Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.

–Barack Obama, January 20, 2009

Last week in San Francisco temperatures hovered in the high 60s and low 70s, with plenty of sunshine, but I could hear the rumbling thunders of the economic storm across the Bay in San Rafael, Autodesk’s California headquarter. The CAD giant handed out about 750 pink slips, laying off roughly 10% of its workforce. (Read the news story here.)

“Global economic conditions continue to impact our end-user demand,” said Autodesk CEO Carl Bass. “Given the current uncertainty of the economic environment, the cost savings initiatives we are implementing are prudent.”

One casualty of the cut is the Autodesk Location Services, now destined for the private-equity firm Hale Capital Partners. Certain Autodesk software products like Autodesk Insight (for mobile workforce management) and Autodesk LocationLogic (a platform for delivering location-based content and services) are associated with this division. Their fate remains unclear.

The Location Services Developer Program aimed at the proliferation of location-smart wireless services may also be in jeopardy. As it bids farewell to the division, Autodesk noted, “This move will help position the Location Services business for greater success in the wireless industry.”

Layoffs from Autodesk were preceded by those from Adobe. On December 5, two weeks before Christmas, the graphics and design software maker trimmed 600 jobs, an 8% reduction of its workforce.

As I type, IBM HR managers might be roaming the floors, looking for the unfortunate employees named in the company’s cut. Larry Dignan reported on ZDNet, “We’re getting numerous instant messages, pings, and posts about IBM layoffs going down today.”

So the storm rages on, amidst our hope that the new administration will navigate the country (and the world) through these troubled waters.

I distrust statistics because they tell me nothing about the individuals that make up the numbers. Do you have a story to share about your profession? About your industry? Are you optimistic that the turnaround is just around the corner? Or are you skeptical?

I’d like to know.

How would you feel about working on a desktop PC that’s not on your desk?

Teradici, a compression technology developer, thinks you won’t mind. The company is coming up with what it calls PC-over-IP, a remote computing solution that lets you dial into a powerful workstation from a portal the size of a standard hardcover book (as seen in the image here). The little upright contraption has no CPU, GPU, or operating systems. It comes with several USB ports (so you can plug your keyboard, mouse, and a few peripherals to it) and HD speakers. (For more, read the news item here.)

As the name suggests, PC-over-IP works similar to how Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) works. With VoIP, you send and receive audio over the Internet. With PC-over-IP, you exchange code streams with a remote computer via a LAN, WAN, or wireless network.

I suspect some people (including me) might have a hard time adjusting to the absence of the physical hardware. On the other hand, I won’t mind reclaiming some desk space by relocating my PC, preferably far enough away that I won’t have to deal with the humming and the heat from the machine.

IT managers and CAD managers would probably love PC-over-IP because users are less likely to be able to upload and download data without authorization (system administrators can configure the back-end computers so USB drives are not permitted). They can also troubleshoot, fix bugs, and install software without having to go to where the users are physically located.

Teradici’s online demonstration shows how its PC-over-IP delivers high-quality graphics content comparable to what you would get from a local machine.

In a sense, we are using a mixture of local and remote computing when we’re working online. When we use Facebook, MySpace, or a web-based database, we’re exchanging code streams with remote machines. Sometimes, we send command prompts from the local machine then wait for the remote machine to respond with the request data (rendered images, streaming video, list of suppliers, for example). Other times, the remote server taps into the local machine’s CPU resources to deliver the requested data. As we become more dependent on the Internet, we’ll also find it nearly impossible to distinguish local computing from remote computing.

Maybe we’re ready for desktops that are out of sight. What do you think?

Who owns the right to the term DWG? Can Autodesk, as the company behind this proprietary format, limit its competition’s use of the term? Is the term generic enough that SolidWorks can liberally sprinkle its marketing literature with it (as in DWGeditor, DWGgateway, DWGseries, DWGviewer, and so on) without stepping on Autodesk’s toe? These are just a few of the questions Judge William Alsup had to consider when SolidWorks’ filed a motion to have Autodesk’s case against it dismissed.

