Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Proprietary software


Proprietary software, also known as closed-source software, consists of programs whose source code is kept private by the copyright holder, who imposes restrictions on users' rights to inspect, modify, or redistribute it through end-user license agreements. This model has dominated software development since the commercialization of computing in the mid-20th century, enabling creators to protect investments in research and development while monetizing via direct sales, subscriptions, or usage fees. Prominent examples include Microsoft Windows, which holds a significant share of desktop operating systems, and Adobe's suite of creative tools, illustrating how proprietary licensing sustains large-scale innovation and market leadership in enterprise and consumer sectors. Debates persist with advocates of open-source alternatives, who contend that proprietary restrictions foster dependency and stifle collaborative progress, whereas defenders highlight empirical advantages in quality control and financial incentives for proprietary maintainers, as evidenced by sustained corporate outputs absent in purely communal efforts. Despite criticisms of potential vendor lock-in, proprietary software underpins the majority of commercial deployments, driving economic value through proprietary ecosystems that integrate hardware, services, and updates tailored to specific revenue models.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Characteristics

Proprietary software refers to computer programs owned and controlled by an individual, company, or organization that retains exclusive legal rights over its use, modification, and distribution. The defining feature is the non-disclosure of the source code, which remains confidential to protect and competitive advantages, distinguishing it from open-source alternatives where code is publicly accessible. Distribution occurs primarily in compiled binary form, limiting users to executing the software as provided without insight into its underlying logic or algorithms. Licensing agreements, often termed end-user license agreements (EULAs), enforce restrictions such as bans on copying beyond authorized instances, , or creating derivative works, with violations potentially leading to legal action under law. Proprietary models typically involve commercial transactions, where users pay fees for access via one-time purchases, subscriptions, or per-use models, funding ongoing development and support controlled by the proprietor. This structure relies on protections like copyrights and trade secrets to maintain monopoly-like control, though enforcement varies by jurisdiction and can face challenges from requirements or doctrines.

Distinction from Open Source and Free Software

Proprietary software restricts access to its , distributing only compiled binaries under end-user license agreements (EULAs) that prohibit , modification, or redistribution without permission, thereby maintaining the developer's exclusive control and enabling monetization through sales or subscriptions. In contrast, provides public access to under licenses approved by the (OSI), which was established in 1998 to promote collaborative development; these licenses require free redistribution, inclusion of , allowance for derived works, and non-discrimination against fields of endeavor, fostering community contributions and innovation without the secrecy inherent in proprietary models. Free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) founded by in 1985, emphasizes ethical user autonomy through four essential freedoms: the freedom to run the program for any purpose (freedom 0), to study and modify it (freedom 1), to redistribute copies (freedom 2), and to distribute modified versions (freedom 3), often enforced via licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL) introduced in 1989. While most free software qualifies as under OSI criteria, the reverse is not always true, as open source permits permissive licenses (e.g., ) that allow incorporation into proprietary software without requiring source disclosure of derivatives, a practice the FSF critiques for potentially undermining user freedoms by enabling "semi-free" or non-free extensions. Proprietary software, by withholding and freedoms, precludes such community-driven evolution, prioritizing developer revenue protection—evident in market dominance of products like Microsoft Windows, which held approximately 72% global desktop OS share as of 2023—over user control or collective improvement. This tripartite distinction underscores causal trade-offs: proprietary models incentivize private investment in features like integrated security updates (e.g., Adobe's proprietary before its 2020 end-of-life), but limit and auditing, whereas and enable transparency and adaptation at the cost of coordinated maintenance challenges, as seen in the fragmentation of distributions since the kernel's 1991 release. Empirical data from the OSI indicates over 1,000 approved licenses by 2024, reflecting broader adoption in enterprise settings for cost efficiency, yet proprietary software persists in sectors requiring vendor accountability, such as systems where support contracts exceed open alternatives in reliability guarantees.

Historical Evolution

Early Commercial Origins (Pre-1970s)

The development of proprietary software in its early commercial form coincided with the rise of electronic digital computers in the mid-20th century, where programs were created as confidential tools tailored to specific hardware and business needs, without public distribution of . Hardware manufacturers such as dominated this period, providing custom or bundled programming for mainframes like the scientific computer released in 1953, which included proprietary utilities and tools designed exclusively for their systems to maintain competitive advantages in enterprise data processing. These early efforts focused on applications for scientific calculations, inventory management, and payroll, reflecting a model where software served as an integral, non-separable component of leased hardware rather than a standalone . The emergence of independent software vendors in the late 1950s marked the initial shift toward commercialized proprietary packages. , established in 1959, pioneered this by developing and marketing off-the-shelf utilities such as sorting and flowcharting programs for mainframes, including the SORT/MERGE routine for the 7090 and AUTOFLOW released in 1965, which automated program documentation. 's approach treated software as a licensable product protected by patents—Martin Goetz of secured the first U.S. in 1968 for a data-sorting method—emphasizing control to prevent reverse-engineering and ensure revenue from reusable code. This contrasted with collaborative user groups like SHARE, formed by customers in 1955, which exchanged limited code snippets but did not commercialize them broadly. The family, introduced in 1964, accelerated proprietary software complexity due to its compatibility across models, necessitating advanced operating systems like OS/360, which developed internally without source disclosure to safeguard market dominance. By the late 1960s, rising antitrust scrutiny from the U.S. Department of prompted to announce on June 23, 1969, the unbundling of software and services from hardware pricing, effective January 1, 1970, thereby formalizing software as a distinct asset that could be licensed separately and spurring third-party development. This decision, influenced by legal pressures over bundling practices, underscored the nature of pre-existing software ecosystems while laying groundwork for an expanded commercial market.

Expansion in Personal Computing Era (1970s-1990s)

The personal computing era began with the introduction of microcomputers like the MITS in 1975, initially featuring software shared freely among hobbyists via user groups and bulletin boards. , co-founded by and in 1975, disrupted this culture by developing a for the , licensed from a version and adapted for commercial sale. Priced at $150 for cassette tape or $400 for paper tape versions, required payment for full functionality, with limited demos freely distributed to encourage purchases. In a February 3, 1976, published in computer magazines, Gates condemned unauthorized copying as theft, arguing that without revenue from sales, quality would stagnate, as hobbyist sharing undermined incentives for professional programming efforts. The , launched by Apple Computer in June 1977, accelerated proprietary software's expansion through its expandable architecture and color graphics, attracting third-party developers. Apple's , bundled in ROM, and subsequent Apple DOS (introduced in 1978) were copyrighted and distributed as proprietary systems, with Apple enforcing licensing for clones and peripherals. Applications like , the first electronic spreadsheet released in 1979 by Software Arts, epitomized commercial viability; priced at $100–$400 depending on hardware, it was protected by and sold through authorized dealers, boosting Apple II sales to over 600,000 units by 1983 as users purchased machines specifically for such "killer apps." Other proprietary titles, including word processors like AppleWriter and games with schemes, dominated the ecosystem, though piracy via duplication remained rampant, prompting early anti-copying measures like serialized disks. The Personal Computer's release in August 1981 marked proprietary software's institutionalization, powered by Microsoft's (version 1.0 shipped in 1981), adapted from acquired by Microsoft in July 1981 for $75,000. IBM licensed a customized variant as PC-DOS, but Microsoft's non-exclusive deal allowed sublicensing to competitors, fostering IBM PC clones and standardizing across hardware by the mid-1980s, with over 10 million copies sold by 1987. This openness in hardware contrasted with closed software models, enabling proprietary applications like (1983), a that captured 70% , and dBase II for databases, both reliant on DOS licensing fees and end-user agreements restricting . By the , (1990) built on this foundation, achieving 90% PC market penetration by 1993 through proprietary graphical interfaces layered atop , as revenues from software licensing—totaling billions for —dwarfed hardware margins and entrenched controls.

Dominance in Digital Ecosystems (2000s-Present)

In the 2000s, Windows solidified its dominance in operating systems, holding over 90% global by 2003, driven by the widespread adoption of released in 2001, which powered the majority of personal computers for enterprise and consumer use. By 2010, Windows maintained approximately 92% share amid the shift to , reflecting proprietary software's entrenched position through compatibility with legacy applications, hardware integration, and enterprise licensing agreements that discouraged alternatives. Despite antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. and during the early 2000s, Microsoft's control persisted, with Windows versions like 10 (2015) and 11 (2021) sustaining around 72% share as of 2024, as open-source options like captured only 4% due to limited ecosystem support. The rise of mobile ecosystems further exemplified proprietary dominance, particularly Apple's following the launch in 2007, which introduced a closed, platform integrating hardware, software, and the in 2008, enabling strict control over app distribution and monetization. achieved 28% global by 2024, with higher penetration in premium segments, supported by features like (2017) and seamless device integration that fostered user lock-in. Google's , open-source at its core since 2008, relied on —including the Play Store and core apps—for 72% share, where Google enforced ecosystem control via licensing, generating billions in revenue from app commissions and services. This hybrid model underscored elements' role in scalability, as Android's fragmentation contrasted with iOS's cohesive, revenue-optimized architecture, contributing to Apple's services revenue exceeding $85 billion annually by 2023. Cloud computing emerged as another proprietary stronghold, with (AWS) launching in 2006 and capturing 31-33% of the infrastructure-as-a-service market by 2024 through proprietary tools like EC2 and S3, enabling scalable, vendor-locked deployments for enterprises. , building on proprietary foundations since 2010, secured 20% share, leveraging hybrid cloud integrations with on-premises proprietary software. , at 12%, complemented Android's ecosystem with proprietary AI services like , collectively positioning the "Big Three" at over 60% market control and driving global cloud spending to surpass $500 billion in 2023. These platforms' dominance stemmed from proprietary and data analytics, which incentivized developer lock-in and R&D investment—Microsoft's cloud revenue alone reached $110 billion in fiscal 2023—outpacing open alternatives fragmented by compatibility issues. Proprietary ecosystems' economic scale amplified this era's trends, with reporting $23 billion in revenue for fiscal 2000, escalating to $211 billion by 2023, largely from Windows, , and licensing. Apple's post-iPhone pivot yielded $394 billion in 2023 revenue, 52% from hardware tied to services, exemplifying how proprietary integration captured network effects in app economies. () generated $283 billion in 2023, with proprietary search, ads, and cloud services reinforcing mobile dominance despite open Android licensing. Regulatory challenges, including EU fines against for Android bundling (2018, €4.3 billion) and ongoing U.S. scrutiny of app store practices, highlighted tensions but did not erode core market positions, as proprietary models sustained innovation through recoupable investments exceeding $20 billion annually per firm.

Legal and Intellectual Property Framework

Copyright Protections and Licensing Models

Copyright protection for computer programs in the United States originated with the first registration deposit on November 30, 1961, by , and the Copyright Office formally began accepting software registrations on May 19, 1964. Under the 1976 Copyright Act, effective January 1, 1978, software qualifies as a "literary work" eligible for protection, covering the specific sequence of instructions and expressions in source or but excluding underlying ideas, algorithms, or functional aspects. This protection arises automatically upon fixation in a tangible medium, granting owners exclusive to , , public , and preparation of derivative works for the author's life plus 70 years or 95–120 years for works made for hire. Proprietary software developers register with the U.S. Copyright Office to enable statutory damages and attorney fees in infringement suits, deterring unauthorized copying that could undermine commercial value. In proprietary contexts, serves as the foundational mechanism to restrict access to , typically distributing only compiled binaries to prevent modification or . This contrasts with open-source models by enforcing exclusivity, where violations trigger infringement claims under laws like the (DMCA) of 1998, which prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures such as or license keys. Courts have upheld these protections, as in Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp. (2009), where unauthorized replication of macOS on non-Apple hardware was deemed infringement, affirming that licenses can impose hardware-specific restrictions enforceable via . However, does not safeguard against independent recreation of similar functionality, relying instead on complementary mechanisms like trade secrets for undisclosed algorithms. Licensing models operationalize these protections through end-user license agreements (EULAs), contractual terms presented during installation or access that grant limited, revocable permissions for use while retaining ownership with the licensor. Common provisions prohibit redistribution, decompilation, and commercial exploitation, often tying usage to specific devices or users to maximize control and revenue. Perpetual licenses, prevalent in the 1990s–2000s for desktop software like , allow indefinite use post one-time payment but may require separate maintenance fees for updates. Subscription models, dominant since the 2010s (e.g., launched in 2013), provide ongoing access via recurring fees, enabling remote enforcement and feature gating. Other variants include per-user or per-device limits, as in , and consumption-based metering for services, where overages incur additional charges to align costs with actual utilization. These models sustain proprietary ecosystems by coupling software with services, though enforceability varies by jurisdiction, with some courts scrutinizing "shrink-wrap" EULAs for adequate notice and assent.

Patents, Trade Secrets, and Enforcement

Patents grant proprietary software developers exclusive rights to inventions such as , user interfaces, and methods that meet criteria of novelty, non-obviousness, and under laws like 35 U.S.C. § 101. The first U.S. was issued on April 23, 1968, covering a method for converting numerals into numerals. Landmark decisions have shaped eligibility; for instance, v. Diehr (1981) upheld a patent on a rubber-curing using a computer , affirming that software tied to a specific practical application is patentable. However, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014) invalidated patents on abstract ideas implemented via generic computers, raising the threshold for software inventions and leading to increased invalidation rates in litigation. Trade secrets protect proprietary software elements like source code, internal algorithms, and development processes that derive economic value from secrecy and are subject to reasonable efforts to maintain confidentiality, as defined under the (UTSA) adopted in 48 U.S. states. Unlike patents, trade secrets require no public disclosure or registration, offering perpetual protection against misappropriation but vulnerability to independent invention or . High-profile cases illustrate their enforcement; in Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2017), alleged stole self-driving car software trade secrets from a former engineer, resulting in a $245 million settlement and a permanent on certain technologies. Enforcement of patents and trade secrets in proprietary software often involves litigation to secure injunctions, damages, or royalties, with software-related patents comprising about 30% of U.S. patent infringement cases in 2023. Direct infringement occurs when a competitor copies patented code or methods, while induced infringement applies to facilitating others' use, as seen in ongoing disputes over API implementations. Trade secret enforcement has surged, with a 12.4% year-over-year increase in U.S. cases reported in 2023, frequently involving departing employees or data scraping. Recent verdicts, such as the $222 million award against Walmart in 2025 for misappropriating produce monitoring technology trade secrets, underscore aggressive judicial remedies including treble damages for willful violations. Companies bolster enforcement through non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), employee training, and digital rights management tools to prevent unauthorized access.

