Tata Consultancy Services Ordered To Cough Up $210 Million In Code Theft Trial (theregister.com) 26
Richard Speed reports via The Register: A jury has sided with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) against Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) over the theft of source code and documentation. A total of $210 million was this week awarded. According to the verdict [PDF], a Texas jury agreed that TCS had "willfully and maliciously" misappropriated both source and confidential documentation by "improper means," awarding CSC $140 million in damages, with another $70 million tacked on for TCS's "unjust enrichment." The complaint [PDF] was filed in April 2019 regarding CSC's VANTAGE-ONE and CyberLife software platforms. CSC had licensed these software platforms to Transamerica Corporation, a life insurance holding company, to whom Tata -- used here to collectively refer to Tata Consultancy Services Limited and Tata America International Corporation -- began providing maintenance services.
In 2014, CSC and Transamerica signed off on a Third-Party Access Addendum that would allow Tata to alter CSC's software, but only for the benefit of its customer -- Transamerica. All was well until 2016, when Transamerica decided it needed to refresh its software. CSC and Tata both put in bids. CSC lost, and Tata won with its own software platform called BaNCS. The circumstances got sticky at this point, not least because Tata hired more than 2,000 Transamerica employees. CSC alleged that these former employees had access to its code and documents, and forwarded them on to the Tata BaNCS development team. The situation escalated in 2019, when a CSC employee was accidentally copied in on an email between Tata and Transamerica showing that Tata was accessing confidential information, according to CSC. The company then began legal proceedings. Documents and motions have been exchanged in the years since as Tata sought to get the case thrown out while CSC's claims were upheld. Eventually, it went to a jury trial, which found for CSC.
In 2014, CSC and Transamerica signed off on a Third-Party Access Addendum that would allow Tata to alter CSC's software, but only for the benefit of its customer -- Transamerica. All was well until 2016, when Transamerica decided it needed to refresh its software. CSC and Tata both put in bids. CSC lost, and Tata won with its own software platform called BaNCS. The circumstances got sticky at this point, not least because Tata hired more than 2,000 Transamerica employees. CSC alleged that these former employees had access to its code and documents, and forwarded them on to the Tata BaNCS development team. The situation escalated in 2019, when a CSC employee was accidentally copied in on an email between Tata and Transamerica showing that Tata was accessing confidential information, according to CSC. The company then began legal proceedings. Documents and motions have been exchanged in the years since as Tata sought to get the case thrown out while CSC's claims were upheld. Eventually, it went to a jury trial, which found for CSC.
well when you outsource your brains (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not surprising at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am just amazed that with all the IT hosted offshore, if India wanted to cozy up to Russia, they could pretty much exfiltrate the data from every Fortune 500 company there is, as well as use full global admin access to Azure AD to effectively do a ransomware attack.
Makes me wonder if companies are not already held at ransom. You never let a hostile nation have full control of your company, but here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the rule of thumb is that you don't outsource things that are core to the business. What did they expect?
Although I hate TCS, I also hate the accountants that chase the bottom line and virtually shutdown the internal operations by outsourcing. So, part of me sympathises with CSC, because they were wronged, I also think "serves them right" for that type of business practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your business model is theft, then you can justify just about anything
India is so thick with thieves they should never be trusted with anything unique or novel, just let them shovel shit and wonder why nobody wants to collaborate with them
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Had some of my work appropriated by Deloitte - they put it in a presentation to upper management, and a copy came my way asking if I could verify 'their' numbers.
At a second company, teammate was asked to work alongside a group of several Deloitte consultants. Their final report was 99% his work ... and his name wasn't even on the list of contributors.
Yeah, after hearing the same story repeated multiple times, I wonder why anyone hires companies like this ... all they do is steal and repackage the wor
Re: (Score:1)
Yea verily, Tata did the needful. All is well, even. No redressal is required, just revert the rest of the source to Tata and kindly adjust to the application of India Law.
Re: (Score:2)
world class consulting firms like Tata, WiPro, and Accenture,
+5 Funny
+5 Oxymoron
Re: (Score:3)
So, I steal property required for your business to do it's daily tasks. I create another company that is better than yours using the stolen property to do it. Since, my new company is doing better than your company, the theft should be forgiven and all rights transferred to my new company.
That is the basic idea of your argument?
Re: (Score:3)
Having worked for CSC I the past, I would just like to say that it has a serious attitude problem. Not as bad as some, but it was 30 years behind the curve on the way it treated people.
Whilst theft isn't acceptable, CSC's stone-age behavioural model doesn't invite much sympathy from me.
Re: (Score:3)
Having worked for CSC I the past, I would just like to say that it has a serious attitude problem. Not as bad as some, but it was 30 years behind the curve on the way it treated people.
Whilst theft isn't acceptable, CSC's stone-age behavioural model doesn't invite much sympathy from me.
I worked for a company acquired by CSC. Since it was a startup, it didn't change too much until it got broken up & consumed. But it looks like this lawsuit started in 2014. CSC merged with some portion of HPE back around 2017 I think, and formed DXC. It was kind of like to garbage trucks colliding.
Tata should outsourrce to India (Score:1)
Tata, come on guys. Outsource to India. You'll get great labor rates and...
They should investigate Transamerica next (Score:3)
Given the level of coordination between former employees and Tata, it should be assumed by CSC that Transamerica might have been in on it. The former employees are 2 miles under the surface in a sea of legal shit under federal law over this, so CSC has legal leverage over them to make them cooperate with any private investigation it wants to carry. CSC is also a major government contractor, so they probably have the connections to "make very bad things happen" since these former employees of Transamerica conspired to commit criminal acts with CSC's IP.
Second time this week! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the second time this week!
TCS Q3 to take $125 million hit on Epic Systems Corporation legal woes [business-standard.com]
Hmm... (Score:2)
A total of $210 million was this week awarded.
Is that Yoda writing, or a Tata consultant?
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
Tata is Yoda's third cousin.
Difference between a scam call centre and Tata (Score:2)
How can you tell whether you've been connected to an Indian IT company or a scam call centre?
Same phone number, different extension.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it's a different extension?
Re: (Score:2)
You raise an excellent point.
This is the big offshore IT firm business model (Score:3)
You will only see this battle between big IT firms as only they can afford the cost and risk of a legal battle. It is the single biggest reason why innovation with small firms is stagnating. It is impossible to compete in the US against offshore firms claiming software dev and support at $30 per hour when they use stolen code.
J'Accuse...! (Score:1)
yeah - it's not like CSC hasn't "willfully and maliciously" misappropriated both source and confidential documentation by "improper means" - J'Accuse...!
They didn't steal it. They copied it. (Score:2)