"Federal appeals court ruled today that the first sale doctrine is "unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works." This reverses a 2008 decision from the Autodesk case, in which a man was selling used copies of AutoCAD that were not currently installed on any computers. Autodesk objected to the sales because their license agreement did not permit the transfer of ownership. Today's ruling (PDF) upholds Autodesk's claims: "We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Applying our holding to Autodesk’s [software license agreement], we conclude that CTA was a licensee rather than an owner of copies of Release 14 and thus was not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense."
Does anyone else think Autodesk is the most evil software company ever to participate in construction industry?
I'm switching over to MS Paint for my drafting needs!
I am troubled that you may not understand the concept of open-source though. It has nothing to do with stealing. The wiki article on open-source says it much better than I ever could. It's a beautiful world where information is shared for the benefit of societal well being! Architecture should be included in that article as well. They do include pharmaceuticals as a counterpoint though.
Funny you should mention pharmaceuticals. They have, long ago, abandoned research on finding cures and have focused on discovering life-long treatments. Take these pills 4 times a day, for the rest of your life. Companies like Autodesk are insanely jealous! They want the subscription model as well. Big pharma is as guilty of skyrocketing health care costs as anyone else. I also recommend listening to the episode of "this American life" where they talk about an aggressive (and very successful) campaign by big pharma to combat generic drugs through use of coupons (that pray on general lack of interest by the public).
The gist of that story:
Cost of generic drug: $200. Your drug co-pay $40.
Cost of brand-name drug $1500. Your drug co-pay (once you include the $40 coupon) $0.
End result: everyone wants the second option, and as a result everyone's insurance rate goes up!
I feel nothing but hatred towards pharmaceuticals. Almost as much as I do towards Monsanto. If you have friends in that industry, your opinion will be biased. Their agenda is predictable.
Rusty!
Sep 14, 10 1:31 am
Thank you jmanganelli !! You have eloquently described what I've been yapping about but with so fewer words. It's nice to have a fellow geek jump in and re-state the idea.
National Science Foundation's requirements are a great example of what innovation should strive for. Traditionally, architecture has been a closed-source profession since the age of freemasons. Even international style took over a decade to spread internationally (ha!).
But now we have means of instantaneous communication that should eliminate obvious restrictions. Like paying for a digital copy of the building code (or any one of the ASTM standards). Yet old thinking and business models persist.
Autodesk is a just a corporate hurdle towards a seamless exchange of ideas, and I only hope to see such obstacle overcome in my lifetime...
Distant Unicorn
Sep 14, 10 2:08 am
Well, the better question is what exactly can you make in architecture open source?
Software? Except that many individuals of the AEC are incapable of actually scripting software.
Plans? Most plans and documentation are public record meaning you can request blueprints of nearly building through the municipality it is located in.
Details? Specs? Standards? Definitely. But people, however, get paid to do preliminary testing to make sure these things are safe and sound.
Pictures, renders, movies, books, et cetera? Most of these things are released to the general public because they're a form of marketing and brand building.
The make architecture opensource... a lot of people who have to be willfully create "free" consumable content and just as many people would have to validate same consumable content.
In that sense, how many people on architecture haunts on the internet post their work? How many people are willing to share personal projects? How many projects are shared somewhat selflessly or in jest?
The reason I presume that many things aren't shared in architecture because every secret is potentially something someone uses as competition against another. The other reason is that doing architecture recreationally or for sharing purposes takes up time you could be doing architecture for profit.
In other open sourced or crowd sourced professions, much of the work is done just to do it, to experiment and to have fun.
I don't see very many architectural projects done just for the shits of doing it.
Rusty!
Sep 14, 10 4:20 am
Unicorn, there are plenty of people willing to share their architectural design ideas with anyone willing to look. Much of arch work published on websites such as dezeen and architizer (among many, many others) are of the never-built never-will-be-built variety. Most publicity is good publicity. To claim that anyone in this profession is withholding some kind of a game-changing idea is laughable.
