NSW Police in legal battle with software giant.

[chrisfpv]

A friend sent me this link just before and I thought it would be an interesting read for AFF members. It is a little long, but well worth the read imo.

An extraordinary legal battle is shaping up in the Federal Court, with a multinational software company suing NSW Police for wide-scale copyright piracy.

UK software company Micro Focus is demanding at least $10 million in damages from NSW Police.

It claims NSW Police has been using pirated copies of their computer software for more than a decade to run their COPS (Computerised Operational Police System) - the largest criminal intelligence database in the country.

It was a routine request from the NSW Ombudsman's office back in August 2010 that first set off alarm bells for Bruce Craig, the Australasian managing director of Micro Focus.

"Our team was out at the Ombudsman's and in a conversation they said they were accessing the COPS database using our software," he told 7.30.

"And we said what software - you don't own our software?"

The software in question is called ViewNow. It is a mainframe computer program NSW Police began using in 1998 to access the COPS database, which holds the highly confidential details of just about every citizen in the state.

Cybercrime investigator Michael Speck says the COPS database operates like the "nervous system" of the NSW police and holds critical intelligence on everything from criminal histories to victims of crime.

Micro Focus says after the Ombudsman's query they started investigating and were astounded to discover police had been duplicating their software, then sharing the stolen booty with other law enforcement agencies.

And not just the Ombudsman's Office, but two other state untouchables - the Department of Correctives Services and the Police Integrity Commission.

"When someone pirates your software you think who am I going to call, the police?" Mr Craig said.

"In this case, they're the pirates."

Mr Craig says Micro Focus' contract with police was very specific.

He says police were allowed to use up to 6,500 ViewNow licences and if they wanted any more, they would have to pay for them.

"The licences were for police only. Yet police were out there handing out our software like confetti," he said.

But it gets worse. Micro Focus say when they asked police just how many of the 6,500 ViewNow licences they were using, a police employee allegedly told them: "Oh f--k. We've rolled out 16,000 devices".

"They did not pay for those extra licences," Mr Craig said.

"It's incredible. It shows an organisation that's completely out of control."

Mr Craig says police have spent the past 18 months stalling.

At first, he says, police claimed they had lost the contract. He says they then told him it was impossible to tell exactly how many of the 20,000-strong police workforce had been using the software over the past decade.

Mr Speck, a former NSW detective, says the idea that NSW Police - the fifth largest police force in the world - cannot track every piece of software they are using seems extraordinary.

"Can't find the licence is the pirates' equivalent of the dog ate my homework," he said.

"Let's just get that out in the open straight away.

"A lot of money - a lot of the public's money - is being spent here defending what appears to be indefensible."

But according to former police computer forensics investigator, Clinton Towers, trying to "investigate the investigators" is going to be a major challenge for Micro Focus.

When Micro Focus asked to come in and do their own audit - one of the conditions of the contract - police refused, and called in their lawyers instead.

"They said if we wanted to audit them we would require a court order," Mr Craig said.

"The minute we advised police there was an issue they began de-installing our software. They de-installed it without keeping records."

In essence, the NSW Police defence is that it has all been a terrible misunderstanding.

In its statement of defence before the Federal Court, NSW Police say on their reading of their contract, Micro Focus had not limited them to 6,500 ViewNow licences. Rather, it gave them the right to reproduce as many licences as they wanted.

"No software company would give away their IP forever for unlimited use," Mr Craig said.

"In this case its quite clear what their usage limit is, it's 6,500 and they have clearly gone way beyond that number."

Mr Speck agrees the idea any company would give away its copyright for free is "just implausible".

"You think about copyright like a hire car agreement," he said.

"When the agreement runs out you can't continue to drive the car and you certainly can't give it to your mates. And that's what happened here."

When the case first landed in the Federal Court last July, the Police Integrity Commission settled out of court almost immediately.

It was quickly followed by the NSW Department of Corrective Services and the NSW Ombudsman's Office. But so far NSW Police have refused to blink.

"This is the first time in 30 years we've ever required a lawyer," Mr Craig said.

"I would estimate they have probably spent over $1 million in taxpayers' money so far in the legal system and all they have done is delay the inevitable."

Mr Speck says Micro Focus has "nobody to go to but the court".

"This is potentially a crime that has to be handled as a civil matter because everybody's got their hands dirty," he said.

"The victims can't go to police - it's the police who are doing the stealing."

This case has attracted surprisingly little attention so far.

But it is about to get even uglier. Micro Focus plans to launch yet another lawsuit, this time accusing the police of trying to replace the first batch of pirated software with another batch of pirated software which also belongs to Micro Focus.

The company claims this latest version of pirated software - a NetManage Applet - was provided by NSW Police to Corrective Services last year as they were scrambling to delete the ViewNow software.

But what Micro Focus now wants to know is how widely the pirated Applet is being used to run the COPS system.

"What's incredible is that they've gone to any length to try and avoid discovery of what's being used in there," Mr Craig said.

"They've been continually deleting our product, they need to replace it with something.

"And that they've replaced it with another license they have no right to use, its just astonishing. It's madness."

NSW Police have denied the latest allegations by Micro Focus, and have vowed to "vigorously defend" any future court action.

But Micro Focus says Police already face a bill of at least $10 million if they lose the case in lost earnings, legal costs and damages.

