tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54453445090424292212024-03-14T02:19:29.152+11:00Caveat emptor.- A CAD User Advocate Blog -R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-91031360772940323392011-03-28T09:58:00.002+11:002011-03-28T10:19:30.026+11:00Credit where it is Due?<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">As many will be aware Dassault Systèmes Draftsight running under Linux is now available for users to download and use. I have always been interested in looking closely at Draftsight and have told many (students) to do so; however, I have also told them to be very careful using software from a software vendor who states, within their EULA, it “automatically collects certain system data and transmits the data to Dassault Systèmes for support purposes.”</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">There is good reason to be wary of software developers. Significant software developers, you would think, should know better, but as we have seen, given these companies are manned by people, they are also subject to the vagaries and failings of people. One of those failings is knowing what is right and wrong and or reasonable business behaviour. In my opinion taking data off customers computers without their knowledge, and or giving the customers complete control over the process, is neither correct or reasonable, to do, nor justifiable in any sense.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">That said, when Draftsight first became available, what I saw as a great opportunity was derailed by Dassault’s wording in the EULA; compounded by Draftsight’s management who chose to ignore, three (3), email requests to discuss the conditions found in the Draftsight EULA. The EULA and the managements silence meant there existed little reason to trust the company and or make further recommendations. To this day my requests have been ignored but, maybe not the reason for them?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Hearing of the release of the Linux version and knowing the value of this release for some and students I decided to have another look, the EULA being my first stop. Had it have been the same I would have gone no further, but it was not; so I read further and, what I found was that the clause - relating to the removal of data - was missing? Good!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">So, Credit where it is Due. Whether a conscious decision or an oversight the important fact is there is no indication, at least in the EULA, Dassault has, within the Draftsight software, intrusive Trojans or functionality similar to Autodesk’s Trojans and CIP: something we are about to check as thoroughly as we can. My stubbornness and skepticism remains though; the capability may still exist within the software?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">If there is one thing my ‘stoush’ with Autodesk has taught me is software EULA, similar to Draftsight’s, are NOT legally binding/enforceable contracts; despite developers attempts to use wording, within the documents, stating this as fact. I treat all digitally “Accept”ed, non- negotiable EULA equally: they must be read even though and, as is the case with me, I do NOT accept their terms nor their claimed legal enforceability, Dassault’s EULA are no exception.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">So in moving forward: I want to test, to get to know and probably promote Draftsight (particularly for students) for the obvious reasons of access, cost and for the important flow-on effects available to industry. The software will, quite possibly, be used in connection with nuclear and chemical systems, missile propulsion systems and in other industry sensitive areas. Therefore when there existed the capability and an open statement - within the EULA - defining what is totally unacceptable business behaviour and, considering Dassault's managements reticence to discus their EULA, I was not, previously, prepared to proceed</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Whether the capability to remove business data still exists or not (it may?), with the current EULA and Dassault’s previous reaction I am now prepared to take the next step; but before I do, I am publicly declaring, I do NOT accept Dassault’s Draftsight EULA terms and conditions and I do intend to test and use their product. The ball, now, is entirely in Dassault’s court. If they believe the Draftsight EULA is legally enforceable, and I must accept that as fact (without discussion or negotiation), Dassault must notify me not to proceed or now decide whether to prevent me from downloading, authorizing, testing or using their Draftsight software. Dassault Systèmes must prevent me proceeding further or accept, allowing me to download and use Draftsight will be Dassault Systèmes acceptance of my terms and conditions of use.</p>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-72850002598047199612010-10-07T15:16:00.002+11:002010-10-07T15:46:44.284+11:00Opportunity Knocks and then Knocks Differently.<p class="MsoNormal">“Those who ignore the lessons of the past are destined to repeat the mistakes.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Recently, whilst working on a problem the irony of the solution found immediately made me smile.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>My solution lay in the use of software to be found in Sycode’s stable of utilities.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">For those who know my business, it would have never been a surprise to find, one day, me using Sycode’s tools.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Typically most of my work is Autodesk product based, training and support with a particular interest in problem shapes or geometry hassles; things that go wrong for users.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">What made the situation I found myself in ironic is embodied in Sycode’s published terms and conditions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Sycode’s terms and conditions contain some very invasive and unreasonable clauses; clauses very similar too, if not ‘lifted’ directly from Autodesk Inc.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Given I have not accepted Autodesk’s T&Cs it is highly unlikely I would accept Sycode’s.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">;-) I think I’ve been here before!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, a quick letter to Sycode’s CEO Deelip Menezes about the clauses in question drew the response detailed in a previous blog posting. The questions remain un-answered.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Interestingly, in the tweeting that followed (that we saw), Deelip made no mention of the reason for the letter, but did ask the question; ‘it was in letter form….should I be worried?’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Well no, though maybe a bit of sensible thought (and an answer) would not have been (professionally) out of place!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">With no answer from Deelip, I still had a job in hand and no time to muck around, so I fired off a purchase order (a commitment) to Deelip. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I requested he consider removing, from his T&C’s, for ‘this single instance’, the Insolvency and Audit clauses.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I stated if he accepted my request, added no additional conditions and, responded in writing the transaction would proceed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>A simple enough request for a competent business owner to handle, process and answer; and a contract in the literal sense!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Had Deelip’s answer been yes, $245.00 US. would have immediately found its way into Sycode’s account and Deelip’s software would have been pressed into service.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But it was not to be, and Deelip is the person who knows why.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I suspect petulance played a part.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>“Sycode - software made simple” – but not universally available: unless of course Sycode’s T&Cs are accepted unconditionally, without question or negotiation and payment is made in full before delivery – or your not this Waddington?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Where have we seen this ‘attitude’ before!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now this situation is different, to that which divides Autodesk and I, for a number of reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>A primary one being I (currently) use no Sycode software; it was not a discussion about a change in the T&Cs of existing software.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>So, no negotiation simply meant no purchase. To Deelip, maybe, $245.00 is no great loss compared to being able to now gloat he ‘poked me in the eye’.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Some marketeers would have their views on the handling of this situation and the ‘value of a disgruntled customer’. For me, it was neither a loss nor even a momentary inconvenience - it provided another type of opportunity.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It became fodder for Caveat emptor. Was sending me a childish message and, getting ‘your own way’, worth having this record (and that which will follow) attached to the name of Sycode, Deelip?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">A few points to make; Deelip has not denied me (as far as I know) access to his product and, he does have his ‘rights’. He can define his T&Cs and he can, in theory, choose with whom he negotiates.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Interestingly though, ignoring my request Deelip has, now, compromised Sycode’s T&C’s and maybe more besides.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>But let’s look on the bright side Deelip, at least now you can say you have a lot more in common with Autodesk and CEO Bass than just the clauses in your respective T&Cs ;-)</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In a previous posting, CIP - <u>The</u> Bomb; fragments ‘CAD in the Cloud’, I argued CIP, and similar systems or software are windows into the management of a software vendor; and challenge the Integrity of all involved.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I also said that one way to judge the management of a company was in the way the individuals involved interacted with existing and ‘new’ customers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Caveat Venditor: consumers deserve better!*</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I argue an expanded use of the internet and the ‘cloud’ requires customer to place enormous (and maybe too much) Trust in their software vendors. Because of this fact, vendors’ management MUST be able to and respond (quickly and Truthfully) with answers to ALL the questions asked, regardless of content or reason.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The internet is a communication ‘interface’ between retailers and customers (Sycode and Draftsight are similar but differing examples) so it stands to reason this is the same system vendors’ management are going to need to use to interact with their customers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Get it right and it will be successful; use it in the manner I have highlighted and it will haunt.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Vendors want, and are quick, to use the internet to ‘force’ their business arrangements - eg. T&C’s and payment before delivery, etc. - and to use it as a moat between themselves and their customers. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>However, they have refused to learn to effectively use the same communication tools, as a bridge, for situations which may be problematic; and yet this is an ideal place and an ideal set of tools with which to respond. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Just imagine the positive flow on effect had Autodesk answered my questions (as requested) about licencing and CIP.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Instead they churlishly chose to stall, ignore and worse and, as a result are seen to be hiding something.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Deelip has chosen to ‘ignore with comment’; Mr. Aaron Kelly simply chose to ignore my requests - Three times.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Management attitudes on display and prime examples of just how backward* software vendor management is in using ‘modern’ communication tools, in a ‘modern’ manner.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>More than keen to use it for their own benefit and to the deliberate disadvantage of their customers and individuals; and they have the hide to tell us we are not embracing technology fast enough (ie 2D to 3D etc.) and intimate we should place still more Trust in their abilities, services and products.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s a new form of slapstick – we (software vendor management) whack you (the customer and fall guy) around on the stage of business and expect you to keep standing up to take the custard pies in the face as well!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the case of CAD; the changes customers have had to grasp, cope with, apply and fund, in the last 30+ years, far exceeds the growth and effort in vendor management’s capability to be Truthful and Transparent with their customers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Petty personal attitudes, deceit and selective disconnection practiced by vendors’ management is at the heart of my posts.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Caveat Emptor is a warning to consumers and, the internet and this blog are tools for consumers. That these tools can be used this way will sooner or later sink through skulls and, penetrate the conscience of software vendor CEO’s, management and staff.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">When, in the late 1890s’, Lawrence Hargraves said the following he could just as well have been talking about the internet;</p> <p class="MsoNormal">“<i>In my mind, the flying machine will tend to bring peace and goodwill to all; it will throw light on the few unexplored corners of the earth and it will herald the downfall of all restrictions to the free intercourse of nations</i>”.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As aircraft were, and still are, capable of reducing the barriers of distance, communication and function for peace or as a weapon.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>So too the internet reduces distance and time barriers and it is an equalizing agent; it is also a tool of scrutiny and a (potential) weapon.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Software vendors’ management can either embrace it ‘all’ or continue to use it selfishly (and as a weapon) only to find it slowly fretting away their credibility.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Face to face, over the counter trading ‘has gone’ guys, eg. Sycode/Draftsight.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The question(s) a customer may have asked ‘sales assistants’, across a counter, are now asked via e-mail and in ‘open forums’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Ignoring ‘tough’ questions and trying to ‘hide’ is exposing the real practices and personalities of vendor CEOs and management.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It is also revealing their very real shortcomings in knowing how to deal directly with (‘the public’ and) customers concerns and enquiries*. More importantly, the internet is leaving a trail, which cannot be easily covered. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>When the ‘crap hits the fan’ and the time arrives for a vendor’s management to be asked to justify their actions, past records will count. Evan Yares makes a similar point when he stated “the internet does not forget”.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">That is the warning carried by and, is a core reason for my blog, Caveat emptor!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">There is considerable consumer discontent in software vendors – the sole cause being vendor management.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It could be argued, one solution, vendor management see (to contain the discontent) is by gaining more control of customers’ business data (‘CAD in the Cloud’); thereby constraining customer resistance using control over choice and the fear and cost of change etc.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This will work, up to a point, but it is business built on bubbles, and bubbles burst!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Licencing, EULA and Customer Involvement Programs (CIP) etc. are, for me, a bit of a side issue now: they were once a reason but now are catalysts maintaining the ‘heat’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Deelip simply added to the heat. What has had my attention for some time is how those documents, CIP type software and managements reactions provide a window into the management of software vendors and, within the management, they expose individuals (lack of) Integrity.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I despise with a passion, those who ‘push’ people around, those who (deliberately) take advantage of the less fortunate and, persons/organizations who take advantage of those in ‘weaker’ bargaining positions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Whether it is in business or in life in general, they are Bullies! That I am not frightened to personally (or to use the internet to) speak out must be obvious by now.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Thus far I have achieved some of what I have set out to do – and, there is more to come.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">CAD vendor management; is there a business statesman amongst them?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Who is to be the first to step up to the plate and demonstrate they are made of the stuff which recognizes they know and care about their customers needs and the success of their customers businesses. From my perspective will it be CEO Bass, Owner Menezes, Manager Kelly or somebody else?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">*P.S.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Just prior to publishing this post I checked Sycode’s T&C’s for change and read Deelip’s ‘conversation with Ron Fritz’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The following excerpt could not be more appropriate to include in this post. Knowing and Caring about customers, is a point many (suppliers/vendors) in the CAD industry should spend the time doing and put into to practice;</p> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">“</span><strong><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Ron:</span></strong><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> Yes. For about seven years I managed hotels and restaurants. It’s not as different as one might think. If you take the time to understand your customer’s needs and what they are really buying from you, then all business is somewhat similar. It all centers around knowing your customer and caring about them. I like to believe that my high service orientation was helpful to us, since I don’t think that is particularly prevalent in the technology industry in general.”</span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"> </span>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-86463358350229739142010-09-19T22:02:00.006+10:002010-09-19T22:15:55.125+10:00Disclosure is Everything – but difficult for Management to Grasp and Execute.<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In my posting, CIP - <u>The</u> Bomb; fragments ‘CAD in the Cloud’, I suggested one of the ways in which users could judge the Trustworthiness and Integrity of CAD vendors’ management and staff was in the way they interacted with you/their customers and how Transparent they were prepared to be in dealing with customer concerns and questions.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I used Autodesk’s ‘response’ to my questions (relating to their terms and conditions) and the application of the Customer Involvement Program (CIP) as an example of how these business practices are a window into the management and staff of a software vendor; now we have another example.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I recently wrote a letter - (sent via email) to Deelip Menezes in his role as CEO of Sycode asking several questions in relations to his published software terms and conditions.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Deelip’s response was to tell me I have “lost the right to have a private correspondence with me the day you posted the contents of my private emails to you on your blog without my permission”. He is of course referring to a series of emails initiated by me contacting Deelip and then referenced in, Rabid_Dog puts CIP_Data Up For_Sale<span >.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">He also made the point; “I find it odd that you make all this noise about why users should not trust the CAD vendors with their data when you cannot be trusted to even maintain the confidentiality of a private conversation”.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Three points quickly here, I initiated the original conversation and at no time did Deelip ask for his comments to be kept confidential. I am not a CAD software vendor offering or likely to be offering ‘cloud’ solutions and therefore do not need to ask for the trust ‘cloud software vendors’ need to prove they are capable of supporting; and to which my post refers.</p> <p style="margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm">To paraphrase Deelip (Vektorrum): For whatever its worth, I’d like to publicly apologize to Deelip for any inconvenience this incident may have caused him. It was not my intention to deceive him, whilst passing myself off as myself, getting him to say things that I could use against him.</p> <p style="margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm">Yes, I did use parts of a conversation I initiated with Deelip and no (his comments) were not collected for later use. Mea culpa. My mistake for not realizing only Deelip has the right to reference me and his comments to me.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">That part of the spat though is a side issue, what is of significant importance, is the questions Deelip sidestepped with his admonishment. They follow;</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">“The first of which is, are you prepared to negotiate your licence terms and conditions? If Yes, are there limitations you would place on negotiations and what would those limitations be?<br /><br />Would you be prepared to remove your audit and insolvency clauses if asked to do so? If Yes, would it be conditional and if so what would those conditions be?”</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Yes, Sycode has in its terms and conditions some interesting clauses; the Audit being one and, one of particular interest to me given it is a ‘clone’ of Autodesk’s.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In a recent stoush on another blog we witnessed a tussle in which both Deelip and Michael Gibson contributed substantially. Both these fellows, as CEO’s., of their respective companies had an ideal opportunity to get their important points about - ‘software ownership/licencing etc.’ – across to the readers, and they failed to do so. The reason they failed is, in part, because, neither choose to embrace this issue from any alternative point(s) of view.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Licencing and business/software terms and conditions are neither difficult to understand nor implement. But they do require commonsense and in the light of our current level, and future use of the ‘cloud’ they do need everybody involved to understand what is reasonable/acceptable and what is not.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Software ‘ownership’ discussions have ‘raged’ in various forms and for various reasons for some time now and, they have really shown just how deficient the management of major and minor software companies are in using the ’power’ of the internet to educate and take their customers with them. CEO’s talk big about the advantages of the WEB and the ‘Cloud’ but cannot use, effectively, the tools they have had for ‘ages’ to engage their customers. The dismal performance of Autodesk’s managements in addressing my published concerns is all the evidence you need of these failings. You may well be about to witness another!