From the article...

"So, to recap: EULAs are binding, they can control just about everything you might dream up, and only Congress can change the situation."

So what about EULA's that can't be read until after opening the software package?  Are the courts prepared to over turn store policies prohibiting refund for anything short of product fail? 

"We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."

So how is the user gonna know they are buying a license rather than purchasing a copy unless there is mandatory labeling?  And what considerations have the courts made to ensure that a copyright owner doesn't revoke the license to require further payment?  Would we really be buying a license to use the product indefinitely? Or would we be paying for a leased license with future terms for renewal?  Oy.  I don't think I like the direction of this.

WhiteElk the customer who buys any product or service still is repsonsible to know and understand what they are entering into with the purchase.  If it's not clear to you then you need to ask questions before hand, in this day and age that would mean doing some research of the product or service online.  Yes it is time consuming.

Yep, it seems that the climate has changed such that reading the EULA prior to purchase may have dramatically increased in importance.  If the EULA is unclear, or is unavailable prior to purchase... well it may be best to just bag it.  The game Civ5 was a purchase I was assured to make.  Upon learning that a third party client was required, I researched into that company including the reading of their EULA.  The EULA was ambiguous and choke full of exploit.  But I gathered that this third party client has the unchecked ability to revoke my access to the software license I purchased.  They can do this despite not holding the copyright, and regardless of the vendor used.  I wasn't willing to grant them this power.  Upon research into alternate ESD methods I came to know about Stardock.   I'm gonna vote with my wallet on this issue.  Outfits like Stardock get my business. 

Nothing has changed. It has always been a case of buying a license to use software and not buying the software. The disc is just media, it's not that you are buying.

That reality comes as shock to some people because they would rather believe their own opinion than fact.

A great way to be a pain in the arse is to say you do not accept the terms of the EULA and demand a refund.   The part of the install where it says, "I agree"--just don't.    And then you go to the store where they say "sorry, we don't issue refunds", and you just say, "the hell you don't".    Like Best Buy will say, "we only issue refunds for unopened software".   But you have to open the software before they ask you to agree to their license.   They'll refer you to Microsoft (or whoever the manufacturer is) to get your refund.   And no--you didn't buy it from Microsoft.  You bought it from Best Buy.  Best Buy owes you the refund.  Use your cell phone camera to record the initial conversation.   Then you go to the state regulatory bodies.    Be a big enough terd, you will get your refund.   And if enough people did it, maybe software companies would start to get the message.

I've gone to the state before--not with software, but for things ranging between $500-$4000.   Let's just say it is highly effective.  Biggest motivator is that I hate to see consumers ripped off.  If it was just me it would be hardly worth the trouble--and that is exactly what they are counting on.   But the $4000 thing, that was my wedding.   I went to the Attorney General to bust up an antitrust ring.   I also went to the Zoning board since they were holding a commercial venue in a residential district.  I got all my money back from the venue and that venue is not in business anymore.

The ability to enforce has changed.  It is of no surprise to me that the law becomes more specific as DRM schemes evolve.  Services such as steamworks can outright prevent a user from accessing the software they've licensed.   All it takes is a few keystrokes from a remote terminal.   It is no longer a matter of a "boots on the ground" policing.  It becomes more pratical to enforce license restrictions.   Therefore, these restrictions are of an increased importance.  It is a notable change.

I really doubt this will change anything. People are still gonna sell second-hand software regardless of the license agreement. If not on eBay, then at at the very least to their friends. And no one can enforce that.

And yeah, as WhiteElk said, that third party client, which is really popular- the reason I don't use their service for many games is due to what he said.  I know with Impulse, if they jack things up bad enough, and I have to dispute, my games aren't going bye-bye.   BTW, I'm not saying chargeback is the immediate option, that's an abuse of power- but if I really got hosed by someone, and it couldn't be resolved in a timely manner, I would. 

With that other client, if you got enough games from them they got you by the balls.  I am willing to get games on that client, but only with retail sales (which makes that client just an annoying DRM scheme), or games where you're just buying a serial you can take outside of that client (such as Mount and Blade games).   

At least for me, return policies and consumer protection does affect sales.  

The typical EULA says:
blablabla... not responsible for unintentional damage...

blablabla... IF YOU REJECT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER YOUR PURCHASE, YOU MAY CALL (some number) TO REQUEST A FULL REFUND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. 

(That is not UNIVERSAL, but it's in some EULA's.. two thrids of the ones I've read, roughly.).

I do consider EULA's slightly less palatable than a cancerous growth. I loved one; it basically said that if local laws prohibited some of the points in the license agreement, you had to return it. (They did... yet they still exported it here?).

There are some reasonable ones out there though... they don't ALL read like a contract with the devil.

Parts of a EULA are not binding, depends where you live in the world.

When are you guys going to get a court system based on fairness and justice and not for deep pockets. Stop milking the consumer.

..... I am still seething about the UGG boot decision.

The US were told to go screw themselves over that one.  The 'owners' of the name can legally be totally ignored in the place of origin of the product.  WE [Australia] coined the term 'Uggboot' as GENERIC and it was in free, legitimate use for half a CENTURY before the idiot distributor in the US decided to screw the US customers by trying to legitimize their switching to Chinese [crap] manufacture instead of continuing to use the original source.

It all got quite absurd when they wanted Oz to amend all their Dictionaries to make reference to the US 'owner' of the Trademark.

It REALLY should NOT have been registerable....as it would be the same as Jobs Trademarking 'Apple' and then telling the rest of the world you now have to call those round green things 'bananas'. [and he didn't 'quite' do that]

Now the Americans have to put up with poor quality, overpriced Uggboots.

Their loss.....I hope the US 'manufacturer' goes bust....US tourists to Oz can always get the 'real thing'....

Is that why McDonald's coffee cups don't say "caution! Content is hot!  Hot things burn you!  Getting burned is bad!" ?  Oh wait, they do.. even though everyone should know coffee is hot.. and hot things burn you.. and getting burned is painful.  Or if they didn't.. they surely could have researched it.  But that's simply not expected in this day and age.  It's why car manuals say "cruise control is NOT auto pilot" and explain it further.