Some Constructive Criticism

Yesterday I posted an article titled "AutoCAD on Mac"; to which Ralph Grabowski (of WorldCAD Access) posted a comment which implied a nexus between Autodesk and Microsoft; to which Shaan Hurley (of Autodesk) posted a clarification which denied the nexus and went on to explain why Autodesk was not offering AutoCAD for Mac. Excellent!! I like this kind of a discussion.

But what about the poor guy who asked the question on the Autodesk Discussion Group? Nobody from Autodesk has bothered to answer him. And this is not a one off case. I have been monitoring and posting on the Autodesk Discussion Groups for many years now, and have seen this happen over and over again. People ask a question or post wrong information about Autodesk and its products. Almost always Autodesk doesn't bother to reply or clarify.

I understand that the Autodesk Discussion Groups are peer-to-peer support groups, which effectively means users helping users. While this is a good thing, I think it serve Autodesk's interest to get a bit proactive on their groups, especially in cases like this one.

If what Shaan said is indeed true, then this explains why rumours get created in the first place. Because nobody bothers to clarify or rectify false statements. There is one thing I know about rumours. You let one go around for too long and people will make it a fact.

I hope someone at Autodesk takes this as constructive criticism and does something about it.

AutoCAD on Mac

Someone on the Autodesk 2007 discussion group asked this innocent looking question: "When will Autodesk release a AutoCAD version that will run on Mac? Just asking. Thanks."

The replies he got amused me. One person replied, "No, but a Mac will run Windows which will run AutoCAD on a Mac."

Another replied, "They already did. In 1989", and pointed to this web page by one Prof. Langdon. I have no idea whether the info on this page is true.

Yet another replied, "Should be available about the same time the patch to run R14 on Vista".

But I liked this one the best. "Search the term Apple or MAC around here, topic comes up weekly and there is no need to start another dead-end thread about it this week".

I doubt the poor guy is going to ask anything else anytime soon.

PDF and DWF

Adobe's decision to add the ISO feather to PDF's cap is quite interesting. The PDF file format was already "open" and parts of the specification were already standardized under ISO. So why is Adobe going the extra mile by seeking ISO blessings for the entire specification?

In the ongoing file format war between PDF and DWF, the ISO feather may weigh quite heavily for Adobe. We live in a time where every other company claims that their software, file format or for that matter, almost anything they make, is the standard. This has resulted in the word standard being degraded to an adjective like best, exceptional, etc, when in fact, the word standard has profound meaning and significance. However, some companies have been careful enough to use the phrase de facto standard in their marketing efforts, which essentially means that something is so widely adopted that it almost is like the standard.

While Adobe was right in claiming PDF to be a de facto standard, it could not technically claim it to be a standard. But now, with ISO's blessings, it will be able to.

A search at www.iso.org for PDF resulted in 11 documents of ISO standards. What's more? The documents that the standards were published in were in PDF. I guess that's enough proof for de facto standard.

On the other hand, A search for DWF gave me nothing.

In recent times, Adobe and Autodesk have taken every opportunity to tell the world how widely accepted their PDF and DWF file formats are. To some, this decision may seem like just another opportunity. However, I do not think Adobe did this just to make news.

It will be interesting to see Autodesk's reaction to this.

A Survey

I was playing around with my web hosting account and found that my hosting package allows me to create online surveys. I decided to try it out. If you have been reading my blog, no prizes for guessing what the survey is about. Cast your vote here.

Autodesk's Official Statement on DWG and ODA

I recently asked Autodesk bashers an open question. Not happy with the replies I decided it was time to get it straight from the horse's mouth. Nobody at ODA was prepared to comment in public. However, Autodesk's Director of Corporate Communications, Caroline Kawashima, was kind enough to entertain me. I asked her whether Autodesk had a whitepaper or some kind of document which describes Autodesk's position on the DWG file format. Here is what I wrote to her:

"I am not sure whether Autodesk has done a good job explaining to its customers (or the general public) the reasons why it does not want to open the DWG format. I have read an interview with the Autodesk CEO wherein he makes a few points regarding this topic. Apart from that I couldn't find anything else. Maybe I have not looked hard enough. I guess you should have the material I am looking for."

This is Autodesk's official statement:

"Actually Autodesk has a very reasonable licensing program for its DWG libraries, Autodesk’s RealDWG developer’s toolkit. Many companies have signed on to that license, and are producing authentic “TrustedDWG” files as part of their implementation of RealDWG. We have an obligation to them, as well, to protect the TrustedDWG program. Our competitors also have proprietary file formats that they may license on a selective basis—Autodesk’s practice is generally consistent with the industry practice."

