Ask for Software License Compliance Help - Get Audited

This post is in response to a LinkedIn post entitled "A Customer Asked Oracle for EULA Help and Here's What Happened" - Originally posted on ITAM Channel web site (HERE).


Here's my comment with additional supportive data:

"Lesson learned - for the thousandth time: Do NOT engage the copyright holder (or its 'independent auditor' friends) in conducting a review of your software portfolio. The result is invariably a costly punitive audit of your enterprise - often followed up by 'me too' audits as other copyright holders 'discover' that you can't effectively manage your technology environment.


Reality Check: It isn't just Oracle - it's nearly every major software publisher and a large percentage of the less than major publishers.


Reality Check Number 2: Since we began recommending that asset managers monitor settlements and keep them in an "Audit Trends" notebook, the software industry and its enforcement friends have nearly eliminated ANY public reference to a majority of audits. When virtually no one knows the true negative impact of software audits, then no one will be effectively prepared to counter one. (And we STILL don't "get it" that we're being hunted in a seriously crooked game of software safari.)

It's been over twenty years since the software industry players ramped up their predatory enforcement actions, yet the average enterprise remains virtually clueless regarding the risks they take in not proactively, and aggressively, managing the entire life cycle of software goods, services, and contractual relationships. 

Try this on for size: You know those 5% of audits that are actually made partially public? The amount of the fines in the publication represents less than 1/3 to 1/6 of the actual financial impact of the audit on the targeted enterprise. (To put it more clearly, actual audit costs are between 3 and 6 times the published fines - and that's a VERY conservative percentage.)

If you have ANY doubt (even if you have no doubt), get your people trained in effective software and copyright compliance assurance. Be sure that your asset managers understand the wide range of license types and the potential of each license to put your enterprise at risk. Or, if you really want to pay more for less, carefully vet ANY group you hire to help you with license management.

Historically speaking, in the mid-90s, the client-server software industry players discovered that they could take a page from the mid-range and mainframe players and gain a significant revenue stream merely by auditing their customers for license compliance. Through their own attitudes, they created an "us versus them" atmosphere within an entire industry.

This predatory audit attitude was made even more lucrative when many of the software players and their friends began hyper-enforcing license terms and conditions. Highly paid legal teams began re-crafting software license agreements to include multiple onerous terms and conditions (Ts and Cs).  These Ts and Cs were intentionally built to ensure that virtually any enterprise without a crack legal team of its own would be guaranteed to violate at least one--frequently more--license clause (or clauses).

Result? Instant violation.

Couple these new license styles and a downright greedy audit attitude with intense lobbying to create even more consumer unfriendly copyright-related laws and regulations and the entire world is now expected to view ineffective software asset management as intentional software piracy. 

Think I'm wrong? Read any settlement relating to software license violations. In excess of 90% of these will blithely label any licensing mistake - any level of non compliance - as piracy. After all--piracy generates better publicity than inability to manage the asset.

So? The result? Software publishers literally leap at ANY opportunity to audit your enterprise, and if your enterprise is a small- to medium-sized company, you get to be in their 'favored target status group'. Companies in these categories have proven themselves easy audit targets as well as being the most willing to merely write a check when confronted. Keep in mind that any sane corporate lawyer--even the part-timers--will always push to settle out of court--hence the ease of confrontation to settlement audit opportunities.

Want to become a target? Here's the brief list of options:

1. Call technical support
2. Displace virtually ANY major software product with one from a competitor
3. Call and ask for licensing help
4. Order upgrade licensed products
5. Acquire ANY "free" software products
6. Forget about removing demo or eval licensed products
7. Purchase COTS products at your local office supply store
8. Buy ANY software title online
9. Accept named user licensed products
10. Distribute products across your enterprise without reading the permissions
11. Speak the wrong sentence to a supplier rep or software publisher rep

I could go on, but you should get the picture by now. Non compliance is not about licensing. It's about revenue streams and licensing sharp practices. As business technology consumers we have to wake up and recognize that we're being constantly placed on the defensive--reacting to supplier predatory audit practices. There are only two realistic methods to minimize these audits.

First:
Get trained to proactively manage the entire software portfolio of goods, services, and contractual relationships. That means REAL training, not training developed or sponsored by the very enterprises that have set you up for audit in the first place.

