#127 Special Episode: The Tesco v Broadcom Case Explained: Why Enterprise IT Leaders Should Pay Attention

26:19Yeah, of course. I think it does depend on size. I mean, Gartner did some research last year or the year before where they suggested it could cost anything up to$2 ,000 per VM to migrate, depending on alternative platforms you're looking at, how they were licensed, how big your estate was, how much you had to re-engineer your applications on a new estate, all that sort of stuff. But if you apply that, I mean, as I say, they said between$200 and$2 ,000. So even going for the worst case figure,$2 ,000 per VM for 40 ,000 VMs is a lot of money. Yeah. You know, so, yeah, I mean, I think for the bigger customers, it is difficult.

26:59I think for smaller customers, you know, it's less of an issue. It's more realistic. And I think I've also seen some customers as well that will take like a one-year renewal just as a holding position and then use that year to get themselves away from VMware so they don't have to renew again. Yeah, so just correct me if I'm wrong here, Barry, but VMware is a pretty dominant player in the global virtualization market, isn't it? I've read 50 % to 70 % of the marketplace. Is that realistic? Is it something like that, would you say? It's difficult to say, and it is. The dominance in the market is really important to Tesco's case.

27:35I would say, yeah, somewhere. I've seen most analysts put it somewhere between 50 % and 70%, so I don't think that's unreasonable to say that. I mean, I would argue that that's probably going down a bit now because the customer's leaving VMware thanks to what Morgan have done. But that's where I was going with it was, you know, How much is market dominance a factor in this case compared to a normal licensing dispute? It's potentially enormous, potentially enormous, because of the fact that Tesco probably feel a little bit trapped, because they say they reckon it'll take them three to five years to get away from VMware.

28:10I think, you know, as I say, their ELA resute expired January 2026. I recall reading in the filing that they tried to execute their four-year extension, they believe they had 18 months prior. So it's not like they left it to the last minute. It was a good 18 months to two years before the end of the agreement when they tried to execute the extension. And obviously already, by their own estimation, that's not enough time to get off of VMware for them. So VMware's dominance, I mean, it comes back to what we were saying earlier about their innovation and the way they've invested so heavily in research and development.

28:45they have ingrained themselves as one of the world's most critical enterprise IT applications or software platforms, you know. Yeah, of course. I think it's a really, it is a huge factor because obviously Tesco looking at it going, well, we don't really have many alternatives or any alternatives. Whereas normally with a software vendor and a license and dispute, if you're unhappy, generally speaking, there will be an alternative available. It might take you time to get away from it and re-engineer depending on what the software is and who the vendor is. But I would say, I would argue, it's probably easier than having to replatform your entire virtual server estate.

29:22So what kind of precedents have been set on this? Do you know much? I know there's been cases previously, you know, overseas with AT &T in America, the Dutch Water Ministry in the Netherlands. What do those cases tell us, Barry, about this? How does it impact this case? Yeah, I mean, the AT &T and the Dutch Water Ministry cases are actually reasonably similar to Tesco's argument. I think AT &T, I think, were actually the first company to sue Borgon. And their case was very, very similar to Tesco's. They alleged breach of contracts by Borgon. They said that Borgon failed to honor their renewal rights for support on perpetual licenses.

29:59They also claimed that the shift to subscription licensing and the price increases resulted in an anticipated increase in costs of around about 1 ,000%, which is horrifying when you think about it. You know, and they sought what's called injunctive relief in law. So basically, I just wanted to force Broadcom to provide them with the support they wanted. The case was eventually settled out of court, but it was a confidential settlement. Now, I don't know what the law around that is in the United States or even the state concerns. And I don't know whether that will happen here because I'm not quite sure how that works.

30:37But it was a confidential settlement. So it was all kept very, very quiet. I suspect that was at Broadcom's request to try and head off further cases potentially. But the best guess, I think, is that there would have been some form of compromise between the two, and AT &T probably got a lot of what it wanted. Otherwise, they wouldn't have dropped the case, I don't think. So the Dutch Water Ministry's case, again, very similar. The projected increase in cost was a lot lower. It's something like 85%, 90%, I think. but the court in that case compelled Brokong to provide two-year support to the Dutch Water Ministry for their perpetual licenses.

