Autodesk loses court battle - Selling your licence

[LCE]

An interesting email received from the CADDManager Blog this morning.
See this link http://www.caddmanager.com/CMB/2008/06/autodesk-loses-court-battle-2/

[ReMark]

It's about time. Score one for the little guy. As one related article says though, "it's a long road". AutoDe$k, et al will not take this lying down. Be prepared for an onslaught of AutoDe$k backed (financed) articles in support of their policies. Expect the same from Microsoft. At least lawyers, magazines, newspapers, etc. will make a lot of money from the press this will generate.

[rkmcswain]

Keep in mind, this is just the denial of Autodesk's request to dismiss the original complaint. Plenty of action yet to come.

Link to this recent decision: http://www.citizen.org/documents/vernororder.pdf

[LCE]

Sure, this doesn't mean that we are safe to sell our own licences, and there will certainly be some backlash from this.
It is nice to see though that in the world we are in dominated by the software giants, the little guy can still stand up to them.

That is a pretty lengthy document, but through skim reading it there seem to be some good points made in there.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this case, and to see if this leaves room for more cases of this nature (of which I am sure there are many).

[rkmcswain]

I sort of have mixed feelings on the matter....

On one hand, the evidence is there to suggest that Autodesk does many things in order to "force" people to upgrade and buy more software. Of course they do - they want to make money just like everyone else.

On the other hand, nobody has a gun to anyone's head to "buy Autodesk software". If people quit buying Autodesk software because of it's ridiculous terms, I suspect the terms would start to change.

What does that tell me? Most people accept the EULA and go on with life, chalking up the money given to Autodesk each year as the cost of doing business.

[LCE]

If people quit buying Autodesk software because of it's ridiculous terms, I suspect the terms would start to change.

How many of us can afford to take that risk?

[ReMark]

People accept the EULA for only one reason...the software loading procedure will grind to a halt if they don't. The way it's set up the user does NOT have a choice. This goes for most software with a EULA I can think of (ex. - Microsoft Windows or Office). Of course, one may argue, they didn't have to buy it in the first place, now did they?

[rkmcswain]

How many of us can afford to take that risk?

That is exactly what Autodesk is banking on... (no pun intended....)

[StykFacE]

People accept the EULA for only one reason...the software loading procedure will grind to a halt if they don't. The way it's set up the user does NOT have a choice. This goes for most software with a EULA I can think of (ex. - Microsoft Windows or Office). Of course, one may argue, they didn't have to buy it in the first place, now did they?
Ya but who says you HAVE to use Autodesk?

[ReMark]

Has anyone here actually read the EULA that comes with AutoCAD? If so, did you fully understand what you are "buying" (a.k.a. - "leasing" according to AutoDe$k)? Would you accept an EULA if one came with your next car purchase? Why do we treat software, movies and songs different than we treat iPods, skate boards, and cars?

[LCE]

Has anyone here actually read the EULA that comes with AutoCAD? If so, did you fully understand what you are "buying" (a.k.a. - "leasing" according to AutoDe$k)? Would you accept an EULA if one came with your next car purchase? Why do we treat software, movies and songs different than we treat iPods, skate boards, and cars?
I will second that.
I have never understood why it was so different. I was going to comment on this yesterday but I thought that maybe it would cause more hassle than it is worth.

[LCE]

Ya but who says you HAVE to use Autodesk?
Yes, but rightly or wrongly, the decision at each of our companies was made to use Autodesk. To now change over to an alternative would be a VERY costly route to take, so really there isn't a choice involved. Damned if you do, damned if you dont...

[rkmcswain]

Why do we treat software, movies and songs different than we treat iPods, skate boards, and cars?

Probably because software, movies, and songs can be perfectly duplicated at no cost. iPods, skate boards, and cars, while they could be duplicated, cannot be done so at no cost - so there is little threat to the original manufacturer.

There are really two different issues here.
One is the prevention of "bootleg" copies. You can't blame Autodesk or anyone else for this. Put yourself in their shoes. You write and record a song. It's a hit and millions of people want a copy. You sell 1 copy of it on your website and that person copies it and gives (or sells) it to the other million people. You make $0.99 on the whole deal. Fair?

The other issue is the ability to sell an item that you "bought". This is where the court has settled (so far) with the buyer/seller. Autodesk doesn't want you to be able to sell your AutoCAD, because THEY want to be the only seller of it. If you decide to become a pilot or farmer next week instead of an engineer or drafter - and you sell your AutoCAD to someone who needs it, then you have just cost Autodesk a sale of a new license. Not hard to see why they have been using this tactic for a long time.

[LCE]

Probably because software, movies, and songs can be perfectly duplicated at no cost. iPods, skate boards, and cars, while they could be duplicated, cannot be done so at no cost - so there is little threat to the original manufacturer.

There are really two different issues here.
One is the prevention of "bootleg" copies. You can't blame Autodesk or anyone else for this. Put yourself in their shoes. You write and record a song. It's a hit and millions of people want a copy. You sell 1 copy of it on your website and that person copies it and gives (or sells) it to the other million people. You make $0.99 on the whole deal. Fair?

The other issue is the ability to sell an item that you "bought". This is where the court has settled (so far) with the buyer/seller. Autodesk doesn't want you to be able to sell your AutoCAD, because THEY want to be the only seller of it. If you decide to become a pilot or farmer next week instead of an engineer or drafter - and you sell your AutoCAD to someone who needs it, then you have just cost Autodesk a sale of a new license. Not hard to see why they have been using this tactic for a long time.
Whilst I 100% agree with the 1st point that you made, I have to question the second.
If I joined the navy next week, I would want to sell my car because I have no use for it. As I would have no use for AutoCAD.
If Autodesk want to carry on the route they have been on, why not intiate a scheme allowing the user to sell the licence back to Autodesk at a reduced cost?

[ReMark]

Denying AutoDe$k the ability to sell a new license by selling your version, privately, to someone else just doesn't seem like a good arguement. It's not like there are thousands of legit copies waiting to be sold each and every day. So what if AutoDe$k loses that sale? They'll make it up down the road when the person or company that bought the used copy decides to upgrade to the next release. I think it would amount to less than one tenth of one percent of their overall sales. I do, however, like LCE's suggestion. It would benefit both parties. I would expect that the sale of the license back to AutoDe$k would come at a greatly reduced price. After all, why would they want to pay full price to buy back outdated software? They wouldn't.

[StykFacE]

Yes, but rightly or wrongly, the decision at each of our companies was made to use Autodesk. To now change over to an alternative would be a VERY costly route to take, so really there isn't a choice involved. Damned if you do, damned if you dont...
We do business with an architect who uses all Bentley products. Their DWG exports are some of the best and well standardized I receive on a regular basis. They took an alternative to Autodesk and they do perfectly fine at a huge cost decrease than other companies. So this isn't a good example of competition out there?

Fact of the matter is, nobody wants to see people or companies that become rich. I can't stand this outlook of business modeling. People want everything for damn near free, and nobody should be able to make "too much money" correct? So, should government put a cap to how much money a company makes? Doesn't any company have the right to set any rules or regulation on THEIR products that THEY created? What part of "owning a company" do people not understand here?

