 |
|
 |
|
| home - about - advertise |  |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
In January 2002, an injunction by Spatial Corp. to prevent Autodesk from using the consulting services of D-Cubed was tentatively rejected in the courtroom. Spatial had claimed that Autodesk would use a relationship with D-Cubed to gain trade secrets relating to Spatial's ACIS code. D-Cubed engineers had worked closely with Spatial in the development of the ACIS kernel, used widely by CAD software vendors. (For background on Spatial's lawsuit against Autodesk, see: Q&A: Five Minutes with Robert Kross (December 4, 2001); Spatial Responds to Autodesk (December 11, 2001); Spatial Sues Autodesk, D-Cubed (January 29, 2002.) Spatial's lawsuit had also named D-Cubed a defendant. Since then, D-Cubed has been dismissed in summary judgment, and the case is now between Spatial and Autodesk, tried by jury. I asked Spatial to tell me what the lawsuit is about: Spatial's lawsuit against Autodesk has nothing to do with Autodesk attempting to hire people from our Cambridge office [as upFront.eZine incorrectly reported last week]. Our lawsuit against them is for breach of contract, and our belief that they abused our intellectual property. "Autodesk is still a Spatial customer, they just no longer have to pay us royalties [having paid us a lump sum]. They do have rights to the source code, but not to the IP [intellectual property] -- they DID NOT purchase the IP. Our goal is to protect our IP, which in turn serves our customers. This is the crux of the lawsuit. "The main issue with Autodesk hiring D-Cubed is that they did so when they had no right to use a third party. Autodesk pre-paid royalties to Spatial, which gave them rights (per the terms of their contract) to the use of source code, but they were limited to using that source code in specific locations, namely Autodesk company locations only. "Our contention is that Autodesk shipped the source code to D-Cubed, a third party. The D-cubed people who worked on ACIS for the past ten years were the people D-cubed put on the Autodesk contract the day AFTER the D-cubed contract ended with Spatial. There was no 'cooling off' period, so to speak. Our view is this is a breach of contract and an abuse of our intellectual property. I then asked for Autodesk to react to Spatial's statement: "This lawsuit, filed by Dassault subsidiary Spatial, is without merit. It is unfortunate that this contract dispute is forced to be determined in a courtroom. Autodesk worked to resolve this dispute amicably and in good faith to avoid a trial, but Dassault Systemes was determined to bring this case. "Autodesk believes that our industry thrives on healthy competition and as such prefers to compete in the marketplace rather than a court of law. In the technology industry it is not uncommon to see business competition turn into a legal battle and move from the marketplace to the courtroom when's one's market share is eroding. We think that's what this lawsuit is really about. A competitor is trying to reinterpret a contract that has been in place for more than ten years, and we will vigorously defend our right to continue to work with the most talented pool of resources available in the way the contract intended. "Autodesk's priority is to build great products and to protect the investment our customers have made in the solutions that we provide. It may be customary or required to have a 'cooling off' period for employees between jobs in France, where Dassault Systemes is headquartered, but in the United Kingdom and California there are no such restrictions. Employees and contractors have very few restrictions on where they can earn a living. Autodesk respects the right for people to work where they choose as afforded and protected by applicable laws, and honors all contractual agreements in which the company engages." More Autodesk Select Articles
|
|
|
|
|
|