The applicability of an AEA depends on several factors, one of which is the court where the case is being tried. Some courts that have considered the validity of The Shrinkwrap Licensing Agreements have invalidated some EULA and have characterized them as liability contracts that are unacceptable and/or unacceptable according to the U.C.C – see z.B. Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.  Other courts have found that the Shrinkwrap licensing agreement is valid and enforceable: cf. ProCD, Inc. v.
Many companies have both, with the CLA only dealing with the license and the terms and conditions of sale that deal with everything else. Jerry Pournelle wrote in 1983: “I have not seen any evidence that… Levian agreements – full of “You must not” have any impact on piracy. He gave an example of a CLA that was impossible for a user to stick to, and he said, “Come on, guys. No one expects these agreements to be respected. Pournelle noted that, in practice, many companies were more generous to their customers than their U.S. required: “So why do they insist that their customers sign “agreements” that the customer refuses to keep and that the company knows they are not respected? … Should we continue to make hypocrites for both publishers and customers?  Many people have signed or accepted the terms of an end-user license agreement, but they probably have not read what they have accepted. Software is a form of intellectual property (IP) because it is created by a software developer. Licensing agreements by end-users promote development by protecting the rights of authors. Also, in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, the license was declared enforceable because it was necessary for the customer to accept the terms of the agreement by clicking a “I agree” button to install the software. However, in Specht v.