Key Legal Precedents and Limitations

In the United States, the case of Enterprises Ltd. v. , Inc. (977 F.2d 1510, 9th Cir. 1992) established that intermediate copying of proprietary software code through disassembly for the purpose of achieving constitutes under law, provided the final product does not substantially incorporate the original code. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that Accolade's of Sega's Genesis console software was necessary to develop compatible games, outweighing potential market harm to Sega, as no direct in console sales occurred. Conversely, MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. (991 F.2d 511, 9th Cir. 1993) ruled that loading proprietary operating into a computer's () during maintenance activities creates a temporary copy that infringes the copyright owner's exclusive right, even without permanent storage. The court held that Peak's unauthorized of MAI's software on serviced computers violated the Copyright Act, as RAM loading qualifies as fixation, limiting third-party servicing unless explicitly licensed. The enforceability of end-user license agreements (EULAs) restricting resale was clarified in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. (621 F.3d 1102, 9th Cir. 2010), where the Ninth Circuit adopted a three-factor test to distinguish licenses from sales: whether the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license, (2) significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software, and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Applying this to Autodesk's AutoCAD software, the court determined transfers were licenses, not sales, thus excluding first sale doctrine protections under 17 U.S.C. § 109 and allowing Autodesk to prohibit Vernor's secondary sales. Regarding application programming interfaces (APIs), Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (141 S. Ct. 1183, 2021) held by the that 's reimplementation of 37 packages in constituted , considering the transformative nature of the use, limited copying (11,500 lines out of 2.86 million), and negligible market harm to Oracle's licensing. The 6-2 decision emphasized that declaring code serves a functional, system-organizing role, tilting fair use factors toward despite Oracle's proprietary claims. The of 1998 imposes significant limitations via its anti-circumvention provisions in 17 U.S.C. § 1201, prohibiting the bypassing of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works, including proprietary software protections like or password systems. This extends beyond traditional infringement by criminalizing tools and acts enabling circumvention, even for noninfringing purposes, though triennial exemptions by the Librarian of allow limited for , security research, or repair in specified cases. Critics argue these rules hinder by overriding doctrines, as seen in restricted device diagnostics or software modifications. Internationally, the European Union's Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs permits of proprietary software interfaces for purposes without the right holder's consent, provided it is indispensable for independent creation and does not impair error correction rights. This contrasts with stricter U.S. approaches under DMCA, allowing EU users to decompile code solely to achieve , as affirmed in cases like the Court of Justice's interpretation emphasizing lawful user rights. However, such exceptions exclude commercial exploitation beyond and are void if contractually prohibited, balancing proprietary control with market competition.

Technical Classifications and Features

Categories of Proprietary Software

Proprietary software is categorized chiefly by its licensing and models, which enforce the owner's over usage while accommodating diverse strategies. These categories determine whether access is granted through upfront payments, recurring fees, or limited trials, all while withholding and modification rights. Unlike open-source alternatives, proprietary categories prioritize revenue protection and vendor dependency, often leading to higher development investments but restricted user freedoms. Perpetual licenses form a core category, providing indefinite use rights after a one-time purchase, though warranties and updates typically expire without further payment. This model prevailed in the personal computing boom of the and 1990s for standalone applications, such as early suites released starting in 1989. Subscription-based licenses, a more recent dominant category since the early , mandate periodic payments—often monthly or annually—for ongoing access, maintenance, and feature enhancements. Adobe's transition to the Creative subscription model in illustrates this shift, bundling tools like Photoshop into a service-oriented that ensures continuous and . Volume and site licenses cater to organizational use, permitting multiple deployments across users or locations under bulk agreements that customize terms like installation limits or support levels. These are common in settings, as with programs established in the 1990s for scalable deployment in businesses. Additional categories include shareware, where limited versions are freely distributed for trial, prompting payment for full functionality—a model popularized in the 1980s for independent developers—and freemium, offering basic free access with paid upgrades for advanced capabilities, as in many SaaS products since the 2000s. These variants expand reach while upholding proprietary restrictions on reverse engineering and redistribution.

Architectural and Distribution Models

Proprietary software is architecturally distinguished by its reliance on compiled binary executables or , which conceals the underlying from end users to safeguard and prevent unauthorized modifications. This closed-source approach typically incorporates built-in mechanisms such as code obfuscation, of key components, and runtime licensing verification to deter and enforce usage restrictions. For instance, architectures often include proprietary models with centralized vendor-controlled updates, ensuring that patches and features are deployed only through official channels rather than community-driven contributions. In terms of distribution models, proprietary software is commonly delivered as pre-compiled via digital downloads, like CDs or USB drives, or app store installations, accompanied by end-user agreements (EULAs) that prohibit redistribution or decompilation. Subscription-based models, such as those used by or , provide ongoing access to updated binaries over the , tying distribution to recurring payments and remote deactivation capabilities for non-compliance. Software-as-a-Service () variants shift architecture toward server-side execution, where users interact via web interfaces without receiving local binaries, as seen in platforms like , thereby centralizing control and enabling usage metering. Enterprise deployments may involve on-premise installations of binaries customized under non-disclosure agreements, while embedded proprietary in hardware devices, such as routers or printers, is distributed as integrated binary images flashed during manufacturing. These models facilitate revenue through per-user licensing or perpetual fees but impose architectural trade-offs, including reduced due to protocols embedded in the binaries, which can lock users into vendor ecosystems. Historical shifts, such as the move from boxed in the 1990s to cloud distributions post-2010, reflect adaptations to digital delivery efficiencies, with over 80% of revenue derived from subscription or models by 2023 according to industry analyses.

Business and Economic Incentives

Pricing Strategies and Revenue Models

Proprietary software vendors predominantly employ perpetual licensing and subscription-based models to monetize their products, with the choice driven by the need to recover substantial upfront development costs and sustain ongoing . Perpetual licenses involve a one-time upfront granting indefinite use , often supplemented by optional annual maintenance fees covering updates and , typically priced at 15-25% of the initial cost. This model aligns with traditional on-premises deployments, allowing customers perceived ownership while enabling vendors to generate recurring through support contracts, which can exceed 20% of license fees annually for enterprise software like . In contrast, subscription models, increasingly dominant since the , charge recurring fees—monthly or annually—for access, updates, and cloud-hosted delivery, providing vendors with predictable cash flows and reducing risks via account-based authentication. The shift toward subscriptions has been pronounced among major vendors, as evidenced by Adobe's 2013 transition from perpetual licenses for Creative Suite to the Creative Cloud subscription service. Initially, this caused a revenue dip of 8% in 2013 due to customer resistance and deferred recognition of multi-year commitments, but it yielded sustained growth, with total rising from $4.1 billion in 2013 to $19 billion by 2023, over 90% from recurring sources. Similarly, has expanded subscriptions for productivity tools, contributing to the Productivity and Business Processes segment's $59.7 billion in fiscal 2021 , while maintaining perpetual options alongside for enterprises. Oracle offers both perpetual licenses—e.g., a $1 million upfront for database software plus —and subscription tiers for cloud services, with support fees on perpetual deals ensuring long-term even as subscriptions gain traction for . These strategies reflect economic incentives to maximize lifetime customer value amid high fixed costs of proprietary development, where marginal reproduction is near-zero but initial R&D investments demand amortization over time. Subscriptions facilitate through tiered plans (e.g., vs. premium features) and usage-based add-ons, fostering via continuous updates that obsolete standalone versions. Perpetual models, however, appeal to cost-sensitive buyers seeking to cap expenses, though vendors often discount them less aggressively and pair with mandatory support to maintain streams, as perpetual sales alone yield lumpy income vulnerable to market cycles. Hybrid approaches, such as trials leading to paid tiers, further enable while converting users to revenue-generating proprietary features. Overall, the preference for subscriptions has boosted vendor valuations by emphasizing annual recurring metrics attractive to investors, though it exposes customers to potential fee escalations without asset .

Investment in Research and Development

Proprietary software developers allocate significant resources to (R&D) to create novel features, enhance performance, and integrate emerging technologies such as and , with expenditures often comprising 10-20% of revenues for leading firms. This investment is facilitated by protections, which enable companies to monetize innovations through licensing and sales, thereby recouping costs and incentivizing further outlays. In 2023, reported R&D expenses of $27.195 billion, representing approximately 13% of its revenue, a figure consistent with prior years and underscoring sustained commitment to proprietary advancements in operating systems and productivity tools. Major proprietary software entities, including those in the "Big Tech" cohort, have escalated R&D outlays amid competitive pressures and technological shifts. From 2015 to , collective R&D spending by , , , Apple, and grew at a 22% annualized rate, reaching $213.7 billion for the trailing twelve months ending in , driven by investments in proprietary AI models, custom silicon, and ecosystems. Projections for 2024 indicate Apple allocating around $33 billion and approximately $31.9 billion, reflecting priorities in areas like platforms and AI integration within closed-source architectures. In the software and services sector, R&D budgets expanded notably between 2022 and , with firms pivoting toward proprietary AI capabilities to sustain market differentiation.
CompanyR&D Expenditure (2023, USD Billion)Approximate % of Revenue
27.213%
Apple29.9 (FY2023)~17% of gross profit
45.4 (estimated from trends)Varies, ~14%
This table summarizes select 2023 figures for prominent proprietary software developers, highlighting scale relative to operations; data derived from financial disclosures and industry analyses. Since the 2000s, R&D trends have shown acceleration, with U.S. business R&D in rising from $268.6 billion in 2000 to $496.6 billion by 2015, propelled by proprietary innovations in web services, cloud infrastructure, and scalable applications. High-growth proprietary firms often exceed 20% allocation to R&D, correlating with rapid expansion in competitive domains where exclusivity barriers protect returns on . These patterns affirm that proprietary models sustain elevated R&D levels by linking costs directly to revenue streams insulated from free replication.

Market Competition and Profit Dynamics

Proprietary software vendors primarily compete with open-source alternatives, which provide no-cost entry points but often require additional expertise or services for enterprise deployment, allowing proprietary solutions to maintain premium pricing through perceived reliability and ecosystem integration. In sectors like and productivity suites, companies such as and dominate, with Microsoft's Office suite capturing over 80% of the paid office software market in 2024 despite free OSS competitors like . This competition pressures pricing in commoditized areas but reinforces proprietary advantages in integrated stacks, where switching costs deter migration; for example, via proprietary enables sustained revenue streams amid OSS encroachment. Profit dynamics in proprietary software hinge on scalable licensing models, including perpetual licenses, subscriptions, and , which leverage near-zero marginal costs for distribution to yield high operating margins—averaging 29.58% industry-wide in Q3 2025, with leaders like achieving 43.79%. These models capitalize on network effects and data moats, as seen in Adobe's Creative Cloud, which generated $19.4 billion in annual recurring revenue by 2024 through subscription lock-in, outpacing fragmented OSS tools in professional workflows. Competition fosters innovation via R&D investment— allocated $27.2 billion to R&D in fiscal 2024—but also risks commoditization, prompting hybrid strategies where firms like (now ) monetize OSS services to encroach on pure proprietary turf. Empirically, proprietary dominance persists in revenue terms despite OSS growth to $41.83 billion in 2024, as commercial incentives drive feature differentiation and support contracts that OSS struggles to match at scale without dual-licensing or consulting revenue. Barriers like enforcement and ecosystem dependencies create oligopolistic structures, enabling firms to extract rents from high-value users while OSS competes on cost in low-margin niches; academic analyses indicate proprietary platforms retain pricing power by avoiding full cost-sharing with developers, sustaining profitability amid dual-sided market tensions. This dynamic underscores causal links between exclusivity and returns, though antitrust scrutiny, as in ongoing cases against and , tempers unchecked profits.

User Rights and Restrictions

Permitted Uses and End-User Agreements

Proprietary software grants users access through end-user license agreements (EULAs), which explicitly define permitted uses as limited rights to install, execute, and operate the software on designated for specified purposes, rather than outright or unrestricted access. These agreements typically emphasize that the software is , not sold, conferring non-exclusive, non-transferable permissions tailored to the license type, such as , , or editions. For instance, common terms allow on a single primary device or a capped number of compatible machines, with provisions for copies to ensure continuity of use, provided proprietary notices remain intact. In practice, permitted uses vary by but often include internal operations, aligned with the software's designed functionality, and limited multi-device deployment under subscription or perpetual models. Microsoft's Windows EULA, for example, authorizes home users to install the software on personal devices and small businesses to deploy it across up to 10 devices, while prohibiting uses like government embargoed activities or without . Similarly, Adobe's software licenses permit and use on the "permitted number of compatible computers" as defined by the subscription edition, allowing on multiple devices but restricting simultaneous use beyond authorized limits. These clauses ensure operational utility while safeguarding the licensor's rights against unauthorized exploitation. EULAs enforce these permissions through mandatory acceptance mechanisms, such as interfaces during installation, binding users to terms that outline scope, duration, and revocation conditions for non-compliance. Vendors like specify that end-users may utilize the software for its intended functions but exclude commercial or sublicensing without explicit grant, reflecting a balance between enabling practical application and preventing revenue dilution. Empirical enforcement data indicates that such agreements are upheld in jurisdictions recognizing contractual validity, with U.S. courts consistently affirming limited-use grants in cases involving since the 1996 ProCD v. Zeidenberg ruling, which validated shrinkwrap licenses as enforceable contracts.

