SolidWorks Licence Resale 1

[Gurjjeet]

Hi There

Is it possible to buy a licence of SWX in an auction or otherwise from somebody who wants to sell it? I asked this question because Licence agreement says it is a Non-Transferable licence.

Thanks

 

[rstupplebeen]

Lombard had an interesting blog about this.

http://www.dezignstuff.com/blog/?p=3119

I hope this helps.

Rob Stupplebeen

 

[dgowans]

Despite the license agreement's verbage to the contrary, I am aware of an instance where a license was sold / transferred. It may have involved an ownership transfer of a business unit from one company to another - it was kind of a complicated situation so I'm not sure of all the detail surrounding this transaction.

In general, if you simply want to sell an "extra" license, you're probably out of luck. Your best bet is to contact your VAR.

 

[fcsuper]

Technically, the publisher (SolidWorks) has no authority to prevent or limit the transfer ownership of the software. This was reaffirmed in a lawsuit within the past couple of years involving Autodesk. This is based on First-Sale Doctrine. However, a century of court rulings regarding licensing and resale don't seem to impress the software companies much. That said, I'm sure you can do a transfer of a license without buying out a company in the process...but you'll have to jump through many hurtles.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[TheTick]

In the US, you may sell the physical copies to anyone you wish (= "first-sale doctrine"). Without a license agreement, which is not transferred with the physical property, SolidWorks is under no obligation to do anything to make it work for you. This makes you the legal and rightful owner of worthless DVDs.

 

[fcsuper]

Tick, this is were I disagree with you, and I think a few lawsuits will eventually bare out my opinion. The publisher is not allowed to interfere with the transfer of ownership at all. Even the DMCA supports this rule. A publisher has no rights to control use of their software once they sell it the first time. Withholding a license once ownership is transferred to a third party is interference. It would be like you withholding the key to a house that you sold once escrow is complete with a claim that you have perpetual rights to control who accesses the house even after the sale.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[MDGroup]

The seat is transferable.

You should be able to get something similar to the attached 'Account Change Request' from your VAR.
This form can be used to update your account information for your license, including changing the registered name to someone else.

Obviuosly the current owner needs to help. If you buy it at auction, you will probably need to get power of attorney or something to facilitate the previous owner's part of the transfer.

Don't know if this is standard for all VARs.

 

[Theophilus]

Matt, there's a difference between active interference by a company and passive inaction by a company. With the last few releases of SolidWorks--though you might purchase the DVDs from someone else--I don't see how anyone will force SolidWorks to provide a working "key" to the software (particularly when considering their license agreement).

If SolidWorks chooses not to provide a key (action on their part) that's not interference, but withdrawal of participation. I'm not saying I agree that such an attitude is right or ultimately even good corporate policy, but in all I've read on this topic, I cannot see the cases as played out in the recent past as compelling SolidWorks to actively take part in making their second-hand software functional.

However, if you go back a few releases, you won't need anything from SolidWorks except the static activation codes (which ought to have been written on the CD case by the owner of that seat of software). No Internet or SolidWorks participation is required.



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.

 

[GregLocock]

Odd. The disadvantage of not allowing resale is that the asset value of your company immediately drops by 1 million dollars if you buy a million dollars worth of solidworks.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Gurjjeet]

I wonder if it same for other softwares e.g. Adobe softwares or for that instance any other software.

I can remember buying a old-Computer & Microsoft still updated my service packs(But I never attempted to Upgrade to Vista or WIN7) ....are there diffrent set of rules in CAD softwares only????

@ Greg
The big companies can re-sell it by selling the company or by other "legal means" so 1 Million is still there in Asset books. But on the other hand, There is aparently a big market to loose here, where DIY people, Small contractors, Free-lancers can buy softwares & try & if something goes wrong or they are finished with a project can sell & walk away(like most other businesses) by making a smaller loss.

 

[DraftingMan]

As I have said when this topic has come up before, as I see it, the real asset when you get a seat of SolidWorks is the serial number and activation code not the disc. Because without the numbers the discs are useless.

John H. Dunten, CD
Certified Drafter

 

[fcsuper]

Jeff, I agree that companies may try the "not participate" argument. However, if this is pushed through the courts, I do believe most judges would be able to see that there is no practical difference between passive interference (non-transferable license) and direct interference (Autodesk suing to prevent the sale of its software by trying to enforce their non-transferable claim). In the case of a house (again), it may actually be considered fraud if you try to sell a house while still trying to retain ownership of the keys and control who gets to enter (even with a *signed* contract in place). As DraftMAn stated, you purchase the software to use it (just as you buy a house to establish some sort of residence of your choice within it), not to look at pretty DVD's or to watch a fancy download status bar (in the case of online transfers).

