Well, if they are going to make EULAs like that, then they should do away with the shrink-wrap liability disclaimer on software and stand behind it. Tit for tat. You think we'll see that in our lifetimes? No way.
And as far as virtual machines are concerned, the license technically says it's for one machine. So the definition of "machine" is changing because of the use of virtual machines. How is this any different than software like Exchange that is sold with CALs or other per-seat/per-user/per-mailbox/per-whatever licensing? Why would they NOT extend this same concept to the OS now that you can run multiple OS' on the same hardware?
Everyone got hot over the web because it allowed multiple people to use one box, and then the big software companies like IBM, Oracle, and other ERPs put their web licenses out... and it was the same - more access for more people means more costs and fees. Some of those measured in million$ or even billion$ for some installations.
Look, the whole model really isn't about the number of users. It's about the SUPPORT for the number of users. The concept of paying per-user is just a way to enforce the collection of enough money to support the product. This is called Commercial software.
Look at another model: Open Source is great; you copy and install and use the software free. But you want support? Either you deal with fellow users and some sort of open peer group as-they-can-spend-time-to-help developer access, or you pay for professional support. The software is free, the install is free, there are no per-anything fees, except you pay for premium support, or in some cases basic support.
Stoic businesses typically look at the company they are doing business with - are they solid, stable, here for the long-term, worthy of a law suit if they breach the contract, and liable? Open source often does not meet those standards.
So what am I saying? I'm going Linux in the future unless I or my business has a very good reason to go with MS. Three of those reasons are: cost, support, and compatibility. Today we get MS software at extreme discounts, which makes it very attractive to stay with them. Tomorrow???? Well, I've got Software Assurance, so we can go to Vista if/when we want, but when will that be, and why?
I've got 30 years in IT; I personally can handle the Linux equation, but if I got hit by a bus tomorrow, would my business (employer) be able to continue with Linux without me? I'll bet they could with the right support. At home I'm moving over to Linux. XP will be the last MS OS here for general use. I can't afford to keep buying updates and such for no significant reason, either. I still run 2000 on many of my machines because I just didn't see a need to complicate matters further by going to XP - it didn't gain me anything for what runs on these computers and how they are used.
Their “Code of Conduct†is good enough for me. 
