Seems like a stretch. The person interacting with the hardware need not know or care about the software. Under that same logic I think you could:

(1) Buy an alarm clock with an embedded chip

(2) Contained in the packaging was a link to a license agreement. You never read it and certainly didn't agree to it.

(3) A year later, weekday alarms are remotely disabled because you've used up your free trial. The license specifies $3/mo as the rate to continue being woken up on weekdays.

Courts are already not upholding a lot of this "reading this ToS constitutes agreement to all future versions" bullshit in modern software, and I doubt they'd be friendly to the idea that somebody can be beholden to a contract they had no good reason to even know about.

> If software is licensed, and you don't comply with the license, you don't have a right to use it.

What law is this based on? If you say copyright law, then how can I be in violation if I have not made a copy? If you say contract law, arguing that the license is a form of contract, then how can I be bound by it if I have not signed it, agreed to it, or even read it?

But to use software you acquire, you have to copy it into your computer's RAM and maybe hard drive. That's relevant to copyright law. To use this hardware device you stole, you don't need to do that. So it's much less clear copyright law would apply. Reflashing the device with new firmware though, then copyright law could apply.

> you don't have a right to use it. Seems pretty straightforward.

But why do I have to accept a license? I already have a copy of the software; what law says I can’t run the copy I have?