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 EULAs claim significant limitations on liability. More often than not, a CAU will attempt to keep the software licensee unscathed in case the software causes damage to the computer or user data, but some software also suggests limiting whether the licensee can be held responsible for the damage caused by inappropriate use of the software (for example. B misuse of tax preparation software and punishable). One case that maintains such restrictions on consecutive damages is M.A. Mortenson Co. v.
Timberline Software Corp., et al.[citation necessary] Some EULAs also seek restrictions on the court and applicable law in the event of litigation. End-user licensing agreements are usually lengthy and written in very specific legal language, making it more difficult for the average user to give informed consent.  When the company designs the end-user licensing agreement in such a way as to deliberately deter users from reading it and is difficult to understand, many users may not give their informed consent. Some licenses claim to prohibit users from disclosing data on the performance of the software, but this has yet to be challenged in court. By posting messages, by downloading files, entering data or participating in another form of communication in a community or by other means on that site, they grant us and our related companies a non-exclusive, free, unlimited, irrevocable and totally under-conceded right to use, edit, copy, publish, reproduce, sub-conceded, create, transfer and/or sell derivative works. The above grants include the right to use the ownership rights of such communication, including, but not exclusively, copyright, trademark, service or patent rights, in a competent jurisdiction. Most retail software licenses reject (as far as local laws permit) any guarantee on the performance of the software and limit liability in case of damage to the purchase price of the software. One known case that confirmed such a disclaimer is Mortenson v. Timberline.
Forms often prohibit users from reverse engineering. It can also make it more difficult to develop third-party software that collaborates with the software conceded, thereby increasing the value of the publisher`s solutions by reducing customer choice. In the United States, the provisions of the CLUE may prejudge engineering inversion rights, which are implied by fair dealing, c.f. Bowers v. Baystate Technologies. Unlike THE EULAs, free software licenses do not function as contractual extensions of existing legislation.