Any ruling won't mean much now, until it is actually applied repeatedly under real-world situations. It may turn out that it needs further clarification, or is even completely untenable. Kind of like building a nuke - the computer simulations may tell you its going to work, but until you push the button on one thats been built there's no way to be sure you won't get a fizzle instead of a fission.
>>>..."(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
anyone catch wind of the new subscription fees and the accompanying policy? pay a 33% increase in subscription fee and if you dont like it, pay 70% of retail upgrade fee if you decide to upgrade, regardless of version.
And now, the subscription fee for a non-suite Revit seat is more than we currently pay for the Revit Architectural Suite.
Spoken like a man who does not have to respond to firm partners with a cost benefit / return on investment assesment of Revit.
And might I add, It might be a lot easier to figure out how to leverage Revit if I didnt get responses like this from Autodesk.
The 'Desker did point out what you are doing/trying is not supported. Not sure what else you expect them to do, or somehow make a different reply? Sometimes the answer really is, "Thats not possible." We all have to live with it.
Ive definitely witnessed enough here to not expect a reply such as, 'Sorry for your difficulties, lets see if we can give this the old college try'
But I could have used more than a single line reply.
Not supported in the sense that the support staff does not invest in resolving issues with Revit and Mac servers, unless it involves LMTools or another Mac compatibile autodesk product... or not supported in the sense that Revit has a known function that is incompatible with writing to Mac Servers.
The rub is, saying its not offiicially supported and then calling that 'Solved!', essentially sabotaging any further discussion. Why wouldnt it be acceptable to leave it 'Unsolved?' on the chance that others may have had luck with similar instances.
As to not completely derail the thread, what is then the benefit for the end user from buying an official channel license, rather than a non supported one ala the Vernor case if this is the type of 'support' offered?
You do realize you are talking to fellow end users, right? Unless it says so in the signature, no one here works with or gets paid by Autodesk to respond or earn a living.
It's funny you think you are the only one that has to work for a living and answer to higher ups
I would like clarification if I may and the items below, am I correct.
The USA have ruled in favour of Autodesk's use of license agreements, and that Autodesk retain ownership of the software but allow users to use the software under license.
The EU have ruled that when a user "obtains" Autocad from Autodesk that this is a purchase of software, therefore the software is the property of the user. This leaves the issue over the Agreement between the first user and Autodesk. According to the license the first user is not allowed to sell or transfer the software without consent of Autodesk because it is the ownership of Autodesk then the first user would be in breach of that agreement (selling something he did not own), however as the EU have ruled that this is incorrect, therefore it follows that the License as it is incorrect according to EU Law if in part or in full is incorrect then it is not valid and is unenforceable unless there is a clause which states otherwise, there is none that I could see. It follows that the first user when purchasing the product used EU consumer rights for the purchase and the Licence is unenforceable.
The first user in the EU is free to use and sell the software to who he sees fit, but more importantly all previous legitimate versions of Autocad are free to use to however has purchased them.
As it stands it must follow Autodesk when selling the software must make it clear what the user is purchasing, if not correctly labelled then Autodesk are in breach of trading standards and liable for sanctions. The label must state that the first user is purchasing software not a licence. As it stands as of today Autodesk Shop as of today are still selling a Licence??? in blatant violation of EU Laws. Obviously Autodesk must be taking the opinion that until it is tested in law then their approach is correct, however this is surely very dangerous as the misselling of products has very publicly been in the newspapers with the misselling of PPI. Are Autodesk still honestly going to stick its neck in the sand and hope this blow over, because this could be a bigger issue than Autodesk thinks.
If Autodesk does not agree with this and tries to disrupt the resale of second user versions it may be the case the EU would impose fines for misselling products. What will happen to redundant USA versions, can they be sold to EU and be used legitimately?
Regarding second user copies of Autocad, as mentioned these are legitimate versions of Autocad but not under License. My question is if an application for upgrade is submitted to Autodesk, and Autodesk refuse, it must follow again they are in breach of trading standards as it is clear that Autocad can be upgraded, the user bought this knowing he can upgrade. How is Autocad going to deal with non license owners requests, and if the answer is no, surely this is an open invitation to suggest that Autocad is anti trading standards and monopolising the market.
I am a loyal Autocad user for may years and value the product but clarification of Autodesk's legal standpoint, I would have chosen to ask this question off forum but I gave up trying to find a suitable email on the website.
I believe Autodesk sould rethink its License policy, but Autodesk are missing a trick, whay do they simply not sell pervious versions at market value thus eliminating the second user market.
Access a broad range of knowledge to help get the most out of your products and services.