Restrictions on Inspection and Modification

Proprietary software is distributed exclusively in compiled binary form, withholding access to the human-readable from end users. Licenses governing such software, including end-user license agreements (EULAs), explicitly prohibit through methods like , decompilation, or disassembly, as well as any modification of the code or binaries. These contractual restrictions derive enforceability from copyright law, which treats software as a literary work protected against unauthorized reproduction or adaptation. In the United States, the of 1998 reinforces these barriers via Section 1201, which prohibits circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs) such as , , or that control access to the protected work. Violations carry civil penalties up to $500,000 per act for willful infringement and potential criminal fines or imprisonment for repeat offenders. A narrow exception under DMCA Section 1201(f) permits solely for purposes—such as enabling one program to with another—provided the engineer lawfully possesses the software, the details are not publicly available otherwise, and the resulting information is not used to infringe . This carve-out, however, requires disclosure of findings only if occurs within a , limiting its application for individual users or non-interoperability research like security auditing. Enforcement extends beyond federal statute to state contract law, where EULAs from vendors like and stipulate license revocation, lawsuits for damages, and injunctions against violators attempting modifications. For example, prohibitions in these agreements bar altering software functionality, embedding malware detection evasion, or creating derivative works, with breaches often resulting in account termination or withheld updates. Such measures preserve vendor control over , though they have prompted debates in legal scholarship over stifled independent verification of claims like software .

Controls on Redistribution and Sharing

Proprietary software licenses impose strict prohibitions on redistribution and sharing to protect developers' and revenue streams. These licenses, often formalized in end-user license agreements (EULAs), typically grant users a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the software on designated devices while explicitly barring copying, lending, or distribution to others without additional . For instance, such agreements limit to a single user or machine, requiring separate purchases for multi-user environments. Technical mechanisms reinforce these legal restrictions, including product activation requiring unique keys tied to hardware identifiers, digital rights management (DRM) systems that encrypt code and monitor usage, and server-based validation that detects unauthorized copies. Violations, such as sharing activation codes or bypassing checks, can trigger deactivation or reporting to vendors. Copyright law underpins enforcement, granting developers exclusive distribution rights, while statutes like Section 1201 of the U.S. (DMCA), enacted in 1998, criminalize the creation or distribution of tools that circumvent access controls embedded in proprietary software. This provision has been applied to prevent utilities from enabling unauthorized sharing, with penalties including fines up to $500,000 per violation for willful infringement. Examples include Microsoft Windows licenses, which prohibit redistribution of installation media or keys beyond personal backups, and Adobe Photoshop EULAs, which restrict sharing to non-simultaneous use on up to two devices owned by the . Vendors like these routinely through , leading to license revocations or lawsuits against enterprises exceeding seat limits. Such controls ensure that proprietary software remains a controlled , distinct from open-source alternatives that permit free redistribution.

Interoperability and System Integration

Proprietary Formats, Protocols, and APIs

Proprietary formats, protocols, and in software refer to technical specifications controlled exclusively by the vendor, with documentation typically withheld from the public or third parties unless licensed under restrictive terms such as nondisclosure agreements. These elements encode (formats), communication rules (protocols), and software interfaces () in ways that prioritize vendor-specific implementations over universal , often requiring by competitors to achieve compatibility—a that can be technically challenging and legally risky under laws. This opacity inherently limits , as non-vendor systems struggle to parse proprietary data or interact seamlessly, fostering dependency on the originating ecosystem. A prominent example of proprietary file formats involves Microsoft's legacy binary .doc format for Word documents, which stored structured text, images, and formatting in a closed binary structure undocumented publicly until partial specifications were released years later. Competitors, such as developers of alternative office suites, relied on reverse engineering to approximate compatibility, incurring significant development costs and risking incomplete fidelity in rendering complex documents. Similarly, Apple's .pages format for Pages documents exemplifies proprietary storage, tying content to iWork applications and complicating export or integration with non-Apple tools without loss of features. These formats contrast with open standards like PDF, which, after initial proprietary development by Adobe, were standardized to enable broad interoperability. Proprietary protocols govern data exchange in networks or applications, often embedding vendor-specific optimizations that exclude rivals. Apple's , a suite of protocols for local area networking on Macintosh systems introduced in 1984, operated as a optimized for Apple hardware and software, limiting connectivity to heterogeneous environments without proprietary extensions. In embedded and real-time systems, vendors like deploy proprietary wireless protocols in their SimpleLink SDK, which provide tailored low-power communication but require adherence to TI's ecosystem for full functionality, deterring integration with off-the-shelf alternatives. Such protocols can enhance performance within the vendor's stack but exacerbate fragmentation, as seen in industrial automation where proprietary implementations lock users into single-supplier hardware. Proprietary APIs define how software components interact, with closed interfaces restricting third-party extensions or migrations. In real-time operating systems (RTOS), vendors often implement unique APIs for thread management and , such as custom producer-consumer paradigms that deviate from standards, complicating porting of code across platforms. Cloud providers exemplify this through service-specific APIs; ' Lambda functions, for instance, rely on AWS-exclusive invocation models and event sources that embed applications deeply, elevating switching costs as refactoring for alternatives like Google Cloud Functions demands substantial reengineering. This API specificity contributes to , where initial efficiency gains yield long-term rigidity. Regulatory interventions have occasionally compelled disclosure to mitigate anticompetitive effects. In its March 24, 2004 decision, the found abused its dominance by withholding interoperability information for Windows work group server protocols, ordering the firm to publish complete specifications for protocols interfacing with Windows client PCs, enabling competitors like to develop compatible server software. Noncompliance led to fines, including €899 million in 2008 for incomplete disclosures. Despite such remedies, proprietary elements persist, as vendors balance innovation incentives against forced openness, with from antitrust outcomes indicating that mandated can foster rival entry but often trails rapid proprietary evolution.

Vendor Lock-in and Switching Costs

Vendor lock-in in proprietary software arises when users become dependent on a vendor's due to incompatibilities with alternatives, manifesting as high switching costs that deter migration. These costs encompass financial penalties from contracts, expenses for and format conversion, retraining of personnel, and disruptions from lost productivity during transition. Proprietary architectures exacerbate this through closed , undocumented protocols, and non-standard file formats that hinder , making it difficult or impossible to extract value without vendor cooperation. For instance, proprietary vendors may strategically design systems to create these barriers, as analyzed in economic models of software competition where lock-in strategies allow closed-source providers to maintain against open alternatives by elevating user . Prominent examples include Microsoft's enterprise software suite, where integration across Windows, , and creates ecosystem dependencies; users migrating to alternatives like often face document compatibility issues and API mismatches, with reported migration costs averaging 20-30% of annual licensing fees for large organizations. Similarly, Oracle's database systems impose lock-in via proprietary extensions and licensing terms that penalize multi-vendor environments, leading to cases where customers incurred millions in fees for data export alone. Adobe's Creative Cloud employs subscription models tied to proprietary formats like files, where switching to open tools requires workflow overhauls, as evidenced by creative agencies citing 6-12 months of downtime in transitions. These mechanisms stem from the vendor's control over , preventing seamless adaptation without legal risks from reverse engineering prohibitions. Empirically, inflates costs and stifles competition; a analysis estimated that enhanced software rivalry could yield up to $750 million in annual U.S. federal savings through a mere 5% price-performance , underscoring how lock-in enables pricing power in government procurements where and secured 25-30% of sales via non-competitive means over the prior decade. Studies on switching costs indicate that high barriers in closed-source environments delay adoption of superior alternatives, with proprietary firms leveraging them to sustain revenues even as open-source options emerge, though this can trap users in suboptimal systems long-term. In sectors like , such dependencies have prompted policy scrutiny, revealing that lock-in correlates with 15-20% higher total ownership costs compared to interoperable alternatives.

Hardware and Platform Dependencies

Proprietary software frequently integrates dependencies on particular architectures, implementations, or platform-specific features, restricting its deployment to compatible systems and thereby limiting . These dependencies arise from design decisions prioritizing optimization, such as exploiting proprietary instruction sets or security enclaves, which enhance efficiency but necessitate vendor-controlled environments. For instance, Apple's macOS relies on proprietary components like the Extensible Interface (EFI) and processors, enforcing hardware verification that prevents legitimate operation on non-Apple devices without violating end-user license agreements. In Windows OEM editions, is bound to the via embedded keys under System Locked Preinstallation protocols, where the operating system queries hardware identifiers during setup and periodic checks. Major hardware alterations, including swaps, trigger deactivation unless resolved through Microsoft's troubleshooter, which may fail or require support intervention, effectively anchoring the software to the original purchase hardware. Gaming consoles exemplify extreme platform dependencies, with proprietary operating systems like Sony's OS or Microsoft's OS engineered exclusively for their respective hardware, incorporating custom application processors and secure boot chains that reject third-party or emulated environments. Such ties extend to firmware-level integrations, where software updates propagate dependencies on vendor-specific chips, as observed in Apple's 2018 MacBook Pro models featuring chips that impose software-enforced repair restrictions, limiting service to authorized providers. Network and enterprise hardware often embeds similar constraints, with proprietary management software dependent on vendor-exclusive that synchronize with specific or controllers, as in cases where switching vendors demands full system overhauls due to incompatible protocols. These mechanisms, while enabling seamless integration and reduced compatibility testing burdens for developers, elevate user switching costs through required hardware procurements and potential challenges.

Empirical Advantages

Enhanced Security Through Resource Allocation

Proprietary software vendors generate revenue through licensing, subscriptions, and services, enabling them to allocate dedicated budgets for research, development, and maintenance that exceed what volunteer-driven or community-funded alternatives typically afford. This resource allocation supports hiring specialized engineers, conducting proprietary , and implementing automated scanning across closed ecosystems, which can result in proactive defenses tailored to commercial imperatives like and liability avoidance. For instance, announced in 2021 a to invest $20 billion over five years in cybersecurity, quadrupling prior spending to bolster defenses in products like Windows and , including advanced and zero-trust architectures. By 2023, Microsoft's offerings had grown into a $20 billion annual business, reflecting scaled investments in AI-driven threat detection and global response teams. This financial capacity contrasts with open-source projects, where security enhancements often rely on sporadic grants, corporate sponsorships, or unpaid contributors, potentially leading to delayed patching or incomplete audits due to underfunding. Empirical analyses indicate that increased funding in open-source correlates with improved practices, such as better documentation and testing, underscoring the causal role of resources in vulnerability mitigation—yet proprietary models systematically channel profits into such efforts without depending on external . Vendors like Apple exemplify this by integrating hardware-level , such as the Secure Enclave Processor in iPhones, backed by billions in R&D expenditures that enable encrypted storage and biometric authentication resistant to common exploits. These investments, driven by market incentives, allow proprietary software to deploy rapid updates and telemetry-driven intelligence, reducing exploit windows in high-stakes environments like and devices. Critics argue that closed-source obscurity can mask flaws longer than open code's transparency, but resource-backed proprietary approaches empirically demonstrate efficacy in sectors demanding reliability, such as , where firms prioritize audited, vendor-supported solutions over community-maintained alternatives. Studies on software reliability find no inherent superiority of one model, but proprietary funding facilitates in security tooling, like custom and penetration testing suites, that smaller open-source efforts rarely match. Ultimately, the profit motive aligns resource allocation with causal security improvements, as vendors bear direct costs from breaches, incentivizing rigorous internal controls over reactive community fixes.

Innovation Driven by Property Rights

Property rights in proprietary software, primarily enforced through and trade secrets, enable developers to exclude competitors from unauthorized copying or , thereby allowing recoupment of substantial (R&D) costs. This exclusivity incentivizes investment in innovative features, as firms can capture returns proportional to the value created rather than facing immediate free-riding by imitators. For instance, software , formalized in the United States via the 1976 Copyright Act and subsequent CONTU recommendations in 1978, provided legal certainty that spurred the industry's growth from niche applications to a multi-trillion-dollar sector by protecting as literary works. Empirical analyses support the causal link between strengthened () protections and heightened in digital technologies, including software. A difference-in-differences examining China's 2021 patent law revisions found that enhanced IP enforcement led to a significant increase in digital technology applications and R&D expenditures among affected firms, demonstrating that robust property rights reduce appropriation risks and encourage knowledge creation. Similarly, historical data from the U.S. software sector indicate that IP regimes—encompassing copyrights, s for algorithms where applicable, and trade secrecy—have facilitated breakthroughs by aligning private incentives with innovative output, as evidenced by the rapid proliferation of advanced operating systems and solutions post-1980s legal clarifications. In practice, major proprietary software innovations, such as Microsoft's Windows operating system, required billions in cumulative R&D investment—exceeding $27 billion annually by fiscal year 2023—sustained by licensing revenues protected under laws, which deterred wholesale replication and funded iterative advancements in user interfaces, security, and compatibility. Trade secrets further amplify this dynamic by safeguarding proprietary algorithms and architectures, as seen in database management systems like , where non-disclosure enables sustained competitive edges and ongoing enhancements without public disclosure. Weakening these rights, conversely, correlates with reduced innovation incentives, as theoretical models and sector observations predict underinvestment when copying costs approach zero.

