Yesterday, as I was making my way through the sessions at Adobe MAX (Moscone West, San Francisco, California, Nov 16-19), two figures crouching on the floor caught my eyes. Sitting cross-legged like a pair of Buddhas, they were smiling at everyone passing by. They had little paper signs before them. Considering the grim economy, I expected the signs to read “Will work for food” (or, in a more targeted approach, “Will do Flash programming for a BLT”). Together, their makeshift advertisements read:

• Need Freelance Work?
• I’m looking for freelancers! UI and Graphic Design, Flash, Flex, AIR, Web Design, and more …

“This is just a gimmick to get people’s attention, to start a conversation,” said Shane Pearlman, part of the duo operating a contractor management agency called Shane and Peter (S&P).

On their Web site, they told the story of the origin of their business: “Two people meet in a coffee shop while working on their laptops. They quickly discover that they have much in common and a great deal to learn from each other. A friendship was born. A partnership was forged … This is a case study of a global phenomenon. Portable technology and wireless access to information have inspired a revolution in business practices. Highly skilled professionals are now in control of their schedule, their income, their work, and their lifestyle … Our mission is to build a comprehensive network of independent contractors and to mediate their skills with the business needs of our clients.”

I know outsourcing is a sensitive topic. Talks of it can open old wounds and spawn new anxieties. But I wonder if we might be in a better position to deal with it, to take it in strides, if we adopt a different attitude, like Shane and Peter.

(My report on Adobe MAX is now live.)

[Note: This version contains updates to the original post published on 11/04.] We all know it takes place. While I type here, a number of people are bidding on a copy of AutoCAD Architecture 2009 on eBay. The item has received at least five bids. The latest bid is $510. At the same time, a copy of AutoCAD 2009 is awaiting openning bid. The seller has listed the beginning price as $2,000. I wonder if either of these sellers have heard of Timothy Vernor.

Vernor’s suit against Autodesk essentially brought to the forefront the complex issues surrounding software resale on eBay (read “Genie Out of the Bottle” in September Tech Trends column). To summerize, Vernor, a vintage comics collector and trader on eBay, sued the AutoCAD giant in August 2007. He claimed Autodesk repeatedly interfered with his trading activitie on eBay, resulting in the suspension of his eBay seller account for approximately 30 days in one instance. Autodesk, like most software developers, objected to Vernor’s attempts to put up used copies of AutoCAD on eBay for resale.

Autodesk declined to comment on my Tech Trends draft the last time I contacted them, but pointed out they uphold the Business Software Alliance’s (BSA) policy. BSA’s declares, “When you purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use it, not the actual software. . . . If you make more copies of the software than the license permits, you are pirating.”

According to the latest update, posted at CAD/Court, a site devoted to tracking legal issues related to CAD software, Autodesk and Vernor have reached an agreement to drop Vernor’s Second Claim for Relief. In the order filed dated Oct 29, their attorneys asked to dismiss this claim “with prejudice, along with the relief requested in the First Amended Complaint’s Demand for Relief numbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6.”

The section in question includes the following assertions made by Vernor:

• Autodesk’s license agreement prohibiting transfers of its software is unconscionable and unlawfully restricts rights guaranteed by the Copyright Act …
• Autodesk’s copyright in its software does not give it the right to prohibit resale of its lawfully acquired products …
• Autodesk’s use of and enforcement of its license terms are unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive practices, and unlawful restraints of trade …

Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 6 from Vernor’s previous Demand for Relief call for:

• Actual damages and punitive damages;
• Treble damages …
• Attorneys’ fees and expenses …
• Such other relief as the Court finds appropriate.

Owen Wengerd, who maintains the CAD/Court site, observed, “In the settlement, Vernor agrees to drop his demand for a declaratory judgement that Autodesk has no right to interfere with Vernor’s sale of Autodesk software, and his demand for an injunction prohibiting Autodesk from further interference. In exchange, Autodesk agrees to pay actual and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and ’such other relief as the Court finds appropriate.’ Essentially Vernor got everything he wanted, as the court’s previous order denying Autodesk’s motion to dismiss is almost as good as an injunction. By settling this secondary claim for a relatively small amount, Autodesk can now focus its resources on the more important and far-reaching remaining issues regarding whether the software is sold or licensed, and hence whether the first sale doctrine applies.”

