SAP Announces New Licensing Model to Address "Indirect Access"
Time 2 Minute Read

On April 10, 2018, SAP announced an updated pricing model to address indirect/digital access to its digital core products—SAP ERP, SAP S/4HANA and SAP S/4HANA Cloud. In addition, SAP announced that it will separate its license sales department and auditing departments. These moves are in response to intense pressure SAP has experienced from existing and potential customers that culminated last year following (1) the decision rendered in favor of the software giant against one of its customers, where £55 million in damages was alleged by SAP, and (2) its $600 million claim against the world’s largest brewer which was recently reported as having been settled.

SAP’s products incorporate the key business functions of an organization and form the backbone of many organizations’ application infrastructure. By design, SAP products must receive and send information to a business’ other applications. However, due to broadly drafted license scope provisions in its existing agreements, SAP has successfully argued that “use” of its products occurs when people or things (e.g., third-party applications, IoT devices, automated systems, RPA/bots, etc.) use SAP products without directly logging into them.

In its press release, SAP states that this new approach “makes it easier and more transparent for customers to use and pay for SAP software licenses” and “clarif[ies] the rules of engagement for licensing, usage and compliance.” SAP will offer existing customers the option to remain on the current pricing model or convert to the updated structure, and will offer resources over the coming months to help customers decide on which model is right for them. “Indirect access” is a complicated (and potentially costly) issue; therefore, careful consideration needs to be given before determining which licensing approach is appropriate for your organization.

  • Partner

    Recognized as one of the nation’s leading outsourcing and technology lawyers by prominent ranking publications such as Chambers and the Legal 500, Andy focuses on complex domestic and international business process and ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court ruling held that AI-generated documents prepared by a defendant and later shared with legal counsel were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page