The type of copying that architects accuse each other of plagiarizing are
typically fueled by inflated egos. That part of architecture will never change.
jmanganelli
Sep 14, 10 5:31 am
perhaps architecture for humanity is developing the model of architectural production for the future
or instructables
or some form of extreme programming adapted to design
or the ocean research collaborative as a model --- you join a problem-solving/design/research guild and choose as a collective what challenges to address
consider, too, that IPD is pushing design in this direction --- not only is collaboration preferable, but it may be downright unethical and reckless from a health, human safety and risk management perspective not to collaborate extensively right from the programming stage --- who "owns" the idea(s) then?
also, ss is correct, lots of people are willing to share their ideas and efforts
Donna Sink
Sep 14, 10 10:00 am
I'm enjoying this conversation very much too.
It's a beautiful world where information is shared for the benefit of societal well being!
I love the notion that this is where we can and should go. I love Arch for Humanity's Open Architecture Network.
But I both want to play devil's advocate AND I don't understand, on a very basic level; so please, educate an old person who is stuck in the way things have been done traditionally: what is the motivation to create something if it doesn't have the opportunity to make a profit? Answer: for the joy of doing it, of course. It's a beautiful idea. But how do I feed myself while I create things simply for joy?
jmanganelli said this: Perhaps what we do and not what we own will be our source of wealth b/c the value of what we own is not stable enough to serve as a basis for security. I'm guessing the answer is somewhere in this sentence. But doesn't that turn people into administrators (I can manage any project, not only my own designs, from master plan through construction for a client) and not creators? Why would a client hire me to design a custom home for them if the same house is likely to be copied and built next door more cheaply by someone who did NOT hire me. Why would my client not just use a spec plan and only hire me to manage the process? Where is the fun in that for me?! (I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, as I love every aspect of what I do - design isn't even my favorite part.) For commercial clients, why wouldn't they just build a Butler Building for their school/church/office/store instead of hiring someone to give them a personal, specific "brand" identity that suits their context/community/site?
I realize the discussion gets murky when we start comparing software, architecture, and pharmaceuticals. There are lots of differences in intellectual property between those disciplines, I know.
jmanganelli
Sep 14, 10 2:52 pm
Donna, great points. For me, I suppose I'm showing my bias. In my (admittedly) limited experience, often less experienced people can end up in leadership positions for which we do not possess adequate knowledge, this we must collaborate in order to manage risk and expedite our own development, otherwise we are (IMO) being somewhat reckless and in efficient. At the same time, having been in the position of managing the work and time of people much more experienced than myself, I find few things as thorny or potentially detrimental as an experienced person who lacks knowledge in a key area (or several) and yet feels they should know and so speaks without knowledge or tries to downplay the relevance of the area in question. It is not a personal failing, relevant knowledge changes quickly. So while I value authority and experience, in my experience robust collaboration is essential.
I see robust collaboration being institutionalized in IPD, as well as the new NSF proposal requirements and elsewhere. For instance, I was at a systems-design/management-approach conf two years ago and there was a discussion on the commercialization of space exploration and nasa's resistance b/c they are losing their privileged position of being engineers and scientists in such an exclusive context that they get to function like artists, whether or not it is cost-effective or produces the best products. Similarly, I had a discussion just a few weeks ago with an engineer about the emerging shift to co-evolve hardware, software & human-computer interaction as the most cost-effective, successful (performance-wise) way to develop interactive environments. The engineer pointed out that there us substantial resistance to such collaborative approaches b/c currently hardware developers and software developers and industrial designers all have there domains which are black boxes of mystical knowledge to all others involved and this allows them a degree of expression and indulgence in their work that a truly open process threatens. They are resisting but know it is ultimately futile.
So to conclude, I am not advocating this shift so much as identifying it as a de facto condition of my career to which I must adapt or accept limited opportunity. But it is a large trend,not just in arch but more broadly so I don't take it personally.
Rusty!
Sep 14, 10 4:43 pm
“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” —Albert Einstein
Donna, noone is asking anyone else to provide free content. At the same time it's important to note that things are different from what they were 20 years ago.
