This thinking, within Autodesk, forms part of a three and half year+ stoush between Autodesk and myself.

Whilst maintaining the EULA is there to protect their IP Autodesk also chose to use it as a means to get users to ‘accept’ Autodesk had a right to electronically access our design systems as a mean of Auditing for licence compliance. The sting here is that Autodesk is refusing to reveal what data they are actually looking for and will not reveal what they may have taken from a users system.

The shift Autodesk initiated by using their EULA in this invasive way has meant they have rendered it void. Any protection it may have given them in the past is lost as no sensible existing user, or new user, could be expected to accept the Audit clauses without, first obtaining complete details on the procedures and data being sought and a way of validating Autodesk’s actions.

In my case, whilst I continue to use Autodesk software, it has meant Autodesk have been notified of my total rejection of their Terms and Conditions. They must now decide if I am a ‘pirate’, in breach of copyright using AutoCAD and Inventor or simply a user working outside the constraints of their terms and conditions.

For those interested, my public discourse can be found at http://miletter.blogspot.com

In my opinion, released software should legally go into the public domain as nothing more than a trade secret. Attempts can be made to “hack” the recipe and find out the precise proportions of the herbs and spices, just like the Colonel’s secret recipe for chicken–but few will succeed. Otherwise, patent (specifically) what is claimed and watch that patent expire within 20 years–open to the public. This current arrangement–when not limited by time–is not a true license. It is also, therefore, not legally binding as a form of contract (as the Autodesk case found). Enough of this special treatment. Time to stand or fall on merit.

By the way, I’ve had similar experience in the past with patented designs knocked off by nefarious sources. In fact, one time at the National Hardware Show, one of our designs won an award. A few booths down could be found the knock-off product. Awkward. But it is the responsibility of individual patent holders to enforce their patents–there is no draconian DMCA sorts of laws that will do so on behalf of the patent holders. If software companies desire to properly enforce their IP rights, we need to at least establish a fair basis for what constitutes IP. No patent protection? No trade secret? No other established means of protection? No dice.

I agree completely. Software people have a business protected by fear and intimidation. They have taken great liberties with the law and it is about time something is done about it. Thanks for taking up this important issue.