In September 2008, Autodesk filed a lawsuit against SolidWorks, alleging unfair competition, false designation of origin, false advertising, and trademark infringement, among others. (See previous blog post “Autodesk to SolidWorks: Play Fair,” October 1, 2008). In its complaint, Autodesk argued, “DWG is not a generic or even a merely descriptive term. Instead, DWG is recognized by design professionals as the name for Autodesk’s proprietary technology and file format …” Therefore, SolidWorks is “seeking to trade off of or undermine Autodesk’s accumulated goodwill” when it uses “the term DWG in product names, domain names, and associated websites, which specifically target AutoCAD users.”

Autodesk also argued, “In an effort to further confuse consumers and blur the line between its products and Autodesk’s, DS [Dassault Systemes] SolidWorks has adopted a logo design that improperly mimics Autodesk’s trade dress and RealDWG mark … recently, DS SolidWorks has embarked on a marketing campaign featuring a logo design that combines the ‘real’ element of Autodesk’s RealDWG program and tagline with the distinctive trade dress found on the Autodesk Inventor packaging.”

As evidence, Autodesk presented these two images (top image shows Autodesk Inventor box; bottom image shows SolidWorks’ web banner).

In the motion to dismiss, SolidWorks argued Autodesk cannot state a claim for unfair competition and false designation of origin based on the use of DWG and Real because these terms are generic. But the judge, for his own legal reasons, denied SolidWorks’ motion to dismiss based on this ground.

On the issue with the orange square, the judge noted, “It is unclear whether Autodesk contends the mark and the tagline are part of the total image, design, and appearance of the product that constitutes its trade dress.” Consequently, he dismissed Autodesk’s trade dress infringement claim.

Did SolidWorks commit false advertising when it claimed SolidWorks’ “unique capability helps you maintain file and design process compatibility, win business, and save time–all while avoiding expensive AutoCAD upgrade costs or subscription fees”?

Not so, according to the judge. He felt that was just “puffery,” an acceptable exaggeration for marketing purpose. “No reasonable buyer would rely [on puffery]” to make purchase decision, the judge noted. Apparently, “puffery” is not “false advertising,” so SolidWorks is off the hook for making that statement.

But what about SolidWorks’ other claims that its products will “save DWG files to any version of AutoCAD software” and allow users to “open, edit, and share DWG data more effectively with others”? The judge felt the validity of those statements ought to be decided by a jury, not him.

We can expect Autodesk legal eagles to revise the problematic portions in the original complaint and come back for another round. So the battle over DWG continues. (For the complete text of the order, visit www.cadcourt.com, which tracks court cases related to CAD).

So what are your thoughts on the case and the judge’s reasoning?

Across the street from my apartment, my neighbors are preoccupied with the annual ritual of stringing Christmas lights on the roof, the windows, and the front porch. Hollies and ivies are showing up everywhere. So are white-bearded figures in red outfits with ruddy cheeks, doing their best to preserve the myth of Saint Nick. ‘Tis the season!

Looking back at the stories I’ve covered in 2008, I came up with a short list of the ones that I personally believe will have a lasting impact on our community:

1. eBay seller Vernor’s lawsuit against Autodesk: The outcome of this lawsuit will reshape how software vendors market, sell, and license their products. It will also dictate what software users can and cannot do with the software they’ve paid for.

2. The rising popularity of Software as a Service (SaaS): Some call this model “on demand.” Others call it “subscription.” Whatever your preferred phrase is, the principle is the same: You pay a small fee every month to access and use the features of software that are hosted on a server (or servers) elsewhere. In fact, most of us are actively using SaaS solutions right now; we just don’t refer to them as such. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and Google Maps fall into this category. This method is appealing particularly to small and midsize businesses because they don’t need an IT staff to install, update, manage, and troubleshoot the software. Personally, I think SaaS may become the norm in the future.