I tend to agree with the last sentence. Almost all of Autodesk's competitors have not opened their proprietary file formats. So why should Autodesk? ... and so the problems of interoperability in the CAD software industry will continue to exist.

The statement also covers the Autodesk-ODA law suit.

"The ODA software libraries contain technology that falsely identifies customer data files their software creates as Autodesk-created files. We have the right to control the use of our trademark and we depend on that right in informing customers of the source of the files they are introducing in their CAD environments. The ODA interfered with our ability to do that. The ODA failed to respond to our reasonable request to stop violating our rights. As a result Autodesk is suing the ODA in order to defend its ability, through TrustedDWG, to assure our customers of the source of customer data files and make sure the origin of the files is not falsely attributed. The ODA’s latest software libraries mimic TrustedDWG and defeat the very purpose of the program. We are relying on trademark laws to protect our ability to inform customers of the source of customer data files."

Pretty much the same as what their lawyers are saying in court. At least this is the first official statement that I have seen.

The Red Asterix

Yesterday I posted a scandalous looking article titled "Is Autodesk Promoting IntelliCAD?". Of course, I do not think they are, but the little devil in me couldn't resist. Sorry, Scott. No hard feelings.

Scott has since revamped the post. I hope he didn't get into too much trouble with Carl Bass.

But I was not the only one. Another blogger, decided to crucify Scott as well. His post, "Autodesk And ODA, Partners?" resulted in a clarification from Scott as to which companies were Autodesk Partners and which were not. True, there is no red asterix next to the OpenDesign Alliance name. But I did find a red asterix next to Dr. DWG, a company which reverse engineers the DWG format and provides libraries similar to ODA.

But then this may very well go to prove Scott's point that DWG and DWF and two entirely different things.

Anyways, the DWF Partner List is quite impressive. I hope to add SYCODE to that list soon, hopefully with a red asterix.

Is Autodesk Promoting IntelliCAD?

I was dumbfounded to see the following statement at an Autodesk blog.

"IntelliCAD is a low cost Computer Aided Design alternative that provides DWG file support as well as support for industry standard commands, menu files, script files, shape files, text fonts, hatch patterns, line types, LISP programs, SDS/C++ programs, and VBA programs."

Take good note of the words "low cost CAD alternative". Alternative to what? AutoCAD, obviously.

To be fair, the post is actually about DWF and how it has been adopted by people other than Autodesk. However, I still cannot digest the fact that an Autodesk blogger is virtually promoting IntelliCAD as a "low cost [AutoCAD] alternative" on an Autodesk sponsored blog. Ironically, Autodesk's CEO believes that programs like IntelliCAD "create tech support queries" for his company and is currently quite busy suing their developers.

It seems to me that Autodesk has no editorial control over their bloggers, which is a good thing for blogging. If this is indeed the case, then maybe things are about to change.

For The Record

A reader asked me if I have a vested interest in Autodesk. Thought I'd lay down some facts.

For the record, my company has partnerships with many software vendors. These include Autodesk as well as companies which are members of the Open Design Alliance. Apart from giving us free licenses of their software for development purposes only, these companies do not pay us anything in cash or kind (except maybe for a couple of mouse pads and coffee mugs). On the contrary, we have to pay some of them to stay in their partner programs.

The root cause of the Autodesk-ODA fiacso is that Autodesk has refused to open its DWG format. For the record, I am all for interoperability. I am all for open file formats. By open I don't mean that the file format specification should be published. If it is published, nothing like it, as the specification will help if the company closes down or does not support the file format anymore. However, there should at least be a library capable of reading and writing the file format; and it should be licensed to anyone to wants it at a reasonable price (if not free). This, according to me, is the true essence of interoperability that the CAD industry needs so much. So far, only McNeel (and possibly Bentley) can claim that they are seriously interested in solving the interoperability problem. All the rest have skeletons in their cupboards. They hide behind organizations like the ODA or resort to selective licensing of their libraries, sometimes for valid reasons.

For the record, the views expressed on this blog and my views only and nobody else has editorial rights over them. These views are influenced by my reading and interpretation of events in the CAD software industry, while at the same time, applying a little bit of common sense. I believe that every argument has two sides. It's the side that we don't know which is often more interesting and difficult to reason.

For the record, I have been in the CAD software industry for only eight years. While many of you were being introduced to CAD, I was most probably being introduced to elementary geometry. I have a lot to learn and experience.

We do not learn much by talking to people who agree with us. We learn a lot from people who disagree with us. Your comments are always welcome.

Another Way To Look At It

I am a regular reader of upFront.eZine from Ralph Grabowski. He made some interesting comments regarding the Autodesk-ODA law suit in his latest issue. He seems to suggest that the tide may be changing in favor of the ODA. As usual I have my own weird views on this and that's precisely what this blog is for.