Next:

Carefully negotiate every license with compliance in mind. Recognize that the absolute root cause of 90% of license non compliance is the reality that business technology consumers simply have no clue how licenses actually work. In a majority of cases, those being audited have never read those licenses, let alone negotiated the onerous terms and conditions out. When we recognize that the supplier fully intends to hyper-enforce all license clauses, why wouldn't we ensure that those licenses are negotiated to be mutually beneficial?

Closure: Yes, you could contact the software publisher when you are concerned about compliance issues, but it's nearly a 100% guarantee that their first response is going to be to audit you.

Time for some serious changes?

Corporate lay-offs? "Difficult" economy? Get ready for a software audit!

Your chances of being embroiled in a software non compliance—piracy—punitive audit are higher today than at any time in the history of copyright enforcement. Here's how it works: During difficult economic times, or when your company loses personnel, you are opening yourself up to a significantly higher probability of software license enforcement audit scrutiny. In fact, your chances of becoming involved in a software audit could geometrically increase by as much as double for every five employees you let go.

Do you think this perspective is all so much hot air? When you combine the aggressive “Whistle-Blower Reward Programs” fielded by the software publishers and their enforcement industry friends, your level of risk is increasing as the economy becomes ever more unstable. Read on to discover methods for keeping what little corporate money you have – in YOUR enterprise pockets – rather than continuing to pay out more and more to the software and copyright protected products industry players.

Real World – The software industry players have known for a long time that there is an enormous revenue stream to be had in conducting compliance audits – even against enterprises that have a “clean” compliance record. They've been siphoning enormous amounts of cash from their own customers while constantly attempting to ensure that the entire compliance assurance process is as difficult and poorly defined as possible via ever more incomprehensible licensing schemes.

If your enterprises uses any degree of technology, you are an easy audit target. Period. Full stop. Even if you are 100% ethical and careful in your systems controls.

The bottom line is that technology asset management isn't about how much you spend, it's about the value you receive for every single dollar that you invest. When you can very easily enhance the value you gain from your business technologies, while minimizing initial and ongoing costs AND minimizing related risks, these ideas become no-brainers.

The key is this: Every successful asset management initiative begins with the foundation framework established by proactive software asset management. We build on this relatively basic foundation to deliver genuine life cycle value for software, hardware, and related goods, services, and contractual agreements.

At The Institute, our focus is putting that value—that money—back in your pocket...and KEEPING it there. 

Consider the following:

• If / When you look honestly at the current (sad?) state of your country's economy, nearly every business is looking to cut expenses and increase ROI, you'll recognize that managing the technology portfolio is one the most easily value-added programs available to you,
• If / When you realize that, in part due to lower employee numbers in the so-called developed countries, local and global software sales are down,
• Your suppliers are aggressively hunting for additional revenue streams,
• For these people, compliance audits are VERY significant income opportunities,
• If / When you recognize that large numbers of people are discovering that with zero warning they're out of a job,
• And they are NOT happy with you,
• It's easy to sign into the anti-piracy sites to deliver up you and your company for an audit,
• If / When we remind you that the software industry players and their so-called software police / copyright cops are loudly publishing whistle-blower rewards of up to $1,000,000...
• Money for nothing...?
• One of the enforcement audit campaigns was even entitled “Don't Get Mad, Get Even”!
• Does this tell you ANYTHING about enforcement tactics?
• If / Then - In light of these realities, is it any surprise that your audit risk expands by an approximate factor of double for every five employees you upset?
• Oh, yeah... Did we mention that existing—and ethical—employees are also very willing to report your copyright violations?
• Did we also mention that small- to medium-sized businesses are the absolute favorite audit targets?
• Did we mention that American enterprises are carrying the majority of frequency in being audited for licensing issues? (Because American enterprises can “afford” to pay more in fines / penalties. BUT, this locus of focus is changing as other countries expand their use of high risk software products.)
• And last, but not least, did we mention that The Institute for Technology Asset Management is your portal to establishing and maintaining effective business processes that extract maximum value from your IT spending dollars while minimizing costs and risks?
• Did we mention that many of our solutions cost you NOTHING?
• Did we mention that our methodologies meet or exceed ANY existing standards for software portfolio management?
• Did we mention that our software asset management credential programs are substantially more comprehensive that anything currently on the market because they focus on practitioner competencies?

