Two years ago, Tim Vernor tried to sell some copies of AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk cancelled the auctions, claiming copyright infringement. Vernor then sued Autodesk.
Vernor v. Autodesk became an important suit, because it asked whether the owner of a particular copy of software had the right to resell that copy. Autodesk’s position was that AutoCAD is licensed, not sold, and that its license agreement prohibits resale. Vernor’s position was that he never entered into any license agreement with Autodesk (he bought the copies at a garage sale), so he had the right to sell them, under the “first sale” doctrine of US copyright law.
The case was essentially decided in May, 2008, with the Court holding in favor of Vernor. Yet, because of some unresolved issues, no judgment was entered for Vernor.
Autodesk got another bite at the apple on Monday, with a hearing on cross motions for summary judgment. This hearing took 4 months to happen after the last paperwork had been filed, so I was pretty much ready to wait another several months to see what the Court had to say.
Was I ever surprised. The Court’s opinion was issued yesterday evening. Judgment was entered for Vernor this morning. You can read both at www.cadcourt.com.
Taking into consideration the relevant developments over the last year, the Court revisited its May, 2008 holding. In a 26 page opinion, the court carefully laid out the rationale for its decision, paying particular attention to the conflicting case law relevant to the matter. The only good news for Autodesk was that the Court did not take up the issue of “copyright misuse” (which would have opened up a pandora’s box of problems.)
The judgment says:
The court declares that Plaintiff’s sales of Defendant’s copyrighted AutoCAD software do not violate the Copyright Act to the extent Plaintiff acquired them in the manner described in the order. Defendant is hereby enjoined from asserting its rights under the Copyright Act as a basis for preventing or otherwise hindering Plaintiff’s sales of AutoCAD software.
While Autodesk was the defendant in this case, It wasn’t really about AutoCAD. Vernor was represented by Public Citizen, a national non-profit public interest organization, whose goal was to clarify the case law regarding software licenses and the first sale doctrine. The result of this case affects Autodesk, but it also affects most other vendors of commercial off-the-shelf software.
I’m hoping that Autodesk will appeal the decision. Not because I think they’re right or wrong, but because I believe that resolving the legal uncertainties now inherent in software licensing would benefit both suppliers and consumers of software.
I’d recommend that you read the opinion in this matter, if for no other reason than to give you an appreciation for the complex legal quagmire you wade into the moment you blithly press the “I agree” button when installing not just AutoCAD, but any software application.