Classic mode of education : Professor to pupil during a desk crit: "Have you seen the project by such and such?" The student will then go to the library are hope that magazine that has the project details is not currently on loan. He/she will then try to incorporate the best ideas of said project into their own. This is how I studied architecture.
Today it's possible to have the same crit done and with the aid of computer and google you can have instantaneous point of reference. That should be considered a great advancement in education tools.
It's really easy (these days) to look up any project in less than a minute. In fact, as I previously mentioned, the net is littered with all kinds of wacky proposals that will not be built.
There used to be a point when keeping up with current architectural trends meant subscribing to a bunch of magazines, and buying expensive books. This has all been (mostly) replaced by the net. I really feel like I'm on top of architectural news and happenings now more so than ever before in my life. This is a great thing! Sure, the noise to signal ratio is also higher (ie, every single unicorn post), but I don't mind. :)
All of the technological advancements have enabled the design professionals to become what they've always strived to be: true collaborators. But now on a global scale.
Donna, someone completely ripping off your plans in an attempt to undercut you is a completely different issue. It's theft and should be treated as such. It's a shame you can't afford a lawyer. Or at least to hire a couple of Albanians to pay the scummy developer an informal visit.
jplourde
Sep 14, 10 4:50 pm
I think the main driver of real change might be when the underlying logic changes.
2d AutoCAD only differs from 2d hand drafting in that it's faster. As such, Autodesk has a vested interest in making sure the logic stays the same. [Layers, vector lines, references, etc.] What would happen if building's started to be printed rather than based on predescribed modules? What would happen if the deliverables where a digital point cloud rather than a 2d drawing printed on paper?
The work of Neri Oxman and Mike Silver springs to mind.
I think BIM is certainly a step in the right direction, but it's not the end all be all.
Likewise, I'm sure the original post was aimed at 'now' or even 'ten years from now', and I might be evoking the '100 years from now' response.
However, AutoDesk isn't the ONLY supplier of high octane design platforms. Bentley is a fair example, I think, of an alternative. Likewise, McNeel has made Rhino nearly open source in it's fluidity with other programs [I do not condone pirating].
Distant Unicorn
Sep 14, 10 4:56 pm
Sure, the noise to signal ratio is also higher (ie, every single unicorn post), but I don't mind.
jmanganelli
Sep 14, 10 5:05 pm
that is a very fair assessment, jpl
in the lab where my office is located, the researchers work with printed sensors & RFID's, printed LED lighting and printed batteries
printed sensing, lighting and storage only fractions of a millimeter thick, some of it already close to commercializable
furthermore, philips is far along in operationalizing some technology like this for retail, as per:
so if within 5-10 years sensing and intelligence resides in a film-thin paper or paint applied to architectural surfaces, even if just in novelty applications like museums, hospitals, factories and high-end retail
and if within 20-50 years such sensing and response is becoming standard in all environments, it will change the nature of design quite profoundly
how does one design for a building that senses you, that responds and that has sensing, intelligence and response built in to just surface coverings such that when it is time to change its intelligence -- literally, its program -- perhaps you strip the walls and put on new wall covering or paint
to design for such buildings, design has to be collaborative with many fields beyond MEPT, with verifiable performance
jplourde
Sep 14, 10 5:28 pm
I think BIM provides a logical link, no?
For example [hypothetical only]: I change one line [a governing central line] in a bim model, and it automatically updates the elevations, sections, schedules and details to correspond. Still on the same 2d logic. That's a huge increase in architectural PRODUCTIVITY. But it doesnt address at all the ultimate logic.
Likewise I change a line of code in a printed building and that code updates everything a priori. It's linked to models that the GC, consultants and sub contractors have. It genetically changes the entire building, and all I had to do was change a 'plus' sign to a 'minus' sign. Technology helps business.
I think this is where we are ultimately headed [as far as I can see]. And I think if the market changes then the supplier MUST acquiesce, or face obsoletion. I don't mind if AutoDesk is still around in 20 years, but I want them to be providing me with up to date tools. Otherwise, me and my firm will seek those who can. It's like using a touch tone phone in the age of iphones. Really? REALLY?