31:14I think the key factor as well is they also imposed a potential penalty if Brokong refused to do it. So I think it was€250 ,000 per day and it was capped at€25 million. So if Brokong refused to actually do what the court had ordered, there was a penalty imposed upon them for doing that. So I think both these cases indicate a precedent that courts are taking customer sides over support obligations. It remains to be seen, I think, whether the High Court in England will view the contractual relationship we've talked about, so the contract between Tesco and Computer Centre, and whether Brawcom actually has any obligations in that area in the same way.

31:56So we'll see how that goes. But yeah, it's an interesting one, no doubt. Do you expect similar cases to emerge after this one then? Do you think we're going to see a lot of this over the next couple of years against Broadcom? Or do you think this is going to set a precedent that's going to shape things going forward? It's an interesting one, isn't it? I think it depends what elements of the case the High Court finds merit in. I mean, let's be honest, primarily Tesco are mainly interested in getting injunctive relief from Broadcom to give them the support they think they're entitled to. That is the primary element of their case.

32:34But I think depending on how the court finds on the various aspects, it could set some very compelling precedents that could potentially impact software vendors and customers with some really far-reaching consequences. I mean, as I say, we haven't really talked about it much so far, but Tesco have also cited breach of competition law. I won't go into that in depth because it is quite a challenging in area of law. Just maybe give us a high level explanation of what you're talking about, Barry. The two bits that they've alleged. So firstly, in the Competition Act 1998, there are a couple of sets of prohibitions called the Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 prohibitions.

33:12So Chapter 1 prohibitions basically prevent companies from colluding to price fix. And Tesco have alleged that that's what happened with Computer Center and Broadcom. Although they have actually said we have no knowledge of their exact contractual relationship and how things work between them. And then the other thing, the Chapter 2 prohibitions, which I think is the more interesting one, is abuse of a dominant market position. So Tesco are accusing Borgom of taking advantage of their dominance in the market to charge customers who have very little choice in the matter some eye water in price increases.

33:46So, again, I think, I mean, I'm not a legal expert, but I think there's potential merit in the latter one due to the size of the market share that VMware currently holds in the virtualization market. So I think it depends what happens. But if the High Court does find that Broadcom have breached competition law, and that is a big if, I mean, it potentially opens up Broadcom to an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority. So there could be some far-reaching consequences there. I think the bigger one is the end of availability. You know, if the court finds in Tesco's favour on end of availability, we could see software vendors reviewing how they deal with end of life for their products and services, making sure there's changes in contracts, making sure that the language is explicit and less ambiguous.

34:33And also, we could then see if the high court says, yeah, actually, Borgom, you can't use that end of availability clause. That doesn't say what you think it says. We could find a lot of customers who've already gone through renewals coming back to the table, Bork, I'm saying, right, hang on. Yeah. You've sold us this agreement on a false pretense. So we want some form of we don't want that. We want money back for that. And we want support for our perpetual licenses. And I think it will also have a potential impact on supply chains. You know, again, if the court finds in Tesco's favor, we could see much more caution in contracts between vendors, distributors and resellers.

35:08And the layer of assurance of contractual terms for the customer are reflected all the way down the chain, which doesn't appear to be the case. And I say that without having seen any of the contracts between them all, but that doesn't appear to have been the case because, you know, Tesco are saying, well, we had this contract with Computer Center, and I think VMware played a role in it, but they were not a party to the agreement, and Borgom are denying that they ever had an agreement in place that obligated them to provide that additional four-year support. So where is the case right now, Barry, and what are the sort of plausible next steps?

35:41So at this stage, we've got four companies effectively standing and pointing fingers at each other. So there's four companies basically doing that. So Tesco filed its action last summer against Broadcom and Computer Centre. In October, both Broadcom and Computer Centre filed their defences. Computer Centre's defence is largely, it's not really our fault because we were compelled to act in the way that the vendor decided and the distributor told us. Broadcom's defence is pretty much, no, it's all nonsense. We don't accept any of this. I mean, some of it they've admitted to, but they haven't admitted to breach of contract.

36:16They haven't admitted to breach of competition law. And as I say, they continually rely on the end of availability clause in their defense. So that's where that is. But also what Computer Centre have done is filed what's called a Part 20 claim against Dell. So basically, as I understand it, what a Part 20 claim is, is so it sits alongside the main action. and if you are a defendant in said action, then the defendant in your Part 20 claim, basically, if the main action is found against you, you can then pass any relief that you're obligated for onto them. So what computers under a base is saying, well, it wasn't our fault.

