Used autocad for sale

He had obtained the software from an Autodesk licensee at an office liquidation sale. In February and March , both sides filed motions for summary judgment addressing the issue whether the First Sale Doctrine applies to previously licensed software.

As such, Autodesk could not pursue an action for copyright infringement against Vernor, who sought to resell used versions of its software on eBay. Autodesk appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , which reversed the lower court ruling, denying Vernor the right to resale Autodesk software due to Autodesk's nontransferable licensing restrictions. Supreme Court let stand the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

This is in addition to the almost 1, job cuts announced in January The number of Autodesk employees has shrunk from approximately 9, to 7, in less than 2 years. The asset were used to strengthen Autodesk's position in the utility industry. On February 21, , Autodesk acquired Revit Technology Corporation, a developer of parametric building technology for building design, construction, and management. On August 6, , Autodesk acquired CAiCE Software Corporation, a developer of surveying and engineering applications for transportation agencies and consultants.

In its reply , Autodesk argued that Vernor was not the lawful owner of the software he was selling because Autodesk only licenses copies of its software rather than selling them. Therefore, Autodesk claimed, no "sale" to the software's original owner had occurred, and the First Sale Doctrine did not apply. Moreover, Autodesk noted, the license terms specifically prohibited transferring the software to another party, which meant that Vernor could not legally acquire it without Autodesk's permission.

Quacks like a duck But as Vernor's lawyers pointed out , the distinction between a lease and a sale is based on the actual characteristics of the transaction, not merely on how the transaction is described by the parties.

And characterizing AutoCAD as merely licensed, rather than sold, barely passes the straight face test. AutoCAD customers pay a lump sum at the time of purchase, with no obligation to make further payments or to return the software at the conclusion of the supposed lease.

Even more damning, Autodesk's own website offers customers a variety of "purchase options" and the opportunity to "buy online" directly from Autodesk, with no indication that "buy" really means "license. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Corynne McSherry put it in a Thursday blog post , "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

Vernor's lawyers also noted that he had never opened the AutoCAD packages and installed the software contained inside. Therefore, to the extent the licensing agreements were enforceable, they were enforceable against the original owners, not against Vernor. And even if the license agreements did somehow bind Vernor, at most Vernor could be guilty of breach of contract, not copyright infringement, which makes the use of the DMCA inappropriate.

Citing the case of United States v. Wise, which involved the sale of used films obtained under dubious circumstances, Jones found that the Ninth Circuit's precedents suggested that the circumstances surrounding the sale of AutoCAD software constituted a sale, not merely a license.

Therefore, the First Sale Doctrine applied, and Vernor was not bound by any of the terms in Autodesk's license agreement. But the judge acknowledged that three more recent Ninth Circuit decisions involving software seemed to cut in the opposite direction without explicitly overturning Wise.

Jones found that Wise was controlling precedent, and ruled in Vernor's favor. If the case gets appealed to the Ninth Circuit, the conflict among these precedents is likely to occupy the court's attention. The trio of more recent cases hints that the Ninth Circuit is sympathetic to characterizing software sales as licenses for legal purposes. However, none of those cases involved circumstances exactly like Vernor's, and the court never dealt squarely with the question of what factors determine whether software is sold or licensed.

If Jones's ruling is upheld on appeal, it will have important consequences for the software industry, where the legal fiction that software is merely licensed is widely employed.

In addition to discouraging the market for used software, software firms have also attempted to use the "licensed, not sold" theory to enforce restrictions on reverse engineering that would otherwise be fair use under copyright law.

WATCH VIDEO:

How to Make Money with AutoCad Tips

Word 2016 Program Cost | Buy Official TurboTax 2009 Home & Business Software

Tagged:AVG, Acronis, Windows Server