Philarch
Sep 14, 10 9:51 pm
"It's a libertarian idea that's mindlessly repeated while ignoring the context and complexity of the circumstances." I don't know about libertarian and "mindlessly", but ultimately the expression of my thoughts are based on my perception of the context. And as part of a discussion regarding being critical of software, I'm of the thinking that software can always be learned, especially the way programs are headed towards intuitive use. Thats why I have always expressed that firms should hire people that know how to design, to collaborate, to understand, the ability to think critically, etc, NOT based on knowledge of software. And sure it is not the path of least resistance to "deploy" new software and it is an investment in resources, BUT you're also putting the firm at risk to follow the status quo since it is easier to do so. It should be a conscious decision to stay with the software you're using.
And this is coming from someone that used to train engineers and architects in Autodesk's Revit. I always opened up the training with - "I'm not a Revit salesman; speak up if you have things you're not happy with, something you feel should be different, etc." Regardless of the nuances of the software, I always brought it back to design, documentation of design, and project delivery. Because thats what its about. Its like how I want to talk more about music, not instruments. Or how I like to talk about the act of riding, not my motorcycle.
The reason AFH's Open Architecture Network works is a good idea, is because it is for those that are in need of design services without the means of being able to afford it as needed. It is not for for-profit organizations or a private client seeking free design services. This is different than what we're talking about.
At the end of the day, what we're talking about is the concept of ownership. And how the internet and broadband infrastructure has changed its meaning. There are those that are profiting from it, and those that fall victim to it. Knowingly, unknowingly, intentionally, unintentionally, it happens.
Next time we pay for software from Autodesk, we should send along with it a disclosure stating that the money is not transferable.
donna, one other thought --- just like with most things, utensils, fabrics, stoneware, doors, windows, furniture, etc, I understand that there will always be artists and always room for designers who fulfill the traditional role of "architect." for such people, their intellectual property is key, just as it would be for an artisan who makes jewelry or pottery, sculpture, furniture, etc. But for the vast majority of architectural design, I think something more like an open collaboration model is inevitable and authorship will be redefined and may be less meaningful.
"Federal appeals court ruled today that the first sale doctrine is "unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works." This reverses a 2008 decision from the Autodesk case, in which a man was selling used copies of AutoCAD that were not currently installed on any computers. Autodesk objected to the sales because their license agreement did not permit the transfer of ownership. Today's ruling (PDF) upholds Autodesk's claims: "We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Applying our holding to Autodesk’s [software license agreement], we conclude that CTA was a licensee rather than an owner of copies of Release 14 and thus was not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense."
Does anyone else think Autodesk is the most evil software company ever to participate in construction industry?
I'm switching over to MS Paint for my drafting needs!
Link to Wired article.
Donna, I'm enjoying this conversation very much!
I am troubled that you may not understand the concept of open-source though. It has nothing to do with stealing. The wiki article on open-source says it much better than I ever could. It's a beautiful world where information is shared for the benefit of societal well being! Architecture should be included in that article as well. They do include pharmaceuticals as a counterpoint though.
Funny you should mention pharmaceuticals. They have, long ago, abandoned research on finding cures and have focused on discovering life-long treatments. Take these pills 4 times a day, for the rest of your life. Companies like Autodesk are insanely jealous! They want the subscription model as well. Big pharma is as guilty of skyrocketing health care costs as anyone else. I also recommend listening to the episode of "this American life" where they talk about an aggressive (and very successful) campaign by big pharma to combat generic drugs through use of coupons (that pray on general lack of interest by the public).
The gist of that story:
Cost of generic drug: $200. Your drug co-pay $40.
Cost of brand-name drug $1500. Your drug co-pay (once you include the $40 coupon) $0.
End result: everyone wants the second option, and as a result everyone's insurance rate goes up!
