Thanks for being an unpaid volunteer Jim, and for taking the time to take the heat on this issue.
But in all fairness, your analogy with self-driving cars does not hold in this practical example: we are talking about a re-compilation of Office for 64 bits, not about "guessing what the future will look like and factor it in products ahead of time". 64
bits support is something that is supported by all compilers and available by Microsoft for all its new products. So it is indeed disingenuous for Microsoft to piggy back on Mac OS X transition to 64 bits to effectively terminate a perpetual license to its
own product.
Microsoft will argue that recompiling Office 2011 to 64 bits makes it a new product, that there are API changes in Mac OS that would need to be taken into account, and that it would be "economically unreasonable" to support and offer upgrades to obsolete
products.
The real argument is whether it is reasonable to offer perpetual licenses it knows will not survive the platform they rely on. Yes, you can play on the words and argue that it will be perpetual as long as the platform works, and you're not responsible for
the platform, and this is why I call this disingenuous and not utterly in violation of their own licensing terms.
In my non-legal but professional opinion, the argument can be made in court legally that Microsoft's license is misleading and that it has the responsibility to insure the perpetuity of the functionality licensed under its products, under "reasonably economical" terms simply by offering to carry over the license to the new releases of their products free of charge to those who purchased these perpetuity licenses.
After all, there is not enough difference between the old (obsolete) and the new (promoted) products to call them different. They carry the same functionality, the same name, and are marketed as the same.
My 2 cents - Gilles
Hear, hear. Totally agree.