Licensing agreements cover a large number of known situations. For example, a retailer could enter into an agreement with a professional sports team for the development, manufacture and sale of goods bearing the sports team logo. Or a small manufacturer could concede a production technology owning a larger company to gain a competitive advantage rather than investing the time and money to develop its own technology. Or a greeting card company can agree with a movie distributor to create a series of greeting cards that carry the image of a popular animated character. 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. 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. Netscape Communications Corp., the licensee was able to download and install the software without having to review the terms of the agreement and approve it positively, so that the license is considered unenforceable. 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 Shrinkwrap licensing agreements have found some EULAs invalid and characterized them as liability contracts that have been entered into in accordance with the U.C.C.