36:52We only acted in the way that Dell told us was possible. So if you find against us, High Court, it's not fair that we pay, that should go to Dell. And I think Dell filed their defense for that in December and then in January, Dell have now done exactly the same as Computer Centre, so they've filed a Part 20 action claim against Borgon. So what Dell are now saying, exactly the same as Computer Centre, that if the main case goes against them and Computer Centre get away with passing their obligation on to Dell, Dell should be allowed to pass their obligation on to Borgon because they acted in the way that Borgon told them to.

37:25So, I mean, effectively, if it's all successful, what we're effectively saying is that, you know, All the injunctive relief will be passed on to Borgom and the reseller and the distributor will have no part of it. Which, again, you can sort of understand that because Dell basically, they were told by Borgom that support's not available, so they did what they were told. They passed that on to Computer Centre and Computer Centre said, well, we can't honour that contract because we've been told by the distributor that it's not possible. Yeah, but in an era where the middleman is slowly in some cases getting phased out and there's a lot more direct to manufacturer, direct to vendor purchasing these days.

38:04I mean, surely this shines a light on an unnecessary supply chain, unnecessarily long supply chain. I mean, you've got the vendor to the distributor to the reseller to the end customer to the consumer on the license. Do you think people will look at this and go, do you know what, they're not adding much value. Let's just sell directly to end customers. What is the point of these middlemen? Do you think it's going to accelerate this trend, do you think, in the software industry? It's a possibility. It is a possibility. I mean, me personally, and I'm going to be controversial here, I've never seen the point of the channel anyway.

38:40I suppose, I mean, let's be honest, I suppose part of it is pricing, isn't it? Yeah, of course. Because obviously the distributors as wholesalers buy licenses in bulk. It's because there's so much margin, Barry. That's what it is, isn't it? Yeah, you're right. You're right. But, I mean, if a vendor – I mean, and you can buy directly from vendors. So, for example, VMware used to have an online store where you could go and buy their products at this price. But obviously that was geared more towards low-level purchases if you wanted a couple of copies of vSphere, for example. And Microsoft, you can go and buy licenses direct from Microsoft.

39:11So it is possible. I think for volume purchasing, though, there will continue to be a channel market because, as I say, I mean, by guaranteeing the orders, Broadcom will offer better discounts to the distributors who will then offer better discounts to the resellers, who can then offer better discounts to the customers. So I think it will probably stay in place purely for pricing. Yeah, there are other benefits of going through a reseller and a distributor. I'm just being a little bit, I'm just joking around a little bit. Yeah, being a bit of a contrary, not like me at all. But yeah, I mean, it is definitely going to shine a light on this though, I think, isn't it?

39:49Yeah, absolutely. And I think the back-to-back contractual relationships particularly. Did you expect to see more organizations challenging vendors or possibly resellers more openly? Or will sort of most absorb the change quietly, do you think? It's an interesting one. I think the fact that Broadcom has taken this approach sort of speaks volumes about how confident vendors are in this space. I mean I don't think that even if the court finds in Tesco's favour I don't think it's going to lead to a change in vendor behaviour quickly I think if Broadcom loses case you would expect them to appeal the ruling so it could drag on for quite some time because you think about it above the High Court you've got the Appeal Court and if that rules against Broadcom they could potentially take it to the UK Supreme Court whether they would or not I don't know but it is a possibility you know so but it might just be the case that all tesco want from broadcom is support for long enough just to enable them to migrate away and if they get an offer to that they may just drop the rest of the case so right that's it we're done you know and then broadcom will just carry on doing what they've been doing so they may well let it go not appeal it they might be happy with that just say okay because at the end of the day if the court does find in tesco's favor and tesco get the support they wanted broadcom is still being paid for it just not the amount of money they originally quoted.

41:12So they're still getting paid. So let's see what happens. I don't think there will be any quick changes. Whether other customers will challenge vendors, I think it's a possibility. I think it really comes down to which elements of the case are found in Tesco's favour. I think the end of availability, if the High Court decides that that is actually correct and, you know, Borkon can't rely on that clause, I think that could lead to a lot of customers coming back to the negotiating table of Broadcom saying, right, in the light of that ruling, we're not happy about this. So let's see what happens, I guess.