[ReMark]

I'm not against someone "owning a company". I'm against getting gouged. First it's the up-front cost of the software, then it's the yearly maintenance fee. Watch out too if you "skip" a couple of realeases and then want to upgrade. They want to pop you with another round of full-pricing. And don't you dare call the authorized re-seller for any help. That's a charge too. After paying a few thousand you'd think 30 days of worth of advice or assistance would be a gimme. But it isn't. I'm not asking them to jump in their car, drive over to my place of employment, hold my hand and solve all my problems. I just need an answer to a question.

Anyway Stykman, I'm glad to see rumors of your demise were entirely false.:D You got to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, your brain is going to turn to mush.:P :lol:

[StykFacE]

Well if you're not against someone owning a company, then let them make their own choices on what they think their product/service is worth. :)

[LCE]

We do business with an architect who uses all Bentley products. Their DWG exports are some of the best and well standardized I receive on a regular basis. They took an alternative to Autodesk and they do perfectly fine at a huge cost decrease than other companies. So this isn't a good example of competition out there?

Fact of the matter is, nobody wants to see people or companies that become rich. I can't stand this outlook of business modeling. People want everything for damn near free, and nobody should be able to make "too much money" correct? So, should government put a cap to how much money a company makes? Doesn't any company have the right to set any rules or regulation on THEIR products that THEY created? What part of "owning a company" do people not understand here?
I am not saying they shouldn't create their own rules. If they set the rules, I will follow them. But I don't have to like the rules.
It would also be nice if there was some humanity/morals involved, but then again, it wouldn't be business then...

[ReMark]

It's the old "let them eat cake" defense. No middle ground here. Can't see a real downside to LCE's suggestion. What's a few buy-back-bucks mean to AutoDe$k. They got more money than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and God (figuratively speaking) combined. It keeps tract of the licenses and users don't walk away entirely unhappy. Just think of all the good press that would generate. Hey, we ain't in business to get good press, we're in business to make money. Lots of money. Gobs of money. More money than your average Joe or Jane could spend in 100 lifetimes. Money, money, money.:twisted: MONEY!:twisted: :twisted:

[StykFacE]

Hey, we ain't in business to get good press, we're in business to make money. Lots of money. Gobs of money. More money than your average Joe or Jane could spend in 100 lifetimes. Money, money, money.:twisted: MONEY!:twisted: :twisted:
Mark. Give me one reason why making money is a bad thing? I'll answer it for you - there's not. Because Autodesk isn't forcing any product down anybody's throat. People are buying it at will. So it's the consumer's who are making Autodesk rich. They are willingly giving over their hard earned money to Autodesk for a product in exchange. All Autodesk does is offer it. That's it. They offer a product that THEY created, and they put a price on THEIR creation. But... somehow.... you and LCE are pointing a finger at Autodesk in shame. As if they are the ones to blame.

And now LCE is bringing "humanity" into pricing of a product? LOL!!!!!! OMG that cracks me up. So now it's "inhumane" to put any price you want on your own creation? So now all business as a whole should have sympathy for the poor? Or for the people who can't afford it? So... by this new "inhumane" act that EVERY business is guilty of, they have to lower their prices so that EVERYONE who wants the product or service available can buy it, right? So it's now "inhumane" to charge $200 for a plane ticket because there are people who can't afford it? So it's "inhumane" for Sony to put a $2,000 price tag on an HDTV because that shows no sympathy for people who WANT one but can't AFFORD one, correct?

So, now... business should be based on sympathy? compassion for the poor? the lazy? the people who chose to not work hard in this world?

What kind of communistic thread has this come to???? Baffles me....

:?

PS: For the record Mark and LCE, you guys should know that you are some cool dudes on this board, and take this post strictly as a challenge to your logic. I still love my fellow AutoCAD guru's and trust that this is just for debate. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate, but this is definitely what I believe. Just FYI so nothing gets flared up. :)

[rustysilo]

I for one am quite giddy over the ruling and I do hope that Vernor wins and is awarded a fair amount.

Autodesk can charge whatever the heck they want for their products, but they cannot control the sale of used products. That's what the case is about.

I would agree that their products are way overpriced (by my standards), but it is their choice to set prices. As said before much of my problem with pricing is that you first pay several thousand for the license and then if you really want to learn it (quickly) you must pay for either books or training and many of the books are nearly worthless and the training isn't much better in come cases. Any official learning material that is free is more or less just marketing for product or training. We see this even with the official user group (augi) where it has become a "mouthpiece" for Autodesk to market product and/or training as opposed to being a 100% genuine user group. Thankfully we have options such as cadtutor and theswamp where some rather intelligent users will answer questions free of charge.

Back to the cost; the part that sucks about the cost of the software most is for the small businesses and/or freelancers who simply cannot afford the high cost. Autodesk should come up with some way to satisfy these customers without ripping out their *bleep*.

These are the problems I have with Autodesk. Not to mention the fact that their resellers are not always honest with you. They are very much like debt collectors in the way they deal with you. Not all of them, but some of them to be sure.

[ReMark]

A commie thread? Stykman, that gave me a good chuckle. And yes I do know where you're coming from so I take no offense what-so-ever. I welcome a healthy discussion.

Humanity and the cost of the product aside, you do not see any advantage to AutoDe$k buying back their licenses? Not even at a greatly reduced price? Seems like a solution that would satisfy both sides of the issue without incurring the wrath of either. If I sold my license back at least I would recoup some of my investment (albeit a mere pittance) and at the same time AutoDe$k would know what became of the software.

Suppose I go out right now and illegally sell (by AutoDe$k's definition mind you) my software and manuals? How does that benefit AutoDe$k? It doesn't. How does AutoDe$k track that software? You mean to tell me that right now, this very minute, they can tell exactly how many licensed copies are out there and where they are located? I doubt they could nail all 100%.

[StykFacE]

well when LCE brought the term "humanity" into this discussion I about took my afternoon restroom break on the very seat I read that on. That was just insane.... lol

That comment was more for him than you. You just don't like anyone making too much money which baffles my mind too. I bet you work for $8/hr because anything more than that would be "too much money" for you right? :lol:

(remember Mark, just a joke man!! :))

[LCE]

Mark. Give me one reason why making money is a bad thing? I'll answer it for you - there's not. Because Autodesk isn't forcing any product down anybody's throat. People are buying it at will. So it's the consumer's who are making Autodesk rich. They are willingly giving over their hard earned money to Autodesk for a product in exchange. All Autodesk does is offer it. That's it. They offer a product that THEY created, and they put a price on THEIR creation. But... somehow.... you and LCE are pointing a finger at Autodesk in shame. As if they are the ones to blame.

And now LCE is bringing "humanity" into pricing of a product? LOL!!!!!! OMG that cracks me up. So now it's "inhumane" to put any price you want on your own creation? So now all business as a whole should have sympathy for the poor? Or for the people who can't afford it? So... by this new "inhumane" act that EVERY business is guilty of, they have to lower their prices so that EVERYONE who wants the product or service available can buy it, right? So it's now "inhumane" to charge $200 for a plane ticket because there are people who can't afford it? So it's "inhumane" for Sony to put a $2,000 price tag on an HDTV because that shows no sympathy for people who WANT one but can't AFFORD one, correct?

So, now... business should be based on sympathy? compassion for the poor? the lazy? the people who chose to not work hard in this world?

