Autodesk vs SolidWorks

Owen Wengard’s last post at CAD/Court finally made me take some time off work and read the Autodesk vs SolidWorks case documents. A bloddy waste of time, I must say. To me it looks as if Autodesk simply wants to waste some of its money on lawyers so that SolidWorks wastes some of its money on lawyers. The irony is that both their customers end up paying the bills.

In my opinion, complaining that SolidWorks uses the term “DWG” in it’s product names and “Real” in it’s marketing is just falling short of intellectual bankruptcy, especially when Autodesk has repeatedly be declined trademarks related to “DWG” and most definately cannot come close to trademarking the word “Real”. And I would consider Autodesk’s assertion that only they can use an “Orange Frame” in their product branding a joke, but I really didn’t find it funny.

After reading the arguments that SolidWorks put up in its defense I believe Autodesk realizes it is nowhere close to winning this one. I hope they also realize that the more law suits they loose or settle, the worse their chances get of finally trademarking “DWG” because the opposing party keeps building its defence on what Autodesk conceded in the previous cases. In this case SolidWorks used the Autodesk vs ODA law suit to bolster it’s own case.

This one will be a no-brainer for the judge.

  • R. Paul Waddington.

    Having read the documents I’m with you on this one Deelip: it’s a no-brainer; Autodesk are just simply being wasteful of time and resources the antithesis of what their products stand for (not necessarily achieve tho’)!

    I am sitting here in Australia, with a copy of two drawings on my desk, published by an American government agency long before Autodesk was born, and the document numbers for both drawing include the sequence of letters ‘dwg’, eg. XXXX-DWG-0000.

    ‘DWG” is also enshrined in our drawing standards along with DRG as an abbreviation of the word ‘drawing’ again looooong before Autodesk!

    That Autodesk should try and claim copyright to this combination of letters is not a joke it is piracy of the language for commercial gain and control and should not be allowed!

    Autodesk’s customers, ALL, should write to Bartz and Bass telling Autodesk to walk away from this ridiculous waste and to concentrate on tasks that are more productive for both Autodesk and its customers.

  • R. Paul Waddington.

    Having read the documents I’m with you on this one Deelip: it’s a no-brainer; Autodesk are just simply being wasteful of time and resources the antithesis of what their products stand for (not necessarily achieve tho’)!I am sitting here in Australia, with a copy of two drawings on my desk, published by an American government agency long before Autodesk was born, and the document numbers for both drawing include the sequence of letters ‘dwg’, eg. XXXX-DWG-0000.‘DWG” is also enshrined in our drawing standards along with DRG as an abbreviation of the word ‘drawing’ again looooong before Autodesk! That Autodesk should try and claim copyright to this combination of letters is not a joke it is piracy of the language for commercial gain and control and should not be allowed!Autodesk’s customers, ALL, should write to Bartz and Bass telling Autodesk to walk away from this ridiculous waste and to concentrate on tasks that are more productive for both Autodesk and its customers.