AutoCAD vs the OpenDWG Alliance - tell 'em what you think
Henry C. Francis
There is an interesting request for your comments in the April, 1998 Cadalyst.
Editor Gene Smarte wants your comments about AutoCAD's stance that the DWG
format is their intellectual property. Specifically, he wants to know, "Has
the (secret) DWG format prevented you from using your data? If so, how?" He
concludes with, "We'd really like to know what you think." It appears he is
looking for opinions to counter the claims of The OpenDWG Alliance. Now is
your chance to tell them you want to be able to manipulate your own data but
they won't come clean with all the details for you to do it.
You can read the full Cadalyst version of the OpenDWG story at
www.cadonline.com Gene wants you to email him at edi...@cadonline.com with
your two cents on the OpenDWG initiative. Be sure to include your name and
company affiliation if you want him to consider publishing your comments. I
wonder if it'll be a fair hearing or just select views supportive of AutoCAD?
Cliff W. Estes
Thanx, Henry. I did.
I continue to believe in the American dream that you can grow and prosper
on the merits of what you have to offer. The OpenDWG guys are of the
opinion that you should be able to grow and prosper on the merits of what
others have to offer - coat tails prosperity.
I say if they want to topple the king of the hill let them come up with a
better mouse trap. This would truly benefit the consumer. Reverse
engineering the DWG format will benefit noone but the OpenDWG
guys.
No, I lose nothing by leaving AutoDesk in sole possession of their intell-
ectual property. As a developer of software, I would be indignant if
I were to learn of _anyone_ reverse-engineering my code or data,
much less an industry cartel of thugs doing so in the name of my
users!
--
Cheers,
**********************************************************************
*** Cliff W. Estes ces...@seanet.com ***
*** BaseLine Technology ph (425)882-7317 ***
*** 15834 NE 67th Place fax (425)882-7327 ***
*** Redmond, WA 98052 http://www.basline.com/basline ***
*** Home of BaseLine II, THE interactive hull fairing system ***
**********************************************************************
FREE BaseLine II Demo available at http://www.basline.com/basline
Shareware ScrBldr v1.01 available at http://www.basline.com/basline
Henry C. Francis <(princ (strcat "coopfra" "@" "mail" ".ez-sys." "net"))>
wrote in article <01bd587a$80b5e2a0$722e89cf@h9488850>...
Doug Julien AIA
I'm just a CAD user, but I'm a card-carrying member of the Open DWG
Alliance - perhaps I could at least have Honorary Thug status?
Cliff, my friend, your post is a tribute to the power of persuasion by
professional Flacks. You're being played like a violin by Autodesk. Allow
me to offer a contrary opinion:
Without OpenDWG an unfair monopoly exists which creates a demand for
Autocad far in excess of the program's merits. I am referring to the
requirement imposed by many government agencies and many private-sector
corporations that all Construction Documents be delivered in DWG format,
for compatability with each other. This is not because the DWG format is
some rocket-science intellectual property - it's because there's more
copies of Autocad around than any other program. People are buying and
using Autocad because they have to - not because it's a "better mousetrap"
or because of the "merits it has to offer." Beyond the client requirement,
there is also the practical requirement of sharing files with consultants.
Your suggestion that loosening the stranglehold of Autodesk on this
required format would be somehow un-American is deeply offensive to those
of us who believe we should have a choice, as Americans, of which CAD
software to use. There is only one reason for Autodesk to scream about
OpenDWG, and that is because they do not want their product to have to
compete on a level playing field in the free market based on its intrinsic
merits and price - and that, my friend, is what is truly un-American.
I also think you are confusing the DWG data-storage format with the Autocad
program itself. The DWG Format is simply an agreement on how to store
data, so it can be reliably accessed in a consistent manner. The real
"intellectual property," such as it is, is in the program which is used to
create the data.
The progress and history of CAD owes a great deal to Autodesk's pioneering
activities in the 1980's. But in the 1990's they have completely lost
their way - I can think of no other software segment whose product has
improved so little during this otherwise-exciting decade. I hold out hope
that the OpenDWG "Cartel of Thugs" will inject some badly-needed energy
into the development of CAD. When I see in Beta what those Intelli-Kids
now working for Visio have done in a couple short years, my heart soars
like an eagle...
-Doug Julien AIA
St. Louis
Cliff W. Estes <ces...@cestes.seanet.com> wrote in article
<01bd5905$784d91e0$e740b6cc@cliff>...
Cliff W. Estes
Hi Doug:
Nice to know I have been heard.
> Cliff, my friend, your post is a tribute to the power of persuasion by
> professional Flacks. You're being played like a violin by Autodesk.
Allow
> me to offer a contrary opinion:
And yours a tribute to the power of a few developers to peresuade
the disaffected masses. Developers who don't have the
initiative to develop their own data format (better than that which is
currently the defacto standard). Dissent isn't good just because
it flies in the face of the currrently-established authority. I don't
happen to see that AutoDesk has wronged the CAD world
so flagrantly that they belong in the gallows (unless you
consider the r13 fiasco). Don't get me wrong, I am no Adesk
fan after r13. I just don't happen to feel the need to bash
BillyG or CarolB just because they are prominent targets.
BTW, what's a flack?
> Without OpenDWG an unfair monopoly exists which creates a demand for
> Autocad far in excess of the program's merits.
Two operative concepts, "unfair" and "in excess of the program's merits.
Purely a matter of opinion. I won't accept that Adesk have an unfair
monopoly. When did we lose the ability to choose for ourselves which
system we would train on and use in our professions and hire people
to operate for us. Now I know as a practical matter that using other
CAD systems is an uphill battle, but not entirely out of the question.
The current king of the hill doesn't have to remain there. Look at
Lotus 123 and Wordstar. Once these two giants looked like they
would never be toppled. If you view the situation as an Adesk monopoly,
perhaps that speaks to your outlook as much as anything else you've
said.
With OpenDWG, do we, the users have any more say in the data
we use, store, manipulate and depend on for our livlihoods? I think
not. After all, what is OpenDWG? Developers who want to be on
top of the hill, themselves!
> some rocket-science intellectual property - it's because there's more
> copies of Autocad around than any other program. People are buying and
> or because of the "merits it has to offer." Beyond the client
requirement,
> there is also the practical requirement of sharing files with
consultants.
And because they know that when they go to hire a CAD drafter or
engineer, if they advertise for a technician with 5 years of Bogus CAD,
they will get a small fraction of the applicants they would with AutoCAD
or ProE. Makes sense to go with strength. After all, we're not in
business
to buck tides, just make bucks. As you point out, there is also the matter
of sharing files. This also fuels the desire to standardize (once again,
a matter of choice - There's that ugly word again, getting directly in the
way of those who maintain the monopoly exists).
BTW, you can throw the word monopoly at me all day long, it doesn't
hurt a bit. I happen to think the justice dept did me no favors by
breaking
up the phone company.
> Your suggestion that loosening the stranglehold of Autodesk on this
> required format would be somehow un-American is deeply offensive to those
> of us who believe we should have a choice, as Americans, of which CAD
> software to use.
News flash: There's no gun to your head.
> software to use. There is only one reason for Autodesk to scream about
> OpenDWG, and that is because they do not want their product to have to
> compete on a level playing field in the free market based on its
intrinsic
> merits and price - and that, my friend, is what is truly un-American.
No offense intended, I just calls em as I sees em.
There _is_ one very good reason for Adesk to scream. They don't want
their format mucked with and adulterated by anybody and his sister (P.C.,
don't you know). They have spent the last 15 years developing it. Now
along comes this OpenDWG bunch and says, we think you guys should
hand over your last 15 years development and let us take over from here, in
the name of the common good. Now that sounds downright communistic.
Here come the flames. No, i don't think you guys are a bunch of commies,
I just make the point that if you are looking at unAmerican, don't forget
what you are asking for.
> I also think you are confusing the DWG data-storage format with the
Autocad
> program itself. The DWG Format is simply an agreement on how to store
> data, so it can be reliably accessed in a consistent manner. The real
> "intellectual property," such as it is, is in the program which is used
to
> create the data.
Correct. And when the OpenDWG guys get done mucking with it, AutoCAD
will no longer be able to read DWG's. Now there's a pretty thought. It is
and always should be the sole property of its developer. The program and
the data it creates are inseparable. If AutoCAD can't read DWGs, AutoCAD
would be useless, as would the products of all the OpenDWG guys (notice
the absence of the thug moniker?)
> I hold out hope
> that the OpenDWG "Cartel of Thugs" will inject some badly-needed energy
> into the development of CAD. When I see in Beta what those Intelli-Kids
> now working for Visio have done in a couple short years, my heart soars
> like an eagle...
As does mine. After r13, I would dearly love to see AutoDesk de-throned.
But
when it happens, I want to protect the rights of whoever becomes king of
the
hill. If it is Visio and they engineer some whizbang features which lure
the
CAD world away from AutoDesk, I would hope the rest of the CAD world
wouldn't pounce on them the way they are presently pouncing on AutoDesk.
I continue to use AutoCAD because I have to make a living and all my
clients
use it. I must share drawings and deliver soft-copy drawings in a
recognized
format. If someone comes along with a format which can one-up AutoDesk,
I have confidence in the free market system that we will (eventually)
evolve
to that system and leav AutoDesk wondering why. Until that happens, we
should try to recognize what we have and spend a little less time screwing
up ugly feelings about how we are being had by the big bad AutoDesk.
--
Cheers,
**********************************************************************
*** Cliff W. Estes ces...@seanet.com ***
Henry C. Francis
I would like some balance to the discussion. I want to be able to write custom
routines to create ANY AutoCAD entity I need, the way I need it. The more
entities AutoCAD adds to its "moving target" DWG format, the less it gives us
to manipulate them. Can you entmake a sphere, let alone some more complex 3D
geometry?
For the early years of its development, AutoCAD was pleased to leave it to us
to add the functionality most of us felt should've been there already. They
refused to add it saying that it was their design for the end user to customize
AutoCAD to suit his/her own needs. After an enormous amount of customizing was
done by ordinary end users and developers alike, AutoCAD steals the best ideas
and adds them as "NEW ENHANCEMENTS" for which we all must pay big bucks. Talk
about coat-tails prosperity, AutoCAD invented the concept.
To reiterate, all I want is to be able to entmake ANY entity. What is their
excuse for giving us SOME entity definitions but not ALL of them? Aren't all
entities part of the same intellectual property?
Tony Tanzillo
Why don't you ask the thugs at Autodesk why they will
not allow you to access ACIS-based objects. I have a
very nice collection of manure that has come out of
Autodesk attempting to explain it away, when the fact
is that Autodesk is using that as another means of
keeping a stranglehold over its customer base.
The issue is about being able to choose the best product
based on the merits of the product itself, rather than
on a fostered dependency on a proprietary data format.
In terms of the quality of the product itself, AutoCAD
is actually quite inferior to other products, like for
example, Imagineer Technical.
But, people aren't able to choose the one that is best,
because they must be able to communicate data via the
DWG format. So, they settle for one of the worst products
available only because that is what everyone else has
been forced to do also.
The fact is that if most AutoCAD users could see what
else is available today, and they were not shackled by
Autodesk's proprietary data format, they would dump
AutoCAD faster than you could say "Ciao".
--
/*********************************************************/
/* Tony Tanzillo Design Automation Consulting */
/* Programming & Customization for AutoCAD & Compatibles */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* Member of the OpenDWG Alliance */
/* Co-Author of Maximizing AutoCAD R13 and */
/* Maximizing AutoLISP for AutoCAD R13/R14 */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* tony.t...@worldnet.att.net */
/* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonyt */
/*********************************************************/
Cliff W. Estes wrote in message <01bd5905$784d91e0$e740b6cc@cliff>...
>Thanx, Henry. I did.
>
>
>I continue to believe in the American dream that you can grow and prosper
>on the merits of what you have to offer. The OpenDWG guys are of the
>opinion that you should be able to grow and prosper on the merits of what
>others have to offer - coat tails prosperity.
>
>I say if they want to topple the king of the hill let them come up with a
>better mouse trap. This would truly benefit the consumer. Reverse
>engineering the DWG format will benefit noone but the OpenDWG
>guys.
>
>No, I lose nothing by leaving AutoDesk in sole possession of their intell-
>ectual property. As a developer of software, I would be indignant if
>I were to learn of _anyone_ reverse-engineering my code or data,
>much less an industry cartel of thugs doing so in the name of my
>users!
>
>
>--
>
>Cheers,
>
>**********************************************************************
>*** Cliff W. Estes ces...@seanet.com ***
>*** BaseLine Technology ph (425)882-7317 ***
>*** 15834 NE 67th Place fax (425)882-7327 ***
>*** Redmond, WA 98052 http://www.basline.com/basline ***
>*** Home of BaseLine II, THE interactive hull fairing system ***
>**********************************************************************
> FREE BaseLine II Demo available at http://www.basline.com/basline
> Shareware ScrBldr v1.01 available at http://www.basline.com/basline
>
>
>
Tony Tanzillo
From the CADalyst article:
"Is it reasonable to expect Autodesk to hand over its
intellectual property to its competitors? We'll collect
and post your responses here on the Web."
