Business

Did you ever wonder what press release writers do in their spare time? Given Autodesk's recent trademark litigation with SolidWorks and related efforts by Autodesk to trademark "DWG", and given the fact that US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) trademark examiners are known to use Wikipedia during their research, it doesn't take an evil genius to realize that a little subversive editing here and there might be helpful to the corporate cause. So, I decided to use Wikiscanner to go spelunking through the labyrinth of Wikipedia editing history to see if I could unearth any nuggets. ...

InfoWorld columnist and legendary consumer advocate Ed Foster died over the weekend. Ed was a tireless crusader for consumer rights in the digital age, and he will certainly be missed. For many years Ed has authored GripeLine, where he called companies and politicians to task for abusive anti-consumer practices. I’ve written before about how Ed exposed and publicised shamefully lopsided software license agreements, including Autodesk’s and Adobe’s. Recently, Ed commented about the May, 2008 Vernor decision (see my CAD/Court web site for more information about the Vernor case). It will be no easy task to fill Ed’s shoes. We can be certain, though, that his work must go on.

From the NewsFeed on my CAD/Court web site: “The court today issued an order denying Autodesk’s motion to dismiss the charges in the Vernor lawsuit. Normally such a denial is perfunctory and mundane, but in this ruling the court performs a breathtaking analysis of whether the AutoCAD software was a sale or a license, and reaches conclusions that, if not reversed, are certain to change the face of software sales in the USA. Technically, the scope of this order is limited to simply refusing to grant Autodesk’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but the implications of the judge’s analysis are almost stunning in their rejection of Autodesk’s legal claims. I’m sure you will be hearing much more about this order in the coming weeks, as the entire software industry will certainly take notice of this case."

Steve Johnson asks “where have all the developers gone?”, and Deelip Menezes wonders in a comment whether Autodesk’s annual release cycle for AutoCAD is part of the problem. I’ve always said that an annual release cycle is untenable. The annual release cycle is motivated by Autodesk’s desire to make the subscription program look attractive. Has it worked? Based on what I’ve read and heard through the grapevine, it has definitely worked. More customers than ever are choosing the subscription model. In many cases, the annual subscription business model actually works well for software like AutoCAD, providing benefits for both Autodesk and their customers. But subscription is not for everyone. In typical greedy big corporate fashion, Autodesk have overplayed their hand. Instead of concentrating on those customers for whom subscription makes sense and leaving the others to choose a different model, the “more is always better” marketing machine kicked in. Ergo, the annual release cycle carrot and the AutoCAD retirement program stick were invented. [Oh sorry, it’s called the Autodesk Loyalty Program.] I am already seeing the beginnings of a movement of discontent among Autodesk customers, and I expect the annual release cycle to collapse under its own weight within another year or two. In the meantime, tremendous damage is being done. Customers, third party developers, authors, and consultants all suffer under the strain of the annual release cycle, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. To pull off annual releases, Autodesk have to be working on multiple versions of AutoCAD in parallel. While AutoCAD 2006 was being beta tested, AutoCAD 2007 and 2008 were already under development, and AutoCAD 2009 was already in the planning stages. When CUI was first introduced to the public, the new ribbon UI was likely already in the planning stages. Is it any wonder that the angry feedback about CUI was ignored? When you have an annual release cycle with 3 or 4 future releases on parallel tracks, you can’t just stop and fix a fundamental design flaw. All you can do is increase your public relations budget. The harm done to third party developers is substantial, but the inability to shift gears and correct fundamental design flaws is the real travesty of the annual release cycle.

QuikPik and Periscope are now available for AutoCAD 2009, and SuperPurge will be available later this week. QuikPik users, note that the quick buttons feature does not work with buttons on the new ribbon UI.

This Autodsys press release made me chuckle. Their IntelliCAD based AcceliCAD now supports custom entities, announces the press release. “Instead of creating custom objects as is necessary in some other CAD packages the application developer can instead use the primitives already built into the program such as LINEs, ARCs, CIRCLEs, and POLYLINEs.” Hmmm, that sounds an awful lot like blocks in AutoCAD – a feature AcceliCAD has surely supported since its inception. The press release continues, “That means there is no need to define grip points or editing operations for the entities because those functions are already built into AcceliCAD." ObjectARX programmers have been able to create custom objects in AutoCAD for years. One of the most common reasons for creating a custom object is to “define grip points or editing operations”. Otherwise, blocks work just fine in most cases.