Fines and Penalties – The average cost of a single software piracy audit can—and frequently does—exceed $100,000—for even the smallest company (10 computers). To put this in more basic terms, think $3,000 to $5,000USD per computing device in typical settlement fines.

Invisible Value – The average company gains less than $1 in business value from every $14 it spends on technologies. Those same technologies expose the enterprise to enormous enforcement audit risks.

Here's why you need to be concerned: First of all, any business owner or manager should be well aware that former employees very frequently have an ax to grind.  According to research published by the software anti piracy enforcement industry, the majority of whistle-blowers are current or former technology workers or management-level personnel. Who, in your company, knows the most about the products loaded on every one of the computing devices you possess? In polite terms, these are the folks you need to manage. They're also NOT the ones who should be fully responsible for direct oversight of your technology assets.

Here's what you can do: The number one entry barrier to optimizing value in your corporate technology portfolio is to become honestly aware of the realities and issues. As long as your enterprise operates on theory and verbal assurances of compliance and effective life cycle management you will not be capable of delivering value. Theory does not contribute to the bottom line – only quantifiable factual evidence of both compliance and life cycle controls.

Enterprise management—at the highest level—must become aware of, and clearly support, close scrutiny of the entire life cycle of ALL technology-related investments. Failure to do so only perpetuates the existing ineffective practices and procedures. Interestingly enough, failure of upper management to actively support the initiative has statistically, and consistently, been the root cause of a majority of ineffective asset management initiatives.

NEXT: If you have any interest in reducing costs and risks, begin a serious technology asset management program right now—today. Your first step should be to stonewall the software enforcement industry auditors. Since audits are the most immediate and costly threat to any enterprise using today’s technologies, merely eliminating high risk software titles from your exposure field is an enormous step to ongoing savings and improved ROI.

The process is simple: Establish a trusted review team and ensure that all copyright protected products loaded on any computer—or electronic media—are fully and correctly licensed. This is all a matter of brain-work. Cost so far? Nothing but a little of your time. No new products or services to buy…

Do you want more? More details? More ideas? Let us know. The Institute for Technology Asset Management staff is ready and willing to help you learn to take back control of your IT investment dollars.

When consumers speak out about licensing sharp practices, we're belligerent. When the industry acts belligerently, they're justified?

Definition:  “Belligerence” - aggressive or warlike in nature.  

“…your belligerence is commendable…”

This discussion is a result of a LinkedIn post regarding a shortage in skilled SAM practitioners. Not sure how we moved to this topic but my reply was too in-depth for the LinkedIn word count.

Thanks, Paul!  Just so you understand, this has been an enjoyable interaction. I genuinely wish we could all sit down as a group & discuss these topics – without interference from the software industry players & their friends. Unfortunately, these groups have managed to divide the business technology consumers so that very little coordinated resolutions will be forthcoming anytime soon.

Let’s take your questions one at a time:

It never ceases to astound me how many people perceive anyone who pushes back at the predatory software industry enforcement groups as belligerent. A majority of licenses is specifically designed to be nearly impossible to comply with; license terms & conditions can be changed at will, as frequently as desired, and with little or no notification to the consumer; online licenses are intentionally designed to be nearly impossible to read as well as impossible to print and those of us who speak out against such sharp practices are belligerent? Gee… I guess that would be me, except I have spent years trying – and failing – at the “Renaissance man” approach. 

It’s beyond time that our IT execs & the CEOs/CFOs woke up to discover that it’ll be THEIR names on the non compliance settlement papers. Has anyone READ Sarbanes Oxley or related due diligence regulations? It is beyond time to haul our heads out of that fascinating hole and lead with intelligent awareness.

“…with your process how do you propose to deal with a CEO of an End User who is looking for compliance when his view follows the logic that he does not need to understand electricity to be able to turn a light on and off…”

My clear statement for over a decade has been to require the enforcement industry to publish their audit process, their audit results, and their audit records. As long as these people continue to intentionally hide audit activities – humorously entitling them as “educational”, our executives will never become well aware of the entire range of compliance issues.

Example: Even while “advertising” their $1,000,000 whistle-blower reward programs, the US enforcement groups are actually only handing out around $4,500 in rewards in less than a tenth of the audit action events. Very few people will actually read the fine print in the offer, or actually hear the whispered “up to” in the heavily published ads. In fact, sincewe began teaching SAMs to track enforcement industry press releases, those releases are becoming more & more difficult to locate. (I wonder why?)