The above comments in your OpenDWG Alliance article make
it very clear that the entire peice is biased in favor of
your largest advertiser (Autodesk, Inc).
The comment is also rooted in a preconceived notion that
AutoCAD's .DWG file format is the intellectual property,
or contains the intellectual property of Autodesk.
A file format is not intellectual property. The algorithms
that read and write the format is the intellectual property,
and nobody as asked Autodesk to hand those algorithms over.
Furthermore, with regards to:
"The DWG format contains performance enhancement and
optimization algorithms, security features, compression,
anticorruption, spatial entity, and other code that
Autodesk considers its intellectual property".
This is an outrageous cliam that is designed to do little
other than bamboozle the average layperson/reader.
Compression:
I can add a .DWG file to a .ZIP file and the size of
the resulting ZIP archives is between 1/3 and 1/8 the
size of the original drawing file.
What compression?
"Security features":
If the DWG file were secure, then nobody but Autodesk
would be able to read and write it.
What security?
Anti-corruption:
Anti-Corruption is a marketing person's term for cyclical
rundundancy checking (CRC), which is a common measure that
is used to embed integrity checking information into data.
There is nothing proprietary about it at all.
Spatial entities are just another kind of entity, and there
is nothing proprietary about their persistent format in a
.DWG file, just the algorithims that are used to read and
write them. In otherwords, there's no distinction between
these, and other user-level entities.
As to all references to "algorithims", a distinction must
be made between the algorithms that read and write data,
and the data itself, along with its format.
If all of these algorithims were so precious and secret,
why is it that others have been able to reverse-engineer
them?
The bottom line in this issue, is that Autodesk itself
entirely contradicts its own position by marketing the OEM
DWG/Unplugged access libraries only to "selected licensees".
If there were no need for customers to access data in .DWG
files directly, there would be no need for DWG OEM/Unplugged.
cc: comp.cad.autocad
Tony Tanzillo
I really hate to say this, but you don't seem to
understand the technical aspects of this debate
at all. With regards to the technical merits of
the various file formats used by different CAD
programs, AutoCAD's .DWG format is at the bottom
of the barrel. It is probably one of the worst
of all of the file formats used (We can put this
to the test by comparing how long it takes to
load the same data into another CAD product using
that product's own native file format).
You seem to be confusing popularity with technical
superiority. That's demonstrative of just how much
wishful thinking goes into your posts in this thread.
It's clear that you speak largely from an inherint
bias, and some stupid, childish, "brand loyalty".
Personally, I'm not interested in debating anything
with a brand loyalist who has absolutely no idea what
the issues are really about.
--
/*********************************************************/
/* Tony Tanzillo Design Automation Consulting */
/* Programming & Customization for AutoCAD & Compatibles */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* Member of the OpenDWG Alliance */
/* Co-Author of Maximizing AutoCAD R13 and */
/* Maximizing AutoLISP for AutoCAD R13/R14 */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* tony.t...@worldnet.att.net */
/* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonyt */
/*********************************************************/
Cliff W. Estes wrote in message <01bd595a$af5d54e0$1400000a@cliff>...
N0B0DYOOO
>and nobody as asked Autodesk to hand those algorithms over.
sure i asked but they didn't ever comply
************************************
nobody
>^,,^<
i know the troubles you've seen
blipmodes off, since version 9
Robert Dummer
I just want to add my comments...
Snip
>Two operative concepts, "unfair" and "in excess of the program's merits.
>Purely a matter of opinion. I won't accept that Adesk have an unfair
>monopoly. When did we lose the ability to choose for ourselves which
>system we would train on and use in our professions and hire people
>to operate for us. Now I know as a practical matter that using other
>CAD systems is an uphill battle, but not entirely out of the question.
>The current king of the hill doesn't have to remain there. Look at
>Lotus 123 and Wordstar. Once these two giants looked like they
>would never be toppled. If you view the situation as an Adesk monopoly,
>perhaps that speaks to your outlook as much as anything else you've
>said.
Excel's ability to read Lotus 123 files and macros played a big role in
helping Excel move to the top. They also added a number of features to
make it better. I'm not sure if there was a significant price difference
bewtween the two.
Snip
>
> There _is_ one very good reason for Adesk to scream. They don't want
> their format mucked with and adulterated by anybody and his sister (P.C.,
> don't you know). They have spent the last 15 years developing it. Now
> along comes this OpenDWG bunch and says, we think you guys should
> hand over your last 15 years development and let us take over from here,
in
> the name of the common good. Now that sounds downright communistic.
> Here come the flames. No, i don't think you guys are a bunch of commies,
> I just make the point that if you are looking at unAmerican, don't forget
> what you are asking for.
The OpenDWG Alliance has no intention of creating a new, seperate or
different version of the DWG file. The goal is to understand it as it is
today and in the future so anyone who desires can read and write DWG files.
Snip
>
> Correct. And when the OpenDWG guys get done mucking with it, AutoCAD
> will no longer be able to read DWG's. Now there's a pretty thought. It
is
> and always should be the sole property of its developer. The program and
> the data it creates are inseparable. If AutoCAD can't read DWGs, AutoCAD
> would be useless, as would the products of all the OpenDWG guys (notice
> the absence of the thug moniker?)
See above
Robert Dummer
Visio
Mike Tuersley
>From the CADalyst article:
>
>"Is it reasonable to expect Autodesk to hand over its
>intellectual property to its competitors? We'll collect
>and post your responses here on the Web."
>
>The above comments in your OpenDWG Alliance article make
>it very clear that the entire peice is biased in favor of
>your largest advertiser (Autodesk, Inc).
>
Are you surprised? I have yet to see an article from them concerning
anything important that wasn't leaning toward AutoDesk's favor. Heck,
you've got Technical Software out of Cleveland, Ohio writing 'Dr.
DeBug' - that association destroys any arguments towards objectivity.
Hopefully, CADence stops their nose dive into AutoDesk's fold!!!
And, in response to your numerous posts RE: other cad packages, I
agree because I've played with almost all of them, too. There are
quite a few better packages to be had if one isn't concerned about dwg
compatability. Being an AutoCAD instructor and consultant, though, I
disagree that the majority would leave for these packages solely on
the dwg format debate. Well, maybe I don't disagree, but would rather
add to the list of requirements that would cause a change in product:
1. The package would need to be very close in command structure,
similar to ICAD. Speaking from the AEC community, very few users are
trained beyond their current command sets to perform their daily
duties. Plus, at least in my geo-area, there is very little money
spent in training. So, if the package required more than a little hen
pecking to learn, it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
2. Most firms from any of the drawing community wouldn't even consider
a change unless the company had a well known name, reputation, and a
few releases under its belt. Too many people have been burnt going
with software 'off the beaten path'. For example, it's scary but if MS
came out with a decent cad package at an ICAD price, it would probably
bury both ACAD and ICAD solely because of the MS name. People know
that anything MS will be supported by someone else if MS falls and
they'll think it will better integrate itself with other MS software -
whether it is true or not!
3. Lastly, there are too many old ACAD dogs that have no desire to
learn new tricks[software]<vbg> Seriously, you could give some of
these guys a better, faster, *free* package and they still wouldn't
use it if it didn't have the AutoDesk name and logo associated with it
- old habits die hard!
Just my thoughts on the subject, Tony;-)
Mike
~~~
Mike Tuersley
Computer Systems Mgr. SBM,Inc.
AutoCAD Instructor Stark State College of Technology
Andrew Bell
On 26 Mar 1998 22:21:47 GMT, "Cliff W. Estes"
<ces...@cestes.seanet.com> wrote:
>I say if [OpenDWG Alliance members] want to topple the king of the hill let them come up with a
>better mouse trap.
We think we have. The problem is that both industry and government
clients often require that we present that mouse in the proprietary
DWG format.
There's nothing brilliant about DWG, it's just yet another way of
expressing points, lines, etc.
Look, for anyone doing CAD work, the cost of AutoCad isn't really that
big an issue; it's a relatively small fraction of one's potential
income. So if AutoCad was such a wonderful program, the OpenDWG
Alliance wouldn't exist, there wouldn't be a market for us. (I work
for Diehl Graphsoft, the producers of MiniCAD and an alliance member.)
>No, I lose nothing by leaving AutoDesk in sole possession of their intell-
>ectual property.
File formats aren't intellectual property. Otherwise, the many, many
software products that read and/or write their competitors' formats
(the various word-processing formats, for example) would be illegal.
What you, the customer, lose is the creative energies of developers
to create programs for you that will help you do your job faster and
better -- at least not without adding conversion headaches for you.
AutoDesk seems to have lost their creative spirit (otherwise people
wouldn't like our other programs), and now must hang on to their
market share through things like proprietary file formats, not by
making their program better.
What people should be indignant about is government entities requiring
that people submit their work in a proprietary file format, thus
supporting one company above all others. How would Black & Decker
feel if governments required that builders use Stanley tools to do a
job?
Andrew Bell
Diehl Graphsoft (MiniCAD) programmer
Matt Stachoni
Robert,
I'd just like to thank you for dropping by the NG's to see what we think - the OpenDWG initiative is
probably the most important thing to happen to the CAD world since the invention of AutoCAD itself.
I first read Cadalyst's comments about the OpenDWG initiative and thought, "Well, the DWG format IS
the intellectual property of Autodesk, so the ODA's request for the format to be public record is
wrong."
Then I put the magazine down, and thought about it.
I think the main questions on everybody's mind are:
"Is any application's file format inherently intellectual property?",
"Why or why not?"
"If so, why can I read multiple file formats in so many of my applications and get away with it?"
but the big one is:
"What is Autodesk's LEGAL definition of what composes its intellectual property, in regards to
AutoCAD and specifically the DWG file format?"
Right now I don't think many people outside of software developer circles have a clear understanding
of the real legal issues involved, myself included. It seems to me the words "intellectual property"
in regards to file formats in general are quite unclear; that Adesk would have had to say somewhere
that "the DWG file format is ours, and no one else is allowed to mess it up" for them to claim
"intellectual property". I don't know if they did or if it's even possible.
I personally think the first question's answer is a clear NO, based on real world examples. We can
read and write .JPG, .TIF, .BMP, and .WMF files from any one of 1,000 applications, so they aren't
"proprietary". The .DOC extension cited in Cadalyst as a proprietary format is readable (and
writeable) in WordPerfect, Ami Pro, and other word processor applications using simple filters. They
may not be great at it, but it is "allowed", and Microsoft isn't suing Corel, at least not over
this.
As far as the quality of the DWG format as a rugged solution to CAD needs, I'd agree with Tony that
DWG is relative crap, but it's the one we all need to work with. Working with other CAD applications
I've seen much more robust, bug-free and elegant file formats at work. Arris, for example, defines
individual layers as the data files with an open relational database drawing structure. In fact the
Arris "drawing" is a simple ascii comma-delimited database text file. It's layer data file structure
(where all the geometry is) must be very robust because I can add new entity types (walls, windows,
clipping views, etc) with ease with every add-on application.Arris is also VERY fast even on Pentium
133's w/SCO UNIX, compared to a similar NT/ACAD installation.
In a perfect world, I should be able to read/write a core set of entity data types into any .DWG
file, regardless of the source application. If Autodesk creates a new entity type that the public
.DWG format doesn't read, it should be "pluggable" - in AutoCAD the entity reads fine, in other
applications it is translated into the nearest approximate entity type(s), and SHOULD survive the
round trip. Autodesk could make a simple plug-in to support the new entity.
If I'm not mistaken, this is what 3D Studio MAX does.
Likewise, other applications could create their own additions/alterations to the basic format, but
still be usable in other applications. And in a perfect world, the OpenDWG alliance (including
Autodesk) would convene and vote on upgrading the format from time to time to include common entity
types that have become prevalent.
While not as simple as a bitmap file type, vector-based files should still be relatively easy to
standardize across the board. It's not like Acad has 1,000 different entity types to take care of -
it's still mostly lines, arcs, circles and polylines. And it should be trivial to come up with a DWG
architecture that is optimized but still open. Even Xhatch and dimensions are still blocks in
AutoCAD but it would be really nice to see a CAD package that treats these things with more
intelligence.
But, since apparently Autodesk is not really interested in its end users, it is going to be an
uphill battle that, sadly, will require inquiries by the Justice Department and our speedy legal
system to figure out. *sigh*
Again, thanks for dropping by, and good luck with Visio. I'll be sure to check it out.
Matt Stachoni
stac...@bellatlantic.net
On 28 Mar 1998 17:30:14 GMT, "Robert Dummer" <rob...@visio.com.do.not.spam> wrote:
Morten Warankov
Tony Tanzillo wrote:
> ...snip
> A file format is not intellectual property.
> ...snip
Hi,
I took out a lot of well written text, a lot which I fully support, but
this I don't want to leave uncommented.
