> What you seem to actually mean from the rest of your comment is that the illegal term can be excised leaving the rest of the contract in places rather than the contract being void
No. The contract is void. Which means the seller has no recourse, and no ability to rescind the product, etc, etc.
Which means that the transfer has happened without any obligations on the purchaser. The seller has transferred it to them, without a valid agreement in place.
If only the term itself was all that was made invalid, then the seller could hold the purchaser to account for other parts of the contract - but the contract itself is considered void.
In practice, this usually means that the purchaser has received the equivalent of an unlimited license grant. They can copy, disassemble, and so on, without limitation.
> The contract is void. Which means the seller has no recourse, and no ability to rescind the product, etc, etc.
That's not what a void contract would mean; a void contract would mean the seller and buyer have no obligations to each other, particularly, if the product required some interaction with the seller's servers to function (as much software does these days), the seller would have no obligation to continue such service to the buyer, as that obligation is rooted in the contract.
While use the language of a void contract, you seem to be suggesting that the contract would be valid in all respects against the seller but the buyer’s obligations would be voided. I'm not going to argue that there aren't legal systems that take that remedy for an unconscionable contract term, but it is not the same as voiding the contract. (It would be indistinguishable from voiding the contract in the exceptional case where the only obligations not already fully executed ran from the buyer to the seller.)
> In practice, this usually means that the purchaser has received the equivalent of an unlimited license grant. They can copy, disassemble, and so on, without limitation.
A substantial grant of rights that would not exist without the contract and which also weren't present in the contract is a radically different remedy than simply voiding the contract.
> the seller would have no obligation to continue such service to the buyer, as that obligation is rooted in the contract.
Ah. That's where you're getting stuck. No, that obligation is rooted in the Consumer Protection laws that supersede all contracts, not the contract itself.
No. The contract is void. Which means the seller has no recourse, and no ability to rescind the product, etc, etc.
Which means that the transfer has happened without any obligations on the purchaser. The seller has transferred it to them, without a valid agreement in place.
If only the term itself was all that was made invalid, then the seller could hold the purchaser to account for other parts of the contract - but the contract itself is considered void.
In practice, this usually means that the purchaser has received the equivalent of an unlimited license grant. They can copy, disassemble, and so on, without limitation.