SAP's Accuracy

How Accurate Was SAP on Type 2 Indirect Access Being a Legitimate Claim?

Executive Summary

  • For years SAP has made several claims around indirect access.
  • In this article, we review the accuracy of these claims. 

What SAP Said About on Indirect Access

To be clear, when SAP uses the term indirect access, they are not referring to the indirect access that is legitimate, but rather to an extension of the term. We cover this vital distinction in the article How to Best Understand Type 1 Versus Type 2 Indirect Access. Type 2 indirect access is where SAP claims that any system that connects to SAP is a form of indirect access, and maybe (subject to SAP’s discretion) be subject to a charge. SAP has pushed this claim through a highly complicit IT media, as SAP has virtually every entity that distributes information about SAP either paid by SAP or part of a business model that is based on SAP.

See our references for this article and related articles at this link.

The Truth About SAP’s Type 2 Indirect Access

SAP is wrong about type 2 indirect access. They are not only wrong, but our proposal is also that SAP’s indirect access is a violation of US antitrust law as we covered in the article How SAP’s Indirect Access is a Violation of Tying Agreement Clause of US Anti Trust Law.

Conclusion and Calculation

SAP receives a 0% accuracy on its claims around indirect access being a valid construct.

Link to the Parent Article

This is one of many research articles on a specific topic, that support a larger research calculation. For the overview of the research calculation for all of the SAP topics that were part of the study, see the following primary research A Study into SAP’s Accuracy.