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[Theophilus]

Yeah, this is a funny thing that seems a bit more partial to the CAD vendors than most other software I've dealt with. But when this gets pushed (in greater numbers) through the courts, it's on that fault line I mentioned that I believe we might see the problems arise in getting cooperation with the software vendors. After all, they use VARs for sales and support channels, and will probably make the most of the argument that they shouldn't need to "support" any software that's not on a "service" agreement.

Where I've seen a parallel to what the CAD vendors are doing in another arena is with music sales. To say the music purchased is really a license (and not a physical media disc, such as a CD) is disingenuous, since anyone who's ever had a lost, scratched or broken disc has found they don't have means to get their media-less license reactivated. Instead, they're hosed. Which is it--sale of license (alone) or sale of physical media? Both cannot be true. We see the vendors take their choice of both worlds, much to the contradiction of their stated "license" stance.



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.

 

[TheTick]

If you buy a book or newspaper, is the publisher required to help you find a suitable bookshelf or make sure you are literate or your glasses are the right prescription?

 

[fcsuper]

Tick, there's a big difference between controlling access and simple product support. Your example is an analogy for customer service. Yes, if the publisher retains ownership of a key for the book that prevents you (the owner) from opening it and reading it without restriction, that is a violation of the law. The publisher/author (and even subsequent owners) has no right to control usage or transfer of ownership once the product is sold. That's the important part here: the law says they cannot control usage! Withholding the right to determine usage by not issuing a new SNL is controlling usage. They only have the right to control copying of the work, hence the term "copyright" (the term is not "usage-right"). This is supported by a century of litigation and even by the CMDA itself. The state level bill that was suppose to give more authority to publishers/authors via the license "agreement" was never passed by 48 of the states. (Apparently, once state legislatures started reading the bill, they rejected it.) Right now, in most places, the only enforceable clauses within any EULA are those that law already supports. No additional conditions can be enforced, including that of non-transferability (which is a violation anyway). EULA cannot require the user to pay fines or jump through hoops or chew gun in a certain way, nor to prohibit using the software for certain purposes. This is due in part to how unnegotiated contracts (e.g., EULA's) are handled by contract law, as much as it is copyright law.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[TheTick]

But you CAN read it. You can go into the disk and read ones and zeros all day long. Such is your right.

If you buy a book that is written in some arcane code, the publisher is not obligated to give you the code key.

 

[fcsuper]

Tick, ahh. Up to this point, I didn't think you where confused about this issue (I thought that we simply had a difference of opinion). However, I think I understand. Let me explain. Laws surrounding First-Sale Doctrine don't talk about being able to *read* works. They protect the purchaser's right to *use* works. It's the *use* that cannot be restricted by the publisher/author. First-Sale Doctrine isn't so much about possessing a work in your hand. It is the right of the purchaser to use that work without restriction (as long as it is a legal copy). I did state this in different words prior, but perhaps I wasn't being clear or it was overlooked because of your focus on one particular type of use (i.e., reading).

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[TheTick]

I'm not confused. I simply do not agree. I can be persuaded by actual facts to the contrary, should any be presented.

Purchaser of resold SW DVDs is entitled to use them. He can install software wherever he pleases. When he gets to the point where he needs a license key, SW has no obligation to do anything. Software that does not operate without a key can be said to be operating normally.

The reason Autodesk got in trouble s because they were interfering wth the sale of physical copies. Nothing obligates them to support anyone whom they do not have a service agreement with.

 

[fcsuper]

Well, I think I already shown that the issue is not one of customer support. It's about control over ownership. Either you hand over the keys over when you sell something, or your haven't sold anything at all. Though the Autodesk case doesn't cover this particular point, it does say that a transaction of software is a sale of that software...and it didn't make a distinction between physical copies and electronic copies. You can't sell something unless you have legal possession of it. How can one have possession if someone else still owns the keys? In my mind, that just isn't logical. A sale is a sale.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/solidworks & http://twitter.com/fcsuper

 

[TheTick]

Perhaps one day there will be a court decision in your direction. Until then, the side with the most money for lawyers will make the rules. As it stands, resold DVDs are worth their weight in paper, so price accordingly.