That's not the way many courts have seen it.
Those courts who don't buy the company's end-run around the law have ruled that a copy of software is a resellable product, not a "use license". But, some courts are still willingly led by the nose by Microsoft's, Apples', et al lawyers and let them get away with it.
More good info can be found in US v WISE, 550 F.2d 1180:
...the first sale doctrine provides that where a copyright owner parts with title to a particular copy of his copyrighted work, he divests himself of his exclusive right to vend that particular copy. While the proprietor's other copyright rights (reprinting, copying, etc.) remain unimpaired, the exclusive right to vend the transferred copy rests with the vendee, who is not restricted by statute from further transfers of that copy, even though in breach of an agreement restricting its sale. See Harrison v. Maynard, Merrill & Co., 61 F. 689, 691 (2 Cir. 1894).This is settled law, and has been for over 100 years. But software companies are doing their darndest to skirt the law with EULAs, to maintain control over EACH COPY, even after the sale.(emphasis added)
It's despicable and should be stopped in every court case, IMO.
This is settled law, and has been for over 100 years.
Actually it sounds like it's only settled inside your own head. I mean by that, if it is relevant, as you say -- then obviously it's not "settled" since we're getting Psycho-star, here, knocked down by the judge.
That doesn't sound too settled to me... in fact, it sounds more like it's "settled" the completely opposite way you are thinking -- namely by the actual results that the software writers are getting with their software, in terms of licenses.
I would say you're grasping at straws... :-)