Cadalyst - August 2008 - (Page 35)

viewpoint Major joint customers of Autodesk and Bentley win with this deal; however, the resulting benefits could become less obvious if either pulls back its efforts to support open standards. Conversations with Carl Bass When I was dealing with Autodesk’s use of DGNdirect, I had several phone conversations with Bass. We didn’t talk about DGNdirect — that was delegated to someone else — but rather about how ODA and Autodesk could work together. I challenged Autodesk to take a red pen to our membership agreements and suggest revisions to make them more palatable. Bass challenged me to find a way to restructure ODA to create a level playing field where, for example, all members would contribute the information they had on all file formats. Neither of us was particularly successful. Autodesk never suggested any membership agreement changes. I was never able to persuade the ODA board to act on Bass’ suggestion. What did come out of our conversations, though, was that Bass was willing to make agreements wherein Autodesk would exchange file read/write libraries and interoperability information on a reciprocal basis with competitors. to marginalize ODA, or simply Bass’ predisposition to make such deals. Separate from any of these factors, both companies recognize that DWG and DGN are not the simple formats they used to be. They’re exceedingly complex, and the ODA libraries for either are likely to be behind the curve at any point in time. The most up-to-date software libraries are going to be those created by Autodesk and Bentley. Beyond DWG and DGN, the agreement to support reciprocal use of one another’s API just makes good sense. Bentley has acquired a bunch of interesting software companies over time, many that produce third-party applications that run on top of Autodesk software. Autodesk has Revit and would certainly like to tap into Bentley’s customer base. Who Wins and Who Loses? I’ve heard some folks say they think Autodesk comes out on top of Bentley in this deal. I doubt it. My take is that both Autodesk and Bentley will gain far more from not having the other messing with them behind the scenes than they’ll potentially lose in customer migration. Major joint customers of Autodesk and Bentley win, in the near term, with this deal. However, the resulting benefits could become less obvious if this agreement causes Autodesk or Bentley to pull back its efforts to support open standards. One could reasonably argue that this arrangement could harm competing companies of Autodesk and Bentley in the AEC software market. Given the combined Autodesk–Bentley share of that market and the dearth of adequate substitutes for the technologies involved, this deal could end up on the radar screen of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the European Commission (see U.S. Department of Justice and FTC Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/ guidelines/0558.htm.). What’s Changed? Quite a bit has changed over time, with respect to DWG and DGN. In late 2006, after new management took over ODA, Autodesk sued and got a court order to remove TrustedDWG from the ODA DWG files. In my view, this makes it impossible for ODA libraries to create DWG files that are 100% compatible with AutoCAD. About the same time, DGNdirect development under way by ODA was stalled. The product languished for a year until ODA introduced a new version, based on DWGdirect code. Is It the Right Thing to Do? In their joint press release, Autodesk and Bentley quote a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) study that found $16 billion per year in losses in the AEC market due to interoperability problems. The reference is rather ironic, given that the two companies’ past actions have likely contributed greatly to that number. If the companies’ only goal is to reduce the direct interoperability costs of their internecine feud, then I’d say, yes, this arrangement is the right thing to do. If, however, their goal is to actually “advance AEC software interoperability,” as their joint press release states, then this arrangement misses the mark. At least, that’s what I’d guess a few hundred of their competitors might say. Evan Yares is an engineering software consultant. From 1998 to 2006, he was executive director and president of the Open Design Alliance (formerly OpenDWG Alliance). He is the recipient of the 2008 CAD Society Joe Greco Community Award. Visit his Web site at www.evanyares.com. Why Do the Deal? Truth is, I don’t know what motives underlie Autodesk’s and Bentley’s agreement. I do know, however, that both companies have tremendous power in the AEC software market. And they’re both aggressive. Although it’s possible that Bentley’s experience with ODA pushed it to make this deal with Autodesk, it’s just as likely that some of its big customers laid it on the line — Bentley tends toward large customers — and Bentley forged the agreement to respond to those demands. As for Autodesk, the reason could have been the company’s inability to create an adequate DGN library, a desire August 2008 cadalyst www.cadalyst.com 35 http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.htm http://www.evanyares.com http://www.cadalyst.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Cadalyst - August 2008

Cadalyst - August 2008 Contents Editor's Window CAD Central Tech Trends: Rotor Bug Strikes Again Cadalyst Labs Reviews: Digital Dreams — Visualization Software: Make Your Design Visions a Reality Maple 12 — Math Software AutoLINE 2009 — Linetype Management Add-On Deep Access — Digital-Media Asset Management Software View Point: Examining the Autodesk–Bentley Agreement CAD Manager: Managing Multioffice Mayhem MCAD Modeling: Do You Need Modeling Standards? AEC Insight: Modeling Technology for Building Engineers CAD Cartoon Issue Indexes Hot Tip Harry: Better Living with Objects and Smart Entities

Cadalyst - August 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.