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The internet is about breaking down time and access/barriers and being able to share and engage like no other time in history; and it requires some real re-thinking about how we interact. I don’t see any evidence the current crop of software CEO’s, in our sphere, are equipped to engage their customers as is necessary and I personally would say those I have tried to communicate with do not even have the courage to engage their customers as is needed; with one possible exception – Deelip Menezes. Let’s see if Deelip is really any different and, can show the ‘big guys’ how it should be done.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Firstly, understand, I believe and accept software developers have a ‘right’ to determine the contents of their T&C’s but as I have demonstrated, to Autodesk’s discomfort and loss; the application of them in the ‘newer mediums’ cannot (always) be exactly the same as in the ‘old days’ and, customers ‘rights’ and an ability to challenge MUST be taken into consideration and be part of future computing ‘orientated’ transactions.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">As an example Deelip announced to the world Raytheon had become a customer. Evan Yares made the point, Deelip may have breached Raytheon’s terms of purchase. Now I don’t know (the complete or) what the order of events was but my take is easy; if an order was placed on Deelip and he did not re-negotiate the clause preventing him using Raytheon’s name, he possibly was in breach. However if Deelip’s product was purchased on-line with no correspondence to ‘enforce’ the purchasers T&C’s then Deelip was not in breach as such; he may just be guilty of not thinking very carefully. Wisdom comes with age and by way of lessons learned from ones mistakes.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The reason I raise the Raytheon issue is because it highlights one problem ‘unique’ to online business trading. I still issue purchase orders for my software and that has become a problem for dealers because my terms and conditions have equal standing to their own; and this goes for/against Autodesk as well. The one thing business software users cannot afford to loose is their ability to apply purchasing terms and conditions or to loose the ability to negotiate. The latter is already a casualty in need of serious surgery.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In considering why I am interested in Deelip’s response to his ‘Audit’ clause; it would be wise to remember Deelip once made this very public (and for me, a very useful) comment.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">“I develop CAD software. If I want I can make my software send me all kinds of data belonging to my customers. The moment someone runs my EXE on their computer and tells their firewall that its OK for that EXE to connect to the internet, I can do just about what I want on that computer, just like a virus. But I don’t because that is not my freaking business. And that is why people buy my software.” But…..?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Deelip has the capability and he appears to believe he needs to ensure his customers have provided him a pathway to use the capability, why? What is worse though, he has sown a seed of distrust, and defined a security issue! I wonder how Raytheon would view finding out ‘they have accepted’ a condition requiring them to (potentially) allow an audit of their facilities by Deelip or his representative?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Using the WEB more widely and in particular using ‘CAD in the Cloud’ requires those in CAD vendor management being very closely ‘linked’ to their customers and, it requires their ABSUOLUTE Integrity and Transparency and that of their staff and affiliates as well.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Now, I ask Deelip the questions again: hoping to see Deelip is the CEO of the future. One who can convince the wider skeptical public CAD CEO’s can be trusted, by engaging in a full and frank discussion about his T&Cs, why they are important to him and will stay and, his reasons for (enforcing) them; starting with the following questions;</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">“The first of which is, are you prepared to negotiate your licence terms and conditions? If Yes, are there limitations you would place on negotiations and what would those limitations be?<br /><br />Would you be prepared to remove your audit and insolvency clauses if asked to do so? If Yes, would it be conditional and if so what would those conditions be?”</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Over ;-)</p>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-49957558955523260732010-09-13T12:05:00.008+10:002010-09-13T13:14:47.440+10:00CIP - The Bomb; fragments ‘CAD in the Cloud’.<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">A Summary:</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">This initial page is for those who don’t want to read the following looong post about why I do not, and would not, Trust my existing CAD vendor (specifically, the management and staff) to be my ‘CAD in the Cloud’ vendor of choice.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In my opinion, for ‘CAD in the Cloud’ to be a successful business tool it requires a customer to grant a level of Trust in their vendor few are prepared for, or fully understand. Importantly, using ‘CAD in the Cloud’, as it is being ‘offered’, requires customers to understand it is the management and staff of their CAD vendor who is going to be the custodians of, not only their business data and IP but, also their businesses continuing growth, fortune, profitability and reputation. You need to be able to Trust ALL of the vendors’ management, staff and affiliated businesses!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In short, switching to ‘CAD in the Cloud’ is giving a whole raft of other individuals’ considerable control of your business. If their Honesty and Integrity is not known, cannot be checked, tested and maintained, and their business activities and decisions are not completely Transparent; you have cause to be concerned and the only reason necessary, not to get involved, or use their ‘Cloud’ solutions.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">If when checked or questioned, the vendors’ stated responsibility extends to being the equivalent of ‘all care and no responsibility’, with no provision for recourse or compensation; you have another good business reason, not to get in involved with their ‘Cloud’ solution.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Trust, and the enormous, unprecedented, level of Trust you must place in the hands of your CAD vendors’ management and staff is the single most important consideration in choosing a ‘CAD in the Cloud’ vendor. If you cannot convince yourself, every employee in your vendor has a 100% interest/commitment in protecting your business, has the same business values, and the same aspiration you have for your business then you have several very good reasons not to commit or make use of their ‘CAD in the Cloud’ solution.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Other than a mention, there is nothing to do with cost, access, security, technical issues or anything similar in the following post. Trumping all other issues, for me, ‘CAD in the Cloud’ is about TRUST; and I really don’t believe there is any evidence (from any existing CAD vendors management) to show they (the individuals who make a vendor a business entity) have what it takes to be Trusted ‘Cloud’ business partners. If you do, great. Caveat emptor.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">EoS.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Warning, Warning, Warning</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">For those who want to see some of the details behind my mistrust of software vendors’ management and staff you are welcome to read further; but don’t complain, to me (or any body else), about what you read or how long it takes.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I will take on any arguments or criticism the post will attract, with the hope they will be of substance and ignore the fact I am a lunatic, have two heads both with pointy hats and live on another planet etc. etc. etc; comments which have absolutely no bearing on the topic.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I have not set out to offend any particular company or individual but this post goes to the very heart of the ‘conflict’ between one CAD vendor and me. It draws on much of what is already known publicly. However, on this occasion I reveal how what has happened will influence me and others in our future dealing(s) with ALL software vendors. The lessons learned, particularly over the past five years, will be widely applied and used by me and others.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Understand, to read further, you do so at your own risk and you do accept complete responsibility for any offense which may occur. If there is a possibility you, or those you represent, may be offended, in any way or form, DO NOT read further. If you do and/they are then you must accept you were not forced to do so and were suitable warned!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">EoW</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Having read and accepted the Warning, I repeat, reading further is your responsibility.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Introduction:</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">As I detail deeper in this post, who would have thought Autodesk’s CIP (Customer Involvement Program) could be the subject of a post like this one. But CIP has provided us all a unique view into Autodesk’s management. CIP has also given us a real gauge, against which to measure, the amount of Trust a customer can place in a CAD vendor, its management, staff and those of affiliated companies.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Innocuous as CIP appears to be to some, to me, it always had other faces and for some time I have kept to myself what I really saw when I looked closely into and at CIP.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">CIP, and similar systems or software are windows into the management of a software vendor; and challenge the Integrity of all involved.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The Mother Load:</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">With the following lengthy post I am going to bring together several apparently unrelated ‘things’; Autodesk’s software and subscription terms and conditions of use, Autodesk’s CIP, ‘CAD in the Cloud’ and Trust.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Some may struggle to understand how my issues with Autodesk, ‘CAD in the Cloud’ and Trust are connected; but it should come as no surprise. In reality, for me, it is a logical combination of issues. For ‘Cloud’ computing, specifically ‘CAD in the Cloud’, to truly succeed, business users of these system are going to need to place (and have) an enormous amount of Trust in the hands of their CAD vendors. More specifically, the customers Trust is in the Honesty, Integrity and Transparency of the vendors’ management, their staff and affiliated companies.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Business customers are going to need to assess and decide; do their CAD vendors’ management and staff qualify as people a customer is prepared to entrust with their businesses data and, by extension, their businesses continued success and prosperity? Is Trusting your vendors’ personnel important? Yes it is, it’s paramount. When I watch (and listen to) the arguments, and comments, on the WEB (etc.) about software bugs, performance, the ‘Cloud’ and software usability; there is much customer dissatisfaction. Software ‘companies’ are not responsible for that dissatisfaction; it is entirely the fault of the management and staff within those business entities. We have our businesses to run and grow and it is about time CAD vendors’ management understood, how untrustworthy they are perceived and, how difficult they are making business for many, many small businesses.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Is Trusting your vendors’ management important?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Well, for me, Autodesk is a business entity and like most businesses, no management and staff, no business. In many consumable/business sales organizations Trust (in the staff) is important, but it need not be the most important attribute. For ‘CAD in the Cloud’, Trust in the vendors’ management and staff is THE most important attribute. If using software was likened to jumping using a parachute packed by somebody else; using ‘CAD in the Cloud’ is the base jumping equivalent. Few engaged in base jumping use canopies packed by others.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">‘CAD in the Cloud’, as it is being ‘offered’, as inevitable by CAD vendors, by definition requires companies to entrust their business data and intellectual property to the individuals within the vendor/providers. Whilst this is a repeat of what has been done in the past, on this pass the commitment is going to be far more significant and thwart with dangers many (who will be sucked up into the ‘Cloud’ by vendors) simply do not fully understand. Before we explore some of the problems and, the issue I believe to be the most important, let’s ask why ‘Cloud’ solutions at all and, for whom is ‘CAD in Cloud’ of the most benefit?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">To the question, why ‘Cloud’ solutions. There are books full of ‘good’ reasons and vendors will have no trouble using those reasons by the shovel full to woo customers. Plenty of superlatives to do with productivity, saving money and resources etc, etc, etc. will be found, packaged and delivered to customers’ eyes and ears. Much of which will be close to rubbish!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The answer to the question; for who is ‘CAD in Cloud’ of most benefit. Answer: the software vendors. Clearly the benefits of the ‘CAD in the Cloud’ are almost exclusively the vendors; short term convenience may be the only benefit SOME users may experience occasionally, not much else!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">There are, of course, technical issues to be addressed. These will vary greatly and have software and hardware components and, issues relating to your location on the Globe etc. However, as is always the case, technical issues are engineering problems awaiting solutions. Those solutions will vary on a case by case basis and will, for some, define the usefulness and or the profitability of ‘CAD in the Cloud’.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">An extension of the technical issues are those of access (software and data); continued and continuing availability of data and, security etc. These issues are more ‘business’ critical than straight technical issues to do with hardware, software and internet speed. In part, answers to some of those issues are embodied in the engineering solutions. But data access and security issues are going to draw more heavily on ethics. The ethical intentions, behavior and discipline of vendors’ management, staff and affiliated companies are crucial and inseparable to the success of ‘CAD in the Cloud’. In essence, as a business user, you are going to need to ask, can you Trust ALL parts of your ‘CAD in the Cloud’ vendor? It’s a big ask and an even bigger task!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">There are many parts to the last questions but no matter which part you want to consider it is ALL going to come down just how much Trust and Confidence you (as a business person) can muster, and place, in the management and personnel of your software vendor. The only gauge you are going to have to determine your level of Trust (in a vendor’s management and staff etc.) is going to be how well you can assess them based on how they present their case for your business and how Transparently they respond to your specific questions, individual concerns and business requirements. You may, as I do, have some (or all) of this information already – many do!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">It is into this area I am now going to venture and, I am using the experience I have gained in dealing with Autodesk (and others), to explore how the opacity of those within that company are critical to a customer’s assessment of a vendors Trustworthiness, as a business partner. That is why I say, some may already have the information they need; your past and current dealings with your CAD vendor is an indication of what the future may hold.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Trust, as I have said in earlier posts, is a grant. It can be earned, should never be expected and cannot be bought. If granted the party in which the Trust has been bestowed must maintain and service it rigorously. For the customers part, Trust in a vendor, is something which can be measured and in business must be checked and validated on a regular basis, to ensure it is being maintained and not abused as time passes and, as situations and personnel change; as they inevitably do, in business.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">So let’s look at my experience in dealing with Autodesk’s management and staff, in relation to the issues surrounding their terms and conditions of use and their implementation of CIP. I am not going to dredge and re-write all I have written in the past. In preference I’ll summarize and you can draw your own conclusions on just how transparent Autodesk have been and whether or not what they have done, would cause you concern if you were to be considering entrusting your business data and IP to the care of their management and staff; or to an organization (other personnel) of their choosing and ‘control’.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Can Autodesk’s management, staff and affiliate companies be my Trustworthy ‘CAD in the Cloud’ business partners? Can I Trust these individuals with my critical business data and, by extension my entire business?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I can ask, and answer, these very pointed questions simply because I have, as an individual, probably, done more than any other individual customer in taking my issues through and directly to the top of Autodesk. Indeed, to two CEOs of Autodesk. Additionally, I have dealt directly with Autodesk at many levels, since very early 1984, dealing, supporting and using their products. However ‘real problems with Autodesk’ started when I asked a very simple question of a local Autodesk staffer (about a new clause in their T&Cs) and, has grown (over five years) to give me an insight into Autodesk’s staff I would rather have not have gained. With ‘CAD in the Cloud on the horizon’ what I have found has now become more critical. Not just to me and other potential users of ‘CAD in the Cloud’ but, more importantly, to Autodesk (and other similarly behaving vendors); it is a pointer to their inner workings, a broken business mechanism they must fix!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">What is seen by some as a saga not worth considering, a whinging lunatic customer who would ‘not accept the obvious’; turns out to be of importance. What I outline also holds important warnings and lessons, applicable to ALL vendors and ALL (potential/existing) users of ‘CAD in the Cloud’ and the ‘Cloud’ for any business application. Caveat emptor could not be a more appropriately applied expression when considering your future and your ‘Business in the Cloud’.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Personally, I have always initially Trusted those I deal with, Autodesk, its management and staff were no exception. However, (in business) it’s important to check and ensure your Trust is not misplaced or compromised. It was that understanding that kicked in, big time, when Autodesk reacted as they did prior too, on and after Tuesday, May 24 2005.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Checking needed to be done, and it was!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">My initial concerns and the original (licencing) questions, to Autodesk, were in relation to the inclusion of an Audit clause in their Software and Subscription terms and conditions of use. The reaction to those questions was surprising, to say the least, and they remain, to this day, unanswered. As I worked forward and upward through Autodesk’s management, continuing to try and get reasonable answers; the situation I was dealing with slowly morphed and became more serious. Additionally, CIP appeared and the concerns associated with the reasons for my questions intensified and expanded. Finally, and despite, having taken my questions right to the top (of Autodesk), including the unprecedented step of requesting (from the CEO of Autodesk) affidavits and or statutory declarations, in support of their terms and conditions of use and CIP. I still have not received the requested documents and necessary answers to my questions.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Unbelievably so!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">This is the type of background information I alluded too earlier. Many will have similar experiences in dealing with all type of vendors. Having trouble with your grocer, lawn mowing man or bank is bad enough, but this is (potentially) your ‘CAD in the Cloud’ vendor. Is this the level Transparency (Opacity) which would give you confidence in your CAD vendors’ management’s ability to be custodians of your businesses data and IP; your businesses profitability and your reputation as a supplier of goods and or services?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Let’s look, separately, at two (of a few) components from which my concerns arise;</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The first is Autodesk’s software and subscription terms and conditions of use. It has been said (and is stated in the documents) subscription/software T&Cs define a contract between Autodesk and its customers. I have demonstrated this is not true; Autodesk’s T&Cs are conditions of use, they are not legally enforceable. However, Autodesk’s T&cS are penned by Autodesk and therefore they can add, subtract and or modify these as and when it suits. What prevents them being contractual in nature, and important to this post, is they are non-negotiable. Autodesk’s management are not prepared to discuss their T&Cs, they have and do change them without consultation or notification and they are not prepared to support (or back) their claims with either an affidavit or a statutory declaration.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Importantly though, if it is not possible to discuss or negotiate your existing CAD vendors’ subscription and software terms and conditions of use; what is the likelihood your are going to be able to negotiate the terms of conditions of use, with the same CAD vendor, when and if the CAD vendor decides it’s time (for them) to move YOUR business into THEIR ‘Cloud’?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In deciding on your CAD vendor’s management’s ability to be custodians of your business data, IP and your businesses fortune and reputation; does my experience with Autodesk provide you with the confidence you would be making the right decision?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Second, now the ‘terms and conditions of use’ have set the scene. Revealing and certainly relevant, let’s now look at Autodesk’s Customer Involvement Program (CIP).</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The first thing to take onboard here is that CIP data is data collected on a customers business computers by the customers CAD vendor (in my case Autodesk). Point two: CIP data is generated by a piece of Trojan software Autodesk have engineered onto another’s businesses system(s) in a surreptitious manner without authorization or permission. A third point: when your business data is suitably compiled it is transmitted to the vendors (Autodesk) business computers, again without your permission and, (point 4) without the customer (YOU) knowing what data (of YOURS) is within those files. The fifth, a VERY IMPORTANT point: CIP data is YOUR data; and as I have proven, Autodesk are not going to allow YOU to see that data! Booooom! I repeat, CIP data is YOUR data and Autodesk are NOT letting you see what CIP files truly contain! What makes control of YOUR CIP data any different to your other business data? Can anybody else see something not quite right here?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">CIP was – was initially - of less concern to me than the issues embodied in Autodesk’s T&Cs , and yet, as it turns out, CIP has and does provide us all a unique window into Autodesk’s management. It has also provided considerable insight into what lengths Autodesk’s management is prepared to go in abusing the privileged access and Trust customers have put in Autodesk’s hands and, how they already do and, intend to block yours and my access to our own data!