Slashdot Mirror
Autodesk Suing to Keep Format Closed
An anonymous reader writes "AutoCAD is by far the industry standard CAD tool for engineering drawings. When I was an engineering student it was on every computer in the college of engineering. Autodesk, the makers of the AutoCAD software, are attempting to quash an effort to reverse-engineer the proprietary binary format used by AutoCAD. Looking at the court order, their whole argument revolves around something called TrustedDWG that basically looks like a digital signature that verifies the file was created by an Autodesk product."
From the court papers, the restraining order is against "using or simulating Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology, including but not limited to the Autodesk watermark and/or TrustedDWG code, without Autodesk's authorization, from distributing DWGdirect libraries that use, incorporate or simulate Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology or that otherwise insert or mimic the unauthorized Autodesk watermark and/or TrustDWG code."
It further says this is granted under the Lanham Act, which is "found in Title 15 of the U.S. Code and contains the federal statutes governing trademark law in the United States. "
My (limited) search of the 41 sections of the Lanham Act finds no reference to any technological protections, and everything I can find points to other sections of federal law which deal directly with patent and/or copyright. Anyone running some legal codecs care to explain how a trademark grants protection for code and technology?
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
I've been using CAD programs (mainly CATIA) in my line of work for 10 years and haven't used AutoCAD once since college.
To me AutoCAD is like MS Paint compared to Photoshop. Maybe other places use it more but they sure don't use it much in aerospace CAD.
This doesn't even deserve publicity as there is no chance in hell that it's going to pass. Saying this will pass would be equivalent of Microsoft being able to quash OpenOffice.org and StarOffice's .doc import utilities.
It's been a while since I used AutoCAD, so perhaps it's moved on significantly since then; but I'd be surprised if anyone does any real work with AutoCAD any more. It's essentially a tool for teaching students about CAD.
If you're actually building any kind of real object, then you're probably using Pro/E or Solidworks. If you're not, then you're wasting a lot of your own time.
Am I wrong? Once you've done 3D parametric modelling, you wouldn't want to go back to AutoCAD.
Carpe Daemon
This behavior is consistent with monopolistic thinking: we own the market, so let's raise the barrier to entry and/or companion-software diversity by making our product harder to use.
The thing is, you'd best be sure your monopoly is rock solid before attempting such a move, lest it bite you in the ass when your users find their workflow has a new kink in it.
Interoperability is cool. All the happening kids are doing it. Software mongers who fail to understand this are doomed to wither and die, or rule us with a taste of rising bile in our throats (I'm looking at you, MS Office). Grudging and bitter acceptance is not equal to brand loyalty.
We've been phasing AutoCAD out of our shop here because it won't play nice with others. I doubt we're the only ones.
These stories are free but worth money.
I've been using CAD since the Mid 80s (paper before), and AutoDesk got the jump just because they were the only early serious 2D CAD player when Microsoft hit the street with that, what was it, CP/M derivative OS, called DOS or something.
This is a new millenium and 2D is not gone, but it is dying fast. Somehow they, Autodesk, missed the point that we live and think in a 3D world.
SolidWorks.com has about 500,000 users of their mid-range software and has trounced AutoDesk's various offerings, so AD is just trying to protect what little it has left in 2D. What a pity.
By all rights, AD should have been a leader in low-mid 3D CAD, but they squandered their efforts, not the least of which involve cumbersome user interfaces. I think they needed someone like Andy Hertzfeld and others from Apple's early days to make their CAD interfaces far easier to learn and use.
Good bye AD. I use us no more.
Now History. Part of the lore.
All Autodesk had to do was join the Open Design Alliance, and they could use the ODA libraries without restriction. Instead, they filed suit.
Don't forget to read The Autodesk File for more insights into how the once-revered company became just another soulless money hole.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Not in the mechanical engineering world. 3D packages like CATIA, Pro/Engineer and Unigraphics have long eclipsed it in the high-tech industry.
It's still usefull for making quick sketches etc.
For exporting drawings, dxf and especially pdf are much more important than the dwg format. For 3D data, IGES and STEP are most often used, especially because they're open standards.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
If you're actually building any kind of real object, then you're probably using Pro/E or Solidworks.
:)
Custom made electrical cabinets? I'd like you to explain the workflow of creating an electrical schema in Pro/E!
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
...more inovation please. AutoCAD is desperatley trying to hang onto past instead of leading the way with new inovative and intuitive CAD/3D software. They are no longer the only game in town. Sour grapes.
P226
For those who have never done CAD:
:)
AutoCAD is a 2D drawing tool with functions optimized for the production of scale drawings. It is an extension of the old T-Square And Pencil technique into the computer; a sort of Adobe Illustrator tuned to drafting.
It is very, very good at this, and I found it (given that I had a little old skool drafting experience) fairly easy to adapt to.
But at its core, you're still projecting 3D objects into 2D or psudo 3D (orthometric projections) using the draftsman's brain as the projection device.
Enter Solidworks.
Solidworks is a parametric 3D modeling package. You create the object in 3D, and then the software generates your 2D drawings from it. No more construction lines. No more mismatched views.
There have been 3D modelers before (VariCAD for Linux isn't bad) but Solidworks takes it a step farther - it remembers every step in the construction of an object, and every step is tunable. Where past 3D modelers used Boolean operations to construct their shapes - but then the shape was fixed - Solidworks allows you to change the parameters of every operation at any time. Punch a hole through an object, but then discover it is the wrong size? No problem - just select the hole in the object's construction tree, and change its size.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It has revolutionized mechanical drawing, to the point where it is inconceivable that I'd ever use AutoCAD ever again. Solidworks is one of the few software packages I've ever used that just left me dumbfounded in amazement at how powerful, easy, and intuitive it is.
