From my point of view, there are several problems with the EULA and how they are applied and used.

1. The way most EULA are applied is basically that first there is a purchase in a store (which is regulated through various (consumer) sale laws and perhaps other laws as well. Basically a contract or deal between you and the store. After that, you are almost "forced" into a contract with the software manufacturer which in addition also cancels the purchase deal/contract with the store.

Questions arising are several, apparently you no longer own the copy of the software in question (according to the EULA), yet has it in your possession? Are you hiring it? Are you in possession illegally (since it is not yours in anyway and so on). Suppose you have not yet paid do you still have to pay the shop, after all, it was after all not a purchase and you don't own the software either, what claims would the shop have? And if it has any, how can the EULA still apply since it say otherwise. If you rent (for lifetime and for a one time payment, and disregard what you call it, fore example license instead of renting and so on, just calling it something else does not really get you away from laws, does it? Or all sales would be gifts or whatever that circumvent laws), why can't you get all the normal benefits from that, like a new copy if the old one defects or stop working? Can one really enter into two conflicting contracts (sale with store and not sale with software manufacturer) and still be bound by both? How is conflicts sorted out? And how is the situation/legal state in-between the purchase and for example installation?

Looking at the "licensing" issue, a license would typically be something you get to be allowed to do something you otherwise would not, why else get a license to start with? Most countries copyright law allows for the type of necessary copying occurring when you use software (like copying into computer memory, hard disc and so on) that are necessary to run the software, so one can't claim that it is needed for that reason. There is no other copyright "right" of the copyright holder that you violate when using software, so why would you need a license to start with? In many cases you can even install programs manually (although it can get tricky) or perhaps even use programs your wife or other family member bought you and installed. What is the situation there, again, you are not doing anything wrong, nor is really anyone else either. Even the whole formalities surrounding the EULA agreement is in many times not really a correct way to form a contract, at least not in some countries. For example, the "agreement" needs to reach the one making the offer, that is the software manufacturer, in most cases it does not happen. Also, what are acceptable "agreement" actions for forming contracts? Using a "clicking on a button that you can't avoid doing to use something you bought" apparently is OK. Would "walk on the left side of the street next time you leave the house" be OK? After all, you have a choice to walk on the right side? What about "leaving your house through the front door next time"? As said, there is nothing wrong with using the software you previous bought (or did not bought, doesn't matter) without agreeing to additional contracts, so how is that NOT forcing a contract onto someone? Would people argue the same if their next toaster has a paper were you put the bread saying that if you remove the paper, you agree to no longer own the toaster and can only use the toaster manufacturers bread in it and that they can come and pick up the toaster at any time since you just own a license to use the toaster? If not, why is that situation different? There are many other similar questions and considerations in my opinion.

Assuming there actually is no problems with anything said so far, we still have the protection of consumers from laws (and this may vary with country apparently a lot) that doesn't allow for unfair contract terms. In the case of Europe, each country should by now (or soon) for example have implemented the directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Just click on the link to the directive and pick your language of choice from the list:

http://europa.eu.int/clab/

To me, reading it is more or less like reading a list of all the things typically mentioned in an EULA. Apparently most of what is said in a typical EULA would not pass the laws implementing the directive. Do something similarly exist for example in USA?