I have always maintained that the ODA received lousy legal advise to begin with. I am surprised that they accepted it and went ahead and infringed the Autodesk trademark. The ODA has now realized that a lawyer who tells them that it is ok to reverse engineer the TrustedDWG technology and then comes up with stupid arguments when hauled up in court is not someone to go along with. They have been forced to bring heavy weights to fight for them.

As I see it, the ODA's new legal team now believes that attack is the best form of defense, which is a normal strategy for someone who find himself in a position of weakness. That's why they are now counter-suing Autodesk for a laundry list of issues, something which I feel they should have done earlier instead of infringing the trademark in the first place.

The Question Is Still Open

Yesterday I asked Autodesk bashers an open question. I got replies which seem to suggest that since Autodesk's ex-CEO claimed that DWG file format is the "Worldwide Standard", and standards should be documented, therefore Autodesk should publish the DWG specification. While I am trying hard to find merit in this argument, I am going to argue for the sake of argument, keeping in mind that my argument may sound stupid to you (as it does to me).

SolidWorks Corporation (not just their CEO) claims that SolidWorks is the "Standard in 3D". So does that mean they they should release their software architecture, source code and all to the public just because they have made that statement?

For the record, I am of the opinion that Autodesk should not reveal the DWG format specification. But what some of my readers seem to forget is that I am also of the opinion that Autodesk should license the RealDWG libraries to everyone (possibly at no cost). This is explained in great detail in my first post on this blog. However, Autodesk selectively licenses the RealDWG libraries and I cannot really blame them for that because most of its rivals do not want to share their libraries with Autodesk to begin with.

I have been following this debate for a long time and have recently started giving my 0.02. Almost always someone comes along and slaps the morality card on Autodesk. In my opinion only Bentley and McNeel have the moral right to ask Autodesk to open its DWG format. The rest can talk about morality only when they have opened their formats. And when I mean format I mean the native format of their mainstream CAD system, not some XML format which was meant for designed for data exchange to begin with.

Someone we all know once said: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

I am not taking sides here. I am simply trying to be fair. Surely you can see that. For all the bashing that we have been witnessing over these years I thought I would get some real good answers. I am hopeful. The question is still open.

"Why have these companies refused to open their proprietary formats when they demand Autodesk to do it?"

An Open Question to All Autodesk Bashers

In the continuing debate over proprietary file formats one question as been asked over and over again. So far I have not come across any satisfactory response. I came across the following comment when researching content for an earlier post wherein I claimed that there were people who considered the ODA as a "hacker's group".

"A 'non-profit group'? Rather a group of hackers paid by Autodesk competitors. Why have these companies refused to open their proprietary formats when they demand Autodesk to do it? It is just about competition and profit, not user rights."

Take a look at the ODA members. From the list of founding members, apart from Bentley and Robert McNeel and Associates, I do not know any other company which has opened their formats.

I ask all you Autodesk bashers: Why have these companies refused to open their proprietary formats when they demand Autodesk to do it?

Autodesk vs ODA - A Conversation

I have been having an interesting email conversation with a reader (who prefers to be anonymous) about the Autodesk vs ODA law suit. Thought I'd share it here.

[START]

Reader: By your blog entry, you seem to think there’s some basis to the Autodesk trademark infringement complaint against the ODA. Could you show me where the infringement is? I mean… find a DWG 2007 file – you can get one off the Autodesk discussion groups if you like -- and find the bytes that say “Autodesk”. It’s simple enough to use GREP or any binary editor to look for it.

Deelip: I am no trademark expert but from what I understand a trademark can be infringed directly or caused to be infringed indirectly. I would put the ODA case in the latter. I guess the judge agrees with me, otherwise the litigation would have stopped then and there.

Reader: The theory of indirect trademark infringement requires that there is a *direct* trademark infringement, and that someone other than the direct infringer should be held liable for it. For example, there have been cases where trademark holders claimed that an ISP was liable when one of their customers used their service to infringe a trademark.

If Autodesk was alleging indirect trademark infringement on the part of the ODA, they would have had to have pointed to the direct infringement.

So… where is it? Surely it can’t be that hard to find the word “Autodesk”.

Deelip: I am not sure whether this issue is as simple as finding the word "Autodesk". The whole point of the trademark IP protection mechanism is to avoid confusion as to the origin of the product. It is not absolutely necessary for you to use the word "Autodesk" in order to violate their trademark. All you need to do is create a situation wherein you give the impression to the end user that the product (in this case, the DWG file) has come from the trademark holder. You do this and you are violating the trademark. How you do this is not important. The judge will not get into the technicalities of bits and bytes and how and why. She will just want to know whether the action (whatever it may be) led the end user to believe that the DWG file came from Autodesk software. Obviously the judge saw what I see and we know the rest.