Superior Support and User Experience

Proprietary software developers, funded by license revenues, allocate substantial resources to user interface design and usability testing, resulting in more intuitive and polished experiences compared to many open-source alternatives that rely on volunteer contributions. For instance, Microsoft's Windows operating system incorporates extensive user feedback loops and ergonomic refinements, contributing to its dominance with approximately 72% global desktop market share as of 2023, reflecting sustained user preference for its seamless integration with hardware and applications. Similarly, Adobe's Creative Cloud suite provides streamlined workflows tailored for professional creatives, with features like real-time collaboration and auto-save mechanisms that enhance productivity, as evidenced by its retention of over 90% of enterprise users in graphic design sectors. Dedicated customer support structures further distinguish proprietary offerings, enabling rapid issue resolution through tiered service levels unavailable in community-driven open-source ecosystems. Apple's proprietary macOS and ecosystem exemplifies this, with on-site services and 24/7 phone support resolving hardware-software integration issues, correlating with high customer loyalty scores; a 2023 survey reported Apple's at 72 for its support services, outperforming many competitors. In contrast, proprietary enterprise software like provides SLAs guaranteeing response times under one hour for premium tiers, backed by proprietary for , which has driven its market leadership with 19.8% share in 2024. These mechanisms stem from the incentive alignment in proprietary models, where ongoing revenue supports full-time support teams and iterative UX improvements based on proprietary user data . Empirical assessments of often highlight proprietary software's edge in learnability and operability for non-technical users. A 2010 study evaluating developer perspectives on open-source usability identified persistent gaps in interface consistency and documentation quality, attributing these to decentralized development absent in proprietary environments with centralized . Proprietary vendors like mitigate this through comprehensive tutorials and programs, fostering higher adoption rates; for example, AutoCAD's proprietary tools maintain a 40% in CAD software due to their refined user experiences optimized for tasks. While open-source options excel in for experts, proprietary software's focus on broad —via features like one-click installations and guided wizards—yields superior satisfaction metrics in general and contexts, as proprietary firms can amortize UX investments across paying users.

Criticisms and Empirical Drawbacks

Transparency and Auditability Issues

Proprietary software's closed-source architecture precludes users, researchers, and third parties from inspecting its , thereby hindering comprehensive audits for vulnerabilities, backdoors, or non-compliant implementations. This opacity compels reliance on vendor-conducted reviews, which are often proprietary and unverifiable, potentially masking flaws that could compromise system integrity or user data. Such limitations contrast with open-source models, where public code access facilitates distributed scrutiny and faster issue identification, as evidenced by community-driven detections in analogous systems. Security risks are amplified by this lack of transparency, as concealed defects may persist undetected until exploited, delaying remediation to vendor timelines. The 2020 SolarWinds Orion breach illustrates this drawback: state-sponsored actors inserted into the software's build process, distributing compromised updates to approximately 18,000 customers without immediate detection possible through code inspection, resulting in widespread network intrusions across government and private sectors. Similar concerns arise in allegations of unauthorized code in networking , such as the 2015 Juniper Networks ScreenOS incident, where encrypted backdoors were discovered post-exploitation, underscoring how closed systems obscure proactive verification. Beyond security, auditability deficits impede compliance in regulated domains like and healthcare, where independent verification of algorithmic fairness or data handling is essential but infeasible without access. Vendors may assert rigorous internal audits—such as those commissioned for algorithms—but these remain non-public, fostering regarding their thoroughness amid potential conflicts of interest. Empirical analyses indicate that this vendor-centric model can slow in fixes and adaptations, as users cannot customize or to address domain-specific risks, perpetuating inefficiencies observable in prolonged patch cycles for major platforms.

Economic Barriers and Accessibility

Proprietary software's reliance on licensing fees creates significant economic barriers, particularly for individuals, small businesses, and organizations in resource-constrained environments. Upfront and recurring costs, such as E3 licenses at $32 per user per month for business users, accumulate into substantial expenses that exceed those of open-source alternatives, which typically incur no direct licensing fees. Poor management of these licenses can further inflate expenditures through over-purchasing or non-compliance penalties, amplifying the financial burden on users. These costs disproportionately affect small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), where high software expenses rank among the top obstacles to technology adoption, with 42% of small businesses citing software costs as a primary barrier to digital accounting implementation. In developing countries, proprietary software's pricing model exacerbates accessibility issues, prompting widespread preference for free and open-source software (FOSS) to achieve cost reductions and avoid vendor-imposed fees. Studies indicate that FOSS adoption in such regions provides clear economic advantages, enabling public and private entities to bypass proprietary licensing while maintaining functional equivalence, thereby narrowing the digital divide for budget-limited users. Beyond initial acquisition, ongoing maintenance, upgrades, and in proprietary ecosystems compound accessibility challenges, as users face escalating subscription fees or compatibility costs without ownership of the underlying code. This model limits equitable access in low-income settings, where alternatives like allow customization and deployment without financial gatekeeping, fostering broader participation in digital economies. Empirical analyses confirm that proprietary software's often exceeds open-source equivalents over time due to these hidden and recurring elements.

Risks of Market Concentration

High market concentration in proprietary software arises when a small number of firms control dominant shares of key markets, such as operating systems or productivity suites, often due to network effects, high switching costs, and protections that create . This can enable dominant players to exercise or oligopolistic power, potentially leading to elevated prices for consumers and businesses as competition diminishes. For instance, in the operating system market, Microsoft's Windows achieved over 90% global share by the late 1990s, allowing the firm to set pricing with limited competitive pressure from alternatives like Linux distributions or earlier rivals such as OS/2. Such concentration heightens the risk of , including bundling products to exclude rivals and stifling innovation in adjacent markets. The U.S. Department of Justice's 1998 antitrust case against highlighted how the company's dominance—protected by high entry barriers and long-term OEM licensing agreements—harmed competition in web browsers by integrating with Windows, effectively marginalizing and raising barriers for other software developers seeking OS integration. Courts found this conduct preserved Microsoft's power, contributing to reduced incentives for browser innovation and higher effective costs for non-bundled alternatives until regulatory remedies in 2001 partially addressed the issue. Empirical analyses of the case linked this dominance to negative effects across the tech sector and delayed entry by smaller firms. Beyond pricing and exclusion, concentrated markets in proprietary software can amplify systemic risks, such as coordinated price increases or reduced diversity in solutions, particularly in where , , and Google Cloud held approximately 65% of the global infrastructure-as-a-service market as of 2023. This fosters , limiting customer mobility and potentially concentrating control over emerging technologies like infrastructure, where challenges trap users in proprietary ecosystems. Critics argue this structure inhibits breakthrough s from smaller entrants, as dominant firms prioritize sustaining their positions over disruptive advancements, with studies showing industry concentration correlating with shorter innovation horizons and declining productivity from laggard firms' inability to challenge leaders. In cybersecurity contexts, concentration shifts attack risks toward major nodes but increases to widespread disruptions if key providers fail. Regulatory scrutiny underscores these risks, as seen in ongoing concerns over Big Tech's influence, where high concentration in proprietary platforms can distort markets and amplify economic dependencies on a few U.S.-based entities. While some analyses question a direct causal link between concentration and diminished overall innovation—attributing rises in market shares to superior proprietary technologies—the potential for abuse remains evident in historical precedents like , where unchecked dominance delayed competitive dynamism until antitrust intervention.

Controversies and Case Studies

Antitrust Litigation and Regulatory Challenges

The initiated antitrust proceedings against Corporation in May 1998, alleging that the company maintained a in operating systems through , including bundling with Windows to exclude competitors like . In April 2000, the district court ruled that had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully maintaining power and attempting to monopolize the , leading to a proposed breakup of the company into separate operating systems and applications divisions. The U.S. Court of Appeals partially affirmed the findings in June 2001 but remanded for remedy determination, ultimately resulting in a 2001 settlement requiring to share application programming interfaces with competitors and abstain from exclusive contracts for five years, extended to 2012. Empirical analysis of the case's aftermath indicates it spurred innovation in markets, with increased entry by competitors post-settlement, though critics argue the remedies did not fully dismantle proprietary ecosystem lock-in. Apple Inc. faced escalating antitrust scrutiny in the 2020s over its proprietary iOS ecosystem and App Store policies, which enforce exclusive distribution and 30% commission rates, limiting third-party app stores and payment systems. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in March 2024 accusing Apple of monopolizing the smartphone market through practices like blocking cloud streaming games, restricting NFC chip access for payments, and suppressing cross-platform messaging, with the case advancing after a June 2025 denial of Apple's motion to dismiss. In Epic Games v. Apple (2020), a jury found Apple violated California's unfair competition law by prohibiting alternative in-app payments, though the court upheld the company's right to enforce its proprietary review process, resulting in mandated external link allowances for purchases by 2021. Regulatory challenges intensified under the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA), enforced from March 2024, designating Apple a gatekeeper and requiring sideloading of apps and alternative browser engines, which Apple implemented in iOS 17.4 for EU users in March 2024 but warned could compromise device security by diluting proprietary controls. Alphabet's encountered parallel U.S. antitrust actions targeting its proprietary search and advertising technologies, with a August 2024 federal court ruling that violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining an illegal in general search services through exclusive default agreements with Apple and others, generating over 90% U.S. . A separate December 2023 jury verdict in v. found the company monopolized Android app distribution and billing, mandating remedies like allowing third-party app stores, challenging 's proprietary Play Store dominance despite Android's open-source . In April 2025, the DOJ prevailed in a case against for monopolizing open-web digital advertising auctions via proprietary tools like , ordering data-sharing obligations. EU probes under the similarly targeted 's self-preferencing in search and Android pre-installations, fining the company €4.34 billion in 2018 (upheld 2022) for antitrust violations tied to proprietary bundling. These litigations highlight tensions between proprietary software's incentives for integrated ecosystems—which proponents argue enhance security and through controlled resource allocation—and regulators' demands for to curb , with compliance potentially elevating risks by eroding proprietary safeguards like app vetting. Outcomes have varied, with U.S. cases emphasizing consumer harm from exclusionary conduct and EU approaches imposing ex-ante rules on gatekeepers, though on long-term effects remains contested, as post-Microsoft dynamics showed mixed gains without fully resolving .

Debates with Open Source Advocates

Open source advocates, such as of the , argue that proprietary software restricts user freedoms by denying access to , preventing modification, and enforcing dependency on vendors, which they term "software as a tool of control" rather than empowerment. In contrast, proprietary software proponents contend that protections enable substantial investments in development, as evidenced by Microsoft's annual R&D expenditure exceeding $20 billion in 2023, funding innovations not reliant on voluntary community contributions. This debate centers on whether user autonomy outweighs the need for economic incentives to drive complex software creation. On security, open source supporters invoke ' "many eyes make all bugs shallow" principle, claiming collective scrutiny reduces vulnerabilities faster than proprietary secrecy. However, empirical data reveals open source components harbor a disproportionate share of known vulnerabilities; for instance, a 2024 analysis found over 80% of software supply chain attacks targeted libraries, with events like the 2014 bug in exposing millions of systems due to underfunded maintenance. Proprietary advocates highlight dedicated teams and controlled disclosure, noting that while breaches occur in both—such as the 2021 attack on proprietary elements—proprietary models allocate resources systematically, as proprietary firms invest 15-20% of in compared to open source's reliance on sporadic donations. Regarding innovation, proponents assert collaborative models accelerate progress through shared knowledge, citing Linux's dominance in servers (over 90% as of 2024). Proprietary defenders counter that property rights foster breakthroughs requiring secrecy and scale, such as Adobe's Photoshop or Oracle's database optimizations, where profit motives have sustained market-leading advancements absent in purely communal efforts; a 2023 study estimated proprietary software's role in driving 70% of enterprise innovation value through exclusive features. Critics of note "tragedy of the commons" effects, where free-riding dilutes incentives for high-risk R&D, as seen in stalled projects lacking commercial backing. Economically, open source advocates emphasize cost savings, with total ownership costs up to 90% lower due to no licensing fees, enabling broader in resource-constrained environments. Proprietary supporters point to superior ecosystems and reliability, arguing that while initial costs are higher, they yield higher ; for example, surveys indicate proprietary solutions reduce downtime by 25-30% via vendor accountability, offsetting expenses in high-stakes sectors like finance. Debates persist on long-term sustainability, with proprietary models criticized for but praised for funding ecosystem growth, as proprietary firms' revenues—totaling trillions globally—subsidize tools benefiting open source indirectly.

Recent AI and SaaS Disputes (2020s)

In the early 2020s, proprietary AI developers faced multiple lawsuits alleging unauthorized use of protected materials for training large language models. These cases centered on claims that scraping and ingesting copyrighted texts, images, and code into proprietary systems without permission violated rights, even if transformative outputs were generated. By mid-2025, over 25 such federal lawsuits were pending against companies including , , , , and , with plaintiffs ranging from news outlets to individual authors and artists seeking damages and injunctions. A prominent example involved suing and in December 2023, asserting that millions of its articles were systematically copied to train models like , enabling competitive replication of journalistic content. Similarly, filed suit against Stability AI in 2023, claiming over 12 million watermarked images were ingested without license, leading to outputs mimicking Getty's style. settled a class-action suit with authors in 2025 for $1.5 billion, agreeing to licensing terms for future training data use, which highlighted the financial risks of relying on unlicensed proprietary datasets. Courts have grappled with defenses, with mixed early rulings; for instance, in v. Stability AI (2023), a judge dismissed some claims but allowed others to proceed, emphasizing potential market harm to creators. Elon Musk initiated legal action against OpenAI in February 2024, accusing the firm of breaching its founding agreement by transitioning from open-source, nonprofit principles to a closed, profit-driven entity partnered with , thereby prioritizing proprietary control over public benefit. The suit, refiled in August 2024 after voluntary dismissal and expanded in November to include antitrust allegations against for restricting competitive investments, sought to block OpenAI's for-profit restructuring as of late 2024. Musk's xAI further sued Apple and OpenAI in August 2025, alleging an anticompetitive deal integrating into iOS devices to stifle rivals. These actions underscored tensions between proprietary AI's commercial imperatives and original commitments to . In the SaaS domain, proprietary platforms drew scrutiny for vendor lock-in, where customized integrations and data formats imposed high migration costs, deterring switches despite dissatisfaction. A 2020 Flexera survey found 68% of CIOs concerned about public cloud lock-in, a risk amplified in SaaS by proprietary APIs and non-standard data exports, leading to disputes over ownership and portability. Cases like enterprise challenges with or Oracle SaaS contracts in the mid-2020s often resolved via negotiation rather than litigation, but highlighted how opaque terms in proprietary services entrenched dependency, with one 2025 analysis estimating technical debt from lock-in reduced flexibility by up to 65% in affected firms.