We use digital signatures every time we visit a secure web site. Visiting a secure web site involves an authentication process that includes verifying the identity of the server by ensuring that its digital certificate, or “server certificate”, is signed by a trusted certificate authority. This verification process might involve verifying an entire chain of certificates from the actual server certificate up through one or more intermediate certificate authorities and ending with a trusted root certificate authority. This all takes place quickly and automatically before the web page is displayed in your web browser because the web browser includes built in logic to do this work without any user interaction. More importantly, the web browser warns us when the server certificate is expired or invalid. The biggest obstacle when using digital certificates in a CAD environment today is not creating them, but easily and automatically verifying them at the receiving end. Even in a completely digital distribution system where everybody works from the CAD model, the various software tools we use to view and work with the model do not handle digital signature verification automatically in a standardized way. As long as downstream consumers of CAD data cannot easily and automatically ensure the trustworthiness of digital data, they will continue to rely on handwritten signatures on paper. A second obstacle to the use of digital signatures is the difficulty in accepting that digitally signed data is only trustworthy while it remains in digital format, and therefore the digital file is the “record” document. There is substantial social inertia that must be overcome before a digital document can gain the same amount of trust as a paper document. Engineers and architects must deal with the specter of previously hidden meta data in their CAD models becoming part of their signed document, thereby exposing them to new liabilities that don’t exist with paper drawings. Construction supervisors must learn to refer to the CAD model instead of relying on hardcopy blueprints when resolving disputes or establishing responsibility for errors. Here I think it should be noted that the use of a digitally signed model does not preclude the creation of hardcopy blueprints. Those can be created and “wet stamped” separately at the same time the CAD model is signed digitally; or they can be created in the field for reference without any signature at all. AutoCAD has supported digital signatures for several years, but using the built in functionality is limited to only individual DWG files, lacks support for co-signing (more than one person signing), and forces the signed document to remain in the proprietary DWG format or lose its signature. These problems can be worked around by using third party tools, but doing so requires recipients to use the same tools. Over the past few years, many government plan review bodies have amended laws and administrative rules to accommodate digital signatures as part of the plan review process. Without standardization, however, organizations still struggle to effect the necessary changes in their workflow. A lack of uniformity in terminology from one set of regulations to another adds to the confusion. If you are involved in amending or creating rules or regulations that enable the use of digital signatures, you should use generic and well defined terms of art in the regulations, but supplement these with practical guidelines that mention specific technologies, software tools, and file formats that will meet the legal requirements and that you are capable of working with. If you are an architect, engineer, or CAD manager working to implement digital signatures into your firm’s workflow, there are some concrete steps you can take to make the task easier. Start by segregating your distribution network into “digital-only” and “hardcopy” classes of downstream users. Begin the transition with the digital-only part of the network (perhaps only the plan reviewing authority, for example). Next, decide which file format to use for your digital “documents”. Rather than signing CAD files, many companies start by signing 2D output files such as PDF, DWFx, or XPS. These files are essentially digital versions of the hardcopy documents, so they are more familiar to a wider audience and avoid some of the liability issues of exposing formerly hidden metadata that lives within the CAD model files. You’ll need to obtain a digital ID and establish internal policies for storing and accessing the digital ID so that only the owner of the digital ID ever has access to the private key. Windows includes a built in certificate manager that you can use to view and manage your digital IDs. To start the certificate manager, run the certmgr.msc management console by entering its name in the Start -> Run command window. Your digital certificate will be installed in your personal certificates folder along with a link to the private key stored in the Windows secure key repository. Make a backup of the digital ID by exporting it to a password protected PFX file. Once a backup is made, the private key should be marked as not exportable to further secure it. If you want to create digitally signed AutoCAD DWG files, you can use the digital signature feature of AutoCAD to sign a drawing file either while saving it or after it is saved. You should also consider subscribing to a commercial time service (see What time is it?) to ensure that your signatures are accompanied by a reliable time stamp in case your digital ID becomes compromised at some point in the future. Third party tools like CADVault for AutoCAD even make it possible for different people to sign different parts of the CAD model, but such advanced functionality is not needed in most cases. If you use different CAD software that does not support digital signatures natively, or if you choose to sign only the secondary files produced by exporting your CAD model to a different format, then you will need to use either tools specific to that format or third party tools that work with files of any format. Adobe Acrobat (PDF) and Microsoft’s free XPS Viewer both provide integrated digital signature tools that use the same digital IDs that you would use in AutoCAD, Internet Explorer, or Outlook/Windows Mail, and both applications are easy for recipients to obtain and use. Another popular tool for managing digital IDs and signing files is an open source tool called GnuPG. GnuPG utilizes encryption and key storage standards called OpenPGP. OpenPGP is not compatible with the X.509 standard used by Windows and many other encryption tools, however it is an attractive alternative when cost or closed source tools are a prohibitive barrier. There are many other digital signature resources available on the internet for those wanting more information, or needing specialized tools. Unfortunately, no matter what software tools or file formats you use, today’s CAD software and document viewers still do not provide the user experience that web browsers do when it comes to digital signatures. These problems can be overcome by end users, but ultimately they need to be addressed by the makers of the software tools we use. Software for handling digital data will need better user interfaces that allow users to easily specify which digital signatures should be trusted for which purposes, and provide requisite warnings when a document should not be trusted. I am confident that these improvements will come in the future, especially as more companies begin to use digital signatures in their workflow and demand for better digital signature support rises. If you already use digital signatures with your CAD related documents, I would like to hear about it. Please leave a comment about your experiences, whether good or bad!

