Court smacks Autodesk, affirms right to sell used software

[Fred Weiss]

With the help of Public Citizen, an eBay merchant has won the right to sell used copies of AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk had sought to block the sale under the software's license agreement, but a court ruled that such sales were legal under copyright's First Sale Doctrine.

A federal district judge in Washington State handed down an important decision this week on shrink-wrap license agreements and the First Sale Doctrine. The case concerned an eBay merchant named Timothy Vernor who has repeatedly locked horns with Autodesk over the sale of used copies of its software. Autodesk argued that it only licenses copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constitutes copyright infringement.

But Judge Richard A. Jones rejected that argument, holding that Vernor is entitled to sell used copies of Autodesk's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners. Jones relied on the First Sale Doctrine, which ensures the right to re-sell used copies of copyrighted works. It is the principle that makes libraries and used book stores possible. The First Sale Doctrine was first articulated (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=210&invol=339) by the Supreme Court in 1908 and has since been codified into statute.

Read the entire article (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars).

[Fred Weiss]

Some here may recall a while back that we had to take down a classified ad that included software from Aurora Graphics after they filed a DMCA takedown notice with us. Aurora's EULA specifically prohibits transfer of ownership of their license.

This ruling directly contradicts Aurora's position. It will be interesting to see if it is upheld on appeal.

[DOGraphics]

That is some very expensive software.

When was it for sale on Ebay?

[Baz]

While i was reading your post Fred and was thinking about the Aurora thread as well. This will be interesting.

[royster13]

Only time will tell whether or not this is good for software users......If software companies are not able to protect their "intellectual property" it will lead to less innovation in software development....And perhaps less options.....

[Fred Weiss]

Only time will tell whether or not this is good for software users......If software companies are not able to protect their "intellectual property" it will lead to less innovation in software development....And perhaps less options.....

It already has.

[Baz]

I also liked one the comments that was given from the original article. It goes something like this: If the software companies actually lease their products. Shouldn't you be entitled to receive free copies of it (if the original was damaged or lost) or even obtain another security dongle?

And this is taken from the article itself about sounding like a duck: A person is required to pay a lump sum at the time of purchase, with no obligation to make further payments or to return the software at the conclusion of the supposed lease.

Even more damning, Autodesk's own website offers customers a variety of "purchase options" and the opportunity to "buy online" directly from Autodesk, with no indication that "buy" really means "license."

[Pat Whatley]

Damn, I bet Dave Dorsey, President of Aurora Graphics, is pissed now.

[Techman]

This ruling directly contradicts Aurora's position. It will be interesting to see if it is upheld on appeal.

This ruling along with the shrink wrap ruling and a few other pending rulings will change the ways things are done.

If software companies are not able to protect their "intellectual property" it will lead to less innovation in software development. Already true for some authors.

Bigger companies will never stop trying to protect their titles. They have ways and are experimenting right now today. Look at Corel draw and Adobe activation system getting more complex and invasive. And the Microsoft WPA and other activation checks..

In contrast...
I have posted about how someday users will be given a stub or gateway control panel that accesses some main server with all the functions operated there. In other words, your computer will be merely a work station on an internet server. That will be the only way you will be able to operate your title.

Coupon companies use a subscription and a stub that allows you to access their coupon specials via the internet. Imagine if a clipart author would use that type of system. No need to store a clip on your machine. Just access it via the net whenever you needed it.

This is fact. Presently there are several database and membership software titles that operate with this function. The big authors know rulings are coming that will overturn their ULA's.

On another note. Microsoft along with Intel and others are working on 128 bit Operating System. Can you see the planned obsolescence now? New chips, new boxes, new video cards, bigger bloatware all operated via the internet?

[gnemmas]

We are talking about "used" or "resale" copies of software that original owners paid for them. How would that affect "the innovation" of these companies? Companies upgrade their software and owners of older version will pay again to upgrade, original owner or not. How is it different, between software or hardware? Can Dell "license" their computer and not allow you to resale it? You can lease it, that is clearly stated as lease, not a sale.

Software companies such as Cyrious charges large sum to "transfer" their license for resale copies, and stated in their licensing agreement that they can refuse the transfer. Is this in effect not allowing owner to resale the software?

[Donny7833]

Back in the day (few years ago), if you sold your copy of any Adobe product you could do so with a license transfer/proof of sale document and the new owner could register the product and get update info and so on. These days all you need to do is go to the Help menu in the program and Deactivate your copy. This allows the new owner to activate it on they're system.

This is the way (or similar) it should be done. The purchase is for one copy of software to be used on one machine. As long as the software isn't being duplicated and hacked, it should be treated as any other used production tool. You can sell your used printer, cutter, etc. RIPs and production software, like Autocad should IMHO, bear no separate distinction.

[iSign]

Back in the day (few years ago), if you sold your copy of any Adobe product you could do so with a license transfer/proof of sale document and the new owner could register the product and get update info and so on. These days all you need to do is go to the Help menu in the program and Deactivate your copy. This allows the new owner to activate it on they're system.

This is the way (or similar) it should be done. The purchase is for one copy of software to be used on one machine. As long as the software isn't being duplicated and hacked, it should be treated as any other used production tool. You can sell your used printer, cutter, etc. RIPs and production software, like Autocad should IMHO, bear no separate distinction.

I think you're wrong... deactivating & "selling" my $900 copy of CS4 to you, after you "activate" it on your laptop... means one thing... you have MY software on your computer & when CS5 comes out, I call them up with MY name as registered owner, & I buy CS5 for $150... and you call them up, & they want to charge you $900

[BadAss]

If you buy ANYTHING and later decide you don't want it or need it. Then it should be your right to sell it to recoupe some of your investment. Is eveything was the way they wanted it, you would never see another yard sale, swap meet and all E-Bay type business's would be gone. And our landfills would be pouring into our yards with stuff that is illegal to sell so if you don't want it you must throw it away. Hell, most of our houses would be half empty without the deals we got from our friends or whatever on furnishings... Just my thoughts. Which I know some will say there is no comparision between software and other goods, But bottom line is I pay for it, if I no longer want it I should be able to sell it....

[houseofgrafix]

Damn, I bet Dave Dorsey, President of Aurora Graphics, is pissed now.


hahahah that was funny!

[Donny7833]

ISIGN,

Your correct, you still need to get the transfer documentation to be the new registered owner of the software (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/152/tn_15281.html#notethree).

However, the point is that Adobe allows it to be transfered to new ownership. It seems that they view they're product as a tangible production tool (if I'm making sense) as it should be. Quark did the same in my offset days, don't know about know.

[Replicator]

Bottom line for me, If I own it . . . I'll sell the damn thing if I want to !

If you don't like it, I got 2 words for ya . . . . . . . . .

[JK driver]

Bottom line for me, If I own it . . . I'll sell the damn thing if I want to !

If you don't like it, I got 2 words for ya . . . . . . . . .

Would those two words be law suit?:ROFLMAO:

[GAC05]

This has been a hot topic on some of the 3d forums I subscribe to for a while now with Autodesk being the single owner of the 3 of the most popular applications - Maya, Max and Softimage.

They are running limited trials of of some of the apps that you install a small client app locally and the core runs off their servers.

http://labs.autodesk.com/technologies/trials/

May not be to long before the only way to use one of the big 3 is a login to an Autodesk server.

wayne k
guam usa