Current Trends and Outlook

Shift to Cloud and Subscription Models

In the early , major proprietary software vendors began transitioning from perpetual licensing models—where users purchased one-time rights to software versions—to subscription-based and cloud-hosted services, prioritizing recurring revenue streams over upfront sales. This shift was exemplified by Adobe's launch of the Creative Cloud subscription service on May 11, 2012, which replaced the perpetual 6 (CS6) model and integrated desktop applications with , collaboration tools, and continuous updates. Similarly, accelerated its move to (formerly Office 365), phasing out new perpetual licenses for mainstream Office versions after October 13, 2020, and ceasing support sales for them by January 1, 2022, to enforce dependency on subscription tiers for updates and cloud integration. These changes reflected a broader industry trend, with forecasting that by 2020, 80% of historical software vendors would adopt subscription models regardless of deployment type. The adoption of software-as-a-service () architectures, often and cloud-centric, drove significant market expansion, as vendors gained predictable cash flows and enhanced user data access for iterative improvements. The global market grew from approximately $10 billion in 2010 to over $120 billion by 2020, reaching $250 billion in revenue by 2024 and projected to exceed $390 billion in 2025, with a surpassing 19%. For firms, cloud subscriptions amplified control over , as core code executed on remote servers, reducing risks of reverse-engineering or local modifications while enabling features like syncing and enhancements inaccessible in standalone versions. However, this model entrenched , where users faced high switching costs due to barriers, formats, and dependencies, often rendering alternatives economically or technically unviable. Empirical drawbacks for users included escalating long-term expenses and loss of perpetual access, contrasting the finite ownership of traditional licenses. For instance, Adobe's subscription pivot initially provoked backlash for discontinuing perpetual options, with users paying cumulatively more over years—e.g., a $20 monthly plan equating to $240 annually versus CS6's $1,800 one-time fee—without retaining usable software post-cancellation. Microsoft's enforcement similarly compelled relicensing every five years for perpetual versions or full migration to subscriptions, amplifying costs for stable, long-term needs while exposing users to service disruptions from provider policies or outages. These dynamics underscored causal trade-offs: while subscriptions facilitated rapid feature deployment, they fostered dependency on opaque, non-auditable environments, prioritizing vendor retention over user autonomy in ecosystems.

Proprietary Leadership in AI Development

Proprietary software architectures have dominated the development of frontier models, enabling rapid iteration and superior empirical performance through controlled access to vast computational resources and proprietary datasets. As of October 2025, closed-source large language models (LLMs) from companies like , , and consistently outperform open-source counterparts on standardized benchmarks such as scores and coding evaluations, with models like GPT-5 and Claude achieving scores that widen the performance gap despite open-source distillation efforts. This leadership stems from the ability to recoup massive training costs—often exceeding billions in compute via specialized infrastructure like NVIDIA's GPUs, which hold over 90% in AI hardware—through subscription-based services that generate sustained revenue streams. Key empirical advantages include enhanced with domain-specific data, which yields models outperforming those trained on public datasets alone, as evidenced by LLMs' edge in real-world tasks like and reasoning. For instance, OpenAI's iterative releases, from in 2023 to GPT-5 in 2025, have maintained top rankings in leaderboards tracking post-April 2024 models, supported by partnerships like Azure's cloud exclusivity that scales at low . Similarly, xAI's series, while releasing base weights for Grok-1 in March 2024, leverages advancements in subsequent versions to compete at the frontier, underscoring how selective protection funds ongoing R&D without immediate replication risks. Market dynamics reinforce this position, with proprietary providers capturing the lion's share of generative AI adoption; and AWS, through investments in closed models, lead in deployment, where predictability and vendor-supported scalability trump open-source flexibility. This concentration enables causal investments in safety alignments and efficiency optimizations—such as reduced hallucination rates via proprietary —that open ecosystems struggle to match due to fragmented funding and coordination challenges. While open-source models like Qwen and close gaps in accessibility, proprietary leadership persists because it aligns incentives for high-stakes innovation, where empirical outcomes prioritize capability over commoditization.

Handling of Abandonware and Legacy Systems

Proprietary software publishers often designate products as end-of-life after a defined support period, ceasing all updates, bug fixes, and , which renders the software while copyrights persist for decades. This discontinuation exposes users to unmitigated security risks, as vulnerabilities accumulate without patches; for instance, systems running unsupported proprietary have reported failures and breakdowns with modern , contributing to operational inefficiencies in sectors like banking and . Such handling prioritizes to new products but leaves deployments reliant on custom workarounds or third-party patches, which may violate licensing terms. The proprietary model's closed-source structure prevents legal access to source code for discontinued software, hindering user-led preservation or adaptation, unlike open-source equivalents where communities sustain functionality indefinitely. Legal frameworks, including U.S. copyright law, recognize no "abandonware" exception, treating unauthorized distribution or circumvention of protections as infringement, even for obsolete titles; this has stymied archival efforts, with users facing civil liability risks for obtaining lost copies. Reverse engineering for interoperability is narrowly permitted under exceptions like 17 U.S.C. § 1201(f), but full replication or modification remains prohibited, exacerbating digital obsolescence. To mitigate legacy system risks, some publishers provide paid extended support, as did for through its Extended Security Update program until January 10, 2023, delivering critical patches for an additional fee but excluding non-security enhancements. However, such options are temporary and costly, often failing to resolve fundamental issues like hardware incompatibility or with contemporary networks. Rare goodwill releases of source code occur—such as Winamp's 2024 GitHub publication of its codebase, though under a restrictive barring forks and commercial redistribution—but these are outliers driven by niche community pressure rather than standard policy. Enterprises grappling with proprietary legacy code, including outdated databases and custom applications, frequently incur high modernization costs, with surveys indicating that 60-70% of organizations retain such systems due to fears despite known vulnerabilities. This approach underscores a tension between protection, which sustains innovation incentives, and practical usability, as unmaintained proprietary software contributes to e-waste and lost cultural artifacts, particularly in where titles from the 1990s remain inaccessible without emulation tools navigating legal gray areas. Critics argue that prolonged copyrights without maintenance obligations effectively software, but publishers counter that mandatory open-sourcing would undermine commercial viability.