If I write ANYTHING which I'm the legal owner of, it's MY intellectual
property. I.e. whether it's a speach, an internet article, an
application or a file from my application it's ME that is the one to
decide the level of rules for this intellectual property.
I can say that everybody could use my property free of any charge,
without even mentioning my name, or I can say that any further use of my
intellectual property is prohibited.
I can even say that the only legal way to create my 'intellectual
property No1' is to use my 'intellectual property No2'.
Noone can take away from me this constitutional right.
There is NO contradiction between the fact that many application
developers freely distribute their file formats thus making it possible
for others to create application which read, writes and appends data in
their format (read: intellectual property), whilst other wants to keep
their format in secret and set restrictions to use on it.
Whether it is wise to do the latter is a completetly different
discussion.
Just my humble opinion,
Mortenw
Mills
Morten Warankov wrote in message <351F9A17...@abacus.no>...
>Tony Tanzillo wrote:
>
>> ...snip
>> A file format is not intellectual property.
>
>> ...snip
>
>Hi,
>
>I took out a lot of well written text, a lot which I fully support, but
>this I don't want to leave uncommented.
>
>If I write ANYTHING which I'm the legal owner of, it's MY intellectual
>property. I.e. whether it's a speach, an internet article, an
>
>Mortenw
>
Mortenw;
What if you spend a lot of time and dollars advertising that your
intellectual property is the standard for the world? Have you not then made
it the world's property?
Just a thought.
Joe Mills
Alexander Medwedew
I believe Autodesk's DWG format falls under what is known as a trade
secret. They don't want to tell and they don't have to either.
--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/
Cliff W. Estes
Tony Tanzillo <tony.t...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6fif5j$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> From the CADalyst article:
> A file format is not intellectual property. The algorithms
> that read and write the format is the intellectual property,
>
The above is intellectual property. Out of respect to you and
your rights, I quote it as such. Since you posted the above
in this forum, I presume you have chosen to allow quotation
AutoDesk has the same right to choose how its format is used.
They demand that their intellectual property rights be inviolate.
> The bottom line in this issue, is that Autodesk itself
> entirely contradicts its own position by marketing the OEM
> DWG/Unplugged access libraries only to "selected licensees".
If this is the bottom line, then the argument is fairly weak. Since
the bottom is that AutoDesk has engaged in bad PR by contradicting
its own position, then shame on them. That's about all you can say
about that. This is not cause to require them to surrender the DWG
format which they developed and to which they should have
exclusive rights.
Cliff W. Estes
> Why don't you ask the thugs at Autodesk why they will
> not allow you to access ACIS-based objects. I have a
> very nice collection of manure that has come out of
> Autodesk attempting to explain it away, when the fact
> is that Autodesk is using that as another means of
> keeping a stranglehold over its customer base.
>
I don't care why they won't. The fact that they won't (or
so you say - I have no reason to doubt you - just no
first-hand knowledge) or shouldn't have to is the central
point of my comments. It's theirs. If they don't choose
to share it that should be their right. To those with such
policies come the rewards they so justly deserve.
The path from 1980 to the present is littered with the carcases (?)
of companies who held their users in low esteem
> But, people aren't able to choose the one that is best,
> because they must be able to communicate data via the
> DWG format.
This, in itself is a choice. The choice is to work in a market
where the DWG standard is required. This is mandated
by the clients for whom you do work. If you want to know
what it might be like without the DWG standard on which
clients can rely, think back to the days of
Amiga,
Apple,
Atari,
Commodore,
Pet,
Texas Instrument.
I am sure there were others, as well. The point is that noone
could count on anything. Your clients would not be able to
count on the DWG standard if left to every vendor to modify
it to suit his own objects. I know, I know, you claim that you
want to remove the standard to a "committee" or some such
nonsense, but in reality, we are just looking at a means to
get onto a bandwagon, here. If you can find room on the wagon
by legal means, more power to you. If not, then build a new
wagon. Don't hijack theirs.
> The fact is that if most AutoCAD users could see what
> else is available today, and they were not shackled by
> Autodesk's proprietary data format, they would dump
> AutoCAD faster than you could say "Ciao".
We couldn't be in tighter agreement. I'd lead the parade.
Cliff W. Estes
Andrew Bell <abel...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<351dc0bb...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On 26 Mar 1998 22:21:47 GMT, "Cliff W. Estes"
> <ces...@cestes.seanet.com> wrote:
> >I say if [OpenDWG Alliance members] want to topple the king of the hill
let them come up with a
> >better mouse trap.
>
> We think we have. The problem is that both industry and government
> clients often require that we present that mouse in the proprietary
> DWG format.
>
Good on you. Now go out and show the world that you've got the best one.
Yes, the CAD industry is requiring that documents be submitted in the DWG
format. Is that so unreasonable? Hell's bells, just think back to when
there
was no standard. Remember when there was Amiga, Apple, Atari, Commodore,
Pet, and Texas Instrument? Remember how difficult it was to get anything
you could count on? Remember how nice it was when IBM came along and,
along with Microsoft, standardized the PC world? Now these two giants have
dirty names.
Well, Autodesk performed pretty much the same function. They developed
their program and their drawing format. At the same time, VersaCad,
MegaCAD,
and god knows how many others, tried but failed. Well, this was a matter
of
choice among users. They chose AutoCAD. They didn't have to, they just
did. Perhaps there were cheaper options, perhaps even better, but the one
they chose was AutoCAD.
Because of this, vendors prepare their drawings with ACAD, agencies require
submittal of their drawings in DWG format and everyone's happy with the
situation
but the vendors of competing software. Now, in spite of laws to the
contrary,
they think they should be able to reverse-engineer the DWG format and use
it for their own purposes.
Additionally, I would assume, they would want to make changes to it and
there
goes the neighborhood, as they say. Now your vendors and agencies would
not have the warmfuzzyness associated with the DWG format. They'd never
be able to rely on this format again.
> File formats aren't intellectual property. Otherwise, the many, many
> software products that read and/or write their competitors' formats
> (the various word-processing formats, for example) would be illegal.
Au Contraire. They ARE intellectual property. The fact that word
processors
read competing formats is to their collective credits. They don't feel the
need
to lip-lock their formats.
For example, in the days when Word was gaining momentum, if it had
locked its format, it would have been hard-pressed to read WordPerfect
documents. Lawsuits would have abounded. So in order to offer this
feature, it wisely opened its format to the (many) vendors of WordPerfect.
We now appreciate the wisdom of this decision, but it was just that:
a policy decision.
Autodesk did not find itself in a similar situation. It had no need to
read
VersaCAD or MegaCAD formats, so it had no reason to open up its own
format to those vendors. As a result, the die was cast. DWG is a
proprietary
format and that should be respected.
> What you, the customer, lose is the creative energies of developers
> to create programs for you that will help you do your job faster and
> better --
You seem to indicate that you are willing to devote your energies to
creating programs ....
> AutoDesk seems to have lost their creative spirit ...
> ..., and now must hang on to their
> market share through things like proprietary file formats, not by
> making their program better.
>
I beg to differ with you. I am in the midst of developing an application
for a client with VB5 and R14 about which I have dreamed for 10 years
or so. It wouldn't have been possible without the advent of ActiveX
automation, which is an improvement between r13 and r14.
Additionally, the display in r14 is far superior to r13. These two items
alone were worth the price of the upgrade.
> What people should be indignant about is government entities requiring
> that people submit their work in a proprietary file format, thus
> supporting one company above all others. How would Black & Decker
> feel if governments required that builders use Stanley tools to do a
> job?
Imagine this
you are a govt agent
you are receiving thousands of dwgs
you will archive them and not open them for several years
you allow your contractors to supply them in bogus.cad format
you open them after your contractor and BogusCAD have gone out of business.
To compare Black & Decker and Stanley to the present situation does
your argument no justice whatsoever. Better rethink this one.
Cliff W. Estes
> I really hate to say this, but you don't seem to
> understand the technical aspects of this debate
> at all.
Jeez, Tony, for something you hate to say, you seem to say it a lot. In
fact, I rarely see you disagree with anyone's point of view without
indicating how you have a superior understanding of the issue.
better move on to a new opener.
The technical aspects of this debate can be ignored if you just
acknowledge that all aspects of a program are intellectual property.
Having said that, your intellectual property is no more or less
inviolate than mine or AutoDesk's or Microsoft's. You guys
should just learn to live with this. You can throw all the technical
stuff you want on the table, but it's just smoke.
> You seem to be confusing popularity with technical
> superiority. That's demonstrative of just how much
> wishful thinking goes into your posts in this thread.
If I ever implied that AutoCAD is technically superior, you
have my humble apologies. I don't think I did, but I don't
have time to go back and look. Again, the point isn't
that it is or is not technically superior, just that it is theirs.
I note in most of your responses that you attempt to
inflame the discussion with this type of rhetoric. It
does nothing for your arguments.
> It's clear that you speak largely from an inherint
> bias, and some stupid, childish, "brand loyalty".
>
> Personally, I'm not interested in debating anything
> with a brand loyalist who has absolutely no idea what
> the issues are really about.
Clearly you are not interested in "debating' anything,
merely posting attacks on readers who DARE to differ
with your rather narrow view. I enjoy seeing your
posts on the Customization ng. There, you really
shine.
Alexander Medwedew
The best example of what can happen to a file format is what happened to
dBase. When Ashton-Tate first introduced its product there was only one
format. Nantucket and Fox Software got onto the bandwagon and then there
were three versions of file formats and indexing. Ashton-Tate even
improved it with dBase IV. Each had its advantages over the original.
This still goes on today with MS FoxPro and Borland Visual dBase. dBase no
longer is the dominant database format. None of the current versions can
talk to each other. The same has happened with HTML. Event though there
is a standards committee Microsoft and Netscape create their own versions
of the standard.
This could happen if the OpenDWG Alliance starts making changes to its
version of DWG. There probably will never be a perfect OpenDWG version of
the DWG file but the alliance can be a force in creating a standard
interface used by a large part of the industry. Eventually some new
features will be introduced which AutoCad doesn't support largely due to
pressure from more dominant CAD manufacturers. The numbers of users
combined from all the alliance members will outnumber that of AutoCad.
This sort of pressure will probably require special features in the DWG
file format.
Another area that the OpenDWG Alliance may have to tackle is the AutoCad
VBA format. It is closely tied to the file format as well. Many of the
alliance members already use VBA in their products. A unified object
interface will allow applications to run on any CAD system using VBA. The
debate over what is the dominant macro language will be over.
Cliff W. Estes
Robert Dummer <rob...@visio.com.do.not.spam> wrote in article
<01bd5a6e$f3e02f60$0e24...@robertd.visio.com>...
> I just want to add my comments...
<snip>
> Excel's ability to read Lotus 123 files and macros played a big role in
> helping Excel move to the top. They also added a number of features to
> make it better. I'm not sure if there was a significant price difference
> bewtween the two.
And Word's ability to read WordPerfect helped Microsoft (along
with WordPerfect being swapped like a baseball card) to land
Microsoft Word on top,
The point of my post is that these companies were and should
have been free to make the choices they make/made. They reap
the benefits and pay the prices of these choices. AutoDesk, in
not making their file format available, may eventually pay the price,
but it should be their choice to make and their price to pay, since
it IS their DWG format.
> The OpenDWG Alliance has no intention of creating a new, seperate or
> different version of the DWG file. The goal is to understand it as it is
> today and in the future so anyone who desires can read and write DWG
files.
>
How do we know what their intentions are? Perhaps they will come up
with some whizbang feature to the exclusion of AutoDesk (why not,
AutoDesk did it to them?). Either way, the point is that the users and
clients of the users of the DWG format should be entitled to the
security of knowing that the drawings they prepare/receive will
adhere to the standard DWG format in effect when the drawings
were made/received. With AutoDesk in charge of its own DWG
format this can be safely assumed. With the Alliance in charge,
what assurance do they have? As far as I know, noone is alleging
that AutoDesk is in the habit of changing the format within releases,
merely between releases.
Don't get me wrong, Robert, I applaud your (Visio's) efforts. I have long
maintained that when someone comes along with a product which will
serve me better than AutoCAD, I will dump AutoCAD. By serve me
better, I mean that it must provide the same functionality and its
output must be acceptible to my clients.
I think you guys are on the right road. You just have to get my clients to
go along with the concept. I am doing my part by recommending IntelliCAD
to anyone who will listen. As soon as enough of them have jumped on,
then I will follow suit. In the meantime, I must continue to speak to
the issue of treading on the rights of AutoDesk, not as a vendor, but as
a company which has rights.
John Gossman
Just about 10 years ago I first wrote a program that reverse engineered
the AutoCAD file format. The scenario was this, and tell me if this only
benefitted AutoDesk's competitors:
A large paper mill had all of their PNIDs in AutoCAD files--over 2000
drawings (stored on a 200MB disk, the biggest I'd seen at the time). The
instrument settings themselves were saved in ATTRIBs attached to the blocks
that represented the entities. The instrument settings were also recorded
in a database, which could easily be updated by automatic connection to the
machines on the plant floor. The question: how to keep the settings in the
2000 DWG files matched up with the floor settings?
Even loading the DWG files into AutoCAD was vastly time-consuming. To
do this work with manual drafting, even using AutoLISP enhanced routines was
out of the question. I reverse-engineered the DWG format and wrote a
program that basically search-and-replace'd the ATTRIB values based on the
database. The batch process took about 20 minutes each day (on a 386-16).