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Isn’t it interesting how something as seemly innocuous as CIP could be such a clear indication of just why we need to think very carefully about WHO will be in control our business data in the ‘CAD Cloud’. What is Autodesk’s management hiding?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">A number of issues could be considered as a result of what I am saying, but let’s test just one point. If you as an Autodesk customer think you have ‘nothing to hide or of value’ and would be willing to allow any person any level of access to your business computer(s) with absolutely no control; ‘Cloud’ computing and ‘CAD in the Cloud’ may well be in your future. However if you are a customer that is somewhat more cautious about the access to your business data and business systems; a different set of principals and procedures need to be followed.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">If we take those two customers, both using Autodesk’s products for their design work. The first guy will install, and with no concern, allow ‘Autodesk’s staff and others’ full access to his system; CIP (and anything else) makes its entrance and all is fine with his ‘world’ – but maybe not his customers.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The second guy, though, is much more concerned and in loading software is aware of the important and privileged access he has just provided his vendor; but what has the vendor just done to this guy in return. The vendor has loaded their own business software on their customer’s business machine. They didn’t give him the choice (not to load CIP) as they do for other parts of their software. The vendor did not warn or ask if they could use the customer’s business computers for their own business purposes but, their intentions are obvious. Importantly, the vendors’ Integrity has now been compromised and the customers Trust usurped.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The vendor’s defense: if CIP is turned OFF what’s the concern. Well firstly CIP can be ‘remotely’ activated, it does not need the operators (of a particular computer) to set it to work. Secondly, even if those loading the software (know of CIPs existence), it is very obvious they will not necessarily know the different ways CIP could be activated; a warning in itself. If activation does occur, by other means, the operator will NOT be warned and Autodesk’s CIP could go about transmitting data for quite a long period before detection, if it was detected at all!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Putting aside for the moment, my (founded) concerns about the data contained in a CIP file. What cannot be ignored here is one business entity (the software vendor) has inserted a piece of Trojan business software, which they intend to use for their own business purposes, onto their customers business computer(s). The vendor’s intention is to use its customer’s business tools (data, computers and communication tools) for its own purposes? Spot a problem, two or more here anyone? Hey’ free rent, plus some?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Importantly it is the management in Autodesk and their staff who have decided to use (abuse) their customers’ business system(s) in this way; and when asked to reveal the data, it is Autodesk’s management and staff who have chosen not too! Ask: what is Autodesk’s management hiding? CIP = Booooom. Go figure, who in their right mind thought a breach of Trust, of this magnitude, was a good idea? Answer – Autodesk’s management and staff!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">So, yet again, in deciding on a company’s management’s ability to be custodians of your business data and IP and your businesses fortune and reputations; does the management of CIP give you a clear enough warning of what can happen to your business systems and your data? Is this the type of management you want in charge of your companies’ business data, IP and your businesses fortune, profitability and reputation?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Now, hopefully people will see why I consider Trust as being so important to the success of ‘Cloud’ computing, ‘CAD in the Cloud’ in particular. Software bugs, hardware problems, communication speed, cost and to some degree security all disappear into un-importance if, the Integrity, Honestly and Transparency of your chosen vendors’ management and staff, is not of the highest levels; completely Transparent and out in the open at all times and available for testing and validation on a micro-minute time scale. It is a significant ask and an onerous responsibly to place onto another’s shoulders but, if a ‘vendor’ is not prepared to be completely Transparent in their dealings and manage their staff to previously un-heard of levels (in business) of Integrity, then ‘CAD in the CLOUD’ is, for a business user, at best, a huge gamble.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">None of what I have outlined (above) about Autodesk reactions to my questions are new* revelations to my customers (Autodesk product users) or those who have followed my activities personally and or through Caveat emptor. Though this is the first time I have chosen to, in writing, link the issues of how and why we should measure the Integrity of vendor’s management; at least those who want us to move their customers to an expanded use of ‘CAD in the Cloud’.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Caveat emptor could not be a more appropriately used phrase. But there is more to consider, and some of this will be new* and a surprise to a few!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">* I quote, “Autodesk’s licensing policies are open to all to read. These are also readily available on the web at <span ><u>www.autodesk,com.au/licensing</u></span>.” In fact (at the time) Autodesk’s terms and conditions of use were not to be found at the quoted web address. Indeed only an FAQ document with a statement within which referred to a non-existent card detailing licencing conditions to be found in the software packaging, was to be seen.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Autodesk continued; “There is no legal requirement and it is not a practice of any software company to mandate that its channel partners go through the T&Cs with each and every customer”; Booooom! There, you have it! That one comment was, for me, the additional catalyst which accelerated my reaction to, Autodesk’s response to my original licence questions and, precipitated my ongoing scrutiny of the issues and ultimately the obvious link to the decisions of Autodesk’s management.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Those statements are copied from a document prepared by ‘Autodesk Australia’, and sent to Autodesk dealers prior to the publication of an article written by me in a Sydney daily newspaper. Autodesk knew what was to be published and whilst refusing to discuss the situation with me; they did go to the trouble of preparing a document and distribute it through the dealer channel to counter the article. Do you put fires out with petrol?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">When Autodesk found out I was about to ‘spill the beans’ publicly, that was their response; pour fuel on the fire! Had Autodesk chosen to discuss and resolve my issues no article would have been written and none of the last five years of management scrutiny would have followed! Hindsight is a wonderful thing but Autodesk has always held the key to addressing my issues through discussion, they chose not too; instead they decided to spend effort, aimed in other directions, to counter what they could have stopped with a phone call/e-mail. Why? Were they just shortsighted or were individuals within, on a mission – I believe I know the answer(s) - you can draw your own conclusions. But never forget these were all management decisions made within a company who already holds significant control of your data and, may one day be in total control of your business data and IP. The management within this company, potentially, if you move to ‘CAD in the Cloud’ with Autodesk, will then be the people with enormous control of your business data, your businesses fortune, profitability and reputation. Does this experience of mine give you the confidence using their ‘CAD in the Cloud’ would be a good idea and a responsibly safe business decision?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Getting the best out of ‘CAD in the Cloud’, this time around, requires customers to bestow an entirely new level of Trust in software vendors. For their part vendors are going to need to be far more Transparent in all their business and ‘Cloud’ activities and are going to have to ensure, maintain, and expect to get from their management and staff absolute levels of Honesty and Integrity. How “CAD in the Cloud’ vendors’ management interact with customers is now far more critical than before. Their initial key of choice has to be Transparency but as my five years of experiences shows this is not something individuals, within the software vendors, are very good at! These guys want us to use their ‘Cloud’ (to improve their lot) and to Trust them; but they have failed to show us why and how they can be relied on to manage that which is important to our businesses future, not just theirs.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">What has happened is all I need to decide whether I would give a ‘CAD in the Cloud’ software companies’ management my business data, IP, reputation and profitability. If you think your business can work within, grow and profit, with a business partner, with the lack of Transparency and Integrity I have highlighted – good luck, Caveat emptor.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">My personal views, [lack of ;-)] knowledge and experiences are one thing. More important to me is for others to apply the same level of scrutiny of their vendors I have; probe and question your vendors without mercy to ensure you truly know just how Transparent they are, or are prepared to be, in relation to the promotion of their general business activities, their use of the ‘Cloud’ and the Reliability and Integrity of their management and staff. If you don’t do this properly you are taking a very large gamble with your IP and on your companies’ future.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">There is much to be gained using a flexible ‘Cloud’ but ONLY if it is going to work effectively for ALL participants. As we expand our ability to throw data around (the globe) with gay abandon the ONLY tools that will keep it all in check is individuals Honesty, Integrity and Transparency. Most would believe those traits are the traits we all apply, now, in business, but the truth is considerably different and my experience of the last five years should be a salient warning to all.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I am not known for my holding back in this area, and in this posting I have not, but to be fair (or equitable) it is a requirement I point out, whilst (my blog) Caveat emptor has a particular focus; it is correct to highlight Autodesk is not alone in participating in the business activity I have exposed and challenge. When I first embarked on this quest with Autodesk forcing me to take a closer look at their activity; I was only able to find one other company’s terms and conditions that gave me any cause to look at it twice. As it turned out it was no where near as invasive as Autodesk’s. Even Microsoft’s T&Cs proved to be of little concern despite what many said they ‘thought’ they would be.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I foretold this situation would change, and more problems would appear, if people did not react quickly and succinctly and sadly that has all come true and customers have only themselves to blame. That is the problem of having the misapprehension ‘market forces’ will ‘control’ the behavior of individuals within vendors and or of sitting on a fence and your hands when you should have taken notice and action.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">As another example; a company, whose product we were testing (some time ago, for use by our customers) was found to be taking data off our system. Within the data were details we would never have willingly given a third party. The discovery resulted in a conversation with the vendor who admitted they were taking the data and actually said (despite the data found) they did not think users would be concerned (extreme naivety). They also believed they had a ‘right’ to do what they had done (extreme stupidity)! Their software was immediately removed and none of our customers have looked at it further.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">That experience is only one example that shows I have looked at the issues from a wider perspective and is also a reinforcement of my warnings. I have a particular focus for reasons of business association and clarity; but I am not as ‘one eyed’ as it may appear. My comments and warnings are applicable and equally leveled at all software vendors and their customers.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Staring us all in the face is a great opportunity to share and distribute information. However at the moment - ‘CAD in the Cloud’ - as it is being promoted by the current vendors is being seen as (and is more about) a vendor’s right to control and profit. There has been absolutely NO substantial information coming from vendors demonstrating an equal opportunity to benefit and profit for customers. Couple that failing with the software industries combined, and proven, reticence to be Transparent in their business dealings with customers and one must conclude ‘CAD in the Cloud’ computing should be avoided at any cost!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I have all too often said, I would be more than happy to have proven wrong my concerns about Autodesk’s software and subscription terms and conditions and CIP. The same applies to my total lack of Trust in (and Respect for) Autodesk’s management and staff. Who can prove my concerns wrong; who, within fortress Autodesk has the facts, the guts and or the Integrity to do so?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Despite all that has happened and the incredible business pressure and abusive comments which have been directed toward me by individuals and Autodesk, I remain an optimist; and I still remain willing to discuss my issues too a sensible conclusion and, to the advantage of all parties. In relation to Autodesk and I, the solution, from day one, has always been and remains in Autodesk’s managements hands. I think it is well past time, CEO Bass, a way was found to talk my issues through – how about it, you and me (are you ‘up to it’, are you a true CEO and leader?) or a local representative?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">As for the wider issue: as it stands, being old enough to remember an earlier form of ‘CAD in the Cloud’ and seen and used the alternatives. Whilst CAD vendors choose to radiate the attitude (toward customers) they currently do there is no way I would be comfortable using (or recommending) ‘Cloud’ CAD/Business applications where the software and data is not under the total control of the client so as to ensure the responsibility for data and management of that same data is also the clients. Optionally, a self hosted ‘Cloud’</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">What do you think? Do you have a level of Confidence in your current CAD vendor that allows you to Trust 100% of your businesses success, profitability and reputation etc. to the vendors existing and future management, staff and or affiliated companies and their management and staff?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">A test of vendor’s Trust every customer can apply to any vendor wanting your ‘CAD in the Cloud’ business. Ask for written details (and commitments) on what the vendor and its management sees as their responsibility to you and your company if ‘something’ goes wrong with their ‘Cloud’ solution and or your files in their ‘care/control’. What assurances, backup, support, and or restitution (for your business loses) would they be prepared to shoulder and compensate.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">If the answer is incomplete or, is all care and no responsibility (or similar), ‘CAD in the Cloud’ for you, with the ‘vendor/business partner’ asked the question, is probably a non event.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">I close with the following quote (from a Fair Trading regulators published document) and questions;</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">“<span lang="en">It is unlawful for a business to make false claims about a product or service or operate in a misleading or deceptive way. They are required to tell the truth to their customers and not hide any relevant information.”</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span lang="en">Does this paragraph say,</span><span lang="en"> a business should not make false claims, operate in a misleading or deceptive way? Yes or No. Does it also say, a business MUST tell the Truth and NOT hide relevant information? Yes or No.</span></p> <p lang="en" style="margin-bottom: 0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"><span lang="en">How well do</span><span lang="en">es your CAD vendors’ management measure up to the standard set by the business regulator? More on this to come.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">EoP</p>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-39456639795269876702010-08-25T14:02:00.001+10:002010-08-25T14:23:29.138+10:00Autodesk’s CIP – The Truth Slowly Being Revealed?<div><br /></div><div>Disclosure: The name of one individual mentioned in this post has been encoded to unjustifiably protect the person’s identity**. The identity of the second individual has been altered similarly in the interest of equality only.</div><div><br /></div><div>(Paul) “I pity your shortsightedness. It must kill you to know I hold the answer you are seeking.”</div><div><br /></div><div>There are several people who have, over time, taken the opportunity to ridicule me as an individual and what I have said in relation to Autodesk’s intrusive licensing and Customer Involvement Program (CIP): but one of the most curious is 78 174 and in common with 86 of Autodesk, 174 claimed CIP data is “easily readable” </div><div><br /></div><div>In fact these two individuals have several things in common when it comes to tackling my comments about CIP. One is they have both openly claimed CIP data is human readable. A second point, users have nothing to fear and the third – and most importantly – neither individual have, when asked to do so, provided details or evidence in support of their assertions.</div><div><br /></div><div>This makes 78 174’s statement, “It must kill you to know I hold the answer you are seeking.” quite poignant and worthy of challenge.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let’s look at what led up to 174 making the statement and why it may be the harbinger of the demise of this person’s credibility.</div><div><br /></div><div>Following my blog entry titled ‘Rabid Dog puts CIP Data Up For Sale’, 78 (and others) and I exchanged e-mails and within one of those communications 78 made the statement, CIP files were "not encrypted. It's an XML derivative (easily readable)". It would be of no surprise, to those following what I am doing, to see me leap on this comment and follow up with 78, and I did with the following question;</div><div><br /></div><div>“This is what we have been asking for 78. All the data we have found, generated by CIP, is encrypted and not 'human readable'. If what you 'indicate' is correct please tell me where it is to be found.”</div><div><br /></div><div>For a critic this was an obvious course of action; an opportunity to demonstrate to all just how wrong I was and (maybe) have always been. 78 responded with, “If you know you can turn it off then what is the issue?” To which I responded, “Simple, we have a recorded instance where CIP having been turned off at installation was found to have been activated by something other than operator intervention! It caused and remains a problem. So returning to point 2; where is the XML file 78. Provided I can validate, having that data could shut this one aspect of my concerns about Autodesk down. I would be only too happy to publish the findings and, openly state I was either wrong in the first place or the situation has changed for the better.”</div><div><br /></div><div>78’s reply, “Considering your propensity to use private emails in a public post I think this is the end of our conversation.” A curious answer considering I have always maintained I was prepared to publish and admit that I was “wrong in the first place or the situation has changed for the better.” Secondly, and I repeat, it was 78’s opportunity to ‘cover my face in egg’; an ideal opportunity for a very vocal critic. Interestingly though 78 chose to follow through with “I pity your shortsightedness. It must kill you to know I hold the answer you are seeking.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Now which ever way you look at 78’s statement you have to wonder about why this person chose to criticize (me) in the first place. Has 78 a grudge to vent? It doesn’t worry me in the slightest that s/he may have information that I have been looking for; but it does worry me 78 seems to think it is appropriate to deny important information to others who have the same concerns as I do. 78’s statement will be remembered by me not only for the meanness of character it portrays but for its childishness in the face of opportunity.</div><div><br /></div><div>As for my ‘shortsightedness’; what shortsightedness I would ask. Is it shortsighted of a business person to read terms and conditions and or seek to understand how customers’ business computers are being used by software developers without authorization – for the developers own business purposes? Is it 78 who is being shortsighted in not releasing the information s/he has; or is there another reason for 78’s reticence?</div><div><br /></div><div>So let’s look at what is actually know about CIP data. The first point to make is Autodesk state the data collected is encrypted (and therefore not ‘human readable’). This differs of course from what both 86 of Autodesk and 78 174 have stated – why? The second thing we know is that even though Autodesk were unwilling to tell me where the data was to be found, a portion was found. I say a ‘portion’ only because I cannot be sure all of it has been found. What has been found, has been validated as being Autodesk generated CIP data and, it would appear, ‘the crucial’ files are encrypted and not - ‘read easily’ – as claimed by 174 - without translation. One to Autodesk and zero to 86 and 78.</div><div><br /></div><div>Following are two portions of CIP data. The first a segment of the data forming part of a customer’s data, set ready for the un-authorized transmission to Autodesk.</div><div><br /></div><div>__6ss_,5'9Z#KyeDESK_mc_mask_ ___</div><div> S_Jpa_}uqu_`.7+%120z?6V__mw_ ___</div><div> Mf$mc_mask_}Z ____U#Gc_mask_aI ____KG)~_squ>KUTODESK_mc_m}2?G3__O</div><div>_NI_}t_s}r_p_4 .?U.6_qlR95!"Qx~ODESK_mc_b2'*G$KyeDESK_b4R41<"]5KyeDESK_:"J=.:%Ga__RFTGI_9*^(|qz_xDL_WSCZ_uw_sLYk_aUTODEO_Z,7Vm(7v_sDVQioSK_mc_mask_aI_____<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>_$'_opc~_IU4'!2?o_rn_odR5____[~a_mc_mask_aUTS__ _G/cZ)|qz_wWJSE>0/o__h___</div><div>p_()QXJ__Z?*QsLYk_aUTODESK_mR95!"Qa__RFTC[</div><div>s____</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The second portion provides the proof it is Autodesk behind the unconscionably intrusive, unauthorized data collection and transmission.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>info Mon Oct x 200x 10:54:32.156000 pid:2xx8 tid:1x4 Transcripts C:\Documents and Settings\xxxx\Application Data\Autodesk\xxx...\{6BF97520-15F8-4437-B98C-533F8695DE9A}.zip of 116210 bytes is being sent to https://cip.autodesk.com/cipreceiver</div><div><br /></div><div>No points to be won here but neither does it do much for 86 and 78; unless, of course they now choose to come clean. 86 is going to be constrained by Autodesk but 78 now has a little problem - credibility. As an industry participant 78 now needs to reveal what s/he truly knows and come to realize, I have (had for some time) Autodesk CIP data and understand how damaging it could be if the full details were revealed.