Wednesday, 19 May 2010

CIP - The Deception Continues.

When I first reviewed, purchased and read RalghG’s book on AutoCAD 2011, I came across a screen capture of, a ‘new dialogue box’ of, Autodesk’s CIP (Customer Involvement Program). Toward the bottom of the dialogue box was the statement “Preview my CIP Data”. Imagine my surprise; over five years of trying to make Autodesk see some sense to their surreptitious and unauthorized removal of data from customers computers, was I now about to find Autodesk had listened (to a single customer) and made a concession along the lines I had been suggesting?

I was eager to find the answer – to that question - knowing full well, if, Autodesk had indeed ‘done the right thing’ I would have NO option (and would happily have done so) but to write positively about the change and accept one of initial reasons behind the creation of Caveat emptor had been achieved. All I needed now was for my ‘2011’ versions of Inventor or AutoCAD to arrive and, I would have my answer.

Inventor arrived first and it was not long after I received the answer to my question: Autodesk’s CIP’s Deception Continues.

I am not sure if I am disappointed or angry – it matters not – what is very apparent is the absolute distain Autodesk and it management have for their customers; the source of their lifestyle. Autodesk have, in one stroke, demonstrated they will use what ever tools of language (spin) they can to deceive and mislead.

The ‘changes’ we see in the CIP dialogue box have most assuredly been done in an attempt to disarm and desensitize their customers. What Autodesk has done is nothing short of rubbish; at best a dismal attempt to mask their long running unauthorized actions and unconscionable conduct!

I should have known better than to have expected Autodesk would have come to their senses, and seen the error of their ways; after all they are lead by management happy to infer I am a lunatic ;-)

Well, a lunatic I may be and will remain until I see Autodesk taken to task for their actions; or change. Autodesk’s customers have only themselves to blame for allowing Autodesk’s intrusive behavior to continue for as long as it has – unchallenged; in return Autodesk has spat in our faces.

As I have said on previous occasions, there are several simple solutions - available to Autodesk - not requiring the unconscionable behavior and the intrusive use of Trojan software and licence terms and conditions. Processes that would protect their customers and allow Autodesk to obtain the data they have stated they want (and recover some market credibility). Their problem: Autodesk simply refuse to consider the alternatives and or to sit down, talk and, take advantage of that fact; resulting in a further conformation, of my belief, Autodesk’s actions do not match their stated intentions and therefore cannot be trusted!

My first sighting of the ‘2011’ CIP dialogue box raised hopes I may be able to say the reverse but reality and the truth don’t permit me to do so – as I have said before – IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO TURN CIP OFF and LEAVE IT OFF.

The Deception Continues!

24th May 2007

Buyer Beware…’, was the title of a letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald on the 24th May 2005. It detailed a fundamental shift in the use of a particular EULA away from being a tool that defined the rules of use for software – reasonable - to a legally enforceable contract containing a number of questionable conditions including one granting the licensor, "the right to conduct an audit on your premises or by electronic means"; unreasonable!

The EULA moved from being a contract defining what you can and cannot do with software to a contract, if accepted unchallenged, that specifically gives the licensor access to your premises, business, design and computing systems!

Caveat emptor, the Blog, is an extension of that original letter and highlights my original, unanswered, requests relating to the addition of Audit clauses in my existing Subscription and Licence contracts. Requests for information and detail that I, as an established licence holder and customers, have every right to; and information the licensor should be compelled and obligated to provide!

If my goal is considered offensive, unjustified or unreasonable it will only be by those who believe protecting their IP is more important than that of others. To them I make no apology; if the issues raised previously had been broached correctly, and in the first instance, they would have long ago passed by.

Caveat venditor: ‘Like a dog with a bone’, I have absolutely no intention of letting go of these issues until they all are sensibly discussed and answered as I believe they should be!