That doesn't sound too settled to me.
That's because you're confusing one court's opinion with "the law".
They aren't the same thing.
Unfortunately, some courts ignore law with which they disagree. This will hopefully lead to the decision being overturned by a higher court, but sometimes it just leads to injustice.
I have provided links to the actual statute and the decisions of courts dating back before 1900, which each agree with my take on the matter.
Vernor v Autodesk is another one.
Novell v CPU Distrib (2000) - Looking for the decision online...
The bottom line is that this court is willingly letting Apple legislate via court action, as many have allowed Microsoft to do before.
That's because you're confusing one court's opinion with "the law".
They aren't the same thing.
The "law" only is enforceable in real life, when it goes through a judge... :-) Thus, it is law, in the manner in which it passes through a judge and the decision which is made.
The "law" as written, and having never been put to "use" -- as in convictions or overturning something -- is nothing more than a bunch of words on paper. There may be people who refer to the "law" (on paper) and decide to follow it on their own -- but until it reaches a court and a judge -- it's just words on paper.
Softman v Adobe
It's not as one might assume... :-)
The Court finds that Adobe's EULA cannot be valid without assent. Therefore, Softman is not bound by the EULA because it has never loaded the software, and therefore never assented to its terms of use.
You'll note that the judge in the Psycho-star case did the right thing, because Pyscho-star was installing software in addition to altering and changing it -- things that it could not do under the law.
In addition, Pyscho-star didn't even buy the requisite amount of software in the first place -- deciding to "skim off" a few copies and make their own copies... LOL...
Vernor bought his now 10 year old unopened copies of Auto-cad software from an architecture company, CTA, that got them as part of a settlement from Autodesk in 1999. That company did not need them and proceeded to resell them without ever opening or installing them to Vernor. Vernor did not open them or install the either. They are a unique case in that Vernor never saw or agreed to the SLAs.
The courts have now held, as of September 30, 2009, that his position was that of a middle reseller, not a licensee. Autodesk's appropriate case should have been against the original licensee, CTA, who had agreed to a license when they accepted the copies, as part of the settlement, that precluded them from transferring the licenses. CTA, ignoring the licenses, DID sell their unwanted copies left over from their installs to Vernor.
Vernor, in an attempt to prevent Autodesk from again attempting to protect their copyrights pre-emptively sued Autodesk. Even the decisions you post don't say what you think they say:
From your own link in the Vernor v. Autodesk case:
Indeed, the Copyright Act itself declares that the first sale doctrine does not “extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.” 17 U.S.C. § 109(d); Los Angeles News Serv. v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 799 n.8 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing § 109(d) and noting that licensees cannot authorize sales).
The judge in this case ruled that the transfer of the Autocad program to CTA was a sale because Autodesk did not allow it to be resold, meeting the "Wise test," by the buyer after they acquired it.
That does NOT apply to Apple's OS X, whose licenses are similar to those in the MAI cases discussed by the judge that the Ninth Circuit ruled were Licenses and NOT sales, because Apple specifically allows for the one time resale of the license to use OS X by each licensee so long as any work copies are not retained on the computer or in the previous users custody. As such, it meets the test of not being a sale but a true license.
It might help if you read some of the scholarly analysis of these cases... and even some of the reasons why Vernor itself was only finally concluded this September 30th... and is being appealed because of inconsistencies with other the other cases in the Ninth Circuit and the judges decision to ignore the later MAI cases that were more pertinent to software than the Wise case—a unique case that the judge stretched way out of context, which was not pertinent at all to digital content.
The Wise case related to Vanessa Redgrave being allowed to keep a VIP copy of "Camelot" for her own personal use, and being charged a "fee" of $401.49 for the print, and that in the agreement, the studio, although severely restricting the use, prohibiting any future transfer, allowing only in home showing, the legal department neglected to clearly retain title for the studio, something that had been always included in every other VIP print ever provided, the courts ruled it a "SALE" instead of a "license"— which opened the door for a man named Woodrow W. Wise to make copies of "Camelot" on 35mm film and sell them to collectors... until he was arrested for copyright infringement. However, his conviction on the count for Camelot was reversed because of the Vanessa Redgrave "first sale" problem. They got him on a bunch of others though.