Re: interesting info
Hmmmm. I guess I'm a little confused what value the lawyer brings early in the process? I get the lawyer if you are assessed some fee you don't feel is warranted, maybe they can negotiate something which saves you more than they cost.
But you are either licensed correctly or you aren't, nothing a lawyer can do about that. If you aren't, and all software company wants is price of you buying correct licenses, lawyer is no help either. I only see value if software company tries to bill you for "punitive damages" or something, then lawyer "might" be able to help. Only question then would be if they cost more than what they saved you.
Audits can be useful, especially as confusing as licensing can be. We had KPMG lead a software audit for Microsoft products. During the discovery process, we found we had implemented our production Sharepoint environment on a SQL Server which was only single user license, not a site license. I had quoted a site license for SQL but my admin never executed, we continued to use the free single user SQL Server license we had prototyped on. He got software at a seminar he had attended. So we bought the SQL Server we intended to buy in first place, then submitted that proof to KPMG. No extra cost came out of that incident or audit.