I’m sorry but, if a CEO, or any C-suite executive of even a partially sophisticated enterprise is still unaware of at least the fringes of the license compliance environment, they do not belong in their position. At the next level of the org chart, if the IT people, or purchasing, or whoever is working with the licenses is not aware enough to communicate the issues to the C-suite, then THEY do not belong in their position. Let’s see… The real world demonstrates that license compliance & audit costs are serious business & ethical issues. One would reasonably believe that genuine leaders, not figureheads, should be aware of the topics by now.

Example: Any effective captain of a ship is trained & capable of a clear awareness of all aspects of operating & managing that ship. They even know better than to stick a screw driver into a live electrical outlet. That’s called leadership and it’s in rather short supply.

“Why over complicate an issue when we should be feeding the ‘need to be compliant’ story at the User end rather than creating confusion and complexity at the MSP end….”  

Precisely “who” is going to “feed” this information to the end users? I recognize that MSPs are relatively new on the scene but if they cannot fully define their industry perhaps they shouldn’t be in that industry in the first place. In order to sell in a managed service, shouldn’t a key performance indicator be to educate the buyers of root cause & critical underlying operational issues? We can bet the enforcement industry isn’t going to “educate” the end user – there’s WAY too much money to be made in conducting punitive audits for the auditing groups to deliver any thoroughly meaningful awareness campaign.

Example: SAM training programs that are managed by, or reliant upon, the software or enforcement industry players do not teach SAMs how to negotiate audit clauses OUT of licenses. Most of these same programs don’t even discuss negotiating agreements for more favorable terms. And THESE SAMs are the “qualified people” that IT Directors have to call upon for advice?

How many people are aware that the generations & industries who are responsible for a majority of incorrectly licensed products being used on systems are also the most “educated” generations on the planet. The average sixth grader probably knows more about piracy and copyright than our average executive? (Now THAT is scary.) Since the software industry, recording industry, video industry & general copyright enforcement industry began their “education” campaign, incorrectly licensed software & other copyright violation use has soared.

Example: These problems aren’t easy to resolve. However, when a clear majority of end users cannot understand the licenses, they are at minimal fault for not knowing how to behave.(Oh, wait. I nearly forgot. The compliance auditors are “letter of the law” people. Consumers are expected to have a fully legal understanding of all compliance issues.) When these same “end users” are intentionally confounded by shifting terms & conditions; shifting audit procedures; and clueless leaders, what is the logical result? Lots & lots of non compliant companies to audit?  Lots & lots of easy audit issues for levying fines & penalties?

As to an executive not needing to know how electricity works to be able to plug in a light; let’s see how well they learn when they short out the circuit by incorrectly inserting the plug. Don’t suppose someone had to teach them, somewhere, what the hazards of electric current could be… Go back to my knife in the socket analogy.

“If the IT Director has trained staff who are educated to remain compliant in the software deployed on his estate and also trained in the basics which enable the User to follow a path that ensures correct software usage ie not overspending, surely that is panacea? “

This is the key point I have been trying to make: A clear majority of IT Directors does NOT have a staff genuinely trained in compliance. Well over ¾ of existing SAMs have been trained & certified in literal “overnight” certification mills. An additional 70% – have been trained by the enforcement groups or software industry players themselves. Does anyone genuinely believe that these special interest groups are actually delivering the full SAM perspective in less than 12 hours of actual training?

Example: The Institute SCCA & SAM programs deliver over 29 individual online, on-demand, sessions that teach credential candidates the basics of over 42 different types of software licenses. We cover more than 30 specific key license clauses that SAMs must know & understand. We walk candidates through two actual audit scenarios to help them understand what they’ll need to know/do. We discuss how to negotiate many clauses that are onerous OUT of licenses as well as how to insert many clauses that are necessary but missing INTO the license. A majority of SAM certifications – including so-called “standards” – do not touch these topics…

“Are you stating that the ‘Just In Time’ process is not right for SAM?”

Anyone who is foolish enough to play a “just in time” license compliance game does not belong in our industry. Licensing begins when the enterprise identifies an initial need and continues until all products & derivative products relating to the original agreement have been eliminated from all enterprise systems. Compliance issues must also be carefully tracked & managed for as many as ten years after the last product or derivative has been removed.

