The problem is more that he bought the licence off someone who had seen the contract, albiet a nominal sight. Remember those 'you must accept this 10000 word agreement' every time you install anything on your computer?
There's a lot of dodginess going on in EULAs issued by software companies, for example I was forced to accept a 55 page legal document just to download a free app on iTunes the other day (the iTunes terms of service). I cannot believe that more than a tiny percentage of people have ever read those terms (and they know it).
Forced is a strong word, but how else could I use the phone I bought? It's a major selling point of the phone and yet there's a 55 page agreement to use it? Nonsense.
While I realise it's a 'legal' document, there's something very wrong with a legal system that essentially relinquishes basic consumer protection because they've made it impossible to use your purchase without relinquishing significant rights.
Courts shouldn't uphold these extremely complicated EULAs which basically say 'screw you'. In the end, a digital good which was never used should be able to be resold.
As others have said, we can only hope this is overturned as it does have massive implications for the future of digital goods.