The law is the law and must be obeyed. Perhaps someday the government will change the laws regarding the length of copyright on software (I believe there was even a petition for this linked to Low End Mac at one time) but for now we've got to abide by what we've got and if we don't like it, we're going to have to go and talk to our congressmen (or equivalent for those not from the US) about this to perhaps get something started.
Personally, I have no problem with the current system because someone wrote Word 5.1 (or any other software program) and deserves respect for what they've done. If they decide to make it free (like Cliff Johnson did with Fool's Errand) or write it as freeware/shareware in the first place, that's their choice. However, for those who haven't, it is only respectful to use it legally (not to mention it's the law). I don't care if many of you believe Microsoft/Adobe/anyone else is a huge company, there was still effort put into that program by someone at some point.
I can respect your position. I think it's more important to respect the overall idea, rather than following EULAs to the letter.
For example, if I have a desktop and a laptop at home, and they are never used simultaneously, I should be able to install one copy of a program on both. Even if the EULA prohibits this, I'm still going to do it. I respected the copyrights in general by purchasing the software, but that particular EULA restriction is ridiculous.
Things would be different, for example, if I had two desktops in a business environment, where both desktops may and probably will be used simultaneously. Two licenses must be acquired for this scenario.
If I were in your position, I would probably open one copy of Word 5.1 and use the disks three times. I would erase one of the copies before selling one of the sealed boxes though.
