Acrobat 3D Version 8 - Part 2

Come Spring and Acrobat 3D 8 is all set to take the PDF-DWF war to a new level. Last night Adobe’s executives showed me what Acrobat 3D 8 was all about. As regards GUI and workflow, there isn’t any great difference between the current version and the new version. At least I could not make out much from the Adobe Acrobat Connect conference. They tell me that my Beta is on its way. I hope to get a better look then.

The main drawback in the current version of Acrobat 3D is that it does not come with any translators for 3D file formats, and the ones which exist are not worth it. For example, if I try to create a PDF file from a DWG file, Acrobat pops a message saying “Starting the application that created the selected document Please wait…” (yes, there is no full stop after the word “document”). After about 10 seconds the message disappears and nothing happens. Most probably it is because I have AutoCAD 2000 through to 2008 Beta installed on my computer, not to mention a bunch of IntelliCADs and another bunch of 3D viewers. With so many applications fighting over the “DWG” file association, something like this is bound to happen.

But this is about to change. Thanks to Adobe’s acquisition of TTF, specialists in CAD data interoperability, Acrobat 3D 8 is now armed with technology which allows it to import a variety of native 3D file formats, including some neutral formats. TTF offers read/write libraries for CATIA V4/V5, SolidWorks, IDEAS, Pro-E, Unigraphics, CADDS, Euclid, Parasolid, ACIS, IGES, STEP, VDA, DWG and DXF. So I would expect that an Acrobat 3D 8 user would be able to convert all these formats (and probably more) to PDF. However, Acrobat 3D 8 can export to only the neutral formats, probably since the 3D models in the PDF file are stored at dumb B-Rep solids (without feature/parametric information), although the assembly relationships are maintained.

It is quite clear that Adobe is targeting the aerospace and automotive industries. The presenter mentioned that an Automotive giant had purchased 5000 licenses of Acrobat 3D (the current version) so that they could collaborate better internally and down their supply chain. I will not be surprised if others follow suit with Acrobat 3D 8 offering so much more. It will be interesting to know what Autodesk does to further DWF in these industries.

Acrobat 3D 8 is bound to give developers of high cost 3D viewers a run for their money. But I get the impression that Acrobat 3D 8 will not be just another cheap 3D viewer for native and neutral formats. Adobe wants companies to implement Acrobat 3D 8 and the free reader as an enterprise-wide solution for collaboration between various departments, and then take it further down the supply chain to other companies. In such a scenario, if the aerospace and automotive giants adopt PDF as the common language the industries will follow suit.

Other features in this new version include the ability to compress large data files into a fraction of their size (according to Adobe, 150 times smaller), without losing accuracy. So sending 3D models as PDF files by email should be much easier. This new version can support large assemblies, even up to 1 GB in size and the import process is twice as faster.

Adobe claims that there are more than 200 million PDF documents on the web. In the last two years itself, they distributed 525 million readers. Adobe also claims that the free Adobe Reader is found on 89% of all Internet connected desktops. With so much PDF and so many Adobe Readers around, it’s not surprising that Autodesk decided to give away Autodesk Design Review for free.

Microsoft does not want to include the Adobe Reader in Windows. They are aligning themselves with Autodesk by including DWF support in Vista. So Adobe has taken the back door by striking partnerships with hardware manufacturers so that their Reader comes with new PCs. Adobe is fighting on two fronts: Autodesk and Microsoft, both monopolies in their own respect. Capturing market share is not an easy job, especially when file formats are used as tools as opposed to just ways to store data.

Acrobat 3D Version 8

Today I was given an hour long briefing and demo by John Cristofano, Rak Bhalla and Bahman Dara of Adobe about their latest version of Acrobat 3D due to be released in the Spring of 2007. The briefing was arranged by AR-Edelman, Adobe's PR firm. It was a combination of phone call and an online presentation. It's great what people can do sitting on the opposite sides of the globe.

I will write more about this later. It's 11:30 pm here in India and I'd better leave office soon. Otherwise I'll have to face my wife's fury. I already have a headache from keeping my cell phone to my head for an hour. Next time I am going to use a speaker phone.