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I have done in the past I will allow others to draw their own conclusions about what these two individuals actually know, about CIP, if anything? I am not saying the two are completely wrong, they may just be ‘mushrooms’ spreading the spores they have been engineered to do; but as it stands, both these persons made statements for which neither were prepared to provide supporting evidence and, in the process, they have, contributed to the deception and customers concern and confusion in relation to the efficacy of Autodesk’s CIP. </div><div><br /></div><div>Or did they simply lie? If so why?</div><div><br /></div><div>Now let’s briefly return and again look at who may have been the most shortsighted: me for identifying potential business problems and bringing them into the open? Autodesk for thinking they could initiate and continue to do what they are doing (unnoticed)? 86 of Autodesk and or 78 174 for tromping out a different story - seemingly thinking they were defending Autodesk? Or industry (commentators and customers) who just sit on their hands thinking, and saying, there is nothing they can do to influence Autodesk or change the situation?</div><div><br /></div><div>Autodesk’s activity, in relation to software licensing, subscription terms and conditions and CIP, is unconscionable and conduct customers should neither accept nor allow to continue. Those who choose to say, without having the full facts, or supporting evidence, Autodesk’s customers have nothing to fear from Autodesk’s terms and conditions and or CIP are standing on insecure ground.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is easy, for the gutless, to throw stones at me but now having shown a small portion of the CIP data to hand, it is also easy to see why I never believed 86 and 78’s claims CIP data was ‘human readable’ and, knowing the data is not what customers would like to see leaving their computers it now, more than ever, allows others to see why I have asked the questions, I have, of Autodesk.</div><div><br /></div><div>For me, getting answers to my questions remains something I will pursue until all are addressed properly and I am satisfied! </div><div><br /></div><div>If my concerns were or are misplaced or wrong Autodesk, prove me wrong. As a customer it is not necessary for me to justify my position. As the vendor it is your obligation to justify, to your customers, your position and a socially responsible company would do so!</div><div><br /></div><div>If my concerns were or are misplaced or wrong 86, prove me wrong. As a customer it is not necessary for me to justify my position to you. However, as a spokesperson for the vendor it is your obligation to be truthful when dealing with customers and a socially responsible individual would do so!</div><div><br /></div><div>If my concerns were or are misplaced or wrong 78 174, prove me wrong. I have set out only to improve the knowledge available in our industry. I have done what my customers expect of me as their supplier and consultant; that alone justifies my position. Yours, 78 174 as an outspoken defender of another’s actions, with apparent ‘inside’ information, is the obligation to reveal what you ‘know’; a socially responsible individual** would do so!</div><div><br /></div><div>I look forward to be proven wrong and have always said so – but which one of you three can do it now? </div><div><br /></div><div>Which one of you three are going to tell Autodesk customers the truth about CIP and Autodesk’s terms and conditions and, who is going to be able to do it in a manner that would ensure, what ever the truth is, you can be believed?</div><div><br /></div><div>For CIP; Autodesk’s actions to date, compromised by the apologists, has made the withdrawal of CIP or total transparency the only options available to Autodesk; are they a socially responsible company and up to the task or not?</div><div><br /></div><div>For Autodesk’s software and subscription terms and conditions – well; truth supported by transparency are the only tools left for Autodesk to use. But? Given ‘the water that has passed under the bridge’, would any Autodesk staff member or legal representative ever be able to convince, Autodesk’s customers, or me, Autodesk’s answers and actions can be trusted?</div><div><br /></div><div>In closing, I must repeat 78’s comment;</div><div><br /></div><div>(Paul) “I pity your shortsightedness. It must kill you to know I hold the answer you are seeking.”</div><div><br /></div><div>**You just gotter love this person; when serious business stuff is being debated this was 174’s best shot, a real professional! Add, s/he has not the guts to have a name attached to the comments you may conclude what the individual, now known as 78 174, says (about CIP) is just a load of bovine mushroom food!</div>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-37772158623875853232010-08-18T15:05:00.002+10:002010-08-18T15:41:55.867+10:00Callan responds to Caveat emptor.<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Steve Johnson (blog nauseam) harks from the other side of the Australian continent and sometimes those from ‘over there’ think we Easterners don’t listen, think or care about them; causing them to talk of secession – not too seriously I hope because they are great people and have a great state – to visit</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"> ;-)</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">There are areas Steve and I agree on and it would appear having customer questions answered is one such area.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">A number of questions were asked of Callan Carpenter (Autodesk) and his appreciated response didn’t seem to really answer any of the questions and a subsequent prompt has done little to redress the situation. So this episode is another example of what I have experienced when dealing with Autodesk staff. Ask them what day it is or what products they sell and you will probably get an answer. Ask them a really important question, one about licencing, one about the ‘independence’ of a report or simply one about the numbers they quote and your chances of getting an answer is probably nil.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Steve asked his readers, “Readers, am I being too harsh here?” One responded suggesting there was no point in publicly beating up on Callan. Steve replied politely and his politeness has not been reciprocated; from Autodesk employees though we should never expect anything better than to be ignored when we pose questions of substance and importance, and Callan, it would appear, is no different. These are well paid people quite prepared to demonstrate their absolute contempt for their customers, with no regard to the effect their actions have on our daily lives.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Deelip said – “Try asking yourself what answers you would offer if you were in his position.”. Yes it is always a good idea to think about what a person may answer before asking the question but what is Deelip actually suggesting here? Steve didn’t want to substitute his answers – sensible so – but I thought I might ask my mate, Callan the Carpenter, to tell me what he would chisel into a timber slate as answers to the same questions.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Questions to Callan Carpenter – hereafter to be written ‘?CC’.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Answers will be shown thus ‘AbCtC’ = Answers by Callan the Carpenter.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">?CC - Please clarify in as much detail as possible exactly how you arrive at your figures.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">AbCtC - Guess work would be the greatest amount of detail I can provide. There exists no need to look for or use any real data because you and your readers would not be able to check and validate, anything I say – so why bother.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">?CC - A percentage is derived by dividing one number by another; what exactly are you dividing by what to come up with 1.5%?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">AbCtC - Yes, dividing one number by another and then multiplying the decimal by 100 is a common way to calculate a percentage. Though the number I chose – 1.5% - was selected using the proven method outlined in the first question.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">?CC - Please explain why your statements appear to contradict Autodesk’s own published figures.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">AbCtC - Contradictions are a standard tool used by most VPs to ensure they are noticed (the VP that is, not the comment. The later should be ignored; that is the comment should be ignored not the VP – I think). Not to contradict could have the effect of making my job appear redundant; after all why would the CEO and Board pay a VP that simply regurgitated a company line like our bloggers do?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">?CC - How large is Autodesk’s total installed base?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">AbCtC - Well I didn’t answer this question originally because in the passed really big numbers have been used to describe just how many customers we have hammered. You know 4 to 6 mil. has been bandied around and I have a lot of trouble getting my head around numbers of that size. What do you think I should use the same 4/6 mil. or should I use a larger number, say, around 10 mil. Even if I could get my head around big numbers, it is a very difficult answer to determine with the current level of technology I have available. I am sure you know our data base is a mess, using it to determine numbers of customers is pretty much the same process as for question one. One final point, on customer numbers, if I may. A problem with releasing customers numbers (if we had them, and I’m not saying we have), if you think about it, it would be the equivalent of giving our competitors very sensitive company confidential data. Importantly it would also give them an opportunity to publicly dispute my numbers and ridicule Autodesk and me in the market place. I don’t think I could handle criticism of me using big numbers.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">Points of dispute</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">?CC - Because Autodesk made Subscription cheaper than upgrading, it is no surprise that upgrading became less popular. This doesn’t indicate that customers prefer doing business in that way, merely that Autodesk made it the cheapest alternative.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">AbCtC - I know what I said originally about customers leveraging the Subscription program but it is also important to say, repeating the question asked as an answer is a stalling tactic. The how to, why and when to (stall that is) is outlined in the publication ‘VP Interview Responses for Dummies’ – a MUST read for all VPs.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">The truthful answer is, of course, Subscription appears cheaper only because we chose to make it look cheaper, we could have made it look more expensive. Customer preference is not important enough to consider when you realize subscription has the advantage (to Autodesk) of being a customer trap so we thought it was more important to make it look cheaper to foil the customer. We know our customers are not too bright so it also seemed logical (to us) that if we used a smaller number for the Subscription then the customer would gravitate towards it just as I do. Big numbers are difficult to work with; I think I covered why in an earlier question.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">?CC - If the idea of Subscription is such an attractive proposition, why do you need to sweeten the deal with tools that you don’t allow upgraders to have?</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">AbCtC - Again I needed to stall in my original reply: but now I can answer the question truthfully. Subscription is an attractive proposition because it looks cheaper. But just looking cheaper I did not think was enough to trap (all) customers. So, to increase the number of customers tricked it was decided we should use a method of deception similar to that which is employed in nature – sugar. I really like pitcher plants and the deception they use and, I also see a similarity between customers and the insects the plants catch. Customers are like ants crawling all over us (at Autodesk) with hard to answer questions and high expectations so we decided to sugar coat the thresh hold of the (Subscription) trap and as the customer follows the sugar they soon find there is no way back. I really don’t think our customer are smart enough to see in advance what is going to happen to them; just like flies and other pesky insects don’t realize what the pitcher plant is doing. Don’t want to let the ‘cat out of the bag’ but this is also important for our cumulus future.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">?CC - Your assertion that the 12-month cycle is driven by the product teams is incorrect. It was chosen for business reasons and the product cycle was forced to fit the Subscription model.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">AbCtC - Yes you are is correct; it was purely a business decision. We did it to make sure our staff feel like they are doing something for the customers and it gives our paid cheer squad (evangelists and bloggers) something to spruik about. It also keeps many sensible customers off balance trying to keep up with those stupidly loyally customers who have to have our latest software whether it makes commercial sense or not. It is also important to catch customers off guard; our (Autodesk’s) cumulus future relies on customers accepting software changes just happen, constantly, and for no reason, just like cell division. To be part of our success customers should see it as a privilege to write cheques (to Autodesk) each year, for those changes, whether or not anything useful is supplied. When, we believe, they have become use to this process it is going to be much easier to ‘shift’ them to pay by the month/minute. I cannot say why we are going to, er, might be going to do this – cause we might not – but probably will – well maybe. I think it is also important customers understand my job is to ensure customers keep spending (sending us) money, whether they are making money (using our products) or not, is not my problem. Details of that role, of mine, are also outlined in the Dummies manual for VPs.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">In closing, Callan (Autodesk) pretty much wasted the time he did spend replying to Steve and there will be those who say Callan the Carpenter has done the same. But Aussie tradies love to poke fun at politicians and business people they see as being a 'waste of space'. In the case of Autodesk, a company that appears to be run like a government/public service and so full of people who have simply lost the plot (also like our government and its public service) it is surprising to some that they keep running at all (and they can't be voted out). But my mate Callan the Carpenter has an answer for this too. He says, "the problem is Autodesk’s customers are just too lazy and gutless for their own good"; he continues, "they should stop taking the crap being dished out by Autodesk management and stand up for themselves". He recons we are jerks if we don’t and he wants to know, and will be watching to see if the bloke he has just taken the mickey out of is game enough to do what he should have done properly in the first place. I think I agree with him – do you?</p>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-63963628816638383392010-07-12T11:14:00.000+10:002010-07-12T16:35:32.349+10:00Rabid Dog puts CIP Data Up For Sale.<div><br /></div><div>? Unusual title – not really. The title draws (part of) its name from a comment, made by a critic of mine – Sean Dotson, used in reference to me in a ‘tweet’. Sean’s comment was in response to another’s – Deelip Menezes – who was quoting an earlier statement of mine where I referred to myself as ‘dog with a bone’. A reference to the fact I will not give up my pursuit of bringing Autodesk’s unconscionable business activity before Autodesk and the public, in Caveat emptor, and anywhere else, where and when the opportunity arises – until it is ‘fixed’. Autodesk’s EULA, its use of Trojan software and its unreasonable/unconscionable treatment of me – a customer – are all contributing components of my pursuit.</div><div><br /></div><div>Comments in Ralph Grabowski’s blog – titled ‘Earth to Autodesk: this is the Internet era’; a subsequent discussion with Sean Dotson and an interesting recent discussion with Deelip, have also been instrumental in inspiring this post.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the following spleen clearing splurge I consider animals, abstracts like Trust and Truth and facts; ‘testing’ and whether or not, we need lawyers to solve simple commercial issues. Amongst other things ;-) I make the offer to sell CIP data and ask several important questions; can I do such a thing and, of Autodesk, do they have any objections to the sale of my CIP data. Reading further is at your risk and is your responsibility.</div><div><br /></div><div>On television, as I commence the first paragraph of this post, there is a show featuring dogs in art - appropriate I thought! If we run several of Dotson’s comments - about me together - it could be concluded I’m a ‘tin foil hat wearing rabid dog’. Quite the subject for a piece of art, don’t you think – tho’ incomplete, needs a background?</div><div><br /></div><div>Dogs also became part of the discussion Deelip and I had on ‘Cloud’ computing. Deelip made the following comment, “But remember that kind of logic only works between equals. This is as ridiculous as your pet dog complaining that you will not let him chain you to the porch just like how you chain him to the porch. “. I smiled when I read the comment. I am sure Deelip understood what he said, but maybe not how it could be viewed. Deelip was likening me to a chained dog: a dog owned and chained by CEO Bass and crew? Indeed, if you are an (unhappy) Autodesk customer, when you look at the context of Deelip’s comments you would be forgiven for thinking he was also referring to you ;-) That’s the background we needed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Put CEO Bass’s ‘lunatic’ comment, Sean Dotson’s and Deelip’s descriptions together and we get; a ‘lunatic (rabid) tin foil’ hat wearing dog chained to CEO Bass’s porch: now that may be a more complete outline for a piece of art (or cartoon).</div><div><br /></div><div>Dogs have always played a part in my life, mostly working dogs. Dogs to work sheep, cattle and a guard dog; my last though, was a ‘pajama’ dog. A great little mate, who was rarely out of sight or reach and, after 18 years, is sorely missed. Having survived a severe mauling by two large dogs, when twelve, an important thing to remember or learn, if you already did not know, is dogs are pack animals. Good ‘control’ of dogs is never achieved at the end of a tether: it is achieved by understanding the social arrangement dogs adhere too; they are ‘group’ animals with a leader and mates. *However, when they have their portion of the kill their group structure and ‘mateship’ is often tested. In this respect many users of the internet and management behave the same. Not all are wise independent thinkers; and, on occasions, using the disconnect of the internet and the support of the apologists in the pack, say things they would never be game enough to say to their prey’s face.</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, that accounts for the first part of the posts title now for the second part….but not straight away :)</div><div><br /></div><div>My comments about Autodesk’s EULA requirements, Autodesk’s use of Trojan software and their objections to my requests for them to allow customers to scrutinize their activity; is what draws the many arrogant and un-informed remarks. More interesting still, those who criticize, and some who support me, believe the issues I raise can only be solved by some level of legal action. Some would like to see me start ‘it’, others wonder why Autodesk has not!</div><div><br /></div><div>What’s important is that they are all completely wrong! Legal action is NOT required to solve the issues I raise. There is not a single component of my so called ‘complaints’ that does not have a ‘common sense’/commercial base and a ‘common sense’/commercial (negotiable) solution. NOT ONE: and Autodesk know this only too well! Those who believe the legal system is the only way are simply lazy dependants looking for somebody else to do their work. In the case of some software corporations (at the instigation of individuals), the legal system is (an over used) tool/weapon used as much for mischief as for settling genuine disputes for the society it is there to ‘protect and serve’.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now this raises a question (or many). If a negotiated solution is possible why (after over five years) has it not happened? We came close several times; but on each occasion ‘somebody’ seemed to step in and it would all fall apart. I am not blameless: my tact could improve, I’m sure. However as Autodesk have never entered into real negotiations and have never fully answered a number of the specific questions I have asked, the fault is, almost entirely theirs – but why? Customers ask ‘pointed’ questions all the time, about products and contracts; what made, or makes, my questions so difficult to address.</div><div><br /></div><div>The answer, most assuredly rests in telling the ‘Truth’. Answering my questions truthfully, Autodesk people may well think, is more dangerous than ignoring them? Some other reasons may be embodied in an exchange between Deelip and me.</div><div><br /></div><div>It went like this, I made a statement and then,</div><div><br /></div><div>Deelip said; "You stand is that just because Autodesk takes the liberty of snooping into your computer; you should have the equal right to snoop around their set up as well."</div><div><br /></div><div>This is what I actually said; "Autodesk (and others) are attempting to FORCE its customers into legally accepting it is appropriate for them to gain electronic access to customers’ machines whilst at the same time REFUSING to allow any scrutiny of their actions" and continued in reply,</div><br /><div>“This is totally different and the moment you, and others get this, your arguments against me will simply dissipate. Read what I say next very carefully Deelip. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO AUTODESK HAVING ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO MY BUSINESS COMPUTERS PROVIDED I HAVE TOTAL CONTROL AND OVERSIGHT OF THEIR ACTIONS AND HAVE COMPLETE ACCESS TO THE DATA COLLECTED PRIOR - NOTE! PRIOR - TO ITS TRANSMISSION. WITH THE OPTION TO EDIT and or PREVENT ITS TRANSMISSION IF I DO NOT FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE OR IS INFORMATION I WOULD NOT OTHERWISE GIVE AUTODESK.</div><div><br /></div><div>This has always been, from day one Deelip, my position. Autodesk have known this from day ONE also and their failure to accept this, and indeed fight against it, is almost the SOLE reason CEO Bass and crew (Autodesk) CANNOT be trusted. If you think likewise then I would have absolutely no hesitation to say you should NOT be trusted either.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's simple, it’s black and white, and there can be no argument that the stance I have taken is the correct one. I am NOT interested in 'rooting' around in Autodesk systems but I AM INTERESTED IN WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO AND ARE DOING IN MY SYSTEMS! I have EVERY RIGHT too and there can be NO reason for Autodesk, you or anybody else to object to that position. But that is a major part of the problem between the individual(s) at Autodesk and why I say they have KGB attitudes; because, as people, they do!”</div><div><br /></div><div>Deelip initially dodged replying directly to my statement but then responded;</div><div><br /></div><div>“Yes, you have every right to do that in your ideal world. Also in that ideal world, my dog (who I chain to my porch) will also have the right to chain me.</div><br /><div>I am not disagreeing with you on your right to do something. Just that I don’t see you getting anywhere close to it in the real world.</div><br /><div>The main difference between you and me is that when you find something wrong you feel the urge to fix it. I do too. But if I see that it cannot be fixed (for whatever reason), I learn to live with it and adjust my life accordingly. Basically, I don’t beat dead horses** like you do.”</div><div><br /></div><div>So, Deelip chains his dog and I am seen to be ‘flogging a dead horse’**. Deelip’s sentiment is, of course, the sentiment of many others. Society’s problems are always ‘somebody else’s responsibility’; and the easy way to ‘duck shove’ the responsibility is to say it ‘needs a court to decide’ or it’s a ‘dead horse’. Both are excuses for the abdication of responsibly. I once likened this attitude/laziness to a person who stands watching, and does nothing, when a person near them, in the street, is “mugged”. Kevin E said there was no comparison but he is wrong!