eBay Seller Sues Autodesk for $10 Million

Where do I send a contribution to support your efforts...

This has has been a bone of contention for some time now.


I can see how this may apply to even copies of "Windows" that I purchase, then cannot be installed on a new computer that I buy...Do you want me to prove I removed it from the old computer? Not a problem! Is this an option? NO...New computer, you need a new OS.

Will, you can search for Timothy Vernor on eBay as "happyhourcollectables" if you wish to contact him directly regarding helping his cause. For an update, see my article at 3dcadnews.blog.com.

You are allowed to resell autodesk products that have never been registered. Once registered you are signing the license agreement and that license cannot be sold. This article doesn't mention if this is a used copy of autocad or not. I would be more careful when selling software items of huge paranoid corperations. I mean, what was the scenerio? If it was never used, just return it to the store. If it was used, you can't sell it.

...I would have to agree with this lawsuit. I have been using Autodesk products for over 17+ years in the Manufacturing Industry and all the companies I have worked for have always had issues dealing with Autodesk's upgrade tactics!

Here's an example of today's issue if you want to start your own business using Autodesk Products.
1. Open your doors for business.
2. Buy AutoCAD.
3. Bid a Job.
Sounds pretty simple right? ...well look a little deeper into the steps stated.
- You can only buy the latest copy of AutoCAD. period!
- Your client has to have work created with his version of AutoCAD (one prior to yours because he's been in business for many years)

Why is this acceptable/legal practice for any software company?

Here's the skinny: These software giants have figured out how to force you to upgrade! Many places of business can operate for years with the same version of a software! The consumer should have that choice! Consumers should be able to open a business and buy used versions of software!

It's all about GREED! It's just WRONG!

Ben, if the (Autodesk) software box was opened the license agreement automatically goes in force according to the documentation whether it was installed or not. It, therefore could not be returned anywhere.

If the software was registered is another issue. Only Adesk could say who the registered seat went to. If they did, Mr. Vernor could request from Adesk if the original owner registered the following or any following release of Autocad. Any post of release automatically makes the previous released software obsolete and therefore must be removed from use. Potentially allowing the software to be resold according to Mr. Vernor's court filing.

Mr. Vernor may have found a small loophole in Adesks licensing agreements regarding previous releases of any Autodesk product. The CYA is on them now to close the loop legally with a lenient judge.

Right now I'd say the law is on Mr. Vernors side provided the judge views obsolete software property as anyone would a car or peice of furniture.

It used to be that Autodesk would permit a transfer of license if the original purchaser wanted to sell their software. That was some time ago and it was my understanding at the time (late 90's) that they were going to stop doing that, but were still making exceptions for "grandfathered" customers...at the time I recall that some paperwork had to be filled out & sent in with $100 - I had to hand off the paperwork to our office manager, who then droppped the ball...needless to say, a certain amount of scrambling, wheedling, and micromanagement was required on my part to get the deal done. Sheesh.

Once upon a time, about 100 years ago, book publishers tried to prevent people from reselling their books. The publishers printed a contract on the reverse of the title page indicating the terms of sale, which included restrictions on resale. Does this sound familiar? The Supreme Court of the US thought it was disingenuous and described what is known as the "Doctrine of First Sale." The copyright holders interest in a particular authorized copy of their work ends once it is "sold," even if is given away for free. Once you buy an authorized copy of a copyrighted work, it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. Congress eventually overhauled the copyright laws in 1976 and codified the Doctrine of First Sale explicitly in law. That's 17 USC 109 for those playing at home.

Now software companies are trying the same stunt book publishers did 100 years ago. Some circuits are going for it, some aren't. I predict there will be a showdown at the SCOTUS. In the meantime, sites like eBay cave in because they don't want trouble. Thankfully, people like Mr. Vernor are willing to stand up to bullies like Autodesk and Microsoft.



READ CAREFULLY. By reading this blog comment you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release the author of this blog comment ("SENDER") from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that SENDER has entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to SENDERS ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release sender from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

drm, cheap advertising, and rich market-data etc have increased sales for many of these companies but most discover that the internet is a two-edged sword when their attempt at screwing an individual gets wide and damaging exposure on the net. thank dog we have blogs and no longer have to rely on murdochs minions to get and spread info. good luck, vernor

I got a notice from a ROYALTY FREE STOCK PHOTO disc company from eBay also. I worked at a small agency that closed and I ended with 50 stock discs - of no real use to me but apparently once you buy it, you can never re-sell it. I suppose it makes sense on one hand because it's pretty easy to copy it off and re-sell it but on the other hand, what's my alternative? To throw it away? Or I donated it to the library so now, thousands of people in my county can check it out and dupe it ALL THEY want. Lawyers are idiots sometimes.

I am an Autodesk employee. Not a lawyer, just a software guy. I don't know how far this will get. First of all, there is hardly justification for $10m in damages.

But let's consider and appreciate that software is a different animal than books. All digital media is, because of the possibility of perfect copies. Any recent software from Autodesk is pretty well protected. You can't just run it because you have a copy. You get 30 days to register, typically.

I will agree that using DMCA takedown is probably incorrect here, regardless of whether the software is transferable. But lawyers will use anything, and the tragedy of the DMCA is that it gives lawyers another tool to take stuff to court that most courts do not understand, and cannot rationally rule on.

I am sure this will get a lot of play in the company; there are many people here who do not want to be the bad guys.

One can make perfect copies of the copyrighted material contained in books. It is not the printing that is copyrighted, but the text. There exist numerous pdfs which are but copies of scanned books. Also photocopying a book, while expensive, delivers a perfect copy of the copyrighted material.

Glad someone is standing up for this.
The software industry has gone to far with this "licensing" nonsense.

I purshased an early release (I think it was version 7) or AutoCad many moons ago. The company I was working for paid for the upgrades as I continued to use it for 19 years until spring of 2005. The company I worked for closed for business. I attempted to have the license changed out of the old company name and back to my personal name. I would then continue to purchase the subscription and keep the software up to date.
SORRY, They are not willing to do that.
As it stands I am still running version 2006 on the same computer as it was when I worked for said CLOSED company but am not a subscription or software package owner.
I suppose I am breaking the DMCA laws in the eyes of AutoDesk.

Abandon AutoCAD , WIndows ( in any form ) and go to Ubuntu Linux and QCAD.

It doesn't matter what the agreement says. It could say that "once you open this box you must send your first born to AutoDesk." This would be an illegal contract since it is against the law to enter into a contract where you sell a human. So, just because an agreement makes claims or statements does not mean that the claims will hold up in the court of law. There are laws and judicial rulings concerning "fair use" and transfer of license. Garth Brooks make this claim several years ago when he tried to stop second hand stores from selling his CDs. Of course his claim did not hold up. Imagine if you bought a car and the software that powers it has a non-transferable license and it was against the law to sell that license to another party. So, we shall see what the ruling is if this case indeed goes to trial and is not settled out of court. My guess is AutoDesk has more to lose than gain by going to jury trial.

I think that the real issue here is a confusion of terms. Like a book, it makes no sense whatsoever to restrict the sale of the original installation media. Remember though, that buying software typically isn't just the media, but a license to install and operate the software contained therein. The contract for that license states how many installations are allowed for the amount of money paid. This is completely independent of the media. The real problem is that there is no allowance for *un*installing the software. Sure you can sell the media (no one should be issuing take-downs for that), but I think that AutoDesk has the right to say that the license is non-transferable based on the contract (the enforceability of a shrink-wrap contract notwithstanding). The money paid was for that installation.

The battle should be to allow people to call a company to give up their installation rights. The Doctrine of First Sale should require that a license can be sold/given away just like any other purchased entity, but of course it's nearly impossible to prove that someone has uninstalled software (thereby giving up their license rights) and can't reinstall it. This is a technical challenge though, and shouldn't affect legal standing.

AutoDesk is clearly in the wrong with their action here. The proper action (given the current legal climate) should be to simply disallow resale customers the right to install the software by claiming that no valid license accompanied their media. The technical challenge and overhead of product activation/deactivation is daunting though, and this perhaps seemed the easier route.

Use pirate copies instead! Do you have watch dogs that go to your company to ascertain if you use legal software? Bah! Can't believe that!

If this is a contract issue a shrink wrap license with the license inside the box shouldn't be legal. If I remember my Business Law from the 1970's for a contract to be valid you must have a meeting of the minds.(ie. an agreement on the terms of the contract.) If you don't have ready access to the license before the sale then there is no agreement and therefore isn't the contract null and void. If this is still so this raises all sorts of issues. Unfortunately stores won't take back software that has been opened. Therefore if you read the liscense you are stuck with the product or you make a big stink. Unfortunately soft ware companies make a lot of political donations and can get the law changed to suit their manner of business, and can afford to argue in court. To fight them in court, you really need a class action suit to pay for the attorneys to get rich, you normally get nothing or a small discount on more merchandise(software) that the company sells.

Best news I've heard since the latest in the SCO v World trials.

After reading this and everyone's comments, I am amazed at how such big companies such as Autodesk can get it so wrong. It's like they confuse themselves with all the legalities they loose track.

Want to check out Andrew Scott MacKay (bar #197074)
record: here you go

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=197074

One important detail is that even AutoDesk claims that they are selling you only a license to use their software (as opposed to selling the software as a product), when you purchase it in a store, you pay tax on it.

Now if you think about that, something is wrong -- normally one doesn't pay any tax on a license or service.

So either we have been illegally overcharged for the taxes on AutoDesk's licenses, or else AutoDesk is selling products.

Another point is that for a contract to be valid, four things must be present:

1) A "Meeting of the Minds" (Mutual Consent)
2) Offer and Acceptance
3) Mutual Consideration (The mutual exchange of something of value)
4) Performance or Delivery

In AutoDesk's theory, they have a few problems -- since one cannot read the contract before one purchases the package there is no meeting of the minds! Therefore there is no valid contract, and AutoDesk's software really is a product.

Addressing the point about forcing upgrade. That isn't true. you aren't forced to upgrade to work w/ other releases. AutoCAD files can be saved down just fine in newer versions (all the way down to R14 still i believe). You aren't forced to upgrade. and yes, the file format changes, not to get you to upgrade, but b/c the file format is limited in the features they can provide and therefore the format must change to fully support that.

Actually, to buy AutoCAD you talk with a reseller. At this point you can get a copy of the license or you can view it online.

http://estore.autodesk.com/dr/sat3/ec_main.entry9?sp=10347&pn=1&s1=q1#q1

See number 8.

Y'know, I played this game with MS back in about 1997 or so. My solution, then, was to sic the CA Attorney General's office on eBay. AFAIK, that was the origin of their "we don't know nuthin' 'bout the legality of this software sale" disclaimer, as it went up about 6 weeks later.

I'm mostly surprised that Autodesk thinks they can make that dog hunt ten years later.

the real problem here is a decision made by the courts some 20 years ago. It was decided that the process of loading software from media into the computer's RAM constituted making a copy of the software, therefore a license is required in order to run the software. Without the license, that $4000 CD becomes an expensive drink coaster. Software companies have used that decision to pack all sorts of extremely one sided conditions onto the required license terms, and the consumer has no choice but to take it or leave it.

Personally, I would be very happy if the courts were to decide that sale of the software media came with an implied license to make as many copies of the software as required to use the software as described in the software documentation, and that this license was transferable, provided that it was accompanied by all copies of the software.

the argument simply boils down to, "why aren't you using a pirated version?" This way instead of a way over priced $4,000 non-sellable license you get just what you need right when you need it with out the horrible registration process and time consuming activations from autodesk.

when the pirated versions become easier than the legit versions, why not change? as an engineer that uses cad everyday i'd love to say i have a legit copy. I had a budget of $1,000 to get one, but you can't buy anything newer than ACAD2002 LT.

I tried to pay them money, but they didn't want it, not my problem. maybe they'll go out of business soon, microstation is better anyways.

Years ago our office used ACAD for a while until I got sick of the CONSTANT upgrade 'game' they play. IMHO it is simple robbery at gunpoint and it seems to me that our industries and professional organizations should have been fighting this blackmail tactic all along. The 'upgrades' have moved from every few years, to 2 years to annually! What's next, every 6 months you have to shell out another 50% of the original cost to stay current? It's too much to swallow. $10m isn't near enough.

"There exist numerous pdfs which are but copies of scanned books." Which is fine if the copyright has expired. Copyright expires so society can further benefit from the work. Which in this case might mean you can have all the classic books in your handheld, waiting to illuminate you.

Someone in another message said "$10 million is way too much... " and people talk about greed or whatever. But the real point is... you have to make the company HURT a little bit to make them change their tactics. $10 million may make AutoDesk hurt a little bit. It may sting. And if this "little guy" (HOORAY!) wins, it sets a precedent. Now... AutoDesk REALLY puts themselves at risk if they continue to pursue this practice.

Get a grip, AutoDesk. You can charge whatever you want for your software. But when someone is finished with it and removes it from their computer, you should expect that they may try to find a fair market price for an older piece of software out there-- and there's nothing you can do about it. Buck up, chin up and into the fray and go find someone to buy a new copy and stop picking on your CUSTOMERS.

Spuds

"It was decided that the process of loading software from media into the computer's RAM constituted making a copy of the software, therefore a license is required in order to run the software."

That was the original legal theory behind the EULA, however, that theory is fundamentally flawed, and no longer pertainent.

--
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
--

In other words, buying the software (Adobe vs. Softman - if it walks like a sale, it is a sale). Quoting Adobe vs Softman -

--
It is well-settled that in determining whether a transaction is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the economic realities of the exchange ...

(quoting Microsoft vs DAK) "Because we look to the economic realities of the agreement, the fact that the agreement labels itself a "license" and calls the payments "royalties," both terms that arguably imply periodic payment for the use rather than sale of technology, does not control our analysis." ...

The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.12

...

Raymond Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology § 1.18[1] p. 1-103 (1992). The Court agrees that a single payment for a perpetual transfer of possession is, in reality, a sale of personal proper and therefore transfers ownership of that property, the copy of the software.
--

In other words, there's a good chance this case will be permitted to go forward - there's plenty of case law both sides can attempt to use.

If Autocad wants their software licenses to be leased instead of sold, they need to state this plain and simple and out in the open. Because that's in effect exactly what they are doing with it in actual practice. I guess they must fear they'll lose business and further loss of goodwill in the marketplace if they stated bluntly that their software was leased, and not sold... and that's probably correct. But the way they're doing things now is very misleading to their customer.

Fortunately there is an alternative out there. Visit the website:

( dubya dubya dubya dot intellicad dot com )

You'll figure out the URL from that phonetic representation.

If Davinci Sells you the Mona Lisa and then paints another one exactly the same and sells it to someone else, who owns the Mona Lisa? The answer, Davinci. Autodesk OWNS Autocad. You have the right to hold a copy in your hand, put it on your wall or put it in your computer and use it. You can hold your copy of Harry Potter in your hand, burn it or sell it. Who owns Harry Potter? The author. If Autodesk makes it hard to USE the software by not allowing the "Transfer of the license" then they should just allow the Ebay seller to sell the disk. It will work for 30 days, and the buyer of the disc will have to Register it. If the buyer finds that it is still registered to someone else, then they are out of luck. Autodesk is making it hard for people to install and use registered copy on more than one machine at a time. If the ebay seller is selling the "Ready to register" disc, then that is different than "Good Luck Registering This" disc.

I have had same problem, I was given a copy of 3D Studio as payment for work by a company. Autodesk refused to provide support or upgrades or acknowledge any legal right to use the product.
The net result was I ended up using alternative software (Shade 3D) -so clearly a sound business practice as well as being totally unjustifiable.

Personally, I think this is a GREAT case... Frankly, I'd love to see some sort of Internet fund created so Vernor would be hard-pressed to NOT accept a settlement from AutoDesk (and/or eBay). If he accepts a settlement, then this issue continues unresolved...

Or maybe we all should put up software on eBay, get DMCA shakedown notices, then all sue these software companies...

The CAD vendors wants to lock users in, you can not open a native CAD file with another CAD software without problems (proprietary data format), CAD software vendors should compete on the bases of "Ease of use", "Functionalities", "Performance".
The design belongs of users/user companies, in the ideal world, a user should be able to pick any CAD software to create and edit their design.
I believe the CAD companies are not doing as good of a job to compete fairly, and we are paying the price, I do not like it.

I believe it was Eagle Point software that required a key to be plugged into a port on your PC in order to run the software. Sell the software? Better sell the key as well, or the new owner won't be able to run the software. Sold the key? Can't run the software. What you do with the software and key once you've bought it is your own business. A little more trouble to ship keys? Probably, but right now they ship multiple licenses for their software in a box the size of a DVD. Just a thought.

Before I offer my 2cents into the fray, in the sake of full disclosure, I do work for an Autodesk VAR.

First, have any of you actually read your Autodesk license agreement? This is from the license agreement that comes up during installation.

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE OR DO NOT WISH TO BIND YOURSELF OR THE ENTITY YOU REPRESENT: (A) DO NOT COPY, INSTALL, UPLOAD, ACCESS OR USE THE SOFTWARE; (B) SELECT “I REJECT” AT THE END OF THIS AGREEMENT (WHICH WILL CANCEL THE LOADING OF THE SOFTWARE); AND (C) WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION, RETURN THE SOFTWARE TO THE LOCATION WHERE YOU ACQUIRED IT FOR A REFUND.

So you do have a choice after the software is purchased, you can choose not the accept the agreement and return the software.

Second, I do think companies should be able to to sell their old software if they aren't using it. But here's a question for you, what happens when someone unscrupulous sells his copy? A real world example from the early days of eBay: A person places his copy of AutoCAD for sale under 40 different user names, he is willing to supply his serial number to every person that contacts him to verify the validity of the license, but informs each user that he lost his manuals, so they are only getting the CD. 40 sales end within 24 hours of each other, ranging in price from $800 to $1000 & he ships out 40 CD’s, all with the same serial number. The first person to receive his/her CD is able to register the software but the next 39 are locked out. Although the villain in this is the seller, you have 39 folks upset with Autodesk for not allowing them to register the software that they paid good money for. Now start multiplying the numbers into the thousands or tens of thousands and you have a good argument as to why Autodesk has taken the route of not allowing transfers in most cases.

Now what if that person took this copy from the company he was at? Those of you cheering this on, remember the consequences of your actions when an employee leaves your company with a copy of your software and then sells it on eBay and you lose your license.

I have been in the engieering business for 20 years. In that time I have used AutoCAD for 18 of those years. I have used version 9 through version 2007. Currently I use AutoDesk's Land Desktop 2004 version of AutoCAD. In 20 years the basic capabilities of the software have not changed from other similar software used at the beginning of my career. Yet over that time myself or my company has paid almost $40,000.00 per seat to buy and keep up with AutoCAD. This does not include training to run the software and lost time fixing glitches and consutmizing the program for your use only to realize that in 3 upgrades you have to start all over with the trainin and customization. All this with no real improvement on their end. Most of the improvements made are purchased code from other comapanies and indivudals who have developed killer LISP routines. The real cost to use their product aggregates to roughly $160,000.00 to efficiently use features of their highend AutoCAD with "add ons" package over 20 years. That is per seat. Having Owned and Operated engieering firms, This is not an exageration!

Whether AutoCAD is a lease or a purchase to a business it is an investement and an expense allbeit a poor one. AutoDesk is the ENRON of CAD Companies in many respects. The software is a money pit plain and simple. I would support a class action law suit to bring them back to reality with there own product. Because there are 1 billion dwg files floating out there they act as a monopoly. Its time they are made to pay for there lack of innovation and their lack of real progress in their software.

Quote 9/13/2007 8:31 AM by Steve
"Sounds pretty simple right? ...well look a little deeper into the steps stated.
- You can only buy the latest copy of AutoCAD. period!
- Your client has to have work created with his version of AutoCAD (one prior to yours because he's been in business for many years)"

Where did you hear you can only buy the most current release of Autocad? As a reseller, I can sell you all the way back to 2005 until it comes up for retirement this Winter. With 2007-08 AutoCad, you can save your drawings all the way back to Autocad 2000, if you want to use .dxf, you can go all the way back to R12 if you want.

As for operating for years on the same version, I have a very large client that uses Autocad 2000 and is perfectly content with it and there's no reason or requirement for them to change anything.

Autodesk isn't going to try and support that version if and when new operating systems come out, it's totally a waste of thier time and resources. Computers and technology are advancing and the engineering software industry is taking huge leaps and bounds right now with the software it's producing.

Autodesk doesn't ONLY sell and support AutoCad. Take a look at thier website and get an idea what else they do. Autocad itself is just an electronic drafting table with some bells and whistles. Take a look at some of the "vertical" products that go above and WAY beyond Autocad.

You as a consumer have a right, you can go buy a different cad product or go back to the drawing boards.

Quote 9/13/2007 11:15 PM by IV User sais "Actually, to buy AutoCAD you talk with a reseller. At this point you can get a copy of the license or you can view it online. "

Actually, you can purchase AutoCad and AutoCad LT from places like CDW, Dell, and some of the large box stores. That's JUST Autocad and Autocad LT, not the other software they sell. Well, except for maybe Autosketch, and there's another artsy drawing program.

There ARE exceptions for transfering licenses. I have a client that's merging with another company and we're moving both companies to the same license. It CAN be done, talk to your local reseller.

Quote 9/14/2007 8:55 AM by The CAE guy "you can not open a native CAD file with another CAD software without problems " .. Can you open a MS Money File in Quicken without issues?? Can you open a Word Perfect document in MS Word without issues?? Those are easy comparisons. Now, try taking a look at how many "cad" programs there are and you want the files to be completely compatible across the board?!?! Wow, you're asking for a miracle. The .dwg format is one that all the other cad programs try to emulate. If not .dwg, then they have .dxf.

9/14/2007 8:56 AM by chuck Software "dongles" don't work well at all. Just look at Asia, Autodesk sells all thier overseas products with a hard ware lock included but, they just write code to get around it and mass produce it and sell it.

Buy the license, get yourself on subscription and just pay the annual rate at the reduced subscription price and get on with it. It's all part of doing business. If you want to be in this business, you need to stay current. If the software companies want to keep improving the product, they need EULA's like they have so they can still make more money. Go ahead, make pirate copies, Autodesk is VERY agressive about piracy and when you get slapped with that, it's not going to tickle.

Expect every commercial software vendor in the US to weigh in in favor of Autocad. There are so many ridiculous clauses in a EULA no serious enforcement is permissible.

ugh, this has turned into "wah, us little people are getting screwed". Wake up folks, Autodesk needs to make money for their stockholders, just like any other company. AutoCAD is pirated all the time, money lost. Rules are rules. They need to protect their investment like any other company. Hey, why not complain about Walmart!! Or lets talk about GM screwing everyone over in Flint MI. If you don't like the price, buy something cheap. Most of you probably are driving a Lexus. Why not skimp on that price. Gas at $3, Exxon making billions. Please, enough of the crybaby boo hoo Autodesk hates us. This is another case of some loser ahole trying to make a quick buck that he doesn't deserve. Good old USA way of making money. I hope he burns

Just upgraded my personal possesion (yes, I bought it w/ my own $ & have since R11) to 2008; maybe for the last time. It is so troublesome & expensive, because I do CAD all day for others, using their AutoCAD, not mine. My AutoCAD (mine, because I bought it w/ my $, originally registered in my personal name, which Autodesk refused to acknowledge a few versions ago & I had to come up w/ a business name for that particular upgrade) is a tool I maintain @ home so I can stay current w/ the software. I very rarely make any $ w/ my AutoCAD, because I don't get too excited about doing CAD @ home since I do it all day @ work. So, it is a very big expense w/ literally no ROI for me. Hence my current objective to find an alternative that is a lot cheaper for home. Then, maybe convice my boss to save $ by using that alternative if it proves out. Autodesk, are you listening? Remember what your founder thought about the customers? He rightly believed if you keep them happy, they will buy. But not every yr. as you now so greadily insist. Who is Autodesk's best competitor w/ similar lisp capabilities?

I used AutCAD up to r13. One day my dongle hardware lock just failed. The vendor grudgingly replaced it after my outrage at his claiming that Autodesk, by virtue of the 'license agreement' was expressly not bound to do so. He recommended that 'licensees' prepare for this by insuring their dongles for the full price of a new software 'license'. Insure a dongle! If that is not enough to turn you away from restrictively licensed software entirely, I don't know what is.

The situation with CAD software is that one company has an almost complete lock-in on the market, a situation far worse than MS and Windows. At least Gnu/Linux is a perfectly viable alternative for many people. I am just glad I'm not deeply into an industry like architecture and certain branches of engineering where it's pretty much a requirement that you run this software. It's actually the fault of the architectural profession and other industries that they have acquiesced over the last 20 years into letting a single company have ridiculous power over the key way in which they do their work.

I am a firm believer and practictioner of free software, not least because I believe it would be far better for industry and commerce. Autodesk was one of the early drivers of my current views. Trying to pry AutoDesk out of this driver's seat is going to be one of the hardest battles the FOSS movement will ever fight.

The first step is for architects, engineers, and designers to recognize the problem and insist on open standards, and, wherever possible, begin a gradual move to free and open source alternatives.

Several inaccuracies?

Until recently, the box that Auto CAD came in had a note on it saying this is a "licensed product" and that "the complete terms were included inside the box" and that if after reading, you do not agree to the terms, you can return the soaftware.
The new versions come from our dealer in a brown box with no license warnings. This leads me to my next point...

As far as I am aware, Auto CAD must be purchased from an "autorized dealer" and cannot be bought "off the shelf" like other software. The Dealer should make the client aware of the restricted licensing.

Don't get me wrong, I think Auto Desk is screwing their cutomers and ripping them off, but it seems their are a few inaccuracies with the claims of this article.

I also love how the Autodesk dealer above states outright that AutoCAD, a $4,000 software package, is 'just an electronic drafting table with some bells and whistles.' That a company can successfully 'sell' such a product for such a price should be some indication of the outrageous state of this industrial monopoly.

I wonder why this program is so often pirated??????????

I think book publishers ought to take a second crack at preventing the resale of books. They took the wrong approach 100 years ago; they should have claimed that a non-transferable license was necessary to read a book. This would be the same as the software situation, where an original copy can be resold, but not the non-transferable license to actually use that copy.

Copyright holders are being really dumb by trying to sell licenses rather than copies. If a customer can't resell their copy, then that legal copy has no value to the purchaser, so they have no incentive to prevent illegal copying. Right now, I can sell a legally-owned CD on eBay, so I'll think twice before giving a copy away; but I can't practically resell an iTunes song, so why would I make any effort to prevent it from being copied?

adesker wrote:
"
I am sure this will get a lot of play in the company; there are many people here who do not want to be the bad guys."

Then don't. I think its bullshit that "we only license, not sell" software. If I buy a 4,000 tool wouldn't you think a legitimate tool like that has some sort of resale value? So you are telling me punishing everyone selling autodesk software on ebay is immediately a pirate. I've heard some Bss aackwards stuff before, But the autodesk people really do show how much the like their consumers.

I just bought Autodesk Civil3D2008 for far more than I could afford because, as you know, used/obsolete software that I'm competent with isn't available. Now, even after training I'm still not properly up and running. FYI - registration is now part of installation. Simply put, "no register - no install". I don't know how much more of this screwing my cojones can stand. I might just have to suck it up and go back to IntelliCAD.

Autodesk is far from a monopoly. There are plenty of products out on the market that plenty of people use to create engineering drawings. If you think Autodesk is any different than SolidWorks, PTC, Bentley, etc., then you do not know about the business. ALL of these software manufacturers have the same policies. If you buy the license, it is yours. If you want to "sell, trade, giveaway" your license, then you need to prove the license is yours and transfer the license in a legal way with legal documentation. All of the previous people who have posted that they got a license by doing work for another company or that their company went under and they received the license as severance, or whatever...IF you contact your dealer, there is a way (for a small legal fee...that is thanks to the lawyers) to have the license changed into your name. BUT...you need to have proper documentation and signatures. All of these "hoops" that "you" have to jump through to transfer a license were put into place back with Releases 14/2000. Reason...employees were leaving companies, taking the license and upgrading them before the ex-employees' companies knew. Once they were upgraded, the company that originally purchased the software was now forced to file a theft claim with the police against the ex-employee. So, all of these rules are there to PROTECT the company that invests THEIR money into the licenses.
As for the ones that suggest they pirate the licenses...I really hope SBA finds you. Do you condone stealing cars, robbing banks, etc.? If you don't, then you should be against pirating licenses. It is the SAME thing! You are stealing something AND then you use it to make money. It would be just like stealing a car and starting a taxi service with it.
I hope the courts throw this out and it costs this guy a bunch of money in legal fees. The license agreement is very clear and is agreed to when installed. As pointed out, if you do not agree with the license agreement, you have 30 days to return it to the dealer you purchased it from (have had this happen on a few occasions). This guy is selling someone else's license and cannot prove if the rightful owner agreed to the sale of his license. Again, goes back to possibilities of employee theft. Rules and laws were written to bring order out of chaos. The rules and laws are written on this subject. For those that don't like the rules of the license agreement, buy another software package. Oh...wait...they have the same license agreement. Oh, well you could pirate it (thieves!) until SBA gets you and you end up paying twice the list price of the license as well as legal fees per license in use. That will get your attention...and may put you out of business. Yes, I do work for a VAR and proud of it. AutoCAD and the vertical products available are incredible tools to help engineers and designers create everything around us, quickly and efficiently. Otherwise, they could all go back to paper and pen and everything would take years to get to market. Should we go back to 1900? Or continue moving forward....

"Furthermore the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is only intended to enforce copyright violations, not breach of contract."

That's just it -- copyright should never be considered part of criminal law. Copyright violations are simply breaches of contract.

However, once you posess the copyrighted content, you have the full moral (if not legal) right to do whatever you want with it -- resell it, copy it, whatever. The copyright (contract) only pertains to your relationship with the holder who sold it to you.

Restrictive covenants should always be non-binding, whether they involve copyrights, homeowners associations, employer non-compete clauses (you can't work for a competitor or recruit for them after you quit a company), closed shop unions, etc.

You should always retain the right to control your own physical property and contract with somebody else, even if it breaks a prior contract (including copyright). The idea of "intellectual" property is fiction (read Stephan Kinsella).

It seems to me that most of the software companies out there rise to power by the free flow of piracy (a la Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, Adobe...and certainly AutoDesk.

Name one top player that would be there if people didn't pirate their software (thusly, becoming familiar and PRODUCTIVE with it). Everyone liked using software they used it at home, and could get their managers to buy it for work and use without feeling like a criminal. Now, the software companies are clenching their asses so tight that they are going to crush their customers to death. Managers don't want to pay $thousands every year for software that isn't broken. It is now officially prohibitively difficult and expensive to use legitimately licensed and paid for software than if it were torrented.

Congratulations MegaSoftCorps, now everyone despises you. Buuuuut, we can't refuse to use your software because every company needs...excellent job...you sound like my crack dealer.

Pirating DOES NOT = Freedom. It = what most of you are complaining about, higher prices, for a number of resaons, not just loss of profit on the stolen products.

Yes, as someone above pointed out, you can only buy Autodesk software from an Authorized Reseller. The reason, piracy. Autodesk controls their reseller channel strictly to avoid license fraud. If you could just go out and buy a copy, it would make it far easier to pirate and a lot harder to uncover piracy schemes. Unfortuneately, since it requires a reseller channel to control piracy issues (among other things like providing onsite support, technical assistance, and training, all of which users demand, but are not possible to adequetly be perfromed by a software development company giant like Autodesk), they have to pay the reseller channel. Ergo, higher software prices.

Why is this so important to control? Not greed, expenses. Despite what you may believe, R&D is incredibly expensive. Without rolling income from subscriptions on new releases, Autodesk would not be able to afford to meet the thousands of demands it's customers and AUGI gurus send in every year for the next release. CAD users want newer and faster versions but often complain Autodesk is screwing them when they charge for it.

Does Autodesk make alot of money, sure. They're in it to make money, like any company, but they are also in it to help engineers build the roads and bridges we drive on, the buildings we live in, and the planes we fly in. We all like the technology, why ridicule the company that allows it to develop? Microsoft is in the same position, they created an industry standard tool and are villified for charging for it. Stop and imagine how incredibly difficult it would be if AutoCAD wasn't industry standard and it was replaced by say 4 different competeing products? CAD users now can't figure out how to move data from one version to the next, how are they going to reconcile 4 different file types?

Is the lawsuit above valid? I'd say the guy's got a case only if he's selling used copies obtained legally with serial numbers and proof of uninstall. If he's selling pre-registered copies, he'd be in violation of Autodesk's reseller agreement (that is to say he wouldn't have one :) Either way, this is a nuisance, nothing more. Carol Bartz shit $10 million dollars yesterday. I just hope for the guy's sake, the army of lawyers Autodesk has doesn't end up suing him.

CORRECTIONS:

Autodesk licensing IS transferable. Happens all the time. They even have forms for it. Anyone who tried and failed probaly dealt with someone in the channel who was not familiar with the process or did not persue the right avenue to get this done. Always work with a GOOD local reseller, makes it much easier to own and operate Autodesk software.

ALL Autodesk software is backward compatible and also compatible with almost every vector or raster file format available, not to mention numerous GIS, construction, and manufacturing file types. You are also most certainly able to purchase new copies of earlier releases of AutoCAD and it's verticals. What "Steve" from above may have been refering to is that in most cases, Autodesk pricing is set so that it does not make fiscal sense to buy earlier versions. They ARE available. So, in short, his customer could be working with data from a variety of file types from multiple manufacturers or previous verisons of AutoCAD and his version of AutoCAD 2008 should be just fine. Steve should insert step 3.5 into business plan "Learn to use the software correctly after 17 years and stop bitching". Consumers have a choice and they continually choose to buy the latest and greatest. Buying software is no different than a car or a house. I could live in a house that's 100 years old and have a car that's 20 years old without "upgrading" for years too.

I started using AutoCad by buying a used copy of release 9 and had my local dealer transfer ownership from the previous owner and have been upgrading it ever since. My first problem with AutoDesk was when I tried to upgrade after dissolving my consulting company. They claimed that was an unacceptable transfer. It took about 20 hours of work to prove that I was me. Since then I've paid many thousand $ for no reason other than to be compatible with other users. I have *never* called AutoDesk for service or help. The newer releases have no other value to me, but the price keeps going up. I now run the design division of a company with about 2 dozen licenses and we are converting to SolidWorks partially because of AutoDesk's policies toward their customers. I buy and sell used cars, used books, and used DVDs. If I can't buy and sell used software, that's OK, I'll just take my business somewhere else.

This is the AEC NEWS site so let's put this into context Architects understand:

You the Architect = Developer = Autodesk.
Potential House Builder = Licensee


You design and create blue prints (software) which are then licensed by potential house builders. How many of you allow the Potential House Builder to then resell the blue print once they finish building the house from your blue prints?

Or do you usually attached a provision that states the blue prints are strictly for their use to build as many houses (create drawings) as they need however, they cannot resell the blue prints becuase they are your copyrighted material.

Wow! More than 50 comments in one day. This is certainly an AECnews record. But I have to wonder -- if I demanded all comments come with a real name, how many would we have?

OK, I'll say it again. You CAN buy Autocad from other than Authorized Value Added Resellers. Look at this link to CDW.. http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=944191 CDW is NOT an Autodesk Value Added Reseller. Dell is also selling computers with Autocad installed on them. Notice, I said AutoCAD, not Autodesk PRODUCTS.. Autocad IS an Autodesk product but, it's one program that's available off the shelf from other places besides Autodesk Value Added Resellers. You can buy Autocad LT (also an Autodesk product) from places like CompUSA and Best Buy.

Autodesk would rather the resellers focus on the vertical products than the base product of Autocad, that's why it's available to places like CDW and Dell Computers.

For Dan above, perhaps if you HAD called the Autodesk Customer Service number, you wouldn't have had to spend 20 hours trying to prove who you are.. 20 hours.. really??

IV User, when you talk about plans being used for multiple houses, you're getting into a whole different arena. The Architect has to sign the actual drawings certifying that the house will stand based on the engineering work that's been done at that site. Using those same plans to go and build another from at a different site is against the law in every state unless the Architect has given you signed originals with different locations on the plans.

Iamnotapirate said: “It seems to me that most of the software companies out there rise to power by the free flow of piracy (a la Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, Adobe...and certainly AutoDesk.”
AMEN BRO!!! Billy Gates said he was not concerned about the millions of pirates in China offing his Windows; “They gotta upgrade someday”, was his answer to the inquiry. “…crack dealer” is a very good analogy for all of us that are ‘hooked’ on ACAD; we can’t get off the stuff; they got us by the short hairs.
Autodesk used to care about its customers & try to please them; back when small volume dealers were still around; that is how they got so big; remember “keep the customer satisfied” as the song went. Now that we are hooked, they don’t feel they need to please us any more. I don’t need the verticals for what I do (@ home or for my boss); & I have yet to find an Authorized Dealer that is capable of providing the tech support I have needed over the yrs.
When I first bought R11, I registered it w/ a small dealer in Southeast Alaska (name?) that was a user; so when I had a problem he got right back to me w/ the answer. Then Adesk made all those small dealers sell out or just took the dealership away I do not remember, & the goof balls that got it in Anchorage were as helpful as my dog. They have since gone away, someone else has it now, but as most of you have found, it is about sales (software or classes of some sort, which generally are a waste of time/$ w/ very little true ROI for us the end user).
Since then, I have found User groups such as SPAUG to be the best source for providing answers to real Acad questions or problems because they are ‘doin it’. Not like the typical tech support that is hypothetical in nature because they aren’t users, they are techies reading scripts, not having a clue as to what you are asking them & have to go find out what the h___ you were talking about; then try to find an answer.
Those @ Autodesk that have been helpful are few & far between. In fact the only ones I have gotten any decent help from were @ AU & I very literally had to jump them verbally to get the needed help. Oh, & did I say how much that AU experience cost my boss?! I was tickled to go, & it WAS great; but a little guy like me that keeps his own LEGAL, licensed Acad @ home can’t afford the $Ks it has cost me since first injecting myself w/ the AutoCAD drug (remember, Autodesk = Crack dealer) starting w/ R11 (current w/ 2008). I shudder to think of all the $Ks I have spent to stay current, thinking I will be glad some day I did so, having actually made probably 2K total in CAD work out of my house over the past 14 yrs. Oh, I originally bought the PC so I could learn Acad @ home. Hey, I just remembered my 1st Acad WAS a pirated copy the PC dealer gave to me (R12 on 12 floppies, from a BB near Portland), which I loaded on & learned Acad by doing it!!! I became dangerous enough @ it to actually be hired; then I bought my own Acad starting w/ an unregistered copy of R11. It was not stolen, the owner did not need all the 20 seats he originally bought, so he sold me one of the extras to me which had not been registered.
Why is it so costly for someone not making any $ off the software to keep current? Maybe I should go pirate (again); I am not making any $, so what is the lost to Adesk?!

Seems to me like if I have a thing in my hand that I paid money for, I own that thing, regardless of whether I can buy a fancy printer and make a perfect facsimile of this book I have or whether I can use my computer to burn another disc. I can give or sell the original thing but I can't make copies, see, that's illegal, and it has been for over a century. If I have the original box and/or manual, and I have the disc then, by grannies, I oughta be able to sell it if I don't wanna use it any more, and that means I don't keep any "backup" copies around, and I don't make copies for my friends either. And if I downloaded that software then I should still be able to sell my ONE copy so long as I was smart and kept all my receipts and PDF manuals and whatnot, and hand them over to the buyer.

Lawyers and the execs at companies like AutoDesk need to be knocked off their gold-leafed hobby horses and put in their law-abiding, democracy-respecting places, where they belong.

Hello!
Just one quick question : How can any software company verify that you (the original customer) have uninstalled all copies of their software before reselling the software license? Remember you were using the software... And no the software vendor doesn't use hardware dongles. Why? Because the customers don't want to use hardware dongles. They even consider that locking a license to a specific machine is bad.
This is especially true is the management software business.

To sump up things: If I the software vendor( yes, I do work for a management software vendor ;) ) can't reliably verify that you got rid of all your installed copies, I will be creating a problem for my company.

I do understand those who say: I should be able to resell the software I bought, but there's no realistic way to verify this transfer without taking a leap of faith and believing the original customer has done things legally.
J.C.

P.S. I would like to hear your opinions on this trust issue...

I "sold" an unopened box of 3D Max on Ebay many MANY moons ago. Autodesk emailed me to remove it an hour before auction ended because I was not a re-seller. I asked if I could give it away instead of selling it and they said yes. So I did to the highest bidder... with hundreds of dollars in shipping and handling fees.

Hurrah for Timothy S. Vernor!

The real deal about Auto CAD?
It's BAD SOFTWARE! It's a nightmare and stupidly time consuming to use in businesses where time is a lot of money.
It has marketing dominance because of it's restrictive marketing practices.

If everyone just switched to other programs such as SketchUp, which is better, cheaper and much easier to use (and AutoCAD compatible) Autodesk would have to come into the real world and start making reasonably priced user friendly software.
Boycott Autodesk products and save yourself some grief! And a LOT of money.

"Editor's Note: With the exception of a few spelling corrections ..."

You missed one:

"The first sale doctrine allows an individual to transfer ( i.e. sell, giveaway etc.) ..."

The verb form of "giveaway" is "give away". Using compound nouns as verbs is a frequent error. For example, "backup" and "makeup" are both nouns; their verb forms are "back up" and "make up".

Also, both "i.e." and "give away" should be followed by commas. The corrected sentence begins:

"The first sale doctrine allows an individual to transfer (i.e., sell, give away, etc.) ..."

Wow. Just looking at the depth and breadth of animosity towards Autodesk that this has unleashed points to the inescapable conclusion that they've done something wrong, very wrong, when it comes to keeping their customers happy. I mean, Autodesk = crack dealer?

The corollary to this conclusion is that, some time ago, Autodesk decided that this level of discontent among their customers is not relevant to the success of their business. While their defenders - a significant percentage of whom are employees or VARs - preach loudly about allowing The Free Market to confer market dominance on such supposedly superior products, their policies are aimed more towards a Soviet-style central monopoly, enforced not by thugs in KGB uniforms but by thugs in suits known as copyright lawyers. There simply would not be so much venom if they really were trying to compete solely by "building a better mousetrap" and playing by Adam Smith's rules.

I myself work for a company that merged with a larger company in 2005. Prior to the merger, we were just about to abandon AutoCAD in favor of a competing product, due to Autodesk's continual shenanigans (they were about to "retire" the version of AutoCAD we were using). Subsequently, we had to follow the larger company's standard of continuing to use AutoCAD. So I still use it, under protest, but my experience certainly corroborates the assertions about how hugely expensive it is, not only to acquire, but especially to use.

AutoDesk is LAME, non compatable with most CAD programs, its growing as a nonconformant simply put that their PROGRAM is way behind the times. This is a great opportunity to put them out of buisness

BOYCOTT AUTODESK

Randall,
If people add to an argument, for or against (not just beefing), I would rather see their comments with or without a name. However in this discussion Autodesk employeeeees and dealers SHOULD fully identify themselves. They are part of the system, as I am, and as such have an obligation to disclose - it is not really a choice!
Furthermore employees of Autodesk maybe should touch base with Autodesk before they go into bat for their employer; identifying their association and defending Autodesk's position they are taking on the role of spokesperson and that may not be in Autodesk interest and or it could be counter productive as can been seen in Ralph's WorldCAD Access Blog in relation to this topic.
R. Paul Waddington.

Without "killing off" the competition, the (crack)dealer A'CAD, has effectively installed their software in possibly hundreds of thousands of government, commercial,[i]educational[/i] and private computers. I guess they got there first, and biggest, with an aggressive sales staff(I wonder who they work for now?lol).
What kind of "new" developments would possibly make the next release better than the current issue?
The software absolutely requires user function. It cannot create content itself, just by using a "search" function.
If users were to boycott this software for five-or maybe even two years, the lower end versions price would drop to the floor. Remember, just like anything else, it always comes back to supply vs. demand=price.
The greatest service this blog has created, is not the legal issue...it is in the availability of license transfers, the backwards compatibility, and several explanations of why they have a tough ELUA.
Yes, there are many Computer Aided Drafting software programs out there, the horrific prices AutoCAD costs, have lined their pockets, long enough!

Can i buy a licence of ACAD for 4K. I pay 1,5k maintenance an I sell each year the old versions for 2k.

Thank you, 'speling natzi' for the point on 'giveaway.' You are 100% correct.

I legally bought and own a copy of 3ds Max 4, for $3000, than legally upgraded to version 5.0, now both these programs are removed from my computer, and replaced with a "LEGAL" copy of lightwave 3D, unfortunately I am now stuck with these programs because I cannot resell them on ebay, yes the whole package, original manuals and all, am I supposed to throw this very expensive software out with the trash, I think not, so it sits on my bookshelf taking up space unused, the original seller should always have the right to resell whatever he or she buys, I can sell a car, I can sell a book, I can sell my games, and some software, but I cannot sell AutoDesk products, this to me is an outrage, and yes that is my real name, I hope this ebay seller wins this suit, than maybe we the users can finally have a voice in how businesses should treat their customers, I say "BRAVO" and godspeed to this user!!!

Well, here's my only caveat for my comment. As long as the software was not UPGRADED I agree with this guy. The catch is, a software UPGRADE gives you credit (partially) for the software you purchased previously. If someone then takes the UPGRADED software and sells it, in my mind that is double-dipping and is wrong.

However, if this is software someone bought, used, then no longer needed, there should be NOTHING to prevent it's use by someone else so long as the original owner releases his rights/deletes his files. Software, music and just about every company in the business of making bits and bytes are really treading on our rights. I hope there is a digital revolution soon. I'm ready, willing and able....

This is quite a messed up situation.

I'm a studio max user, and I must admit that I'm blown away daily by its functions. So all this bad mouthing is probably just because some of you are upset. I really think it sucks that you cannot buy or sell their products second hand, but they still make damn fine applications :)

Ta!

The plaintiff claims an "agreement" as given in the EULA doesn't even exist, which Autodesk could reasonably contest if the software was ever registered, although the plaintiff would still not be a party to the agreement. But even if the court finds that such an agreement does exist, the plaintiff cites a 1908 Supreme Court ruling to argue that the court should invalidate any provisions in that agreement that prohibit the purchaser from reselling his purchase to another buyer. If that should happen, the assets of thousands of companies would suddenly increase by an amount equal to the fair market resale value of each license (currently 0 because of the prohibition against resale) times the number of licenses owned. So there is a large class consisting of all owners of Autodesk software licenses who have a direct interest in this case. Now I'm not a lawyer but that sure sounds like a reasonable basis for an amicus curiae brief...any takers?

It sure seems to me like Autodesk abuses their hold on the market. I hope this guy wins.

where can I sign up to be a part of The Class(less) Action suit against Autodisk?
I want my piece of summary judgement (POS). where do we sign up? I 'upgraded' last year by actually buying legit copys of ADT2007 & 3dsmax8 on subscription = $8,600 with taxes included. ouch. I am self employed or was. now I got to get a real job to work off the debt.

In Germany we have a B2B second hand software business up an running. We won lawsuits regarding Microsoft volume licenses. The lawsuit with Oracle is ongoing. Autodesk, SAP and others don’t like it, but do not take action against transfers of licenses.
B2B second hand software will be a Billion US$ business in Europe in a couple of years.

Just an FYI, Not related to the Licensing but their business ethics is Autodesk's practice of competing in production services direct to the clients of their user base. True, bid meetings with Autodesk at the other end of the table competing with their own users customer base. Makes one see the logic of all those out there running illegal copies of their products but then that would be not be ethical, there's other choices but they do have control in the market with their products. Someone said greed? Good luck to Mr. Vernor.

From my experience when you purchase "used" software from Ebay or other sites, the product has already been registered, which limits your abilty to upgrade the "used" product when you want to move to a new release. This is common practice followed by most of the software companies that sell software.

You are right, upgrading the software is the "hiccup". The vast majority of license holders I'm sure are sustainable businesses that pony up and upgrade their copies periodically. That would render the old copy useless - at least in the legal terms. However, for the man above who stated he spent $8,500 on the software in a venture into private practice, and now is back working for someone else on their CAD, should he not be able to sell that license that he no longer uses, needs, etc? I think so. Like selling a $4,000 tool, a $20,000 car, or even the computer that the software runs on. It's getting crazy with these digital "rights" groups. I am ready for a revolution in the way we get software. I'm ready for our courts to shoot down this type of crap. Same for the iTunes song. What if you want to sell it to your neighbor because you just really don't like the new Avril Lavigne but she does? So you can hand her the CD you bought and say "here, it's yours", but with that iTunes music you do not have any such option. Everyone is on the license bandwagon. Pretty soon your cel phone will be licensed too.

And guess what? Pretty soon the consumer will wake up and revolt. How? I don't know but I'm sure it'll send ripples through the economy and anyone who makes money by abusing shady licensing practices will end up finding out the hard way. I don't even have AutoCAD at home (at work use it all day) but I support anyone who wants to pirate this crap. For crying out loud, if that's the only voice we have then let it be heard loud and clear.

Same for the other software companies. I have much disdain for them. They're turning into the new RIAA...

Fuck em all...everything is overpriced...if you want it YOU CAN GET IT...

Typical Autodesk crap.
They should have their arses dragged throught the coals.

Can I say I understand why the last several comments have been made but I would like to suggest instead of venting in this manner on Randall's blog you simply right to the CEO's of the companies you have issues with, d0 it repeatedly and get all your friends to do it also.

Joe wants a revolution and a revolution he can have if he goes about this way. The Internet has given us this voice now let users do it in mass.

I have been doing what I suggest for a long time with very little support and if you would like to see my latest effort go to www.miletter.blogspot.com and guys get writing those letters.

R. Paul Waddington.

You guys who posted dozens of comments regarding the legality of Mr. Vernor transferring AutoCAD licenses have missed one important point. Mr. Vernor is not the licensee (the original purchaser of the SW license was) and hence not a party to the contract (license) whatsoever. He is NOT breaking a license agreement because he never had one.

So, what law is he breaking by selling AutoCAD since he has no contract with Autodesk?

I discoverd this blog from a link at Chief Architect. Very glad I did and I have read each post. Wow what a world. I can't believe that this type of business practice has been tolerated for so long. I am so glad i just stuck with r14 (no its not pirated)and ignored autodesks emails that they were discontinuing support for it many yrs ago. Big deal, it works perfectly for what I do. Never had a problem putting it on a newer computer. My tutorials came from the internet from some university and I also have the autocad tutorial and bought an Instructional