sc the supreme court declined to hear arguments in a case where the lower courts basically ruled you are bound by the terms of the end user license agreement the moment you purchase software. the fact that the eula is sealed inside the box and inaccessible to you until after you make the purchase, seems to be not important to the court. it's a legal and binding contract. anywho. the case goes like this. grandpa buys 5 copies of abc works for christmas presents for his children. grandpa dies. the kids don't want the software. so they sell it at yard sale that was his estate. an enterprising individual buys them for pennies on the dollar and advertises them for sale on the internets. mind you, they are still shrink wrapped. abc company makes him stop. he sues. he argues, according to well established copyright law, the first sale has been made. and abc no longer has any copyright based rights to restrict the resale of the product. abc argued that they never sold the copyrighted material. they sold a non-transferable license. as clearly stated in the eula. ergo since the first sale never took place, abc company has complete control over who can sell the copyrighted material. seems like legal hairsplitting. which gives me an idea. an evil nasty idea. i sell you some software. which of course means i sell you a license to use my software. a revocable license. at any time. so i demand you return the copyrighted product. packaging and all. and i can charge you to restore the packaging to its original condition. then of course, i sell it again. nasty i know. but the supreme court says it's perfectly legal. i'm gonna be so rich.  ¶ 8:00 AM