Terms and conditions apply. Lawyers need not
Let's pick a random example of, oh, let's say, software audits. On their face, they fall into a well-established tradition between companies of checking the books for financial irregularities. Regulators can set rules demanding financial audits to keep things honest, and are happiest if they find nothing wrong. Software audits agreed by contract should be the same, just a way for suppliers to keep customers honest about licensing.
Which is of course not the reason Oracle, to pick a company at random, makes up to an estimated $3 billion – six percent of total revenue – from audits. Unusually sloppy or scofflaw customers, hey, they never learn. Nor can one ascribe aggressive avarice to the recent report of an overly broad audit that seemingly tried to apply
The beauty of this is that Oracle's database software is very good at auditing. Immaculate records are kept of transactions and the other stuff that corporates simply adore knowing about for all their compliance and best-practice needs. It's a technology that Oracle has mastered. It's known and trusted and will be acceptable to even the most risk-averse and security-sensitive of clients. And if you'd rather not, then you're no worse off than before.
Let's mix things up. Don't look at that $3 billion as corporate fines for malfeasance, but as the size of the market in audit avoidance.