>Your position yields the society we have in this world. It's all it can ever do because it hands the personal authority you possess over to designing men and women who seek to take advantage of you, and use you, to their gain, and your loss.

Let's make it more simple: You accused a person that he was doing something wrong according to the law and that according to US law it may be unlawful to use certain software. You questioned his morale because he would do something illegal, but this has not been proven, because it is a very difficult matter to find out.

So the issue at hand is not a theoretical best world practice, but a reference to the actual law and the society we live in. Microsoft's point of defense would be exactly that as well, and not some morale question if clicking Agree would have bound that person to the agreement. The lawyers would look only in respect to the clauses in the extend to how they can be validated according to the current law, not even to the law that was in effect of the writing of the contract. It will not be a question about contract but a question about who of the two parties is right in whateever they do according to the ruling.

I don't care in this context what society does, I care about putting that word illegal next to a persons name which can be found in every search engine all over the web. To name someone guilty has more far reaching exposure than one may imagine, and it does not matter if it was proven guilty or only a mishap of tongue. Even if it turns out that someone did something entirely legal and no harm was done, those words are out there to do their damage, and who is able to collect all of them and remove all traces wherever they went?

As I mentioned before, I agree with the basic question, but I disagree putting people's stakes at risk, because it does not help solving the issue.