OctopusRex, there are slight differences.
Aside from the whole "selling something that doesn't work" problem, software is just like anything else. Unfortunately, patches are a necessity, because people are morons and designing complex software that doesn't need fixed is almost impossible. I say almost because it is technically possible. If everyone were a genius with a photographic memory and a work ethic that put swedes to shame, then they might be able to avoid patching things.
On the reverse, no one else is allowed to sell you broken shit to start with... The joys of an imperfect world.
In Stardock's case, it makes perfect sense for them to not transfer licenses. They already fixed the product they sold. Why should they fix it for someone else? Of course, it's also illogical in the sense that they already allow the original owner to download the entire program off their servers any time they want. They aren't saving much. Pirates using tech support isn't a problem though.
If you took piracy out of the equation, I'd say patches should make their way out to the general public, and people could get them off other servers hosted by ad whores or philanthropists, and not have access to Stardock resources directly, thus cost them nothing. Unfortunately, that not only leaves the original license holder with full rights to a product they just sold, but gives everyone that didn't buy any copy at all easy access to the patches.
Using a carrot approach instead of a carrot and stick approach really doesn't work if you give away the carrots. Although it would still work better than a stick approach, which is chasing people away from the industry leaders.