What kind of communistic thread has this come to???? Baffles me....

:?

PS: For the record Mark and LCE, you guys should know that you are some cool dudes on this board, and take this post strictly as a challenge to your logic. I still love my fellow AutoCAD guru's and trust that this is just for debate. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate, but this is definitely what I believe. Just FYI so nothing gets flared up. :)

1st off, Tex, thanks for the man love.

2nd off, I wasn't quite going to the extreme that you mentioned when I said humanity (maybe I should keep my tree-hugging thoughts to myself). I have no problem at all with the Autodesk pricing policy, personally, I think it is a good price for a tool that makes us all a fortune and is quite simply fantastic. I perfectly understand it is their tool, they sell it to us, and we willingly buy it, but once we have bought it, do we not have some rights? All I was saying is why do they have to take this action and force the consumer into a corner. How would you feel if you bought a house (or a horse:P) and was then told that you could not sell it, even if you didn't want or need it? Providing you do not do anything illegal with it, I feel the consumer should be able to do what they like with their possessions, including software licences.
I would just like someone to prove that you don't have to be a f*cker to succeed in business.



So, now... business should be based on sympathy? compassion for the poor? the lazy? the people who chose to not work hard in this world?
Heck no. The people who chose not work hard should have no sympathy, no benefits, no anything. But that is another discussion for another day.

The more I think about it, the more I like the suggestion of a buy-back stipulation. That way Autodesk still have control of the market, but the little guy doesn't waste a load of money if he buys AutoCAD and then comes to a point where he no longer needs it.

I am glad this thread has kept going, I was expecting it to die straight out with only the OP, but it has grown into a very good discussion. Cheers fellas.

[LCE]

well when LCE brought the term "humanity" into this discussion I about took my afternoon restroom break on the very seat I read that on. That was just insane.... lol

That comment was more for him than you. You just don't like anyone making too much money which baffles my mind too. I bet you work for $8/hr because anything more than that would be "too much money" for you right? :lol:

(remember Mark, just a joke man!! :))

OK OK, I get it, stupid word to use. I had been looking at local charities for a while so all those lovely words were in the front of my mind.

So stop bashing me and my humanity and get back to the herd Tex.

As Mark said, do you disagree with the possibility of buy-back, or sell-back from our point. Would you not think that would be a good scheme that would benefit everyone for the reasons already given?

[ReMark]

Stykman...at least I budged a little bit (on the buy back price). You on the other hand are as stuck in the mud as a, a, a...

...a Texan's boot? How'd you like the flame avoidance? I really wanted something a little more flowery.:lol:

Addendum:

Can you name me another item that you own that you couldn't go out and sell, right now, this very minute, because you didn't have permission from the manufacturer?

AddenduH?

I was looking for a good ol Texan saying to put in place of the above and stumbled across this. I got a laugh or two and so will you. And I ain't pokin' no fun at dat der Styky man.

http://baetzler.de/humor/texan_sayings.html

[rkmcswain]

Whilst I 100% agree with the 1st point that you made, I have to question the second.
If I joined the navy next week, I would want to sell my car because I have no use for it. As I would have no use for AutoCAD.
If Autodesk want to carry on the route they have been on, why not intiate a scheme allowing the user to sell the licence back to Autodesk at a reduced cost?

I think we do agree on the second point. I wasn't taking the side of Autodesk, just guessing at their point of view. I think you should be able to sell AutoCAD also.

[rkmcswain]

...Because Autodesk isn't forcing any product down anybody's throat. People are buying it at will. So it's the consumer's who are making Autodesk rich...

Agree completely. Autodesk has a lot of smart people working for them and they have determined that $3800 (or whatever it is) is the price that allows them to make the most profit without losing sales over the price. It's no different than any other good business model.






the part that sucks about the cost of the software most is for the small businesses and/or freelancers who simply cannot afford the high cost. Autodesk should come up with some way to satisfy these customers without ripping out their...

I disagree. The reason ±95% of all small businesses fail is a poor business plan. Most people needs tools to do their job. If you went into business digging ditches, you would need a shovel. A delivery man needs a truck, a gardener needs gardening tools, an accountant needs accounting software, and an engineer/drafter needs a CAD program.

All of these things should be part of a good business plan. Just like you need a place to work, office supplies, a telephone, computer, etc., etc.

I think too frenquently, people try to start a business by working out of their home, on the family computer, using a "borrowed" license of AutoCAD, etc., with no real business plan or capital at all... In that case, yes -- AutoCAD is a tad expensive. But you could always use IntelliCAD or some other low cost clone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to see AutoCAD on sale for $99.99, but it's not going to happen. The market will determine the price. Kind of like what's happening right now with oil (gasoline).

[StykFacE]

Stykman...at least I budged a little bit (on the buy back price)Can you name me another item that you own that you couldn't go out and sell, right now, this very minute, because you didn't have permission from the manufacturer?

Well lets see..... I pay money to my apartment complex. In the contract it states that I am going to give them money every month and in return I can stay here. Only I have the key, and so do they. Nobody else can live here while I'm here. Thus for the "time being" that I am using my apartment it is mine. But... wait... I can't sell it or rent it out to anyone else?? Why is that? Oh, duh, forgot... it was in the contract that I agreed to in the beginning of the sale.

Again, let's see... Oh I am looking at my cable box that I pay a monthly fee for. Well It's supplying my cable. I am using it for my uses. I have paid for it. But I can't sell it to someone else... why is that? Oh that's right because the owner of it tells me I can't do so in the contract that I agreed to when I set up my cable.

My point is this: It doesn't matter what I think. It's not my product. It's Autodesk's. They created it, so they can put any rule on it they want. Do I agree with it? No. Is it their naturally given right to make that decision? Yes.

If you don't like it, then there's ways around it. Beat the system. Download it and find the serial/crack for it, if it pisses you off that bad. :)

[StykFacE]

Kind of like what's happening right now with oil (gasoline).
Oh Dear Lord.... Gas is killing everyone right now. Sucks too because it makes everything go up due to the fact that the entire nation is shipped on diesel fuel. It's about $90 to fill up the tank in my truck. haha :lol:

[Dipali]

.
I disagree. The reason ±95% of all small businesses fail is a poor business plan. Most people needs tools to do their job. If you went into business digging ditches, you would need a shovel. A delivery man needs a truck, a gardener needs gardening tools, an accountant needs accounting software, and an engineer/drafter needs a CAD program.

All of these things should be part of a good business plan. Just like you need a place to work, office supplies, a telephone, computer, etc., etc.

I think too frenquently, people try to start a business by working out of their home, on the family computer, using a "borrowed" license of AutoCAD, etc., with no real business plan or capital at all... In that case, yes -- AutoCAD is a tad expensive. But you could always use IntelliCAD or some other low cost clone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I wouldn't like to see AutoCAD on sale for $99.99, but it's not going to happen. The market will determine the price. Kind of like what's happening right now with oil (gasoline).

I am a small business owner my self and agree with you completely.

