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.
Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register
Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.
|AutoCAD Land Desktop|
|AutoCAD Plant 3D|
|AutoCAD Raster Design|
|AutoCAD Structural Detailing|
|Ecotect Analysis - Desktop Tools|
|Green Building Studio - Web-Based Service|
|Robot Structural Analysis|