Whiplash! ODA Countersues Autodesk 9 Times

Filed on the last business day of 2006, the Open Design Alliance is accusing Autodesk of the following:

1. False advertising -- when Autodesk states that .dwg files created by non-Autodesk software "may result in stability issues" (False Description).

2. Monopoly -- as Autodesk is attempting to eliminate the ODA and its members as competitors (Sherman Act).

3. Attempted Monopolization -- if Autodesk is not stopped by losing this court case, it will attempt to monopolize the CAD market (Sherman Act).

4. False Advertising -- because Autodesk used deceptive statements and omitted material information to induce customers to avoid non-Autodesk .dwg files (California Code; Autodesk is headquartered in California).

5. Unfair Competition -- for Autodesk engaged in unfair and deceptive acts that affect commerce in Washington State (Washington Code; Autodesk launched its law suit in Washington, because the ODA has an office there).

6. Unfair Competition -- Autodesk impaired the ODA's goodwill, because its 'TrustedDWG' logo implies the ODA's DWGdirect is unstable (California Code).

7. Unfair Competition -- Autodesk crippled competition by interfering with batch processing, and led the public to believe DWGdirect is unstable (Common Law).

8. Intentional Interference -- Autodesk intentionally disrupted the ODA's economic relationship with customers.

9. Trade Libel -- Autodesk made written statements it knew were false, or did not care if they were false, in order to induce ODA customers to end their relationship with the ODA.

As compensation, the ODA is asking the court to:

- permanently stop Autodesk from false advertising and unfair competition against the ODA.
- compensate the ODA for its legal costs.
- fine Autodesk sufficiently to prevent it from doing similar actions in the future.
- give the ODA 3x damages and legal costs.
- order that Autodesk pay all the above.
- compel Autodesk advertise that its claims have been false.
- force Autodesk remove the "may result in stability issues" statement from AutoCAD (but is allowed make a neutral statement that the .dwg is from a non-Autodesk product).
- require that Autodesk remove the dialog box that interferes with scripts.
- give the ODA anything else the court desires.

Huh?

There is one item, however, that I don't get:

"that Autodesk be ordered to eliminate the software code in its product that generates the Autodesk trademark when a non-Autodesk product is used;"

I wonder if by "trademark" they mean the warning dialog box?

Summing Up

I am willing to bet that Autodesk never expected to be counter-attacked by seven lawyers representing two law firms!

Thanks again to Owen Wengerd for posting the PDFs of the court documents at www.adskvoda.com

Update

An insider tells me that the paragraph I puzzle over "might have been better worded as follows:"

That Autodesk be ordered to eliminate the software code in its product that generates the Autodesk trademark (as part of the "TrustedDWG Message") when a .dwg file created by a non-Autodesk product is used.

Comments

[Martyn Day]

Obvioulsy the ODA thinks this battle, the one of what and what you can not reverse engineer is worth fighting- especially as Autodesk has chosen to write something that can't be legally copied in a file by anyone else, to identify it as being a 100% Autodesk DWG. I understand the implications of an Autodesk win would be huge on the whole computing industry.
I had to laugh, as you'd entitled your article 'whiplash', the first google Ad that came up was 'Whiplash Injury Claim now'. This whole 'trusted DWG' debacle is looking more and more like a head-on crash.