I bought 1 LT license for myself but now with the need of adding up a staff & also need the abiltiy of full version, but am not in position to get extra licenses of autocad due to high price. That is why I ma looking at different alternatives & trying other product like 'progcad' & if I can manage my work with it I will buy that.
(I will start a new thread to get info about other low cost alternative http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24096)


ps: yes, fuel prices are killing everyone. just this week, here government has increased the price to big no. & it will surely effect evry onther products.:(
we bought car just 10 days ago & driving a lot these days but with increasing fuel price we will, have to restict our outings or else we will have to buckle up & earn more money:huh:

[ReMark]

Watch out. Don't get people started on the price of gasoline. We'll have an insurrection on our hands!

[ReMark]

Bad analogies Styk. Both examples are of "leases". You don't actually "buy" either. On the other hand, AutoDe$k ads never mention "leasing" a copy of AutoCAD. It's not until you get the product home, after you've bought it, go to load it on your computer, then you find out that you're leasing it. Nice try though.

[LCE]

Bad analogies Styk. Both examples are of "leases". You don't actually "buy" either. On the other hand, AutoDe$k ads never mention "leasing" a copy of AutoCAD. It's not until you get the product home, after you've bought it, go to load it on your computer, then you find out that you're leasing it. Nice try though.
That is a VERY good point.
In the case that I buy ACAD for the very first time from some joke of a reseller, and I am never informed of the EULA, if I were to disagree with it, so not accept and therefore be unable to install the software, would I be entitled to a refund?

Actually, who has even been informed of the EULA before attempting to install the software? Has a reseller ever discussed it with you?

[ReMark]

The way EULAs are written the software manufacturer cannot be helded liable if anything goes wrong. Imagine buying or leasing a new car under the same conditions.

[LCE]

Speaking of the EULA check out this content from another agreement


You acknowledge that XXXXX may have added third party software to the products and services, and that by installing such products and services you understand that this third party software may affect the way your computer performs. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of any Content, including any reliance on the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of such Content."

[StykFacE]

That is a VERY good point.
In the case that I buy ACAD for the very first time from some joke of a reseller, and I am never informed of the EULA, if I were to disagree with it, so not accept and therefore be unable to install the software, would I be entitled to a refund?

Actually, who has even been informed of the EULA before attempting to install the software? Has a reseller ever discussed it with you?
No it's not a very good point. It's the same thing. You can get ahold of the EULA before you purchase AutoCAD.

[ReMark]

Now you're going to tell us you obtain and read beforehand any EULAs for all software you plan on purchasing? Whoa Nelly. I think I'm hip deep in some horse-puckey.

[StykFacE]

Not saying that at all. But it's the customer's responsibility, ultimately. :)

[LCE]

Not saying that at all. But it's the customer's responsibility, ultimately. :)
Funny, I would have said it is the responsibility of the seller to bring any restrictions or limitations to the consumer beofre pruchase. Of course, whether they chose to read it is another matter...

[StykFacE]

Funny, I would have said it is the responsibility of the seller to bring any restrictions or limitations to the consumer beofre pruchase. Of course, whether they chose to read it is another matter...
They have done just that. it's call an EULA.... but it's up to the CUSTOMER to read it and understand it.

DUUUUUHHHHHHHHH

:lol:

[ReMark]

Visit the AutoDe$k website specifically the section entitled Purchase. Note that even AutoDe$k does not refer to it as Lease. Two phrases that jump out at the viewer are looking to purchase and the other is buy on line. If AutoDe$k is leasing the rights to their software and not selling the software, per se, then the inclusion of both these phrases are 1) misleading and 2) subject to legal scrutiny. Grounds for a lawsuit? Maybe even a class-action lawsuit? AutoDe$k uses the words purchase and buy knowing full well that they attach an altogether different connation to the terms. To me that is lying. Is that an acceptable business practice?

[StykFacE]

Then sue them Mark. :wink:

[ReMark]

Styk, come in out of that hot Texas sun before you fry your brain. I maintain that AutoDe$k is trying to have it both ways. Using the terms purchase and buy and then later on telling the customer it is a lease just isn't kosher. Software manufacturer's seem to not only have their cake but also be able to eat it too.

[LCE]

They have done just that. it's call an EULA.... but it's up to the CUSTOMER to read it and understand it.

DUUUUUHHHHHHHHH

:lol:
Again though, should this not be provided beforehand?
Using your example of an appartment, did the vendor/landlord not provide you with a contract beforehand, which you read, agreed to, and then handed over the money? If he hadn't provdided the contract, but said you needed to hand over the money before he would show it, would you have agreed?

Secondly, back to the point of the court case, Autodesk have stated that they sell a licence for the software, not the software itself. Which implies that the software is much the same as a Sky TV box, or similar, where you can have and use it so long as you have a licence/contract.
From what I understand, the man in question in this case was selling CD's, and therefore the software. However, given that the software CD/DVD is attainable through resellers, or even on the web, if the licence were to be resold on it's own, without a CD, I can not see how Autodesk could argue against it.


I have just searched the autodesk site, using their search feature, and manually and have not been able to find anywhere the EULA for AutoCAD. So how am I to review this before I purchase it?

[StykFacE]

Again though, should this not be provided beforehand?
Using your example of an appartment, did the vendor/landlord not provide you with a contract beforehand, which you read, agreed to, and then handed over the money? If he hadn't provdided the contract, but said you needed to hand over the money before he would show it, would you have agreed?

Secondly, back to the point of the court case, Autodesk have stated that they sell a licence for the software, not the software itself. Which implies that the software is much the same as a Sky TV box, or similar, where you can have and use it so long as you have a licence/contract.
From what I understand, the man in question in this case was selling CD's, and therefore the software. However, given that the software CD/DVD is attainable through resellers, or even on the web, if the licence were to be resold on it's own, without a CD, I can not see how Autodesk could argue against it.


I have just searched the autodesk site, using their search feature, and manually and have not been able to find anywhere the EULA for AutoCAD. So how am I to review this before I purchase it?

I :heart: LCE.

[rkmcswain]

I have just searched the autodesk site, using their search feature, and manually and have not been able to find anywhere the EULA for AutoCAD. So how am I to review this before I purchase it?

Click here (http://www.cae_refcentar.fsb.hr/download/eula/AutoDesk_EULA.pdf)

[LCE]

I :heart: LCE.
Again, thanks for the man love Tex, but what now? Now what have I said that was stupid? There was no tree hugging humanity or anything in there....:wink:

[LCE]

Click here (http://www.cae_refcentar.fsb.hr/download/eula/AutoDesk_EULA.pdf)
That is great, but was that available from Autodesk, or is it just someone has posted it for the benefit of others?
Who is to say that is current and correct if it isn't provided by Autodesk?

[CADTutor]

I have just searched the autodesk site, using their search feature, and manually and have not been able to find anywhere the EULA for AutoCAD. So how am I to review this before I purchase it?

Their "get out" for this situation is probably something along the lines that the EULA is different for each country and that to publish it may lead to confusion.

I've just been in touch with a local reseller and asked them to send me a copy of the EULA. I'll let you know how I get on.

[LCE]

I've just been in touch with a local reseller and asked them to send me a copy of the EULA. I'll let you know how I get on.
That would be good.
I still think it should be provided before any order is confirmed, if not made available by Autodesk, then it should at least be the responsibility of the reseller to ensure the consumer is aware of this.
I am sure there have been cases of people buying AutoCAD, not even knowing that there is an EULA, so how can they be expected to check they have read and agree to something that they don't even know exists...

