To be fair, the Autodesk case was a little more complicated than the Slashdot summary makes it sound. A company bought Autodesk's software, then they later bought an upgrade at a discount and sold the original software to a reseller.
In other words, they wanted to be both a software owner (so that they could sell the original software) and a licensee (so that they could get upgrade discounts). This seems to me like an abuse of the system... although I'm not sure I like the way the court has resolved it, either.
In other words, they wanted to be both a software owner (so that they could sell the original software) and a licensee (so that they could get upgrade discounts). This seems to me like an abuse of the system... although I'm not sure I like the way the court has resolved it, either.