A Fifth Circuit panel ruled Tuesday that a federal court improperly awarded $1.6 billion to BMC Software, a Houston-based software company, over a licensing and competition dispute with tech giant IBM.
Both companies had worked on AT&T’s mainframe systems, with BMC licensing its software to the telecommunications company and IBM providing the hardware. In 2008, the two companies agreed to let IBM use BMC’s licensed software for its own IT business when working with BMC’s customers. The two companies amended a key part of their contract regarding outsourcing in 2013 and 2015.
As part of that 2015 amendment, BMC laid out a provision that said that IBM couldn’t replace BMC’s licensed software on AT&T’s system with their own. The provision also stated that “while [IBM] cannot displace any BMC Customer Licenses with [IBM] products, [IBM] may discontinue use of BMC Customer licenses for other valid business reasons.”
Following a federal court ruling in favor of BMC that left IBM on the hook for $1.6 billion, IBM’s attorney argued before the Fifth Circuit last September that because AT&T had initiated the project to switch from BMC’s software to IBM’s, rather than IBM themselves, IBM did not violate the provision.
The panel sided with IBM in a ruling authored by U.S. Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones, based on a holistic reading of the language used in IBM-BMC contract.
“IBM could replace BMC software with IBM software in AT&T’s mainframe at AT&T’s request. The phrase ‘other valid business reasons’ unambiguously requires this result,” Jones wrote in deciding at IBM did not violate the contract as the agreement does not unequivocally prevent IBM from replacing the BMC software.
“Because the client made that decision without unfair influence from IBM, BMC lost out to IBM fair and square. Under these circumstances, there is no legitimate reason to enforce Section 5.4 against IBM,” Jones wrote.
According to the panel, BMC’s interpretation of the “other valid business reasons” phrase in the provision would have either rendered it superfluous or far too narrow. Beyond that, the panel found that BMC’s narrow interpretation of the difference between “displace” and “discontinue” did not fully explain the non-displacement provision’s meaning.
In 2017, BMC sued IBM in the Southern District of Texas for breach of contract — including violation of that non-displacement provision — after learning of a 2013 project between AT&T, IBM, and other partners to replace BMC’s mainframe software in AT&T’s systems with competing products, including IBM’s own software.
Though the project did not get completed, as AT&T opted to renew its contract with BMC, the Houston company sued after learning about IBM’s involvement.
IBM appealed a May 2022 ruling from U.S. District Judge Gray Miller that focused on the non-displacement provision and had determined the project had “displaced BMC Customer Licenses with IBM products when it implemented Project Swallowtail at AT&T” in violation of the contract between BMC and IBM.
Miller ordered IBM to pay BMC $718 million in license fees for actual damages, an equal sum in punitive damages and $168 million in prejudgment interest, for a total judgment of just over $1.6 billion.
Tingey Injury Law Firm via Unsplash
"*" indicates required fields
Software Asset Management is a business practice that involves managing and optimising the life cycle of software within an organisation.
Software asset management is relevant to many facets of a business - take a look at some of the roles that it can form part of the focus of.
Software vendors come in all shape and sizes - all with their own set of licensing models and rules. We take a look at just a few of them.
As a constantly evolving subject, SAM is not without its challenges. We take a look at some of the most common ones.
Wondering what an investment in SAM could do for your business? Fill out a few details and find out what return you could get!
Answer a few questions about your SAM infrastructure & experience, and we'll put together a personalised recommendation for the future.
A simple health check of what's being used across your Office 365 estate in this FREE, Microsoft backed and easy to setup review.
Just like you would with your vehicle each year, get an annual check up of your software asset management programme.
Overwhelmed by the task of documenting the steps for a successful SAM programme? Get the experts in to help!
Concerned your SAM tools aren't covering your whole estate? Or on the look out for an entirely new tool? Get us in to assist.
Not content with covering all things SAM related, we've teamed up with Capital to provide a comprehensive hardware asset management review.
A simple, one-time reconciliation of the software you have deployed versus the licence entitlement you own.
A regularly scheduled analysis of your organisation's estate, specifically adapted to your needs and budget.
A full appraisal of your Microsoft 365 setup and how best to optimise it through automated recommendations.
An add-on to our SAMplicity One, MOT and Plus offerings, quickly diagnose your ability to migrate your resources to the cloud.
In collaboration with law firm Addleshaw Goddard, ensure the legality of your SAM programme and get assistance with any contract disputes.
Available as standard with SAMplicity Plus, ensure you're compliant if you're unexpectedly audited by a vendor.
We've teamed up with some of the forefront experts in licensing knowledge so you can teach yourself to be an expert too.
Stumped by the continually evolving complexities of SAM? Join us for one of our comprehensive courses, either in-person or online.
It’s chock full of useful advice, exclusive events and interesting articles. Don’t miss out!