[CADTutor]

As in all such cases: "buyer beware".

This (http://miletter.blogspot.com/) may be of interest.

[CADTutor]

I've just been in touch with a local reseller and asked them to send me a copy of the EULA. I'll let you know how I get on.

Hmm, I'm impressed. 90mins after making the request, I received a copy of the EULA as a PDF.

[LCE]

Hmm, I'm impressed. 90mins after making the request, I received a copy of the EULA as a PDF.
Interesting. Which reseller was that?
I would be curious what the response would be if we were to ask Autodesk for the same thing...in fact, I think I might try, if only I can find the right email address to use...

[CADTutor]

Interesting. Which reseller was that?

cadpoint|direct (http://www.cadpointdirect.co.uk/webstore/customer/home.php) - they also have the best price I have found for AutoCAD (in the UK).

[rkmcswain]

That is great, but was that available from Autodesk, or is it just someone has posted it for the benefit of others?
Who is to say that is current and correct if it isn't provided by Autodesk?

LOL... You can look at the URL and see that it's not from Autodesk. No, it's not current, but it has been available for years at this URL. IOW - there is no secret. If there was, Autodesk would have had this removed a long time ago. I'm sure 98% of it's the same as the current version.

If you go to a reseller and want to "buy" AutoCAD, there is no way they would refuse to give you a copy of the EULA first.

[CADTutor]

If you go to a reseller and want to "buy" AutoCAD, there is no way they would refuse to give you a copy of the EULA first.

As I have just demonstrated. But I suspect that very few bother to do this. In fact, the Autodesk EULA is the only one I've ever bothered to read. Better go check the Adobe EULA...

[ReMark]

EULAs and obituaries...two items I take a strong dislike to reading. Sometimes it can't be avoided.

[skipsophrenic]

Their "get out" for this situation is probably something along the lines that the EULA is different for each country and that to publish it may lead to confusion.


simple answer is to put appropriate EULA on each regional website,
UK's for www.autodesk.co.uk (http://www.autodesk.co.uk), USA's for www.autodesk.com (http://www.autodesk.com/)
and so on, that takes away the each country argument.:wink:

[Teeds]

I just found the thread and I must be affected by the same Texas heat as our esteemed colleague from Dallas.

The problem with all EULAs is the fact that none of them are contracts that anyone takes the time to read before purchasing and installing any software.

This thread is focusing on AutoDesk products, but this is not limited to just our CAD products, all the products on my computer ... AutoCAD 2009, ArcGIS, Adobe CS3, Windows for that matter ... all of then seem to take the same direction with their software.

This is what comes up when I tried to track down the EULA for Acrobat 8 Professional ...


Copyright 1984-2007 Adobe Systems Incorporated and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Protected by U.S. Patents 4,837,613; 5,050,103; 5,185,818; 5,200,740; 5,233,336; 5,237,313; 5,255,357; 5,546,528; 5,625,711; 5,634,064; 5,729,637; 5,737,599; 5,754,873; 5,781,785; 5,819,301; 5,832,530; 5,832,531; 5,835,634; 5,860,074; 5,929,866; 5,930,813; 5,943,063; 5,995,086; 5,999,649; 6,028,583; 6,049,339; 6,073,148; 6,185,684; 6,205,549; 6,275,587; 6,289,364; 6,324,555; 6,385,350; 6,408,092; 6,415,278; 6,421,460; 6,466,210; 6,507,848; 6,515,675; 6,563,502; 6,604,105; 6,639,593; 6,701,023; 6,711,557; 6,720,977; 6,748,111; 6,754,382; 6,771,816; 6,842,786; 6,857,105; 6,894,704; 6,914,602; 6,915,484; 6,934,909; 7,002,597; 7,006,107; 7,089,248; D337,604; D338,907; D371,799; D454,582; Patents Pending in the U.S. and other countries.

Also protected by U.S. Patents 6,170,058; 6,263,446; 6,956,950.

Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, Distiller and Reader are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.

<AdobeIP#0000155>

Notices, Terms and Conditions pertaining to third party software are located at http://www.adobe.com/go/thirdparty.

e_Db is a licensed Product from Simple Software Solutions, Inc.
__________________________________________________ __________________
Portions utilize Microsoft Windows Media Technologies. Copyright (c) 1999-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. __________________________________________________ __________________
Portions include technology used under license from Autonomy, and are copyrighted.
__________________________________________________ __________________
Combined PostScript Drivers are a result of a cooperative development process by Adobe and Microsoft.
__________________________________________________ __________________
Copyright 1993-2007 Lextek International
__________________________________________________ __________________
Portions are the result of a cooperative development process by Adobe Systems Incorporated and Microsoft Corporation.
__________________________________________________ __________________
MPEG Layer-3 audio compression technology licensed by Fraunhofer IIS and THOMSON multimedia.
__________________________________________________ __________________
Contains Padus Foundation Class software © Padus, Incorporated.
__________________________________________________ __________________
Size optimization of Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader performed using NOS technology licensed from NOS Microsystems Limited, 7-12 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9BQ United Kingdom. All rights reserved.
__________________________________________________ __________________
Portions copyright Right Hemisphere, Inc.
__________________________________________________ __________________
OCR technology by Image Recognition Integrated Systems S.A. Copyright 1987 - 2007, I.R.I.S. S.A. All rights reserved.
__________________________________________________ __________________
©Copyright 1989-2007 All Rights Reserved Proximity Technology A Division of Franklin Electronic Publishers, Inc. Burlington, New Jersey USA

Tracking all the agreements between all the companies listed would consume more than a few hours.

Bentley was mentioned. Do you "own" their software, or "lease" it? I don't know and I am just wondering.

Lastly ... I have a 2 copy license myself and I agree there should be a way for license "owners" to sell the "licenses" that they own, when they are no longer of use or need by the owner.

[NoelStalker]

OK, so now that it is legal, where can I get a cheap, legal used copy?

[ReMark]

Noel: What particular software are you looking for? Plain AutoCAD or one of the vertical products?

[ReMark]

I would suggest looking on craigslist. I checked in my home state (CT; city: Hartford) and there were a couple of versions (2008 and 2009) offered over the last month. The prices were pretty good so chances are they were snapped up in a hurry.

[NoelStalker]

Remark,
thanks for the tip. I am looking for AutoCAD 2005 for mechanical application

[Evott]

I recently purchased AutoCad used on ebay. It is a real version and has all the information with it. I never saw a license agreement before purchasing it nor do any of the other thousands of people buying the software.(Not even buying it new) Yes it's not in our name on Autodesks files, but we all have proof that we purchased it legally with no agreements or anything before hand assuming that we own it if we bought it. Are we ok to use the software legally?

I actually called Autodesk and asked them what I needed to do to transfer it to my name. I even gave them my information. They did not want to unless I had consent from the original owner and they had to fill out a document also. Well that is not going to happen becuase the seller said the company went out of business. Who really cares about registering it in your name anyway? They said that I would need to destroy the CD or get my money back and hassle with ebay.

Destroy the CD? Seems like Autocad is something I bought and hold in my hands. I didn't buy a license, I bought the actual CD's with the software on it, just like people buying it new from a store or reseller.