3. The launch of Synchronous Technology: In April, when Siemens unveiled what it described as “the next big breakthrough in digital product development,” it prompted a range of reactions, both favorable and unfavorable. What the company demonstrated was a modeling environment that permits traditional history-based modeling as well as direct modeling (also known as explicit modeling or freeform modeling). Some people dismissed Siemens’ “next big breakthrough” claim as hyperbole. Others welcomed it. Whatever your opinion might be, you have to concede Siemens has initiated a long overdue dialog–the time has come for a hybrid modeling environment–one where engineers and designers are free to use both parametric and nonparametric protocols as they see fit.

4. Autodesk’s purchase of Softimage: With this acquisition, Autodesk emerges as the owner of what many consider the Holy Trinity of 3D modeling in media and entertainment (M&E): 3ds Max, Maya, and Softimage. To me, the uneasy relationship between M&E and CAD is like the ongoing bickering between Oscar Madison and Felix Unger, the two main characters from Neil Simon’s play The Odd Couple (I’ll leave you to decide which discipline represents the impulsive, brash Oscar and which the fastidious, straight-laced Felix). In recent years, however, M&E technologies are finding their way into CAD (AEC visualization and simulation are the two areas where this is most evident).

5. Energy efficiency software going mainstream: In August, Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES), known for its energy analysis package IES <VE>, released a Google SketchUp plug-in. Essentially, with this plug-in, architects can use the free version of Google SketchUp, along with the VE-Ware module IES distributes for free, to perform some basic energy analyses on their models–without paying a dime.

6. Rumors of PTC going up for sale: In September, Financial Times reported PTC has hired Goldman Sachs to find a buyer for itself. The original article cited an unnamed source. I never managed to confirm whether PTC was, indeed, put up for sale. But if true, it’s something that could fundamentally alter the competitive landscape of the product lifecycle management (PLM) market. This is a field dominated by the Big Three: Dassault Systemes, PTC, and Siemens.

What are your thoughts? Looking back at the year that’s drawing to an end, what do you remember as the most significant events in your industry, your line of work, your life?

Thanks for your support over the years! You, our readers, have been an inspiration and a driving force to me. I’ll continue to champion your causes in 2009 and beyond.

This year, three competing events were taking place on Wednesday night, leaving the AU attendees in a quandary. Do they go to the AU Design Slam (7-9 PM), Pecha Kucha Night (7-8:30 PM), or the Annual AUGI Beer Bust (6-9 PM)?

The AU Design Slam, which premiered this year, was a creativity tournament presented by Cut&Paste. Pecha Kucha Night was an open-mike event where a series of speakers regaled the audience with fast-paced presentations (they were allowed to display 20 images, rotating at 20 seconds per image, which gave them exactly 6 minutes and 40 seconds to make their point). The AUGI Beer Bust was exactly what the name suggested. Since all three events promised plenty of free food and beverages, the decision to pick one and forgo the other two wasn’t easy. Some ambitious souls decided to go to all three. I was among them.

At 7:45 PM, I tore myself away from the Beer Bust, rode the escalator to the 5th floor, then joined the Design Slam already in progress. By then, the first round, where contestants were asked to use Revit to explore the themes of “Less is More” and “Less AND More” in an architectural context, was coming to an end. The second round, dubbed “Watch This,” was about to begin.

It soon became clear to me that “Watch This” was a play on words. This round involved designing timepieces, or watches, using the Alias Studio and SketchBook Pro software on pen tablets. On the podium, Coralee Sandee, an industrial designer from Kohler, and Rob Wurm, a former industrial designer from Kohler, were furiously scribbling away. I couldn’t stick around long enough to find out how they did against their competition. A few corridors away, Pecha Kucha Night was kicking into high gear.

