A very simple question for you. How often have you resold software that you legally purchased? Often enough, right? Well, if it's up to Autodesk, the company behind AutoCAD, you will no longer be allowed to resell your software. Update: As it turns out, the matter has already been resolved: Autodesk lost. A win for all of us.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-01-18
Member since:2006-01-06
Here's a scenario that bothers me. Let's say User A installs a copy of AutoCAD on his machine, and then turns around and sells the physical media to User B. User A continues to use the AutoCAD installed on his machine. User B installs AutoCAD, and likewise starts to use the software. This is a wrinkle that the judge doesn't seem to have considered. He's looking at this case purely as a sale of physical media.
But that's not what AutoDesk is concerned about. AutoDesk only benefits from the first sale. They don't get any profit from the second or third or fourth or ... Nth user, even though some subset of the users are still running their software. It's the reason why ISVs resort to DRM in order to prevent casual copying. But I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, and it isn't as simple as the judge is portrying here.
Edited 2009-09-30 18:41 UTC
Member since:2005-07-07
He doesn't have to.
First your scenario is not the situation he had to decide on and second the scenario includes an illegal act on behalf of User A, i.e. this has already been taken care of by law.
Member since:2005-07-06
But that's not what AutoDesk is concerned about. AutoDesk only benefits from the first sale. They don't get any profit from the second or third or fourth or ... Nth user, even though some subset of the users are still running their software. It's the reason why ISVs resort to DRM in order to prevent casual copying. But I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, and it isn't as simple as the judge is portrying here.
Easily solved by noting that any sale of software either has to explicitly state that it is either just the license, just the media or both. What you are talking about is piracy - an individual has one licence and entitled to install one copy per licence. If the seller continues to use the software after selling, and unless explicitly stated in the sale, the assumption is that the licence has been transferred and the seller has no right to continue using it.
Using Autodesk logic - no music cd's should be able to get sold either given you can easily copy a cd then sell it. You could say the same thing about DVD's as well - claiming they can't be resold. There are many things that would be impacted if they did allow Autodesk's position to stand.
Oh, and Autodesk should curl up in a corner and die; how long must Mac users wait for them to finally get off their ass and produce a Mac version of their software? if not for their clusterf--k treatment of customers that I despise them, its for their refusal to acknowledge Mac users demand for their product - are they hell bent on entrenching the Windows monopoly further through their refusal to port to Mac OS X?
Member since:2006-02-15
Here's a scenario that bothers me. Let's say User A installs a copy of AutoCAD on his machine, and then turns around and sells the physical media to User B. User A continues to use the AutoCAD installed on his machine. User B installs AutoCAD, and likewise starts to use the software. This is a wrinkle that the judge doesn't seem to have considered. He's looking at this case purely as a sale of physical media.
I have no idea how it is there in the US, but here in Finland it is seen as a copyright infringement if you keep copies of the software while still selling the original media away. You are allowed to sell the media but you must either include all backup copies or destroy them, including any installed copies.
Member since:
2005-07-13
*spoiler alert*
Autodesk loses. Judge tosses the license/EULA argument, and rules under doctrine of first sale. If it looks like a product sale, and smells like a product sale, then it is a product sale.
This case was ruled on more than a year ago in Vernor's favor, and unless this signals an appeal to the ninth circuit court, of which there is no reference, this article is a wee bit stale.