Autodesk and DGN V8
A couple of years ago, Autdesk started to ship some applications that had a new capability: the ability to read DGN V8 files.
When I found out about this, I was concerned, for a few reasons. First, because the Open Design Alliance was the only independent company providing software libraries to read DGN V8 format files. Second, because I was (and am) the president of the Open Design Alliance. And third, because I'd met with Carl Bass and John Sanders of Autodesk in November 2002, and they told me that they weren't interested in DGNdirect (our DGN V8 libraries) -- especially since using our libraries would have required Autodesk to join the Alliance, and they didn't want to do that.
You might imagine, with this background, that I was curious about what was going on. What I found out, over time, was far more disconcerting than I ever could have anticipated: Autodesk had done an end-around run, getting DGNdirect from one of our member companies as part of a translator component. When I talked to the member company, they said that it was Autodesk that suggested using DGNdirect. They'd not read their Alliance membership agreement, and hadn't realized that using DGNdirect within the translator component they were supplying to Autodesk was a material breach.
Of course, Autodesk knew. I'd personally told Autodesk top management. Autodesk's legal departments had studied the Alliance membership agreements when they acquired CAICE and Revit. Beyond this, it's hard to imagine an Autodesk manager saying "Yea, I'm sure it'll be OK with the Alliance if we go ahead use their libraries without joining. No need to actually check their licensing terms before we do it."
I've posted a statement about the situation on the Open Design Alliance web site. While I'm happy to answer questions, I think it's Autodesk that should be answering questions at this point.
Update, May 15: I think I need to clarify a point here, based on some of the comments. The technology in question, DGNdirect, was developed by, and is owned by, the Open Design Alliance. There's not a bit of Bentley code in DGNdirect. The issue here has nothing to do with the propriety of any particular vendor supporting any particular file format. It is solely related to Autodesk's failure to obtain a license from the Alliance to use DGNdirect in its applications.
Evan Yares
13 Comments
Reader Comments (13)
The engineering community wants files that are interoperable. Whatever bickering that is going on needs to be settled. We exchange files with many companies and it is very difficult to keep track of what version and file format a particular company is using.
MicroStation v8 comes closest to the interoperability we seek, but AutoCAD has closed that door with AutoCAD 2007. PDF and DWF files are not options unless they carry all of the native drawing file attributes and can readily be converted back to the native format without data loss.
AutoDesk needs to get with the program....the sooner the better.
My two cents
There is room for both tools in this world and they need to be interoperable.
MicroStation - Autocad
Republican - Democrat
Bronco's - Raider's
Can't we all get along......
Anyway...patent mud slinging is nothing new to the tech world..send in the lawyers..send in the reporters..attract more interest and sell more seats and broaden the reevnue stream..
But don't forget to help the people of Africa, just ebcause there's no oil there doesn't mean we ignore them!
Every artist is a cannibal
Every poet is a thief
and everyone's a user
cause everyone needs relief
Yeah...
Until governments, and by extension their providers, insist on OPEN, DOCUMENTED and PUBLIC standards for document storage and interchange nothing will be done to stop the abuse of monopolies like Microsoft and Autodesk. Unfortunately, the US government (fed or state) is no longer a government by the people for the people. It has become a government by the large corporations for the benefit of themselves.
Until American law enshrines the concept of competition as the goal, not monopolies, nothing will change. Companies like Autodesk and Microsoft will continue to use their monopoly positions in a particular field to limit and threaten competition. They will also be able to use their monopoly position to engage in "dirty tricks" such as stealing other peoples work without the appropriate permissions. If caught, they'll just retreat behind their monopoly and lean on those who might complain rather than abide by the rules the non-monopolists have to adhere to.
Until that changes, we'll continue paying taxes to Autodesk, Microsoft, and others who have managed to acquire monopolies in their areas. All thanks to governments aiding and abetting the acquisition of these monopolies, and corporations who don't realize just how damaging these monopolies are to their own interests. Or who, in trying to create their own monopolies, don't want to rock the gravy train if it ever pulls into their station.