41:48Yeah, of course. So Barry, if the court sides with Tesco, what does that unlock for sort of CIOs and organizations in future negotiations? So I think it really depends, as I say, on what aspects of the case the court finds in Tesco's favor. I mean, I suspect there will be elements of the case dismissed, but I wouldn't like to speculate on which ones. I think the key for me is definitely the end of availability clause. If the court finds that Broadcom has unreasonably and unfairly withdrawn support, and that comes back to a legal precedent known as the Braganza duty in English law. So it was set up and it was based on a ruling by the Supreme Court about 10 or 11 years ago in an employment law case, actually.

42:28But basically what it means is that where one party to a contract has the discretion to change elements of the contract, they must exercise that discretion in a reasonable way and in a fair way. And I think Tesco would argue that them suddenly saying that the support is end of availability and modifying the meaning of that clause is not in the spirit of the Beganza duty, as they call it. So I think if the court finds that Tesco's claim has merit in that regard, as I say, it could open up a lot of organizations coming back to Broadcom and telling them that, well, naturally, we're not very happy.

43:04You told us we couldn't have this. The court has now found that you telling us was incorrect and unfair. So we want support. So it could have some really far reaching consequences for Broadcom. If you were advising a VMware customer now, and I know obviously every organization is different, but in general terms, what would you sort of advise them? What steps do you think they should take to reduce exposure to future licensing shocks from Broadcom? It's all about ITAM maturity, isn't it? You know, I mean, most organizations that have mature SAM and ITAM practices. And that's where BDigital come in.

43:42Absolutely. We can help that. We can certainly help there. But I think most organizations that have mature in Salmon Item, if they have a good level of governance around the software, commercially astute enough, certainly with Broadcom, begin the negotiations early. There's no reason to think you can't get an equitable deal. Negotiating with Broadcom, it's like any negotiation. You have to ask yourself, what's your BATNA, as they call it? What's your best alternative to a negotiated agreement? and then you have to make sure you have enough time available to execute that alternative if you don't get the deal you want because that's the way you get Broadcom to offer you maybe the pricing or the deal that you want.

44:25Obviously, if you do move away from Broadcom, it could potentially lead to audience. But again, if you're mature and confident in your position, you've got nothing to fear from that. And I think that lesson can be applied to all software vendors. It's all about start early, make sure you have an alternative. So if you can't get the deal you want, what are you going to do about it? And it's got to be something that's realistic. And it's got to be a threat that the vendor will take seriously. Otherwise, they'll never offer you preferential pricing. Now, with Broadcom, you could say to them, if we don't get the pricing I want, we're going to walk away.

44:55We're going to go third-party support. We're going to migrate to a new platform, whatever. So it's key that you have the time to actually execute that change. Yeah, absolutely. That makes total sense. It's rational. Can I just put another spin on that, though, as well? If you were advising, let's say, a CIO or a head of IT or a senior manager within an organization who was starting a VMware review today. What would you tell them to do and what would you tell them not to do? So what I would tell them to do, firstly, is be all over your estate. Now, I mean, one of the great things about VMware is VMware admins are generally all over their VMware estates.

45:34They know what the estate looks like. It's actually relatively easy to get data on your estate as well. There are tools out there that enable you to quickly gather data. But make sure you're all over it. Make sure you know what your roadmap is. You know, how entwined are you with VMware as a platform? How important is it that you keep that platform? And then make early plans. So get on it early. Get all over it. And in terms of actually when it comes to like shaping the estate, I mean, we always recommend optimizing workloads where possible as well. I don't think I've ever seen a customer of VMware estate that didn't have ESX host servers sitting there largely doing nothing.

46:14And we always say, look, if that host isn't really running huge workloads, why are you not consolidating your VMs? Because you're licensing it on physical calls when you move to Broadcom. So the fewer hosts that you have, the lower your renewal costs are going to be. So seriously, look at optimizing your estates. And in terms of what not to do, firstly, don't let Broadcom control the negotiation. Bring them to the table early. Tell them what you want to see. So you want to see prospective agreements. You want to see the order forms. You want to see pricing early. Now, Broadcom will say to you, well, we can't do pricing until you've given us some data to show us what your estate looks like.

46:53That's fine. What they will do is ask you for RV Tools data. So for those that don't know, RV Tools is a free tool that you can run against your vCenters, and it gives you every single bit of information conceivable about your VMware platform. So you don't want to give Broadcom that because, you know, it could have data in there you don't want them to see. It could have confidential data in there you don't want them to see. Sure. But all you need to give them is details of the servers and their core counts and their geographic locations to enable them to apply the licenses correctly. So only give them the data that they actually need.

