I wish Graphisoft didn't surcharge resale buyers over $2000.

[vfrontiers]

So I have two keys and as it turns out, the economy stinks and I need to sell one of my "assets" to make ends meet. I figure that with the investment made in ArchiCAD over the past 10+ years (and 10 before that with other companies money) that there would be some equity in it.

So following proper procedure, I contact my reseller to find out how to go about selling (I've done it before, so I knew there were some hoops to jump thru). It is here I find out that after I sell my ArchiCAD Key to a 3rd party, THEY will HAVE TO PAY over $2000.00 to register the key in their name!

Ok... so I flipped my lid... and shot back an angry email... but the only response I got... "Well, try reselling AutoCAD" ...

Yes, I am still miffed. I just wonder how many people out there actually know about this policy. The policy has changed over the past 20 years. I am curious about when and how I actually AGREED to this policy. But, like everyone else here, I gloss of the EULA's. Apparently this policy changed around April this year. I am not clear how a company can sell me a product (asset) and then continue, after the fact, to create policy that removes all equity from it.

And the real questions is WHY? "How could it possibly cost $2000.00 to change a name and address in a database? To be fair (someone has to) $600 of it is a FORCED enrollment in the ArchiPLUS program. So at least the buyer will get the next upgrade (if it happens within a year).

Sorry for venting. I love ArchiCAD. I like the people that work there. I like my reseller. I just think this policy is WRONG. So on my tombstone will hang 2 ArchiCAD 12 keys (can't afford to upgrade any longer with this policy in place).

[Rakela Raul]

not the point !!

the point is changing the rules after the fact !!
the decent proper way to do this is "from august 2010 the trnasfer wil be bla bla bla" signed Graphisoft...

so the buyer knows what he/she is buying.

[Anonymous]

Fair comment.
I'm all for decent and proper.

[vfrontiers]

I know I'm straying from the matter at hand, but to further Ralph's point...

I believe that I (as an architect) AM LIABLE for that building till the day I die (or perhaps even some time after that), no matter how many times it has been resold without any cut of any of those transactions.

ArchiCAD was believed to be an ASSET. Part of being an ASSET is having some intrinsic value as time goes on. And it actually DOES have value. It is just being TAXED to all get out so any residual value is paid AGAIN to Graphisoft who has already been paid for it.

[Anonymous]

Ralph wrote:
If we follow this new licensing idea, we should be paid for the design again every time the original building is sold to a new owner.

I like the idea!

[Karl Ottenstein]

I agree fully with Ralph's interpretation of the selling of a design.

The product of the architect is the design, just as the product of Graphisoft is ArchiCAD. The design is in essence licensed to the client (architect retains copyright). The design can be duplicated with further payment to the architect. The built project does not incur any additional fees to the architect when it changes hands.

The fact that the architect uses ArchiCAD to create the design has nothing to do with the argument. That would get us into a silly discussion of Graphisoft using Microsoft Visual Studio to create ArchiCAD ... has nothing to do with the resale of the software. Or, that a book publisher uses a particular printing machine to produce the book ...or the CD/DVD publisher uses certain machinery to produce their product... which contains copyrighted content, but which can be resold without payment to the author or publisher, or in the case of media, the artists, producers, directors, etc.

Case law does not cover all possibilities, only those cases brought to court, and the law varies by jurisdiction around the world of course, although courts may look to other country's cases for guidance. Pending an appeal, the link that Ralph gave us seems pretty clear.

Yeah, I'd really like to see GS pull this off with the EU. We see how successful Microsoft has been in EU courts.

Cheers,
Karl

[Dennis Lee]

I believe this is one of those signs of the times - the economic downturn that we are in right now. For GS and their resellers, they need more seats, more upgrades, and more subscriptions to keep their cashflow going. With this global economic slowdown, I'm sure they are hurting pretty bad. So, this is their reaction, their brilliant idea to survive this downturn.

It's almost like since we, architects don't have as many new clients as before, we suddenly change the rules on our current clients. You want a set of drawings? You have to pay 2 times the cost now. You want to change the scope of work? You pay 2 times the original contract. You want to terminate the contract? We take away all the drawings and design work, you start from scratch....especially when this client is having cash flow problems as well.

I know it's a bit different, but they should focus on streamlining their business first, then focus on new seats (lower price?) instead of raising prices / penalty for the loyal, struggling clients who helped them all this time.

[SeaGeoff]

Autodesk customers have always complained bitterly about that company’s licensing policies, which have become even more regressive recently with users being forced into upgrades and subscriptions or face relicensing down the road. Graphisoft just removed a major incentive to switch. Shame.

[Richard Morrison]

Autodesk unilaterally closed down license resales during R14. When I originally bought the license, it was worth something on the open market, and resales of licenses were common. During the time I owned it, through the actions of Autodesk, its value dropped to zero for resale. This was nothing short of major theft, in my opinion. At that point, I resolved to have nothing more to do with Autodesk.

I consider that Graphisoft has now done much of the same thing. My loyalty to Graphisoft has just dropped accordingly, and I would consider switching to Revit FAR more readily now. A major reason I have been advocating Archicad to my colleagues has been removed.

[Erika Epstein]

Rakela wrote:
not the point !!

the point is changing the rules after the fact !!
the decent proper way to do this is "from august 2010 the trnasfer wil be bla bla bla" signed Graphisoft...

so the buyer knows what he/she is buying.

Agree.
This is what my reseller told me: ... the policies changed as of April 1 (although we didn’t hear about it until a couple of weeks ago). The new transfer fee is $1400, with a mandatory ArchiPLUS subscription at $695. Transfers are only possible for licenses on the current version, which means older keys will have to be upgraded first before sale. Current subscriptions are not transferable, so a new subscription contract must be started by the new licensee."

[Erika Epstein]

Have those of you in other countries contacted your resellers about this?