I don't really care about upgrading it for a cheaper price and I don't care about the special support. Autodesk sells Autocad for thousands of dollars which is insane in the first place, the buyer should have the right to resell it or do whatever they want with it. They made their money on the first sale, just like everything else bought new in the world.

So after all this I searched for information hours on end. Which leads back to my question in my first paragraph.

[StykFacE]

Autodesk sells Autocad for thousands of dollars which is insane in the first place, the buyer should have the right to resell it or do whatever they want with it.
Using Autodesk products are not a right, its a privilege. How can a buyer automatically have a "right" to something that they didn't have anything to do over the development process? How can a buyer have a "right" to tell any company what they think their product is worth? They don't, and they can't. :)

Granted, I agree with you that AutoCAD is extremely overpriced. However I will not ever say that I have a right to make decisions over someone else's products, even if that "justifies" buying dated software at a discount. And back to your original question; no, I don't think that you can use that software legally. You do not "own" AutoCAD, you only "lease" it technically. It's in the EULA that you cannot resale this software to anyone, nor can you purchase it other than an authorized Autodesk reseller. But I doubt Autodesk will bust down the doors of your company next week with fully automatic weapons threatening you to uninstall it, either. haha

Not hounding ya, just setting the record straight. :wink:

[rkmcswain]

I recently purchased AutoCad used on ebay. It is a real version and has all the information with it. I never saw a license agreement before purchasing it nor do any of the other thousands of people buying the software.(Not even buying it new) Yes it's not in our name on Autodesks files, but we all have proof that we purchased it legally with no agreements or anything before hand assuming that we own it if we bought it. Are we ok to use the software legally? It depends on your definition of "legally". Right now, I think your situation is still up to the courts. Will Autodesk send the BSA to your house tomorrow? Most likely not.

I think right now, as far as Autodesk is concerned, the original purchaser is still the license holder, and the license is non-transferable.

It's pretty difficult to compare tangible goods to software. Just because you are holding a physical CD means little.... Anyone with a few dollars can have a blank CD screen printed and then copy the digital data onto it - and voila - you have an "actual CD with the software on it" as you put it...

[skipsophrenic]

ok it's a huge price difference, but isn't reselling a computer
application the same as re-selling a game/video/dvd? even they're not
supposed to be re-sold and yet they do every day.

[dbroada]

goods aren't meant to be taken from a shop without payment but that happens every day too. Just because something is common doesn't make it legal.

We have FACT visit us on a regular basis checking the validity of our software. Would you think "cheap" software is still a bargin after you have lost a multi-million pound contract?

[ReMark]

I see no harm in trying to recoup part of your original investment of $3000+ dollars by selling your non-pirated copy of AutoCAD after you no longer need it. AutoDesk got paid the initial full price. If they are concerned about who has the software then require the seller to forward the buyer's name and address so it can be tracked.

[skipsophrenic]

i agree there re-mark, infact you've highlighted my point, when I was
on about the games/dvd's being sold on i should have been clearer, i
meant those that had beel legally paid for.

And like you stated in an earlier post a while back, he re-seller says
he's SELLING you the product right up untill End User's Lifetime
Agreement when lo-and behold it's a lease.:?

I think that maybe what should happen is change supplier name from
re-SELLER to re-LEASER to allow clarity for new customers.

[StykFacE]

i agree there re-mark, infact you've highlighted my point, when I was
on about the games/dvd's being sold on i should have been clearer, i
meant those that had beel legally paid for.

And like you stated in an earlier post a while back, he re-seller says
he's SELLING you the product right up untill End User's Lifetime
Agreement when lo-and behold it's a lease.:?

I think that maybe what should happen is change supplier name from
re-SELLER to re-LEASER to allow clarity for new customers.
LOL.... well there's a HUGE difference in reselling AutoCAD vs. reselling a "game" or a "dvd". The biggest difference, is that you make money using AutoCAD. You do not make money for a game, or DVD. It is simply for entertainment. This is why AutoCAD has a licensing agreement that it does, because it is a digital tool, not just a peice of entertainment for your viewing pleasure.

My company literally makes its millions each year from using Autodesk's software. A $5,000 purchase is just apart of the industry standard in Dallas/Ft. Worth area so we can provide our customer with what they want.

[rkmcswain]

I see no harm in trying to recoup part of your original investment of $3000+ dollars by selling your non-pirated copy of AutoCAD after you no longer need it. AutoDesk got paid the initial full price.

No flaming please... I'm not taking sides here... But Autodesk wants to sell a new license to each person in the world that needs one. If I purchase a license today and then you need a license next week, and I sell you mine - then Autodesk has only sold one (to me) instead of two (to me and you). I don't think they really care about whose name is tied to each license.

[rkmcswain]

well there's a HUGE difference in reselling AutoCAD vs. reselling a "game" or a "dvd". The biggest difference, is that you make money using AutoCAD. You do not make money for a game, or DVD. It is simply for entertainment. This is why AutoCAD has a licensing agreement that it does, because it is a digital tool, not just a peice of entertainment for your viewing pleasure. I have to disagree with you on that...

As an example, both "Autodesk" and "EA sports" employ hundreds, if not thousands of people who all draw a paycheck. They both produce a product that can be duplicated without cost (or very little cost). Autodesk could not care less if you make money with AutoCAD or not - other than the fact that if you do make money, you will probably buy more software from them. The next version of AutoCAD is the same as the latest game from "EA Sports" or whatever...--> A product designed to offer something new over the last version...

Consider if you were a full time, one man programmer who developed a great software application. It doesn't matter if it's a drafting program or a game or whatever... Say it took you 2000 hours (1 year) to make, test, and market the application. You need to make $100,000 to cover the costs and provide yourself with a living. You sell one copy for $500 and then that buyer makes 200 copies and gives them away for free. Your total sales = $500 instead of $100,000

Now, could Autodesk sell AutoCAD for $1000 or $500 or could "EA Sports" sell NBA Live 2008 for $2 and each still make a good profit? Who knows? That is a different debate. But I don't think piracy can be justified by the differences in the product being pirated...

[skipsophrenic]

But I don't think piracy can be justified by the
differences in the product being pirated...

a good point and my appologies to everyone if I sounded like I was advocatin
for piracy - i wasn't.

The only versions i was refering to as "Re-Selling" were the original versions
person "A" bought with their own cash. no copies thank you

[rkmcswain]

The only versions i was refering to as "Re-Selling" were the original versions
person "A" bought with their own cash. no copies thank you

I think that is another reason that Autodesk (and others) are so strict about no reselling at all. Besides the fact that they lose new sales, by freely allowing resale of a license, the lines between what is legal and what is not start to blur. Say "Company A" that sells a few unused seats to "Company B", who in turn makes a "few extra copies" and gives them to "Company C", who does the same thing, etc., etc., and then next thing you know, it's out of hand.

[StykFacE]

But I don't think piracy can be justified by the differences in the product being pirated...
For the record I was not justifying pirating games or dvd's (and if I sounded like I was, my apologies).... But to me personally I do believe there's a difference in the reason of buying an Autodesk product vs. buying an entertainment product. I was only debating the comparison that skipso made (no pun intended).

However you did make a good example, mcswain. I definitely see your point.

