An exchange of arguments in the Vernor lawsuit over the past few weeks begins to solidify the arguments and clarify the strategies of the two parties. First Vernor's attorneys filed a brief in opposition to Autodesk's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, then Autodesk responded.

Vernor's attorneys are clearly challenging conventional thinking as it relates to copyright and software licensing. This is expected, as Public Citizen, the nonprofit group funding Vernor's challenge, has said that it wants to clarify existing case law with regard to software licensing. On the other hand, it's what Autodesk does not argue that I find most interesting. Autodesk seems to have made a s ...

In a motion filed yesterday, Autodesk argues that the court must dismiss the Vernor lawsuit. Autodesk's legal argument includes some interesting twists, including a definition of "owner" for purposes of the first sale doctrine that will certainly be challenged by Vernor's attorneys. In addition, an accompanying declaration by Evelyn LaHaie of Autodesk's License Compliance department details the interesting history of the AutoCAD Release 14 licenses at issue, including evidence that they had been upgraded to a later version.

There is a lot of fascinating reading here, and I will have more to say on the subject after I've had time to absorb and process it all.

Tim Vernor's new attorney has filed an amended complaint [4] in Vernor's lawsuit against Autodesk. Randall newton has written more about the new developments at AECnews.com.

Evan Yares has written an excellent analysis of the Vernor lawsuit. It looks like this lawsuit is gaining traction in the blogosphere, so I expect much more commentary over the next few weeks.

AECnews.com reported about a new lawsuit filed by an individual seeking 10 million dollars in punitive damages from Autodesk for causing his eBay account to be cancelled. The lawsuit is a bit off topic for this site, but I think the plaintiff makes an interesting legal argument.

A member of this site alerted me to this case at the TTAB (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board): http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qs=75429699

In short, Autodesk wants the TTAB to cancel the "OPENDWG" trademark currently registered to the Open Design Alliance (there are actually six different registrations being contested, all for the same mark). You can read the filings directly on the USPTO web site. The original petition is here: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92047002&pty=CAN&eno=1. The parties are currently in the discovery phase, with testimony to begin Novermber 16, 2007, and to continue until February 29, 2008.& ...

As anticipated, a settlement [50] between Autodesk and ODA was approved today by presiding judge Marsha J. Pechman. The terms of the settlement appear to grant Autodesk most of the relief it sought. The order includes a permanent injunction prohibiting "ODA, its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all others in active concert or participation" with ODA from "simulating Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology, including but not limited to the Autodesk watermark and/or TrustedDWG code, without Autodesk's authorization; and from distributing DWGdirect libraries or other ODA software that use or incorporate or simulate Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology or that otherwise insert or mimic the unauthorized Autodesk watermark or TrustedDWG code."

The agreement adds that "For the sake of clarity, the Consent Judgement neither binds nor benefits any ODA member(s) acting on its or their own accord, and not in active concert or participation with ODA." The parties will each pay t ...

Deelip Menezes has an ongoing discussion on his blog about ownership and control of data files generally, and AutoCAD DWG files in particular. If you're interested in a small sample of opinions on the subject, I highly recommend Deelip's cogent commentary. I've added to the grapevine two recent posts from the discussion that are fairly directly related to the lawsuit, but the entire discussion is at least tangentially relevant.