To me (someone with a limited understanding of how the legal system works), it seems the Court sided with Vernor, paving the way for other eBay sellers. But I suppose I, along with others, will have to wait to find out if these sellers can cite “The First Sale Doctrine,” as Vernor did, to conduct software resale on the online auction site in the future.

If you’re willing to entertain a few questions, please give me your responses on the following:

• Have you ever bought or sold used software (CAD or any other kind) on eBay?
• As a software buyer, do you feel you should have the right to buy used software? (Software vendors tend to argue that the original buyer holds a nontransferable license, not a product, thus the transfer is not legal.)
• When you no longer have use for a certain software, do you feel you should have the right to resell it?

Here’s the deal: You show us your CAD and GIS tricks. In return, we might send you some treats.

First, I ought to explain the editorial “we” (not to be confused with the royal “we”). It’s a reference to the editors behind Cadalyst and its sister publication Geospatial Solutions.

The CAD tricks you share with us can be a LISP script to maintain multiple selection sets, a VBA script for managing and running special routines from a custom folder, or some other workarounds and shortcuts (for the two mentioned here, search for item 3012 and 3006 in our CAD tips archive). Your submission becomes part of the Hot Tip Harry Code Contest, making you eligible to win a $100 American Express gift certificate in our monthly search for top tips. In addition, we also do a monthly drawing to identify a random winner from the pool of published tip authors featured in the Tips and Tools weekly newsletter to receive a $100 gift certificate. Read the guidelines here.

Similarly, you can submit your GIS tricks to Geospatial Solutions’ application contest. Obviously, we can’t handle an onslaught of entries comprising 150 MB applications with GB-size datasets. So instead, the editors and the invited judges request a 500-word description of your innovative or cost-effective application, along with two to four maps or images (JPG, BMP, EPS, or TIFF files), to be received before the deadline, November 28, 2008. In 2006, Shannon McElvaney, an information solutions consultant, and Blair Adams, director of operations, CH2M HILL, snatched the 1st prize for combining a set of spacial tools — GPS devices, Bluetooth-enabled data collectors, Google Earth, and ESRI’s ArcGIS — to study crop yields (read the story here).

Your submission gives you the chance to win a GeoExpress Tools software from LizardTec, a GPS Bluelogger with XMap 5.2 Professional software from DeLorm, or an ERDAS TITAN GeoHub. Read contest rules here. (Note: The contest is sponsored by DLT Solutions, an Autodesk government reseller; judging is done by an independent panel of geospatial industry insiders.)

If you can’t write a LISP routine or a GIS program, you can still win something by writing plain English. HP is currently sponsoring an essay contest titled “Working Differently.” In your own words, tell the computer maker how HP Workstations with Intel quad-core technology have changed the way you work. You could win an HP xw6600 workstation with a quad-core Intel processor and an HP L2475w 24-inch Widescreen LCD monitor, a combo that’s valued $3,382. But you need to turn in your essay by the deadline, December 31. If you miss that, some other pumpkin with a flair for storytelling would have snatched up the coveted HP system. (Note: This contest is to be judged by HP; Cadalyst editors are not involved. Read the rules here.)

I’m off to pick my pumpkin and my costume!

Less than 12 hours after I issued a general plea for help on Twitter, Ken Clayton, SolidWorks’ vice president of North America sales, called me to clear up the fog around my recent news item on the SolidWorks installment offer. (I have a feeling I owe this swift turnaround to SolidWorks’ social media manager Matthew West’s intervention.)

Here are Clayton’s responses to my inquiries:

Question: Is the SolidWorks installment offer available to a select few or to everyone?

Answer: According to Clayton, the program isn’t exactly new. What’s new is the company’s use its marketing force to actively promote it, in recognition of the fact that it would be more appealing during these times of economic uncertainty. “The program has existed for a long time,” said Clayton, “but the decision to add our marketing muscles, to add the no-pay-for-90-days arrangement, and to advertise it to the engineering community was directly related to the other news [about the economy] out there.”

Question. What is the expiration date? (There’s a conflict between the data in SolidWorks’ sales sheet, which lists December 18 as the deadline, and Javelin Technologies’ reference to same offer, which lists December 31 as the deadline.)