I feel nothing but hatred towards pharmaceuticals. Almost as much as I do towards Monsanto. If you have friends in that industry, your opinion will be biased. Their agenda is predictable.
Thank you jmanganelli !! You have eloquently described what I've been yapping about but with so fewer words. It's nice to have a fellow geek jump in and re-state the idea.
National Science Foundation's requirements are a great example of what innovation should strive for. Traditionally, architecture has been a closed-source profession since the age of freemasons. Even international style took over a decade to spread internationally (ha!).
But now we have means of instantaneous communication that should eliminate obvious restrictions. Like paying for a digital copy of the building code (or any one of the ASTM standards). Yet old thinking and business models persist.
Autodesk is a just a corporate hurdle towards a seamless exchange of ideas, and I only hope to see such obstacle overcome in my lifetime...
Well, the better question is what exactly can you make in architecture open source?
Software? Except that many individuals of the AEC are incapable of actually scripting software.
Plans? Most plans and documentation are public record meaning you can request blueprints of nearly building through the municipality it is located in.
Details? Specs? Standards? Definitely. But people, however, get paid to do preliminary testing to make sure these things are safe and sound.
Pictures, renders, movies, books, et cetera? Most of these things are released to the general public because they're a form of marketing and brand building.
The make architecture opensource... a lot of people who have to be willfully create "free" consumable content and just as many people would have to validate same consumable content.
In that sense, how many people on architecture haunts on the internet post their work? How many people are willing to share personal projects? How many projects are shared somewhat selflessly or in jest?
The reason I presume that many things aren't shared in architecture because every secret is potentially something someone uses as competition against another. The other reason is that doing architecture recreationally or for sharing purposes takes up time you could be doing architecture for profit.
In other open sourced or crowd sourced professions, much of the work is done just to do it, to experiment and to have fun.
I don't see very many architectural projects done just for the shits of doing it.
Unicorn, there are plenty of people willing to share their architectural design ideas with anyone willing to look. Much of arch work published on websites such as dezeen and architizer (among many, many others) are of the never-built never-will-be-built variety. Most publicity is good publicity. To claim that anyone in this profession is withholding some kind of a game-changing idea is laughable.
The type of copying that architects accuse each other of plagiarizing are
typically fueled by inflated egos. That part of architecture will never change.
perhaps architecture for humanity is developing the model of architectural production for the future
or instructables
or some form of extreme programming adapted to design
or the ocean research collaborative as a model --- you join a problem-solving/design/research guild and choose as a collective what challenges to address
consider, too, that IPD is pushing design in this direction --- not only is collaboration preferable, but it may be downright unethical and reckless from a health, human safety and risk management perspective not to collaborate extensively right from the programming stage --- who "owns" the idea(s) then?
also, ss is correct, lots of people are willing to share their ideas and efforts
I'm enjoying this conversation very much too.
It's a beautiful world where information is shared for the benefit of societal well being!
I love the notion that this is where we can and should go. I love Arch for Humanity's Open Architecture Network.
But I both want to play devil's advocate AND I don't understand, on a very basic level; so please, educate an old person who is stuck in the way things have been done traditionally: what is the motivation to create something if it doesn't have the opportunity to make a profit? Answer: for the joy of doing it, of course. It's a beautiful idea. But how do I feed myself while I create things simply for joy?
jmanganelli said this: Perhaps what we do and not what we own will be our source of wealth b/c the value of what we own is not stable enough to serve as a basis for security. I'm guessing the answer is somewhere in this sentence. But doesn't that turn people into administrators (I can manage any project, not only my own designs, from master plan through construction for a client) and not creators? Why would a client hire me to design a custom home for them if the same house is likely to be copied and built next door more cheaply by someone who did NOT hire me. Why would my client not just use a spec plan and only hire me to manage the process? Where is the fun in that for me?! (I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, as I love every aspect of what I do - design isn't even my favorite part.) For commercial clients, why wouldn't they just build a Butler Building for their school/church/office/store instead of hiring someone to give them a personal, specific "brand" identity that suits their context/community/site?