Maybe you are correct. While I prefer to be labeled as “passionate” about these topics, maybe belligerence is the only method to gain the attention of people who are being robbed blind by an industry that has created the problem, continues to find new methods of enhancing the problem, and continues to conceal their actions behind self-righteous “educational woe is me” public relations campaigns. Anyone who has suffered through a conversation with an enforcement agency or software publisher auditor is well aware that this industry has declared war on its own consumers. My apologies if my “push back”, “know your rights”, and “openly proactive SAM training” frameworks are not gentle enough.

Negotiating with Hitler - A Software Asset Manager's Reality

Recently, a practicing software asset manager (SAM) emailed me with a very typical question:

How can we get better software license terms when the software publisher refuses to permit us to negotiate the license terms?

"ARE YOU KIDDING ME???"

My answer was fairly comprehensive, but the bottom line was this:

As long as we permit the software industry players to play contract management games, we are as much at fault for onerous license terms & conditions as they are.

After multiple decades of negotiating with software industry players & their friends, I can give you one key issue that leads to a majority of costly problems for the business technology consumer:

The root cause of nearly every problem you will have with the software publisher, as long as you use their product (and well beyond) will be the terms & conditions of the license.

Learn to negotiate licenses. Learn to push back against onerous terms & conditions. Quit accepting software industry bullying as your only reality. You have as much right as the software publisher to gain mutual benefit in all contractual agreements.

The business technology consumers did not declare licensing & economic war on the software industry players. They declared war on us.

And, YES, you can quote me!

To download the full PDF document covering my observations on how the business tech consumer needs to change our approach to contract negotiations in general, and software license negotiations specifically, follow the link  HERE

It isn't going to be easy. We have to overcome nearly four decades of letting the software industry have its way with us, BUT we CAN become the initial agents for IT asset management change.

Washington D.C. is "upset" with China for counterfeiting & piracy issues?

"...counterfeiting and piracy remain at unacceptably high levels and
continue to cause serious harm to U.S. businesses across many sectors of
the economy,” 
Source: The Hill, 26 January, 2013

Does ANYONE is D.C. have a clue? Have they all become completely brainwashed by the so-called copyright enforcement industry "spin" on reality? Do they genuinely believe that the average Chinese on the street gives a %&$# for the financial impact of their actions on multi-billion dollar U.S businesses? 

Is it possible the root of the issue is that the powerful lobbyists for the video, music, & software industries are driving this attitude? Gee... You think?

I think we can all recognize that China has a completely different perspective on many accepted Western business concepts. Expecting the Chinese government (&/or people) to play the game by our rules is completely ego-centric & consistently doomed to failure.


For example: The current "developed countries" generation has been bombarded by the music, video, & software industries with "anti-piracy educational" materials nearly since birth. Industry agenda copyright education programs have been pushed on the young population for approximately 19 years. Bottom line impact? Zero... Scare tactics simply do not work. (But they're really great for generating all that free anti piracy publicity...)


If we want to reduce the breadth & depth of counterfeiting & copyright piracy - around the globe - we will only do so when we can present a viable alternative to "getting toys for free." And the problem isn't merely China. It's the entire structure of intellectual property marketing that is so antiquated. We "want" the world to buy our products, yet.we continue to price the products according to our own narrow profit expectations rather than the ability of the consumer to actually pay.


We, the developed nations of the planet, have completely forgotten how to price for sales. We continue to blindly push pricing for maximum profits instead of local potential. Guess what? If the majority of your prospects or customers cannot afford to legally purchase your products, the end result is rampant counterfeiting & piracy.


If you genuinely want to reduce music/video/software piracy &/or counterfeiting, find ways to demonstrate the business (or personal) value of the genuine products. As long as we continue to shape the message in terms of its impact on massive multinational western corporations, & not on the value driven to the individual, we will not "get through."


Hey, China... Here's a thought: you can download & use OpenOffice for free & it works just like that over-priced so-called world standard business productivity software. THAT will reduce at least one serious piracy issue.

The Corporate Approaches to Software Piracy & Copyright / License Compliance Need to Move to the Next Generation of Leadership.

This post is in response to an article in ComputerWeekly noted HERE.