My then company (SoftSource) went on to produce DRAWING Librarian, for
viewing AutoCAD drawings easily (non-CAD operators) at low cost ($250 vs
$3000). Who benefitted? Consumers or AutoDesk competitors? I'd argue
AutoDesk benefitted as low-cost DWG viewers allowed DWG to penetrate places
into the enterprise it never had before.
Currently I am working at Visio (just started), partly because I believe
that AutoDesk has lost some of its concern for its customers and merely
wants to lock up the DWG format to lock up those customers. AutoDesk is the
company that needs to come up with a better mouse trap. If the obtuse
evolution that is the DWG format is the crown-jewel of their intellectual
property, they're not making it.
John Gossman
Visio
Cliff W. Estes wrote in message <01bd5905$784d91e0$e740b6cc@cliff>...
>Thanx, Henry. I did.
>
>
>I continue to believe in the American dream that you can grow and prosper
>on the merits of what you have to offer. The OpenDWG guys are of the
>opinion that you should be able to grow and prosper on the merits of what
>others have to offer - coat tails prosperity.
>
>I say if they want to topple the king of the hill let them come up with a
>better mouse trap. This would truly benefit the consumer. Reverse
>engineering the DWG format will benefit noone but the OpenDWG
>guys. .
Matt Stachoni
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:11:51 +0200, Morten Warankov <mor...@abacus.no> wrote:
>If I write ANYTHING which I'm the legal owner of, it's MY intellectual
>property. I.e. whether it's a speach, an internet article, an
>application or a file from my application it's ME that is the one to
>decide the level of rules for this intellectual property.
>I can say that everybody could use my property free of any charge,
>without even mentioning my name, or I can say that any further use of my
>intellectual property is prohibited.
>I can even say that the only legal way to create my 'intellectual
>property No1' is to use my 'intellectual property No2'.
>Noone can take away from me this constitutional right.
I think you need to study copyright law and get a grip on the subject of "intellectual property".
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants legal rights or ownership to any written or
recorded work. This falls squarely under copyright law, which basically states that the moment you
physically record "something", you own the copyright, that is, the right to distribute the work. For
others to copy or perform your work they need to pay the owner of that copyright a license fee.
There are also many exceptions to this general law, such as in examples of free use. For example,
all of Mozart's works are in the public domain and can be recorded without paying royalties. The
same cannot be said for Sting's music, however.
The subject of whether the DWG (or any other) electronic file format is Autodesk's "intellectual
property" has so far been unproven in this newsgroup. This is up to copyright and patent lawyers,
unfortunately. Unless there are qualified copyright lawyers reading and responding to these NG's, I
remain unconvinced either way.
Regards,
Matt Stachoni
stac...@bellatlantic.net
Tony Tanzillo
Cliff W. Estes wrote in message <01bd5bf8$5fbd4b20$e740b6cc@cliff>...
>> Why don't you ask the thugs at Autodesk why they will
>> not allow you to access ACIS-based objects. I have a
>> very nice collection of manure that has come out of
>> Autodesk attempting to explain it away, when the fact
>> is that Autodesk is using that as another means of
>> keeping a stranglehold over its customer base.
>>
>
>I don't care why they won't. The fact that they won't (or
>so you say - I have no reason to doubt you - just no
>first-hand knowledge) or shouldn't have to is the central
>point of my comments. It's theirs. If they don't choose
>to share it that should be their right. To those with such
>policies come the rewards they so justly deserve.
All you are doing is damadging your own credibility by
saying things like this, and I have no desire to continue
a debate with someone who demonstrates this much inherint
bias.
Jim Strenk
In article <01bd5bff$83ffa800$e740b6cc@cliff>, "Cliff W. Estes"
<ces...@cestes.seanet.com> writes:
> I enjoy seeing your
>posts on the Customization ng. There, you really
>shine.
What is the full name for this discussion group?
Other than THAT Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Visit Jim Strenk's AutoCAD Page at http://members.aol.com/jimstrenk/ACAD.html
for Autodesk, Softdesk and related info. Sample WHIP! 3.0 DWF files are also
available!
Tony Tanzillo
You're confusing intellectual property with proprietary
information. A file format is not intellectual property.
You cannot legally prevent others from using your file
format, whether you disclose it or not.
--
/*********************************************************/
/* Tony Tanzillo Design Automation Consulting */
/* Programming & Customization for AutoCAD & Compatibles */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* Member of the OpenDWG Alliance */
/* Co-Author of Maximizing AutoCAD R13 and */
/* Maximizing AutoLISP for AutoCAD R13/R14 */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* tony.t...@worldnet.att.net */
/* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonyt */
/*********************************************************/
Morten Warankov wrote in message <351F9A17...@abacus.no>...
>Tony Tanzillo wrote:
>
>> ...snip
>> A file format is not intellectual property.
>
>> ...snip
>
>Hi,
>
>I took out a lot of well written text, a lot which I fully support, but
>this I don't want to leave uncommented.
>
>If I write ANYTHING which I'm the legal owner of, it's MY intellectual
>property. I.e. whether it's a speach, an internet article, an
>application or a file from my application it's ME that is the one to
>decide the level of rules for this intellectual property.
>I can say that everybody could use my property free of any charge,
>without even mentioning my name, or I can say that any further use of my
>intellectual property is prohibited.
>I can even say that the only legal way to create my 'intellectual
>property No1' is to use my 'intellectual property No2'.
>Noone can take away from me this constitutional right.
>
rcu...@rocketmail.com
In article <01bd5bf9$ebbda2e0$e740b6cc@cliff>,
"Cliff W. Estes" <ces...@cestes.seanet.com> wrote:
> > The bottom line in this issue, is that Autodesk itself
> > entirely contradicts its own position by marketing the OEM
> > DWG/Unplugged access libraries only to "selected licensees".
>
> If this is the bottom line, then the argument is fairly weak. Since
> the bottom is that AutoDesk has engaged in bad PR by contradicting
> its own position, then shame on them. That's about all you can say
> about that. This is not cause to require them to surrender the DWG
> format which they developed and to which they should have
> exclusive rights.
To be specific:
The OpenDWG Alliance has not requested or demanded that Autodesk
"surrender the dwg format". Autodesk was invited to join the OpenDWG
Alliance, which would have obligated Autodesk to turn over its documentation
of what DWG is (as all alliance members are required to disclose all
knowledge regarding the composition of DWG). In no way, however, is the
OpenDWG Alliance attempting to "wrest control of DWG" away from Autodesk.
The OpenDWG Alliance is not establishing a new CAD file format standard; its
only purpose is to document what exists, and promote that knowledge as an
open standard. It is not a typical standards body.
Autodesk can innovate with the format of DWG as it sees fit, on its own
timetable, without outside interference. The OpenDWG Alliance simply wants
DWG documented. Admittedly, the task would be easier with Autodesk's
participation, but it moves forward nonetheless.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Henry C. Francis
The problem is that AutoCAD and the DWG format were designated as the standard
by many government entities years ago before the current DWG format was even
thought of. AutoCAD has an unfair advantage (monopoly). They can add whatever
they want to the DWG format and it automatically becomes part of the "required
standard". It appears to me that the folks at Autodesk are taking advantage of
this situation and purposely changing the DWG format to keep their competition
guessing. Sometimes they seem not to understand completely what impact those
changes have on their own product and must do some guessing themselves. They
know that the competition can legally use whatever they learn about their
drawing format so they change it regularly just to make it difficult for
them... And us too. Their manuals are so void of details because they are
afraid that someone will be able to discover their DWG format from them. That
leaves users like me and you stuck in the middle. Why else would this
newsgroup be so popular and the usual question start with "How do I...". And,
Autodesk avoids any end user question that appears to be "looking under the
hood".
Andrew Bell
>property.
File formats are algorithmic in nature. Like RSA, you would need to
patent it to protect it. AutoDesk *didn't* write DWG, they wrote a
program that manipulates files in that format. That program is
entitled to protection. The CAD files themselves are the CAD user's
intellectual property.
>Noone can take away from me this constitutional right.
The constitution grants the federal government the power to make laws
establishing copyright and patenting provisions, on the grounds that
such laws are beneficial to all of us. Intellectual property is not a
constitutional right. In the absence of legal protections for a
particular form of intellectual property, you have no legal rights.
As always, I'm not a lawyer.
Andrew Bell
Andrew Bell
On 30 Mar 1998 17:00:53 GMT, "Cliff W. Estes">Good on you. Now go out and show the world that you've got the best [CAD program].
We (MiniCAD) did. That's why I walk past that Architectural CADD Cup
trophy every workday. :-)
>Yes, the CAD industry is requiring that documents be submitted in the DWG
>format. Is that so unreasonable?
I specifically mentioned government requirements, which verge
dangerously close to supporting a monopoly. As far as industry
requirements for DWG, I just pout.
>Because of this, vendors prepare their drawings with ACAD, agencies require
>submittal of their drawings in DWG format and everyone's happy with the
>situation but the vendors of competing software.
...and those who like our program (and other CAD programs) a lot
better than AutoCAD. I hear from some of those people every day. If
they didn't exist, we wouldn't either.
>Now, in spite of laws to the contrary,
>they think they should be able to reverse-engineer the DWG format and use
>it for their own purposes.
Umm, if there were laws to the contrary, why isn't AutoCAD suing? By
your assertion, we're not just breaking the law, we're publishing that
we're doing so. If there were legal protections for AutoCAD, their
lawyers would be salivating. So, either they're complete morons, or
they don't believe they have a legal leg to stand on.
The DWG file format is not protected by intellectual property laws.
(No, I'm not a lawyer.) It is not a "work of art"; it is more akin
to an algorithm. Algorithms can be covered by patents, but they must
be novel, yadda yadda yadda.
>Additionally, I would assume, they would want to make changes to it and
>there goes the neighborhood, as they say. Now your vendors and agencies would
>not have the warmfuzzyness associated with the DWG format. They'd never
>be able to rely on this format again.
Umm, doesn't AutoCAD change it periodically? At least the OpenDWG
group would publish the format and any changes, so everyone would know
about the changes and be able to adapt them appropriately.
>You seem to indicate that you are willing to devote your energies to
>creating programs ....
That's what I do every workday. I'd just like as many people to take
advantage of the useful routines I create as possible.
>Imagine this
>you are a govt agent
>you are receiving thousands of dwgs
>you will archive them and not open them for several years
>you allow your contractors to supply them in bogus.cad format
>you open them after your contractor and BogusCAD have gone out of business.
And if "BogusCAD" here is AutoCAD? It is a real problem when
government entities rely on proprietary undocumented formats. Now, I
will admit it doesn't help if they accept 30 such formats rather than
just the one of the market leader...
Wouldn't government groups requiring something public like IGES be
more appropriate? I admit I don't know too much about the format
though.
Andrew Bell
Cliff W. Estes
John Gossman <jo...@visio.com> wrote in article
<6fonv6$v4i$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> Just about 10 years ago I first wrote a program that reverse
engineered
> the AutoCAD file format. The scenario was this, and tell me if this only
<snip>
> AutoDesk benefitted as low-cost DWG viewers allowed DWG to penetrate
places
> into the enterprise it never had before.
>
And for your reverse-engineering effort, were you rebuffed by AutoDesk??
Probably
not, since, as you note, AutoDesk benefitted. They would be fools to stop
you from doing
what would benefit them. On the other hand, if you were doing something
which would
benefit you to their detriment, they most certainly would have done
everything they could to
prevent your efforts and rightly so.
> Currently I am working at Visio (just started)...
Isn't everyone??? :)
> ... AutoDesk has lost some of its concern for its customers and merely
> wants to lock up the DWG format to lock up those customers.
No argument. Isn't this their right? Believe it or not, I would lead the
parade to overthrow AutoDesk (by legal means, only), but I don't
believe their DWG format is ours. It is theirs.
> AutoDesk is the company that needs to come up with a better mouse trap.
Are they really, now??? Seems you'd better look at the market and then
revisit this concept.
> My then company (SoftSource) went on to produce DRAWING Librarian, for
> viewing AutoCAD drawings easily (non-CAD operators) at low cost ($250 vs
> $3000). Who benefitted?
Let's see, how did you spell that? Oh yes, S-O-F-T-S-O-U-R-C-E.
>If the obtuse evolution that is the DWG format is the crown-jewel of
their intellectual
> property, they're not making it.
And if it's not the crown jewel, then what's all the fuss??? You guys are
leading
the fight to wrest control of it from its rightful owner.