</div><div><br /></div><div>Question: where does the ‘ideal world’ fit into this argument? Autodesk are making available a ‘tool to tradesmen’; it is their obligation to ensure their tool does what they say and it is also their obligation to ensure their ‘tool’ is not misrepresented or used in a manner that contravenes their privileged position as a supplier. In refusing to answer my questions and negotiate a solution, with me, that is exactly what Autodesk’s staff are doing – misusing and misrepresenting their products and abusing their privileged position!</div><div><br /></div><div>Another component of Deelip’s (and others’) argument is, that size matters (Autodesk is often referred to as a 600lb. Gorilla – geez another animal). Autodesk is bigger than me therefore I should just ‘lie down, or adjust my principals’ and accept whatever they choose to dish out! What a load of rubbish. Autodesk does not make a single decision, not one. It is individuals, hiding behind the corporate shield that is the entity Autodesk, who are making decisions and acting on those decisions and impulses. It is individuals who are deciding what Autodesk will do in respect to products and customers and, it is individuals who are choosing to ignore my requests and are pushing me around. None of those individuals are that different from me, as people, (they are probably taller, more brash, smarter, maybe more influential, spine less and definitely paid more) but other than that – not much different. Indeed some are also prepared to use ‘third parties’ to convey comments that criticize and or ‘slag’ a customer seen (in their eyes) to be ‘opposing’ them. None of those individuals would accept or tolerate what they are doing if the ‘shoe was on the other foot’. </div><div><br /></div><div>The hypocrisy is there for all to see, and yet individuals within ‘Autodesk’ can count on a vast array of paid and un-paid apologists ready to argue and defend their ‘un-defendable’ position; and the tacit support of still more who are simply prepared to sit on the side lines, knowing what is happening is wrong but just too darn lazy to get involved in shaping their future. Not happy customers; but to paraphrase Deelip, content to re-shape their lives to fit the abuse! Not a position this bloke will readily accept, I can assure you.</div><div><br /></div><div>Side step #1. To be fair, Deelip detailed some very ‘noble’ reasons for why he takes the stand he does; but the problem his reasoning poses is, in not standing up for what is ‘right’ now, will/may have – in the future – serious ramifications for others and those he is trying to protect.</div><div><br /></div><div>Side step #2. before you guys pour out your ‘verbals’ on how I can walk away and regurgitate Autodesk’s spiel on their rights, piracy/IP, CIP and privacy: don’t bother, much has been said before and in the main none carry much weight when you focus on the core of the issue(s).</div><div><br /></div><div>So, returning to the question of whether or not the problems I outline can be solved by negotiation without resorting to the ‘legal system’. Well, as I have said on many occasions, of course they can. I am willing (still); are the individuals in Autodesk and, why might they not? </div><div><br /></div><div>At its core, the problem between Autodesk and me is Oversight. It is not whether Autodesk has a ‘right’ to access my computers - that’s a no brainer. Though, Autodesk believes it does and, they misuse their privileged access, to force additional access without any agreement or authorization! Oversight is about Truth; and that is a ‘problem’ for the individuals ‘hiding behind the shield Autodesk’. My solution can be found in telling the ‘Truth’. Autodesk ‘wants’ our Trust but don’t provide the supporting ‘Truth’.</div><div><br /></div><div>Deelip talked about ‘Trust’: he made the statement, software users who say they ‘did not trust’ CAD vendors were being stupid because ‘they already did’. I liked the generalization and interesting assumption, shown here. It is true the act of using a product indicates a level of Trust; does it mean the customer truly Trusts the vendor – I doubt it. Deelip cites CIP as an example; we know some surveys indicate more than 60% of users have it turned off – as all should. If taken as a representative figure, I would see this as a significant amount of Distrust in Autodesk!</div><div><br /></div><div>For me ‘Trust’ cannot be separated from ‘Truth’ in these issues. If Autodesk wants to be seen as ‘Trustworthy’ they are going to need to be seen as Truthful. To achieve that they are going to have to accept their ‘unconscionably invasive’ actions need to be addressed; very publicly be PROVEN to have ceased or (preferably) made Transparent, opened up to independent customer veto and or Validation.</div><div><br /></div><div>What will Autodesk loose by being open and Honest with its customers – nothing; or is that the REAL problem. Is the Truth not what Autodesk wants YOU and me to see?</div><div><br /></div><div>Testing, in one form or another, is what design and engineering is often about. Testing determines the ‘Truth’ of a structure, an idea and or persons/companies Trustworthiness and a position in the pack. What’s interesting about my interaction with the personnel at Autodesk is that many of the comments they have made, over time, at conversational level, they will not put in writing. Now this is a fundamental test in business. If a promise is made, it is made and can be legally enforceable – but if it exists only as sound energy that can be difficult. So it needs to be captured another way to be ‘usable’. Often the method used here is a document (maybe signed and or witnessed); written conformation detailing what was discussed, claimed or agreed.</div><div><br /></div><div>So if I ask the question, as I have, to an Autodesk employee, ‘is Autodesk’s EULA legally enforceable?’, and I get the answer yes, then it is only right I should be able to get that ‘yes’ in writing with supporting documentation; in the absence of a simple signed letter, an affidavit or a statutory declaration.</div><div><br /></div><div>So this brings me to repeat. Some time ago I gave Autodesk, through CEO Bass, the opportunity to confirm the legal enforceability of their entire EULA (and Subscription Terms and Conditions) by simply providing me with an affidavit or a statutory declaration. Given the legal resources at hand, to and within Autodesk, this task was an extremely simple, and easy, one for Autodesk to accomplish. But they failed too, even when prompted. (It’s still a response I would be happy to see.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Now ‘The Dotsons’, will argue I am not important enough to warrant this level of effort. These same critters also argue Autodesk don’t prosecute me, only because they have a ‘right’ to choose who they fight and, equally, I am seen as unworthy of the effort. Additionally they see the failure of Autodesk to fulfill my request, for the affidavit or statutory declaration, as just another example of me expecting more than is reasonable; of me thinking I am more important than I am – but they are not even close. I know my relative (lack of) importance but that does not mean what I asked for is unreasonable. Furthermore, executing that simple act would have come very close to burying most of my arguments in one ‘swoop’.</div><div><br /></div><div>No need to ‘negotiate’ or argue the point; no need to use the courts to sink me in a ‘suit’. No need to wade through this post and, the legal system would only have been, very inexpensively, used to validate their claims with the affidavit or statutory declaration. </div><div><br /></div><div>What could be simpler: job done, Waddo’ disarmed and off our backs – maybe. So why not? The answer again would be in telling the Truth; and without Truth, Trust does not exist.</div><div><br /></div><div>‘Truth’s’ has a companion - one as applicable in business as it is anywhere else - ‘Trust’. Intrinsically important to one another though fundamentally different; Truth is a fact, Trust a gift.</div><div><br /></div><div>Trust is granted; it cannot be sold and should never be assumed or expected. Trust needs to be serviced and does not exist without Truth as its underlying foundation! In Autodesk’s case, unfortunately – as a result of their previous actions - that now also means providing a level of support to Truth and that is Transparency (a test); something Autodesk people may (and probably already do) find uncomfortable. Transparency can provide the Truth, which in turn enables Trust.</div><div><br /></div><div>So let’s take testing a little further; let’s look at the selling of CIP data. Can it be done, should it be done, who would want it anyway etc? Is it possible for a ‘foil hat’ wearing rabid dog to sell electronic data, generated by a gorilla, whilst at the same time be seen flogging a dead horse?</div><br /><div>Let start by looking at what CIP is: for Autodesk’s account go read their web site. From my perspective it is data compiled on one (or more) of my business computers. The creation of the data is done with software I did not request and do not want; that Autodesk did not ask if they could supply and make mandatory to load. Equally Autodesk did not ask if they could use it, for their own purposes, on my property and business computers!</div><div><br /></div><div>I ‘bought’, from Autodesk, the ‘ability’ to design and draught using Autodesk software. I did not pay to access Autodesk software to do Autodesk’s bidding or assist them in their collection of data for the development of their products, or any other purpose. This does not mean I would not assist in these areas, or that I do not understand the value. It simply means I (and every body else) should be asked (by Autodesk) to assist; with ‘control’ left entirely in the hands of the customer. If CIP has a value to Autodesk it has and equal, or greater, importance and value to the customer and therefore has a price. Autodesk are not a benevolent society and neither are most of their customers. Not many would argue against these points of view.</div><div><br /></div><div>But a more important issue is embodied in how the data is ‘collated’. By this I am referring to the fact CIP data is encrypted? So, Autodesk has collected data on my business computer(s), encrypted it so I cannot see what is within the file(s) they will take off my machine? Better still, when asked to be given the opportunity to peer into these files, to control their contents and or transmission – I am told it’s ‘none of your business’. Eh! None of my business? ‘Trust us’ we’re Autodesk is what is being said here and, from the apologists – ‘they are only collecting what is theirs anyway’. Oh! Is that true? </div><div><br /></div><div>So here is where Trust and Truth come rushing toward a customer with each requiring the support of their mates. Trust relies on Truth, but in the initial stages of any situation - dependant on Trust - at least one ‘other third party’ is needed to supply support. Transparency is the obvious one, but is wounded and trailing badly at the moment so the supporting, members of the pack, need to be Control and Validation. Trust and Truth took a battering right at the start (in Autodesk’s T&Cs and) because Autodesk chose to impose CIP; continue to make it a mandatory load and hides its contents (they broke Transparency’s leg). Control and Validation are not close enough to assist Truth and therefore Trust suffered. Trust suffered further when Autodesk changed their attack by making it possible for CIP to be ‘remotely’ activated and reduced the ‘infected’ prey’s ability to control it via an original switch. Transparency and Control are out of the running now: therefore Validation cannot be used to support Truth and as a result Trust is trampled.</div><div><br /></div><div>Autodesk will continue to be seen as a 600lb Gorilla unable to use, and abusing Trust, unless…... At the ‘end of the day’ Trust, in Autodesk, is in the hands of its customers (and gifted). However, who in their right mind, or with any business nous, is going to Trust a person (or a collective of people = business = Autodesk and others) who are not making it possible for us to believe (Truth) them because there exists no Transparency and, who will not allow us to use the Control and or Validation that is perfectly reasonable to expect! </div><div><br /></div><div>So I return to; ‘they are only collecting what is theirs anyway’. Oh! Is that so? Flaw: the data is created, collected and collated on a customers’ business computer. So putting aside, for the moment, the efficacy of the act; CIP is not data Autodesk put on our machines and then took off again. It has components fitting that description – if Autodesk’s explanations are to be believed (Trusted) – but in the main the data is created as a result of our use of Autodesk’s software***! End of story CIP data is our data, our IP! Therefore it’s ours to do with as we wish; which would also mean we can sell CIP data!</div><div><br /></div><div>Now there will be those that disagree with my premise - CIP is my IP therefore it can be traded and put up for sale, by me. Autodesk could be one who says I cannot, and this has certainly been inferred. But why not – what could be the reason? Could it be if CIP’s (full) file contents were disclosed Truth may take the biggest battering of them all and Trust (in Autodesk) would completely crumble without its mate? Maybe!</div><div><br /></div><div>However, before we get too carried away - accepting cheques, that is ;-) – I will ask the individual(s) (who make Autodesk a living breathing business entity) to tell us what they know about the data ‘inside’ CIP files, and whether they have any objections to CIP data being offered for sale or given away.</div><div><br /></div><div>Don’t forget, it is a reflectively decorated rabid dog making this offer so it is correct to think the whole proposition is lunacy. Laughing Out Loud am I. Who would actually want to know what was in my CIP data; or any CIP data for that matter. Who would want to pay for and then spend the time trying to decipher an encrypted file just to find out what was within? One part of the answer would be found in the response from an ‘Autodesk’ individual or their legal council; others in the data.</div><br /><div>If Autodesk say CIP data is their IP and or cannot be retailed: well then, then we will know it has a ‘value’, to Autodesk, exceeding what is outlined in Autodesk’s public documentation. That would make it more interesting (and valuable) – to some others – than if Autodesk says, with no reservations, it’s ok to, give away or sell CIP data.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, if ‘Autodesk’ do say ‘No Sale/give away etc.’, they are saying several things: firstly, Autodesk has collected data it does not want customers to see; and or they may be confirming, their view, CIP is their property and IP. The first scenario is bad enough but the second will mean, Autodesk, will be admitting to using Trojan software to infect other business entities computers with software that was intended solely for Autodesk’s use! Truth would bury its mate Trust!</div><div><br /></div><div>The loading of ‘CIP software’ is not an option: so Autodesk will be admitting they misused and took advantage of their customers Trust. Trust is buried still deeper because Truth is really not what the customer will want to see! Control and Validation could still save the day, but now they must work in unison and be accompanied by the daddy of them all, (a healed) Transparency. For many individuals (in or out of business), and also Autodesk people, their greatest fear is (of the dog) Transparency.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you buy my CIP data what do you get? The answer is contained within the CIP data on offer? It’s not the latest form (though that can be arranged) of CIP, it’s an earlier version. Why? Simply because it may be the most revealing: you see I know what I was doing prior to ‘capturing’ the data. Yes, ‘capturing’ was done deliberately and for very good reasons; not the least being, in an attempt to discredit me, a person said it was in a ‘readable’ form, so I set out to check (test) – and he was wrong! Now I am not saying ‘the person’ was lying but hey, guys, it was misleading; after all Autodesk’s published documents said it was encrypted so why was a paid apologist saying it was not?</div><div><br /></div><div>What do you get? The answer is contained within the CIP data on offer? Clue: It’s the ‘volume of data’ that makes it initially interesting. Even accounting for Autodesk’s statement, CIP is encrypted to make it less intrusive?????; it was still much, much larger than one would have expected considering what I was actually doing with the software. There can be a number of reasons for ‘bloat’ but hey if you saw a guy in a store who had suddenly gained bulging pockets prior to paying for the Snicker in his hand; would you – the cashier – be curious? I think so.</div><div><br /></div><div>I guess, by now you will understand I am happy to make CIP data available (not to all, nor Autodesk), in the form it was first found and shown to number of politicians, government departments and agencies. Deciphering CIP data, if supplied, is the recipient’s task. No additional clues will be provided but I will be happy to let you know if what you believe you reveal is representative of what I was doing when it was created, what I would ‘normally’ be prepared to reveal to a third party (Autodesk included), when the attempt to transmit occurred.</div><div><br /></div><div>Will Transparency and its trusty side kick, Validation, in tights, mask and cape, swoop in from the west astride condors to free Truth and Trust and bury my concerns once and for all? Will the Gorilla gang fight off the heroes, leaving Trust and Truth to be mauled by an approaching growling pride; drowning out their pleas for help by screaming NO SALE? Let’s ask eh! Let’s see if the Gorilla turns out to be the good guy after all.</div><div><br /></div><div>The question to Autodesk through CEO Bass is very simple and does require a response. If Autodesk objects to my proposal (me selling or giving away CIP data) they can either ignore my request, or respond in writing with their reason(s) why. Alternatively, if Autodesk have absolutely NO objections then they will need to clearly indicate that in a written response****. </div><div><br /></div><div>The question is; does Autodesk have any objections to me offering for sale and or supplying copies of (in part or in full) - the file(s), and data, created as part of Autodesk’s Customer Involvement Program (CIP) - on my business computing systems?</div><div><br /></div><div>So there is the question, now we wait. If an individual (employed by Autodesk, rightfully CEO Bass), an agent acting on their behalf or Autodesk’s legal representatives do not contact me within the next twenty one (21) days informing me, in writing, they have absolutely no objections to me supplying or retailing CIP data, Autodesk will have to accept they have indicated they do have objections and therefore are using CIP to collect data they don’t want you or I to see. Whatever their reply/response, you lot will be the first to know just what they say or do not do; that’s a promise.</div><div><br /></div><div>A response is required: three choices exist; only one provides an opportunity for Truth to support a small portion of Trust. The two others ensure Truth destroys Trust.</div><div><br /></div><div>Going on past comments, ‘The Dotson pack’ won’t agree this is a true test; but if ‘no substantive action’ is ok for the acceptance of unjustifiably unconscionable software terms and conditions, and the use of Trojan software, then ‘what’s good for the goose it’s good for the gander’.</div><div><br /></div><div>Trust, Truth, Control, Validation and Transparency play marvelous pack roles, in this folly. As do Dogs, Horses, Gorillas, Condor, Geese and others; with Honesty, Scrutiny, Fairness, Justice and Integrity yet to join the pack. At the end of the day, joking aside, business is serious stuff. Blindly misplaced Trust, the deception, hypocrisy and unconscionable behavior, I have highlighted, should never be a standard part of business. None should be allowed or tolerated by any person or company, else they are also complicit.</div><div><br /></div><div>If CEO Bass, ‘The Dotsons’, KevinEs, Deelip or others want to call me names, a lunatic, to say I’m living on another planet, that what I am saying was tried by communists and failed, that I wear ‘foil’ hats, or that I am flogging a dead horse; is a very little concern, to me! The fact is, some things are right and some are wrong. What Autodesk (and others) have done and still doing is wrong for its customers’, society, Autodesk and our industry, and that needs to be said. I really care very little about any person, group or pack who thinks Honesty, Scrutiny and Integrity (and other members of that pack) have no place in our highly connected future or, that these traits should be left in the hands of the few and or software developers to ignore and or redefine at will.</div><div><br /></div><div>To reap the rewards of the connectivity confronting us it is ever so more important to make available and ensure that connectivity is as Transparent as possible. If any of you, out there, think you can sit on the fence, close yours eyes or just simply ignore – individuals or companies – unjustifiably unconscionable behavior on the ‘internet’, and think it will not come back and bite you, or your heirs, you are simple ignoring the obvious. I may be a lunatic but you would be an idiot.</div><div><br /></div><div>Deelip’s partly correct about Trust, but Trust alone is a fool’s folly. Deelip said we ‘who say we don’t Trust…etc.’ are stupid. Well let me say; any business person who Trusts without some level of Validation is probably lying. At the very best s/he is being foolish (and or stupid), at worst s/he should never be relied on to protect yours or another’s interests.</div><div><br /></div><div>In Autodesk’s case, as is the case for other software developers/vendors who have gone down the same road, they may think they have done ‘no wrong’; they have taken steps, in their view, to protect their interests and IP – maybe. They have also taken their customers Trust for granted and as a ‘right’ and in the process have, and are, trampling on Trust, what is best for others, society as a whole and, their industry.</div><div><br /></div><div>A discussion on the ‘cloud’ linked to a misapplication of the word ‘Trust’, started my conversation with Deelip. This epistle is an over-growth of that conversation and my belief that the success of the ‘cloud’, in whatever form, is dependant on Trust but; Trust can only be granted by users and can only exist and or be ‘expected’ by the vendors if they are prepared to respect their customers enough to and make their own activities Transparent and open to independent veto, Scrutiny and Validation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Autodesk’s (or any other software vendors for that matter) protection is absolutely no more important than that of its ‘most insignificant’ customer. CEO Bass would never tolerate, without considerable reservations, the business or personal intrusion he oversees of others; and I challenge him to ring, email and or better still, to my face, tell me otherwise.</div><div><br /></div><div>The internet extends our ability to quickly share and disseminate information and data; it is a wonderful set of tools, as is a gun. But a gun in the hands of a careless person, a fool, a despotic government or company becomes a tool to destroy wantonly in preference to it being used wisely, for good.</div><div><br /></div><div>The internet is no different and it is the Integrity of those who use it who will ensure it’s used mostly for the benefit of others. That does mean individuals and those heading companies, who have much to gain using the internet and the ‘cloud’, need to have not only the knowledge and intellect to get the best out of their staff, they also need the to have a very high degree of Integrity: to ensure they and the people they lead never step outside what is ‘morally right’.</div><div><br /></div><div>Integrity is another mate of Trust and Truth: it could be said, if a person has Integrity then Truth, Fairness and Justice are cornerstones of their decisions and actions and Trust, in that individual, is almost guaranteed.</div><div><br /></div><div>So for a ‘dig’, and with absolutely no regard for tact; bearing in mind the previous paragraph, take a look at what some software people have been only to willing to do to you and me, and you decide, do you believe they have Integrity? Do they believe in Fairness and Justice? Are they Truthful? Do they deserve your Trust?