I realize the discussion gets murky when we start comparing software, architecture, and pharmaceuticals. There are lots of differences in intellectual property between those disciplines, I know.
Donna, great points. For me, I suppose I'm showing my bias. In my (admittedly) limited experience, often less experienced people can end up in leadership positions for which we do not possess adequate knowledge, this we must collaborate in order to manage risk and expedite our own development, otherwise we are (IMO) being somewhat reckless and in efficient. At the same time, having been in the position of managing the work and time of people much more experienced than myself, I find few things as thorny or potentially detrimental as an experienced person who lacks knowledge in a key area (or several) and yet feels they should know and so speaks without knowledge or tries to downplay the relevance of the area in question. It is not a personal failing, relevant knowledge changes quickly. So while I value authority and experience, in my experience robust collaboration is essential.
I see robust collaboration being institutionalized in IPD, as well as the new NSF proposal requirements and elsewhere. For instance, I was at a systems-design/management-approach conf two years ago and there was a discussion on the commercialization of space exploration and nasa's resistance b/c they are losing their privileged position of being engineers and scientists in such an exclusive context that they get to function like artists, whether or not it is cost-effective or produces the best products. Similarly, I had a discussion just a few weeks ago with an engineer about the emerging shift to co-evolve hardware, software & human-computer interaction as the most cost-effective, successful (performance-wise) way to develop interactive environments. The engineer pointed out that there us substantial resistance to such collaborative approaches b/c currently hardware developers and software developers and industrial designers all have there domains which are black boxes of mystical knowledge to all others involved and this allows them a degree of expression and indulgence in their work that a truly open process threatens. They are resisting but know it is ultimately futile.
So to conclude, I am not advocating this shift so much as identifying it as a de facto condition of my career to which I must adapt or accept limited opportunity. But it is a large trend,not just in arch but more broadly so I don't take it personally.
“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” —Albert Einstein
Donna, noone is asking anyone else to provide free content. At the same time it's important to note that things are different from what they were 20 years ago.
Classic mode of education : Professor to pupil during a desk crit: "Have you seen the project by such and such?" The student will then go to the library are hope that magazine that has the project details is not currently on loan. He/she will then try to incorporate the best ideas of said project into their own. This is how I studied architecture.
Today it's possible to have the same crit done and with the aid of computer and google you can have instantaneous point of reference. That should be considered a great advancement in education tools.
It's really easy (these days) to look up any project in less than a minute. In fact, as I previously mentioned, the net is littered with all kinds of wacky proposals that will not be built.
There used to be a point when keeping up with current architectural trends meant subscribing to a bunch of magazines, and buying expensive books. This has all been (mostly) replaced by the net. I really feel like I'm on top of architectural news and happenings now more so than ever before in my life. This is a great thing! Sure, the noise to signal ratio is also higher (ie, every single unicorn post), but I don't mind. :)
All of the technological advancements have enabled the design professionals to become what they've always strived to be: true collaborators. But now on a global scale.
Donna, someone completely ripping off your plans in an attempt to undercut you is a completely different issue. It's theft and should be treated as such. It's a shame you can't afford a lawyer. Or at least to hire a couple of Albanians to pay the scummy developer an informal visit.
I think the main driver of real change might be when the underlying logic changes.
2d AutoCAD only differs from 2d hand drafting in that it's faster. As such, Autodesk has a vested interest in making sure the logic stays the same. [Layers, vector lines, references, etc.] What would happen if building's started to be printed rather than based on predescribed modules? What would happen if the deliverables where a digital point cloud rather than a 2d drawing printed on paper?
The work of Neri Oxman and Mike Silver springs to mind.
I think BIM is certainly a step in the right direction, but it's not the end all be all.
Likewise, I'm sure the original post was aimed at 'now' or even 'ten years from now', and I might be evoking the '100 years from now' response.