The original article discusses how the software piracy landscape hasn't changed much in the past few years. Licensors continue to use unnecessarily complicated licensing schemes & licensees continue to fail to understand as well as fail to manage licenses & licensed products. We CAN, however, change this distressing software piracy trend, but we have to wake up & smell the decaying business processes that expose us to punitive software industry players & their predatory compliance enforcement auditing friends.

It's time to move our outdated software asset management mentalities out of the dark ages & into the next generation of software life cycle management, systems life cycle management, & over-all IT life cycle management.

• As long as business technology consumers permit the software publishers to control the entire licensing process, we will continue to be targeted by predatory compliance enforcement industry players.
• As long as the enforcement industry publicity teams use “piracy” as a synonym for "non-compliance", or "honest licensing errors", we will continue as targets.
• As long as the "compliance landscape" is constantly shifting, we'll be easy targets.
• As long as the enforcement industry-sponsored "studies" & media blitzes represent the smoke & mirrors world of piracy to the public & our legislators, we'll continue to be targeted.
• As long as we permit nebulous terms & conditions (such as the literally limitless "right to audit" clause) in licenses, we'll continue to be targeted.
• As long as our software asset managers are not trained, are being trained only to the enforcement industry perspectives, or are being "qualified" as "professionals" in over-night certification classes, we'll continue to be targeted.
• As long as the enterprise pays only lip service to software & license life cycle management, we'll continue to be very easy - even clueless - targets.
• As long as the technical "experts" in the enterprise continue to be in the dark about the realities of license compliance, we'll remain targets.

It's time for the next generation in software asset management professional development & awareness. Business technology consumers need to stop being reactive & start being "intelligently proactive" in addressing the root causes of software life cycle management & compliance assurance.

I've spent nearly twenty years studying the enforcement industry players & their games & it has become evident that our training programs are less than optimal in their approach to compliance assurance (& nearly empty in terms of effective life cycle management). Each & every issue listed in this article & my response could have been minimized by intelligent asset management. Unfortunately, our asset managers frequently are not given the knowledge they need, nor the executive support necessary to address the problems up front - where they could have avoided the confrontation.

For an example of what I'm saying, look through the technician comments on the discussion thread noted in my previous post.

What you'll see, if you can make it all the way through the thread, is that these front line IT personnel DO NOT generally have a clue about compliance or license management. If these people do not understand, or if there is no well-trained/empowered software asset manager in their enterprise, their companies are defenseless - & ripe - for punitive compliance audits.

You want answers? I'll be glad to provide them, along with pointers to the next generation of strategies & tactics for compliance assurance & software life cycle management professional development. Feel free to connect with me at any time.

The Institute for Technology Asset Management publishes its Guide to the Technology Asset Management Body of Knowledge - TAMBOK - the planet's only cost-effective guide to the competencies asset management practitioners need to succeed in the front lines of SAM & ITAM.

Non-Commercial Use Clause - A Software Licensing Land Mine

At The Institute for Technology Asset Management, we’ve encountered the “Non-Commercial Use” clause in multiple instances of enterprises being audited for non-compliance. The bottom line behind this clause is its very “obtuse-ness” (if you will).

Much like the “right to audit” clause & its reliance on various nebulous (ever-shifting?) definitions of both “audit” & “compliance”, the Non-Commercial Use clause permits the copyright holder to write the rules as they encounter the instance – even up to selecting the most useful copyright law to cite in your legal notification - thus maximizing the potential for non-compliance settlement fines & penalties.

Further (& again, we believe intentionally), VERY few IT personnel have any clue how non-commercial applies to ownership of the system versus how the product is actually being utilized much less which systems in the enterprise contain these products. As software asset managers - SAMs - it's up to us to help educate the enterprise about this hazardous clause - one that is present in a wide range of licenses.

Result of Misinterpreting This Clause: You become an easy - & conveniently defenseless - audit target!

Bottom Line: Closely review the license terms. If the license has a Non-Commercial Use clause, recognize that the clause essentially applies to both where you put the product AND how you use that product. Essentially, do not place the product on a corporate system & do not use that product to produce any subsequent product or service.

Want a revealing experience relating to this type of clause (from the perspective of real live IT personnel)?  Read the following thread - it's long...but invest the time in clearly understanding this classic disconnect between licensees & licensors.  The organization initiating the thread used an evaluation licensed product – with a non-commercial use license caveat - in a production environment.  The odds are really high that your own IT personnel have done this, or are doing this… The thread is HERE.