References

  1. [1]
    Proprietary Software: Definition and Examples - EPAM SolutionsHub
    Sep 25, 2025 · Proprietary software refers to software that is privately owned, controlled, and distributed under specific licensing terms that restrict users' rights.
  2. [2]
    Proprietary Software: What It Is, Examples, & Licenses - Revelo
    Proprietary software, also called closed source, is a type of software owned by a single entity and licensed to other parties who wish to use it.
  3. [3]
    Overview of Proprietary Software - GeeksforGeeks
    Jul 23, 2025 · Proprietary software refers to software owned by individuals or companies who restrict its use, modification, and distribution through licenses.What is Proprietary Software? · Open source or Proprietary...
  4. [4]
    Proprietary vs. Open Source - Gene Spafford - Purdue University
    May 18, 2024 · Problems with code quality are why so many people claim that open source is more secure than proprietary source products. There has been an ...
  5. [5]
    Open Source vs Proprietary Software: The Eternal Struggle in Tech
    Mar 4, 2025 · Instances of instability in proprietary technologies have frequently prompted users to seek refuge in open source solutions. A notable example ...
  6. [6]
    Understanding Proprietary Software: Is it the Right Choice for Your ...
    Feb 11, 2025 · Proprietary software is developed and distributed by companies that retain exclusive rights to the source code, which is often carefully guarded.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  7. [7]
    What is a Proprietary Software License? - Nalpeiron Documentation
    Apr 24, 2025 · A proprietary software license is a legal agreement used by software developers and companies to assert ownership over their software and control how it is ...
  8. [8]
    PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE - The Law Dictionary
    This is the software that is protected by copyright laws and patents that belong exclusively to the publishers and developers of said software. This software ...
  9. [9]
    The Open Source Definition
    Mar 22, 2007 · Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open source software must comply with the following criteria.
  10. [10]
    About – Open Source Initiative
    The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation with global scope formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of open source.
  11. [11]
    What is Free Software? - GNU.org
    The four essential freedoms · The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). · The freedom to study how the program works, and change it ...
  12. [12]
    Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU.org
    Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source. In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far ...
  13. [13]
    Difference between Open source Software and Proprietary Software
    Jul 23, 2025 · Open-source software's code is publicly available and free, while proprietary software's code is not publicly available and requires payment.
  14. [14]
    Open Source vs. Proprietary: Key Differences [2024] - Liquid Web
    Open source refers to technology and software that is available for anyone to use or edit. Proprietary is copyrighted technology that must be used with a ...
  15. [15]
    Software & Languages | Timeline of Computer History
    John Backus completes Speedcode for IBM´s first large-scale scientific computer, the IBM 701. Although using Speedcode demanded a significant amount of scarce ...Missing: pre- | Show results with:pre-
  16. [16]
    Software Industry - Engineering and Technology History Wiki
    Oct 24, 2019 · By using a commonly available operating system, IBM stood the nascent software industry on its head. Together with Microsoft and the chip-maker ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Applied Data Research Inc. (ADR)
    ADR released its first software product, AUTOFLOW, a program which produced program flowcharts, in. 1965 and became one of the first software companies to set ...
  18. [18]
    Martin Goetz leaves behind a legacy as the first to patent software
    Oct 25, 2023 · Martin Goetz patented the first software in 1968 for data-sorting mainframe software · Before this, software was seen as a free commodity bundled ...Missing: commercial | Show results with:commercial
  19. [19]
    Software Becomes a Product - CHM Revolution
    In 1969, IBM unbundled many programs (separating software from hardware). Overnight, software changed from a giveaway to a competitive commercial product.
  20. [20]
    A personal recollection: IBM's unbundling of software and services
    Many people believe that one pivotal event in the growth of the business software products market was IBM's decision, in 1969, to price its software and ...
  21. [21]
    An Open Letter to Hobbyists - The New York Times Web Archive
    An open letter to hobbyists. To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself.
  22. [22]
    The Rise of DOS: How Microsoft Got the IBM PC OS Contract - PCMag
    Aug 12, 2021 · Thanks to the non-exclusive agreement, Microsoft then had the rights to sell DOS for other machines—and that, in turn, set the stage for ...
  23. [23]
    Microsoft MS-DOS early source code - Computer History Museum
    Mar 25, 2014 · Microsoft retained the rights to the operating system and licensed it to other computer manufacturers, calling it MS-DOS. With the permission of ...
  24. [24]
    Desktop Operating System Market Share Worldwide
    This graph shows the market share of desktop operating systems worldwide based on over 5 billion monthly page views.2024 · United States Of America · India · Tablet
  25. [25]
    Animated: Most Popular Desktop Operating Systems Since 2003
    Jun 23, 2023 · An animated chart showing the rise and fall in market share of popular desktop operating systems over the period of May 2003 to June 2022.
  26. [26]
    Tech Giants' Ecosystem Strategies - FRANKI T
    Aug 17, 2025 · 2001: Apple launches the iPod and iTunes, foreshadowing its ecosystem strategy by tying devices to a proprietary digital content platform (the ...Microsoft: Windows, Office... · Google: Android, Google Play... · Meta (facebook): Facebook...
  27. [27]
    Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide
    This graph shows the market share of mobile operating systems worldwide based on over 5 billion monthly page views.2024 · United States Of America · Japan · Europe
  28. [28]
    Android Version History: From 2008-2024 (An Overview) - Intelivita
    Mar 18, 2024 · Discover the comprehensive history of Android, from its debut in 2008 to its latest developments in 2024, exploring each milestone and ...<|separator|>
  29. [29]
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/216420/global-market-share-forecast-of-smartphone-operating-systems/
  30. [30]
    55 Cloud Computing Statistics for 2025 - Spacelift
    Oct 16, 2025 · Amazon Web Services continues to dominate the public cloud market with a market share of 32%. Microsoft Azure is the second-biggest cloud ...Global Cloud Market Growth... · Public Cloud Market... · Public Vs Private Cloud...
  31. [31]
    https://www.statista.com/chart/18819/worldwide-market-share-of-leading-cloud-infrastructure-service-providers/
  32. [32]
    2025 Cloud Computing Market Size And Trends - CloudZero
    May 5, 2025 · As of 2025, Microsoft holds the largest share of the enterprise SaaS market, driven by its dominance in productivity and collaboration tools.2025 Cloud Computing Market... · First Up: 6 Must-Know Cloud... · Want To Waste Fewer Greens...
  33. [33]
    Visualizing How Big Tech Companies Make Their Billions
    Dec 18, 2023 · Big Tech Spotlight: Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia ; Apple, $383.3B · $97.0B ; Microsoft, $211.9B · $72.4B ; Nvidia, $27.0B · $4.37B ...
  34. [34]
    Top publicly traded tech companies by revenue
    Top publicly traded tech companies by revenue ; favorite icon, 2. Apple logo. Apple. 2AAPL. $408.62 B · $262.82. 1.25% ; favorite icon, 3. Alphabet (Google) logo.
  35. [35]
    I. The History Of Software Copyright - Digital Law Online
    According to the Copyright Office, the first deposit of a computer program for registration was on November 30, 1961. North American Aviation submitted a tape ...
  36. [36]
    Fifty-Five Years of Software Copyright - Mostly IP History
    May 19, 2019 · The Copyright Office announced 55 years ago today (May 19, 1964) that they would begin accepting registrations of software copyrights.Missing: US | Show results with:US
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Circular 61 Copyright Registration of Computer Programs
    Copyright protection for a computer program extends to all of the copyrightable expression embodied in the program. The copyright law does not protect the func-.
  38. [38]
    Software Copyright Protection Explained - 10Duke
    Software copyright is the most common method used to protect software. A programmer automatically owns the copyright of any program they write.
  39. [39]
    Software Copyright Guide: Examples & Protection from Infringement
    Trade Secrets – Protect proprietary processes or algorithms that provide a competitive advantage, often maintained through confidentiality agreements.
  40. [40]
    Protecting Your Software Ideas: to Copyright or to Patent - Duke OTC
    Using copyrights as the IP protection strategy along with keeping the code proprietary can be cheaper and more practical approach to protecting most types of ...
  41. [41]
    What is an End User License Agreement (EULA)? - Icertis
    Jan 7, 2025 · An end-user license agreement (EULA) is a legal contract between a software provider and the individual or entity using the software.What is an End-User License... · Key Components and Clauses...
  42. [42]
    What is an End-User License Agreement (EULA)? - ServiceNow
    At its heart, an EULA is a legal agreement that specifies how software can be used, when it may be used, who can use it, and for what purposes it may be ...
  43. [43]
    Software Licensing Models: Ultimate Guide to License Types - 10Duke
    In this guide, we introduce various software licensing models, including common ones and more complex enterprise models.
  44. [44]
    Types of Software Licensing Models - Flexera
    The most common types of software licensing models include perpetual, subscription based and open-source. Each of these models comes with unique terms and ...
  45. [45]
    Software Intellectual Property 101: IP Protection & More | Thales
    1) Patents ... A patent is the exclusive right to produce, use, and sell an invention. To qualify for a patent, you need to demonstrate that your invention is:.
  46. [46]
    The History of Software Patents in the United States - IPWatchdog.com
    Nov 30, 2014 · The first software patent was granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on April 23, 1968 on an application filed on ...
  47. [47]
    History of Software Patents, from Benson, Flook, and Diehr to Bilski ...
    This section discusses important Supreme Court cases in this history software patents (Benson, Flook, Diehr, Bilski, and Mayo v. Prometheus) as well as ...
  48. [48]
    Are Software Patents Enforceable? Data-Driven Analysis for Tech ...
    May 16, 2025 · This comprehensive guide explores the current landscape of software patent enforcement—providing concrete evidence that properly drafted ...
  49. [49]
    High-Profile Examples of Successful Tech Trade Secrets
    Sep 20, 2024 · Explore high-profile examples of successful tech trade secrets and learn how companies protect their valuable intellectual property.
  50. [50]
    Choosing Trade Secrets Over Patents? What Recent Cases Mean ...
    Oct 13, 2025 · Unlike patents, trade secrets offer no exclusivity against independent discovery or reverse engineering. Enforcement depends on showing not only ...
  51. [51]
    5 Famous Trade Secret Cases - Vondran Legal
    Jul 12, 2023 · Industry giant Uber was accused of stealing Google's self-driving car technology through a former Google engineer, who later joined Uber's ...
  52. [52]
    Patent Litigation Statistics: An Overview of Recent Trends - PatentPC
    Sep 25, 2025 · Software-related patents accounted for 30% of all patent litigation cases in 2023. This high percentage highlights the critical role of software ...
  53. [53]
    Enforcement and litigation of software patents - dIPlex
    The three traditional types of patent infringement—direct, induced, and contributory—take on specific nuances in the context of software: Direct infringement: ...
  54. [54]
    Digital Forensics in Trade Secret Litigation: The Dual Protection of ...
    Jul 31, 2025 · The report also noted a 12.4% year-over-year increase in trade secret infringement cases, with 163 cases involving 385 individuals [1].
  55. [55]
    $$222M Jury Verdict Against Walmart in Trade Secret Case Reflects ...
    Jun 3, 2025 · An Arkansas jury found Walmart liable for trade secret misappropriation and awarded $222M to the plaintiff, Zest Labs, a provider of technology solutions for ...Missing: industry | Show results with:industry
  56. [56]
    Software IP Protection & Rights: Complete Guide - LicenseSpring
    Feb 11, 2025 · Learn what is Software Intellectual Property, why you should guard it, common ways it is stolen, and how to protect it.
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)
    The court held that the defendant's reverse engineering, which involved copying, of a copyrighted computer program qualified as fair use.Missing: decision | Show results with:decision
  58. [58]
    Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (1992)
    Sega sued Accolade for copyright infringement after Accolade copied Sega's code to make compatible games, leading to a district court finding Accolade violated ...
  59. [59]
    MAI Systems Corporation v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (1993)
    The district court granted summary judgment in MAI's favor, holding that the transfer of computer software from a storage medium to a computer's RAM constituted ...
  60. [60]
    [PDF] VERNOR v. AUTODESK, INC - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Sep 10, 2010 · The district court issued the requested declaratory judgment, holding that. Vernor's sales were lawful because of two of the Copyright. Act's ...
  61. [61]
    [PDF] GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. - Supreme Court
    Apr 5, 2021 · (d) To determine whether Google's limited copying of the API here constitutes fair use, the Court examines the four guiding factors set forth in ...
  62. [62]
    [PDF] Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc. 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021 ... - Copyright
    At trial, the jury found that Google had infringed Oracle's copyright, ... that Google's “reimplementation” of the Java API in Android was a “transformative” use.
  63. [63]
    17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
    No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
  64. [64]
    Unintended Consequences: Fifteen Years under the DMCA
    The DMCA Jeopardizes Fair Use.​​ By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, the DMCA grants to ...
  65. [65]
    Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection ...
    Oct 28, 2024 · This rule adopts exemptions to the DMCA for access control technologies, allowing noninfringing uses of copyrighted works for three years, as a ...<|separator|>
  66. [66]
    The legal boundaries of reverse engineering in the EU - Vidstrom Labs
    May 19, 2019 · Directive 2009/24/EC controls the legality of reverse engineering in the EU, and I'll start by quoting the relevant sections.
  67. [67]
    Court of Justice of the European Union allows Reverse Engineering ...
    Oct 12, 2021 · Licensees are in certain cases permitted to decompile software code without infringing the Software Directive.
  68. [68]
    Software Reverse Engineering and the Law: What You Need to ...
    Apr 25, 2025 · We share our approach to ethical and lawful reverse engineering, outlining key legal considerations and offering real-life examples from our practice.
  69. [69]
    Proprietary License Explained: Key Terms, Types, and Risks
    Rating 5.0 (4,471) Oct 2, 2025 · Proprietary software refers to any software that has a copyright and has limits to use and distribution.<|control11|><|separator|>
  70. [70]
    Absolute Guide to Software Licensing Types | Licensing Models
    What is a Proprietary Software License? A proprietary software license is used when the creator of the software maintains control over who uses the software ...Software License Legal... · Cloud Licensing · Hybrid Licensing
  71. [71]
    Open Source vs. Closed Source Software | Splunk
    Apr 4, 2024 · Open-source software allows free access to source code, while closed-source software has proprietary code and is controlled by a company.How Open Source Software... · Closed Source Software · Your Unique Business Needs
  72. [72]
    What's the Difference Between Open Source and Closed Source?
    Open source allows access and editing of source code, while closed source encrypts and protects it, prohibiting modification.Missing: architecture | Show results with:architecture
  73. [73]
    Closed Source Operating System: Explained & Compared - BytePlus
    Key technical characteristics ; Update Mechanism, Centralized and vendor-controlled, Consistent and coordinated improvements ; Security Model, Proprietary ...<|separator|>
  74. [74]
    What is software? Types and methods of distribution - Firmbee
    Oct 10, 2022 · Closed-source software is sometimes called proprietary software. It is covered by restrictions, that concern its usage, modification, and ...<|separator|>
  75. [75]
    Proprietary license defined: Examples + SaaS company tips
    Apr 28, 2025 · How do you monetize proprietary software? Proprietary software is monetized through various licensing models like subscriptions, perpetual ...Proprietary Software Vs... · How Proprietary Licenses... · Usage-Based Licenses
  76. [76]
    Software business models explained - Embroker
    Apr 30, 2025 · Propriety software licensing is used by software companies to protect their copyrighted software, so that the source code cannot be accessed, ...Cloud software business models · Software licensing business...