No, John, I would not benefit by having some government body or court
decide
that AutoDesk is too big for its breeches and that its property should be
turned
over to the masses in the interest of the common good. Instead, I would
benefit
from having you guys go forth with your plans for a better mousetrap and,
hopefully,
leave them wallowing in the cloud of dust you kick up in the process. When
that happens,
I wind up with the better mousetrap at the lower cost and the knowledge
that AutoDesk
can't turn around and take it away from you with communal whining and
whaling.
Truly, this is a philosophical issue. No amount of waving technical jargon
or
citing previous examples of reverse-engineering will alter the fact that
you are
asking, nye demanding, that AutoDesk turn over part of what it has worked
so hard to develop over the last 15 years. The opponents of this argument
will cite poor judgement by AutoDesk as justification for their position,
but
don't we all have the right to make bad decisions, without having what's
rightfully ours taken away?
Is this the way we do things in this country? Wait till a guy gets so big
that we
can no longer compete with him, then whine about how he should share with
us.
I think not.
Cliff W. Estes
> >I don't care why they won't. The fact that they won't (or
> >so you say - I have no reason to doubt you - just no
> >first-hand knowledge) or shouldn't have to is the central
> >point of my comments. It's theirs. If they don't choose
> >to share it that should be their right. To those with such
> >policies come the rewards they so justly deserve.
>
> All you are doing is damadging your own credibility by
> saying things like this, and I have no desire to continue
> a debate with someone who demonstrates this much inherint
> bias.
damadging (?) inherint (?)
And it should be your right not to continue to debate. However,
by adding such blistering rhetoric as the quip above shows a
desire to remain in the forum. At least I don't see any reference
to your usual "No understanding of technical ..... " crap.
You persist in making this a technical debate of a philosophical
issue. That does greate damadge (?) to your credibility.
--
Cheers,
**********************************************************************
*** Cliff W. Estes ces...@seanet.com ***
*** BaseLine Technology ph (425)882-7317 ***
*** 15834 NE 67th Place fax (425)882-7327 ***
*** Redmond, WA 98052 http://www.basline.com/basline ***
*** Home of BaseLine II, THE interactive hull fairing system ***
**********************************************************************
FREE BaseLine II Demo available at http://www.basline.com/basline
Shareware ScrBldr v1.01 available at http://www.basline.com/basline
> Cliff W. Estes wrote in message <01bd5bf8$5fbd4b20$e740b6cc@cliff>...
Cliff W. Estes
Andrew Bell <ab...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<35216dcb...@news.mindspring.com>...
> I specifically mentioned government requirements, which verge
> dangerously close to supporting a monopoly. As far as industry
> requirements for DWG, I just pout.
>
Should the govt be entitled to less protection from rogue formats than
other entities?
> Umm, doesn't AutoCAD change it periodically? At least the OpenDWG
Yes, but between releases. I don't believe they have done much changing
within a release.
> Umm, doesn't AutoCAD change it periodically? At least the OpenDWG
> group would publish the format and any changes, so everyone would know
> about the changes and be able to adapt them appropriately.
And then those agencies of which we both speak would be wondering what
version of whose DWG they were spec'g this week. At least as it is now,
you can specify r12, r13, or r14 and be reasonably certain you can archive
one copy of that AutoCAD with the drawings so that they me be operated on
in perpetuity.
> And if "BogusCAD" here is AutoCAD? It is a real problem when
> government entities rely on proprietary undocumented formats. Now, I
> will admit it doesn't help if they accept 30 such formats rather than
> just the one of the market leader...
I think its a safe assumption that when AutoCAD goes out of business,
it will be because someone like yourselves has displaced them. At that
time, I hope you have the protection to afford us, the users, the same
solid format for the storage of our drawings as we now enjoy with the
DWG format.
--
Cheers,
**********************************************************************
*** Cliff W. Estes ces...@seanet.com ***
*** BaseLine Technology ph (425)882-7317 ***
*** 15834 NE 67th Place fax (425)882-7327 ***
*** Redmond, WA 98052 http://www.basline.com/basline ***
*** Home of BaseLine II, THE interactive hull fairing system ***
**********************************************************************
FREE BaseLine II Demo available at http://www.basline.com/basline
Shareware ScrBldr v1.01 available at http://www.basline.com/basline
Andrew Bell <ab...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<35216dcb...@news.mindspring.com>...
> On 30 Mar 1998 17:00:53 GMT, "Cliff W. Estes"
> <ces...@cestes.seanet.com> wrote:
> >Andrew Bell <abel...@mindspring.com> wrote: in article
> >Good on you. Now go out and show the world that you've got the best
[CAD program].
>
> We (MiniCAD) did. That's why I walk past that Architectural CADD Cup
> trophy every workday. :-)
>
> >Yes, the CAD industry is requiring that documents be submitted in the
DWG
> >format. Is that so unreasonable?
>
> I specifically mentioned government requirements, which verge
> dangerously close to supporting a monopoly. As far as industry
> requirements for DWG, I just pout.
>
> >Because of this, vendors prepare their drawings with ACAD, agencies
require
> >submittal of their drawings in DWG format and everyone's happy with the
> >situation but the vendors of competing software.
>
> ...and those who like our program (and other CAD programs) a lot
> better than AutoCAD. I hear from some of those people every day. If
> they didn't exist, we wouldn't either.
>
> >Now, in spite of laws to the contrary,
> >they think they should be able to reverse-engineer the DWG format and
use
> >it for their own purposes.
>
> Umm, if there were laws to the contrary, why isn't AutoCAD suing? By
> your assertion, we're not just breaking the law, we're publishing that
> we're doing so. If there were legal protections for AutoCAD, their
> lawyers would be salivating. So, either they're complete morons, or
> they don't believe they have a legal leg to stand on.
>
> The DWG file format is not protected by intellectual property laws.
> (No, I'm not a lawyer.) It is not a "work of art"; it is more akin
> to an algorithm. Algorithms can be covered by patents, but they must
> be novel, yadda yadda yadda.
>
> >Additionally, I would assume, they would want to make changes to it and
> >there goes the neighborhood, as they say. Now your vendors and agencies
would
> >not have the warmfuzzyness associated with the DWG format. They'd never
> >be able to rely on this format again.
>
> Umm, doesn't AutoCAD change it periodically? At least the OpenDWG
> group would publish the format and any changes, so everyone would know
> about the changes and be able to adapt them appropriately.
>
> >You seem to indicate that you are willing to devote your energies to
> >creating programs ....
>
> That's what I do every workday. I'd just like as many people to take
> advantage of the useful routines I create as possible.
>
> >Imagine this
> >you are a govt agent
> >you are receiving thousands of dwgs
> >you will archive them and not open them for several years
> >you allow your contractors to supply them in bogus.cad format
> >you open them after your contractor and BogusCAD have gone out of
business.
>
Tony Tanzillo
>You persist in making this a technical debate of a philosophical
>issue. That does greate damadge (?) to your credibility.
Not hardly. It was your _technical_ assertion that AutoCAD's
drawing file format is the "best", when in fact, you don't
even know very much at all about the other file formats that
you claim the .DWG is superior to.
How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously,
when you make such rediculous cliams of superiority, with
absolutely no supporting facts whatsoever?
If you make totally groundless technical assertions, then
you're the one who is making it a technical debate, not me,
and you've trashed your own credibility.
CLAFLIN DAVID
Another point that no one seems to be mentioning is that I've seen nothing
suggesting that any of these vendors are going to open up their
proprietary formats so that everyone else can skim the best features from
them.
Microsoft is geting hell for tightly integrating the browser and the OS,
yet that is exactly what all their complaining competitors are trying to
do. I see this OpenDWG Alliance doing the same thing.
In article <01bd5bfd$5fe5ef80$e740b6cc@cliff>,
Cliff W. Estes <ces...@cestes.seanet.com> wrote:
>Andrew Bell <abel...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><351dc0bb...@news.mindspring.com>...
>> On 26 Mar 1998 22:21:47 GMT, "Cliff W. Estes"
>> <ces...@cestes.seanet.com> wrote:
>> >I say if [OpenDWG Alliance members] want to topple the king of the hill
>let them come up with a
>> >better mouse trap.
>>
>> We think we have. The problem is that both industry and government
>> clients often require that we present that mouse in the proprietary
>> DWG format.
>>
>
>Good on you. Now go out and show the world that you've got the best one.
>Yes, the CAD industry is requiring that documents be submitted in the DWG
>format. Is that so unreasonable? Hell's bells, just think back to when
>there
Big Snip.
--
David Claflin
Architect/AutoCAD Instructor
cla...@colorado.edu
DraftingFool
Henry C. Francis wrote in article <01bd5c4d$6683e900$7c2e89cf@h9488850>...
> The problem is that AutoCAD and the DWG format were designated as the
standard
> by many government entities years ago before the current DWG format was
even
> thought of. AutoCAD has an unfair advantage (monopoly). They can add
whatever
> they want to the DWG format and it automatically becomes part of the
"required
> standard".
If your local government entity only accepts the DWG format, that is your
fault as a citizen, not AutoDesks. You can either lobby them to change,
vote out the person in charge, or get hired there and show them the error
of their ways. I hear stories about places in Florida that only accept
DGN files, Where is the Open DGN alliance? I cant create Acrobat PDF files
with notepad, where is the PDF alliance?.
If you are running the most popular diner in town, and your cook dreams up
meatloaf 98, do you give that to the other diners? What if they all get
together and demand that since everybody seems to only eat at your diner,
you have to share your cook with them .. would you? No way, let them get a
cook, let them try to hire my cook, let them buy some meatloaf 98 and try
to figure out what is in it...etc Sure, all the menus are based on the same
food, its what my cook does with it that makes my place stand out.
If this alliance was trying to do anything other than "getting over" on
Autodesk, then they should have Made a DWO or ODW file type, and encouraged
other venders to start there.
-The DraftingFool, Dave Gregori
John Gossman
Cliff W. Estes wrote in message <01bd5c65$394de360$e740b6cc@cliff>...
>John Gossman <jo...@visio.com> wrote in article
><6fonv6$v4i$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
<snip>
>
>And for your reverse-engineering effort, were you rebuffed by AutoDesk??
>Probably
>not, since, as you note, AutoDesk benefitted. They would be fools to stop
>you from doing
>what would benefit them. On the other hand, if you were doing something
>which would
>benefit you to their detriment, they most certainly would have done
>everything they could to
>prevent your efforts and rightly so.
Actually AutoDesk made the same posturing threats they have towards
OpenDWG, but never did anything. Perhaps because reverse-engineering for
the sake of compatibility has been specifically protected by legal
precedent. Would you have the courts shut down AMD and Cyrix for making
Intel compatible chips?
<snip>
>
>> ... AutoDesk has lost some of its concern for its customers and merely
>> wants to lock up the DWG format to lock up those customers.
>
>No argument. Isn't this their right? Believe it or not, I would lead the
>parade to overthrow AutoDesk (by legal means, only), but I don't
>believe their DWG format is ours. It is theirs.
>
So, you think the government should protect AutoDesk from the OpenDWG
alliance, but your primary argument against OpenDWG seems to be you don't
want government interference in the marketplace?
<snip>
>> My then company (SoftSource) went on to produce DRAWING Librarian, for
>> viewing AutoCAD drawings easily (non-CAD operators) at low cost ($250 vs
>> $3000). Who benefitted?
>
>Let's see, how did you spell that? Oh yes, S-O-F-T-S-O-U-R-C-E.
>
SoftSource of course, but your argument was that ONLY members of
OpenDWG, not consumers would benefit from its campaign. Clearly in this
case AutoDesk and consumers benefitted. Your argument seems to be only
AutoDesk should have the right to draw the line that determines where DWG
can and cannot be used. OpenDWG is clearly predicated on a shared interest
between the members and consumers--seems to me to the basis of the
free-market. Your position is that this sort of competition should be
stifled.
>>If the obtuse evolution that is the DWG format is the crown-jewel of
>their intellectual
>> property, they're not making it.
>
>And if it's not the crown jewel, then what's all the fuss??? You guys are
>leading
>the fight to wrest control of it from its rightful owner.
>
It is the crown jewel of their BUSINESS property, because it allows
AutoDesk the monopolistic advantage to sell an arguably inferior product
without competing.
>No, John, I would not benefit by having some government body or court
>decide
>that AutoDesk is too big for its breeches and that its property should be
>turned
>over to the masses in the interest of the common good.
The OpenDWG alliance is not asking the courts to turn DWG over to them.
We would hope that courts don't intervene on behalf of AutoDesk, as you seem
to advocate and allow the free-market to operate. We've already got the
information we need to compete, you want to have the government take it
away.
> Instead, I would
>benefit
>from having you guys go forth with your plans for a better mousetrap and,
>hopefully,
>leave them wallowing in the cloud of dust you kick up in the process. When
>that happens,
>I wind up with the better mousetrap at the lower cost and the knowledge
>that AutoDesk
>can't turn around and take it away from you with communal whining and
>whaling.
We want to build that better mousetrap, but there is this little issue
called compatibility. It would be as if new mousetraps couldn't work in
houses that had old mousetraps in them. OpenDWG doesn't want DWG because it
is great, but so that we can be compatible with it.
