The terms under which the license is offered to you, in exchange for your money. Which you either accept or not. Offer, consideration, acceptance - it's a contract.
If I violate the Windows EULA by distributing copies, Microsoft will sue me for copyright infringement, not breach of contract.
So what? If I beat you to death, the cops will arrest me for murder, not assault, but assault it still is. In any case, the point is that it's more akin to theft of services than you obviously care to admit.
Also, the EULA has many expressly written terms in it. If it were a contract, it would be an express contract, and a EULA definitely does not meet all the legal requirements of an express contract.
Sure it does. Offer, consideration, acceptance - that's all that's required. You're offered a license, in exchange for your purchase price, and your acceptance is indicated by installation and use, as the EULA specifies.
The purchase at the store is an implied contract. The license itself is not.
In any case, the point is that it's more akin to theft of services than you obviously care to admit.
I don't care anything. The point is that you refuse to accept standard definitions of contract and license.
Sure it does. Offer, consideration, acceptance - that's all that's required.
No it isn't. Offer, consideration, acceptance, promise to perform, valuable consideration (payment), fulfillment requirements, and terms and conditions for performance. And all of these assume a business relationship.
You will notice that after your implied contract with Best Buy for the purchase, none of these conditions are met by the Microsoft license itself, as you have no contract, express or implied, with Microsoft itself.
Sorry, but even Microsoft will disagree with you. Windows is a monopoly (no, a monopoly is not bad in itself), and in thousands of cases across the country, people must use Windows for one reason or another to perform a task (Windows-only shop, compatibility reasons, etc.). If the license were a contract, it is extremely one-sided -- all in favor of Microsoft. Any court would likely see it as an adhesion contract, and would therefore break it. Nobody in the software industry wants licenses to be thought of as contracts, because licenses are not bound by the restrictions that contracts have.