And no, I don't work for them.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
At one point in my engineering school career, I was a MechE major. As such, I had to take an introductory CAD course in AutoCAD and an advanced one in Pro/E. I didn't mind AutoCAD for the 2D stuff. We started doing some simple 3D stuff in AutoCAD and it was absolutely horrible--a complete kludge if I've ever seen one. Pro/E makes that stuff so much easier. Now, I really don't love Pro/E. In fact, CAD was one of the reasons I left MechE. There was a lot to like in MechE... but I was a lot more interested in mathematically modeling physical systems than doing CAD and actually design work. That said, Pro/E can do amazing things if you actually learn to use it well. I couldn't be bothered. I dropped the class several weeks into it.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
While this is clearly not as simple as a format-lockout (as the article's title would suggest), there is a lot of precedent AGAINST AutoCAD. So far as I am aware, no company has EVER succeeded in blocking other people from reverse engineering their file format. Where this deviates is that AutoCAD has extended the file format to include a system of checks and balances. Does that could as a lock out? Can people still use DWG as a common 2D / 3D CAD format exchange but be flagged as "unofficial?" Does this hurt them?
I'm guessing they'll fall flat on their face. Frankly, I hope they do. AutoCAD is a horrible program to use and is terribly outdated. Aside from being first to market, they have nothing going for them.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
When you can't compete in the open marketplace any longer, bring in the lawyers. I'd have to say this is a rather tacit admission that other CAD tools are catching up, and at much better prices.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think AutoCAD should be just as worried about competitors suing them for keeping their format closed only to maintain their huge market share.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
"When I was an engineering student it was on every computer in the college of engineering."
Maybe I'm a little older but does anyone else remember learning CAD on the Apple II using RoboCAD?
...millions of bearded virgins would pore over every aspect of the prison security system until an exploit was discovered. A hole would be opened in the prison's firewall and Linus would be rescued through an SSH tunnel.
All the while the prison officials would be just sitting there going, "Doo doo, doot-doot-doot, doo de doo doo-dah..."
Then, in a feat of classically passionate Finnish revenge, Linus would initiate a global hack which would make all of our cities go coo-coo like in Superman III, like when the little silhouette guys in the walk|don't-walk lights starting punching each other out.
And all the while the government would be just sitting there going, "Doo doo, doot-doot-doot, doo de doo doo-dah..."
These stories are free but worth money.
How can there be ownership of a file format?
Isn't that a bit like having ownership of a poem format, Or a literary format?
I can understand owning the rights to the software or mechanism which generates the format - but if another, novel, software or mechanism can be created which generates this same format, is that not legal?
In other words, it makes sense to me to be able to copyright a haiku, but not the format of haiku itself.
I must be missing something vital (and maybe obvious).
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
Still use Autocad anymore? The sheer lockin was one of the reasons our school and a few others moved away from it to Vectorworks.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
take a queue from Intergraph. (the fine makers of Microstation, Redline, and In-roads) They have partnered with ODA. I work for an engineering firm and we use alot more software from Intergraph than Autodesk. In fact we only use AutoCadd compared to Microstation 7 & 8, PDS (used for piping), Support Modeler, Iplot, Projectwise, Tri-Forma and a slew of others.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
...who think this is a viable business model:
You're the man now TrustedDWG!
"Yes, it's called DCMA."
:)
Aaaahhh, DCMA. That makes the rest of your statement make more sense. I thought this argument revolved around the DMCA. My bad
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
If you're actually building any kind of real object, then you're probably using Pro/E or Solidworks. If you're not, then you're wasting a lot of your own time.
Or Unigraphics, especially considering once you've modelled your product, generate the program code from with in and wooha, you're off laughing on your CNC (mostly).
Tes
Looking at the linked site, I see a link entitled "Open Design Alliance statement on the use of its technology by Autodesk". Following it gives me a page that basically says that Autodesk used their DGNdirect code without authorization, even after being notified.
FC Closer
I work at primarily a UGS house, but AutoCAD is still entrenched in the facilities layout, Electrical Controls, facilities management areas. We do cheat though, we use factoryCAD a add-on which provides parametric capabilities.
Now this suit does raise concerns, we manage all data with Teamcenter, We require one data management solution to keep all of the relationships of parts, tools, and layout linked to reduce effort. With the suit AutoDesk may break some of those links. Also our Parametric plugin may cease making valid DWGs.
Gator/Claria is Spyware.
I can only speak for my country, but AutoCAD is absoultely huge here in the architect business, at least on a national scale (Sweden), but I believe it's big throughout at least the rest of Scandinavia too, if not Europe. Over here, it's what MS Office is to Office applications, Apache to web servers. Not AutoCAD by itself though; maybe that's what you meant, but AutoCAD with various plugins depending if it's about architecture, industry and piping, HVAC, or something else.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
My father was chief architect for Royal Bank of Canada, when it had it's own architectural dept (wich they closed in the 90s). The department took the entire 7th floor of the Place Ville-Marie building in Montreal. It was a big department with lots of architects, engineers and dedicated drafting machinery like CalComps.
AutoCAD was the *only* thing they had internally. It was *very* big, and they had 3D extensions and bill management.
So, yes. Industry standard. Surpassed? Certainly with products such as Catia, but in the technical plan & drafting area, AutoCAD is still very big. Most small to medium architectural design firms still use it today.
Believe it or not, lots of real-world CAD work is 2D.
Just like how once you've used a word processor, you wouldn't want to go back to a text editor.
A tool may be more powerful overall but still be impractical for tasks easily handled with simpler tools.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
I believe, that of all things, proprietary document formats should be illegal. If I endeavor to purchase a product to create something for myself, my business, or even someone else, it should not the vendor's choice as to how I must access that document at a later point in time. If I decide that it is no longer feasible to continue using the product (due to licensing, technical, or other considerations), I should be free to access my data with any other software of my choosing. The problem with proprietary formats is that they impose what I see as form ownership by proxy, whereby the owner of the software used to create the document has a sufficient degree of control over the documents themselves.
This building you guys got us workin on here, ain't designed by no trusted autodesk product? You can't trust those other designed projects, sometimes things just go wrong on them, the crane pulls something too far and then BOOM! So its like this, we don't move one finger unless it was designed by 100% genuine autodesk products.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
According to this Wikipeda article there used to be versions for Unix and Macintosh but was dropped in the 1980s.
davecb5620@gmail.com
There was a recent discussion about this case, and the central point was NOT that the open source group was reverse engineering documents. It was about the open software's representation of itself as a "genuine" file using the AutoCAD name. The equivalent to a ODT file containing the terminology "Genuine Microsoft Word file, guaranteed to work". I have my issues with Autodesk, but they aren't necessarily the evil ones here.