</div><div><br /></div><div>I have said many times before there is nothing I have raised or commented on in relation to Autodesk’s EULA, its Subscription Terms and Conditions and or its unconscionable behavior that I would not be prepared to discuss given the opportunity. But it’s Autodesk’s people that are going to have to make this possible; I have done my best and been constantly rejected or ignored. I would be absolutely delighted to have a result that allowed me to say I was either wrong or that what I have said has been addressed and or corrected, but it is up to Autodesk’s people to make that possible. Lawyers are not, and never were required, but, does CEO Bass have the statesmanship to make it possible? I wonder.</div><br /><div>I did not do what I have done (that is, speak out) because there was a personal reward. I knew at the outset there was none: my speaking out always had the potential to cause me trouble and damage my small business. It has and that was in my hands: I have few regrets because it needed to be done and I was not about to abandon my principals or accept the standards of others, including those within a ‘gorilla’ like Autodesk.</div><div><br /></div><div>In closing, if you are a reader that has made it to this point I must congratulate you. You will be amongst an elite group – as, probably only Autodesk’s legal people (may) have gone this far ;-) You must have had a very good reason to have persevered and I would not mind knowing why. I have never actively asked others to stand with me, people in the main don’t like radicals, change or disturbance and that I understand. Over time some have given verbal support from the side lines – though no commitment - if you are similar or of a different caliber I would be happy to know and or discuss particular points. If your only wish is to complain about what I have written, I will ‘listen’, but please don’t waste your time.</div><br /><div>P.S.</div><div><br /></div><div>**One) Autodesk’s EULA, their Subscription Terms and Conditions, their failure to allow customers to prevent the forced loading of Trojan software - embedded within legitimately purchased products and, their refusal to allow the scrutiny of the data collected, ensures what I raise is far from being a ‘dead horse’. It’s a ‘stable of horses’: all very much alive and working, for Autodesk, on customers (your) computer(s)!</div><div><br /></div><div>***Two) “but in the main the data is created as a result of our use of Autodesk’s software!” and that of any third party software we are using in conjunction within Autodesk products; including their competitors.</div><div><br /></div><div>****Three) Clearly this does not mean referring to previously unverifiable published promotional/FAQ/propaganda documents stating only what Autodesk wants users to believe they are doing!</div><div><br /></div><div>Four) Oh! I do like the word, Filibuster.</div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div><br /></div><br /><div></div>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-43567535547259074522010-05-19T09:12:00.002+10:002010-05-19T09:17:41.820+10:00CIP - The Deception Continues.<p class="MsoNormal">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). <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>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?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>All I needed now was for my ‘2011’ versions of Inventor or AutoCAD to arrive and, I would have my answer.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Inventor arrived first and it was not long after I received the answer to my question: Autodesk’s CIP’s Deception Continues.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Autodesk have, in one stroke, demonstrated they will use what ever tools of language (spin) they can to deceive and mislead.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The ‘changes’ we see in the CIP dialogue box have most assuredly been done in an attempt to disarm and desensitize their customers.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>What Autodesk has done is nothing short of rubbish; at best a dismal attempt to mask their long running unauthorized actions and unconscionable conduct!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">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 ;-)</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Well, a lunatic I may be and will remain until I see Autodesk taken to task for their actions; or change.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">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. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Processes that would protect their customers and allow Autodesk to obtain the data they have stated they want (and recover some market credibility).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>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!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">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 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">CIP</b> OFF and <u>LEAVE IT OFF</u>.</p><p class="MsoNormal">The Deception Continues!</p>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-8115557360847313162010-03-01T08:44:00.002+11:002010-03-01T09:04:40.644+11:00Is Autodesk’s EULA Enforceable – NIMO – Part III<p class="MsoNormal">Recently Deelip Menezes provided an opportunity: by asking Autodesk’s CEO Carl Bass a question relating to the issues I have raised he got an ‘interesting’ reply.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So I thought, lets see if he is also prepared to avoid supporting Autodesk’s EULA and its statement that it IS a contract.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">After all if Autodesk says in its EULA it is a contract there can be no reason for Autodesk or its CEO to not support and confirm this position; or is there?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>So I asked the question, again, and for supporting documentation – the following letter remains un-answered! </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">------</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><st1:date month="2" day="12" year="2010">12 February 2010</st1:date>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">To: Mr. C. Bass. CEO of Autodesk Inc and Mr. D. Menezes CEO of SYCODE.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Cutting to the chase.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>‘Salespersons’ are morally, and sometime, in some instances, legally required to tell the truth about their products, services and what they are offering.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This point neither of you will dispute?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Using ‘telling the truth’ as a starting point let’s work with the concept Autodesk ‘software’ products are licences; Autodesk’s conditions of use being defined in their EULA and Subscription Terms & Conditions.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In reading the Autodesk’s licence documents and terms and conditions we encounter statements similar or the same as the following;</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“<span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family: PMingLiU;color:black;text-transform:uppercase;layout-grid-mode:line">BY SELECTING the </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial; color:black;text-transform:uppercase;layout-grid-mode:line">“</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:PMingLiU; color:black;text-transform:uppercase;layout-grid-mode:line">I ACCEPT” button bELOW this Agreement OR by copying, installing, uploading, accessing, or USING ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE SOFTWARE you agree to be legally bound by this Agreement.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>A contract is then formed between Autodesk and either you personally, if you acquire the Software for yourself, or the company or other legal entity for which you are acquiring the software</span><span style="font-family:Arial;mso-fareast-font-family:PMingLiU; color:black;text-transform:uppercase;layout-grid-mode:line">.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">From reading these statements we can see Autodesk indicates their EULA and terms & conditions are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><u>contracts</u></i>.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a customer, with a purchasing background and, a particular point of reference relating to the application and acceptance of contracts; I am now going to ask you, Mr. Bass, to do a very simple ‘thing’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>A task well within your scope as CEO (a salespersons) of Autodesk Inc.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The task: support the statements found in Autodesk’s EULA and Subscription Terms and Conditions, by supplying me a response <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>- <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>in the form of either an Affidavit or Statutory Declaration - un-ambiguously stating Autodesk’s EULA and Subscription Terms and Conditions, in their previous, current, and complete states, are, in Australia, legally binding and enforceable contracts!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Please ensure, which ever, of the two forms of reply you choose, it is supplied to me - or at least an emailed or faxed copy of the document, with the original following - by the close of business on <st1:date month="2" day="19" year="2010">19th February 2010</st1:date> (AEDT).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In all respects this is a very minor chore: but, a very important one. A demonstration to, existing, and potential new, customers of the importance Autodesk’s places on its terms and conditions of use.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Your declaration and will also remove, once and for all, the disparity in views currently held by Autodesk’s customers.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, providing the Affidavit, or Statutory Declaration, will also demonstrate your personal commitment, as CEO of Autodesk, to provide customers with the truth!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Why by the appointed time?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>A schedule is needed and it is a reasonable period of time.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Furthermore, at the moment, this communication is of limited circulation; however, after the nominated time it is my intention to publish these details in Caveat emptor.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Therefore this is a unique opportunity for you and Autodesk to show leadership in the industry and, it would be of some advantage, to Autodesk, to have the response included in my post.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In closing; Autodesk and its dealers have, for too long, avoided handling this topic in a professional and truthful manner.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This is your opportunity, Mr. Bass, to right that wrong; and, I am sure, on this occasion - whilst you may (probably will) delegate the task - you will ensure it is done, as requested and, done within the time constraint set.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I truly look forward to reply, Mr. Bass, and the resolution it will provide.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Yours sincerely,</p><p class="MsoNormal">R. Paul Waddington</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Proprietor – cadWest</p><p></p><div> </div>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-16794323219866144142010-01-18T10:00:00.006+11:002010-01-18T12:57:03.579+11:00An Autodesk Subscription Renewal Rejected? – Part 1 of…..The Abridged version;<br /><br />The short version of this convoluted 20 day saga starts 5 days after placing a purchase order, for my Inventor Subscription renewal, in the hands of my Autodesk Inventor dealer’s Sales Manager. It, the purchase order, was handed back 5 days later by the Sales Manager (the result of a decision made by the dealer Principal – the Sales Manager’s boss). Autodesk Australia was made aware of what was about to take place, before the order was returned, was asked to be involved but, and, 15 days later – in a letter to me (received on the afternoon of the day prior to Autodesk breaking for CHRISTmas ??? ) – Autodesk ‘wiped’ their hands of involvement; despite the fact Autodesk had sent me (the previous day) a third Subscription Renewal reminder; an email titled - Renew NOW.<br /><br />That’s exactly what I was trying to do – with payment in hand!<br /><br />There are two Autodesk dealers, ‘only’, who have the privileged position to trade Autodesk Inventor products, in my area (Sydney, N.S.W.); neither has accepted my renewal request.<br /><br />Mr. Wolfe may have been denied entry to AU but have you ever heard of a customer being denied access to the software tools of his trade? Autodesk products may be “cheap and used for relatively un-important tasks”, in some eyes, but they happen to form the foundation of my business. Without them I have no business or job; in my case Autodesk products are extremely important. However, the separate action of individuals, taken within three companies, has now combined to make the running of my business much more difficult than, it should be and, it would be for any other person in my area, including my competitors.<br /><br />Software supplier and dealer fury in full flight: no ‘real’ reasons given for the separate acts but, an educated guess, as to why, can probably be made!<br /><br />The word, ethics, also springs to mind.<br /><br />Importantly, it is always individuals, who make decisions, not companies. Individuals within software companies, choose to, surreptitiously penetrate customers computing systems using Trojan software - embedded in legitimate products; use non-negotiable invasive Terms and Conditions of Use in an attempt to take the high ground, refuse to have their actions scrutinized or validated and, to ‘wash their hands of a ‘customer of 25 years’ and;<br /><br />Other individuals, owning and running software service companies, are now, also making decisions about which customers/individuals can, and will, access the products they ‘sell’ for and on behalf of the software companies. In effect, controlling/choosing who can work commercially, economically and or effectively in the market space they have chosen to SUPPLY; with protected and privileged dealer status!<br /><br />Are these actions the price I now pay for speaking out about invasive licencing and the use of Trojan software? If so, ALL software users need to take stock and consider some long term ramifications.<br /><br />Is the future, of (CAD) software use, a situation where it is not which software is suitable, easiest or the most cost effective for you to use; but whether or not the vendor(s) considers you a suitably submissive customer, person or company? If, initially approved of but, at a later date, you prove to be a ‘troublesome’ customer, and unrepentant, you too WILL have you access removed – GOD in the ‘cloud’.<br /><br />Are we, as customers, going to continue ‘sitting on our hands’, allowing software developer led social engineering to continue or, do we heed the now ample warnings; take control of our market place and stop ALL the types of activity, I have spoken out about, in its tracks?<br /><br />Caveat emptor, indeed!<br /><br />“<em>Always look for the evidence to everything you’re asked to believe.</em>....”<br />Richard Dawkins.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />--- $ ---<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />The Long Version;<br /><br />The following is a deliberate ramble linking several different instances and I make no excuses for that or its length. It has several purposes. One being, it is a record of the events; the people and companies involved, done to ensure I have a permanent reference for later use…..<br /><br />Another; it is an open letter to the individuals involved, highlights their actions, poses several questions and, includes a challenge directed to the management of Autodesk. Who I would willingly, at any time – privately or publicly – discuss what ALL Autodesk employees, their legal people and agents have actively avoided doing now for over five (5) years, and that is; to meet and discuss in depth and negotiate, all to do with their application of unconscionable Software Terms and Conditions of Use; their use of Trojan software and, importantly, their refusal to meet and discuss their requirements relating to my concerns overseeing and validating their invasive actions!<br /><br />Caveat venditor.<br /><br />Don’t bother reading further it if you are looking for an outline, for correct grammar, spelling or are going to be offended by seeing your name in print and or dislike having your actions questioned in this forum!<br /><br />On November 20, 2009 Ralph Grabowski wrote a piece in his blog titled “Should Wolfe Be Denied Entry to Autodesk University?”.<br /><br />The comments that followed were interesting and showed varied opinion and thought; which is to be expected.<br /><br />My comment, to Ralph Grabowski’s posting, took the line, refusing Mr. Wolfe entry was childish: ‘Autodesk’ would have been better to allow Mr. Wolfe to attend AU, using the opportunity to address his comments and ‘convert’ him; the professional approach. In doing so ‘Autodesk’ would have demonstrated managerial maturity, a respect for others opinions and, a strong knowledge, confidence and commitment to its products and customers being ‘derided’.<br /><br />Like Ralph Grabowski & Mr. Wolfe I am no stranger to this type exclusion, with some significant differences. The first event I was excluded from, I was, initially, invited to attend. It was a presentation of Autodesk product; the event was organized by an Autodesk dealer supplying me product. However when the key speaker, the then current reining Autodesk product manager found out I was to attend he said he would not present if I was allowed in; resulting in the directors of the dealership stopping me at the door, refusing me – their invited customer – entry!<br /><br />Missing out on that presentation meant missing out on information Autodesk’s dealer deemed important enough to organize and invite its customers to hear and for Autodesk to play a key role. But what is more important is that both the Autodesk employee and the directors of the dealership felt they had the right to deny an individual customer access to the same information others in the industry would get to hear and learn from? What it also showed me, and other attendees who ‘witnessed’ what happened, was just how immature the product manager was and how unsure he was about what he was about to present and, as for the directors, well what can you say about any person running a company with so little fortitude and ability as to not have been able to solve the problem they faced, sensibly and in favour of all parties.<br /><br />Now, Mr. Wolfe made a comment it may have been prudent to avoid and, as I know absolutely nothing about the guy I looked at his comment and measured it against what I know I and my customers do, and see the situation, he outlined, differently. I guess I know what is important in mine and my customer’s context and as Mr. Wolfe is not part of our life, neither was his comment directly relevant, or worth ‘getting up any steam”. If missing AU was a result of his reported comments, at least it had a similarity to other exclusions.<br /><br />But my exclusion this time around takes the process into new territory: enforced with no reasons given, it strikes directly at a persons (my) ability to access the ‘tools of his trade’ and, to continue to run a business; and, again it is an AutoCAD dealer metering out the pain by simply refusing to accept my purchase order and payment, on behalf of Autodesk, to renew my Autodesk Inventor Subscription!<br /><br />As I said in my comment about Mr. Wolfe’s exclusion; it is individuals who make these decisions and, in the first instance, on this occasions it was the dealer principal; Jamie Delves, head of an Autodesk Premier Solutions Provider called Envision Solutions Pty. Ltd.!<br /><br />Here is a rough outline of events; on the 27 Nov. 2009 I handed to Envision’s Sales Manager an order for my subscription renewal with the request it be processed and paid by mid December 2009. Five (5) days latter he returned and handed back the order, simple stating, Jamie (his ‘boss’) was not prepared to accept it – no reason was given. To his credit though, for his own reasons, I was told, before he came to my office he did ring Autodesk and outlined what was to occur and, he was of the ‘belief’ Autodesk would ‘assist in some way’. So, my response was simple; as a subscription is a deal between Autodesk and a customer*** - a dealer only being the booking agent – and given he had already made Autodesk aware of the situation, I said send the purchase order to Autodesk Australia, ‘with your covering letter’, and let them decide if they want to ‘accept it’ and or to hear what their suggestion(s) might be; this was done, I believe the next day.<br /><br />It is easy to see what should have happened here, and I didn’t care who got the cheque; subscription is what it is so it matters little who takes the money, on Autodesk’s behalf, provided it is paid, in full and on time.<br /><br />‘Nothing much happened’ for a week then several emails and phone calls solicited comments like, “Autodesk are trying to work out who can handle it..” and, “I have asked her to speak with you”. The phone call never came: what came instead, twenty (20) days after issuing the purchase order, on the afternoon of the day prior to Autodesk going into CHRISTmas recess, was a letter, from Autodesk’s Channel Program & Operations Manager, Clare Wharrier.<br /><br />The letter started by incorrectly stating I had requested to renew my Subscription directly with Autodesk. It went on to say “Unfortunately in cases such as yours, we do not transact directly but have resellers to sell directly to customers such as yourself”. Well yes, I knew that was the case but, Jamie Delves - Envision, an Autodesk Premier Solution Providers and the dealer listed on Autodesk’s reminder email as the dealer to contact***, didn’t want to accept my order or payment on Autodesk’s behalf so, who would?<br /><br />Well Autodesk had an answer for that question, the letter went on; “Please got (Clare’s words not mine) to our web site for the list of partners (sic’ there’s that partner thing again Ralph Grabowski) with whom you can renew your subscription”, followed by Autodesk’s web address listing dealers.<br /><br />Now here’s the twist; Autodesk’s dealers are like many animals, territorial; and, like animals they choose and fight for a spot, in the world, to set up an office, and for Autodesk’s permission to do so. Now in Australia that means Inventor dealers trade ‘only’ in the state allocated, (in my case that is the New South Wales, Sydney is the capital), and ‘not outside’ this area ;-)<br /><br />Autodesk list two dealers, for the State of N.S.W., as suppliers of the ubiquitous Inventor software. Envision I have already mentioned: Cadgroup Australia is the other; a company I dealt with for many years, the one who denied me access to their presentation at the behest of an Autodesk employee and, one who has not answered my request, or accepted my purchase order and payment to renew my Inventor subscription.<br /><br />So, now we have THE two dealers ‘in my territory’ – authorized to sell Inventor and subscriptions – neither wanting to accept my money on Autodesk’s behalf? And Autodesk Australia in a position, it would appear, unwilling or unable to ‘encourage’ their privileged designated territorial Inventor dealers into accepting my money on Autodesk’s behalf?<br /><br />The closing sentence, of Autodesk’s letter had this little gem; “Please be aware we cannot and do not make it mandatory for our resellers to do business, or refuse to do business with you or anyone else.” This may be true but you have to wonder at the ethics in play.<br /><br />For one Inventor licence twelve month subscription - $1340.00 for Autodesk, $335.00 for the dealer, $167.50 for the government.<br /><br />Not big biscuits, but these are the tools of my trade* and individuals within (remember it is always a person or people who make decisions, NOT companies) Envision, Cadgroup and Autodesk Australia have chosen, for their own undisclosed reasons – to not allow me to access, their software product and services, in a ‘normal’ manner, as others, including my competitors, can?