<deletions>
The rest of this argument is specious. That isn't what OpenDWG is about
at all, as I believe I've addressed above.
John Gossman
Visio
John Gossman
Cliff W. Estes wrote in message <01bd5c6a$a8cdf2c0$e740b6cc@cliff>...
<snip>
>
>Should the govt be entitled to less protection from rogue formats than
>other entities?
>
>> Umm, doesn't AutoCAD change it periodically? At least the OpenDWG
>Yes, but between releases. I don't believe they have done much changing
>within a release.
>
>
>> Umm, doesn't AutoCAD change it periodically? At least the OpenDWG
>> group would publish the format and any changes, so everyone would know
>> about the changes and be able to adapt them appropriately.
>
>And then those agencies of which we both speak would be wondering what
>version of whose DWG they were spec'g this week. At least as it is now,
>you can specify r12, r13, or r14 and be reasonably certain you can archive
>one copy of that AutoCAD with the drawings so that they me be operated on
>in perpetuity.
<snip>
None of this would be a problem if AutoDesk would open the format themselves
or join the OpenDWG alliance. Ask why they don't? Because they are afraid
they won't be able to compete on the merits of the software, only on the
legacy of their success (and AutoDesk was a fantastically innovative and
quality software company in the 80s).
John Gossman
Visio
Cliff W. Estes
rcu...@rocketmail.com wrote in article
<6fpt7g$7su$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
> The OpenDWG Alliance has not requested or demanded that Autodesk
> "surrender the dwg format". Autodesk was invited to join the OpenDWG
> Alliance, which would have obligated Autodesk to turn over its
documentation
> of what DWG is (as all alliance members are required to disclose all
> knowledge regarding the composition of DWG). In no way, however, is the
> OpenDWG Alliance attempting to "wrest control of DWG" away from Autodesk.
> The OpenDWG Alliance is not establishing a new CAD file format standard;
its
> only purpose is to document what exists, and promote that knowledge as an
> open standard. It is not a typical standards body.
Well, now here's a new twist. They only want to lay open the guts of the
DWG format. They don't want to control it in anyway, just open it up
and spill it out all out for the world to see. If AutoDesk doesn't want to
see this happen, isn't it their right? Maybe misguided, maybe not. That's
your call, but it is their right.
> Autodesk can innovate with the format of DWG as it sees fit, on its own
> timetable, without outside interference. The OpenDWG Alliance simply
wants
> DWG documented. Admittedly, the task would be easier with Autodesk's
> participation, but it moves forward nonetheless.
And what's the good of documenting it? Now AutoDesk's competitors can
say Hey, we're DWG compliant!" and AutoDesk gets what for this? AD jumped
into this arena long ago and established themselves. Like it or not, they
are
THE desktop CAD company. They will survive on the strength of their
business policies, but those policies are theirs to make.
Bill Mollman
On the same vein, one should remember what happened to unix.
It was an open system, (a rather good one at that) that it seems like
everybody & his brother decided to give their own little twists, bells,
& whistles.
This made for some very good flavors of unix, but at the same time, each
was just different enough from the next to make it incompatible.
Eventually, some outfit took unix, created dos, windows, & windows95
from it, gave them the gui users were looking for & are now in the
process of blowing unix off the board.
If the unix vendors had worked together to give users the gui & apps we
find in w95/NT now, unix might still be king.
I realize that the age of instant gratification has brought about a
group of users who don't want to know what is happening underneath the
gui, they just want the data....NOW.
In conclusion, (without getting into whether or not DWG is superior to
anything else or not, because I don't really know) I do feel that if
Autodesk Created the DWG format, then they should have complete control
of what directions it has taken & will take in the future.
It is their intellectual property to do with as they please.
This should be determined by Autodesk @ the requests of its users, & not
some committee of people who are jealous of success.
keep up the good work,
billm
Cliff W. Estes wrote:
>
> Tony Tanzillo <tony.t...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <6fif5j$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> > From the CADalyst article:
> > A file format is not intellectual property. The algorithms
> > that read and write the format is the intellectual property,
> > and nobody as asked Autodesk to hand those algorithms over.
> >
>
> The above is intellectual property. Out of respect to you and
> your rights, I quote it as such. Since you posted the above
> in this forum, I presume you have chosen to allow quotation
> AutoDesk has the same right to choose how its format is used.
> They demand that their intellectual property rights be inviolate.
>
> > The bottom line in this issue, is that Autodesk itself
> > entirely contradicts its own position by marketing the OEM
> > DWG/Unplugged access libraries only to "selected licensees".
>
> If this is the bottom line, then the argument is fairly weak. Since
> the bottom is that AutoDesk has engaged in bad PR by contradicting
> its own position, then shame on them. That's about all you can say
> about that. This is not cause to require them to surrender the DWG
> format which they developed and to which they should have
> exclusive rights.
Cliff W. Estes
> Not hardly. It was your _technical_ assertion that AutoCAD's
> drawing file format is the "best", when in fact, you don't
> even know very much at all about the other file formats that
> you claim the .DWG is superior to.
>
> How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously,
> when you make such rediculous cliams of superiority, with
> absolutely no supporting facts whatsoever?
>
> If you make totally groundless technical assertions, then
> you're the one who is making it a technical debate, not me,
> and you've trashed your own credibility.
>
Sounds like we've hit a dead end. You are no longer addressing
the question of debate, merely slinging abrasive rhetoric. As far
as credibility, I'd be surprised if you weren't getting heat from your
bretheren in the ODA for such abusive posts. You do your fellows
no good.
Cliff W. Estes
> None of this would be a problem if AutoDesk would open the format
themselves
> or join the OpenDWG alliance. Ask why they don't? Because they are
afraid
> they won't be able to compete on the merits of the software, only on the
> legacy of their success (and AutoDesk was a fantastically innovative and
> quality software company in the 80s).
>
You may be right, John. Then again you may not. Who knows. But the
decision
to join or not, to share or not, to exclude or not is theirs to make.
Cliff W. Estes
> So, you think the government should protect AutoDesk from the OpenDWG
> alliance, but your primary argument against OpenDWG seems to be you don't
> want government interference in the marketplace?
I don't think the govt should be needed. I think the ODA should not force
any
legal action. ADesk has said leave it alone. I think ODA should honor
that
request. ODA obviously doesn't feel the same way. They feel they should
be able to jump in claim DWG compatibility. Adesk says they shouldn't,
since
they didn't participate in the development of it.
> The OpenDWG alliance is not asking the courts to turn DWG over to
them.
> We would hope that courts don't intervene on behalf of AutoDesk, as you
seem
> to advocate and allow the free-market to operate. We've already got the
> information we need to compete, you want to have the government take it
> away.
OK, now I have to ask again. If you already have what you want, why the
WSJ ad? Why the big fuss? Why not just quietly go about toppling the
giant?
DraftingFool
> I like eating sirlon steak and it seems a great pity to me that I have to
> mince it up to make meatloat 98 because thats what most poeple eat. Get
out
> and check a few new diners, you might be pleasantly surprised to find
that
> meatloaf 98 is not the greatest meal there is.
Thats great, variety is the spice of life, but If I am the rancher that
raised the cows,
Why should I let the other ranchers have them?
-The DraftingFool, Dave Gregori
!!California no on 224 in June!!
Cam Jackson
>If you are running the most popular diner in town, and your cook dreams up
>meatloaf 98, do you give that to the other diners? What if they all get
>together and demand that since everybody seems to only eat at your diner,
>you have to share your cook with them .. would you? No way, let them get a
>cook, let them try to hire my cook, let them buy some meatloaf 98 and try
>to figure out what is in it...etc Sure, all the menus are based on the same
>food, its what my cook does with it that makes my place stand out.
I like eating sirlon steak and it seems a great pity to me that I have to
Henry C. Francis
The DGN format has been public for over 13 years. I have a copy of the DGN
format as it was in 1990. Bentley uses the very same format but they do it
better than Intergraph, so much so that Intergraph bought 49% of Bentley.
AutoCAD is terrified that almost anybody can use their DWG format much better
than they have.
They are banking that if they dodge the bullet for just enough time they will
be able to improve their product enough to equal others. Judging from their
past history I don't believe they can ever do anything better.
Your analogy does not fit. We are not required to use their cook. We are
required to buy their gas, buy their dishes, their flatware, and rent their
building, so the presentation of our food will look identical to the government
diners when they eat it.
DraftingFool <drft...@inreach.com> wrote in article
<01bd5cca$04ed9470$17dc8787@cvl-daveg>...
>
> I hear stories about places in Florida that only accept
> DGN files, Where is the Open DGN alliance? I cant create Acrobat PDF files
> with notepad, where is the PDF alliance?.
>
Martin Rowland
DraftingFool wrote:
> If this alliance was trying to do anything other than "getting over" on
> Autodesk, then they should have Made a DWO or ODW file type, and encouraged
> other venders to start there.
>
> -The DraftingFool, Dave Gregori
that is absurd
for years, agencies have required that consultants supply documents in
the *.dwg format (or *.dgn format - BTW the way inwhich autode$k got one
over intergraph is worth discussing some other time)
it is anti competition to require all consultants use only one approved
product - in this case autocad version-whatever-we-like-to-dish-up. the
only fair solution is to open up the format, while you use the package
of your choice.
i'm sure that autodesk has nothing to fear anyway. autocad is such a
robust product... and at cost of 4300 south coast oyster its no wonder
that it has cornered the market. the are attracted to it by cost and
reliablitily. dependability is the name of the game.
martin rowland
Jim Strenk
In article <6frb6r$i4g$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, "John Gossman" <jo...@visio.com>
writes:
>None of this would be a problem if AutoDesk would open the format themselves
>or join the OpenDWG alliance. Ask why they don't? Because they are afraid
>they won't be able to compete on the merits of the software, only on the
>legacy of their success (and AutoDesk was a fantastically innovative and
>quality software company in the 80s).
Why should they when "owning" the DWG file format allows Autodesk to keep it's
customer base? Currently, if I need a product to be 100% DWG compatible, I
HAVE to purchase an Autodesk product. And that sir, keeps me in the Autodesk
fold!
With that simple fact in mind, why should Autodesk give up the secrets of the
DWG file format? Isn't the goal of every corporate entity to MAINTAIN and
INCREASE it's market share?
John Gossman
Jim Strenk wrote in message
<199804011153...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
<snip>
>>None of this would be a problem if AutoDesk would open the format
themselves
>>or join the OpenDWG alliance. Ask why they don't? Because they are
afraid
>>they won't be able to compete on the merits of the software, only on the
>>legacy of their success
<snip>
>Why should they when "owning" the DWG file format allows Autodesk to keep
it's
>customer base? Currently, if I need a product to be 100% DWG compatible, I
>HAVE to purchase an Autodesk product. And that sir, keeps me in the
Autodesk
>fold!
<snip>
Uh, isn't that what I just said. I understand AutoDesk's motivation
perfectly. The merit or demerit of OpenDWG is NOT whether AutoDesk or the
Alliance members make money, it is what does the consumer want. If the
consumer says "we want an open DWG standard" they should be able to get it,
without AutoDesk just shutting everything down. If the consumers want
AutoDesk to own DWG, nothing OpenDWG can do will change that.
John Gossman
Visio
Matt Stachoni
>i'm sure that autodesk has nothing to fear anyway. autocad is such a
>robust product... and at cost of 4300 south coast oyster its no wonder
>that it has cornered the market. the are attracted to it by cost and
>reliablitily. dependability is the name of the game.
Have you happened to notice all of the "Unhandled Exception Error" -type posts in all of these
newsgroups?
If reliability/dependability/stability are such big factors in considering a CAD product, ACAD would
have died a horrible death with R13.
Regards,
Matt Stachoni
stac...@bellatlantic.net
Regards,
Matt Stachoni
stac...@bellatlantic.net
Bernd Hoffmann
File formats ARE property. Beta a video format, owned and licensed by Sony.
Dolby an audio format, owned and licensed. DWG a cad drawing format owned by
AutoDESK. The open dwg alliance is a ring of thieves.
Regards,
Bernd
Designer
Burris Premium Sports Optics
http://www.burrisoptics.com/
Drew Fulford
Robert Dummer wrote:
> The OpenDWG Alliance has no intention of creating a new, seperate or
> different version of the DWG file. The goal is to understand it as it is
> today and in the future so anyone who desires can read and write DWG files.
Robert..Please explain. If alliance's intention is to do exactly what
Autocad does and write DWGs exactly as AutoCAD does, then what is the
point of the alliance. I believed the alliance was to promote
"competetition" between the players and by not changing anything, there
would be no real competitive edges (other than cost).
If cost is supposed to be the "competitive edge" offered and the
Alliance simply wants more pie, then the alliance should consider that
piracy has been Autodesks #1 competitor since day one. It has offered
100% dwg compatibility all the time at a very reasonable cost (with some
risk of course).