With the myraid tags and calls in the DWG format, any open source implementation, while well intentioned, is bound to miss a few and create problems. Ironically, the Autodesk Genuine tag was meant to assist interoperability by giving support staff a clue as to why a file might not open correctly. They weren't ever trying to stop the creation or use of DWG files by third party software, and it's likely in their best interests to keep it a de facto standard.
Dammit Otto, you have lupus.
Most of the condo's in Toronto are designed in 2D in AutoCad. There is a little sketchup used here and there and 3dsmax is mainly what's used for the billboard renderings of the Condos. It's still being used.
Sure, I wouldn't want to do my taxes in SolidWorks either, but what advantages does AutoCAD have over traditional schematic capture programs (OrCAD, gschem, etc.) for making electrical schematics?
Just a note - it's the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), not the DCMA (which would be Digital Copyright Millennium Act, which doesn't really parse).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Documentation/specifications, cable specifications/assemblies, overview drawings, interwiring diagrams, etc are depicted *so well* in a 3D parametric environment.
Sure, the modern set of design tools is far above AutoCAD, but there are quite a few situations where 2D modelling (which AutoCad excels at) is required.
The troll with karma.
I am the IT Director for a county, I can tell you that AutoCAD is used heavily outside of teaching. Not only does our Highway Department use it exclusively for designing civil engineering projects such as roads and bridges, but the State Department of Transport also uses it for nearly every aspect of their projects. I have several friends who work in many different aspects of design and engineering from CNC work to design prototyping for medical devices. Surprise! They all use CAD products from Autodesk.
Now I can see why AutoCAD software is being protected in this way. Once those US Haxors pwn the DWG format, Ikea's design files are sitting ducks.
Autodesk has also 3D products that are not only comparable to SolidWorks, but better at some aspects. One of them is the AutoDesk Inventor line.
So stop BS-ing about 2D, the evolution of CAD, and how AutoDesk is late on "obvious changes" in the market, while talking crap (and trying to look smart while doing it) about SolidWorks and other offers.
Just because you heard about SolidWorks while trying to build an open-source MMORPG, that does not make you a CAD expert.
I hope to god Autodesk loose this case. Their DWG / DWF strategy is a complete and utter shambles. We use AutoCAD because there are tons of plug-ins for our industry, it makes it a very good tool for our drawing office.
Unfortunately, while AutoCAD itself works fine on our network, most of their more recent tools do not. It's a minor point of them not supporting folder redirection... Attempts to point Autodesk at Microsoft's developer guidelines have so far fallen on deaf ears, and I've been complaining of this for over a year now.
Thanks to Autodesks stranglehold on DWG, nobody else produces reasonably priced DWG markup tools any more. And that leaves us stuck using old, buggy, unsupported software, purely because it's the most up to date package produced by Autodesk that still runs on our network and can markup these files.
The sooner someone reverse-engineers DWG the better.
PS. Whoever at Autodesk thought the best way to update their DWF viewer was to embed it within IE just wants shooting. Yes, you heard me, they took a stand alone program and decided it would be better off if it relied on IE... They even went to the effort of creating the File menu structure in html! And yes, SP2 broke it...
It may be that Autodesk has some new version of DWG which is closed, but older versions have been open for many years, as well as DXF. Google on the words autocad compatible, and you'll see it.
IntelliCAD, the most prominent AutoCAD-compatible code base, is still being worked on, and there are new versions of it which are very low in cost, and at least one which is donation-ware. There are quite a large number of companies developing this code-base now. I'm certain that other products are easier to use, but you can still do truly excellent 3D work using the modern AutoCAD-type GUI and its venerable command-line system, and industry compatibility is tremendously high. And because of the command-line system, its scriptability is excellent.
J.E.B.
Joshua Corps
I work for SolidWorks.
The market shares off AutoCAD and SolidWorks are very close in terms of installed licences, with AutoCAD taking the edge by a few percent.
http://students2.autodesk.com/?lbon=1
* FREE products subject to the terms and conditions of the end-user license agreement that accompanies download of the software. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product offerings and specifications at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear herein.
Autodesk was a market leader and a real Silicon Valley 80s-90s wonder. One of the great things that came out of it, indirectly, was the book "The Hacker and the Ants" by Rudy Rucker which had some obvious inspiration from the time Rucker spent at Autodesk. The CEO at that time John Walker is a remarkable guy. As a bunch of people have already pointed out, they are long past market relevance (except for legacy lockin issues) so this is sad, but they were at one time quite the acme of geekdom.
I have been using Autocad for years, I can say that if there is one company to hate other than Microsoft it would have to be AutoDesk. They are one of the greediest, monopolistic uncaring about quality or customers ,company I have ever seen. If I could change companies or software I would, but I can't, hence the craptastic monoply
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
Agree 100%. Long live REAL tools, like Catia.
These guys need a little healthy competition. Strictly speaking from an IT perspective this product is crap. Seriously their patch to a long existing roaming profile problem was to recreate the user preferences every time a user logged on. Witch seems to be indicative of their over all product management. Competition? That would mean they would have to put out better products. Am i being naive?
AutoDesk can certainly make a lot of noise about other people using their trademarks (if they are), and courts might listen with some interest.
But no way in hell can AutoDesk deny interoperability with their file formats. The precedents for interoperability as a protected activity are legion, spanning decades.
And if such claims were ever to be allowed even once, it would open Pandora's Box bigtime. The ramifications for all of human industry (not just computing) would be utterly immense, and catastrophic.
A huge amount of manufacturing rides piggyback on standards set by named brands, and really the relationship is symbiotic, although the big brands don't wish to acknowledge that. AutoDesk wishes to have a wholly tied customer base instead of being "merely" the leader in their manufacturing community. Such protectionism is very blinkered.
Hopefully their claims will be denied. If not, this could be very bad.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
innovate?
No, too time consuming.. I got it, SHUT EM DOWN!
