> That doesn't make the terms and agreements any less binding, though. Parts of them are bullshit and ignored, but the other parts are still valid.

Different people have different ideas of what is reasonable and what is bullshit. Different jurisdictions as well, which is why some clauses in EULAs written by American lawyers are invalid in the EU.

> Only the parts of the agreement that violate the local laws can be ignored.

That is the whole point: to know for sure which ones you can ignore, you need to test them in court.

USA is a special case, because they have a whole moral rule "fake it till you make it" to the point that it works in courts sometimes, and then everybody is the infinite future are screwed because of the precedent law until the supreme court fixes it.

Wouldn't that only (reliably) be the case if they contain a severability clause stating that, if any clause is found to be invalid, the rest of the license agreement shall remain valid?

After all, you're typically agreeing to a package, not individually to each term.

Indeed in German law a partially void contract becomes completely void unless it is protected by a severability clause (which means in practice all contracts have them and they usually state that the void part is to be replaced by something with the same or similar economic consequences).

Standard form contracts (take it or leave it rules that are distributed to everyone) are exempt from this though (here the void part falls back to default rules).

Indeed, the normal threshold for whether a contract was/is an AGB (stnadard form contract; allgemeine geschaeftsbedingungen = general rules of business ~ TOS) is whether it was practically negotiable.

No, that effectively enables scams. To prevent scams courts disallow using inability to enforce unlawful clause as a reason to terminate the contract. You typically buy goods, not contracts.