i don't see them being binding at all unless you agreed to it at the time of purchase. Since most places won't let you return open software and you can't read the eula till you actually open the software there really isn't much legal ground for these types of things to hold up on. The court decision applies to eula that the user agreed too not to the actual sale. This guy bought software from an non legit seller, we don't know the actual sale/license terms this company agreed to when first buying/leasing their software from autodesk. But if you buy something and there was no eula at the sale or anything indicating you only own a license at the sale then there really isn't much ground to stand on.
I think many people are reading too much into this case.
Agree that this case had nothing to do with the validity of EULAs, and is actually a terrible test case of licensing because of the specifics of the case. Unfortunately, the ruling that the Ninth laid down for what is considered "licensed" instead of "sold" is very broad and puts all the power in the publishers' hands - which can lead to abuse.