Case in point: my accounting textbook (a new edition) comes in three versions:
a $200 hardback book which can easily be resold at the end of the semester like any other book
a $120 unbound version that is three hole punched (so you can put it in a binder) but that no bookstore will buy at the end of the year, making it hard to sell
a $40 e-book that you can load from virtually any device (I believe that there is a iPad app even) but the e-book is impossible to resell thanks to the magic of DRM.
Based on my experience in the class there is a about even spread among the three.
You'd be hard-pressed to sell the $200 book for $160 at the end of the quarter/semester.
The interesting one is - what if Ford claimed you only licensed the software in your car and couldn't sell it used?
You buy a book, generally there are no preconditions on your opening it, whether in the store or at home. So since there are no apparent constraints, there's no scope for an agreement to exist between you and the publisher.
But if I publish 'Secret strategies of ____ industry leaders' for $1000, and require prospective purchasers to agree not to distribute their copy for 5 years before I accept their order (many industries have such expensive trade publications), that's very different from a regular book purchase - you don't get the information until you've acknowledged the conditions of sale, so it's a lot easier to say I only licensed that readership of that copy.
I don't like this decision at all, * but the Court is not just rewriting things on a whim - rather, it addresses specific holdings in other cases about whether a transfer was a grant of license or a sale, and relies on those to conclude Autodesk issued a limited license and was entitled to enforce the agreements that underpinned it.
* Indeed, the court doesn't sound too thrilled about the ramifications either, probably because they judges foresee an avalanche of tediously similar cases as a direct consequence of their holding.
So book publishers need to add a wrapper license and some plastic wrap and can then sue anyone selling second hand books. Hoorah for capitalism over common sense.
There's a question: would anyone buy such a book? If you were offered identical books, one you could resell and one you couldn't but it was half the price - which would you buy?
I don't know the legal history of the first sale doctrine, but I assume it's mostly based on public policy, and to support things that people were already doing: reselling, lending etc. An interesting data point is that software in the form of video games is regularly resold and lent.
IIRC, a distinguishing feature of the autodesk software in this case is that it is very high-end commercial software, and thus not a consumer product. Buyers and sellers in business transactions are generally assumed by the courts to know what they're doing, and so the courts tend not to intervene with whatever bargain they've struck. That is: this is likely inapplicable to consumer software like video games.