‘To The Left, To The Left: All The IP You ‘Own’ In The Box To The (Copy)Left’: Open Source Software Issues In M&A Transactions
By: Anthony Lloyd, Alex Horder & Edmond Lau (Technology’s Legal Edge – DLA Piper)
From the browser on a smartphone, to word processing software, to an entire operating system, Open Source Software (Open Source) is so ubiquitous that you’re likely using it without even realising. So, what is it and why do we care about it in the context of an M&A transaction?
As opposed to proprietary or ‘closed source’ software, where the source code and usage rights are privately owned and controlled, Open Source is a form of publicly-accessible software source code that is subject to ‘open source’ licence conditions, generally allowing the licensee to use, view, modify, and redistribute the Open Source’s source code, at no cost. Open Source’s ease of access, flexibility and constant updates have made it extremely popular in software development, as it can be used to fast-track development of software and expand the functionality and capability of software quickly and inexpensively.
However, as a quid pro quo, Open Source licenses also require any development work done on that Open Source to be made available on an open source basis, and that requirement can also extend to and ‘infect’ other proprietary, previously ‘closed source’, software.
In the context of an M&A transaction where a key asset the subject of that transaction is the seller’s proprietary software, Open Source’s ubiquity means that Open Source will likely form part of that software. Organisations looking to undertake such transactions, on both the ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ side, should therefore be careful to understand the extent to which Open Source is being used in key software assets, as well as the risks and issues that generally arise due to its use…
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand