Excellent news Dean! Thanks for sharing! I've been so busy this month that this one had slipped past me.
Excellent News? Thats BS.. Autodesk's heavy handed license dealings would not fly if they were not the juggernaut that they have grown into. On those grounds, Id definitley choose a different product if they had not bought them all up.
We incorporated two firms here, one partner who purchased his original copies and seats of AutoCAD back in the day. He dissolved his previous firm and became a partner here. Even though he purchased the copies of AutoCAD back then and would then continue to use them here at our firm, Autodesk wants to charge you ~$1000 for a 'license transfer fee'
Explain to me how that is warranted. Its an extension of these 'EUA / License Agreements' fine print crap.
Maybe Autodesk is the change they want to see in the world, where the only players are giant corporations and small Architectural firms that cant swing their fees fall by the wayside.
Lets flip this around, shall we. How do you justify a cost of $100 to do this, using back-of-napkin calculations?
$100? Since Autodesk keeps tabs on which s/n is with each license, $100 seems fair for the administrative duties required to change the address of the licensee.
To say to the purchaser of the licenses, now that you have moved to a new address, even within the verbage of the LSA, 'Licensee's Personell' and you yourself using the licenses, now have to pay a transfer fee.
In fact in pouring over the LSA, I was unable to find where it was stated that the Licensee could not continue to use his products even after relocating.
I take offense to the satement 'your company is benefitting from software that they did not purchase.'
I purchased a stand alone Revit Suite upon completing college, prior to any employment and have paid the annual subscription fee every year since. No small purchase.
Our company purchased standalone and network seats sufficient to cover our small staff.
If I understand the case from the OP, the Vernor vs Autodesk Inc., Vernor purchased an unactivated copy of Autodesk something and resold it. While this may seem like it is circumventing Autodesk and authorized resellers from the process, was it shown that these channels were not the initial source of the software that Vernor purchased? Ie,.. Autodesk already received compensation for a product that was unrealized by the licensee.
There's nothing offensive about my statement. If the company benefits from creating/selling/profitting from intellectual property that it did not purchase directly, then it is doing so outside of the scope of the license agreement. You should realize that the TOL is a benefit that allows for the legal transfer of ownership of the lease on the license from one entity to another. This is not a bad thing. Otherwise, according to the EULA, the license itself would simply be terminated.
2.1 License Grant. Autodesk grants You a nonsublicensable, nonexclusive, nontransferable, limited license to Install and use machine-readable object code copies of the Software and User Documentation in Your Territory, in accordance with the applicable User Documentation and within the scope of the License Parameters. Autodesk’s license grant (and, with that grant, Your right to Install and use the Software and User Documentation) is conditioned on Your continuous compliance with all license limitations, restrictions and other terms in this Agreement. If You violate any of these limitations, restrictions or other terms, the license grant will automatically and immediately terminate. The license descriptions in this Section 2 (Software License) define the scope of rights that Autodesk grants to You. Any usage of the Software or User Documentation outside the scope of the applicable license grant or otherwise not in accordance with this Agreement constitutes an infringement of Autodesk’s intellectual property rights as well as a material breach of this Agreement. No license is granted under the terms of this Agreement to Excluded Materials (if any). No license is granted under the terms of this Agreement if You did not lawfully acquire the Software from Autodesk or from a third party who has been permitted or authorized by Autodesk either directly or indirectly to supply the Software.
3.2 Prohibited Actions. Autodesk does not permit any of the following actions and You acknowledge that such actions shall be prohibited:
3.2.1 Use. You may not (and may not permit any third party to) Install, Access, or otherwise copy or use the Autodesk Materials except as expressly authorized by this Agreement.
3.2.3 Transfers. You may not distribute, rent, loan, lease, sell, sublicense, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of the Autodesk Materials, or any rights granted in this Agreement, to any other person or legal entity without the prior written consent of Autodesk.
That is some dancing around the definition of transfer.
A 'comapny' does not sign a check, agree to terms of license. An individual, responsible for employing others, makes that purchase, signs that check, manages finances, agrees to terms.
What I read from this is that Autodesk jobs are more important than drafter and architectural jobs.
The offense comes from your quote "It's warranted because your company is benefitting from software that they did not purchase." If you are going to be a stickler about licensing terms, pick your pronouns with care. My company uses software that we purchased.
Kind of like being married - you don't have to agree but you *do* have to live with it. Fighting tooth-and-nail just ends up with both sides in a bad mood.