-GiH
In many cases, I've found this shareware program to be an excellent, inexpensive way to get drawings converted into other formats:
http://www.freefirestudio.com/cadconvert.htm
If your analogy is correct, this sounds an awful lot like a software version of when printer manufactuers sued to prevent generic cartridge cos from making replacements that had their "authentication" chips in them (the printer would reject a cartridge that didnt have the correct chip). What ever happened to those suits? I cant recall.
It's a trick which has been tried many times before -- make your software not work with other software unless that other software contains your trademark. It usually doesn't work; courts have ruled that if you use your trademark in a functional way like that, you can't use trademark protection. Thus video cards which contained strings like "Some code expects 'IBM' here" (because the BIOS was checking for 'IBM' in a particular location), and similar nonsense.
Of course, throw enough lawyers at enough courts, particularly if your opponents aren't well-funded, and eventually you're likely to get your view accepted.
I used AutoCAD R11 (circa 1991) a little and was stunned at how primitive the interface was. In R11 the main screen is a menu of about 9 options that must be selected by typing the number followed by the enter key. To load a file, you might type "3" and "Enter" to get a list of files, page thru that list more style, write down the name of the file wanted (in case your short term memory wasn't quite up to it), go back to the main menu, select "1", then type in the name of the file to load.
I thought such a pathetic interface would be easy to improve on. And here we are years later, and where's a decent GPL CAD program, especailly one with a decent interface? It's not the recently open sourced BRL-CAD -- the interface on that is horrible too.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Yea, but they sued under the DMCA. These guys would have sued under the DMCA probably had it not been for that case. So they are trying a unique approach and calling it a trademark issue. By court standards the previous case would have little precedent on this one (though I'm sure it will be mentioned).
including but not limited to the Autodesk watermark and/or TrustedDWG code, without Autodesk's authorization,
.dwg files are clean from a copyright standpoint but the libraries have the ability to watermark or digitally sign the file--it is the signature in the resulting file generated by the library that is what Autodesk has taken issue with and they have pulled the lawyers out of their legal cesspool..uhhh..I mean department...to block the use of their signatures. Precedent doesn't allow them to block competitors from using the .dwg format itself.
- valve-cover-engine-bling that you can easily fit to your modest little DX for that pimpin' project.
.DWGs properly report what was used to create the file for support purposes anyways. After all, it has ALWAYS annoyed me that Microsoft has always had "mozilla" in their user agent string for all those years as its roots from the original spyglass software gradually withered and died.
That is the key statement in the claim. The code in the libraries that read and generate
The lawyers say that the watermarks and digital signatures are equivalent to a logo and that it is afforded protection under trademark law. The car analogy is pretty apt here: Imagine you want to rice-ify your 1989 Civic--you can get cheap third-pary knockoffs from any company--even those without any affiliation with Honda and those suppliers are legally allowed to make everything from spoilers-big-enough-to-use-as-the-tail-of-a-737 to neon-coloured-ignition-wires-and-matching-chromed
There is next to nothing Honda could do to prevent anyone from making and selling parts with matching bolt patterns, electrical connectors, etc. that interoperate with their cars. Believe me, automakers have tried a few times in the past without success to apply industrial design and patent law without success (and rightly so). What Honda CAN do (and probably should be able to do anyways) is prevent anyone from putting the Honda LOGO on their knockoff parts, or the phrase "Genuine Honda" or similar such markings as it misrepresents the source of the aftermarket parts and leads consumers into making wrong assumptions about the quality, source, warranty, etc. Which is why Honda really doesn't like those fake R stickers and has made some effort to stop them from being made. Of course, those fake Rs are easily produced and distributed do it is a really hard game of whack-a-mole, plus the fakers only have to alter the appearance of their own Rs slightly to get around trademark issues.
Anyways, because of this I don't really have an issue with Autodesk protecting their trademarks--though I think that a digital signature is brushing the line of what constitutes a trademark. If all that is at issue is the idea that a user can open a DWG and look at its properties and it has a "generated by AutoCAD xxxx" property in there when it was NOT generated by AutoCAD then what's the big deal? I think it is probably best that programs that do greate
Where I WOULD have a problem is if Autodesk were to use this signature to prevent interoperability, which would in my mind constitute abuse of a monopoly position. If...at any point and in any way...the absence of a "generated by genuine AutoCAD" signature prevented the file from being FULLY usable in AutoCAD or prevented "genuine autocad" files from being fully used by 3rd party software...then it ceases to be a trademark and becomes an access control mechanism that limits interoperability. Though I imagine then they'd LOVE to pull a DMCA trick....oh well...THAT is the point where Autodesk will have truly moved into the dark side.
This reminds me of a lawsuit that happened years ago with Sega. Some company wanted to publish unlicensed games for the system. In order to do so, it had to call up some function that displayed the SEGA(tm) logo at the beginning of each game. If I remember correctly, Sega successfully sued the unlicensed publisher because in order to make the cartridge boot on the system they had to display Sega's trademark.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
I had use AutoCAD since 1994 for several years. Compared to others CAD software, AutoCAD has lot of feature for customization as an aid for design drawing, especially 2D drawing, construction drawing and for as-built drawing.
Some weird fact is the odd number release so buggy, like AutoCAD 11 and AutoCAD 13. The best one for production on DOS environment was AutoCAD 12 and AutoCAD 14 for Windows95, but still lack for simple 3D modelling based on 2D drawing.
For me, using AutoCAD with a bunch of customized shortcut keys like playing Quake, left hand on keyboard and right hand on mouse. Typing with 10 fingers only when input text for description.
-- There is four mistake in this sentences.
This behavior is consistent with monopolistic thinking: we own the market, so let's raise the barrier to entry and/or companion-software diversity by making our product harder to use. The thing is, you'd best be sure your monopoly is rock solid before attempting such a move, lest it bite you in the ass when your users find their workflow has a new kink in it.
In terms for familiar to the readership: "The more you tighten your grip, Autodesk, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Are there CAD programs (Pro/Engineer, AutoCAD type) which have sculpting capabilities like how Zbrush or Mudbox3d have? It's super easy to create 3D models using the sculpting technology in Zbrush and a Wacom tablet.
"On the other hand, well . . . who gives a shit?"
.dwg file that is not "trusted" into AutoCAD and a dialog pops up with warnings that say the file format is not "trusted, unsafe, etc".
