From the joystiq article:

Let's say you own both a laptop and a desktop computer, and you buy a copy of the '8th best game of 2007' ... (Peggle, duh). Generally, the EULA will let you install the game on one machine. But you have two. Shouldn't you be able to install it on both, so you can play it at home (on your desktop) and while you're traveling?

This is a point that has been sort of addressed by Microsoft. The EULA for Office 2007 (Or at least the student edition of Ultimate that I bought) permits you to install it on one computer and one mobile device where the licence holder is the primary user.

I hope that this means I can have it on my desktop and on my laptop, it seems odd to describe a laptop as anything other than a computer. I don't know any other mobile device that can run standard windows software though.

I'm still all in favour of a plain english executive summary or bullet point summary at the start of the EULA that outlines the rights & responsibilities. That would be easier to convince companies to do rather than trying to get them to commit to a broad sweeping change.

When the agreement to run a piece of software is longer than the agreements you signed for your car lease and mortgage combined, something is wrong. Especially when you sign those documents first, before money is handed over. Not after you've bought it, brought it home, installed it, and then run it.

My favourite are the "by opening this package you agree to the EULA." And the copy of the EULA is inside the package...

I think the others have hit the main point: EULAs do need a major overhaul. After reading the full article, companies tend to get away with murder with some EULAs (like only being able to install on one device).

One of the comments made on joystiq suggested people have an account that they can use for their software, and that as long as the hardware acknowledges that account, you should be able to install it there too.

Jabrwock has another excellent point: access to the EULA before purchase. With downloads, it's relatively easy. With tangible media, there's a problem. I can't agree to anything I could not read beforehand (so there might be legal action there), and once I open it, I can't return it due to federal copyright law (or something like that. I used to work in retail, and we weren't allowed to give money back for opened DVDs, only even exchanges for the same product).

So... unless they start putting the EULA on the outside of the package, there shouldn't be legal recourse for violating the EULA... or at least there should be a way to return the product if I choose to decline the EULA. If manufacturers were smart, they would put on the box "visit this website to view or write to this address for a paper copy of the full EULA before opening this product. By opening this product, you agree to the terms and conditions in the EULA." By allowing people to read it beforehand, it leads to less (but doesn't eliminate) problems.

Bullet-points should probably be like the back of video game cases. Instead of # of players, HD space and such, it should have things like "# of licenses" and the like.

It just occurred to me that Blizzard (who infamously have a very harsh EULA) may have made one of their 'amusing' references to it in one of their NPC names - as anyone who plays knows, the game is riddled with references to real things and people.

Check out the EOTS battlemaster... Yula the Fair anyone?

I'll just go ahead and admit it right now: I don't read EULAs any more. I used to, I really did, but I've given up. I figure, I don't really care what the publisher expects of me in order to play its game. I am not a pirate, and I am not going to do anything obviously illegal with the product. If I do take an action that violates some unfair or confusing condition of the EULA, I feel I have some justification in pleading ignorance.

Unlike with most other contracts, I expect it would be no simple task for the publisher to prove I read and understood the term I violated. I'm not sure a real-world court of law is going to hold me accountable for a mouse-click the same way I would be held accountable for signing my name on a piece of paper that has been explained to me before hand.

Maybe that's too cavalier of me, or even downright foolish, but I can't believe I'm the only one who simply doesn't take EULAs seriously anymore, for the very reason that publishers have inflated them to a ridiculous, unrealistic, unenforceable degree. If "Soulless MegaPub Inc." wants to sue me for all the damages I caused by having its game installed on both my desktop and laptop at the same time, tell them to bring it on....

So far, if I remember correctly, case law has held EULAs to the same yardstick as conventional contracts - that a EULA cannot excessively infringe on a person's rights, and cannot involve the commission of illegal acts. That said, any EULA is only as good as the clauses in it. In any EULA, see what sections are actually reasonable and enforceable.

Unfortunately, many people seem to hold the stance that if any part of a EULA is invalid, the entire thing is invalid, and case law doesn't support that stance. The court holds that EULAs are a convenient way to facilitate contracts - nobody wants to have to sit and read and sign a 5-page contract before being allowed to buy Halo 4, do they?

I'm sure we'll see some court cases within the next 5 years regarding EULAs. We'll see how it goes. With regard to California law, EULAs seem to be inherently voidable, since there's no ability for the consumer to negotiate the contract at all.