{"id":15669,"date":"2017-03-31T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2017-03-30T22:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/e3mag.com\/?p=15669"},"modified":"2019-03-11T13:49:51","modified_gmt":"2019-03-11T12:49:51","slug":"risk-of-indirect-use-better-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/e3mag.com\/en\/risiko-der-indirekten-nutzung-better-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"Risk of indirect use - Better Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"

Uncertainty has gripped the global SAP community since SAP's request for compensation in the indirect use litigation was granted.<\/p>\n

Within a few hours, the news spread around the globe and SAP customers are increasingly seeking advice from the few known experts. What does this ruling mean for SAP customers?<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

First of all, I would like to point out that indirect use is not a purely SAP issue. There are many manufacturers who claim compensation for corresponding scenarios.<\/p>\n

But how can you deal with this issue and prepare or safeguard yourself accordingly?<\/p>\n

Technical aids and \"standard procedures\" offered by various tool manufacturers must be critically scrutinized. However, there are some approaches that must be fundamentally observed in any case.<\/p>\n

For example, it does not help to track purely RFC connections and check them against blacklists in circulation.<\/p>\n

For example, according to the existing ruling, can one now claim across the board that a Salesforce application causes indirect use in every case? Of course, but the real question is: Is this use subject to licensing? And this is significantly more difficult to answer.<\/p>\n

If you only look at the end points of communication, you are making life a bit easy for the experts. Instead, existing usage scenarios must be evaluated holistically.<\/p>\n