Sorry, but your "failure" of my analogy, fails itself.
When you purchased you car, does the manufacturer make you agree before starting the car that you won't resell it? No, they don't. But, that is precisely what some software licenses make you do - and those are the software licenses that we're talking about.
Some software is unlicensed, or allows resale in its implicit license - like the software in my car analogy. Some other software is not. It's the "is not" that is in question here.
Let's go down the road a few years and all our cars are actually operated by a robotic system that steers clear of obstructions, accidents, and cops. The system will require a few more servos than our cars presently have, but the computer and software aren't going to take up any more room than today's computer controlled ignition and performance monitoring systems.
I can easily imagine a manufacturer prohibiting resale due to the fragile nature of the robotics and the need to maintain them within the frame work of the manufacturer's warranty policies and upgrade requirements.
We have a court in this case that's extending the scope of some very limited statutory standards well beyond the existing legislative intent regarding the transfer of property.
Time to get this business out of the way before we end up having to jack our robotic cars up on blocks out back simply because the software company wants them back~!