Avoiding audits

Those who enforce software license compliance are drawn to indicators that suggest potential wrongdoing. Although there are some vendors that check compliance among their customers on a random basis, the vast majority of software vendors are selective about whom they choose to audit. The main consideration is the expected return of the audit.

Make no mistake! Vendors certainly have a legitimate interest and legal right to guard their intellectual assets against abuse. Audits consistently show that only a minority of organizations are able to demonstrate they are abiding fully by the terms of their licensing agreements. While some software vendors may seek to take advantage of their customers’ noncompliance to drive additional revenues, many are merely seeking compensation for the value their customers have obtained through their use of software.

Regardless of whether the objective is to receive fair or excessive compensation, each audit is a business endeavor with a cost of performing the audit, an expected return of settling noncompliance issues, and a risk that the actual benefits won’t cover the incurred costs. Attention is certainly given to those opportunities that offer the highest return on investment with the lowest risk.

This white paper will make you aware of many of the factors that signal potential noncompliance. It should also become apparent that the only surefire way to limit these factors and avoid audits entirely is by adopting a comprehensive approach to Software Asset Management (SAM). Besides minimizing the risk of audits, SAM will enable your organization to make better business decisions, achieve cost-efficiencies, get more value out of its software investment, and of course, use its business assets ethically and professionally