That's a reasonable assumption. But, it isn't relevant in this case. The article specifically says that entire machines were handed down to other users, without uninstalling software that was used by the engineers.
This is a sideshow. Regardless of where you get your machine, you get a license. You're trying to erect a strawman regarding how people get their machines. Nice try, but it's still a strawman.
Sorry, but it was your strawman -- by trying to bring OEM licensing into it. When, I called you on it, you changed your story. And now you are getting defensive because I pointed out that you changed your story.
Based on the information that we have, it wasn't OEM-installed software that got him into trouble. It was the software used by the engineers that was inadvertantly passed on to the clerical staff.
8% of 72 desktops amounts to greater than $1,000.
Actually, the owner is quoted that a total of a few dozen unlicensed applications were found on 8% of the 72 desktops. We don't know what those applications were, except they were used by the engineers and weren't used by the clerical staff. My guess would be some development tools like Visual Studio and associated components. And, that would quickly add up to more than $1000.
Of course you'd say that: You regularly side with freeloading GPL bigots.
I have licenses for all of my proprietary software. I use a variety of it (3 different licenses for Windows, plus Quicken and seven different registered shareware applications), along with software licensed under the BSD, GPL, Apache, Artistic, and a number of other open-source licenses. That hardly makes me a "bigot":
bigot. n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
If you want to observe the behavior of a good example of a bigot, I suggest you look in a mirror.
And it's really humorous because you lack the basic information which led the BSA to audit Ball in the first place; consequently, you're in no position to make any such determination.
And neither are you. You just assume it was willful, even though the owner believed he had a case to prove that it wasn't willful. He chose to not pursue it because he would have had to pay the legal fees on both sides.