[Mannaggia l'America]

What happens when car companies decided to start selling "licenses" to drive a car? If the courts think that's farfetched, what makes software mfgrs so much more special than car makers?

You can't copy a car.

If I buy software (that is, a license to use said software, if it is sold that way), I could copy the bits onto my hard drive or removable media, then try to sell the original media.

Once sold, I could keep using the software, using the copy I made. And now the person to whom I sold the original can use it (or repeat what I did).

You can't do that with a car - if you sell it to someone, it's gone from your possession - the buyer has it, and you can't drive it any more (at least not at the same time the new owner is driving it).

[editor-surveyor]

> “If I buy software (that is, a license to use said software, if it is sold that way), I could copy the bits onto my hard drive or removable media, then try to sell the original media.

Once sold, I could keep using the software, using the copy I made. And now the person to whom I sold the original can use it (or repeat what I did).”

.
That is not what is in question here.

The software involved in this ruling was traded back to an AutoDesk licensed dealer, for value, in exchange for a new version, and then later resold by the dealer when it became more valuable.

[Still Thinking]

If I buy software (that is, a license to use said software, if it is sold that way), I could copy the bits onto my hard drive or removable media, then try to sell the original media.

Yes, that's the one area in which mine is an apples to oranges comparison, and would be amply addressed by saying that if you want to sell the software, you may not keep a copy. There's no need to make the transaction this one-sided to address that one issue.