I walked in just as Professor Brigid O’Kane took the stage. With an associates degree in graphic design from Macomb College, a BFA in industrial design from the College for Creative Studies, and a MFA in drawing at the University of Cincinnati, O’Kane is ideally suited to comment on the friction between the two AU segments that don’t always see eye to eye: the industrial designers and the engineers. Her metaphor for the two groups was “the hairball and the cube.”

“Designers engage in divergence thinking,” she noted. In other words, they explore the various possible venues in which a concept can be realized. Engineers, by contrast, “often take many facts and put them into a single thing, which is called convergence thinking.”

She revealed that, In her workshops, which aim to foster a closer working relationship between the designers and engineers, she asks the designers to perform engineering tasks and asks the engineers to design. “Revising roles of industrial designers and engineers,” she suggested, could produce “high performance interdisciplinary teams.”

Jeremy Strobel, another presenter, impressed the audience with his use of Revit and Photoshop to create architectural presentation boards (which could be described as exploded views of an architectural assembly). When his time was up, he said, “If anyone wants to hire me, come talk to me,” turning his presentation into a job search. (To view a video clip of Strobel talking about his AU experience, visit the Autodesk Education video gallery here.)

During our inaugural Meet & Greet event, some of you came by our booth. In Cadalyst Discussion Forum and in this blog, I’ve been exchanging words with a few of you (like R. K. McSwain, who maintains the CAD Panacea blog) from time to time, so I’m grateful for the chance to finally meet you and receive your compliments and feedback in person. One reader (whose name I forgot to jot down) suggested we incorporate more multimedia content, like podcasts and video clips. I couldn’t agree more. I promise to explore some ways to incorporate them into our content.

In a few days, I’ll file my AU roundup, featuring the people and products I discovered on the show floor. But now, I really must rest my feet and get some sleep.

Greetings from the Venetian, the site of Autodesk University 2008!

I’m waiting for Autodesk to provide me with the official headcount for the conference, but, judging from the ebbing human tide along the carpeted walkway that bridges the guest towers and the convention center, thousands of Autodesk fans have turned up here in spite of the grim economy.

This year’s special guest is Tom Kelly, general manager of the design firm IDEO and author of The Ten Faces of Innovation. Kelly’s firm is known for coming up with creative (and, sometimes, unorthodox) ideas, such as a patch for delivering vaccine to needle-phobic patients or a polymer-based kettle that’s cool to the touch. He advocated, among other innovative practices, the “wet nap” interface–the design of the prepackaged wet napkin that’s so simple the instruction reads, “Tear open and use.”

But such simplicity often doesn’t come easily. It’s the result of asking “What if?” to the point of exhaustion: What if we build something taller, shorter, in another material, in a more playful shape, and so on. “The design software can help you answer these questions,” he said. “It can help you understand the consequences of those iterations.”

In his keynote speech, Autodesk president and CEO Carl Bass cited Thomas Edison, who once famously declared, “Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.” If designing a good user experience involves generating many possible permutations of a product before picking the best option, the daunting iterative process might be the perspiration. So Bass proposed we leave the sweating to the software and the hardware.

Automating Perspiration

Despite the increase in hardware horsepower and software complexity, Autodesk CTO Jeff Kowalski believes,  when it comes to user experience, technology hasn’t progressed much since the day of the C prompt (the well-known C:\> command). “We still have to tell the computer to do exactly what we want it to do,” he fretted. In other words, the computer remains a passive machine. Kowalski would prefer to “have the computer anticipate what we want to do,” or “ask the computer to propose a number of possible design options.”

Such a scenario might involve, for instance, programming Ecotect, the building energy analysis software Autodesk recently acquired, to automatically calculate and propose a building envelope that would satisfy the client’s energy efficiency criteria, based on the surrounding structure’s orientations and the project site’s climate.

Seeking Inspiration

Running out of ideas? Stuck with a problem? You might turn to nature and numbers for inspiration, Bass suggested.

