an injunction against the city of Milwaukee for its infringement of a patented method for sewage treatment.
Had injunctive relief been granted, Milwaukee would have been forced to dump raw sewage into Lake Michigan, thereby potentially endangering "the health and the lives of more than half a million people.
0コメント