Well, for one, the end users do, when they bring in a
Extending your GM analogy, say you install a non GM part in your GM car and get a blinking light on the dash to the effect of "Car may crash violently or explode through use on non-GM part." What are the results of that? The consumer is scared back into going to GM and GM only to buy the part.
Also, for more analysis of the case, go here:
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/
The opencascade library is now open source. It's the 3D library, so it has no GUI, but the whole core is there. It just need someone to work a little Qt/GTK magic: http://www.opencascade.org/
If it's just a matter of some kind of crypto-enabled signature technology to prove the file was created by Autodesk software, couldn't the signature simply be ignored?
If that block of the file is simply skipped over, and other techniques are used to determine if its a valid file (like checking the file structure), would that still count as "simulating TrustedDWG"? Probably not, I think.
I mean, if we're reverse engineering the format, who cares if it's a signed file or not. Just get the data from the relevent parts and call it a day.
Or is it impossible to access the data without verifying the signature? In that case it would be an encrypted file, not just a signed file -- a different case altogether.
I use both SolidWorks and AutoCAD as appropriate. 3d parametric modeling is great for objects that are 3d and need exact representation. However, it sucks for drawing cables, designing 2D parts and laying out silkscreen patterns. For these applications I use AutoCAD (or the AutoCAD clone that now ships with SolidWorks) because it's faster and it makes it easier to display necessary information. Additionally, everyone can read ACAD drawings, while many shops have difficulty with 3d formats.
The other place where AutoCAD comes in handy is when you want to graphically solve a design problem. There are a bunch of hand drafting tricks that also work with ACAD, but don't work well with 3d packages.
I like my beverages with warning labels!
Take a look at ANY large company and you will find very little or no AutoCad. I know of no major auto, aerospace, military, motorcycle, RV, marine or ATV company that uses AutoCad as a primary CAD platform, only for small fragmented support roles.
Please, keep AutoCad closed. Do not reverse engineer their file format. Let AutoCad protect everything they do and hopefully they will not progress and simply die off.
Niche programs like CATIA or Solidworks are super awesome, until you have email your files to someone. Then you hear things like 'you have Solid-what-now? Can I open it in AutoCad?'.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Well, at first, neither of the two you suggested seem very suited for all electrical schematics, but rather, they're biased at PCB schematics. And secondly, the advantage may only be that the engineer already knows AutoCad, and last, at least for switching cabinets, you'll have to do some 2d mechanical drawings (layout etc) in addition to just electrical schematics.
And finally, there are add-on packages like AutoCAD Electrical that makes it very suited even for highly specialized work like scematics drawing...
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
Everyone proclaiming doom and gloom for Autocad obviously doesn't know the Civil Engineering field. Autocad probably has close to 90%of the market in Civil/Land Development/Surveying market and Bentley/Microstation in the other 10%.
Right now, their Land Development Desktop is some of the best civil design software out there.
Agreed however, they aren't the most "user friendly" company to deal with.
-AC
Autocad is still used in laying out 2d designs quite a bit. I've also seen maps made with Land Desktop.
3D stuff? Thats really a different market - which Autodesk is trying to get into with Inventor.
I know in North Carolina, there were specific rulings dealing with this, and the outcome ..
...
well damn, just go to Office Depot, they have an entire section dedicated to recycling and off-brand inks.
Ain't to hard to figure out what happened I guess
AIK
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I have no idea what they are using on the big skyscrapers, but all the houses, schools, strip malls, etc.. being build are still being done in 2D because its faster and for the most part the drafting skills are easily learned by most people. 3D is much more cumbersome to work with using a mouse and screen. The time saved in creating projections from the 3D model never makes up for the difficulty of modifying the model as changes come in, particularly when one considers that a lot of information on a drawing is actually 2D. (ie dimensions, text, hatches, symbols, consultant drawings). After making a new projection these pieces must be modified on the 2D drawing. I can see on a big in house project with lots of difficult to project elements (eg sports stadiums) where there would be savings, but for a cookie-cutter strip mall, AutoCAD in 2D wins every time.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
I hope the defense points this out to the judge. If the world of design is supposed to rely on this format, that's all fine and dandy, but they cannot use this to monopolize the whole world of engineering and design! That's not legal.
As someone who used to be involved, I dont think HP blocks foreign print heads. It can detect them, but it does nothing except tell you not to file any support calls related to color quality. Lexmark tried that stupid laser printer cartridge ROM lawsuit, which showed to the rest of the ink industry not to try anything that stupid.
Intel have a CPUID opcode that returns INTELINSIDE in some ascii encoding across the registers. AMD return AMDINSTEAD. The string is of the right length not to break anything.
-steve
Let's say the DMCA etc basically say that "breaking into a locked box" is unlawful, even if the lock is encryption etc...
This case is far different, because no one is breaking into a locked box, What they are doing is creating a new box, which happens to use the same key.
Take the key to your office. You could ask a locksmith to make a lock to fit your office Key - say to lock your bicycle and save the chaos of a thousand keys.
You are not breaking into someone else's locked box.
No on the other hand, if you do not own a key to this office, and you jam a screwdriver into the lock - that is a very different matter.
The question is - do people have the right to make a lock so it works with a pre-existing key. The answer from the court had better be - apsofreakenlutely. The person who owns the information in an autocad file are not autodesk, but the engineer who designed the building, and that engineer has the unequivocal right to use their data anyway they choose, including opening it into a different program. The relinquishment of ownership of a significantly valuable work such as that would surely require more than a contract, it would require meaningful compensation. Unless Autodesk has paid for the services rendered by the author of a file, it has no argument to constrain the use of that document.
The Autodesk format (DWG etc ) is a piece of crap anyway, and it would appear the company is the devil incarnate.
AIK
But is it free, open source, and runs under linux? 'cause if it doesn't nobody should use it.
It is still used in civil engineering.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is really an absurd statement. We use Pro/E, Inventor and AutoCAD where I work. I work in an engineered to order manufacturing environment. All of our original design work is done in 3D. All of our per order drawings are done in AutoCAD. It's the right tool for the job. It's much faster to make small alterations in a 2D drawing with AutoCAD than to manipulate a 3D model in Inventor or Pro/E.