When it comes to iterative experimentation, nature tops the list, Bass reminded his audience. He suggested we observe how nature solves certain practical problems. In architecture, such a movement is well underway, under the name biomimicry. Bass’ examples included the Japanese Shinkansen bullet train, with a nose shaped like a Kingfisher’s beak. Mimicking the efficient aerodynamics of the bird’s beak allows the vehicle to travel at high speed with reduced noise.

(You can read about biomorphic design, which, some argue, is not quite the same as biomimicry, in my upcoming Tech Trends column “Designed After Our Own Image.” For this article, I’m indebted to Peter Anderson from Anderson Anderson Architecture, a San Francisco architect who invited me to visit his office to observe the process of designing a series of human-shaped residential towers, conceived in a mix of SketchUp, Revit, and Rhino.)

Number-driven design is known as algorithmic design. The process, which uses a set of algorithms to generate shapes, has been used by stone artists who participated in an exhibit in China, Autodesk reported. I won’t pretend to comprehend the concept, but those who want to know more should seek out participants of the Inaugural Design Computation Symposium at AU, hosted by Robert Aish. (Try as I might, I couldn’t find a listing of this event in the show catalog. However, I knew it occurred, since several AU bloggers discussed their attendance.)

Print a Motorcycle

Most attendees would agree that the showstopper was the full-size motorcycle (unveiled to the classic rock tune “Born to be Wild”), designed in Autodesk Inventor, printed in 3D with a Stratasys 3D printer. Though producing 3D mockups and functional prototypes through the use of 3D printers is nothing new, this could be one of the earliest examples of a full-size operational vehicle produced using such methods. The demonstration puts a new twist on Autodesk’s previous evangelism for digital manufacturing. While encouraging the use of digital prototypes for iterative design, Autodesk has also devoted a fair amount of R&D efforts to ensure its digital models can be swiftly fabricated and produced in physical forms.

More reports from the show floor coming soon, including a look at Autodesk’s stance on cloud computing, snapshots from the Design Slam, and conversations on the show floor.

Yesterday, as I was making my way through the sessions at Adobe MAX (Moscone West, San Francisco, California, Nov 16-19), two figures crouching on the floor caught my eyes. Sitting cross-legged like a pair of Buddhas, they were smiling at everyone passing by. They had little paper signs before them. Considering the grim economy, I expected the signs to read “Will work for food” (or, in a more targeted approach, “Will do Flash programming for a BLT”). Together, their makeshift advertisements read:

• Need Freelance Work?
• I’m looking for freelancers! UI and Graphic Design, Flash, Flex, AIR, Web Design, and more …

“This is just a gimmick to get people’s attention, to start a conversation,” said Shane Pearlman, part of the duo operating a contractor management agency called Shane and Peter (S&P).

On their Web site, they told the story of the origin of their business: “Two people meet in a coffee shop while working on their laptops. They quickly discover that they have much in common and a great deal to learn from each other. A friendship was born. A partnership was forged … This is a case study of a global phenomenon. Portable technology and wireless access to information have inspired a revolution in business practices. Highly skilled professionals are now in control of their schedule, their income, their work, and their lifestyle … Our mission is to build a comprehensive network of independent contractors and to mediate their skills with the business needs of our clients.”

I know outsourcing is a sensitive topic. Talks of it can open old wounds and spawn new anxieties. But I wonder if we might be in a better position to deal with it, to take it in strides, if we adopt a different attitude, like Shane and Peter.

(My report on Adobe MAX is now live.)

[Note: This version contains updates to the original post published on 11/04.] We all know it takes place. While I type here, a number of people are bidding on a copy of AutoCAD Architecture 2009 on eBay. The item has received at least five bids. The latest bid is $510. At the same time, a copy of AutoCAD 2009 is awaiting openning bid. The seller has listed the beginning price as $2,000. I wonder if either of these sellers have heard of Timothy Vernor.