A quick note on their beta program. The Acrobat 3D Beta Program began back in December 2006. This program has three stages. The first stage involves only "hand selected" customers, about 10 only. I guess they must be real special. The second stage is what they call a "larger audience", about 1000. Interestingly, SolidWorks users feature prominently in these 1000 beta testers. The third and final stage is the "Free Public Preview", wherein anyone can download a fully functional copy from Adobe Labs. This is due to happen in March.

As regards pricing, Acrobat 3D 8 will be priced at $995. Registered users of Acrobat Professional can upgrade to Acrobat 3D starting at $545 and registered users of Acrobat 3D can upgrade to version 8 for $295. Customers who purchased Acrobat 3D after September 18th, 2006 are elegible for a free upgrade to version 8.

Look Who's Bending - Part 4

Greg Milliken, the CEO of Alibre, has been quite vocal in pointing to the arm twisting tactics used by his rivals to force users to upgrade. I wanted to know what he thought about my article “Look Who’s Bending”. I asked him the reasons why Alibre Design did not allow users to save to previous versions. His reply was encouraging.

“As for Alibre, we also do not provide the ability to save in a previous version. We don't prevent this to force an upgrade but I will agree it can often have that effect.

“For us, it is purely about the technical resources required to do it. Believe it or not we don't hear many complaints on it. Maybe it is because our software is so easy to keep current, in terms of cost, web deployment and so on. As our user base grows this could become a greater issue.

“As for the main technical reasons for not doing it, it is basically just a complex process that will likely always leave some group unhappy, so you can never win. It's like the old adage by Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." In this case some of the people will be unhappy all of the time and all of the people will be unhappy some of the time, etc. etc. In short, there will always be a lot of unhappy people. Some specific challenges relate to how future versions sometimes change the in-memory format of our objects necessitating changes to the serialization (or schema) of the model.

“I may be rationalizing it a bit, but as I said we really don't hear many complaints on this, and I think that is a positive result of how easy it is to stay current on our product.

“The suggestion to "drop" features added in a later version to features supported in an earlier version, or to dumb geometry when that is not possible, is an interesting suggestion and probably worth looking into.”


I guess Greg is right. If upgrading to newer versions does not burn a hole in your pocket then this doesn’t become such a big issue after all. Alibre Design, a full featured 3D Parametric Solid Modeling software, is priced at $995 only (Standard version) and you get free version upgrades for an annual maintenance of $295 only (see details here). With prices like these I guess only misers need to complain.

However, I was glad to know that Greg thinks the suggestion is “worth looking into”. A reader commented that no other parametric solid modeling software offered saving files to previous versions. If Alibre does manage to offer this feature then it will be another first for Alibre, a company that has already broken the price barrier for MCAD software.

Real Perspective

In his post "Reality Distortion", Evan Yares asks an important question: "Given all the marketing hype and reality distortion out there, how does a person in the CAD industry gain a bigger perspective?". He says, "No matter how it’s structured, a vendor-hosted conference can never provide real perspective."

Vendor-hosted conferences are becoming all-expense paid vacations for members of the press and some members of the press have been frank enough to admit it. Vendors and the press seem to have a "you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours" kind of a relationship, since both need each other to further their business goals. Vendors go out of their way to please journalists, and one would expect that any sensible journalist will return the favour. After all, the press need the vendors (not their readers) to advertise on their magazines, web sites, newsletters, etc. Journalists have to walk a fine line every time they write something. They tend to let all hell break loose when praising a vendor but choose their words carefully when they criticize. If they push too hard they risk having to pay for the next vendor-hosted conference, or even worse, being not invited or blacklisted altogether. And then there is also the fear of significant loss in ad revenue for their publication.

Given this scenerio, I believe that real perspective can be found on unmoderated blogs. I say "unmoderated" because a blog where reader comments have to be approved by the blogger is actually a one way conversation, similar to a magazine article, product review or newsletter.

Another thing which helps a good discussion is the ability to post comments anonymously. This is particularly helpful when discussing controversial topics. I noticed that out of the 112 comments on my blog, 28 are anonymous. That's 25%. Hell, I must be talking some real controversial stuff.

