Autodesk denied Summary Judgement in USA Court Ruling

Autodesk was defeated in the first round of this battle in Seattle US District Court, May 21 2008:

Read Vernor versus Autodesk Judgement Announcement

Interestingly, Autodesk is also resorting to more and more desperate measures to attack the Open Design Alliance:

http://www.adskvoda.com/Docket/tabid/55/Default.aspx

The issues around this ruling are complex and a final district ruling is not due until June. But it could serve as an important benchmark for similarly licensed software sold by other companies. Such decisions can ultimately challenge the legal position that software EULA take, restricting the customer's use of software they have paid for. That being said, many modern software programs like AutoCAD still require an activation from the vendor for each new installation. I offer one guess as to whether Autodesk would nicely re-activate a used serial of AutoCAD 2006 that someone buys "arguably legally", but second-hand.

Update March 23 2009:
A federal district judge in Washington State handed down an important decision this week on shrink-wrap license agreements and the First Sale Doctrine. Read more HERE.

Update April 2009:
As reported on CADnauseam, new facts in this case are emerging. Apparently "Vernor was selling software that effectively didn’t exist. He was selling used copies of Release 14, when those copies had already been upgraded to AutoCAD 2000". If true, then certainly we will definitely have to look for better examples to rally around. CADDIT in NO WAY condones the sale by another of software already upgraded by the original buyer for that first party's own ongoing use unless expressly permitted by the copyright holder.