Answer: It’s not December 18, as it’s stated in the official announcement, nor is it December 31, as listed at Javelin Technologies’ site. Clayton revealed that, internally, SolidWorks considers December 22 as the deadline (that’s because everyone will be too preoccupied with Christmas in the last week of December). But if this program has always existed as an option, perhaps a deadline is moot. In all likelihood, SolidWorks would continue to offer this arrangement to potential buyers.

Question. Are SolidWorks VARs offering 12- and 24-month plans in addition to the 36-month plan announced by SolidWorks? (SolidWorks only lists the 36-month term, but Javelin Technologies’ offer lists 12- and 24-month terms as well.)

Answer: In addition to the 36-month terms, 12- and 24-month terms are available too.

Question. Perhaps most importantly, what happens to the software if someone stops making payment before his or her terms are up? (For example, will his or her PC explode in a puff of smoke?)

Answer: The buyer’s PC won’t self destruct, but the third-party financing company will be free to initiate standard collection protocols.

Clayton couldn’t provide an exact figure on how much the deposit amount required is. (The installment offer requires a $75 documentation fee, along with an unspecified deposit.) “It’s hard for me to say [how much the deposit is], becuase it depends on the total purchase,” explained Clayton. “But it’s a percentage of the total, not a significant percentage.”

I’d still like to hear from SolidWorks VARs on how (or if) this offer is generating new deals.

Last week, I received an email from SolidWorks announcing its installment licensing program. “SolidWorks CAD software for as little as $199 a month,” it reads. “0% interest with no monthly payment till 2009″ (see image).

I put together a news item for Cadalyst’s Web site, culling as much info as I could from SolidWorks’ own sales sheet and other sources, including Mike’s live blog coverage of the VARs’ SolidWorks 2009 rollout get together.

In my experience, SolidWorks has always been extremely responsive to the press folks. But this time, for some reason, company officials never got back to me to address some of the nagging questions I had. So I’m turning to the CAD community for clarity. I’d like to know if you can shed light on the following:

1. Is the SolidWorks installment offer available to a select few or to everyone?

2. What is the expiration date? (There’s a conflict between the data in SolidWorks’ sales sheet, which lists December 18 as the deadline, and Javelin Technologies’ reference to same offer, which lists December 31 as the deadline.)

3. Are SolidWorks VARs offering 12- and 24-month plans in addition to the 36-month plan announced by SolidWorks? (SolidWorks only lists the 36-month term, but Javelin Technologies’ offer lists 12- and 24-month terms as well.)

4. If you are a SolidWorks VAR, would you let us know what this offer means to your business? Do you anticipate an increase in sales from this program? What do buyers say about this offer?

5. Perhaps most importantly, what happens to the software if someone stops making payment before his or her terms are up? (For example, will his or her PC explode in a puff of smoke?)

[Since the publication of this post, I've been able to get in touch with SolidWorks. Read the update here.]

At the moment, two discussions about Synchronous Technology (ST) are taking place in parallel: one at CAD Insider, where Roopinder Tara wonders if ST is a revolutionary technology in search of a revolution; another at Matt Writes, where Matt Lombard discusses ways to improve history-based modeling, once considered groundbreaking but now an impediment to creativity. I suspect these two threads, along with a few others I’m currently unaware of, can teach industry press people like us a lot about how everyday CAD users think.

Do you think Siemens’ ST is revolutionary in how it combines history-based (or parametric) modeling with freeform modeling? If so, are you willing to replace the familiar parametric modeling protocols with something new and (in the view of some) radical? Do you feel the time and effort required to master a new modeling method is worth the anticipated efficiency?

Engineers are known to be a rational specie, but, based on what I’ve overheard at trade shows and conferences, I think they sometimes let their emotional attachment to a familiar CAD program prevents them from exploring and adopting new tools that might help them do their jobs better and easier. (Try taking away CATIA from someone who’s spent half his life designing in it–you’ll have a blood feud.)

Of course, Siemens’ ST is not the only option. Rival developer PTC recently announced it is incorporating some of the freeform modeling features from CoCreate, one of its acquisitions, into its flagship parametric product Pro/ENGINEER (read “PTC Gets Explicit at Pro/E Wildfire 4.0 Launch,” January 08). Then there is SpaceClaim, a relative newcomer to the midrange 3D modeling software market, which claims to offer a hybrid modeling environment (read “New Player on the 3D Modeling Scene,” March 2007).

