Autodesk license compliance audits - Revision history

Louis: reworked the vernor v. autodesk background to plainly say what the case was about and that the ninth circuit sided with autodesk

2026-07-06T12:34:32Z

reworked the vernor v. autodesk background to plainly say what the case was about and that the ninth circuit sided with autodesk

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 6 July 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:
	== Background ==		== Background ==

	Autodesk distributes its software under license rather than sale, so a customer never owns the copy. ~~The point~~ was settled in ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010).<ref name="vernor-cl" /> Timothy Vernor bought several used, boxed copies of AutoCAD Release 14, one at a garage sale and four more from another business that had originally obtained them from Autodesk, and resold them on eBay. Autodesk filed copyright take-down notices to pull the listings, so Vernor sued ~~in 2007~~ to establish that reselling copies he had bought was lawful.<ref name="vernor" /> A federal district court in Seattle ruled for Vernor, but in 2010 the Ninth Circuit reversed~~: it~~ held that an Autodesk user is ''"a licensee rather than an owner"'' of the copy, ~~under a test that asks whether the seller grants a license, significantly restricts transfer, & imposes notable use restrictions.<ref name="vernor" /> Because a customer is only a licensee,~~ the [[First-sale doctrine\|first sale doctrine]] that normally lets a buyer resell what they bought (17 U.S.C. § 109(a)) does not apply, and ~~neither does the essential-step defense for the~~ copy ~~made during installation~~ (17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1)).<ref name="vernor" />		Autodesk distributes its software under license rather than sale, so a customer never owns the copy. That rule was settled in ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010).<ref name="vernor-cl" /> Timothy Vernor bought several used, boxed copies of AutoCAD Release 14, one at a garage sale and four more from another business that had originally obtained them from Autodesk, and resold them on eBay. Autodesk filed copyright take-down notices to pull the listings, so in 2007 Vernor sued Autodesk to establish that reselling copies he had bought was lawful.<ref name="vernor" /> A federal district court in Seattle first ruled for Vernor, but on appeal in 2010 the Ninth Circuit sided with Autodesk and reversed that decision.<ref name="vernor" /> The court held that an Autodesk user is ''"a licensee rather than an owner"'' of the copy, so the [[First-sale doctrine\|first sale doctrine]] that normally lets a buyer resell what they bought (17 U.S.C. § 109(a)) does not apply. The practical result: a person who buys Autodesk software cannot legally resell it, and installing a copy without a valid license infringes Autodesk's copyright (17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1)).<ref name="vernor" />

	[[File:Vernor-v-Autodesk-9th-Circuit-holding.png\|thumb\|center\|upright=2.0\|In ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', the Ninth Circuit ~~held~~ that ~~Autodesk's~~ customers are licensees rather than owners of their copies, so ~~they~~ cannot resell the software ~~or rely on the first-sale doctrine~~.<ref name="vernor" />]]		[[File:Vernor-v-Autodesk-9th-Circuit-holding.png\|thumb\|center\|upright=2.0\|In ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', the Ninth Circuit sided with Autodesk, ruling that its customers are licensees rather than owners of their copies and so cannot resell the software.<ref name="vernor" />]]

Louis: fleshed out the vernor v. autodesk background with what the case was actually about, and noted the 2021 terms change that shifted the self-audit onto the customer

2026-07-06T12:31:21Z

fleshed out the vernor v. autodesk background with what the case was actually about, and noted the 2021 terms change that shifted the self-audit onto the customer

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:31, 6 July 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:
	== Background ==		== Background ==

	Autodesk distributes its software under license rather than sale. In ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010),<ref name="vernor-cl" /> the U.~~S. Court of Appeals~~ for the Ninth Circuit held that an Autodesk user is ''"a licensee rather than an owner"'' of the copy, ~~applying~~ a ~~three-factor~~ test that ~~turns on~~ whether the ~~copyright owner~~ grants a license, restricts transfer, & imposes use restrictions.<ref name="vernor" /> Because ~~the user~~ is a licensee, the [[First-sale doctrine\|first sale doctrine]] (17 U.S.C. § 109(a)) & the essential-step defense (17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1)) do not apply, so reselling or copying the software without authorization infringes Autodesk's copyright.<ref name="vernor" /> Timothy Vernor, a reseller of used AutoCAD Release 14, had brought the declaratory-judgment action himself after Autodesk sent DMCA takedown notices over his eBay auctions; a federal district court ruled in his favor, & the Ninth Circuit reversed for Autodesk in 2010.<ref name="vernor" />		Autodesk distributes its software under license rather than sale, so a customer never owns the copy. The point was settled in ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010).<ref name="vernor-cl" /> Timothy Vernor bought several used, boxed copies of AutoCAD Release 14, one at a garage sale and four more from another business that had originally obtained them from Autodesk, and resold them on eBay. Autodesk filed copyright take-down notices to pull the listings, so Vernor sued in 2007 to establish that reselling copies he had bought was lawful.<ref name="vernor" /> A federal district court in Seattle ruled for Vernor, but in 2010 the Ninth Circuit reversed: it held that an Autodesk user is ''"a licensee rather than an owner"'' of the copy, under a test that asks whether the seller grants a license, significantly restricts transfer, & imposes notable use restrictions.<ref name="vernor" /> Because a customer is only a licensee, the [[First-sale doctrine\|first sale doctrine]] that normally lets a buyer resell what they bought (17 U.S.C. § 109(a)) does not apply, and neither does the essential-step defense for the copy made during installation (17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1)).<ref name="vernor" />