As a married man and a Revit user, I agree. Where else do you voice your opinion on these matters though.
The Vernor vs Autodesk Inc. ruling has rather widespread implications for 'software'.. Will this be the end of all second hand gaming software resellers? What happens to non-commercial users that may have depended on low-cost second hand software to function such as community outreach training centers and transitional training facilites. Not that either ruling effects me directly, but I'm kind of a principles guy.
For this board, its all a moot point once Autodesk shifts to an entirely cloud based product interface. Hope no one here will be stuck in a 3 year T1 contract when that happens. Ahh.. dependencies.
Lets take note of the ruling by the Ninth Circut, perhaps primarily of all factors "(3) lowers prices for all consumers by spreading costs among a large number of purchasers;" Anyone care to place a wager and revisit this thread in 3-5 years?
>>>...second hand gaming software resellers...<<<
It is sad when anyone loses a job, even more sad when whole classes of businesses disappear, but it happens as we progress through the times we are in (video rental stores, comic book stores, music stores, etc.).
>>>...Not that either ruling effects me directly....<<<
And that's the point of this thread, which seems to have drifted into saving the 'unknown' little guy when it reality it is more about protecting the truly little guy who thinks he's buying real software for real money on eBay (or name your source) only to find out he cannot activate it or use it and is truly out of pocket a large chunk of money.
>>>..."(3) lowers prices for all consumers by spreading costs among a large number of purchasers;"...<<<
That usually means pricing will not sky rocket any faster than it could: anyone who thinks it means prices will drop is not grasping reality too well 🙂
I might say that the buisiness that you mention that have fallen by the wayside have done so due to changes in media format rather than Intellectual Property issues, but its a valid point.
Honestly, I had no qualms with Autodesk until the TOL issues was looked into. Our reseller is great, provides top notch support and is generally really on top of it. In light of other software, the initial investment was reasonable and I consider the Subscription fee to be a good value considering all that comes with it. It was just that $1000 fee that seemed exorbitant. That being said, I think it is good to let Auodesk consider recommendations from the resellers and evaluate these instances on a case to case basis to see if the terms of the TOL are applicable to some smaller firm adjustments.
going to file any anti-First Use, or End User License agreements in the 'give them an inch and they'll take a mile' category.
Topically, the EU's top court has ruled that the first sale doctrine applies to software, whether sold via physical media or download, and that the original publisher cannot block the sale. Noted in the decision is that the fiction of selling a license, not the software, is a distinctionwithout a diference.
So Vernor can sell his used R14 seats in Europe, legally. Now if the US courts would get their heads out of the sand, we might be able to see real progress in software upgrades, instead of the minor tweaks and fresh bugs we've been seeing.
Sure, anybody can sell you a used disc. But that doesn't mean Autodesk will honor its licensing regardless of what the EU says.
"After further review, the ruling on the field stands. The EU will be charged one time out. They have no more challenges remaining."
Sure, even if the US we've been able to resell the disc -- although the license to run the software did not go with the disk. That 'non-transferrable' clause in the EULA. The physical media is irrelevant to the EU ruling - the specific question revolved around downloaded licenses, and affirmed the purchaser's right to resell the software.
the top court in the EU has ruled that such non-transferrable clauses for perpeptual use licenses are not legal, nor binding, and that the riight of the vendor to control the sale of the software ends at the first sale. It's possible that a vendor could attempt to refuse to issue authorization codes, but based on this ruling, they are unlikely to succeed, and likely to be fined in the EU.
Proactively, a smart vendor whould establish a license transfer mechanism, with a appropriate fee to cover their administrative costs, overhead, and profit ont he license transfer. Otherwise the purchaser of the used software would be legitimately entitled to hack the software as required to run it. and of course, those hacls would get in the wild and simply expedite piracy.
Autodesk does provide a TOL in instances where a license transfer was done as a legal acquisition of software, rather than reselling. As for the EU ruling, the jurisdiction does not extend to the USA and thus ultimately is powerless in this situation. The SCOTUS has already upheld the licensing practices of Autodesk. And the penalty for software piracy would pretty much also favor Autodesk. The bottom-line is that Autodesk owns the license and simply leases its use to the consumer. Otherwise it'd be like the allowing apartment renters to sell the property rights to new owners regardless of the fact that the building is owned by their landlord. Equally ridiculous.
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.