[messierhunter]

Which is utter garbage because it’s based on a “shrink wrap” contract; you’re bound to the conditions of the contract by opening the box, before you’re even allowed to read it. If you don’t like the conditions, too bad. Opened software is usually only eligible for an identical exchange, not for refund. No court has ever found a “shrink wrap” contract like this to be legally binding.

[taxcontrol]

I agree, shrink wrap licensing should not be allow. All licenses should be on the outside of the packaging or made available to the buyer PRIOR to purchase (say at the register).

[antiRepublicrat]

No court has ever found a “shrink wrap” contract like this to be legally binding.

Sadly, see ProCD v. Zeidenberg.

[MEGoody]

Which is utter garbage because it’s based on a “shrink wrap” contract; you’re bound to the conditions of the contract by opening the box, before you’re even allowed to read it.

I haven't check Autodesk's website, but most software publisher's that sell under shrinkwrap terms have them published on their website. If they don't, I've asked for them, explained that I wanted to read them before I bought the product, and they've always sent them to me via e-mail.