Since AutoCAD is Autodesk’s intellectual property, those who want to create a competing product usually relies on IntelliCAD‘s technology, an alternative for reading and writing DWG files compatible with AutoCAD. Rival products include DoubleCAD XT (from IMSI/Design), DraftSight (from Dassault Sytemes), ARES (from Graebert), and ZWCAD+, the subject of the recent lawsuit.
#ZWCAD LAWSUIT FREE#
While we encourage vigorous competition in the market place, we cannot tolerate IP infringement.”ĭespite the availability of many free or low-cost 2D drafting programs, AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT still remain the industry standard. We have taken this action as part of our continued efforts to defend our intellectual property. Greg Eden, VP of Autodesk and the company’s brand and communication manager, said, “We believe ZWSOFT developed its core product with unauthorized use of our technology. lawsuit is just an extension of Autodesk’s “vicious market competition plan.” The company accuses Autodesk of “using its resource advantage in a bid to strike down a future competitor.” Furthermore, it interprets Autodesk’s 80% price cut of AutoCAD in China in 2009 as a move that “violated the principle of fair and free market competition.” According to ZWCAD, verdict is pending, and both parties have been instructed not to discuss the Netherlands case in public. Details of this case are not readily available. ZWCAD Design pointed out Autodesk has filed a similar case against it and its partners in the Netherlands.
It also says Autodesk’s allegation is “merely a unilateral conclusion based on some similarities of function and interface.” ZWCAD states it developed ZWCAD+ independently, a fact verified by the National Copyright Administration of the People’s Republic of China. Today, ZWCAD Design, a division of ZWSOFT, issued a public statement defending its product. damages in an amount greater than $75,000.00 or in the alternative for copyright infringement, statutory damages under the law and.an order that all copies made or used in violation of Autodesk’s copyrights or trade secrets, and all means by which such copies may be reproduced, be impounded and destroyed or otherwise reasonably disposed of.entry of judgment holding defendants liable for misappropriating Autodesk’s trade secrets.
entry of judgment holding defendants liable for infringing the Autodesk copyrights.
#ZWCAD LAWSUIT SOFTWARE#
This duplication, which is at the source code level, could not have been accomplished through coincidence or the application of similar programming logic.” The complaint cites “the existence of ‘bugs,’ programming remnants, and other idiosyncrasies in software code” that suggest a shared origin.Īutodesk is asking for, among other things: In crucial and unmistakable ways, ZWCAD+ performs identically to prior versions of AutoCAD. District Court, Northern California, Autodesk writes, “The ‘new’ ZWCAD+ is not merely an AutoCAD ‘work-a-like,’ and it does not just share similar interfaces and commands. market), alleging copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation (case summery here). On March 26, the company filed a case against ZWCAD Software Co., Ltd., ZWCAD Design Co., Ltd., and Global Force Direct, LLC. The nebulous legal framework around so-called “shrink-wrap” software licenses, and the degree to which the First Sale Doctrine applies to software, is still an open question here in the US.įor those of you interested in learning more about the First Sale Doctrine, listen to this podcast discussion on the Technology Liberation Front web site.Did China-based ZWSOFT copy some of Autodesk’s AutoCAD code while developing a competing product? Autodesk seems to think so. The legal principle involved is called the First Sale Doctrine, which essentially exempts buyers of copyrighted works from copyright infringement claims when they resell the work.
#ZWCAD LAWSUIT LICENSE#
The license agreement is not the central tenet of the lawsuit, but questions about its legitimacy do come into play. Vernor’s argument extending well beyond Autodesk customers. This subject comes up often, and I think there is a lot of grass roots support for Mr.
Vernor of Seattle accusing Autodesk of using fraudulent means to enforce its license agreement prohibition on reselling legitimately purchased software.
I’ve just posted at CAD/Court about a new lawsuit filed by Timothy S.