In a statement from NSW Police to 7.30, they said even if Micro Focus did have damages awarded to them, the $10 million figure did "not concur with the company's calculation of costs to the Force should [the] company be successful with its civil action".

NSW Police followed that statement with another that relates to the fresh accusation against them.

"NSW Police denies these fresh claims in relation to the NetManage Applet and will vigorously contest the matter," the statement said.

Link to article and video:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-2...-giant/3970388

[Jim Goose]

Ok one has to ask.... wouldnt the NSW Police have an IT dept which controlled their computer system and software????

[Hayden1]

Sounds to me they made an honest mistake and when they realised they made the mistake they've denied it and tried to hide it but just dug themselves deeper...

[Jim Goose]

Well a few yrs ago... cough..... the dept of defence was caught out doing the same thing. But it wasnt as if it was defence members who were doing it. The IT dept was installing programs on local PCs and had run out of licences.

I honestly can see how it would happen as you have litterally tens of thousands of computers... and not all need to have a full range of software loaded. Sometimes people move desks and would need it loaded onto their new PC.... trying to manage something like that is horrendous.

[Shonky.]

Not like you to see ignorance as an excuse

[Jim Goose]

well no... not condonning it... but government departments cut a lot of corners. worse when they are continually told they have to save money.

[cs123]

This happens all the time. What a beat up of a story.

[BPXR6T]

Pffft... NSW Police have the largest criminal intell. database in the country. Great to see accurate reporting there. Anyone ever hear of CrimTrac or the ACC.

[nstg8a]

so could that potentially mean that any intelligence used by the police, gained from the pirated system would now be in-admissable in a court case?

as it would be intelligence gained illegally?




nb, i know nothing about the system or how its used...

[cs123]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

so could that potentially mean that any intelligence used by the police, gained from the pirated system would now be in-admissable in a court case?

as it would be intelligence gained illegally?




nb, i know nothing about the system or how its used...

No, it just means that that they need to pay more licenses for the software they are using.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by cs123

This happens all the time. What a beat up of a story.

Lol yep! Not necessarily on purpose either



Software in an enterprise is usually deployed over the network and usually access controlled by the service desk. Some people don't follow process and this sort of thing happens quite often.

As well as people who no longer need the software not requesting it to be removed so the licence can be reused.

IT asset management is supposed to reconcile this sort of thing to make sure they are only using licences they have paid for.

Microsoft conducts what is called a Tru up process for their volume licensing and boy you can be quite surprised what the results can be.

[mytgxl]

As the ads say Piracy its a crime! but who is going to charge who!

[TheSneakiness]

I used to control licensing for a software company on the Gold Coast and kept quite a tough system in place to track who had the software installed, how many licenses bought and when the license would expire.

Anyone who had more installations of software compared to purchased licenses generally got an invoice for more licenses. If they did not pay I would login remotely to their machine and uninstall the software.

[|||]

you wouldn't download a donut...

[XP6]

looks like Rodney Rude is going to write a new song!

[Angeldust]

at my work, we used licensed software, but that means we have only 6 licenses, and ONLY 6 people can log in to the system at once at any time only, though the software is installed across a network and available to everyone through their pc.

You would think it logical that that system would have been similar etc.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Angeldust

at my work, we used licensed software, but that means we have only 6 licenses, and ONLY 6 people can log in to the system at once at any time only, though the software is installed across a network and available to everyone through their pc.

You would think it logical that that system would have been similar etc.

Um... it might be easy with 6 people to control who logs on when and where.
Hardly fesible when you have thousands of employees scattered around an entire state and thousands of computers.

(With Defence as an example again, it has some 80000 personnel and on top of this at least 30000 public service members and contractors who also need access to the internal network.) As a guess, there would be over 200,000 PCs as some are located in training rooms, remote locations etc... its just not possible.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by cs123

This happens all the time. What a beat up of a story.

well, we all have to pay for our software, why should a govt dept be exempt from the law? They're just LUCKY it wasn't Microsoft.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

well, we all have to pay for our software, why should a govt dept be exempt from the law? They're just LUCKY it wasn't Microsoft.

They're not, and it's not a law. It's a civil matter.

When you deal with very large organisations with lots of software, this happens. Audits and true ups of licenses fix this up.

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

I used to control licensing for a software company on the Gold Coast and kept quite a tough system in place to track who had the software installed, how many licenses bought and when the license would expire.

Anyone who had more installations of software compared to purchased licenses generally got an invoice for more licenses. If they did not pay I would login remotely to their machine and uninstall the software.

Good luck trying to remotely login to secure (supposedly) NSW Police Terminals to uninstall software.

[brownieXR8]

Sorry officer I wasn't speeding, and maybe if I stall long enough you'll forget about it?

Funny what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. I hope Microsoft send them a software audit now too. That would really show up some interesting information.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by brownieXR8

Sorry officer I wasn't speeding, and maybe if I stall long enough you'll forget about it?

Funny what happens when the shoe is on the other foot. I hope Microsoft send them a software audit now too. That would really show up some interesting information.

Hey that would be great. What if they find they have to pay $millions to microshaft or whomever?

How cool.....it comes out of the coppers personal bank accounts doesn't it?

Or does it come from the tax payers.....as in we the ordinary Aussies....