Vernor’s suit against Autodesk essentially brought to the forefront the complex issues surrounding software resale on eBay (read “Genie Out of the Bottle” in September Tech Trends column). To summerize, Vernor, a vintage comics collector and trader on eBay, sued the AutoCAD giant in August 2007. He claimed Autodesk repeatedly interfered with his trading activitie on eBay, resulting in the suspension of his eBay seller account for approximately 30 days in one instance. Autodesk, like most software developers, objected to Vernor’s attempts to put up used copies of AutoCAD on eBay for resale.

Autodesk declined to comment on my Tech Trends draft the last time I contacted them, but pointed out they uphold the Business Software Alliance’s (BSA) policy. BSA’s declares, “When you purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use it, not the actual software. . . . If you make more copies of the software than the license permits, you are pirating.”

According to the latest update, posted at CAD/Court, a site devoted to tracking legal issues related to CAD software, Autodesk and Vernor have reached an agreement to drop Vernor’s Second Claim for Relief. In the order filed dated Oct 29, their attorneys asked to dismiss this claim “with prejudice, along with the relief requested in the First Amended Complaint’s Demand for Relief numbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 6.”

The section in question includes the following assertions made by Vernor:

• Autodesk’s license agreement prohibiting transfers of its software is unconscionable and unlawfully restricts rights guaranteed by the Copyright Act …
• Autodesk’s copyright in its software does not give it the right to prohibit resale of its lawfully acquired products …
• Autodesk’s use of and enforcement of its license terms are unfair methods of competition, unfair or deceptive practices, and unlawful restraints of trade …

Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 6 from Vernor’s previous Demand for Relief call for:

• Actual damages and punitive damages;
• Treble damages …
• Attorneys’ fees and expenses …
• Such other relief as the Court finds appropriate.

Owen Wengerd, who maintains the CAD/Court site, observed, “In the settlement, Vernor agrees to drop his demand for a declaratory judgement that Autodesk has no right to interfere with Vernor’s sale of Autodesk software, and his demand for an injunction prohibiting Autodesk from further interference. In exchange, Autodesk agrees to pay actual and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and ’such other relief as the Court finds appropriate.’ Essentially Vernor got everything he wanted, as the court’s previous order denying Autodesk’s motion to dismiss is almost as good as an injunction. By settling this secondary claim for a relatively small amount, Autodesk can now focus its resources on the more important and far-reaching remaining issues regarding whether the software is sold or licensed, and hence whether the first sale doctrine applies.”

To me (someone with a limited understanding of how the legal system works), it seems the Court sided with Vernor, paving the way for other eBay sellers. But I suppose I, along with others, will have to wait to find out if these sellers can cite “The First Sale Doctrine,” as Vernor did, to conduct software resale on the online auction site in the future.

If you’re willing to entertain a few questions, please give me your responses on the following:

• Have you ever bought or sold used software (CAD or any other kind) on eBay?
• As a software buyer, do you feel you should have the right to buy used software? (Software vendors tend to argue that the original buyer holds a nontransferable license, not a product, thus the transfer is not legal.)
• When you no longer have use for a certain software, do you feel you should have the right to resell it?

Here’s the deal: You show us your CAD and GIS tricks. In return, we might send you some treats.

First, I ought to explain the editorial “we” (not to be confused with the royal “we”). It’s a reference to the editors behind Cadalyst and its sister publication Geospatial Solutions.

The CAD tricks you share with us can be a LISP script to maintain multiple selection sets, a VBA script for managing and running special routines from a custom folder, or some other workarounds and shortcuts (for the two mentioned here, search for item 3012 and 3006 in our CAD tips archive). Your submission becomes part of the Hot Tip Harry Code Contest, making you eligible to win a $100 American Express gift certificate in our monthly search for top tips. In addition, we also do a monthly drawing to identify a random winner from the pool of published tip authors featured in the Tips and Tools weekly newsletter to receive a $100 gift certificate. Read the guidelines here.