I have come across only a handful of journalists who give the devil his due, and I find their writings worth reading. I understand that being a journalist is not as easy as it may seem and I appreciate what they do. I am thankful that I am a blogger and not a journalist. I know I would have made a lousy journalist.

Autodesk's Customer Involvement Program

I came to know about Autodesk's Customer Involvement Program from Ralph Grabowki's post. A lot is going to be said about this.

However, I have a small suggestion. The "Changes to this Statement" section reads as follows:

"Autodesk may occasionally update this privacy statement. When we do, the "last updated" date at the top of the privacy statement will be updated. Please check the site periodically and review this statement to stay informed about how Autodesk is protecting the information we collect."

"Check the site periodically". Periodically as in monthly, weekly or daily? Wouldn't it be better to have AutoCAD itself prompt a user participating in this program of a change in the statement, when it happens. Something along the lines of the notorious "RealDWG" message box. Sorry, I just had to say it.

Look Who's Bending - Part 3

In a conversation with Brian Gillespie of McNeel regarding issues related to plug-ins for older versions of Rhinoceros, he pointed me to this page. Although McNeel stopped distributing Rhino 2.0 on 31-Dec-2002, Scott tells me that there are many people using Rhino 2.0 in active development.

One statement on the above mentioned page caught my attention.

"There is no need to upgrade to 3.0 immediately. Rhino 2.0 users are welcome to continue using 2.0 as long as they like."

I wonder how many software vendors are ready to make this kind of a statement, me including. I could learn a few things from McNeel. McNeel is truly a user friendly company and I hope they stay that way.

Intrusive License Agreements

A reader wanted to know my views on mordern day Software License Agreements that users are "forced" to accept. The reader was referring to clauses related to audits, sending information from the user's computer to the vendor's computer/database directly over the internet and similar intrusive provisions. The license agreement accompanying my software also contains similar clauses. The reader seems to be convinced that certain software vendors are using these clauses to legally harvest information from users' computers for reasons other than checking software piracy or error reporting. I have not seen the proof of this as yet, although I would love to.

To understand this better, we need to know where this is coming from. Let's take the case of the programmer who tried to sell SolidWorks source code. The last I heard, he was roaming scott free and even working as a programmer. In third world countries, IP protection laws are useless. If this was the outcome of a successfull FBI sting operation, which collected every shread of evidence that was necessary, and still was not able to convict a soul, it's not hard to imagine what kind of use our good old license agreement will have in a court of law.

This guy was caught red handed selling source code. You can only imagine what system you would need to have in place to trap people using pirated software, which in my opinion, is a far lesser crime. It is very difficult to prove that someone is using pirated software if you cannot physically visit his location. Another way is to put certain information in the files created by the software which is serious and specific enough to incriminate the user in a court of law. Yet, another way is for the user's computer to relay information directly to the vendor. This is when things start to cross the line. The more information you collect to strengthen your case, the more you violate the users right to privacy, encroach on his IP and a dozen other things.

And now, to complicate things even more, it is alledged that some vendors are taking advantage of this to harvest other information from users, unrelated to piracy or usage altogether. Whether this is true, I do not know. However, I would certainly like to.

As a software vendor, we are already bogged down by continuously making changes to our software locking system so that the cracks do not work. I have no time, energy, money and patience to go after users with a license agreement that has no teeth. If I am going to have a license agreement, it might as well be worth it.

I know that I risk being tagged as a someone using unfair means to achieve an ulterior motive. So be it. What can't be cured must be endured.

Look Who's Bending - Part 2

Thanks to those who commented to my earlier post, "Look Who's Bending". I have a few comments myself.

Rob: "Why would anyone let one user upgrade and leave everyone else behind?"

One very good reason would be to determine whether it is worth upgrading in the first place. I believe users are entitled to do cost-benefit analysis to see whether the new whiz-bang features can and will find a place in their workflow. By the way, I still sell add-ins to SolidWorks 2001 users who are perfectly happy with their software.


