What?! Is this a special privilege? What's the alternative? That it stops working after a year? Is someone going to come and make me uninstall it? What the hell is this that you have to be bragging about?
I think this is there because there's a fair bit of confusion sometimes (and maybe only for some customers) about what you're buying. Also I think you're being unfair that (at least in this particular case) they are presenting this policy smugly and boldly. Calendarscope has that bit of information in a FAQ about the upgrade policy and it's not in any way highlighted or bolded. I for one, appreciate the vendor being crystal clear. More often than not, it's very unclear exactly what an update policy might be, so the more (clear) info, the better in my book.
I've been confused before (not about this specific type of thing, but about whether lifetime upgrades were included or not), and the standard response when someone asks is, "it says xyz in the license - are you a moron for misunderstanding language that only a lawyer could love?". It's made worse by similar terms (update and upgrade) being used for very different things, and not necessarily being used the same way by all vendors. For example, there's recent thread here about whether an update/upgrade from version 3.0 to 3.1 should be considered a minor (ie., free) or major update/upgrade. (http://www.donationc...ex.php?topic=21877.0
And all this is assuming that the software you're buying *will* continue to work after the 1 year time period is over. While you're right that this is certainly by far the norm in the PC software world, there are exceptions (particularly in enterprise software). For example, the SlickEdit company (which makes a very nice, if expensive, text editor) markets an Eclipse plug-in that's sold under that model.
Also, you'll find that some bits of software are tied to online activities that may make the software essentially useless if you don't continue to subscribe, even if you're permitted to continue using what you've got. Anti-malware might be one example, online backup might be another. Of course, in these cases a customer might consider that they're not really buying software, but they're buying a service. Which is legitimate, but there might not always be an entirely clear distinction.
I also have a recollection of other software becoming usable when a company went under and their servers stopped working, or that they required paid updates to continue using servers (hey, the data format changed, if you want the software to keep working you need the latest version), but I can't recall specifics. However, I do think that some users of Evernote and Collectorz.com are concerned about that possibility.
And of course, there have been rumors in the past that Microsoft's Activation technology might be a first step toward them being able to disable old software - if not outright, then by no longer activating reinstalls. (Of course those rumors are unfounded as far as I know).
Anyway, my bottom line is that I have no problem at all with vendors being very, very clear about these things.