So, I have seen tons of threads over the many years I've been on the forum....

[Patriot_1776]

...where people are asking for help with geometry problems (and others, but I'm talking about geometry).  What I see is by far the most help comes from fellow users.  WHY?  I would think, as a gesture of good will to people and companies BUYING PTC's software and PAYING the maintenance fees, that PTC would spend more time actually helping the customers here.  When people go to the call center, it's because they're PAYING for maintenance, but why isn't PTC more involved with the forums to help people?  Some people buy the software but forego the expensive maintenance.  when I get my seat finally, I'll probably get a good version and simply forego maintenance and instead simply buy a new copy every couple years, and perhaps sell my old copy.  Over the years I've had plenty of training, but almost without exception, I find I'm far more skilled as a user than the people they send out (not bragging, it just is...).  Are they instead learning from US???

The recent "Bent Helix" thread a prime example.

Something to ponder....  😉

[BenLoosli]

IMO, the reason PTC employees take a low-key approach to the community is so you will pay for maintenance and then use their employees for your answers.

Since you can no longer 'buy' a seat of Creo, the subscription comes with maintenance!

Also, you cannot sell your old copy, as you do not own it. In the past when you 'bought' a seat of CAD software, you only bought the right to use that software. The vendor still owns the code. You only have a copy of the code that along with a license file, tied to a specific computer, allows the software to run on a computer at your company. The only way to sell the software was to sell the company that owned the software and with PTC's permission, they would transfer the license to the new company.

[Patriot_1776]

Funny, because rarely have I found them able to come up with geometry answers....  😉

WHAT????  You can't buy a seat anymore?  Well, that s#cks.  As far as legal, I bought a car, and when I decide to sell it for a new one, I refuse to let Toyota tell me they "own" my car.  As such, I refuse to let some software company tell me I can't resell their software unless they want to pay me for it when I upgrade.  We as a country should write laws to prevent that kind of garbage.  A copy of software should be treated like any other commodity (cars, CD's, houses, motorcycles, etc.) if you purchase it outright.  I'm tired of software companies in general strongarming customers and getting away with it.  I'm not into "big government" regulation, but this is one thing that needs to be fixed.

Guess that's why there's so much pirated software out there, people are tired of being strongarmed.  I'm sure I could find an unlocked copy of creo 3 if I chose to and was unscrupulous......  😉

[rreifsnyder]

Even when they were selling it what you were buying was the "right to use". That "right to use" was non transferable. It's not like a physical thing like a car. Yes it was a pain but at least that right was then perpetual so if you found that ProE 2000i met all of your requirements you could stop paying maintenance and continue to you that version forever and I know some folks that did things like that.

[Patriot_1776]

My point is that this kind of "right to use" nonsense needs to be outlawed.  It should be treated like any other commodity.  I have software embedded in my car and motorcycle, my TV and DVD players, yet I can sell them anytime I please.  I can buy and sell copyrighted books.  This should apply to ALL commodities, software whouldn't be "special"..

[dgschaefer]

---

@Patriot_1776 wrote:

My point is that this kind of "right to use" nonsense needs to be outlawed.  It should be treated like any other commodity.  I have software embedded in my car and motorcycle, my TV and DVD players, yet I can sell them anytime I please.  I can buy and sell copyrighted books.  This should apply to ALL commodities, software whouldn't be "special"..

---

As far as I understand, you don't own the software in any of those things, you own a right to use it.  You cannot, legally, make changes to the source code in any of those things unless the license from the copyright holder allows it.

You don't own the content of that book or CD or album or cassette either, you own that single copy.  You cannot, legally, make additional copies except for use as a back up.  This has been true for long before the digital era.

You can sell the physical objects that you own, including their embedded software or data, but you have no right to sell the software or data itself.

[Patriot_1776]

I don't own the copyright on the book, but I own the book itself.  Same with CD's and DVD's.  But I can sell my book, and I can sell my CD, and DVD.  I'm perfectly ok with mot being able to make copies and sell THEM, that's fair, but I have the right to sell MY copy as long as I don't keep the backup copy.

What's needed is legal reform on this.  If it's made into law, then the software companies are out of this loop.  There is no reason a company that buys seats of software, and then is forced to downsize the company, should to be able to sell the copies of the software they're NOT using, as long as they don't keep copies.

Also, I'm allowed to modify my Chevy, my Sony amplifier, and so I believe I should be able to alter code for my own personal or business use as I see fit, as long as I don't sell another copy of that software.  Many companies make add-on software.

[BenLoosli]

I wish we could resell licenses, as we currently have 26 that are no longer on maintenance and we plan to drop to 2 perpetual licenses, 8 more unused, next year. We will be replacing those 8 with new subscriptions, which should save us some money in the yearly budget.

As to the modifications to the code, you hit it with the last line! ADD-ON software! They are NOT making modifications to the code itself, they are using published hooks (API calls) to add functionality to the original product to make it easier to use. These add-ons that are legally sold do not modify the code that PTC supplies under license.

[rreifsnyder]

Not to start an extended discussion on this but I'd rather not have laws about this. It's a private contract between you or your company and the software company. If you don't like their terms then you are free to not buy their software. What you'd end up with if a law was put in place is that they would have gone to something like subscription even sooner. However you try to corner them on something like this the quicker they will work to find a way around it. If instead these decisions actually hurt their bottom line because people stopped using their software then they would move the other way.

[Patriot_1776]

Hey Ben, do you know of any add-ons to delete the dreaded ribbon?  🙂

[KenFarley]

We recently added some licenses and it's apparently not possible to buy perpetual licenses anymore - to the best of my knowledge you have to go the subscription route. This means updating the license file for your server every year, like is done with most other software.

Also, I, too remember the days when you could call a PTC help line and get someone who could model rings around anyone and knew all of the tricks and techniques. We'd get answers to the perplexing problems we had. Those days are gone. The only thing I call for now is when I'm having trouble getting a correct license file, or something simple like that.

[Patriot_1776]

Well, that's a total steaming pile.  And it's probably more expensive than simply buying a license and keeping it.  I wonder where I can buy a "used" copy of creo 3.

I started on Pro/E in '96, and even then, I wasn't really impressed with the PTC help.  Whenever I took training, the guy fresh out of college with zero experience knew the canned demo...but not how to actually USE the software.  I've ALWAYS had to solve geometry issues myself....