Autodesk - a great software company with good products. With the 2007 release they went the wrong way with the file format.(again) Not only is it not backwards compatible, but working out of office is tough if the office does not have 2007. They can not open a 07, trying to copy things from my downsaved 2004 dwg will crash them with AEC object errors. Sure there is a patch for the non 2007 many flavors of autodesk software.
.dwg has less gains until they clean up the issues all around it..
All in all the 2007
Open sourcing the format would be nice. d
Rhino is a perfect example of AutoCAD not reading it's dwg output correctly.
Kill your TV
As someone who's been writing AutoCAD plugins using their API software many years... All the TrustedDWG thing does is basically tell the person opening a dwg in autocad that the file was last saved by a trusted dwg product (i.e. one using AutoDesk's software, or one of their own APIs). Consider it like having the right to slap the Windows XP Certified logo on your software. That's all it does. There's no encryption, no DRM stuff here... it just prints a string of text in the AutoCAD command window when you open the file. Is it right for some other company to claim to be AutoDesk? No. But why does Autodesk bother, you ask? The main concern for AutoCAD here is not that the OpenDesign (formerly OpenDWG) Alliance is reverse engineering their format. AutoDesk is partnered with several companies that use the OpenDesign API, and AutoDesk is well aware of them using it. Opening a dwg generated from the OpenDesign API, however, was marking files as being a Genuine AutoDesk product file, which guarantees that AutoDesk programs were the last programs to have saved the file. Aside from the point that people have been asking AutoDesk to open up the DWG format legally for years, there are some considerations here. Consider the issue of the OpenDesign API having a bug that corrupted the DWG files, in a subtle way that eventually caused problems in AutoDesk programs. AutoDesk shouldn't have to help companies with support agreements to solve it... they can just throw up their hands and say, sorry, but your file was not last saved by us... your other program corrupted this file, talk to them. Really it's only right. Would you expect MS to help you find the cause of formatting loss or file corruption on a word document that you had saved with OpenOffice? What's wrong with trademarking your files? It's not like they are saying it is illegal to use them any way you want to, nor that the OpenDesign Alliance must stop releasing the API... they just don't want another company claiming to be generating genuine AutoDesk files. Also worth noting here is that AutoDesk sells their own API to access dwg files without a copy of AutoCAD or AutoDesk Map installed... This API is currently called RealDWG (formerly known as DwgUnplugged). This is sold at a one time fee to a company with the right to make small applications or viewers for reselling. The fee for the license to make your own dwg format manipulating program is somewhere around $5000 last I heard... for a license to make your own software from the ground up, using their dwg access API and resell it. One last point... According to that site, the OpenDesign people have already released an update that no longer violates the AutoDesk trademark by claiming that their software was an AutoDesk product.
I worked for engineering company and implemented Acad for them. The Flex LM cad uses sucks. Autodesk is married to Microsoft. At one time Acad ran on Sun stations and Cad was givin away for free. Every engineer uses it just like people depend on office. But there is also bently that makes Microstation too for rawing roads and stuff what abou tthem? How about a port for Microstation since the Govt entities are using this program to build roads and such
I am not sure which planet you read Slashdot on, but on planet Earth what you are saying is either completely wrong, or you are not correctly verbalizing you argument. In deference to you extremely low /.ID# I am hoping that it is the latter.
"But no way in hell can AutoDesk deny interoperability with their file formats."
I have been using CADD for way longer then I would like to admit, but lets just say I started when CADD was invented/initially commercially available. Autodesk has always been the stinky 600 pound gorilla in the room. I have used ACADD among many other competing products, I personally find ACCAD to be very difficult and counter intuitive from a UI standpoint. However; that is not why I am replying to you ridiculous statement.
As a matter of fact AutoDesk ROUTINELY denies interoperability with their file formats. I currently use VisualCADD for 2D drafting, mainly preparing details for the gas stations we build for our customers. VisualCADD is a competing product that is actively being developed. I constantly receive ACADD DWG files from engineers which I can NO LONGER open if the engineering firm is on the latest version of ACADD (I think it is release 14). When contacting VisualCADD support about this, they informed me that this is standard operating procedure for Autodesk on every release. They change the file formats and all competing products must stumble around until a import filter is built. It is complete and utter bullshit.
I should not have to be forced to buy a multi thousand dollar application to do simple drawings. Further more, the Engineer/Customer of the Engineer owns the drawing and SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT to do with their IP what they want. It is like a pencil manufacturer putting restrictions on anything you create with their pencil.
DK
Here's an idea. Why not make the tutorials online there actually show the pictures, rather than just the picture boxes, that are to explain how to work the programs. k. thx.
I'd just like to rant for awhile about AutoDesk. I hope no one minds...
I've been a draftsman/designer for 12 years now. In the consulting engineering industry (for commercial, residential, & industrial building design) it is the defacto program. Even companies that standardise with other CAD programs, they have a copy of AutoCAD somewhere just to work with everyone else.
I started out on AutoCAD r10 running on DOS, and I'm currently using AutoCAD Arch Desktop 2004. I've been involved with the program from the level of an individual draftsman, to a CAD manager working with over 100 other CAD operators. I can honestly say, that while AutoCAD's interface (keyboard based) is one of the fastest interfaces around - the file format has always been AutoDesk's most problematic issue.
In AutoCAD 2004, the only file format it will open are the 2000 and 2004 DWG file format. An absolutely useless number of file formats for a company who has had a NEW FORMAT EVERY FREAKING VERSION. What's more, the only other format that AutoCAD opens, is the old DXF format (thank goodness for that at least).
AutoDesk has a horrible habit of pretending that it is the only CAD software in the world. In addition to it's own short term memory about previous DWG formats (thanks for making my old CAD files unopenable assholes), it has no clue how to open a Microstation file, or any other of the other competing formats out there.
Yes, I know you can download a drawing file converter for old ACAD files, but this should have been included in ACAD itself - and the file converter still doesn't open DGN files.
Microstation on the other hand, has changed it's file format ONCE in 10 versions. Not only will it open up the old file format, it also opens up EVERY AutoCAD format as well. I currently use Microstation to convert my old DWG's to new DWG's because MStation does a better job of it than Autodesk's downloadable converter. Hell, the free Bentley DWF-style reader opens up every format as well - something that AutoDesk's viewer can't even do for it's own native format.
