Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: AISC Latest Move

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: AISC Latest Move
You are right and I was wrong. I misinterpreted what was told to me. My source was first contacted many years ago and flatly refused to pay a royalty. They have not contacted him since and they do know of his presence. I'll write you more off the list, but I wanted others to know that not all of the software developers are paying a royalty to AISC. I don't know for sure if any are at this point other than the AISC representative who asked me to remove the database from my discussion forum told me that (and I paraphrase) software developers are paying a fee to incorporate the database into their software.
Here is a the comment I received. I will not disclose the vendor but these are his opinions:
"The database is the exclusive reference for steel construction in the United States and as such represents a monopoly of information to restrict it. Think of it similar to building code restrictions in can't copy and distribute the code information but you can make use of the requirements for design. AISC asking for royalties is like ICBO asking for a fee from software vendors that provide software that checks UBC requirements.

All in all I consider the use of the information in the public domain because there are absolutely no alternatives that could work."
The easiest thing to avoid long term issues is for AISC to simply release the database (not the software or even a spreadsheet that can be used as a tool, but possibly a PDF file of properties). Dave Parsons claims that this is a round of AISC bashing and I personally resent the terminology. Bashing occurs when you insult an individual or company who is not able to defend themselves. AISC is far from able to defend their position. This is a disagreement and those who disagree with AISC are also discontented with the attitudes that put a price on everything in our lives. If you want to consider it bashing than you have to consider organizations that set prices on information when there is no competition or alternative as opportunistic and I believe that this carries the argument too far.
While AISC may believe they are in the right AND they may feel justified to protect what they believe is their property, until the issues - that is a legal one - is resolved in the courts or by settlement, there will always be strong opinions and dissention. One thread opened an existing wound, but did not inflict it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Caldwell, Stan [mailto:scaldwell(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:02 PM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: AISC Latest Move


Your source is wrong!  Perhaps my source will call you and set you straight (you know them).  Better yet, maybe my source will call your source and they can go do lunch! <grin>


-----Original Message-----
From: Structuralist [mailto:dennis.wish(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 2:20 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: RE: AISC Latest Move

Bill and Stan,

It is my understanding, also from a private source, that AISC has always required a Fee or Royalty to be paid by software developers who use their database.