BTW What is the moral difference between selling reverse engineered DWG
programs and selling illegal (cracked) copies or AutoCAD? I see no
difference other than reverse engineering is somehow legal these days,
but both required the "developer" to do some form of "work" to make the
product. IOW is reverse engineering simply put "legal piracy"?
The way i see it is that the DWG is the media that users store their
data in, just like VHS is a media for storing Movies but VHS belongs to
someone (JVC I believe) and they get paid royalties for every tape or
VCR that uses that format no matter who makes or sells it...Why? Because
they invented it. Is Visio paying Autodesk, i think not.
Just my opinion..
Drew
Andrew Bell
On 31 Mar 1998 06:03:47 GMT, "Cliff W. Estes"
<ces...@cestes.seanet.com> wrote:
>Andrew Bell <ab...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><35216dcb...@news.mindspring.com>...
>> I specifically mentioned government requirements, which verge
>> dangerously close to supporting a monopoly.
>Should the govt be entitled to less protection from rogue formats than
>other entities?
Governments should require submissions in formats that are not trade
secrets, so they are not dependent on and supporting monopolies.
>> Umm, doesn't AutoCAD change [DWG] periodically? At least the OpenDWG
>> group would publish the format and any changes, so everyone would know
>> about the changes and be able to adapt them appropriately.
>And then those agencies of which we both speak would be wondering what
>version of whose DWG they were spec'g this week.
The OpenDWG Alliance is striving for the documentation of DWG, not its
modification.
>At least as it is now,
>you can specify r12, r13, or r14 and be reasonably certain you can archive
>one copy of that AutoCAD with the drawings so that they me be operated on
>in perpetuity.
Oh, like that R12/DOS version of AutoCAD you've archived? Follow the
newsgroup a bit, it doesn't run under 95/NT. Shell out more lucre to
AutoCAD if you want to read your own data.
>I think its a safe assumption that when AutoCAD goes out of business,
>it will be because someone like yourselves has displaced them. At that
>time, I hope you have the protection to afford us, the users, the same
>solid format for the storage of our drawings as we now enjoy with the
>DWG format.
We might do a lot better, and actually *tell* you what our format is,
so if we go under, you can still use your files...
Andrew Bell
In no way an official spokesperson of Diehl Graphsoft, Inc., much less
the OpenDWG Alliance.
Martin Rowland
Bernd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> File formats ARE property. Beta a video format, owned and licensed by Sony.
> Dolby an audio format, owned and licensed. DWG a cad drawing format owned by
> AutoDESK. The open dwg alliance is a ring of thieves.
>
>
that's is crap bernd. the property is the way in which autodesk writes
to the format - not the format itself
by making consultants supply in one format, that is owned by one company
(ie, there is only one package that you can use to do the job) is
highway robbery. that is why we have to pay 4600 bucks for it. NOT
because it is the best product. Cast your mind back to R13 and all of
its versions up to R13c4!!!
hey, you cant even open two drawings in the one session. i know a 350
buck package that can...
good luck
martin rowland
Reini Urban
Tony Tanzillo wrote:
>
> >You persist in making this a technical debate of a philosophical
> >issue. That does greate damadge (?) to your credibility.
>
> drawing file format is the "best", when in fact, you don't
> even know very much at all about the other file formats that
> you claim the .DWG is superior to.
>
> How can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously,
> when you make such rediculous cliams of superiority, with
> absolutely no supporting facts whatsoever?
>
> If you make totally groundless technical assertions, then
> you're the one who is making it a technical debate, not me,
> and you've trashed your own credibility.
absolutely true.
in fact the advantage of autocad was always that is used the simpliest
thinkable object format! just plain lists with repeated vertices. no
optimized data structures at all.
almost every other vector based fileformat i know uses advanced data
structures, like
vertex-edge, vertex-face, vertex-edge-face relations;
common vertex lists, common property tables.
advanced structures in acad are for example polylines (only single
vertices per object), pmeshes (vertex-face structure) or acis objects.
but e.g. dimensions points could be glued to object vertices, lines
could share endpoints, ...
but acad's dwg format simplicity made it robust and that's why it
survived
and that's why it's so fast.
some competitors with advanced fileformats had -in the early beginnings
of cad- database and feature problems, because of the increased
complexity, then of course.
nevertheless, in the last years the dwg introduced new structures based
on the simply base format, and this is the problem with dwg. the old dwg
design makes it difficult now to handle complex objects and their
relations:
associativity (handles, eed, ...),
solid modelling (keeping consistency),
dynamic events (so called "reactors"),
parametrics,
inheritance
methods
Morten Warankov
Andrew Bell wrote:
> We might do a lot better, and actually *tell* you what our format is,
> so if we go under, you can still use your files...
That's very good Andrew.
I visited your (the ODA) web site and found perfectly documenation of how to
read and write Autocad files. Even with a downloadable library.
Where's your (the ODA founding members) open C/C++ library for reading *your*
files. I suppose there must be some reference to the founding members download
area, but I could find it. You did want to do it better didn't you?
Kind regards,
Mortenw
Tony Tanzillo
Reini Urban wrote in message <352379...@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at>...
>
>but acad's dwg format simplicity made it robust and that's why it
>survived and that's why it's so fast.
AutoCAD's file format is not, and never was 'robust'.
In fact, Cyco International owes its very existence
to that fact, because AutoSave (their first product,
which recovered damadged drawing files) was what put
Cyco on the map.
Back in the days before AutoCAD had drawing recovery,
damadged, unreadable .DWG files were as common as
house flies.
Do you really call that "robust" ?????
AutoCAD's DWG file is NOT FAST. I have TurboCAD here
and it loads the same data (in its own file format) at
least 2X faster than AutoCAD.
AutoCAD's .DWG file is quite slow in comparison to
other CAD product's native file format.
--
/*********************************************************/
/* Tony Tanzillo Design Automation Consulting */
/* Programming & Customization for AutoCAD & Compatibles */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* Member of the OpenDWG Alliance */
/* Co-Author of Maximizing AutoCAD R13 and */
/* Maximizing AutoLISP for AutoCAD R13/R14 */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* tony.t...@worldnet.att.net */
/* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonyt */
/*********************************************************/
Tony Tanzillo
>Sounds like we've hit a dead end. You are no longer addressing
>the question of debate, merely slinging abrasive rhetoric. As far
>as credibility, I'd be surprised if you weren't getting heat from your
>bretheren in the ODA for such abusive posts. You do your fellows
>no good.
There's nothing abusive about my posts, the problem is
that you are just having a hard time dealing with the
realisation that through your own words, you've shown
everyone that you are inherintly biased.
Jim Strenk
In article <3522fb73...@news.mindspring.com>, abel...@mindspring.com
(Andrew Bell) writes:
>The OpenDWG Alliance is striving for the documentation of DWG, not its
>modification.
All AutoCAD user's that need the documentation, raise your hands!
Now, all you 3rd Party Developer types and Autodesk competitors, RAISE YOUR
HANDS!
Gee! The DEVELOPERS won! What's THAT about??
Andrew Bell
On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 19:47:07 -0700, Bernd Hoffmann
<phan...@WebAccess.Net> wrote:
>File formats ARE property. Beta a video format, owned and licensed by Sony.
>Dolby an audio format, owned and licensed. DWG a cad drawing format owned by
>AutoDESK. The open dwg alliance is a ring of thieves.
Nice try, except: Beta and Dolby are patented hardware systems ( as
well as trademarked terms). As a result, the formats are a matter of
public record, you just can't duplicate the hardware without licensing
the patent. Note that patents are far from automatic, it required a
substantial legal effort for Sony and Dolby Labs to establish their
patents. Autodesk has done nothing of this nature, nor is there
anything particularly novel about their format (another requirement of
patents.)
You may believe that morally, you should be able to copyright file
formats. Legally, however, you (and we at Diehl Graphsoft, should it
come to that) are out of luck. (Note, however, there is likewise no
legal obligation on Autodesk to reveal details of this format.)
(BTW, If the DWG Alliance is a "ring of thieves", Autodesk is not
merely entitled to sue. As a public company, they are *obligated* to
protect their stock price and company assets; to do otherwise is to
invite stockholder lawsuits. That *no one* is talking about lawsuits
should be a strong enough sign to everyone here that legally, Autodesk
is not entitled to legal protection for their file format.)
Andrew Bell
Bernd Hoffmann
Thanks for the info Bill. I am a concerned Autodesk stock holder. Bout a lot of
shares in 87 and they've been doing very well :-). Morally I still consider the
Alliance thieves, but I'm sure you can understand my prejudice. Oh well at lest
the the product well improve with the competition.
Richard A. Haas
Personally I used other cad software for many years and could do my work
very nicely on any of them, either pc or mac. I switched to autocad
because it is the most widely used in my industry (civil engineering and
surveying) and by using the same software I could exchange files with
others in my industry. This saves me time and is a great convenience. I
did this by using LT. Then when I learned LT it became apparent that
some of the add-ons available for R14 would be a great benefit so I made
the big jump to R14 and it has been worth every nickle of that big price
tag......now the price seems small for the benefits of an almost
universally accepted product.
Autodesk has made its position by becoming the most widely accepted,
because of that there is an abundance of add-on software for it. I
willingly pay my VIP subscription and I support Autodesk autonymity.
I was a Mac user since the first Mac Plus, and I was running something
called MGM Station (CAD) on it back in the early 80's...never thought I
would switch to a PC...but when I did I discovered the benefits of using
the choice of the marketplace even though it may not be the best
product....
There may be better CAD software than AutoCad, but until a preponderance
of the users switch (too late folks!) those software geniui would be
better creating additional features for add-ons to AutoCad than
replacements for it.
Emmanuel Garcia (AUGI)
Henry,
I have not had any problems and have been able to get to my data, except
manipulate acis entities through LISP.
Regards,
--
Emmanuel A. Garcia (AUGI)
Andrew Bell
On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 01:05:43 -0700, Bernd Hoffmann
<phan...@WebAccess.Net> wrote:
>Morally I still consider the
>Alliance thieves, but I'm sure you can understand my prejudice.
We write their file format, they copy our Smart Cursor. Who's more
of a thief? :-)
Those Autodesk thieves, they stole the whole idea of drawing lines on
a screen from Ivan Sutherland's 60's sketchpad program.
Andrew Bell
yadda yadda yadda
Andrew Bell
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 18:25:15 +0200, Morten Warankov
<mor...@abacus.no> wrote:
>Where's your (the ODA founding members) open C/C++ library for reading *your*
>files. I suppose there must be some reference to the founding members download
>area, but I could find it. You did want to do it better didn't you?
Nobody's asked yet..
Seriously, though, the whole hope here (at least, what would be best
for CAD customers) is for a truly universal, well-documented format
for writing CAD data. It would be best to have one defined by a
formal standards body, a la IGES, although I am concerned about its
ASCII format making files that are rather larger and slower to load
than a binary format such as DWG. Ideally, this universal format
would also allow room for some program-specific data that could be
ignored by other programs, so the format could incorporate the
constraints of programs like Solidworks, view layouts for programs
with multiple allowed viewpoints, preferences, etc. (Note that I
believe IGES allows for this.)
If not IGES, would DWG be a good choice? Not really, from what I've
seen of it. However, it's what industrial and government entities are
requiring. I guess the OpenDWG alliance figures it would be easier to
share what they know of DWG than to support IGES and get people to
switch.
Incidentally, Autodesk has some form of IGES support (and currently,
we at Diehl Graphsoft don't.)
Andrew Bell
Note that I am in no way speaking either for Diehl Graphsoft, Inc. or
the DWG Alliance, and know nothing about the latter other than what
I've read in press releases and other publicly available material.
Ian A. White
>On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 01:05:43 -0700, Bernd Hoffmann
><phan...@WebAccess.Net> wrote:
>>Morally I still consider the
>>Alliance thieves, but I'm sure you can understand my prejudice.
>
>We write their file format, they copy our Smart Cursor. Who's more
>of a thief? :-)
There is nothing wrong with seeing something and then writing
something which does the same thing, or better or worse. As far as
Smart Cursor is concerned, I take it that this is the one that is part
of Genius Desktop, if it had made available as a separate utility for
AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT, then I doubt that we would see it as part of
standard AutoCAD. I know when I enquired about it I was told I had to
get the entire Genius Desktop.
I see nothing to be worried about as far as people tying to reverse
engineer the drawing file format (as opposed to obtaining confidential
specifications of the format), as there will always be one DWG file
type which will be 100% and that will be the files written by Autodesk
programs. All Autodesk has to do is change the goal posts, and
everyone who wants to use DWG as their native format as well has to
divert their energies to now match it. They also have to wait until
something new is developed by Autodesk, as so far, it appears that
there is no intention to change or enhance the DWG specification by
those wishing to use it as their native format. All they will be
doing it trying to play catch-up.
