Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Watchdog To Represent eBay Seller In Autodesk Suit

Posted by kdawson on from the lawyers-guns-and-software dept.

New10k writes "Following up on a recent Slashdot discussion, nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen has agreed to provide an attorney to eBay seller Timothy S. Vernor, who is suing Autodesk in federal court over misuse of the DMCA to stifle competition. The advocacy group has identified elements of the Vernor case as some of its key litigation priorities for 2007. The article includes an interview with Vernor's new lawyer, Greg Beck, who was a software engineer for Microsoft before going to law school."

10 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Autodesk? Suit? by pimpimpim · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've never heard of this case before, running through the article I guess the problem is Autodesk doesn't want him to sell used software packages of their software AutoCAD.

    The bastards, I would say! It's like trying to prevent selling used music CDs or used books. How long will we have to cope with companies 'selling' us stuff when they mean 'lending'. Either they let us SIGN a contract BEFORE we buy explaining how they want to deliver their product (lend it, lease it), or if they don't do that, we can consider it BOUGHT and our property. You can not in retrospect claim someone didn't buy (gain ownership) to the product if you didn't make that completely clear beforehand. They ask enough money for the product to make it sure look like you have the right to own it and do what you want with it.

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    1. Re:Autodesk? Suit? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Quite true, and everyone involved in the transaction except Autodesk is pretty certain it's a sale. I bet even Autodesk do at some point.

      Customer to shop: "I'd like to buy a copy of AutoCAD" Shop to Customer: "Sure. There's your copy. That will be $799" Shop to Autodesk: "We'd like to buy another 20 copies of AutoCAD" Bet you Autodesk don't say "Well we can only sell you a license" at this point. It certainly doesn't clearly say "License to use AutoCAD" on the box.

    2. Re:Autodesk? Suit? by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not just once, you could start your own CD printing factory and sell million of copies. This isn't how copyright law works. You can sell a copyrighted piece of work that you bought (such as a book) but only the original copy you originally bought (i.e. You can't start your own printing press and sell the book).
      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    3. Re:Autodesk? Suit? by pimpimpim · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes, I just checked the autocad shop and nowhere it mentions that you will buy a license. Instead you spend about 4000 dollars on something for which it mentions "Reasons to Buy" (so not Reasons to license). Nowhere on the page it gives us any buying conditions. (or did I miss them?)

      Additionally they have a subscription service with a different pricing scheme. Autocad there is about 400 dollar I guess, it doesn't mention on what timespan, a year probably.

      All this data on their own website points in one direction: for 4000 dollars you buy the software package after which you own that copy of the software package, to do what you want with it. For a subscription price you can buy a subscription where you don't own the software but it makes sure that during your subscription they 'lend' you the most recent software.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    4. Re:Autodesk? Suit? by joeyblades · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, under "Licensing, Registration, and Activation", Autodesk makes it very clear that you are not purchasing software, you are purchasing a license to use software. They also make it clear that this license is not universally transferable.

      The licensing of software is not unusual for very expensive software, especially when external IP is involved. If Autodesk licenses certain IP from external sources, they are obligated to track it's use explicitly through their own licensing policies.

      One might make the argument that Autodesk does not go out of it's way to make it clear to the casual shopper that they are not selling software, merely licensing software. However, if Autodesk is guilty of this, so is every other developer of licensed software. Also, AutoCAD isn't exactly an impulse item you pick up in the checkout line at Frys, next to the peanuts and the $4 laser pointers. If you're planning on plopping down $4000 on a software product, you'd better do a little research. And if you find that same product on eBay for $40, you should be very, very suspicious that something is not on the up-and-up.

  2. Re:Sorry for OT by Aladrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would you make that assumption from a single person's decision? He obviously felt he would like being a lawyer better for whatever reason. You don't know the reason, and don't have any clue what it could be.

    People change jobs and careers all the time and to paint everyone with the same brush because of 1 person's decision is lunacy.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  3. Great choice of ads, slashdot! by vrmlguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Check the ad appearing next to this article: http://samwyse.googlepages.com/slashdot-autodesk.jpg

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  4. The precious anti-VERO fight by freepath · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone seriously interested in this issue should read about the crusades of Ebay seller Tabberone, who singlehandedly defeated many corporate DMCA abusers trying to maliciously end their auctions:

    http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/OurFight.shtml

    It's a wealth of information for the self litigator. ...

    ~ f

  5. Re:eBay's the guilty party here by julesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Autodesk was probably just sending DMCA's for any eBay ad that sounded like warez being offered.

    Even in that case, Autodesk is in the wrong. The DMCA requires them to declare that they "a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials [...] is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." To have such a belief, I'd say they need to do more research than just bulk sending takedown notices without checking if there's anything to imply the belief. "Good faith" requires them to make reasonable efforts here.

  6. Laws at Issue by Evets · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AutoDesk used the DMCA to try to prevent a sale of their software. The DMCA is not in place to enforce breech of contract disputes - it is for copyright protection. Using the DMCA in this way constitutes fraud. They are trying to enforce part of their licensing terms that say you cannot transfer a software license. Certainly whether or not that provision is legal or enforceable if it is legal will come up at trial.

    California has a law that if a company guilty of fraud and they are sued, they can be forced to transfer all profits from that fraudulent activity to the plaintiff. I believe last year that some of the teeth surrounding this law were removed partially because people were using the law to extort money from small business owners all around the state - but given the fact that AutoDesk has done the same thing to the same guy 7 times I would bet they are in a bit of trouble.