However, AutoDesk isn't the ONLY supplier of high octane design platforms. Bentley is a fair example, I think, of an alternative. Likewise, McNeel has made Rhino nearly open source in it's fluidity with other programs [I do not condone pirating].
that is a very fair assessment, jpl
in the lab where my office is located, the researchers work with printed sensors & RFID's, printed LED lighting and printed batteries
printed sensing, lighting and storage only fractions of a millimeter thick, some of it already close to commercializable
furthermore, philips is far along in operationalizing some technology like this for retail, as per:
http://www.anfarch.org/news/interfaces/2010-05-19.shtml
about halfway through presentation
so if within 5-10 years sensing and intelligence resides in a film-thin paper or paint applied to architectural surfaces, even if just in novelty applications like museums, hospitals, factories and high-end retail
and if within 20-50 years such sensing and response is becoming standard in all environments, it will change the nature of design quite profoundly
how does one design for a building that senses you, that responds and that has sensing, intelligence and response built in to just surface coverings such that when it is time to change its intelligence -- literally, its program -- perhaps you strip the walls and put on new wall covering or paint
to design for such buildings, design has to be collaborative with many fields beyond MEPT, with verifiable performance
I think BIM provides a logical link, no?
For example [hypothetical only]: I change one line [a governing central line] in a bim model, and it automatically updates the elevations, sections, schedules and details to correspond. Still on the same 2d logic. That's a huge increase in architectural PRODUCTIVITY. But it doesnt address at all the ultimate logic.
Likewise I change a line of code in a printed building and that code updates everything a priori. It's linked to models that the GC, consultants and sub contractors have. It genetically changes the entire building, and all I had to do was change a 'plus' sign to a 'minus' sign. Technology helps business.
I think this is where we are ultimately headed [as far as I can see]. And I think if the market changes then the supplier MUST acquiesce, or face obsoletion. I don't mind if AutoDesk is still around in 20 years, but I want them to be providing me with up to date tools. Otherwise, me and my firm will seek those who can. It's like using a touch tone phone in the age of iphones. Really? REALLY?
"It's a libertarian idea that's mindlessly repeated while ignoring the context and complexity of the circumstances." I don't know about libertarian and "mindlessly", but ultimately the expression of my thoughts are based on my perception of the context. And as part of a discussion regarding being critical of software, I'm of the thinking that software can always be learned, especially the way programs are headed towards intuitive use. Thats why I have always expressed that firms should hire people that know how to design, to collaborate, to understand, the ability to think critically, etc, NOT based on knowledge of software. And sure it is not the path of least resistance to "deploy" new software and it is an investment in resources, BUT you're also putting the firm at risk to follow the status quo since it is easier to do so. It should be a conscious decision to stay with the software you're using.
And this is coming from someone that used to train engineers and architects in Autodesk's Revit. I always opened up the training with - "I'm not a Revit salesman; speak up if you have things you're not happy with, something you feel should be different, etc." Regardless of the nuances of the software, I always brought it back to design, documentation of design, and project delivery. Because thats what its about. Its like how I want to talk more about music, not instruments. Or how I like to talk about the act of riding, not my motorcycle.
The reason AFH's Open Architecture Network works is a good idea, is because it is for those that are in need of design services without the means of being able to afford it as needed. It is not for for-profit organizations or a private client seeking free design services. This is different than what we're talking about.
At the end of the day, what we're talking about is the concept of ownership. And how the internet and broadband infrastructure has changed its meaning. There are those that are profiting from it, and those that fall victim to it. Knowingly, unknowingly, intentionally, unintentionally, it happens.
Next time we pay for software from Autodesk, we should send along with it a disclosure stating that the money is not transferable.
jplourde: saw this, seems to support some of your latest comments, about acceleration of use of 3D printing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
donna, one other thought --- just like with most things, utensils, fabrics, stoneware, doors, windows, furniture, etc, I understand that there will always be artists and always room for designers who fulfill the traditional role of "architect." for such people, their intellectual property is key, just as it would be for an artisan who makes jewelry or pottery, sculpture, furniture, etc. But for the vast majority of architectural design, I think something more like an open collaboration model is inevitable and authorship will be redefined and may be less meaningful.
New feature in Revit?