The thing I want to know (which is what the judge asked the ODA lawyer in court) is that instead of doing what they did, why didn't the ODA sue Autodesk for false advertising? Or they could have use the money now being spent on the law suit to launch an aggressive campaign to portray Autodesk as a monopolistic gorilla trying to squash competition, something which is not difficult to sell. Everyone loves to hate a monopoly.

I also believe that this is a PR disaster for the ODA. I have seen people refer to the ODA as "the hacker's group" and similar things. The ODA members may consider the ODA as a saviour but the end users (whose opinion is what is being fought for now) may not share that view, mostly because they are not aware of all the details. This was a good chance for the ODA to portray itself as a victim of monopolistic practices by a big rich company. Instead, by doing what they did, the ODA now looks like the aggressor who has been taken to task, which may I add, is not far from the truth. The same arguments of Autodesk's monopoly now seem like excuses to justify their wrong doing.

It appears to me that the PR people got overridden by the lawyers.

[END]

It's naive to think that Autodesk would not sue ODA for what they did. I'd love to know what their strategy was. Maybe something along these lines.
1) Get sued by Autodesk
2) Release non-infringing libraries
3) Counter sue Autodesk for monopolistic behaviour
4) Win counter suit and humble Autodesk.

Or maybe this was their Plan B. Plan A was simple - Court throws Autodesk's law suit out of the window.

I pity their PR people. They will have to clean up the lawyer's mess.

Yet Another Trademark Infringement Law Suit

Cisco is suing Apple over the iPhone name. Although this fight seems to have more grey areas when compared to the Autodesk - ODA law suit, I just can't help but wonder whether these people seem to like litigation.

Apparently, Apple requested Cisco for permission to use their trademark and was turned down. So they went ahead and use the trademark anyways. I am no trademark expert, but common sense tells me that litigating an issue such as this one, which can go either way, is asking for trouble. Even if Apple wins, it will have a hard time protecting the iPhone name from other competitors in the future as their arguments in this case will come back to haunt them later.

Come on, how difficult is it to create a name? Just because they have an "iPod" do they have to call everything else they make "iSomething"?

Five Things You Didn’t Know About Me

Thanks to Evan Yares I have to tell you five things that you didn't know about me.

(1) I have an artistic gene somewhere in me. At age 14, I "drew" the portrait of the then Prime Minister of India (V. P. Singh) with my father's typewriter using symbol characters like *, #, !, etc. A local newspaper featured my work and it felt like receiving the Nobel Prize.

(2) Some years later I created a model of the Taj Mahal using the mid-ribs of coconut leaves. Yes, I know I could have used match sticks instead. We had just cut down one of our coconut trees and were left with tons of leaves. This model was kept in our family showcase for years untill I gifted it to the most important person in my life as my engagement gift. The perfect symbol of my love for her.

(3) I have never failed a subject/class in my entire academic career (from first year kindergarten to final year mechanical engineering degree).

(4) In spite of item (3), after graduation I landed myself a job for a monthly salary of Rupees 3,200 (thats about 70$). Yes, a first class distinction (with honors) student worked for 70$ a month for two years. That's the worst possible luck any person could ever have.

(5) I now have a company which has more than a 2,000 customers in 44 countries spread across 5 continents. Considering item (4) that's the best possible luck any person could ever have.

I recently started blogging and I am beginning to like it a lot. You see, I have a problem. I happen to have weird views about things happenning around me and I need to tell them to someone. My wife thinks I am talking crap and my three year old son gives me that blank look. This blog solves my problem.

I now tag Ralph Grabowski and Greg Milliken.

Blatant Profiteering?

The Autodesk discussion group is a good place to find angry Autodesk customers giving vent to their feelings. Recently I came across this post on the Autodesk VIZ discussion group.

"Why is Viz so expensive in the UK & Europe? I am about to upgrade from Viz 2005 to 2007. In the UK this will cost me around £700 whilst the Autodesk web site shows the price as $445, this is currently around £220. What is the justification for this? Is there anything to stop me from getting a friend in the US to buy the upgrade and sending it to me? At a third of the price the it hardly seems necessary to purchase a subscription which is another £230. Is there anything we can do about this blatant profiteering?"

I can understand Autodesk pricing their software relatively cheaper in emerging economies, such as India and China, for many reasons, disparity in income levels being the main reason. So does Autodesk consider Americans paupers as compared to Europeans or do they think that Europeans are more loaded than Americans? Same difference.