For many, the word "encryption" has a mysterious quality that invokes images of math virtuosos in secret bunkers working feverishly during wartime to break the enemy's coded communications. My first exposure to encryption came in 1996 when I began working with Paul Kohut on the first version of CADLock software for locking AutoCAD drawing files. After overcoming my initial struggle to understand the terminology and get a handle on the mathematics behind encryption, I realized that it wasn't nearly as mysterious and complicated as it first appeared. ...

I’ve just posted at CAD/Court about a new lawsuit filed by Timothy S. Vernor of Seattle accusing Autodesk of using fraudulent means to enforce its license agreement prohibition on reselling legitimately purchased software. This subject comes up often, and I think there is a lot of grass roots support for Mr. Vernor’s argument extending well beyond Autodesk customers. The license agreement is not the central tenet of the lawsuit, but questions about its legitimacy do come into play. The legal principle involved is called the First Sale Doctrine, which essentially exempts buyers of copyrighted works from copyright infringement claims when they resell the work. The nebulous legal framework around so-called “shrink-wrap” software licenses, and the degree to which the First Sale Doctrine applies to software, is still an open question here in the US. For those of you interested in learning more about the First Sale Doctrine, listen to this podcast discussion on the Technology Liberation Front web site.

I’ve heard the word “brutal” used more than once during conversations with Autodesk employees about the Autodesk sponsored discussion groups. It’s true that raw unfiltered feedback can be brutal, and it can also hurt your ego if you happen to be the target of criticism. The trick is to learn how to interpret the feedback. If you can master that skill, that raw feedback is a fast, unbiased, low noise-to-signal-ratio predictor of the future. I’ve seen many recognizable Autodesk names come and go since the days of Autodesk’s original online discussion group, the CompuServe ACAD forum. Oftentimes, they came espousing the virtues of such a vibrant community, only to wilt away after they got singed a few times in the inevitable flame wars. Some Autodesk names (Art Cooney comes to mind) have been around forever, and still take it all in stride. Personally, I view the discussion groups as one of Autodesk’s biggest competitive advantages, even while they go largely untapped. This week saw too issues erupt into what could fairly be termed brutal feedback. The first was caused by the Autodesk University registration site failing under the load of opening day registration. Several threads (“Dear Carl Bass” and “AU2007 Registration is now open!!!") called Autodesk to the carpet for blowing it again, after a similar fiasco in 2006. The second event occurred when AutoCAD product manager Eric Stover announced a new “bonus” tool called CommandComplete. I pity the poor guy or gal that wrote this tool (on their own time, I’m sure), all excited to see how it is received, only to become the victim of a flame war. Okay, not really a flame war in this case because Eric employed his finely tuned flame retardant diplomacy skills to prevent it from getting out of hand – so let’s just call it a “venomous reaction”. There is a moral to this story. Some companies would kill to have access to this kind of critical, unfiltered, instantaneous feedback from the unwashed masses. I hope Autodesk recognizes the goose that lays the golden egg.

If you use of any of these ManuSoft products, preliminary AutoCAD 2008 support has been available for several weeks at the Download Center for registered users. The QuikPik and Periscope updates are now officially released, and the shareware versions of QuikPik and Periscope are now available as well. SuperPurge will be officially released in the next week or so. My free AcadStatusBarButton library has also been updated for AutoCAD 2008, and is now available for download on the Freebies page. The only change is the addition of a blank status bar pane beneath your floating buttons so that the new annotation scale buttons in AutoCAD 2008 don’t get covered up (the blank panes force the annotation scale buttons to the left of your custom buttons). If your button position is fixed (i.e. not floating), the blank pane will not be used. As always, if you encounter any problems, please let me know!

Reading the discussion about the reluctance to move to 3D/BIM in the latest issue of upFront.eZine reminded me of the principle of rational ignorance. The principle of rational ignorance applies when the perceived cost of obtaining knowledge is greater than the perceived benefit. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, where individuals rationalize their decision to remain ignorant based on their perception of the (lack of) benefit in the very thing they are ignorant about. It is interesting to think about the 2D to 3D paradigm shift in terms of shifting the balance in the rational ignorance equation. I think there’s also another principle at work here: Newton’s Third Law. The harder the collective movers and shakers try to push, the harder the end users resist. Maybe if the software companies stopped pushing so hard, the shift would occur naturally with much less resistance. By the way, I noticed a familiar theme in the upFront eZine discussion: those resistant to the paradigm shift lament the lost art of drafting and fail to believe that the new paradigm no longer needs artisans. Obviously there are other factors at work here – factors over which no amount of logic will prevail.