Autodesk yesterday responded [PDF] to the ODA’s response, with two claims:
- We got RasterDWG.
- Van Der Weide’s errata is for the birds.
As I suggested earlier, the Open Design Alliance could have problems asserting that the ODA’s new English-is-not-my-first-language president didn’t really understand the deposition questions. During a deposition, there is plenty of time to clarify; unlike made-for-tv courtroom dramas, there is no “Well, Mr Smith, will your answer be ‘yes’ or ‘no’?”.
Autodesk’s lawyers notes that Mr Van Der Weide had the opportunity for clarification back then. They quote him: “Your questions were clear, and if it was not clear to me, I asked you for an explanation” [p. 5]. Oops.
We Got RasterDWG
But then there is point 1: Autodesk’s ownership of RasterDWG. From paperwork I posted earlier, the trademark’s former owner was given valuable consideration for handing RasterDWG over to Autodesk. Confusingly enough, softelec gets to continue using the registered trademark. In the meantime, Autodesk is using it as proof that it ought to own OpenDWG, not the [formerly named] OpenDWG Alliance.
Hmm.. Seems to me this sets precedent for allowing a similar arrangement: Autodesk gets to own OpenDWG, and the [now named] Open Design Alliance gets to use it. Seems fair to me. And the arrangement would save the large lawyer bills from becoming even larger.
As for Autodesk’s claim that the ODA did not exist in 1998, it now backing off, blustering that it’s the ODA who was “all over the map” [p. 6] regarding its launch date.
Finally, Autodesk notes that former ODA president Evan Yares has given his statement, but have not yet questioned him in cross-examination.