Personally, if the entire market will bare the costs of an Autodesk product as their industry standard, then so be it - EULA, price, and all. To gripe and complain that someone else's product is "too overpriced" and "no reselling options is crap" is basically admitting that you are willing to surpress free economic markets. How would anyone like it if other people came to your company and told you that you had to drop your prices because they think it's too much, or change your contract to be able to resell because they think it's not fair.

To me, my summing up in the last statement is always a "case closed" conversation to anything along these topics. But, that's just the conservative in me. :)

[ReMark]

I think too many of you are basing your opinions on the premise that Joe User is going to go into the software piracy business thereby putting AutoDesk out of business. For the record: I do not advocate making/selling copies of any AutoDesk product. Period.

[MaxwellEdison]

I'll agree with you on that Styk, to a point. My problem though is that the alternatives are not readily available. Outside of Solidworks and Microstation I can't think of too many other competitors for them. I think one of the biggest reasons for this is Autodesk's "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" strategy.

Of course I still see some good things out of Autodesk, namely their student download area. This was a win/win as students can get comfortable on multiple types of software, giving companies a more complete toolset. And Autodesk insures that they will remain the standard as such a majority of the workforce is used to using their products.

[StykFacE]

I'll agree with you on that Styk, to a point. My problem though is that the alternatives are not readily available. Outside of Solidworks and Microstation I can't think of too many other competitors for them.
So how is this in any way Autodesk's fault? Because of the fact there's not many other competitors, that doesn't give anybody a right to tell them what to put in their EULA or how much to price their product. That's basically my point in it all. :)

Now think of it this way.... lets say the entire market FINALLY gets fed up with Autodesk, and start switching to a newer, better software. Well then Autodesk would be up sh*t creek without a paddle unless they rethink their price or software package to compete.

Nobody forces anything on anyone, other than the force of what the "market" put in place by majority of each and every individual/company who participated. :)

[ReMark]

...surpress free economic markets...

Styk is one humorous dude. We, the users, are trying to suppress AutoDesk's free economic market buy reselling legit software when we no longer have any need for it. LOL I think it's the other way around. If AutoDesk is worried about it they can initiate a buy back program.

[StykFacE]

...surpress free economic markets...

Styk is one humorous dude. We, the users, are trying to suppress AutoDesk's free economic market buy reselling legit software when we no longer have any need for it. LOL I think it's the other way around. If AutoDesk is worried about it they can initiate a buy back program.
Hey, I'm not gonna agree with their way of doing business... my point is only that it's THEIR business, THEIR product. Which basically means that we have no say so in it at all. :)

I do not and will not tell any company how to run their own interests. :wink:

[ReMark]

Styk: You've never made a suggestion, good, bad or indifferent regarding the way your company conducts business? I find that difficult to believe. You're so outspoken here but you are a quiet little churchmouse at work? No, no, no; I don't believe it for a minute. Next you'll be telling me there is no Santa Claus! LOL

[StykFacE]

Styk: You've never made a suggestion, good, bad or indifferent regarding the way your company conducts business? I find that difficult to believe. You're so outspoken here but you are a quiet little churchmouse at work? No, no, no; I don't believe it for a minute. Next you'll be telling me there is no Santa Claus! LOL
Mark, I'll have my opinions on just about anything... sure. :)

And for the record I do believe that Autodesk is a monopoly, and no I don't agree with their outrageous prices and "subscription" purchasing. Happy now Mark? Does my humble admittance gain you a warm fuzzy feeling inside my brotha from another mutha?? haha j/k :wink:

[MaxwellEdison]

My point is that such product is unlikely to come along soon. And certainly would not present itself as a viable option overnight. Autodesk has been buying out small to medium sized companies before they become a threat. I think Solidworks opened their eyes on this front as their own parametric software offerings were relatively anemic when it came out (Mechanical Desktop anyone?).

There is nothing inherently wrong in their strategy, in fact it is very savvy. It insulates them from the risk of the industry abandoning them, and enables them to keep unpopular business practices around. Basically, I don't hate the player, I'm just frustrated at the game. Even if it is the best game in town.

[ReMark]

I'm a grumpy old man therefore I am never truely happy.

And what's this about being twin sons of a different mother? I'll have you know I'm way more handsome in a Senatorial way. LOL

[ReMark]

Back on topic.

How about a transfer of license fee? AutoDesk still makes some money and they also know who has their software. This would only be applicable to users selling their AutoDesk software because they are 1) going out of business, 2) changing to different (non-AutoDesk) software and 3) not as a result of upgrading to the latest version. In the last case, the user would have to return the previous version of the software within 30 days of receiving the upgrade.

[Evott]

Very good information guys! I was surprised to see so many posts today. R. Waddington takes a stand and Vernor vs. Autodesk are great examples of how Autodesks "rules or agreements" are not enough to envoke or outweigh the main laws and rights of consumers.

I read the EULA that cadtutor posted and it was a lot different from the EULA that is on my old AutoCad CD. I see that AutoDesk is trying to perfect their EULA as the years go by. The EULA on my CD is pretty poor and really has no legal affliction. It states about a 15 day trial that ends, but it really doesn't end if I reinstall the program. It restarts with 15 days. I don't even have to put in the Authorization number. It doesn't say "which 15 days or anything about reinstalling". Even at the end of the EULA there is a statement that the agreement and license are terminated if you go bankrupt or go into liquidation. So baslically if the company went out of business or liquidated, the software agreement is no longer valid, and the program in questions is just a program to do what you wish.

When I talked to autodesk opporators they did not want to say much about anything almost like they had something to hide.

I see now ebay is selling hundreds of used Autocad products every week and they range from $50 to $2000 depending on how old, new and what versions. I even asked Autodesk about this and they pretty much had no comment other than the sellers wern't allowed to sell it. Ebay is pretty strict and is not stopping the selling or buying and now Autodesk isn't. It must be within the law becuase if would not be taking place if it wasn't. Thats just one place. There are many other places that sell new and used AutoCad that are not a authorized resellers you can find them all over the web. I'm talking about Genuine AutoCad software, not fake illegal copies. There is a big different between something Geniune and something pirated.

I agree with stykFace that AutoCad is a tool that some use to make a profit or do business but over all that shouldn't matter. You use your truck to get to work, you use your OS to run your computer, thousands of things are tools to do business or personal use why should Autodesk be any different? Yes they have the right to protect their software, but their EULA seems to be overstepping our main rights as consumers. Taking advantage of customers is poor business. But we don't have to buy it right?

In my opinion AutoCad is the best 2D software and I agree that Autodesk should charge more becuase of that, but not 20 times more. It seems greedy and its going to hurt them in the long run. If some company makes better 2D software their prices will come down for sure.

Just a note I did see new Full AutoCad 2009 LT for $758 online.

[ReMark]

It must have been a slow day in the office for this thread to resurface. We go at it like this every several months or so. The last discussion got a bit far afield and someone felt the need to step in and shut it down. But like a bad penny it tends to resurface ever again. I don't mind the bantering it generates. Most of us here respect the guy/gal on the other side of the table so for the most part it doesn't get close to becoming a shouting match or a verbal duel to the death. All in good fun and the spirit of debate. Works for me.