<br /><br />An aside: Anyone spot the business opportunity for some serious corporate customer relations training for the owners and managers in these three companies ;-)<br /><br />* So here is something to ponder: outspoken I am about Autodesk’s licencing and the use of Trojan software but I have been selling and supporting Autodesk products since 1984 when first employed by the then and original distributor (of IBM versions) of AutoCAD and when that company closed (1990) I became self employed and continued selling and supporting Autodesk MCAD products, as a small niche support orientated dealer until Autodesk decided I no longer fitted by imposing un-attainable sales targets – support is only good in Autodesk’s eyes if it is backed by large in number NEW sales – so end of the MCAD dealership. They left me the ability to sell AutoCAD though, but, it had to be sourced through a secondary supplier** not Autodesk. MCAD customers stuck by me and some still do (over 23 years for one), I re-organized, support and training playing a larger role even in the MCAD space. Now this is a significant point; even whilst I do and will continue to speak out about Autodesk’s licencing and its use of Trojans – for as long as they continue what they are doing – I still continue to promote the use of their products (MCAD) and on any given week can be training between 10 to 16 individuals in the use of AutoCAD and Inventor in both my private work and in institutions. A critic; yes, but not one setting out to damage Autodesk, nor its products application and use.<br /><br />My two subscriptions for Autodesk’s products are extremely important to me as being the only way I remain current - and ‘legal’ ;-) - to ensure the training I offer, and do, is as current as it can be. However it would appear 25 years of experience and dedication to Autodesk’s customers’ counts for naught if you are seen as not fitting the mould and can be bullied aside. What does this say about the individuals, who work at Autodesk and, those who own and run Envision and Cadgroup, about what they see as important for our/your industry?<br /><br />**I said I was able to sell AutoCAD sourced through a third party distributor and at the moment I still can but, Autodesk are removing the ability for people like me to sell AutoCAD in February 2010 making it available, again, only to ‘qualified’ dealers. Yep, that’s correct, Autodesk let every man and his dog sell AutoCAD as a retail product and now want ‘qualified’ dealers again. Of course the ‘main qualification’ is meeting sales targets. Will I qualify, who knows – knowing the product(s), the business, having long standing loyal customers, training, supporting and introducing new users on a weekly basis to Autodesk products for 25 years is not the qualification required.<br /><br />***Autodesk send emails directly to subscription customers reminding them of the impending renewal. I receive six reminders, the first being some three months ahead of the renewal date and the last one on the 15th December 2009 and it was titled RENEW NOW. Autodesk’s Pontius Pilate letter is dated 16th December 2009 and was delivered on the afternoon of the 17th December 2009. Autodesk went on leave, for CHRISTmas, on the 18th December 2009 – my order was placed in the hands of Adam Scully on the 27th November 2009.<br /><br />Ralph Grabowski asked in his post, “Should Wolfe be Denied Entry..etc.”<br /><br />I ask, should I (or any other person for that matter) be denied ‘normal’ access to Autodesk’s products because;<br /><br />I am critical of Autodesk’s invasive licensing policies and use of Trojan software or;<br /><br />Is there another reason my customers should be disadvantaged and my business be destroyed – if so, what is it, Jamie (Envision), John&John (Cadgroup), Clare and Carl (Autodesk)?<br /><br />What do other software users think? Does being critical of any product you use mean you should no longer have access to it?<br /><br />Please, before you inundate me with facts, and comments, relating to my ability to choose alternate software stop and think about what you are about to say in relation to my situation and business. At its simplest level, if you can demonstrate how, me, owning and using, as an example - Solidworks in my office would be a good advert for selling training courses in the use of AutoCAD and Inventor, I would be only too happy to listen to your reasoning.<br /><br />At the other end of the scale and of more importance, consider; unreasonable and unconscionable Terms and Conditions of Use and the use of Trojan software is not confined to only one software developer; ‘out of the fat and into the fire’ in many cases it would be!<br /><br />I indicated Autodesk’s actions in relation to Mr. Wolfe, reflects the behavior of children and in a recent comment about ‘The Orange Rectangle etc…’ Deelip Menezes said, “Frankly, my six year old and two year old fight over more reasonable things.” I tend to agree: when you look at some legal suits, software developer and dealer reaction to my comments about intrusive, unconscionable Terms and Conditions of Use and the unjustified use of Trojan software one can only conclude it is nothing short of behavior befitting children who ‘chuck tantrums to get their own way’!<br /><br />Just how much power, and access, are you and society, prepared to give software companies, run by individuals who have agenda which may not match what is best for society as a whole; who have little respect for alternate view points and, who cannot separate their petty thinking from their business decisions?<br /><br />I’ll conclude this epistle with a challenge to Autodesk’s Board of Directors and CEO Mr. Bass. Five years is long enough for your company, if it has nothing to hide, to have answered my reasonable questions and concerns. I challenge Autodesk to appoint a representative to meet with me and discuss what Autodesk has been avoiding for a very long time – what have you got to loose?<br /><br />My quest for answers has always been about making our market place equitable, and you know that to be the truth; better for both software developers (Autodesk) and customers. Autodesk chose to believe it had a right to dominate and intrude on customers – and is perceived that way in the market place. Making it more difficult or destroying my business will achieve absolutely nothing for Autodesk and its dealers; the market has its opinion set and you cannot trade or profit from my loss, so why bother.<br /><br />What stuff are you and your crew really made of Mr. Bass? I have said many times before; all the issues I have raised have very simple solutions. Are Autodesk individuals going to remain in the software industry as ‘childish bullies in short pants’ or are they going to grow up, face the reality customers are entitled to the same protections and rights as Autodesk and work towards that end or, is the value to be found in good customer relations a job too demeaning, too difficult or too complex for minds calibrated in sales.<br /><br />What has Autodesk to gain by tackling my concerns? A considerable amount! Goodwill in business can, and is, measured and used in many ways. Address the situations I have raised, with your customers interests in mind, and the goodwill generated will be marketable and profitable!<br /><br />Your call Mr. Bass, are YOU up to the challenge?<br /><br />This latest action against me, by an agent of Autodesk, gives me considerable cause and good reason to continue my pursuit for the truth behind this latest action, those that have preceded it and the continued reticence of these companies, and individuals, to justify their unconscionable actions and their unending belief they have the right to abuse their customers trust and their privileged position.<br /><br />“Like a dog with a bone”, I have absolutely no intention of letting go of my issues until they all are sensibly discussed and answered as I believe they should be.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />--- $ ---<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />“<em>It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again…..who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of the high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat</em>…..”<br />President Roosevelt.R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-30899632886455425922009-08-27T10:41:00.002+10:002009-08-27T10:58:20.589+10:00Software ‘Licence’ Compliance - It’s Your Legal Obligation?<p class="MsoNormal">My interest is in the second part of the title - “It’s Your Legal Obligation”.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This eye catching statement is the heading of the paraphrased paragraph following – and the original. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Firstly however, it is the contents of the paragraph I will address as it is important to have a correct view of the statements within to understand why I believe the title is misleading.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>“1. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">It’s Your Legal Obligation<o:p></o:p></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The Developers’ End User License Agreement (EULA) is a contract between you and ‘The Developer’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It governs and protects your right to use ‘The Developer’s’ software.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Knowing and complying with the terms of the EULA keeps you from breaching this contract, and on the right side of the law</i>”.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Used as the opening paragraph - in a handout distributed by a software developer – the paragraph makes a very definite statement relating to the contractual nature of the EULA which is, in most cases, relating to software, far from factual.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It goes on to say the EULA "governs and protects" a users rights, concluding; “knowing and complying with the terms of the EULA”, somehow keeps the customer(s) “on the right side of the law”.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Handed out at a promotional event this attempt at hoodwinking customers might appear to have been a good idea; but was it? Are the statements correct?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I have already demonstrated many/most software EULA are not contracts, despite what software developers would like us to believe.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In saying that, it then follows ‘knowing and complying’ does not ‘protect’ a user nor keeps the customer(s) on the ‘right side of the law’.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The one comment going close the real function of the EULA is the mention it “governs” your right to use ‘The Developers’ software.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It has long been my opinion ‘click thru EULA’, found in many pieces of software, are nothing more than a – desired - code of conduct provided by the ‘The Developer’.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It does not actually govern the user; it only outlines how ‘The Developer’ wants the customer to behave after ‘purchasing’ and, whilst using their software.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, given EULA, in the main, are NOT contracts, provide no protection – for the customer/user – and, play no ‘real’ role in keeping the user on the ‘right side of the law’; it seems somewhat contradictory to headline those statements with “It’s Your Legal Obligation” </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">To say, “It’s Your Legal Obligation”, is a ‘smoke and mirrors’ statement – made by ‘The Developer’ for no better reason than to cloak the EULA in credibility it does not deserve and cannot support.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Like other magic tricks; if the user wants to believe they have agreed to a contract that is what they see.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The reality however is considerably different. The dangers of not fully understanding how ‘The Developer’ is performing the ‘trick’ could be considerably more costly – to the user - than watching coins disappear and re-appear in a magic show.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">EULA, as found in software, have undergone considerable change; in some cases those changes have not always been made in the best interests of the customer.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>That fact, in itself, is of no surprise; after all, ‘The Developer’ would argue, ‘it’s our software therefore we can do what ever we want’ – and they do!<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Their statement might be true except for the fact ‘The Developer(s)’ wants to insist the EULA is a contract: I argue it’s nothing more than an unenforceable, suggested, ‘code of conduct’.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a ‘code of conduct’ I would agree ‘The Developer’ can outline any conditions of use s/he chooses and the users will decide – without penalty – if s/he complies or not. However, if a EULA is to be accepted as a contract, it MUST be negotiable and an agreement between parties.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Failure to comply, by the user and or ‘The Developer’, once the terms have been agreed on by both parties, is no longer an option and penalties may apply to both parties.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Simply stating the EULA is a contract, or selecting the “I Agree” button does not make a non-negotiable EULA a contract!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, the statement that caught my eye, “It’s Your Legal Obligation”: as a heading performed the function of drawing my attention; but as it is misleading it also draws my criticism.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Misleading because it wrongly primes the reader prior to reading the statements that follow, which are, misleading and or downright false!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now, to vendors and ‘The Developer’ I say this; “It’s Your Legal Obligation”, to be truthful in promotions; about your products and what you believe are your customers’ obligations in relation to you and your products.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Furthermore, “It’s Your Legal Obligation”, to ensure you are not abusing your very privileged position by conducting surreptitious activity and using customers computing systems for your own purposes!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It might have seemed a good idea - ‘Developer’ - to infer how your customers might stay “on the right side of the law”; but are you?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“Eh! What on earth you getting at? Are you suggesting ‘The Developers’ are using their customers computing systems for their own purposes”?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Stay tuned; all – or more likely only part – will be revealed, next!</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the interim here is a question for readers to consider, answer and or comment on: “At what point does it become legal for ‘The Developer’ to use their software products – critical business software – as the vehicle to collect and remove data, of any kind, from your business and design computing systems without your authorization and oversight?” </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p>R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-68106023067612503092008-06-16T13:40:00.002+10:002008-06-16T19:38:23.118+10:00Is Autodesk’s EULA Enforceable – NIMO – Part II.or put another way;<br /><br />I invite Autodesk to <em>prove</em> its Subscription and Licence Terms and Conditions are enforceable.<br /><br />In my previous post I suggested Autodesk’s Subscriptions and Licences documents could not be considered legally binding or enforceable contracts and why. Autodesk did not respond to that posting - nothing new there - but there is some further news from that front.<br /><br />Let’s look at two never before asked - by me - questions recently put to Autodesk Australia;<br /><br />a) Does Autodesk believe their Subscription and EULA are enforceable? “Yes, else why would we put them out there”.<br />b) If I continue to use Autodesk software and reject the terms and conditions am I complying with what Autodesk believes is the <em>law</em> in relation to its terms and conditions? “No” was the answer.<br /><br />From these answers we can see Autodesk ‘<em>believe</em>’ their terms and conditions are enforceable. I disagree!<br /><br />As I have said before, the best Autodesk can say is that their Subscription and Licence Terms and Conditions define a ‘code of conduct’. That view, of mine, was formed by Autodesk’s initial ‘over-the-top’ reaction to my early questions relating to the audit clauses and was reinforced by subsequent reviews of why the audit clauses may have been added and to what uses they could be put; which in turn raised more questions, all of which remain un-answered - 1200+ days later - by Autodesk and their legal representatives.<br /><br />Much of this territory has been covered in other earlier postings. Suffice to say, recent phone conversations (with Autodesk) have left me more concerned than I was previously and they are the catalyst for the decisions I have made, this post and the declarations I make in it.<br /><br />In its simplest form my declaration is: I reject, in full, Autodesk’s Subscription and Licence Terms and Conditions and will continue to use Autodesk’s products*.<br /><br />At the core of my rejection is Autodesk’s demand that they have access to my premises, design and business computing systems – for the supposed purpose of ensuring I am complying with their licence terms and conditions. Not ‘unreasonable’ Autodesk believes: but as my questions and time have proven, Autodesk are not prepared to reveal any information relating to the access they are demanding (why?) and that is why their requirement IS unreasonable.<br /><br />Central to my concern is the inability to validate Autodesk’s actions. If I cannot validate Autodesk’s actions they are not going to get access. If I cannot get the information I request before I must ‘agree’ to the Subscription and licence documents, then I will not agree. As Autodesk’s audit demands have been made long after my commitment to use their products, neither will I stop using their products.<br /><br />As Autodesk will not co-operate nor negotiate their terms and conditions, and as there is no mechanism to accept only a portion, I am left to make the only sensible decision I can for the continuance of my business. At the end of the day decisions about how my business is to function, who has access to my premises, computing systems, documents and data held within these areas are for me to make not Autodesk.<br /><br />Had Autodesk chosen to be more sensible about the issues I have raised there is no doubt a solution would have been found that would have ensured Autodesk got what it <strong><em>says</em></strong> it wants and I would have the security and control that is rightfully mine. That this has not happened is entirely of Autodesk’s making. 1200+ days is long enough for any customer to spend trying to resolve an issue with a recalcitrant supplier. It says volumes about the lack of abilities of, and the motives of Autodesk.<br /><br />Autodesk’s credibility is at risk in this issue: “if you have nothing to hide (Autodesk) why don’t you just give me the information I have requested”? Equally, “trust us” is not an answer and cannot be used as a substitute for transparency.<br /><br />So, <em>if</em> the Subscription and EULA documents are unenforceable what about the issues of copyright and the protection of Autodesk’s intellectual property? Is a ‘code of conduct’ sufficient?<br /><br />There will be those who may choose to argue but, from my point of view I treat Autodesk’s software as importantly as customers’ design data, and similar to a book or music I have purchased. I do not need to, nor is it necessary to accept Autodesk’s terms and conditions to understand and adhere to the intent of ‘rules’ relating to copyright.<br /><br />Autodesk’s intellectual property is however a much more difficult thing to protect: I accept no responsibility to do so and neither should it be expected. Autodesk’s audit clauses - and Autodesk’s belief I should accept their conditions without question – ensures the protection of their intellectual property is not possible. Simply put, if Autodesk believes it is appropriate for me to allow them uncontrolled, unsupervised and non-verifiable access to my business, computing systems, documents and data then they <strong>MUST</strong> accept that it is reasonable for others to expect the same…..nothing more needs to be said here except, wake up Autodesk!<br /><br />Autodesk’s inclusion of audit clauses is an attempt at social engineering and a poor attempt at that! What Autodesk’s actions have achieved though is to demonstrate exactly why their software Subscription and Licence documents cannot be taken seriously and why they are most definitely unenforceable.<br /><br />Autodesk’s reaction to my disclosure of the audit clauses, their failure to allow me to negotiate their terms and conditions and the chameleon nature of their documents all reinforce these facts; Autodesk’s Subscription and Licence documents are not binding contracts and are not enforceable.<br /><br />The position I have adopted, and outlined herein, is not my preferred option. I believe there are legitimate reasons and a place for realistic terms and conditions but to abuse these tools renders their intentions void, calls into questions their value and in the resulting confusion many users choose to ignore them. A situation that may have its advantages for vendors but it is not one that is in the best interests of vendors, customers and the software business as a whole.<br /><br />Until now, all my comments and suggestions to Autodesk have been made in an attempt to make Autodesk’s documents applicable and of value to all parties, this is (or maybe was) my preferred option.<br /><br />Autodesk’s intentions for the audit clauses ‘may have been honourable’ but their surreptitious inclusion into the terms and conditions and, Autodesk’s subsequent efforts in denying me the information I have requested has removed any opportunity Autodesk may have had to claim their intentions were, or are, honourable; that customers’ rights are of any importance to Autodesk, and their Subscription and Licence documents are in any way enforceable.<br /><br />Autodesk is a company built on ‘innovation’ and ‘innovative’ products but it would appear innovation is only to be found in its products; it is certainly not to be found in Autodesk’s bureaucracy and its dealings with small customers!<br /><br />With this post I have firmly ‘nailed my flag to the mast’; if I am wrong consequences must follow. However, I believe I am correct: I also believe the position I have been forced to take is appropriate under the circumstances and, it will not be challenged; thus making my declaration(s) applicable to all but a few of Autodesk customers.<br /><br />R. Paul Waddington.<br />Proprietor – cadWest.<br /><br />*In detail I have declared, to Autodesk, the following;<br /><br />- I have no commercial, contractual or legal obligations to Autodesk Inc., or any subsidiary company.<br />- I will continue to use Autodesk’s software in a manner I believe is appropriate for business software, design and draughting tools.<br />- I accept no responsibility to protect Autodesk’s Copyright and or Intellectual Property.<br />- Receipt of and installation of purchased, or supplied, Autodesk software products and access to subscription tools and services is not an acceptance, by me, of any published, embedded or non-negotiable terms and conditions.<br />- I do not give my permission to Autodesk, any subsidiary or agent, to supply additional software as part of the products purchased, that are additional to, or embedded in, the software purchased or software supplied and or received as part of additional services, that has a role or functionality other than for which the subscription and software has been expressly purchased to do.<br />- I do not give my permission to Autodesk, any subsidiary or agent, to load or attempt to load software supplied as part of, or embedded within, products purchased, that has a role or functionality other than for which the subscription and software has been expressly purchased to do.<br />- I do not give my permission to Autodesk, its subsidiaries or agents, to create, collect, or collate data or information, of any kind, in any form, on my business, design and computing systems that has a role or functionality other than for which the subscription and software has been expressly purchased to do.<br />- I do not give my permission to Autodesk, its subsidiaries or agents, to transmit to or from, or remove data or information, of any kind, in any form, from my premises or from my business, or my design and computing systems.