The problem I see with this is the amount of wasted time and effort in
people trying to do nothing more than reverse engineer one format, and
then make that format their standard. I would have thought a far more
productive approach would have been to have a group whose sole brief
was to write compatibility software for ALL the various CAD systems,
and make this available commercially. This way, all the competing CAD
vendors can get on with developing their better mouse traps, using
their own file formats. All such a group has to be able to do is
convert ANY drawing file (not just DWG) to an appropriate version DXF
file. Then all the other CAD vendors have to be able to do is import
a DXF file.
>Those Autodesk thieves, they stole the whole idea of drawing lines on
>a screen from Ivan Sutherland's 60's sketchpad program.
I take it that Ivan Sutherland took out the necessary legal
protections for his work? I have a piece of text on risk which I have
framed and hangs over my desk. One line goes "To place your ideas and
dreams before a crowd is to risk their loss". Well, maybe it should
be further qualified and say "To place your ideas and dreams before a
crowd without the necessary legal protection is to risk their loss",
as doing so merely places such ideas and dreams in the public domain.
--
Regards,
Ian A. White, CPEng
WAI Engineering
Sydney 2000
Australia
Ph: +61 418 203 229
Fax: +61 2 9622 0450
Junk e-mail will be returned, as is, to the sender's host system.
Cam Jackson
Hang on Andrew. Diehl Graphsoft stole the smart cursor off Ashlar. I know
you guys won the legal battle, but morally it was Ashlar's. You've got to
give Autodesk the higher moral ground here......at least they have licensed
it and are prepared to pay for it.
Cam Jackson
Andrew Bell wrote in message <35259ff9...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 01:05:43 -0700, Bernd Hoffmann
><phan...@WebAccess.Net> wrote:
>>Morally I still consider the
>>Alliance thieves, but I'm sure you can understand my prejudice.
>
>We write their file format, they copy our Smart Cursor. Who's more
>of a thief? :-)
>
>Those Autodesk thieves, they stole the whole idea of drawing lines on
>a screen from Ivan Sutherland's 60's sketchpad program.
>
Andrew Bell
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998 21:40:47 +1200, "Cam Jackson" <ca...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
>Hang on Andrew. Diehl Graphsoft stole the smart cursor off Ashlar. I know
>you guys won the legal battle, but morally it was Ashlar's.
There's a reason you lose lawsuits... Moreover, regardless of who
implemented it first, I'm not big on legal protections for software
ideas, myself; the industry is too young. Do you claim that no one
would have thought of the smart cursor idea if Ashlar (or we, I
haven't been involved in the CAD industry long enough to know that
history) didn't think of it? If not, then at best Ashlar accelerated
the improvements in our program by a small margin -- and I doubt
Ashlar hasn't checked out MiniCAD and done similar "borrowing".
Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft regarding GUIs failed, as did
Lotus's against Borland.
At least in the U.S., the constitutional provision giving the
government the power to establish copyright and patent protections is
mentioned as being justified as being for the public good, by
encouraging innovation -- not out of some fundamental right to
intellectual property. With that as the baseline, protections for
ideas come up with during this, the early days of computing, would not
be for the public good. In such an atmosphere, in order to succeed
software companies have to be lean, smart, and responsive to their
customers. And isn't that as it should be?
Andrew Bell
Andrew Bell
On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 21:16:19 GMT, waiw...@zip.com.au (Ian A. White)
>I see nothing to be worried about as far as people tying to reverse
>engineer the drawing file format (as opposed to obtaining confidential
>specifications of the format), as there will always be one DWG file
>type which will be 100% and that will be the files written by Autodesk
>programs. All Autodesk has to do is change the goal posts, and
>everyone who wants to use DWG as their native format as well has to
>divert their energies to now match it.
(Note that we don't want it as our native format ( gag!) we just want
to translate our data into it as well as is possible.)
Changing the format without significantly adding to it doesn't do
Autodesk much good, I think. First, if AutoCAD doesn't support older
DWG formats, they'll annoy and drive away their customers. If we can
write DWGr14, AutoCAD is pretty much stuck reading it. And those who
require DWG probably aren't that worried about the particular version,
as long as it can be read in AutoCAD.
>The problem I see with this is the amount of wasted time and effort in
>people trying to do nothing more than reverse engineer one format, and
>then make that format their standard. I would have thought a far more
>productive approach would have been to have a group whose sole brief
>was to write compatibility software for ALL the various CAD systems,
>and make this available commercially.
While IGES and STEP exist (actually, I'm not sure if STEP is finished
-- don't count me as an expert on either, really), few if any
companies or government entities will acept documents in those
formats. Also, IGES at least is rather inefficient in terms of file
size (as is DXF), which at the moment is still somewhat relevant.
(With DVD-RAMs right around the corner, and xDSL, cable modems,
satellites, et al) this is starting to get somewhat less relevant.)
The companies involved see this as the path of least resistance.
Personally, I see real promise in what I've seen of IGES, but
surprisingly the OpenDWG alliance didn't consult with me.
>[...] Then all the other CAD vendors have to be able to do is import
>a DXF file.
They're basically trying to do this, except replace DXF with DWG for
compactness. (Which matters, or companies wouldn't require files in
DWG form.)
Andrew Bell
Alexander Medwedew
What about DXB format for compactness? It seems to have been forgotten
completely.
--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/
Andrew Bell <abel...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<35294192...@news.mindspring.com>...
Ian A. White
>On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 21:16:19 GMT, waiw...@zip.com.au (Ian A. White)
>>I see nothing to be worried about as far as people tying to reverse
>>engineer the drawing file format (as opposed to obtaining confidential
>>specifications of the format), as there will always be one DWG file
>>type which will be 100% and that will be the files written by Autodesk
>>programs. All Autodesk has to do is change the goal posts, and
>>everyone who wants to use DWG as their native format as well has to
>>divert their energies to now match it.
>
>(Note that we don't want it as our native format ( gag!) we just want
>to translate our data into it as well as is possible.)
But aren't Visio "adopting" the DWG format as their native format?
>Changing the format without significantly adding to it doesn't do
>Autodesk much good, I think. First, if AutoCAD doesn't support older
>DWG formats, they'll annoy and drive away their customers. If we can
>write DWGr14, AutoCAD is pretty much stuck reading it. And those who
>require DWG probably aren't that worried about the particular version,
>as long as it can be read in AutoCAD.
Agreed, but if the general sentiments of some were true, then this is
exactly what might be expected. I am not against there being a ready
means of exchanging data between any CAD systems. The problem is that
unless some of the other CAD systems offer DXF they are generally
closed systems. What I find hard to understand is why people seem to
look at the DWG format as the holy grail when the DXF format is open.
I have had to look at some DXF files provided to a client to work on.
These were prepared by the program Cadsman, however two layers with
critical information came across with the layer colour properties as
BYBLOCK. Now, BYBLOCK is not a valid layer colour, so as a result,
these objects were displayed in whatever the background colour was.
In the layer dialog, the layers could be selected, but nothing could
be done to them. The only way to change the colours was to manually
edit the DXF files and change any layer which had a colour of 0 (for
BYBLOCK) to something which was valid (like 7 for white).
Now, here is an example where a vendor claims to be able to produce a
DXF file, but despite having access to the DXF specification they
produce a DXF file which needs to be manually edited. I would hate to
thing what might happen if they decided to try and write a DWG file.
At least it is possible to manually edit a DXF file.
>>The problem I see with this is the amount of wasted time and effort in
>>people trying to do nothing more than reverse engineer one format, and
>>then make that format their standard. I would have thought a far more
>>productive approach would have been to have a group whose sole brief
>>was to write compatibility software for ALL the various CAD systems,
>>and make this available commercially.
>>[...] Then all the other CAD vendors have to be able to do is import
>>a DXF file.
>
>They're basically trying to do this, except replace DXF with DWG for
>compactness. (Which matters, or companies wouldn't require files in
>DWG form.)
What I was getting at in my last post was that rather than spending
time and effort producing libraries and tools to produce DXF files
where the format is known, there is a hell of a lot of effort being
put into first reverse engineering the DWG format. As for
compactness, the DXF file might be large, however you can get an
extremely impressive compression ratio (anywhere between 80% and 90%)
with programs like PKZIP, WINZIP, LHARC, and the like. I know of one
company which actually uses DXF for their long term archiving. They
had problems with corruption of data, however with DXF being ASCII,
when they have had problems, they have been able to recover their data
files with minimal entity loss.
There is nothing magical about being able to read and write DWG files.
Unfortunately, competing vendors seem to be blinded by this. As long
as there is a valid means of exchanging data, that is all that users
want.
Ian A. White
On 6 Apr 1998 16:55:17 GMT, "Alexander Medwedew" <comp...@idt.net>
wrote:
>What about DXB format for compactness? It seems to have been forgotten
>completely.
Do you mean DXB or binary DXF? One thing you will find is that most
other programs which have the ability to import a DXF can only do this
with an ASCII DXF and not a binary DXF.
Tony Tanzillo
And who do you suppose Ashlar stole it from?
Ashlar's lawsuit was thrown out of court.
--
/*********************************************************/
/* Tony Tanzillo Design Automation Consulting */
/* Programming & Customization for AutoCAD & Compatibles */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* Member of the OpenDWG Alliance */
/* Co-Author of Maximizing AutoCAD R13 and */
/* Maximizing AutoLISP for AutoCAD R13/R14 */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* tony.t...@worldnet.att.net */
/* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonyt */
/*********************************************************/
Cam Jackson wrote in message <6g8kfd$3t8$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>Hang on Andrew. Diehl Graphsoft stole the smart cursor off Ashlar. I know
Cam Jackson
Tony Tanzillo wrote in message <6gekq0$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>And who do you suppose Ashlar stole it from?
>
>Ashlar's lawsuit was thrown out of court.
Claris Cad? Who cares. It seems its dog eat dog out there.
Alexander Medwedew
I meant DXB, a binary format AutoCad supports. I believe it only does 2D
information.
--
Alexander Medwedew
Computer Ventures, Inc.
http://idt.net/~compvent/
Ian A. White <waiw...@zip.com.au> wrote in article
<352a87a5...@news.zip.com.au>...
--
Regards,
----------
Ian A. White
On 8 Apr 1998 16:27:55 GMT, "Alexander Medwedew" <comp...@idt.net>
wrote:
>I meant DXB, a binary format AutoCad supports. I believe it only does 2D
>information.
DXB is essentially a plotter format, and this is why is does 2D. The
problem is that the command to use a DXB file - DXBIN - is not
available in LT, and neither is a DXB output driver. LT can handle a
binary DXF file which still has a DXF extension.
Reini Urban
"Tony Tanzillo" <tony.t...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>And who do you suppose Ashlar stole it from?
>
>Ashlar's lawsuit was thrown out of court.
That's why you are not allowed to use the word STOLEN.
Software "look and feel" is thanksfully not protectable
(Apple vs. Microsoft, Lotus vs. Borland).
The Free Software Foundation even stopped supporting Apple ports for
this ridiculous and harmful lawsuit.
From the emacs FAQ:
"The FSF is a participant in a boycott of Apple because of Apple's "look
and feel" copyright suits. See the file /emacs/etc/APPLE for more
details.
Because of this boycott, the FSF doesn't include support in GNU software
for Apple computers such as the Macintosh.
Please don't help people port or develop software for Apple computers."
Thanks to Andy Bell to support this opinion too.
I wouldn't even dare to call the OpenDWG Alliance thieves. Would you
call any ordinary DWG hacker a thief?
The OpenDWG Alliance even brings the efforts of reverse engineering the
DWG format, which is not thanksfully NOT protectable, to the not
commercially interested user. So we got FREE DWG support for plain
users. Not from Autodesk but from the league of competitors.
I don't care who is behind the ODA, I just want to use AutoCAD, nothing
else, but I appreciate the effort and that's why I support it.
(writing docs for free, writing a lisp library for free)
-- Reini Urban
AutoCAD stuff at http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/autocad/
Abraham Winters
>I can even say that the only legal way to create my 'intellectual
>property No1' is to use my 'intellectual property No2'.
>Noone can take away from me this constitutional right.
Constitutional Right??
Tony Tanzillo
I guess that means he's a Republican.
--
/*********************************************************/
/* Tony Tanzillo Design Automation Consulting */
/* Programming & Customization for AutoCAD & Compatibles */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* Member of the OpenDWG Alliance */
/* Co-Author of Maximizing AutoCAD R13 and */
/* Maximizing AutoLISP for AutoCAD R13/R14 */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* tony.t...@worldnet.att.net */
/* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonyt */
/*********************************************************/
Abraham Winters wrote in message <6gj4ok$jpb$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
Tony Tanzillo
This is not a legal document, so I can use that
word in any way I wish.
--
/*********************************************************/
/* Tony Tanzillo Design Automation Consulting */
/* Programming & Customization for AutoCAD & Compatibles */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* Member of the OpenDWG Alliance */
/* Co-Author of Maximizing AutoCAD R13 and */
/* Maximizing AutoLISP for AutoCAD R13/R14 */
/* ----------------------------------------------------- */
/* tony.t...@worldnet.att.net */
/* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonyt */
/*********************************************************/
Reini Urban wrote in message <352ca98c.3991890@judy>...