Now the US Navy has returned fire, denying Bitmanagement\u2019s allegations. In a response filed yesterday, the Navy admitted purchasing 38 licenses for BS Contact Geo but denies that the licenses were \u201climited\u201d to installations on 38 Navy computers. \u201cConcurrent-use network-installation licenses\u201d of the software were obtained, it says.<\/p>\n
\u201cDefendant admits that the Navy installed BS Contact Geo onto hundreds of thousands of computers within its network starting on or about August 2013. Defendant denies that BS Contact Geo was installed on the Navy\u2019s networked computers without Bitmanagement\u2019s knowledge or authorization,\u201d the filing reads.<\/p>\n
\u201cDefendant further avers that Bitmanagement modified BS Contact Geo for the purpose of allowing such installation, and that Bitmanagement received multiple updates regarding the status of this installation. Defendant denies that Bitmanagement did not license or consent to such installation and use of its software.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the original complaint, it was stated that Bitmanagement executives were \u201csurprised\u201d to discover that amid licensing negotiations the Navy had already installed almost 105,000 copies of the software on an equal number of machines. In its response, the Navy said that since Bitmanagement had already modified the software for this use, the installations should have been expected.<\/p>\n
\u201cDefendant admits that emails were provided to Bitmanagement in the summer and fall of 2013 advising Bitmanagement regarding the deployment of BS Contact Geo on the Navy\u2019s network. Defendant admits that one such email indicated a successful deployment to 104,922 Navy computers,\u201d the response reads.<\/p>\n
\u201cDefendant denies that the installations should have been surprising to Bitmanagement\u2019s executives, and Defendant further avers that Bitmanagement modified BS Contact Geo for the purpose of allowing the deployment.\u201d<\/p>\n
Via the government, the Navy further denies that it accepted it had installed the software on more machines that it had licenses for, denies it knew that a license was required for each machine, denies that it knew that each unlicensed installation was an instance of willful infringement, and denies that Bitmanagement has suffered any loss.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, the Navy insists that no copyrights have been infringed since Bitmanagement authorized reproduction and distribution of the software both \u201cexpressly and impliedly.\u201d<\/p>\n
The government also adds that as a German corporation, Bitmanagement\u2019s claim \u201cmay be jurisdictionally\u201d barred by 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2502(a)<\/a>, but it doesn\u2019t stop there.<\/p>\n \u201cTo the extent that Plaintiff\u2019s claims are premised on \u2018willful infringement\u2019 or any other basis beyond the scope of 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1498(b)<\/a>\u2026Plaintiff\u2019s claims are barred by sovereign immunity,\u201d it adds.<\/p>\n Finally, the government adds that Bitmanagement\u2019s claim could be rendered null due to its failure to act when it knew any alleged infringement was taking place.<\/p>\n \u201cTo the extent that Plaintiff seeks recovery for any alleged infringement that resulted from Plaintiff\u2019s failing or refusing to take such actions as is reasonably necessary to minimize any loss which it may have sustained, Plaintiff is precluded from any such recovery due to its failure to mitigate damages,\u201d the response reads.<\/p>\n In closing, the government demands that the complaint against the Navy should be dismissed, with the government awarded all expenses including costs and attorney\u2019s fees. With the sides so far apart, this one looks set to run and run.<\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"