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."

Comments

Increasingly Irrelevant Anyway

[DG]

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

Re:Trademark, what?

[shystershep]

The Lanham Act is the federal trademark code. What Autodesk is trying to argue is that anyone 'faking' their 'TrustedDWG' technology is violating their trademark. The best analogy I can think of is GM saying you can only put 'genuine GM' parts in their cars. Of course, it is a lot more complex than that here, and judges aren't known for their technological savvy. The keystone of trademark law, though, is how likely something is to confuse the consumer. In other words, for Autodesk to win they will have to show that consumers are likely to confuse this imitation 'TrustedDWG' for the real thing; i.e., that since it's a .dwg file, it must have been made/come from Autodesk.

Not sure what I think of their chances. On the one hand, AutoCAD is so ubiquitous that anyone that has any need for CAD probably automatically associates .dwg files with AutoCAD. On the other hand, well . . . who gives a shit? It'd be like MS claiming trademark in .doc files -- sure, everyone knows .doc files = Word, but it's something that's below the radar. It's not like you go into a store to buy a .doc or .dwg file, and might be confused about it's source.

It's been a while since I've looked at the Lanham Act, but I think Autodesk would have to prove some sort of damage, even if they were able to show likelihood of confusion.

Re:Industry Standard?

[rtaylor187]

Most of the posts here seem to be stating that AutoCAD isn't the "standard" because
it isn't the leader in the arena of 3D design.

AutoCAD is _not_ the standard for 3D design. I'm not sure it ever was...
Autodesk competes in that arena with their Inventor product - but I don't think
that they are anywhere near the market leader. It's a pretty fragmented market.

However, I believe the AutoCAD _is_ the standard for 2D architectural drawing.
This is the arena where architects (or, rather, the draftsman working for an architect)
draw the 2D drawings. Buildings, landscapes, etc.

Re:Trademark, what?

[drinkypoo]

Not sure what I think of their chances.

I'm not sure either, and IANAL, but if I wanted to contest this I would probably cite Sega v. Accolade (Scroll down, copied text appears here:

If you will recall from our earlier discussion, it was none other than Electronic Arts who first determined how to bypass the proprietary Sega code in the Genesis and thereby produce its own videogame cartridges. In response to EA's actions, Sega developed a new security system for the Genesis and quietly incorporated it into the system boot ROM starting with the 1991 production batches. Sega called this proprietary code the TradeMark Security System (TMSS). In essence, it was a simplified version of the 10NES lockout chip that Nintendo had used in the NES. Sega had elected not to go to the 10NES route because they felt that a complete lockout solution was needless overkill. Their solution, the TMSS, was based on very simple principles of intellectual property law. A piece of code burned into the Genesis boot ROM would look for a header code that was supposed to be part of every Genesis program stored in cartridge format. If the header code contained certain unique characteristics, then it was a legitimately licensed Sega product. If the TMSS did not find what it sought, then it would refuse to boot up the system. If the system booted correctly, then the TMSS would display the phrase PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD. on the screen for a few seconds before running the program contained inside the cartridge. Both pieces of code, the one in the TMSS and the correct cartridge header code, were copyrighted Sega property. The TMSS also generated a trademark display every time it was activated, that being the Sega name itself. In essence, the TMSS was a double tripwire for anybody trying to produce unlicensed Genesis cartridges. If you made an unlicensed cartridge that activated the TMSS, then you were in violation of both copyright and trademark law. If you could figure out a way to get your game running without tripping the TMSS, then you were legally in the clear.

Most of us know how that turned out - Accolade eventually won the right to continue to distribute their game cartridges. Sega went on to do the same kind of crap on the Dreamcast, but they weren't able to prevent clever programmers from putting a notice on the same screen that came up saying "licensed by sega" that says "no, it isn't, but this message has to be here".