  77. [77]
    Software Licensing Models & Types: Your Complete Guide - Revenera
    Aug 8, 2025 · This guide provides an insight into the various types of software licensing models favored by global technology companies.
  78. [78]
    Oracle Subscription vs. Perpetual Licensing (Cloud vs. On-Prem)
    May 3, 2025 · Perpetual license cost may be $1M (including options like RAC, Partitioning, etc.), plus you invest in servers and storage, $500k. You pay ...
  79. [79]
    Adobe's Subscription Model: A Risky Move That Paid Off Big
    The shift reduced cyclical revenue fluctuations and improved financial predictability, making Adobe a more attractive investment in the eyes of shareholders.
  80. [80]
    Adobe: How To Dominate The Subscription Economy - Forbes
    Aug 23, 2018 · Revenue shrank in 2013 by 8% and was flat the following year. Adobe even faced some resistance from customers who didn't initially see the ...
  81. [81]
    Adobe blew up its business model and it worked - Profit Snack
    Jun 13, 2025 · Adobe's subscription revenue shot from $1.2B in 2013 to $18.3B by 2023. ; Total revenue quintupled to over $19B, and net income followed. ; Their ...
  82. [82]
    Microsoft Business Model (2023) | How Does Microsoft Make Money
    It generated approximately $59.7 billion in revenue for the company in 2021. Some products offered under this segment include Windows OEM licensing, PC ...
  83. [83]
    The Ultimate Guide to Smart Software Pricing Strategies - Toptal
    This article looks at designing a software pricing strategy that maps to the product architecture, and, of course, to the market opportunity.
  84. [84]
    Perpetual Licensing vs. Subscription - Spinnaker Support
    Sep 19, 2023 · In this article, we'll cover the key differences between perpetual licenses and subscription models for software, helping you make an informed decision.
  85. [85]
    Software pricing: Models and strategies for SaaS businesses - Stripe
    Mar 30, 2025 · We look at the most effective pricing models and strategies for software companies, along with ways to fine-tune them for growth and respond to common ...Comparing Cost-Based And... · Using Pricing Psychology To... · Freemium Models
  86. [86]
    A Behind-The-Scenes Look at Adobe's Journey to Subscriptions
    Mar 7, 2025 · In 2011, Adobe transparently told Wall Street: Revenue and profit will drop, but ARR will grow. A bold shift from CDs to subscriptions that paid ...
  87. [87]
    How Software Companies Can Get More Bang for Their R&D Buck
    Nov 22, 2019 · Best-in-class software companies are allocating more to R&D than ever before. Those growing the fastest typically spend more than 20% of their revenues on R&D.
  88. [88]
    Industry equilibrium with open-source and proprietary firms
    We present a model of industry equilibrium to study the coexistence of open-source and proprietary firms. Two novel aspects of the model are (i) ...
  89. [89]
    Microsoft Research and Development Expenses 2011-2025 | MSFT
    Microsoft annual research and development expenses for 2023 were $27.195B, a 10.95% increase from 2022. View More ...
  90. [90]
    Research & Development - Microsoft
    These amounts represented 13%, 13%, and 14%, respectively, of revenue in each of those years. We plan to continue to make significant investments in a broad ...
  91. [91]
    Research & Development (R&D) Expense of Big Tech companies
    From 2015 to 2023, the collective R&D spend by Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple and Meta, grew at an annualized rate of 22%, reaching $213.7 Billion (For 12 ...
  92. [92]
    2024 R&D investment analysis: Top 15 projected R&D spenders
    Dec 13, 2024 · Top 15 projected R&D spenders of 2024 ; 3, Apple, ~33.0, Custom silicon, AR/VR platforms, AI integration ; 4, Microsoft, ~31.9, AI integration, ...
  93. [93]
    Top Software & Services Companies Boost R&D Budgets Amid AI ...
    Oct 26, 2024 · This chart shows how R&D spending has changed for major software companies between 2022 and 2023. Data is sourced from the Global Innovation Index 2024.Missing: proprietary | Show results with:proprietary
  94. [94]
    Visualizing R&D Investment by the 10 Biggest Nasdaq Companies
    Oct 10, 2023 · R&D Investment by the 10 Biggest Nasdaq Firms ; 5, Microsoft, 13% ; 6, Nvidia, 27% ; 7, Broadcom, 14% ; 8, ASML, 15% ...
  95. [95]
    Trends in the Information Technology sector - Brookings Institution
    Mar 29, 2019 · The U.S. is a clear front-runner in this category: Total spending on R&D grew from $268.6 billion in 2000 to $496.6 billion by 2015 (Figure 4).
  96. [96]
    R&D: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons | FI Group USA
    Sep 28, 2024 · US business R&D performance is concentrated across a range of industries: software R&D, for example, has been a growing part of business R&D ...
  97. [97]
    What are some examples of open-source programs better than their ...
    Jan 14, 2020 · For example, most would agree that PhotoShop is "better" than Gimp and Microsoft Office is better than LibreOffice. On the other hand, ...
  98. [98]
    [PDF] Competition among Proprietary and Open-Source Software Firms
    proprietary incumbent affects the economic incentives of firms who strategically contribute to OSS as part of OSSg2 business models has yet to be studied in ...
  99. [99]
    Software & Programming Industry Profitability - CSIMarket
    Operating Margin in 3 Q 2025 was 29.58 %, a new Industry high. On the trailing twelve months basis operating margin in 3 Q 2025 fell to 21.33 %. Within ...
  100. [100]
    Tech companies and operating margins: Seven lead the way
    Jul 18, 2025 · Tech companies and operating margins: Seven lead the way · 1. Nvidia – 59.86% · 2. Meta Platforms (Facebook) – 44.42% · 3. Microsoft – 43.79% · 4.
  101. [101]
    What is the SaaS Revenue Model? - DealHub
    May 15, 2025 · The SaaS revenue model is a form of software distribution where users pay recurring fees to access cloud-based applications through the Internet.
  102. [102]
    Global Open Source Software Market Size Forecast 2024 - 2033
    Dec 19, 2024 · The open-source software market size has grown rapidly in recent years. It will grow from $35.90 billion in 2023 to $41.83 billion in 2024 at a ...
  103. [103]
    [PDF] Two-Sided Competition of Proprietary vs. Open Source Technology ...
    Proprietary platforms may have lower prices, but open source platforms may have more profitable proprietary applications and larger application variety. Open ...
  104. [104]
    Software Licensing Agreements: Proprietary vs Free - TermsFeed
    An EULA, or End User License Agreement, is an important legal agreement that works to grant a limited license to use your app, as well as maintain your own ...
  105. [105]
    Proprietary Software License Sample Clauses - Law Insider
    Client may make copies of the Proprietary Software for backup purposes only, provided all copyright and other proprietary information included in the original ...<|separator|>
  106. [106]
    Software Licensing Terms - English - Microsoft Learn
    Apr 14, 2025 · 1. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS · 2. DATA COLLECTION · 3. SCOPE OF LICENSE · 4. EXPORT RESTRICTIONS · 5. SUPPORT SERVICES · 6. UPDATES · 7. ENTIRE ...
  107. [107]
    MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS - Microsoft Support
    Home users can install on personal devices, small businesses on up to 10 devices. The software is licensed, not sold, and cannot be used on government or ...
  108. [108]
    [PDF] Software License Agreement - Adobe
    Subject to the Permitted Number of Compatible Computers for the Subscription Edition, Adobe may allow Customer to install and use the most recent prior version ...
  109. [109]
    End-User License Agreement | HP® Support
    This End-User license Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between (a) you (either an individual or a single entity) and (b) HP Inc. ("HP") that governs ...
  110. [110]
    Open-Source Software vs. Proprietary Software: What to Know
    Apr 13, 2023 · Open-source software allows free use and modification, while proprietary software is paid, with restrictive licenses and closed-source ...
  111. [111]
    Proprietary Software: Definition & Examples - StudySmarter
    Aug 9, 2023 · Proprietary Software refers to any software which is copyrighted and bears restrictions on inspection, modification, and distribution of its ...<|separator|>
  112. [112]
    EULA - Top 10 End-User Licence Agreement Tips for Software ...
    Jul 2, 2024 · No Reverse Engineering: Prohibit reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling the software. · No Redistribution: If your software contains ...
  113. [113]
    Reverse Engineering and the Law: Understand the Restrictions to ...
    Mar 27, 2021 · Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America's case proved that reverse engineering can be held as a fair outlier to copyright infringement under ...
  114. [114]
    Coders' Rights Project Reverse Engineering FAQ
    Even though reverse engineering is a fair use under federal copyright law, the programmers waived their fair use rights through the EULA. The court also held ...First The Scary Stuff: What... · How Could Copyright Law... · Are There Court Decisions...
  115. [115]
    Digging Deeper: Reverse Engineering & Infringement Laws |TTC
    Feb 28, 2023 · Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 1201 (f)) allows a person in legal possession of a program to reverse ...
  116. [116]
    End User License Agreement - EULA - RunSensible
    Jun 14, 2024 · Restrictions on Use​​ Prohibited Actions: EULAs often include provisions that prohibit reverse engineering, decompiling, or otherwise tampering ...
  117. [117]
    https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/end-user-license-agreements/
  118. [118]
    End-User License Agreements And The Cost Of Doing Business
    Typically, the end-user license agreement prohibits sharing the software with others without an additional license. No intellectual rights to the software are ...
  119. [119]
    Analyzing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) Anti ...
    The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions can significantly impact reverse engineering, especially when it involves breaking digital protections to understand ...
  120. [120]
    Research Note—Lock-In Strategy in Software Competition
    Jun 16, 2011 · “Lock in customers” seems a tempting strategy for proprietary software vendors, who attempt to lock in customers by creating switching costs.
  121. [121]
    How IT Leaders Can Fight Back Against Vendor Lock-In - Dataversity
    Mar 19, 2025 · With vendor lock-in on the rise, what used to be a partnership between companies and software providers has become a one-sided relationship.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  122. [122]
    Major government tech contractors use monopolistic vendor-lock to ...
    Jan 30, 2023 · The report says Microsoft and Oracle received at least 25% to 30% of government sales over the last decade through less than fully competitive procurements.
  123. [123]
    [PDF] Vendor Lock | NetChoice
    A five percent improvement in price performance, due to enhanced software competition, could produce savings up to $750 million annually.
  124. [124]
    When to make proprietary software open source - Tilburg University ...
    Finally we find that whereas high switching costs might prevent firms from adopting an open source business model, low switching costs mainly affect the timing ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
  125. [125]
    I need macOS on other devices - Apple Communities
    May 6, 2020 · If you want to use macOS, then you need to use Apple hardware. If you want an easy to use Linux distribution, then try Kubuntu, Ubuntu-Mate, or ...
  126. [126]
    Does someone know a tutorial about installing MACOS (not vm) with ...
    Oct 1, 2023 · Macos are hardware dependent meaning the are locked to the motherboards ... New MacOS requires their proprietary ARM. In 2023 it's not ...what is the advantage of MacOS over linux? : r/macbookpro - RedditMac os more stable than windows? - RedditMore results from www.reddit.com
  127. [127]
    Reactivating Windows after a hardware change - Microsoft Support
    If you have a digital license, run the Activation troubleshooter. · Sign in as an administrator. · Select the Start button, then select Settings > System > ...
  128. [128]
    Is OEM Windows locked to hard drive or motherboard?
    Mar 30, 2017 · OEM windows from Dell/HP/ect. is locked to the motherboard. OEM Windows you bought off Amazon or something is transferable.
  129. [129]
    Top 4 Embedded Operating Systems with Examples (2024 Update)
    Some examples of embedded systems are industrial robots, smart devices, IoT machines, drones, medical systems, video game consoles, and many others. Operating ...
  130. [130]
    Apple has introduced proprietary software locks into the new ...
    Oct 4, 2018 · Apple has introduced proprietary software locks into the new MacBook Pros that will prevent anyone except Apple from fixing them.
  131. [131]
    The Dangers of Hardware Vendor Lock-in - Juniper Blogs
    Apr 25, 2019 · Hardware vendors are coming out with proprietary management APIs which lock their hardware to their management systems. ... software and analytics ...
  132. [132]
    Microsoft's $20 billion plan for cybersecurity's big spending problem
    Sep 8, 2021 · Microsoft is quadrupling its cybersecurity investment to $20 billion over the next five years. One of the reasons for the big investment ...
  133. [133]
    Microsoft's security arm is now a $20 billion per year business
    Jan 25, 2023 · According to the tech giant, its security offerings are now a $20 billion per year business. That's double the $10 billion per year seen in 2021.
  134. [134]
    O$$ security: Does more money for open source software mean ...
    Apr 18, 2024 · Consequently, this perspective implies that the security and sustainability of open source software suffer from a lack of financial investment.
  135. [135]
    Open at the Core: Moving from Proprietary Technology to Building a ...
    Sep 5, 2025 · An early hypothesis was that OSS would lead to improved software quality (Raymond 1999), yet empirical evidence found no significant difference ...
  136. [136]
    [PDF] Innovation and Intellectual Property Protection in the Software Industry
    Intellectual property (IP) laws have had an important impact on the software industry's success. IP protection has given software de- velopers the incentive to ...
  137. [137]
    Software's legal future - Frontiers
    By the 1980s, courts, Congress, and innovators had recognized patents and copyrights as important tools for spurring software innovation. Without copyright and ...<|separator|>
  138. [138]
    An empirical study based on the revision of the patent law
    This study employs a difference-in-differences (DID) approach to evaluate the causal effect of enhanced intellectual property protection on digital technology ...
  139. [139]
    Why Weak Intellectual Property Rights Threaten Innovation and ...
    Jan 29, 2025 · I conclude that the erosion of IP rights across content and tech markets risks harm to both innovation and competition.
  140. [140]
    How IP Rights Drive Innovation - Computer Packages Inc. -CPI
    Intellectual property rights are fundamental in driving innovation across various sectors. They foster creativity, promote economic growth, and serve as ...
  141. [141]
    Open-Source vs Proprietary Software: The Clear Winner in 2025 | O8
    To define proprietary software simply: it is software protected by legal measures, such as patent or copyright law, that restrict its use, distribution, and ...
  142. [142]
    Open Source vs Proprietary Software - A Comparative Analysis
    Sep 5, 2024 · Our guide compares open-source vs proprietary software to help business owners, developers, and IT managers find the most suitable option!
  143. [143]
    Improvement of Open Source Software Usability: An Empirical ...
    Sep 26, 2010 · Users' satisfaction plays a major role in the success of software, whether it is an open source or closed proprietary software. The more ...
  144. [144]
    Evaluating Security: Open Source vs Proprietary Software - PingCAP
    Sep 8, 2024 · Proprietary software is often perceived as more secure due to its controlled access, yet it is not immune to vulnerabilities.Controlled Access And Vendor... · Open Source Software · Pingcap's Tidb: A Case Study...
  145. [145]
    Open Source vs Proprietary Software: Security Comparison - Daily.dev
    May 10, 2024 · Explore the security differences between open source and proprietary software, including transparency, patch deployment, and community roles in vulnerability ...Open Source Software... · Proprietary Software... · Open Source Vs. Proprietary...
  146. [146]
    The Xz-Utils Backdoor: The Supply Chain RCE That Got Caught
    Apr 4, 2024 · The xz-utils backdoor could have been the most serious software supply chain compromise since the SolarWinds Orion hack.
  147. [147]
    The Pitfalls of Closed-Source Whistleblowing Software
    Aug 5, 2022 · Closed-source software lacks peer review, has no public knowledge of fixes, and can have major vulnerabilities with no mitigation, unlike open- ...
  148. [148]
    Auditing Proprietary Algorithms while Preserving Privacy is Possible
    Nov 1, 2024 · Third parties can audit proprietary algorithms while protecting the security and privacy of commercially sensitive and personal information.
  149. [149]
    Transparency, auditability and accountability in software - GTG Legal
    Nov 3, 2019 · A Law which captures transparency, auditability and accountability for certain types of software, which fall within the definition of innovative technology ...
  150. [150]
    [PDF] The Total Economic Impact™ Of Microsoft 365 E3
    Microsoft licensing costs of $30.1 million. The organization pays $32 per license per month for its 30,000 E3 users.
  151. [151]
    How Poor Microsoft License Management Impacts Your IT Budget
    May 17, 2025 · The reality is that poor Microsoft license management practices can lead to unnecessary expenditures that far exceed the initial licensing fees.
