By Owen Wengerd on Thursday, October 23, 2008 5:26 PM

In an October 13 filing, DS SolidWorks exercised their right to have the case heard by a federal judge instead of a magistrate judge. Yesterday, the case was reassigned to Judge Willian H. Alsup.

By Owen Wengerd on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:05 AM

Since this web site has expanded to cover CAD industry litigation in general, I have added the recently filed Autodesk v. SolidWorks lawsuit to the docket history page. Over time I will get the Grapevine page updated with links to commentary about the suit.

By Owen Wengerd on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 12:53 AM

The original web site has expanded to cover CAD industry litigation in general, so the domain name was changed to reflect the change in content. The NewsFeed page RSS feed is available at http://www.cadcourt.com/NewsFeed.aspx?rssid=1, and you can view docket history for tracked cases by following the links on the Docket page.

By Owen Wengerd on Monday, July 28, 2008 8:10 PM

In their joint status report filed today, Autodesk and Vernor announced that Vernor's "Second Claim" (for unfair and deceptive practices) will be settled out of court, and they propose a trial date of June 1, 2009 to settle the remaining claim. After the scathing May 20 order denying Autodesk's motion to dismiss, Autodesk is essentially left with only one bullet in the chamber: its argument that the AutoCAD SLA (Software License Agreement) applies to Vernor by virtue of the unauthorized transfer of the physical copies of AutoCAD. If that argument fails, it appears that the only thing left to determine at trial is the amount of declaratory and injunctive relief that Autodesk is liable for.

By Owen Wengerd on Friday, May 23, 2008 2:07 PM

As I expected, the Vernor ruling is getting a lot of airplay, and a Google search will turn up myriad discussions on the subject (most, unfortunately, devoid of real value). Here are two links to useful expert commentary:

• Godel Metric law blog
• EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation)

By Owen Wengerd on Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:59 AM

Famed copyright expert William Patry discusses the Vernor victory on his blog. Followup comments contain interesting analysis and discussion as well.

By Owen Wengerd on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:33 PM

For those of you following the Vernor case, today's order elicited a blog post from Public Citizen, the group representing Vernor in the case. This represents a biased viewpoint from one of the parties in the suit. I will post links to independent legal analysis as I find it.

By Owen Wengerd on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:55 PM

The court today issued an order denying Autodesk's motion to dismiss the charges in the Vernor lawsuit. Normally such a denial is perfunctory and mundane, but in this ruling the court performs a breathtaking analysis of whether the AutoCAD software was a sale or a license, and reaches conclusions that, if not reversed, are certain to change the face of software sales in the USA. Technically, the scope of this order is limited to simply refusing to grant Autodesk's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but the implications of the judge's analysis are almost stunning in their rejection of Autodesk's legal claims. I'm sure you will be hearing much more about this order in the coming weeks, as the entire software industry will certainly take notice of this case.

By Owen Wengerd on Thursday, March 06, 2008 6:25 PM

An exchange of arguments in the Vernor lawsuit over the past few weeks begins to solidify the arguments and clarify the strategies of the two parties. First Vernor's attorneys filed a brief in opposition to Autodesk's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, then Autodesk responded.

Vernor's attorneys are clearly challenging conventional thinking as it relates to copyright and software licensing. This is expected, as Public Citizen, the nonprofit group funding Vernor's challenge, has said that it wants to clarify existing case law with regard to software licensing. On the other hand, it's what Autodesk does not argue that I find most interesting. Autodesk seems to have made a strategic decision to not challenge the basic assertion that they are using the DMCA to enforce a contract. They do make a weak argument that the DMCA applies in this case by charging that Vernor's actions amount to contribut ... Read More »

By Owen Wengerd on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:39 PM

In a motion filed yesterday, Autodesk argues that the court must dismiss the Vernor lawsuit. Autodesk's legal argument includes some interesting twists, including a definition of "owner" for purposes of the first sale doctrine that will certainly be challenged by Vernor's attorneys. In addition, an accompanying declaration by Evelyn LaHaie of Autodesk's License Compliance department details the interesting history of the AutoCAD Release 14 licenses at issue, including evidence that they had been upgraded to a later version.

There is a lot of fascinating reading here, and I will have more to say on the subject after I've had time to absorb and process it all.