SAP licensing dispute with AB InBev settled behind closed doors
In 2017, two in-court licensing disputes have been initiated by SAP against Diageo and AB InBev, both having a common non-compliance source: indirect access.
Since the two cases generated quite a storm in the SAM world, SAP intended to have a new approach around the indirect access topic, that will change the licensing model for static read, order to cash and procure to pay scenarios.
Right after that, the dispute with AB InBev has been settled out of court, leaving no public details of their agreement. AB InBev sustained last year they will continue to defend themselves against the $600m claim and we can only presume that the decision taken behind closed doors is more in AB InBev’s favor.
However, the settlement announcement and the latest news of indirect access strategy are still not bringing enough clarity among SAP customers. An incident that occurred twice already can be triggered again and this is one of the reasons why SAP consumers should proactively prepare themselves for such an audit.
But is it difficult to be proactive and start an investigation as complex as third-party interfaces’ integration with SAP? How can you make sure that the licensing model you have covers the potential indirect access exposures? The vaster the SAP landscape is, the more diverse and divided in different geographical regions, having autonomous rights for every region to manage their own systems, the more difficult it is to ensure your company’s compliancy at a global level.
Nevertheless, there are SAM experts that can work closely with your Process Integration Engineers and SAP Admins to detect the risk sources and to find solutions applicable to your environment specifically.
Do you still feel that the SAP indirect access topic is not as explicit as expected? Feel free to contact us and our specialists will answer your questions.