47:24and obviously if you're not sure what they actually need, come and speak to some specialists like us and we can help you with that.

47:35So given the pace of developments in this case and the wider attention it is now attracting across enterprise IT, we felt it was important to bring you the most up-to-date position. So we reconvened with Barry to record a short additional segment covering the latest developments, including Dell's Part 20 claim, what that actually means in practical terms, Broadcom's response, and how this may influence the direction of the case. So what follows is that updated discussion reflecting on where things currently stand.

48:13So Barry, with Dell now filing a Part 20 claim against VMware, does this move the case beyond what initially looked like a dispute with a single customer? I mean, I think before we actually ask that question, what we need to do is just examine what a Part 20 claim is, because we kind of touched on it in the other element of the podcast we recorded. So basically, in English civil law, in the rules of civil procedure, a Part 20 claim is basically if you're being sued and you believe that another party has the liability. So, for example, if the reason you're being sued wasn't something you could do much about because you're beholden to another party, then effectively you can file a Part 20 claim, which really puts the liability, if any liability is found against you, it puts the liability onto that party, provided the court agrees with your claim.

49:07So in this instance where we have, for example, Tesco have sued Computer Centre and Broadcom, Computer Centre said, well, actually, it wasn't our fault that you couldn't get that support. That was Broadcom's decision. But they then have to go to the next party in the chain, which is Dell. So they filed a Part 20 claim against Dell. Dell have in turn now filed a Part 20 claim against Broadcom saying, well, you know what, this isn't actually our fault. This is Broadcom's fault because we're all beholden to Broadcom in this process. So I don't think it's ever, once Tesco sued Computer Centre, I don't think it was ever a sort of just a straightforward commercial dispute because there's so many moving parts, so many elements to this as well.

49:49I mean, I think it's the first time a reseller has been a co-defendant in the many cases that have been filed against Broadcom internationally. And as we said previously, this is the first one that's actually been filed in the High Court of England and Wales as well. But I think Computer Centre and Dell have made it more complicated by ensuring that all parties in the supply chain are now involved legally. So it is quite a complex situation now. Absolutely, it is. Yeah, of course. So given Dell's role then as one of VMware's largest distributors, does its involvement add weight to the fairness argument, or is this still largely about how the contracts have been drafted?

50:29I think it's a little of both, being completely honest. One of the most interesting aspects of Dell's case against Broadcom is that they have now effectively taken Tesco's side in the argument. In Dell's claim, they basically accused Broadcom of not honouring a quote that VMware sent to them, which specifically included the additional four years of support that Tesco has claimed it's entitled to. So in its filing, Dell's mentioned VMware's authorised distributor partner programme, of which it was a part, and the agreement that governed it. So we'll just call it the ADPA, ADPPA. So, you know, it's a bit of a complex one.

51:05So according to Dell, the quote is governed by the terms of that partner agreement. And it's specifically, the quote itself specifically identified Tesco as the customer, Computer Center as the reseller, and Dell as the distributor. And it also apparently is noted as a final quote and includes a schedule of all services agreed between VMware, Tesco, and the supply chain. So Dell's contention is, therefore, that this created a contractual obligation on VMware to deliver all of the quoted services, and Broadcom has breached it. So I think it adds a lot more weight to the whole fairness element of the case that Tesco's made.

51:44But at the same time, it is still effectively. I think this whole case could see a major shakeup in the way contracts are drafted between the parties in the supply chain. So in your humble opinion, Barry, has Broadcom's response changed the tone or the direction of the case in any meaningful way? I'm glad you said humble. I do try to be. Honestly, not really, I don't think. I mean, Broadcom has continued to deny any contractual link between itself and the additional four-year support that Tesco have requested. They're also continuing to rely on the end of availability clause, which we've touched on previously, which I don't actually think covers them the way they think it does.

52:29And they've stuck to that defense throughout everything, all of the proceedings so far, all of the counter suits, the part 20 claims and whatever. So I don't think they'll move away from it now. Yeah, no, I agree. But sort of taking a step back then, is this becoming a broader challenge around market power and licensing control? or do you think it just remains a typical commercial dispute? I think it's got the potential to cause a huge ripple effect across the software licensing industry. It's one of those that could cause huge problems. And it's interesting as well, actually, because Tesco in there, I think it was in their response to Broadcom's defence, cited all of the cases that have been filed against Broadcom internationally as an example of their behaviour in this regard.