Anonymous: "Perhaps they assumed a 3rd party would naturally fill the void with a back-converter. This could be a FeatureWorks on steroids. I'm amazed that no one has stepped in to fill this very real need."

I would be the first to write a back converter, but this would require SolidWorks to publish their file formats or provide me with an SDK. Now, if you have been reading this blog, believe me, you don't want to get me started on this topic.


Anonymous: "I am not sure why you used SolidWorks as an example. No other parametric tool can do the backwardly compatible trick either that I am aware of."

Yes, it seems that I am targeting SolidWorks. Actually this applies to all parametric solid modelers.


Anonymous: "I don’t think your example of AutoCAD 2007 solids into wire frame for older versions of AutoCAD is an apples to apples example."

Yes, I agree that this is not an apples to apples example. The problem is that I could not find another apple to compare this apple with.


Anonymous: "Since all features are related, why would you want to insert one dumb feature? If you had the ability to modify an imported part parametrically from a future version, with one or two dump features, I can’t see anything but disaster on the horizon. The logical process would be that this modified part would wind up back in the hands of the user using the future version after modification. How would parametric parameters be reapplied to the dumb feature?"

If you study the "new features" you will see that most of them are actually "new methods" or "easier methods" of doing old things such as extrude, cut, revolve, sweep, loft, fillet, chamfer, draft, etc. Basic solid modeling techniques have largely remained the same. Surely there will be instances when you simply cannot break down new features into older ones. Only in such cases, a dumb solid will be required. It's better having a dumb solid than not having anything at all. At least there will be a one-way conversation if not a two-way, as opposed to silence.

My point is, why force users to exchange dumb solids (by Parasolid, ACIS, etc.) when, in probably most cases, you can offer them an option of exchanging featured solids. But, I guess, we all know the answer to that.

Hey, I am not saying it is easy. But I wasn't the one talking about bending.

Look Who's Bending

I came across the following at efunda.com forum.

Question: "I am trying to send a Solidworks 2006 SP4.1 model to one of my vendors. He has Solidworks 2005 SP4.0. He cannot open files because of his older version. Is there any way to save my files as an older version?"

Answer: "Directly, no you cannot save a Solidworks file to an earlier version. You CAN save it as a STL, IGES, PARASOLID, ACIS, or some other standard, but the resuting geometry will no longer be parametrically editable. What you can do is save it as an edrawing and have him download the most recent edrawing viewer. This should solve the connectivity issue as long as you don't need him to edit it.

"This is a major pain in the butt with Solidworks and I have ranted to everyone in the organization including the head honcho of Solidworks about this. The stock answer is that you cannot represent new features in the older version, but that is hogwash, you just make those features, and ONLY those features that are not directly translatable dump to imported geometry. Solidworks knows this, but the intent is to force everyone to maintain a subscription service and to upgrade often. But the problem is that the bugs in new releases usually make the new release virtually unusable until SP 2 or so comes out. But then you have problems where one company or division upgrades but the others don't and suddenly nobody with the older version can open any file that has been touched by the newer version (just opening an assembly will convert all the subassemblies and parts to the new version upon closing). I have that problem now, one engineer at another location upgraded, forced the entire location to upgrade in order to work on his stuff, and now nobody at my location can open any of their stuff."

[Clarification: "Just opening" a file in a new version of SolidWorks does not convert it. You have to save it for conversion to take effect.]

Other CAD systems have the decency to break "new features" so that they may be represented by "older features". For example, AutoCAD 2007 breaks 3D solids into a wireframe of curves while saving to versions that did not support 3D solids. That way an AutoCAD Release 12 user can at least view a 3D solid model from an AutoCAD 2007 user, whereas an AutoCAD 2000 user will be able to perform boolean operations on the solids.

If they wish SolidWorks can at surely save solids containing new features as unintelligent bodies lacking feature information, just like how they import bodies from SAT, IGES, STEP, etc. files. Moreover, if a part does not contain any "new features", then users with different versions can easily work together without any problems.

