Jump to content

Autodesk loses court battle - Selling your licence


LCE

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ReMark

    25

  • tzframpton

    23

  • LCE

    17

  • rkmcswain

    12

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...