DWG files have a long history of becomeing corrupted, often to the point of being unable to be recovered. Do you have a corrupted DWG file that AutoCAD can't recover? Open it in Microstation, and it will recover the file for you instead.
The fact is, AutoCAD is the dominant CAD software for two reasons only. #1, the interface is faster for old-school users (though I must say, a properly set-up system with a trained MStation user is only about 5% slower). #2, since AutoCAD 2004 doesn't open up R14 ACAD files - and can't save down to R14 either - people with R14 are forced to upgrade against their wishes. As if there has been a good reason to upgrade besides mouse wheel support since R13...
Basically, I hate AutoDesk even though I use their product. They do not care a wit about their customers, the industry, or even producing a reasonable product. Even today, 1/4 of the time I save a drawing I LOSE DATA. Nothing like finishing up a design, clicking save to go home, and losing 2 hours of work in the process. I'm sure that AutoDesk would love to say that their new TrueDWG initiative will save me from these worries, but I've had this problem with DWG's (made 100% by me, in AutoCAD) since I first started using the product.
Instead of working with customers to create a truly open file format and competing based upon a superior interface and support - they instead choose compete through vendor lock-in. It's the same as if MS produced a new version of Office every 2 years that didn't open up any other format on earth including the previous version. Oh wait, that's what they do too.. they can both kiss my butt.
If there is more than a snowball's chance in hell then the judge has to give them a chance.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
No. I am a principle in one of the largest AE (architectural engineering) firms in the county. Almost all building design firms (architects and structural engineers) use AutoCAD. I can count the exceptions on one hand. OTOH, we are currently moving to Revit, a 3D AutoDesk program. It was explicitly developed for building design. I think many here are confusing solid modeling (mechnical engineering) with civil/structural/architectural drafting.
----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Sure, if you're designing a plastics mold body, you're likely to do that in 3D. If you're designing the cooling system, air system, ventilation system, and electrical system that the mold body is going to be placed in - you're not going to do that in 3D. It's just retarded...
Um, I could be wrong but I think the parent agrees with you. He said nothing of whether AutoDesk has allowed for interoperability. He's stating that AutoDesk's attempt to use the Trademark provisions on the Lanham Act as protection against interoperability are doomed to failure and MUST be doomed to failure. If they are ruled to be valid it sets a horrible precident that could undermine whole industries. The parent is saying that AutoDesk should not be allowed to succeed because the courts have already ruled interoperability a valid reason for reverse engineering. He's not saying that AutoDesk isn't/won't try to curtail it anyway, nor is he saying anything about AutoDesk's policies. He's simply saying that their argument can't be valid
<gir voice> I love this sig... </gir voice>
If your going to post crap, at least make it somewhat true.
(following list copied from Wikipedia)
# Release 14 - February 1997
# AutoCAD 2000 (R15.0) - March 1999
# AutoCAD 2000i (R15.1)- July 2000
# AutoCAD 2002 (R15.6) - June 2001
# AutoCAD 2004 (R16.0) - March 2003
# AutoCAD 2005 (R16.1) - March 2004
# AutoCAD 2006 (R16.2) - March 2005
# AutoCAD 2007 (R17.0) - March 2006
The file formats changed when the Release version Changed. 1999, 2003 and march of this year. And they usually change for major feature additions.
Second, Someone using 2007 can save there format all the way back to Release 12 format.
This is one of many comments promoting SolidWorks or Pro/E for design. One reply:
Try designing a building in SolidWorks. It's ridiculous.
There are great pieces of software (like Revit) out there for this purpose. Just because SolidWorks and Pro/E rock for mechanical part design doesn't mean they are the best tools for architects, contractors, or structural/civil engineers.
I agree completely - but AutoDesk isn't denying interoperability. They are denying other companies the right to masquerade as AutoDesk.
My understanding is that the dwg files produced by the ODA often cause AutoCad to crash, which makes the AutoCad user call AutoDesk and report a bug. They got fed up with this, and added a mechanism to generate a warning dialog saying effectively "Hey, this isn't a real autocad file - it might crash". ODA didn't like this, so they added a mechanism to make their dwg files look like they were created with AutoCad, and *that* is what AutoDesk is sueing about.
My understanding is that AutoDesk has no problem with people reading or writing dwg files, but they will not accept other people writing dwg file that pretend they were written by AutoCad.
I don't think it's that unreasonable, really...
...sniff around on that. Proprietary, secret, stolen and derivative file formats are extremely common throughout the industry and are with us to stay, no matter how much noise people or the law makes about it.
who the heck cares where the file comes from? i mean if i print a document and give it out to someone, is he gonna care if it was printed on hp printer or dell? why should this even go to court? why does this even matter?
Logitech's DOS mouse driver MOUSE.COM (dumped from an actual copy I've here) :
Also mentioned here by other
The Dreamcast boot code checks and runs only games that display "PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA" in their Loader.
Opensource environment like KallistiOS feature a Loader that displays the required string on-sreen, and then adds an explanation that in fact, it's not under Sega's License, but that the string is required to the game to boot.
So the trick isn't urban legend and is genuinly used to circumvent such string checks, although I don't know if the trick was also used by PC BIOS cloners
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It took me two days to pick Autocad up to a standard where I could get going. So the barriers to entry are not huge. However, my main point is that Autocad is only the standard in a small subset of the world. Any vendor of ours who used AutoCAD for machined parts would find themselves deselected pretty quickly. Interoperability between CAD systems is not a luxury these days, and for whatever reason Inventor doesn't hack it (I don't actually know why).
You misunderstood the parent post. He was arguing that Autodesk has no way to deny interoperability from a *legal* standpoint. Of course Autodesk changes their file formats with new releases; a lot of companies do - this isn't new or interesting.