53:15So I think potentially that's now introducing all of those cases to the high core. And Tesco is saying, we need you to consider these as well as an example of where Broadcom are really trying to cause problems for their customers. So then you think about it, firstly, you've got the competition element. Now, Tesco has now dropped its claim around the Chapter 1 prohibitions of the Competition Act, which, if you remember, is the element that bars collusion between companies on the same level in a supply chain, price fixing, all of that sort of stuff. So Tesco said, OK, in light of further evidence received in computer sentence defence, we're dropping that.

53:52But they're continuing to push on the Chapter 2 prohibition, which is the one that bars abuse of a dominant market position. and Tesco's argument is that you know the renewal quote they had from Broadcom was nearly 250 % higher than the cost they should have been paying under the four years support they're entitled to you know and given the fact Tesco got 40 ,000 VMs on their VMware platform and said it could take us three to five years to get away from this and Broadcom know it could because it's also business critical they're arguing and it is hard to argue that that's not abusing their position because they know they've got Tesco locked in as a customer.

54:31And then to give them a quote, which is just such inflated pricing, you know, it's a really interesting argument. And I think it's quite a strong case as well. But that's me speaking, and I'm not a legal expert, but it's just the way it looks to me from reading all of the filings. And then secondly, I think it's the end of availability as well. So, I mean, Tesco's claiming that Broadcom have not actually retired any services, which again, when you look at it logically, they haven't. what they've done. It doesn't matter whether you've got perpetual licenses with legacy support or you've now transitioned into subscriptions, you're getting the same support for the same platform.

55:07If you renew your agreement at that point, you're not actually fundamentally changing the support you're getting. They still continue the support. They're just changing the way that you pay for it. So Tesco are arguing that actually it was a commercial decision to repackage the services. It's not an end of availability. It's not a retirement. And it is really hard, again, to argue against that when you read the end of availability clause that Broadcom is actually relying on. And I think if the High Court finds in favour of Tesco on either or both of those points, I think it's going to leave Broadcom with a lot of problems.

55:41Because, you know, if the court does decide that Broadcom have breached competition law, then obviously the Competition and Marketing Authority have got the Competition and Markets Authority. sorry, you would think logically speaking they have to get involved and investigate why they've breached the Act. And then the other side of it as well is if the High Court agree with Tesco's claim that the end of availability doesn't mean what Broadcom say it does, then potentially they're going to have a lot of customers wanting to revisit their renewal agreement so say well hang on a minute, you told us that we couldn't have that support and service because it had been retired.

56:17The High Court has now said that you're talking nonsense, so what are you going to do about it? So it could leave Borkham with a lot of problems. I mean, I would say as well, obviously, because this... A can of worms springs to mind, Barry, doesn't it? I would argue as well for any international listeners that this will probably only apply to England and Wales because that's where the jurisdiction is for this particular hearing. But again, it could have ripple effects out to other jurisdictions depending on competition law and their rules of civil procedure, for example. Barry that is the perfect place to end this this conversation thank you so much it's been really it's been brilliant I think I've learned a lot and I'm sure the listeners have as well so thanks for talking us through the main elements of this of this intriguing case we will watch and listen out for what what what unfolds before us as this comes to a conclusion but look thank you so much, Barry.

57:14It's been great talking to you. Where can people find you, follow you, etc to see how this progresses and also other things around ITAM? Where can people reach out to you and find you? So you can always reach me on LinkedIn. LinkedIn.com forward slash IN forward slash Barry Pilling or just search my name. It's a fairly unusual name. So generally if you search me in the UK, you'll find me fairly quickly. Or obviously come and look at our website to see what services we can provide, bdigitaluk.com. Absolutely. And you recently did a video with Computer Weekly, didn't you, with Cliff Saron, and I know he references you in a lot of his articles.

57:53Another great source to stay up to date with this case. But, yeah, thanks so much, Barry. Thanks for coming on the Tech Leaders Podcast.

58:08Thank you for listening to the Tech Leaders Podcast. we'll be back very soon with one of our more conventional leadership focused episodes but in the meantime if your organization is navigating VMware exposure facing licensing pressure or simply wants a clearer understanding of its commercial position please feel free to get in touch with us at b digital we're always happy to have a conversation and where appropriate to connect you with one of our specialists if you found value in this discussion please don't forget to subscribe and also share with others in your network who you think may benefit it really helps us reach a bigger audience and bring you more amazing guests in the future thank you so much for joining us