I’d like to hear from people who have used Siemens’ ST in their production workflow. I’d also like to hear from the skeptics who think Siemens’ promise of productivity increase with ST is an exageration.

Several years ago, while interviewing different companies that pitched their Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) suites to the small and midsize businesses (SMBs), I discovered the different yardsticks these companies use to define SMB (’The SMB Serenade,” November 2005). If your firm is making $250 million a year or less, for example, you’d probably fall into the SMB catagory for Autodesk, SAP, and PTC. But Arena Solutions would consider your firm a small business if it’s making $10 million or less a year, and a midsize one if it’s making anywhere between $10 million to $1 billion. According to IBM’s small business resource center, your business is in this segment if you’re operating with 1-99 employees, but no specific annual revenue is mentioned. I tried calling 1 (877) IBM-ACCESS, the number listed at IBM’s Web page for medium businesses. Though the tag line reads “Easy Way to Get the Answer You Need,” the rep didn’t have an easy answer for what constitutes medium business for IBM.

Recently, a number of PLM software makers contacted me to see if I’d consider covering their products in the upcoming installment of my column, tentatively titled “Affordable PLM for Small Businesses.” Pricing for these companies range from $0 (open source) to $15 a month (on demand, or software as a service) to $50,000 and up.

So what does affordable mean to you in these tough times? Would it make sense for me to include in this article, say, a product that requires $25,000 initial investment, plut $2,500 per month in upkeep fees? Perhaps more importantly, do you consider yourself a small business owner? If so, how do you define small business? By the number of employees you have? By how much you make a year? By some other criteria that I–and the software vendors–have failed to consider?

About three hours ago, I joined Shane Loyd, owner and president of The RLS Group; Frank Hahnel III, director of eastern sales, Leica Geosystems; and about 230 people tuning in to the Webcast titled “High Definition Surveying (HDS): A Leap of Faith or a Competitive Advantage During a Down Economy?” I had a vested interest in the success of the event, since I was the one moderating it.

Loyd, who was in the middle of a rush project, admitted he’d netted only 27 hours of sleep in the past six days. As we waited for show time (each sitting in our own respective location, but united online via Microsoft Live Meeting), Loyd sipped what he described as “high octane caffeine.” I wasn’t very far behind him. I was pouring my third cup of coffee (and it wasn’t even 10 AM yet).

A live event is rather like a wedding, in my view. You keep a contingency plan for every conceivable mishap; you reherse your part; you familiarize yourself with the routine; then you brace yourself for the unexpected.

Five minutes into the Webcast, the surprise came. For reasons that weren’t clear to me, an audience member somehow ended up in our audio line. I think the gentleman was as surprised as we were to find himself on the air with the presenters. He tried to get off the line by pushing a few buttons on the phone. Along with us, about 230 attendees heard the little frantic beeps.

I’m glad to report we recovered from it in no time and went on with the event. My on regret was that we didn’t have time to get to as many of the attendees’ questions as we would have liked to.

During the presentation, Loyd shared a number of cases where he put HDS to good use. In one project, the RLS Group was able to help settle an argument about which way the structural steels were leaning at a construction site by capturing the as-built conditions. In another, the crew was able to show the discrepancy between the construction drawings and the real setup of a chlorine production facility. In such hazardous environments, Loyd pointed out, HDS’s remote measuring features enabled The RLS Group to capture the point-cloud data necessary to answer the client’s question without endangering the field crew. If you’ve been involved in an interesting HDS project, I’d like to hear about it. Please share your story.

If you’re one of the attendees of this morning’s Webcast, please let me know what you think of the event. If your question is one of those we didn’t get to, I apologize. Leica Geosystems officials have been provided with the collected list of questions in text. They promised they’d address them. Once I have their responses, I’ll share some of them here. Once the recorded audio becomes available, I’ll post a link here so those who missed it can listen to it.

Now I am off to get my midday Latte at the local Starbucks.