If AutoCAD is crashing on bad input, that IS a bug. You should deal appropriately with bad data, and crashing isn't appropriate. This sounds like it's bad software engineering on Autodesk's part.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I'm confused; you replied to the GP's statment that "But no way in hell can AutoDesk deny interoperability with their file formats" with the following:
You went on to describe examples of ACCAD doing just this in practice. However, in the context of this thread, when the GP said "But no way in hell can AutoDesk deny interoperability with their file formats", I took it to be saying that AutoDesk could not successfully use the legal system to enforce this denial of interoperability. Of course they can technically deny interop. Wasn't the point that a technological item could have it's intellectual property protections weakened when it exists solely to lock out competition?
Pi Ran Out
Quote from the parent comment: "The precedents for interoperability as a protected activity are legion, spanning decades."
Well said. I wonder about the sociology of Autodesk's actions. Here is my wild guess: Many people who are called "executives" have the social ability of an emotionally disturbed ferret. "Executives" often have sink-the-company ideas, and this legal action is one of them. Autodesk executives apparently are very worried that they cannot compete on the merits. They didn't stop to think that their actions will make their insecurity known to Slashdot readers and every member of the Open Design Alliance.
The publicity will make it more difficult for Autodesk to hire skilled programmers and managers, causing the company to fall further behind and to become even more insecure. The publicity will make every design engineer consider their options for becoming less dependent on Autodesk, whereas before many might have been happy with the way things were.
"If a man says something in the forest, and his wife doesn't hear it, is he still wrong?"
"Good news, everyone!"
The above statement seems to contradict any such interoperablility issue. Is the statement misleading, or are all the others who talk about this aspect completely off the mark?
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
Bentley Microstation fully supports, opens, and can even work directly in DWG. Maybe you should evaluate it.
For 2D it is probably the best out there. For 3D it is a joke.
I'm using Mechanical Desktop at the moment and the MS Paint/Photoshop analogy is quite appropriate. It is a suicide-prone and retarded cro-magnon midget compared to übermench like Pro/Engineer and Solidworks, at least as long as 3D is regarded.
It is excellent for 2D markup though.
Autodesk have always been the Microsoft of the CAD business and tried to crush the competitors using this kind of scemes for as long as I have known them, which is about 15 years.
There are at least a dozen half-baked CADs out there that can read and write DWG files, but usually there is something that goews awry in the process. I had a backsplash the other month when I recieved a DWG and looked at it in TurboCAD. All was well except that the table with all the important data was missing, which made our communication about the job rather confusing.
...to understand the concept of a trademark.
They're talking about multiple random outputs - ie - each and every file has a different signature and watermark.
Let me explain a few things about trademarks and the defence that Autodesk is using. I'm not saying it is TOTALLY right, however there IS legal justification.
a) Autodesk's signature/watermark is NOT randomly generated--it is a calculated using a fixed algorithm.
b) A trademark does NOT only cover an EXACT representation of a mark--it never has.
Unless the software is designed to submit each and every signature and watermark that is generated for trademark status, their case basis doesn't hold liquid, gas or solid matter.
You are wrong. Under current trademark law, when applied to traditional (visual, non-digital) marques, a single trademark registration can cover ANY NUMBER of variations that convey the identity of a product or company that is used in trade. For example, a unique or invented word or phrase can be registered as a trademark REGARDLESS of visual representation. The word "Olympic" is a registered trademark for example, and it is valid whether or not it is accompanied by the 5-ring graphical symbol and regardless of the colour it is written in, or the font or the size. There are companies that have been legally challenged for trading using marques such as "Olympic Leather" and "Olympic Meats". The IOC often loses such cases, however the court more often than not places legal restrictions on such uses--for example Olympic Leather couldn't manufacture and sell sporting goods/apparel using the "Olympic" marque, even if they contain their leather, without licensing the trademark from the IOC.
Apple Computer is another example of how trademarks work--they have trademarked the words "Apple" and "MacIntosh" without specific visual representation for the purposes of trading in personal computers. The same goes with iPod for music players (in fact, Apple has gone a bit TOO crazy and tried to make a case that the initial lowercase "i" is their trademark...I think trademarking plain words it pushing it too much let alone a single letter...). Apple also has a registered trademark for the "Apple" graphic for use on personal computers and consumer electronic devices. It doesn't specify the original "mixed up rainbow" colour scheme, nor does the position or presence of the bite matter. Apple Records has also trademarked the use of an apple on audio media and music marketing/distribution materials and even though their respective graphic representations differ it has been a contentious issue over the years (Apple Records had little defense so long as Apple Computer restricted itself to trading in computers, but when Macs were marketed for use in creating music using Midi and digitising, and later when the iPod music player was introduced, the dispute resurfaced).
Obviously then a trademark registration does NOT limit itself to a specific visual definition of a marque. In fact, when you register a trademark legal experts specifically advise you NOT to be overly specific (you should NOT implicitly or explicitly describe the colour, size, font, specific uses and so on unless it is required to make your marque distinctive--it is better to err on the generic side and add specificity if your registration is challenged). This is Autodesk's argument--the FIXED data that makes up some or all of the algorithm represents a distinct marque, and the data in the drawing that combines with it to create the signature represents a variation of that marque. The signature generated by combining your drawing with their watermark/key/algorithm is the legal equivalent to applying colour, shading, decorative typeface or other embellishment to the registered version of the trademark.
I do agree that this is quite a stretch, but these lawyers have obviously carefully examined the law to craft this argument and it sounds quite valid. Perhaps it is a bit evil, and yes I the motive isn't based only on tec
i think there was a case with SEGA that ruled that using a trademark or copyrighted chunk of information as a "key" does not constitute infringement
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Having moved industries recently I'm stunned to discover that schematics are still done in a drawing tool. I've just burnt 3 days of project time cross checking $#%^#$%^ng drawings, BOMs and netlists because the industry hasn't discovered/developed proper CAD tools.
BTW - I'm dealing with site/city level wiring diagrams, so I don't need to generate drillplot or CNC data. Making Pro/Cable or whatever Mentor's currently flogging overkill. But I do need to do heirachy, automatic netlist & BOM extraction; drawing generation and preferably end-to-end type checking.
All suggestions welcomed!
-- Butlerian Jihad NOW!
chk it out they are a major player for a small worker owned company.
Autodesk Cut their licence to resell their product and McNeel straig up trumped them by added all the functionality of autocad to Rhinoceros 4.