It's ironic that SolidWorks has created DWGgateway, which by their own words is meant to "eliminate the need to upgrade AutoCAD licenses just to be able to share work and collaborate with other AutoCAD users". They have posted a testimonial from a customer who claims that DWGgateway is "an excellent option for those who do not want to be forced to constantly upgrade their AutoCAD."

Roopinder Tara mentioned a truly divine statement made by John McEleney, CEO of SolidWorks in his article titled "SolidWorks - Putting More in the Box". John said, "Software should bend to fit the user, not the other way around".

I am not quite sure who is doing the bending here.

A Small Clarification

I would like to issue a small clarification regarding my article titled "Some Constructive Criticism". Some reader's seem to be getting the idea that I am asking Autodesk to provide free support at their discussion groups. That is not what I had in mind.

Autodesk sells support, so you cannot possibly expect it to offer free support on their discussion groups. Thats their business model and they are entitled to it. I was referring to questions like "Will AutoCAD be available for the Mac?", something general and which does not warrant the purchase of a support subscription. I say this because Autodesk alone can answer these questions, not users. Since Autodesk does not bother to respond, users pitch in with their theories, which more than often leads to Autodesk bashing. If you follow these newsgroups, you will notice that there are certain individuals who take part in these discussions with the sole intention to crucify Autodesk.

What is the point in spending large sums of money on large PR campaigns when you allow people to spread wrong information about your company on your own web site?

By the way, nobody from Autodesk has responded to the question yet. It's about 10 days old now, so I guess this goes into the pile of unanswered questions.

Legally Yours

A reader of my previous article "TrustedDWG Misconception" generally agreed to my views but pointed out that nothing is a right unless defined by rules and laws. I bet this person is a lawyer.

While this may be true with legal rights, I do not believe it holds true for moral and ethical rights, which are more important to me than legal rights. Moral rights and duties are absolute and cannot be easily twisted to suit oneself because the judge is one's own conscience, not some third party judge or jury.

If you take this issue to a court, with a good legal team, maybe you will win. You may even get a judgement passed which forces developers not to insert any identifiers into your files. But what will happen after that? Developers will refuse to give you support for any file which they cannot determine came from their software. And why should they? Moreover, there will be no way you will be able to make them give you support, unless you go back to court with a better argument. If you win again then developers may refuse to license their software to you. After all they have the "legal" right to do that. Then what will you do? I know I may be taking this too far, but the point I am trying to make is that you cannot see everything from a legal point of view alone. You will only end up hurting yourself and making your lawyers richer. Remember every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

When we try to excercise our legal rights over others while ignoring our moral and ethical rights and duties, we are actually asking for trouble and trouble is exactly what we get.

TrustedDWG Misconception

My recent posts regarding ownership, copyright and control of a drawing file were due to an email conversation I am having with a reader who frequently comments on this blog. Our views generally point in the same direction, but sometimes they are diametrically opposite. One such view disturbs me.

We both agree that a drawing file is solely owned by the user and not the developer. But the reader takes this one step forward and claims that since the user is the sole owner of his drawing file, the developer cannot add anything into file without his explicit consent. To put it in context, he objects to Autodesk adding the TrustedDWG feature into a DWG file. I do not know how many share this view. If you are one of them please read on.

I disagree, and so will all software developers, including Autodesk and even members of the ODA. I will try to explain with an example which is dear to me. I have a product called OBJ Export for SolidWorks, an OBJ file export add-in for SolidWorks. This add-in creates an OBJ file from a SolidWorks part or assembly. The header of the OBJ file contains the words "Created by SYCODE Geometry Library". That way I can determine whether a particular OBJ file was created by my software or not. Otherwise I can find myself in a situation wherein a customer comes to me with a bad OBJ file created by someone other software and claims a refund by stating that my software did not create the OBJ file properly. This works the other way around as well. If my software did indeed create the OBJ file improperly, then the customer can demand a refund from me by using the OBJ file as proof.

Let me push a little bit further. Consider the IGES file format which is considered to be an open standard. The people who created the IGES file format made it mandatory for all software developers to insert their information into the header. In their words, this information should be "the complete vendor's name, the name by which the system is marketed, and the product ID/version number and/or release date of software". You can see that they wanted to know exactly who created the IGES file and when. In fact, if this information is missing, some IGES file reading software may report the file as invalid. Now the architects of the IGES file format are not some huge greedy corporation trying to get richer. So why did they insist that software developers put their information in the IGES files? Because they understood the importance of specifying the source of the files.

