No. IANAL and TINLA, but in the USA, software is licensed, not sold; and you are bound by the terms of the EULA, especially if the EULA terms restrict your further transfer of the software. See the Ninth Circuit appellate ruling on Vernor v. Autodesk.
Zoidberg probably would not hold up if challenged, because the opportunity to decline the license and return the software does not materially exist. But I realize that until someone tries it in court, it's just a theory.
I came here to post that I felt there must be some legal reason for the change. I don't remember MS being this responsive to press about their licensing.
This restriction had me looking back to office 2010 for my upcoming PC purchase. Glad to see it was lifted.
According to the old license, you get office for the life of your PC. If I drop my PC in the sink 1 week after purchase, I need to fork over another fistful of $$$ to use office again. Pretty lame.
Sadly, there's not much recourse for those who bought 2010 because 2013 was hobbled by the policy. This came up at work this week, and a friend ended up getting 2010.
I suspect they realized that they were just encouraging a switch to google docs and friends. So yes, it was a dumbass move but I'll give them points for having the organizational intelligence to recognize what a dumbass move they made.
Have you tried it? I've been using it for months and I find it to be simply fantastic. I love the new direction, all except for the store lock-in on the Metro side of things (thanks Apple!)
See: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html