# Do companies/organizations read shrinkwrap software licenses/EULAs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 23, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-companies-organizations-read-shrinkwrap-software-licenses-eulas/666991 "2013-08-23T19:15:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-companies-organizations-read-shrinkwrap-software-licenses-eulas/666991/1 "2013-08-23T19:15:36Z")
Recent Dilbert comic: > **[scottadams | Twitter | Linktree](https://linktr.ee/scottadams)** > > If you want to find Dilbert or Scott Adams, here are some leads. It’s a well-known phenomenon that your average person on the street does not actually read software EULA’s. _South Park_ did an episode on this a year or two ago. To what extent do companies or other organizations, especially large ones, read, review, and evaluate the licenses for off the shelf software (i.e. not software that they are having custom-made by a contactor, but basic stuff like basic office software, operating systems, device drivers, teleconferencing software, etc.)? “I recommend that Conglom-O go with SuperSoftware’s Pro Teleconferencing+ 2.5 rather than MegaAppCo’s Virtual Meeting 6.3 because the Virtual Meeting 6.3 EULA states that the license shall be interpreted under Kansas law and none of our company attorneys are familiar enough with the nuances of it, and there is also a clause giving them the right to keep copies of all our teleconferences.” ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-companies-organizations-read-shrinkwrap-software-licenses-eulas/666991/2 "2013-08-23T19:30:54Z")
They don’t. Shrinkwrap EULAs are like non-compete agreements: useless, unenforceable nonsense that has no legitimate reason to exist except to keep lawyers employed. A properly-managed organization will make sure that they have purchased the right number of licenses and such, but that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-companies-organizations-read-shrinkwrap-software-licenses-eulas/666991/3 "2013-08-23T20:01:15Z")
then how does this happen ? > **[Psystar Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation)** > > Psystar Corporation was a company based in Miami, Florida, owned by Rudy and Robert Pedraza who sold "Open Computers" though one article claimed "Psystar, run by HyperMegaNet, based in Wolfsburg, Germany, currently ships to 23 destinations including the UK via delivery firm DHL." > These computers, first announced in April 2008, had the option of being pre-installed with Mac OS X Leopard, making them the first commercially distributed "hackintosh" computers. In November 2009, a U.S. Federal Distri... I was under the impression there were reselling legit licenses. ---
**Author:** ![AHarris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bcef8e/32.png) [@AHarris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHarris)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-companies-organizations-read-shrinkwrap-software-licenses-eulas/666991/4 "2013-08-23T20:31:47Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > then how does this happen ? > [Psystar Corporation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation) > > I was under the impression there were reselling legit licenses. My understanding based on the wiki article is that Apple was suing Psystar on the basis that Psystar was circumventing Apple’s DRM in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Also, the text for the August 12, 2009 ruling suggests that Psystar may not have paid Apple for each copy of the software that it re-sold. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2013, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-companies-organizations-read-shrinkwrap-software-licenses-eulas/666991/5 "2013-08-23T20:31:51Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > then how does this happen ? > [Psystar Corporation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation) > > I was under the impression there were reselling legit licenses. That case was more about Apple enforcing the license to their copyrights rather than the voluminous nonsense that appears in a typical EULA. (Although I suppose the text of licenses is among the things that appears in a EULA.) When I think of EULAs I typically thing of things like the absurd clauses disclaiming all possible liability, clauses that have regularly been ruled unconscionable and contrary to the UCC, (but which nobody ever removes) and so on. But to be clear, there is stuff that appears in EULAs has been judged acceptable, but that’s mostly the stuff that falls under existing copyright law anyway. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-companies-organizations-read-shrinkwrap-software-licenses-eulas/666991/6 "2013-08-25T01:14:09Z")
An experienced techie can skim through a eula pretty quickly to pick out the few non-standard clauses and determine if they’ll be an issue. Eula’s make look long and imposing, but they all say pretty much the same thing. Once you take out the disclaimer of warranty/liability and legal garbage (definitions, one invalid clause won’t invalidate the rest, dispute jurisdiction, etc.), you’re usually left with only a few short paragraphs. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2013, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-companies-organizations-read-shrinkwrap-software-licenses-eulas/666991/7 "2013-08-25T01:28:01Z")
Big companies do. Most off the shelf software is covered by site licenses, and are orderable through a company tool. That is covered when the site license is done. Non-standard stuff has to go through purchasing, who evaluates the license. And open-source software has a special procedure with legal review and reasonably high level management approval. Yes there are standard licenses, but we like some better than others. Downloading software onto company computers without this, even pretty standard things, is a big no-no.