Counterattack: ODA Fires Back

Randall Newton's doing the much-appreciated grunt work in getting the ADSK vs ODA documents up on his AECnews.com site.

Here are the ODA's counter-complaints against Autodesk:

1. It is Autodesk that has violated the Lanham Act through false and misleading messages it sends to customers who use other CAD programs.

2. It is the AutoCAD application—not the ODA-created DWG file—that displays the Autodesk Name and Mark.

3. Autodesk does not face irreparable harm and the balance of hardship from an injunction falls on ODA.

The judge rejected all of them.

Comments

[Deelip Menezes]

"It is the AutoCAD application—not the ODA-created DWG file—that displays the Autodesk Name and Mark."

This argument is as stupid as saying: "Rolex has a machine to determine whether a watch is original or not. This machine gives an alert when it spots a fake. So the trademark has been violated by the machine and not the manufacturers of the fake watch".

If these lawyers are the same guys who advised the ODA to incorporate the TrustedDWG feature into their libraries, no prizes for guessing what the outcome of the lawsuit will be.

[R. Paul Waddington]

Deelip argues the Rolex machine throws a warning but it cannot be held responsible for the infringement; I would agree except that in this case Autodesk's machine (AutoCAD) does not throw its warning because AutoCAD believes it has received and Autodesk generated file. **Is that deceptive?, does it hurt Autodesk?
If that file causes the users no harm and works perfectly ok then there can be no issue (except in Autodesk's eyes). If it does cause issues; well, as most of us who receive and send files to and from other users already know (think Airbus), our contractor(s) or customer(s) are using different software and we should have taken steps to remedy or live with the issues.
Do we actually need Autodesk to rub our noses in this fact each time we choose to open and use that file? I don't think so; so what purpose 'TrustedDWG'?
Whilst the court will decide which lawyer has the best argument in law about a supposed 'copyright breach' I can't help thinking 'TrusedDWG' is a fabrication of Autodesk's created for the purpose for which it is now being used; it never will make my life (as a customer), or any other Autodesk customers' business, more productive or profitable and I think we should all tell Autodesk just that. Autodesk's customers need to consider the future in the light of a successful finding against the ODA; allow it to succeed and live to regret it!
**Does Autodesk have 'dirty hands'? (I love this expression); ask yourself these questions - did Autodesk tell you about the addition of the Audit clause in the licence contract? Has Autodesk helped you solve all the translation problems between its products? - 'TrustedDWG' indeed, who do they think they are kidding or did we all 'just come down in the last shower'?
If you, as a customer, accept the statement 'trust me' from any sales organisation then you will get what you deserve; if you think about and check what you are buying, signing and or licencing then you are less likely to get hurt, look deeply at this issue and look past the 'TrustedDWG' for, it is, only a trade mark and one that will do absolutely nothing to improve your productivity or profitability.

[Deelip Menezes]

I was making my observation on the attorney's argument solely from a legal point of view, because that is finally what matters when things go to litigation. I believe that the argument (as the judge would listen and understand it in a court of law) is what I said it is - STUPID.

If you read my article "Should Autodesk keep the DWG format a secret?" at my blog (www.deelip.com) my views on this subject are quite clear. I believe that if Autodesk is really interested in giving its customers peace of mind, it should give away their RealDWG library for free, and not just to friends, but even to competitors as well. That way it would ensure that all the DWG files on the planet would be "trusted". But we all know that is not going to happen because of a plethora of complex business issues involved, one of the main issue being that the competitors (who are crying foul) dont want to share their libraries with Autodesk.

My strategy of solving the DWG trustworthy problem is not crazy talk. I have done this with the RP file format (see the same article on my blog). I can say with certainity that all RP files on this planet are "trusted" (if I may use that word).

[R. Paul Waddington]

Your right, as a defense, it can be seen that way and I do agree the best lawyer/argument will probably win here. I am not so easily persuaded that TrustedDWG has been created for my benefit as a user. No criticism, of you, intended here Deelip; The 'you' I used is adressing any user reading my comments, not you personally. Have read all your articles previously and we here have discussed in detail your approach and its benefits. Did draw the distinction, and my differing view, in your analogy between throwing a warning and not tho'. Is that deceptive and does it hurt Autodesk?

[Deelip Menezes]

"Did draw the distinction, and my differing view, in your analogy between throwing a warning and not tho'. Is that deceptive and does it hurt Autodesk?"

Your answer is at www.deelip.com. The atricle is "ODA shoots itself in the foot".