Unnecessary: Adsk vs ODA

Autodesk law suit vs the Open Design Alliance is no longer necessary. Here are two reasons why:

1. The ODA has upated its DWG API with the offending code removed:

Updated version 2.1.1 libraries, which do not include the code affected by the order, are available now, in Windows 32 and 64 bit versions. We expect to make replacement libraries for other platforms and compilers available within the week.

2. ODA members are already releasing services packs that exclude the offending code:

* SolidWorks 2007 SP2.1, released last week, updates the Open Design Alliance DWGDirect libraries from version 2.1.0 to 2.1.1.
* The beta version of IntelliCAD 6.3, released last Thursday, uses DWGdirect 2.1.1 libraries.
* Etc.

Comments

[owenwengerd]

Ralph, I know you expressed before that you don't think ODA loses much by just removing the "TrustedDWG technology" and making "untrusted" dwg files, but I'm not sure I agree. Consider the political ramifications. By just settling, ODA looks guilty and weak. If ODA believes they have a good chance of winning, they may have no desire to settle.

There is a very simple way to make DWG an open standard.

Start writing this into your purchase orders.

CAD vendors have limited resources, just like everybody else. Properly maintaining an open standard is a huge expense. It must be justified.

It has been my experience, however, that people arguing the loudest about standards, converters, etc. are usually the least likely to pay for them.

Has no one noticed that Microsoft has now officially made the formats for Office software into a published international standard? See http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/12/08/tech-office.html Why is this so different from Autodesk? Because Autodesk is trying to spread fear and uncertainty amoung its own customers. Why not publish the standard like Microsoft? It's just protectionism and a last grasp to hold onto a monopoly. Unfortunately the overwhelming pressure to allow the OWNERS of these documents access will eventually cause them to lose this war. When they do, they will just look more stupid than they already do.

[R. Paul Waddington]

Autodesk never had anything to sue ODA for in the first place. Hidden code calling a warning that CANNOT be turned of as Autodesk claimed; and when know faulty Autodesk files are loaded Autodesk has the audacity to get AutoCAD to tell us they are 'TrustedDWG' file, who deceiving who? Autodesk's actions, and deception, have damaged Autodesk in this users eyes nobody else. Talk about false advertising; how about Autodesk claiming one function in its MCAD software would increase productivity 7800%, then not being able to justify the claim when asked to, now that's false advertising. 'Irreparable injury to its business reputation and goodwill', legally who knows but in reality this is just rubbish!

What was the offending code?

I can't tell how Autodesk's trademark is being violated.

I've a more interesting question.

WTF was ODA thinking in the first place? It's not like they haven't been warned many times.

[Deelip Menezes]

I seriously doubt it. Autodesk's initial complaint had five claims for relief, containing a variety of things such as trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, false advertising, irreparable injury to its business reputation and goodwill in amounts yet to be ascertained, along with damages, attorney's fees and cost of the law
suit.

ODA has simply complied with the court order, which amounts to just part of what Autodesk is crying foul.

There is lots to fight about.

[Brian Duguid]

In this situation a lawsuit will normally continue, so as to prevent the sued party from simply returning to their alleged misbehaviour once the suit is withdrawn. This was the case recently in the Intelligent Design case in, I think, Pennsylvania, where the school board withdrew the disputed policy but the case continued.