  152. [152]
    [PDF] small-businesses-obstacles-opportunities-digital-accounting ...
    Nov 7, 2023 · manual or existing systems (44%), cost of software (42%) and difficulty in learning and implementation. (25%) are the main barriers to digital ...
  153. [153]
    Factors influencing free and open-source software adoption in ...
    In their investigations, the authors of (Raymond, 1999, Hansen et al., 2002) concluded that FOSS has much greater levels of security than “proprietary and ...
  154. [154]
    In developing countries—Open-source has been a game changer
    Aug 21, 2024 · Open-source software mitigates national economic losses by reducing duplication of work, especially in public and academic settings. It fosters ...
  155. [155]
    The Hidden Costs of Proprietary Software - Why Open-Source is the ...
    Nov 7, 2024 · Proprietary software has hidden costs like recurring license fees, maintenance, vendor lock-in, and limited customization. Open-source offers  ...<|separator|>
  156. [156]
    (PDF) Cost-Benefit Analysis Proprietary Licensing Vs. Open Source ...
    Jun 11, 2025 · This paper presents a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis comparing the economic, operational, and strategic implications of proprietary ...
  157. [157]
    U.S. V. Microsoft: Proposed Findings Of Fact - Department of Justice
    Microsoft's monopoly power is protected, and has been protected for years, by high barriers to entry into the operating systems market, the most important of ...
  158. [158]
    [PDF] United States v. Microsoft: A Failure of Antitrust in the New Economy
    The relevant antitrust market is the PC operating systems market for Intel- compatible computers, in which Microsoft has a monopoly “where it enjoys a large and ...
  159. [159]
    Competitive Impact Statement : U.S. V. Microsoft Corporation
    The Complaint alleges that Microsoft has used its monopoly power to induce PC manufacturers to enter into anticompetitive, long-term licenses.
  160. [160]
    Microsoft Antitrust Case - Overview, Charges, Verdict
    Microsoft was formally charged with constituting a market monopoly by making it difficult for users to install competing software.
  161. [161]
    [PDF] Webinar Recap: The Microsoft Case and Today's Big Tech Wars
    Oct 21, 2024 · 6 The Court recognized that Microsoft's operating system had a 95 percent market share in a market with high barriers to entry, making it hard ...
  162. [162]
    Legal and Economic Aspects of the Microsoft Case
    Stock market effects on the sector have been very negative on the entire range of antitrust proceedings against Microsoft, going back a decade.
  163. [163]
    Big tech's cloud oligopoly risks AI market concentration
    Apr 15, 2024 · Some of the dangers here are obvious. Trapped by the lack of alternatives, interoperability, and the fact they've tied all their systems into ...
  164. [164]
    Market Concentration and Innovation Horizon: Evidence from the US ...
    Jul 17, 2025 · This paper investigates the correlation between market concentration, measuring the intensity of competition in an industry, with various innovation strategies ...
  165. [165]
    [PDF] Market Concentration and the Productivity Slowdown
    Dec 24, 2022 · The productivity slowdown is linked to declining innovativeness of smaller firms, which reduces their ability to overtake market leaders, and ...
  166. [166]
    Full article: On market concentration and cybersecurity risk
    Market concentration, broadly defined, tends to shift the risk of being attacked from individuals and minor nodes towards major players. Market concentration ...
  167. [167]
    Increased Market Concentration Does Not Equal Less Innovation | ITIF
    Jan 30, 2025 · This theory views an industry's conduct and performance—such as prices, output, and innovation—as a direct function of its structure ...
  168. [168]
    The impact and risks of market concentration and US dominance in ...
    Nov 20, 2024 · The impact and risks of market concentration and US dominance in the tech sector.
  169. [169]
    U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact - Department of Justice
    " Both Apple and Microsoft read this term to prohibit Apple from promoting non-Microsoft browsing software. The agreement even states that Apple will ...Missing: Google | Show results with:Google
  170. [170]
    How Big Tech is faring against US antitrust lawsuits | Reuters
    Sep 2, 2025 · A U.S. lawsuit where Alphabet's Google was ordered on Tuesday to share search data with competitors is just one of the major efforts by U.S. ...Missing: proprietary | Show results with:proprietary
  171. [171]
    The Surprising Consequences of Antitrust Actions Against Big Tech
    Feb 24, 2023 · Our research examines the aftermath of the famed U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft of the late 1990s and early 2000s in the enterprise ...Missing: litigation | Show results with:litigation
  172. [172]
    Court Lets DOJ Antitrust Case Against Apple Proceed
    Jul 4, 2025 · On June 30, 2025, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Apple's Motion to Dismiss the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) lawsuit.
  173. [173]
    Big Tech remains top priority for DOJ and FTC in US antitrust litigation
    Aug 11, 2025 · In December 2023, a jury delivered a victory to Epic Games in its suit against Google, Inc for monopolising the markets for app distribution and ...
  174. [174]
    The Digital Markets Act: ensuring fair and open digital markets
    The Digital Markets Act establishes a set of clearly defined objective criteria to qualify a large online platform as a “gatekeeper”Digital Markets Act · A Europe fit for the digital age · Gatekeepers · Resources
  175. [175]
    The Digital Markets Act: Security and Innovation Challenges in Tech ...
    Jan 6, 2025 · The EU DMA Act would require Apple to grant third-party devices access to proprietary functionalities like AirDrop and AirPlay.
  176. [176]
    Google has an illegal monopoly on search, judge rules ... - CNN
    Aug 6, 2024 · Google has violated US antitrust law with its search business, a federal judge ruled Monday, handing the tech giant a staggering court defeat.Missing: software | Show results with:software
  177. [177]
    Department of Justice Prevails in Landmark Antitrust Case Against ...
    Apr 17, 2025 · The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law by monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets.Missing: proprietary | Show results with:proprietary
  178. [178]
    A List of the Big Technology Companies' Multiple Antitrust Battles ...
    Google. EU. Unconnected abuse of dominance ; Apple. EU. Self-preferencing. Exclusivity and tying practices ; Amazon. EU. Access to data. Preferential treatment.
  179. [179]
    The EU's Digital Markets Act: A Gift to Hackers - ECIPE
    Feb 10, 2025 · By undermining these protections, DMA compliance exposes Europeans to increased risks of malware, phishing, and fraud. The DMA's Unintended ...
  180. [180]
    The Antitrust Agencies' Big Tech Cases: An Update - AAF
    Jun 11, 2024 · This primer provides an update on the cases against Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta, highlighting both the legal arguments and the status of each.
  181. [181]
    https://www.finitestate.io/blog/open-source-risk-plugging-the-hole
  182. [182]
    [PDF] Understanding the Risks of Open-Source Software - Contrast Security
    1 At the same time, OSS can present risks with licensing limitations as well as security trade-offs such as vulnerabilities and targeted attacks against open- ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  183. [183]
    Open-source vs proprietary software - Nebius
    Aug 28, 2024 · In this post, we're comparing open-source and proprietary software, with a detailed focus on definitions, differences, key advantages and business models.Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  184. [184]
    Adoption of open-source software versus proprietary software
    Aug 6, 2025 · Proprietary software documentation is often far more consistent than that of open-source software which often relies upon community-based ...
  185. [185]
    Open Source vs Proprietary Software: Complete Comparison (2025)
    Mar 14, 2025 · Open-source software is typically free, providing cost savings, while proprietary software requires payment through purchases or subscriptions.Licensing Models For Open... · Open-Source Vs. Proprietary... · Open Source In Cloud...
  186. [186]
    AI's Copyright Dilemma: Recent Lawsuits and Implications - Darrow AI
    Apr 8, 2025 · Over 25 copyright infringement lawsuits against AI companies are currently pending in federal court. As AI advances, copyright law is being tested on two ...
  187. [187]
    Every AI Copyright Lawsuit in the US, Visualized | WIRED
    Dec 19, 2024 · Nearly every major generative AI company has been pulled into this legal fight, including OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, Google, Anthropic, and Nvidia ...
  188. [188]
    Anthropic Agrees to Pay $1.5 Billion to Settle Lawsuit With Book ...
    Sep 5, 2025 · The New York Times has sued OpenAI and its partner, Microsoft, for copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. OpenAI and ...Missing: proprietary 2020s
  189. [189]
    Master List of lawsuits v. AI, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Microsoft, Meta ...
    Aug 27, 2024 · We compiled a running list of the lawsuits filed against AI companies, including OpenAI. This list was updated on Sept. 14, 2025.<|separator|>
  190. [190]
    Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Class Actions
    This tracker monitors U.S. litigation on copyright issues related to generative AI, including cases like Advance Local Media v. Cohere and Andersen v. ...
  191. [191]
    Musk expands lawsuit against OpenAI, adding Microsoft ... - Reuters
    Nov 15, 2024 · The expanded lawsuit said OpenAI and Microsoft violated antitrust law by conditioning investment opportunities on agreements not to deal with ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  192. [192]
    Elon Musk asks court to block OpenAI from converting to a for-profit
    Nov 30, 2024 · Musk had originally sued OpenAI in March 2024 in a San Francisco state court, before withdrawing that complaint and refiling several months ...
  193. [193]
    Elon Musk's xAI sues Apple, OpenAI over alleged scheme to ...
    Aug 25, 2025 · Elon Musk's xAI sues Apple, OpenAI over alleged scheme to dominate AI. The lawsuit centers on an agreement last year between Apple and OpenAI.
  194. [194]
    68 Percent of CIOs Worry About Vendor Lock-In with Public Cloud
    Mar 18, 2020 · According to a report recently released by Flexera, 68 percent of CIOs are worried about vendor lock-in regarding public cloud.
  195. [195]
    SaaS Data Ownership Disputes: Protecting Your Business Information
    Jun 18, 2025 · Vendor Lock-in Analysis: Evaluate technical barriers to data migration and export limitations ... 65% reduction in vendor-related disputes ...
  196. [196]
    Vendor Lock-In and Technical Debt: How It Traps Customers
    Apr 10, 2025 · Vendor lock-in can become a costly, long-term burden for customers, forcing them to remain with an underperforming provider due to high switching costs.
  197. [197]
    Adobe launches Creative Cloud subscription service - CNET
    May 11, 2012 · The subscription service to CS6 software such as Photoshop, mobile apps, and online services is now live -- as is a potentially more stable business for Adobe.
  198. [198]
    End of Microsoft's Perpetual Licensing Era - Clients First
    May 16, 2025 · Microsoft stopped perpetual licenses on Jan 1, 2022, no longer selling support, and is pushing users to cloud subscription models. Perpetual ...
  199. [199]
    Moving To A Software Subscription Model - Gartner
    Nov 12, 2015 · Gartner predicts that by 2020, all new entrants and 80% of historical vendors will offer subscription-based business models, regardless of where ...
  200. [200]
    The SaaS Market in 2025: From Hype Darling to Business Backbone
    Jun 25, 2025 · The 2010s marked SaaS's transition from curiosity to necessity. The market expanded from roughly $10 billion in 2010 to over $120 billion by ...
  201. [201]
    https://www.statista.com/topics/3071/cloud-software-as-a-service-saas/
  202. [202]
    60+ SaaS Statistics and Trends [2025] - Cropink
    Mar 31, 2025 · The SaaS market is projected to be worth over $390.50 billion in 2025, with an expected revenue growth of 19.38% from 2025 to 2029. Why is SaaS ...
  203. [203]
    What Is Cloud Vendor Lock-In (And How To Break Free)? - Cast AI
    May 1, 2025 · This is called cloud vendor lock-in – a scenario where you become tied to a cloud service provider without an easy or cost-efficient way to break free.
  204. [204]
    Lessons from Adobe's Shift to Subscriptions: A Pricing ... - Monetizely
    May 21, 2025 · Revenue grew from $4.1 billion in 2013 to over $15.7 billion in 2022 · Recurring revenue now represents more than 90% of Adobe's total revenue ...Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  205. [205]
    Office 365 transition from perpetual to subscription licensing - AFI.ai
    After Oct 13, 2020, only mainstream Office versions can connect to O365. Perpetual licenses are limited, requiring ProPlus or re-licensing every 5 years.
  206. [206]
    The Pros and Cons of Subscription Based Software
    Jan 5, 2024 · Business software can be expensive, and before the subscription model, the upfront costs could be difficult for small to midsize businesses. The ...
  207. [207]
    Open-Source vs Closed AI: Trust, Security & Performance - Index.dev
    Jul 8, 2025 · Proprietary LLMs like GPT-4, Google's Gemini, and Claude top benchmarks. In “ELO score” comparisons, closed models consistently outshine open ...
  208. [208]
    Proprietary AI Soars, Open-Source Faces Uphill Battle in Benchmarks
    Oct 10, 2025 · The widening performance gap between proprietary and open-source AI models fits into a broader trend of centralization within the AI landscape.<|separator|>
  209. [209]
    The leading generative AI companies - IoT Analytics
    Mar 4, 2025 · Generative AI market: NVIDIA leads data center GPU segment with a 92% market share. Microsoft and AWS lead the foundation models and[...]
  210. [210]
    What Leaders Need To Know About Open-Source Vs. Proprietary ...
    Jul 7, 2025 · By using a proprietary model, companies place their trust in the provider that the model is secure. But that opacity can hide vulnerabilities, ...
  211. [211]
    Why Proprietary Data Is The New Gold For AI Companies - Forbes
    Feb 25, 2025 · Proprietary data allows companies to fine-tune AI models with domain-specific knowledge, creating applications that outperform generic models trained on public ...
  212. [212]
    LLM Leaderboard 2025 - Vellum AI
    This LLM leaderboard displays the latest public benchmark performance for SOTA model versions released after April 2024.Open LLM Leaderboard · Vellum Evaluations · Best LLM for Coding
  213. [213]
    Top 9 Large Language Models as of October 2025 | Shakudo
    Top 9 Large Language Models as of October 2025 · 1. OpenAI · 2. DeepSeek · 3. Qwen · 4. Grok · 5. Llama · 6. Claude · 7. Mistral · 8. Gemini.
  214. [214]
    https://www.seniorexecutive.com/open-source-vs-proprietary-ai-models/
  215. [215]
    The Most Powerful Coding AI Models of 2025 - Medium
    Jul 23, 2025 · Qwen3-Coder stands out as the open-source champion, rivaling Claude 4 and GPT in benchmarks while offering unmatched accessibility.
  216. [216]
    Open Source vs Proprietary AI: 5 Game-Changing Trends ...
    The performance gap between open source and proprietary AI models is closing rapidly, marking one of 2025's most significant developments.
  217. [217]
    Legacy Systems Defined: Examples, Key Problems & Solutions
    Dec 13, 2024 · Examples of Legacy Software & Systems · Old Database Systems · Outdated Enterprise Software · Aging Hardware Infrastructure · Older Operating ...
  218. [218]
    Problems With Legacy Systems: 5 Warning Signs and 4 Fixes
    Five Signs Your Legacy Software Needs More Security · 1. Relies on Unsupported Software · 2. Slow and Crashes Frequently · 3. Incompatible With the Latest Software.
  219. [219]
    What Is "Abandonware" and Is it Legal? - How-To Geek
    Jan 15, 2023 · In the US, there are no laws using the term "abandonware," but since what we think of as abandonware exists outside the public domain, its ...What Is Abandonware, Exactly? · Abandonware Is Available on...
  220. [220]
    Abandonware: Is it preservation or just plain piracy?
    Aug 7, 2024 · The concept of abandonware does not exist anywhere in copyright law, although there seems to be a perception that it does.
  221. [221]
    The Abandonware Conundrum: Can you modify games if publisher ...
    Apr 20, 2015 · Very briefly, this provision (17 USC § 1201) prohibits making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent embedded technology ...Missing: proprietary | Show results with:proprietary
  222. [222]
    Winamp releases its source code on GitHub — but the legacy media ...
    Sep 25, 2024 · Winamp is released on GitHub, but restrictive licensing prevents other forks or distributions.
  223. [223]
    10 Legacy Systems Examples You Need to Know About - Avato
    Apr 8, 2025 · Proprietary Software: Owned by specific companies, proprietary software is not accessible for public use and can become obsolete rapidly.
  224. [224]
    5 Examples of Legacy Systems: Where and Why Ones are Still in Use
    Rating 4.7 (28) These systems may no longer be supported by their original developers, may lack compatibility with modern tools, or may pose integration and security challenges ...
  225. [225]
    What abandonware teaches us about the importance of software ...
    Nov 14, 2024 · When a program becomes abandonware, users who had not previously secured a copy of the program cannot obtain a copy without risking civil or even criminal ...
  226. [226]
    Is it time to talk about abandonware reform? - The Solid Signal Blog
    May 4, 2024 · You may be asking yourself how a manufacturer can do something like this legally. The answer is… they can't. Most of these devices use open- ...<|separator|>