[MaxwellEdison]

It must have been a slow day in the office for this thread to resurface. We go at it like this every several months or so. The last discussion got a bit far afield and someone felt the need to step in and shut it down. But like a bad penny it tends to resurface ever again. I don't mind the bantering it generates. Most of us here respect the guy/gal on the other side of the table so for the most part it doesn't get close to becoming a shouting match or a verbal duel to the death. All in good fun and the spirit of debate. Works for me.
To summarize, it has the same effect as discussing politics or religion. But fewer death threats as we're reasonable folk.

[StykFacE]

I agree with stykFace that AutoCad is a tool that some use to make a profit or do business but over all that shouldn't matter. You use your truck to get to work, you use your OS to run your computer, thousands of things are tools to do business or personal use why should Autodesk be any different?
What do you mean "why should Autodesk be any different"? So Autodesk should be forced to do business how someone else sees right? Hmmm... a little socialist view isn't it? Last I checked the owner(s) of a company has every right to set their own guidelines for their own product. :)


Yes they have the right to protect their software, but their EULA seems to be overstepping our main rights as consumers. Taking advantage of customers is poor business. But we don't have to buy it right?

In my opinion AutoCad is the best 2D software and I agree that Autodesk should charge more becuase of that, but not 20 times more. It seems greedy and its going to hurt them in the long run. If some company makes better 2D software their prices will come down for sure.
So, you have had absolutely no experience in the development process of AutoCAD, and you feel that as a "consumer" you have the right to tell them their software is too much even with no experience on how much money actually might go into the software as a whole. Have I summed it up pretty accurately?

So, you're saying, that as a customer you have a right, not a privilege but a moral and justifiable right to actually tell another company what their prices should be??

:lol: I'm not flaming, I'm just raising some points is all. Don't think I'm hounding on ya or anything. :wink:

[Evott]

Yeah they have the right to put their own guidelines on anything they want, they just can't legally inforce it? Some people will obide some people won't. When it all comes down to it, they made extra profit from the guidelines. More power to them :) Gotta make money!

Well thats why I said in my opinion about the price. But yes I have freedom of speech. They don't have to listen :) They can sell it for whatever they want :)

Really the price is has nothing to do with the EULA, but when it all comes down to at the end of the month. Money is Money.

It's very hard for a small business just starting or an individual to buy a new version of Autocad. They have pretty much borrow the money or have a very good capable credit card. When the price of software or license costs as much as a good used car you kinda have to stop and think. lol! Even the windows OS's are $100-300 and thats an entire operating system that runs everything on your computer. Way more years and money developing that then Autodesk has spent.

I'm just venting all my facts and opinions, I like to discuss these kinds of issues. I'm layed back and welcome to all points :D

[StykFacE]

There are definitely cheaper options that does create a *.DWG file, however. For a small company that is the best option. :)

[rustysilo]

Don't even get me started on this whole thing again.:glare:

[Xenophon]

what are the going prices for old copies

like is this 2006 mechanical (http://cgi.ebay.com/Autocad-Mechanical-2006_W0QQitemZ130276368127QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_So ftware?hash=item130276368127&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A570%7C66%3A4%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A2%7C2 40%3A1318) really only worth 50$


while this civil 2009 (http://cgi.ebay.com/AutoCAD-Civil-3D-2009-Professional_W0QQitemZ250343190681QQcmdZViewItemQQ ptZUS_Software?hash=item250343190681&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A570%7C66%3A4%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A2%7C2 40%3A1318)worth 4995$
?


and where do you buy bulk discounted boxes of old copies?:shock:

[StykFacE]

What's funny is if you're going to "buy" illegal software at a discount rate, why don't you just go download it off a torrent site or something for free instead like the rest of the people do?? That's what gets me. If you're going to do something illegal, do it all the way illegal and not half ass. haha

*NOTE* I do not promote the use of downloading illegal software. :wink:

[ReMark]

Consumers influence pricing by buying or not buying a product. Look at the price for a barrel of oil and a gallon of gasoline.

Under the current court ruling I believe that buying a "used" version of an AutoDesk program would not be considered illegal. A bit-torrent version however would be.

[Xenophon]

Consumers influence pricing by buying or not buying a product. Look at the price for a barrel of oil and a gallon of gasoline.

Under the current court ruling I believe that buying a "used" version of an AutoDesk program would not be considered illegal. A bit-torrent version however would be.


1st sale matters just as much as any other inaliable human right i suppose if we accept the paradime

b-t def. not legal. buying a used copy, great deal plus you get the manuals, (if they make them any more) i still have my R12 manuals 2 sets actually anybody want to buy?

[StykFacE]

Consumers influence pricing by buying or not buying a product.
It's funny that you admit this but on the other hand you blame Autodesk for being greedy with their pricing of their own software..... :wink:

So which is it Mark for Autodesk's high prices.... Is it Autodesk being greedy or is it the influence of customers from purchases? :)

[skipsophrenic]

all the legalities and things are givin me a headache - I've just checked the
EULA on one of my games and that say's nothin about re-sale prohibitions,
at least not in terms a layman like me can understand:P

However I still feel that there shoud be a way to "lock" the content on the
cd so as it can't be copied like they do with dvd's, at least that way then it
would help to "Negate" the possibility of piracy.

I know that it won't be possible to stop it completly but If they make it
harder to copy couldn't they then just put some sort of clause in the EULA
like "If you choose to re-sell this product, please inform Autodesk of the
change in liscence ownership and provide 10% of your profits - no charge
will be applied to the new user."

Am I just hoping for a miracle with something like that to happen?:unsure:

[Xenophon]

yes

because more than a miracle it would be a new prison for us all.

remember jon johansen , hero

thus proving any trap that can be made by a human can be broken by one

[Bill Tillman]

All I can say is AutoDesk better stop with the strong arm tactics and let their customers alone. And here is why I say that.

The company I'm working for will soon be out of business, but the owner is starting up a small time consulting biz that he wants my help with. He uses a Mac with TurboCAD. I have heard of TurboCAD before but never really looked into it until this morning. TurboCAD does:

2D and 3D
Solids
Rendering
Has extensive library of shapes, etc...
and last but not least, works with DWG files both in and out
in short, it seems to do everything that AutoCAD can do

and the coup de grâce.... TurboCAD for the Mac is only $150, TurboCAD for the PC is $1,295, which is only a fraction of what AutoCAD costs.

[StykFacE]

This has been an alternative for years now. :)

[skipsophrenic]

This has been an alternative for years now. :)

yup, I first heard about it at college and wondered why more people werent using it - erm where do be the marketing?

[Raggi_Thor]

I've tried TurboCAD (many ears ago) and I didn't like the user interface, but then I didn't like Microstation neither. On the other hand, I did like Inventor from the first try. As you may know, now I sell Bricscad as an AutoCAD substitute and Alibre as an Inventor/SolidWorks killer :)

[f700es]

TurboCAD is not a bad solution but I think the Mac and PC version have some differences. The mac edition of the Pro version is $499.95 while yes, the pro Win version is around $1,250. I have tried both the mac and pc versions and they are pretty good. I do fail to see how changing from PC to Mac and then an entire new system is going to be a good business model. Seems that to abandon his investment already made in one CAD system to change to a new one as not a good plan but I do not have all the information. Best of luck and keep us up to date. Might be a niche market that needs to be filled :)

http://www.turbocad.com/