I've seen that case before actually. But as I understand it, it was important that there was an indication of the existence of the license on the packaging, whi

I've seen that case before actually. But as I understand it, it was important that there was an indication of the existence of the license on the packaging, which people could view prior to purchase - it means you implicitly voluntarily agreed to that contract on the box before you purchased the copy. That is not quite the same thing as claiming you don't have a right to use something without a license, hence my question. If someone gives you a copy of the software without any indication that it comes with any sort of license at all, and you patched it to bypass the agreement that popped up after you ran it, what did you violate exactly? You got the software without agreeing to anything, so what's the legal basis for the idea that you can't patch it and use it without agreeing to the license?