4 ms·
The court based the award on “actual usage” of the software (i.e. auditable use by uniquely identifiable users). In a real life contract negotiation, the Navy w
by lemax 4y ago
The court based the award on “actual usage” of the software (i.e. auditable use by uniquely identifiable users). In a real life contract negotiation, the Navy would have purchased far more licenses. Enterprises tend to buy surplus licenses so they don’t need to renegotiate and in some cases in defense deals the government actually has to buy the software for everyone, and cannot license only for specific people due to internal guidelines. This could have and should have been a lucrative deal for the german software company, instead the Navy went ahead with deploying the software widely without a legitimate license deal in place.
- singron 4y agoI don't want to say anything too specific, but for our SaaS company, it's very common for larger clients to pay an effective price that's around 2x the intended "call us" sticker price even after negotiated discounts because they overbuy on long-term fixed-price contracts and then fail to grow into them (I don't know if this is merely a recent trend due to hiring freezes or if it's always like this). Our default plan type is active-user pricing (i.e. only pay for active users each month), and most large companies would save a ton of money if they stuck with this instead.
- lemax 4y agoTheir goal is to create cost predictability and ensure things are budgeted for. It's about reducing risk and locking in cost. In some cases, if the cost is discretionary, people may also want to ensure they spend their budget so it isn't cut. But in the >10k MRR territory usually that is budgeted for and approved through multiple levels and not coming out of a team budget. Going back to ask for more later is too time consuming.