Another industry standard, the STEP file format, has a similar mechanism. So does the OpenNURBS 3DM file format, Spatial's SAT format, and I could go on and on. The point which I am trying to make is that even though the user is the owner of his drawing file, the software developer has a right to add his information into the user's drawing file. In fact, going by the IGES specification, this is not only a right, it is a duty.

You may ask, "Ok, software developers may have the right to add an identifier to my drawing file, but but why should the identifier be a trademark?" Good question. Suppose in the OBJ file example above I drop the word "SYCODE" add instead have the identfier as "Created by Geometry Library". If I do this anybody can write software to create OBJ files with the same identifier and pass off as me. The trademarked word "SYCODE" gives me a strong legal footing to sue such people, which is exactly what Autodesk is doing.

Now to the center of all the confusion. I firmly believe that software developers have a right (and a duty) to specify a return address into a user's file. But what is important is how they use that right. People (like the reader) are so blinded by Autodesk's alleged misuse of this right, that they believe that Autodesk should have no right at all. My software does not create OBJ files so that they pop up dreadful messages. I am using this right responsibly.

I do not know how to stress this more. Software developers have the right. What is important is how they use it. They are two different things and please treat them as such.

Control Control Control

In an earlier article, I tried to answer a reader's question regarding the ownership and copyright of drawing files. I would like to make an observation on a related issue - the issue of control of a drawing file.

On this issue, after reading the comments from various people on blogs I get the feeling that many subscribe to the Open Design Alliance philosophy. The philosophy of the ODA in their own words is this: "It is users who own their design data, and it is users who should control that data."

I have no problem with the first part. The users own their design data. To the best of my knowledge no CAD software vendor has claimed ownership of a user's drawing file. But I wonder what does the ODA mean by "users should control the data". They already have control over their data. Control to me means determining which people have the right to view, modify, markup, etc. their drawing files. So are they talking about controling the file format itself? Or controlling which applications can read/write their data and which cannot? Or some other soft of control?

In my opinion, the ODA has not done a good job explaining what kind of control they feel the users should have. If you know what kind of control they are talking about please enlighten me.

Autodesk's Inventor Ad Campaign - Smart or Stupid?

The CAD press is at SolidWorks World in New Orleans. Today the CAD press is posting articles and images of Autodesk's Inventor ad campaign in New Orleans. Bloggers and readers are commenting on Autodesk's stupidity on having such an ad campaign. What they do not seem to realise is that they are part of the ad campaign. The Inventor ads can be seen only to people going to the SolidWorks conference, but now thanks to the CAD press they are now visible to people all over the world, which is exactly the whole point of this seemingly stupid excercise.

Sitting in India, I am reading about SolidWorks World and looking at the number of Inventor users.

Global Marker Alliance

I came to know about the Global Marker Alliance (www.savethemarkers.com) from Tod Hunter's post titled "Beware The Militant Marker Activist". I really do not know what to make of this.

Firstly, all the links at savethemarkers.com point to the Autodesk Labs Impression page. There is no so-called petition to sign because the "Sign the Petition Against Impression" link itself points to Autodesk. So obviously the whole point of the site is to drive traffic to Autodesk's Impression page.

Secondly, Tod Hunter calls the GMA a group of whiners, whom Autodesk has tried to contact but are not responding. He claims to have evidence that the GMA is funded by a large marker manufacturers. I re-read the article to see if it was written in jest. I seems the Tod actually meant everything he wrote about the GMA.

Thirdly, the domain name savethemarkers.com is owned by Ozone Advertising which has their office at 1335 Columbus, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94133 and a web site at www.ozoneonline.com. Ozone Advertising is basically an online marketing company and Autodesk is on their client list. This is what they have to say about Autodesk.