The common saying among writers is, “Immitation is the best form of flattery.” But Autodesk doesn’t think so, not when it comes to what it sees as its competitors’ attempt to piggyback on its DWG brand. According to the court papers posted on Autodesk’s site, the company is accusing SolidWorks of “unfair competition, false designation of origin, false advertising,” and “trademark infringement,” among others, because it doesn’t like the methods SolidWorks has been using to promote DGW compatibility.

“DWG is not a generic or even a merely descriptive term,” Autodesk points out in the filing. “Instead, DWG is recognized by design professionals as the name for Autodesk’s proprietary technology and file format, and is primarily associacted with Autodesk and AutoCAD.” Therefore, it’s unhappy SolidWorks has “adopted a product naming strategy for certain of its CAD software products that use the DWG name … [for example] DWGeditor, DWGgateway, DWGseries, DWGviewer, and DWGnavigator.”

Furthermore, Autodesk feels that, “In an effort to further confuse consumers and blur the line between its products and Autodesk’s, SolidWorks has adopted a logo design that improperly mimics Autodesk’s trade dress and RealDWG mark.”

“Since at least as early as March 2007,” Autodesk explains, “Autodesk has employed a distinctive frame outline across all of its product packaging and marketing materials … In particular, Autodesk displays a distinctive orange frame outline on its software DVD cases and marketing materials … Recently, DS SolidWorks has embarked on a marketing campaign featuring a logo design that combines the “real” element of Autodesk’s RealDWG program and tagline with the distinctive trade dress found on the Autodesk Inventor packaging.”

The truth is, reporters like to cover lawsuits. They add a sense of drama to the news lineup. Readers often side with one or the other party involved, giving them someone to root for.

But I’m wondering if this one merits coverage. Do CAD users care whether SolidWorks’ use of the term DWG amounts to what the legal profession considers “trademark infringement”? Will engineers and architects be able to work more efficiently if Autodesk wins this suit? Is there any high principles at stake here? Or is it just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

On Sunday September 21, in downtown San Francisco, a series of white tents went up, followed by banners bearing a distinct shade of red. On the next morning, a gigantic monitor blocked what used to be a major thoroughfare. Pedestrains, many of them wearing T-shirts branded with high-tech logos, swarmed every square inch of the sidwalks leading to Moscone Convention Center. Traffic had to be redirected so the invading army could freely treverse between Moscone West and Moscone South. Some of the people had come from across the Atlantic and the Pacific to pay tribute to their hero, Larry Ellison.

It seemed everyone who had anything to do with Oracle was in town. And those who had nothing to do with the database giant looked on, in a mixture of bewilderment and annoyance (hey, if you suddenly find your regular bus routes altared because of a tradeshow, you’d be ticked too). For one whole week, San Franciscans were surrounded by big, bold letters hailing Oracle Open World 2008.

It’s not easy to spice up an inherently dull topic like data management. The circus-like atmosphere of the conference couldn’t hide the tediousness, daunting, thankless grunt work IT managers must perform daily. So exhibitors used a variety of inventive approaches to attract visitors to their booths.

HP employed a magician to play card tricks and pull money out of bemused visitors’ collars and cuffs. To reinforce this Houdini’s performance, the computer maker also kept its own variation of Wheel of Fortune, a spinable device that promised Starbucks gift cards and free T-shirts, among other things.

Satyam, an IT consultant, staffed its booth with a pair of young, atheletic soccer players to pose with an oversize ball. The significance of this approach wasn’t clear to me until I visited the company’s Web site. Its tagline was, “Success: It is about having an eye on the ball all the time.”

OnBase, a systems integrator, lured people to its booth with the promise to give away an entertainment pack: Xbox 360 and Guitar Hero III.

“So does OnBase have anything to do with Guitar Hero or Xbox?” I asked the affable booth staff.

“Absolutely nothing,” he replied, wih refreshing candor.

A few rows away, Accenture, an outsourcing and consulting firm, tried to outdo competitors with a racecar simulator. USi, an AT&T company offering application services, parked two shiny Harley-Davidsons, tempting visitors to ride.

Oracle installed a booth, a 40′ x 30′ area stocked with basketball hoops and pinball machines, to keep attendees alert and perked up, should the free caffeine failed to do the job. As I circled through the show floor (divided among three city blocks), I wondered, “Is anyone keeping a database of all the gimmicks the exhibitors are using?”

My report on Oracle Open World 2008 is now live.