Similarly, you can submit your GIS tricks to Geospatial Solutions’ application contest. Obviously, we can’t handle an onslaught of entries comprising 150 MB applications with GB-size datasets. So instead, the editors and the invited judges request a 500-word description of your innovative or cost-effective application, along with two to four maps or images (JPG, BMP, EPS, or TIFF files), to be received before the deadline, November 28, 2008. In 2006, Shannon McElvaney, an information solutions consultant, and Blair Adams, director of operations, CH2M HILL, snatched the 1st prize for combining a set of spacial tools — GPS devices, Bluetooth-enabled data collectors, Google Earth, and ESRI’s ArcGIS — to study crop yields (read the story here).

Your submission gives you the chance to win a GeoExpress Tools software from LizardTec, a GPS Bluelogger with XMap 5.2 Professional software from DeLorm, or an ERDAS TITAN GeoHub. Read contest rules here. (Note: The contest is sponsored by DLT Solutions, an Autodesk government reseller; judging is done by an independent panel of geospatial industry insiders.)

If you can’t write a LISP routine or a GIS program, you can still win something by writing plain English. HP is currently sponsoring an essay contest titled “Working Differently.” In your own words, tell the computer maker how HP Workstations with Intel quad-core technology have changed the way you work. You could win an HP xw6600 workstation with a quad-core Intel processor and an HP L2475w 24-inch Widescreen LCD monitor, a combo that’s valued $3,382. But you need to turn in your essay by the deadline, December 31. If you miss that, some other pumpkin with a flair for storytelling would have snatched up the coveted HP system. (Note: This contest is to be judged by HP; Cadalyst editors are not involved. Read the rules here.)

I’m off to pick my pumpkin and my costume!

Less than 12 hours after I issued a general plea for help on Twitter, Ken Clayton, SolidWorks’ vice president of North America sales, called me to clear up the fog around my recent news item on the SolidWorks installment offer. (I have a feeling I owe this swift turnaround to SolidWorks’ social media manager Matthew West’s intervention.)

Here are Clayton’s responses to my inquiries:

Question: Is the SolidWorks installment offer available to a select few or to everyone?

Answer: According to Clayton, the program isn’t exactly new. What’s new is the company’s use its marketing force to actively promote it, in recognition of the fact that it would be more appealing during these times of economic uncertainty. “The program has existed for a long time,” said Clayton, “but the decision to add our marketing muscles, to add the no-pay-for-90-days arrangement, and to advertise it to the engineering community was directly related to the other news [about the economy] out there.”

Question. What is the expiration date? (There’s a conflict between the data in SolidWorks’ sales sheet, which lists December 18 as the deadline, and Javelin Technologies’ reference to same offer, which lists December 31 as the deadline.)

Answer: It’s not December 18, as it’s stated in the official announcement, nor is it December 31, as listed at Javelin Technologies’ site. Clayton revealed that, internally, SolidWorks considers December 22 as the deadline (that’s because everyone will be too preoccupied with Christmas in the last week of December). But if this program has always existed as an option, perhaps a deadline is moot. In all likelihood, SolidWorks would continue to offer this arrangement to potential buyers.

Question. Are SolidWorks VARs offering 12- and 24-month plans in addition to the 36-month plan announced by SolidWorks? (SolidWorks only lists the 36-month term, but Javelin Technologies’ offer lists 12- and 24-month terms as well.)

Answer: In addition to the 36-month terms, 12- and 24-month terms are available too.

Question. Perhaps most importantly, what happens to the software if someone stops making payment before his or her terms are up? (For example, will his or her PC explode in a puff of smoke?)

Answer: The buyer’s PC won’t self destruct, but the third-party financing company will be free to initiate standard collection protocols.

Clayton couldn’t provide an exact figure on how much the deposit amount required is. (The installment offer requires a $75 documentation fee, along with an unspecified deposit.) “It’s hard for me to say [how much the deposit is], becuase it depends on the total purchase,” explained Clayton. “But it’s a percentage of the total, not a significant percentage.”

I’d still like to hear from SolidWorks VARs on how (or if) this offer is generating new deals.