"We have been working with Autodesk for over five years and have created campaigns that include registration sites, emails, banners, database and search engine marketing and more for all of their software products. After rigorous testing, we increased click-throughs on banner ads by over 1700% and emails by over 110%."

Ah, now I understand how online marketing works these days. Autodesk hires a online marketing company which creates a phony group with the sole intention to bash Autodesk. Then Autodesk employee blogs about phoney group. Then other bloggers like me blog about Autodesk employee's blog. Readers read our blogs and visit phone group's web site. Readers click the links and finally reach the Autodesk Labs Impression page. And voila, we have traffic!!

I didn't know that online marketing has stooped down to such levels.


Update (4-Feb-2007)

Ralph Grabowski tells me this is kind of online marketing is called "astroturf marketing". I looked it up on the internet and found that people do not seem too happy about it, even if they know what it is. He also suggests that this kind of marketing is understood and may be accepted only in North America. I quite agree with him. If I did this kind of thing here in India, I would certainly be crucified for pulling a cheap publicity stunt.

According to SearchCRM.com: "Astroturfing is the artificial creation of a grassroots buzz for a product, service or political viewpoint. Astroturf marketing has a negative connotation, primarily because disreputable marketers have used deceptive tactics to build their buzz by taking advantage of the anonymity the Internet provides."

Hey, I have a great idea for Autodesk's "disreputable marketers" for their AutoCAD 2008 marketing campaign. Create an organization called Open Designers Alliance with a web site asking people to sign a petition to make Autodesk open the DWG format. Then send all the traffic to the Autodesk web site. I bet the Autodesk web server will crash due to overload.

Ownership and Copyright of Drawing Files

A reader asked me a question: "As a software developer what is your view relating to ownership of a .dwg (or any other data file created by a software user for that matter). Do you personally believe if I create a .dwg file I have sole ownership and copyright of that file?".

This topic about ownership and copyright of a drawing file (or for any file for that matter) has been discussed by many in the past and I have seen some arguments go tangentially into a totally different plane. I am not surprised because this is a topic that can be very confusing or can get easily confused. As far as my view goes, I will try and make it simple.


Ownership

As far as I understand ownership, a person can claim ownership over something (or part of something) only if he has created it (or part of it).

Applying this to a drawing file, it is common sense that a drawing file comes into useful existence due to two parties: the software vendor and the end user. The software vendor has used his time, knowledge and resources to create the drawing file format, basically the algorithm that determines how geometric data is stored in the drawing file. The end user has used his time, knowledge and resources to create the objects in the drawing file and arrange them to form a design.

So, the software vendor can claim ownership of the technology used to create a drawing file (essentially, the algorithm), whereas the end user can claim ownership to the meaningful arrangements of objects in the drawing file (essentially, the design).

I do not think any software vendor has ever claimed ownership to files created by their software. It's as ridiculous as suggesting that a guitar manufacturer claims ownership of a song sung by a singer using his guitar.


Copyright

I am no legal expert, so I will make use of Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia: "Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the 'form of material expression'. It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work".

Continuing from my earlier discussion on Ownership, the algorithm and the design are both abstract things. For the software vendor to claim copyright over an algorithm, I guess he will have to print the program generating the drawing file on a piece of paper and put a copyright notice on it. And for the end user to claim copyright over a design, he will have to print the design on a piece of paper and put a copyright notice on it. As far as the drawing file goes, I do not think it makes sense for either party to literrally print the drawing file in text/hexadecimal mode and on a piece of paper and put a copyright notice on it. [Here "printing on paper" could also mean other forms of output such as a monitor, screen, etc.]

The point to be noted here is that when the software vendor prints the program on paper, the design is not visible, but the algorithm is. Similarly, when the end user prints the file from the software on paper the algorithm is not visible, but the design is. However, a text/hex printout shows neither the algorithm nor the design. In effect, you are actually copyrighting a bunch of garbage characters, not the algorithm or design. In my view, the actual drawing file (the bits and bytes) is useless as far as copyright is concerned.

Copyright is literally "the right to copy" an original creation. So effectively the software vendor has the right to copy his program and the end user has the right to copy his design. The drawing file, by itself, is abstract and hence cannot be copyrighted.