<br />- I do not, and will not, accept any terms or conditions relating to Autodesk’s products, and services, that form part or all of Subscription and Software Licence Terms and Conditions that can be, or have been changed and or added to without notice, are non-negotiable and or ill-defined.<br />- I do not, and will not, accept any terms or conditions relating to Autodesk’s products that form part or all of Subscription and Software Licence Terms and Conditions that can be applied, or used, in intrusive ways and or used to prevent me from conducting my business in a sound and safe commercial manner, or that would prevent me retaining full and absolute control, at all times, of all aspects of my business, including who and what accesses my premises, my business records and documentation and my design and computing systems.R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-36908770632549695852008-02-03T17:22:00.000+11:002008-02-03T19:40:08.190+11:00Is Autodesk's EULA Enforceable? - NIMOFor many years legitimate customers, exercising goodwill, have viewed Autodesk’s Subscription and Licence Terms and Conditions as <em>contracts</em>. Those who read the Terms and Conditions used them as I believe they were intended - as a guide that detailed – how we users were <strong><em>to implement and use</em></strong> Autodesk’s software products.<br /><br />Due to changes made to these Terms and Conditions; customers <em>may continue</em> to see them as they have in the past but the fact is the only way these documents can be viewed is as a <em>quasi code of conduct</em>.<br /><br />Autodesk’s Subscription and Software Licence Agreements <em>cannot be</em> considered legally binding documents or contracts*! Ill-defined, ill-considered and un-fair clauses, Chameleon in nature and non-negotiable! These are just some of the reasons preventing these documents being considered as binding or enforceable.<br /><br />Users could be forgiven for thinking they are bound by these documents when reading these clauses;<br /><br />found in the Licence document***;<br />“BY SELECTING THE “I ACCEPT” BUTTON AT THE END OF THIS AGREEMENT OR BY COPYING, INSTALLING, UPLOADING, ACCESSING OR USING ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE SOFTWARE YOU AGREE TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT. A <strong>CONTRACT</strong> IS THEN FORMED BETWEEN AUTODESK AND EITHER YOU PERSONALLY, IF YOU ACQUIRE THE SOFTWARE FOR YOURSELF, OR THE COMPANY OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY FOR WHICH YOU ARE ACQUIRING THE SOFTWARE;”<br /><br />and in the Subscription document;<br />“YOUR PURCHASE OF SUBSCRIPTIONS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT BELOW, AND ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS SET OUT BELOW, AND ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS PURCHASED BY YOU NOW OR AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT BELOW…..”<br /><br />Considered in isolation these clauses give the impression of applying an enforceable commitment on the user; however when viewed in context, within the whole document(s), with knowledge of the non-negotiable and Chameleon nature of these documents it is easy to conclude, as agreements, they are not enforceable.<br /><br />Ask yourself the following questions;<br /><em>…are you prepared to grant un-supervised access to your personal and business premises, design and business computing systems, to any individual, organisation, company and tool or business equipment supplier?<br />…are you prepared to allow the un-supervised removal of any personal and or business data from your premises, design and computing systems?<br /><br />…do you accept it is good individual and business practice to enter into contracts that can be amended and published without notice; contracts that make you responsible to discover, if, and what, changes may have been made, and comply?<br /></em><br />Just as many of you will be aware of my previous comments, on this topic, you will also be aware of the fact that I have always stated I have a firm belief software developers have a right to protect their intellectual property. Additionally, it is widely known and understood, the protection of intellectual property is not exclusively the right of software developers: it is the right of all and; as software is a primary tool used for the creation, storage, presentation and distribution of CAD and other business data it is imperative those rights be protected using co-operative, transparent and verifiable – business and contract - practices.<br /><br />Autodesk’s <em>‘take it or leave it’</em> approach and access requirements, as defined in its Subscription and Licence documents, are not co-operative, are not transparent and cannot be verified. The access requirements were added in a manner that masked their appearance and at a point in time that makes it extremely difficult – if not impossible, and costly, for existing customers to change to alternative products. Many business software users are, commercially, heavily dependant on their software tools and cannot change these tools with the same ease Autodesk can change its Subscription and Licence documents.<br /><br />The reality of suddenly finding you are being held a ‘commercial hostage’ adds another reason why Subscription and Licence documents can only be viewed as <em>virtual codes of conduct</em>, not enforceable contracts!<br /><br /><em>"when liberty becomes license dictatorship is near"</em>- Will Durant.<br /><br />At the commencement of this post I declared - Autodesk’s Subscription and Software Licence Agreements <em>cannot</em> be considered legally binding documents*; and I have outlined some of the conditions that support my argument.<br /><br />Users, understand this, “bad things happen when good men won’t speak up”: the situation we currently have is untenable; we need Subscription and Licence Agreements that are fair to both developers and users, negotiable, concise and transparent.<br /><br />Autodesk’s Subscription and Licence Agreements can be used as effective tools: guiding users’ application of software and as a form of IP protection; however goodwill between both developer and users is needed if this is to be successful. I believe legitimate Autodesk customers have always extended that goodwill; Autodesk, on the other hand, has taken advantage of its customers’ inattention, altruism and commitment to their products, attempting to mould an environment for itself - using its Subscription and Licence documents – to control, inhibit and gain access they would otherwise have found very difficult to obtain. (Opportune to mention here the use, by software developers, of Trojan data collection software embedded within their software products, CIP)<br /><br />The <strong><em>‘ball is now squarely in Autodesk’s court’</em></strong>: if Autodesk wants customers to accept their Subscription and Licence documents as contracts Autodesk MUST now make it possible for existing and new users to challenge, discuss, negotiate, amend and or tailor these documents to customer requirements and in doing so they may become <em>‘effective contracts’</em>: additionally Autodesk MUST be prepared to provide complete and transparent details relating to issues such as access; or, Autodesk MUST return these documents to ones that define only <em>the <strong>supply</strong> and <strong>use</strong> of their software.<br /></em><br />R. Paul Waddington.R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-77792910711285965402007-12-04T13:09:00.000+11:002007-12-04T14:05:24.691+11:00Autodesk Responds to Caveat emptor.Well, actually Autodesk’s lawyer did, via fax, and therefore it is left to me to post it to the blog as I indicated I would; in doing so I will comment simultaneously.<br /><br />I quote to avoid misrepresentation, Autodesk’s lawyer says;<br /><br /><em>“Your most recent email of 19 August 2007 requests a response to your open letter directed to our client at </em><a href="http://miletter.blogspot.com/"><em>http://miletter.blogspot.com</em></a><em> dated 17 August 2007. Your open letter repeats the same ill-conceived grievance in relation to the audit clause in Autodesk’s End User Licence Agreement that our client has responded to fully in the past.<br /></em><br /><em>Our client will not be drawn into responding to your weblog and in any way validating your unfounded complaint. The weblog appears to have been established by you for the sole purpose of attacking our client.<br /></em><br /><em>We reiterate that any further communications with Autodesk, or its officers or employees should be directed to us.<br /></em><br /><em>Our client expressly reserves its rights in full should you take further action to harm its business reputation.”</em><br /><br />So I guess I can assume from this response that it is not a response to my weblog because a response would in some way validate the ill-conceived grievance I don’t have :-)<br /><br />Disclosure!, lawyers love words and expressions and the response detailed is only four paragraphs of nine, the other five paragraphs preceding those quoted are in the main irrelevant in terms of the open letter (as are two of these) and therefore have been omitted; though having said that I guess they all add important bulk to the letter.<br /><br />On the lighter side, take note of the sales tool embodied in this paragraph. Starting with, <em>“We reiterate….”</em>, this sentence ensures, or at least hopes that further business will be following but as those of us in sales know repeat business is normally a function of customer satisfaction not instruction; weeell, it’s the thought that counts ain’t it**;-)<br /><br />Another PR tool at work here is the “head in the sand avoids unhappy customers’ principle”. A policy that will work for a period of time but one that ensures the same problem customer will re-surface, as a problem, at some point in the future. Most truly customer oriented companies have a very different and much more ‘how can we help you’ approach: you all know which approach attracts and encourages repeat business.<br /><br />I digress: what is actually very important in these paragraphs are these sentences; <em>“…..unfounded complaint”</em> and, <em>“Your open letter repeats the same ill-conceived grievance in relation to the audit clause in Autodesk’s End User Licence Agreement that out client has responded to fully in the past.”</em>; and why are these portions so important?<br /><br />Two reasons, and to start lets look at the second part first; <em>“that out client has responded to fully in the past.”</em> Not so say I: in my reply to Autodesk and their lawyers I made the following statement; “This I found to be a very interesting statement and again it is in need of correction. My general questions relating to the Subscription and Licence contracts and those questions that have more specifically aligned with the Audit clauses HAVE NEVER BEEN ANSWERED. However as you believe that they may have been, else why would you have penned that sentence, then it might be a good idea if you were to look for copies of those answers and forward them to me as quickly as possible. For it would seem to be a pointless waste of time for us all to continue communicating in this form, and for me to continue to have the concerns I do and not be using my software because of those concerns, if the answers to my questions have simply been lost somewhere in the system.<br /><br />If you cannot find these, previously supplied, replies and assurances, want to provide them to me, but have forgotten or cannot remember what the original questions, I asked, were then please do not hesitate to request me to re-ask the questions; or to make matters easier just reply to my Weblog, through the Weblog and again another problem, as you see it, may be solved. You see, the solutions are all so easy but, hey, why let facts or sensible discussion and effort get in the way of a verbal, time wasting stoush?”<br /><br />That reply was sent on the 4th October 2007 and as I have not received a response, thus far, it is fair to say that I am right and that my Claytons “<em>ill-conceived grievance</em>” has never been answered.<br /><br />“<em>unfounded complaint</em> “, “<em>ill-conceived grievance in relation to the audit clause in Autodesk’s End User Licence Agreement</em>.” These are, of course, the most important parts of each sentence; Autodesk seem to believe my questions and suggestions are an <em>unfounded complaint and an ill-conceived grievance</em>, do you?<br /><br />Let’s look at the facts, reviewing again, one of Autodesk’s several audit clauses, it reads:<br /><br />“<em>Autodesk shall have the right to conduct an audit on your premises or by electronic means to ensure that your use of all/any versions of the Software complies with the provisions of this Agreement</em>…” etc.<br /><br />A small, significant, part of this clause clearly states - electronic means - does it not? And when read in context, Autodesk are ‘<em>requesting</em>’ we give Autodesk permission to use electronic means to access our premises, design and computing systems!<br /><br />Now right at the very outset I had difficulty with this clause, it contradicts commonsense, raised my curiosity and initiated some thought, the results of which are laid out in my open letter and in the questions - that remain un-answered - and suggestions I have also made to Autodesk.<br /><br />Make no mistake my concerns are neither an <em>unfounded complaint</em> nor an <em>ill-conceived grievance</em>: Autodesk is requiring you and me, their customers, to give Autodesk electronic access to our premises, our design and computing systems and they are refusing to accept that in doing so it is only reasonable that they allow US a measure of control, unconditional individual, and independent scrutiny of their audit processes - THEY ARE RESISTING THIS? – WHY? This HAS to be determined and seeking that answer will continue to drive what I do.<br /><br />Consider this, is Autodesk REFUSING TO PROVIDE FULL DETAILS OF THE INFORMATION AND DATA THEY ARE INTENDING TO COLLECT and MORE IMPORTANTLY IS Autodesk REFUSING TO ACCEPT A USER SHOULD KNOW WHAT DATA IS TO BE COLLECTED, BY Autodesk, FROM A USERS COMPUTING SYSTEMS, BEFORE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT AND THAT Autodesk MUST ALLOW THE INFORMATION BEING CREATED, COLLATED AND TRANSMITTED, ON and FROM A USERS COMPUTING SYSTEMS, TO BE INDEPENDENTLY VETTED, VERIFIED AND VALIDATED BEFORE IT IS SENT TO Autodesk?***<br /><br />Additionally, DATA CREATED AND COLLATED FOR TRANSMISSION ON and FROM OUR COMPUTING and DESIGN SYSTEMS IS OUR DATA, ARE WE NOT THEREFORE FULLY ENTITLED TO KNOW AND SEE WHAT IT IS BEFORE A THIRD PARTY (Autodesk) DOES?***<br /><br />To close these issues down all Autodesk has to do is accept the commonsense approach I have suggested, or similar, and they may have what they want. Alternatively Autodesk can continue to hold its current position in the trench and I will continue to bring the issues to the fore through Caveat emptor, and other venues, until Autodesk does see sense and accepts a position and process that gives more than just lip service to customers’ protection*.<br /><br /><div align="center">~~~~~~~~</div><br />Three final comments, one of which I will expand on – what is actually collected by CIP*** - in a future posting on this blog;<br /><br />One) Don’t be fooled by the ‘reasonable notice’ in some Audit clauses; it does not appear in all contracts. Staff love to throw this up as if it is some form of protective shield, it is rubbish, acceptance of the contract is notification, therefore;<br /><br />Two) Understand, Autodesk’s Customer Involvement Program (CIP***) is a Trojan vehicle, of un-known un-controlled “electronic means”, accessing your computing and design systems; a software tool you should also be very concerned about. Until Autodesk cough-up, if you have not already done so turn Autodesk’s Customer Involvement Program off NOW, if not sooner, in all your Autodesk software and any other software that you have that has similar functionality; and there are others out there. Furthermore, delay no longer; check, read and make sure you understand ALL your software licence contracts, Autodesk are not the only ones to watch.<br /><br />Three) *The following comments appears in an Autodesk web site;<br /><br />“non constructuve and spread rumors that CIP was being used to track piracy.. He is also non constructive on the EULA.”<br /><br />The spelling errors are the authors, have been repeated in the interests of accuracy and are a clue to ownership.<br /><br />Who do you think the comments refer to and while you’re thinking, ask yourself these questions; why are the comments there and for what purpose? What other personal comments and information, about Autodesk’s customers, are floating around in Autodesk web pages?<br /><br />And, in allowing this type of information, allowing it to be found, to remain after notification, on a company web site should we customers believe that data collected in Audits, and through the use of Error reports and CIP, should be entrusted to the same organisation and personnel?<br /><br />R. Paul Waddington.<br />CAD Software Consumer WatchDog & Bone.<br /><br /><br />** “You WILL have fries…..riiight…..or else…I’ll…!”<br /><br />*** “We have a load of instrumentation in our code that watches what customers really do with the software.” Buzz Kross – Autodesk Inc. Interview reported in mcadonline.com.R. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5445344509042429221.post-46619825305269213362007-08-17T21:11:00.000+10:002007-08-17T21:13:40.970+10:00A Letter to the Directors and Chief Executive Officers of:Autodesk Inc.<br />Cadgroup Australia Pty. Ltd.<br />Scholastic Australia Pty. Ltd.<br /><br /><br />As some of you will already know I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to arrange discussions with Autodesk and my Autodesk software suppliers for some time now in relation to changes made to Autodesk’s Subscription and Licence contracts dating back to 2004.<br /><br />With this letter I am once again asking Autodesk and my software suppliers to meet with me to discuss the issues that can arise and affect my business as a result of accepting Autodesk’s Subscription and Licence contracts that contain Audit clauses.<br /><br />An Autodesk’s Audit clause states, “<em>Autodesk shall have the right to conduct an audit on your premises or by electronic means to ensure that your use of all/any versions of the Software complies with the provisions of this Agreement</em>…” etc.<br /><br />Clearly the word “your” in the clause quoted above refers to ‘ME’ as the licence purchaser, as it is ‘ME’ who has to accept Autodesk’s contract conditions before I can use and/or access Autodesk’s software and services. Of equal clarity, it is ‘MY’ premises, computing and design systems Autodesk wants to Audit for compliance.<br /><br />Unfortunately, ascertaining what makes ME ‘compliant’ is not a simple task, whilst reading the contracts provides insight the reality remains compliance is currently an intangible.<br /><br />As I have stated, to Autodesk and others, on previous occasions I fully understand Autodesk’s right to protect its Intellectual Property (IP). Furthermore I can understand using an ‘Audit’ of some sort to oversee the application of IP. The problem is however, an Audit in its current form is undefined, so by accepting the contract I am effectively giving Autodesk unfettered access to my premises and systems whilst having no idea what Autodesk are intending to do. Autodesk must understand that granting this type of access unaccompanied by discussion, explanation or detail is neither wise nor good business management. To allow another party (specifically Autodesk or its agent in this case), access to my premises and/or access to load and use software on MY systems that can create, collect, collate and/or transmit data from MY premises and/or computing and design systems to another party without my knowledge, control and/or oversight is simply illogical!<br /><br />Without details of the Audit procedures and indeed the compliance checklist, it is simply incomprehensible for me to grant another party unfettered access to my systems or premises! Not only is it incomprehensible for me, it is incomprehensible for any user of software to accept such an undefined clause! Indeed, it would never be appropriate for me, any individual or company (Autodesk included) to allow another person or company access to load and use software than can create, collect, collate and or transmit data without the systems owners full knowledge, oversight, control and/or some form of validation.<br /><br />Licencees such as ‘me’ have an acknowledged obligation to protect not only Autodesk’s IP, but the IP of others and my own and it is for this reason deciding who has access to my premises, computing and design systems and who can create, collect, collate, take or transmit data from my premises, computing and design systems IS FOR ME ALONE TO DECIDE. A Court of Law being the obvious exception.<br /><br />**As it happens; The information Autodesk requires to determine whether ME and MY systems are actually compliant closely matches information collated when the Autodesk Product Manager* software is run. Few would disagree with this statement and if Autodesk was prepared to provide written assurance the printed output from, an Audit using, Autodesk Product Manager* was sufficient proof of my compliance that would be acceptable to me. Indeed acceptance, by us both, of the Autodesk Product Manager* printed output, satisfies a number of criteria, some of which are:<br /><br />For Autodesk it provides;<br />- Proof ‘ME’ and ‘MY’ systems are compliant (after all the stated reason for the Audit is “..<em>to ensure that your use of all/any versions of the Software complies with the provisions of this Agreement</em>…” ).<br /><br />For Autodesk and ME it provides;<br />- Being in the printed form only, it allows both parties to quickly agree the Audit was conducted as indicated and that the information sought, to determine ‘MY’ compliance, was the only information gathered and retained.<br />- Having matching printed records will considerably reduce the doubt that would automatically arise as a result of an Audit conducted without oversight or validation.<br /><br />For ME it provides;<br />- Proof Autodesk (or its agent) have sought, from my systems, only the information necessary to ensure ‘ME’ and ‘MY’ systems are compliant.<br />- In printed form it also provides ‘ME’ a record of the Audit event that can be independently verified and validated.<br />- Of greater importance, to ‘ME’, the printed output provides a document that can be used to demonstrate to those who entrust me with their confidential design data and documents that I have taken all the necessary steps to ensure their data, is secure on MY systems, will not, and/or has not been compromised by an Audit event.<br /><br />In summary; in “agreeing to” Autodesk’s contracts I am being asked to accept that Autodesk have a right to define my use of their intellectual property and with this basic premise I have no dispute. This has been the case with Autodesk’s licencing from day one and prior to the inclusion of the Audit clause. In good faith, and up until the inclusion of the Audit clause, I have always accepted Autodesk’s claim on its IP and its expectations that I should make every endeavour to protect their IP from improper use and access.<br /><br />However the inclusion of the Audit clause(s) changed the Subscription and Licence contracts from being tools that defined how I can apply Autodesk’s intellectual property to ones that provide Autodesk an ‘unfettered right of access’ to MY premises and MY computing and design systems and potentially the data contained therein for the stated purpose of conducting a ‘compliance’ audit that is not clearly defined! With this change I have fundamental and well founded objections!<br /><br />My requests have always been to speak with Autodesk with the purpose of achieving an outcome that satisfies Autodesk’s legitimate IP protection needs whilst also satisfying the equally legitimate IP protection needs that I and indeed all CAD software users have. Having outlined the reasons for my request and a solution I trust you (Autodesk’s management) will reconsider your current stance and in a reply on this forum provide me the opportunity and assurances I have requested.<br /><br />I look forward to your favourable and speedy response,<br />R. Paul Waddington.<br />Proprietor – cadWest.<br /><br />* - Autodesk Product Manager Version 2.<br /><br />** - To determine a licencees compliance Autodesk needs only a printed document detailing the following information, and nothing more!<br /><br />PC Name (of only computers on which Autodesk product is loaded)<br />Autodesk Products Name<br />Autodesk Product Version Number<br />Installation Location<br />Serial Number<br />Organization<br />Installation Type<br />Query DateR. Paul Waddingtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10758381342435343163noreply@blogger.com1