	[[File:Vernor-v-Autodesk-9th-Circuit-holding.png\|thumb\|center\|upright=2.0\|In ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', the Ninth Circuit held that Autodesk's customers are licensees rather than owners of their copies, so they cannot resell the software or rely on the first-sale doctrine.<ref name="vernor" />]]		[[File:Vernor-v-Autodesk-9th-Circuit-holding.png\|thumb\|center\|upright=2.0\|In ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', the Ninth Circuit held that Autodesk's customers are licensees rather than owners of their copies, so they cannot resell the software or rely on the first-sale doctrine.<ref name="vernor" />]]
Line 33:		Line 33:
	An earlier generation of the agreement, Autodesk's fiscal-year 2017 License and Services Agreement, put the audit in Autodesk's hands rather than the customer's and expressly allowed it to be conducted ''"electronic or otherwise"''. Section 9.7 gave Autodesk the right, on 15 days' notice, to inspect the customer's records, systems, & facilities:		An earlier generation of the agreement, Autodesk's fiscal-year 2017 License and Services Agreement, put the audit in Autodesk's hands rather than the customer's and expressly allowed it to be conducted ''"electronic or otherwise"''. Section 9.7 gave Autodesk the right, on 15 days' notice, to inspect the customer's records, systems, & facilities:
	<blockquote>''As part of any such audit, Autodesk or its authorized representative will have the right, on fifteen (15) days' prior notice to Licensee, to inspect Licensee's records, systems and facilities, including machine IDs, serial numbers and related information, to verify Licensee's Installation of and Access to the Autodesk Materials.''</blockquote><ref name="lsa17" />		<blockquote>''As part of any such audit, Autodesk or its authorized representative will have the right, on fifteen (15) days' prior notice to Licensee, to inspect Licensee's records, systems and facilities, including machine IDs, serial numbers and related information, to verify Licensee's Installation of and Access to the Autodesk Materials.''</blockquote><ref name="lsa17" />
	The same clause required the licensee to provide ''"full cooperation"''<ref name="lsa17" /> and, on a finding of noncompliance, to buy licenses to cure & ''"pay the reasonable costs of the audit"''.<ref name="lsa17" />		The same clause required the licensee to provide ''"full cooperation"''<ref name="lsa17" /> and, on a finding of noncompliance, to buy licenses to cure & ''"pay the reasonable costs of the audit"''.<ref name="lsa17" /> Autodesk shifted the audit onto the customer in a 2021 revision of its General Terms. A version archived on March 8, 2021 required the customer, on an audit request, to ''"provide a report to Autodesk using an Autodesk approved verification tool"'' within 15 days, in place of the earlier model in which Autodesk conducted the inspection itself.<ref name="gt-2021" />

	[[File:Autodesk-LSA-FY17-audit-clause.png\|thumb\|center\|upright=2.8\|Section 9.7 of Autodesk's fiscal-year 2017 License and Services Agreement gave Autodesk the right to audit a customer ''"electronic or otherwise"'' and, on a finding of noncompliance, to make the customer buy licenses and pay the costs of the audit.<ref name="lsa17" />]]		[[File:Autodesk-LSA-FY17-audit-clause.png\|thumb\|center\|upright=2.8\|Section 9.7 of Autodesk's fiscal-year 2017 License and Services Agreement gave Autodesk the right to audit a customer ''"electronic or otherwise"'' and, on a finding of noncompliance, to make the customer buy licenses and pay the costs of the audit.<ref name="lsa17" />]]
Line 72:		Line 72:
	<references>		<references>
	<ref name="gt17">{{Cite web \|url=https://www.autodesk.com/company/terms-of-use/en/general-terms \|title=General Terms \|author=Autodesk, Inc. \|date=2026-03-30 \|website=Autodesk \|access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>		<ref name="gt17">{{Cite web \|url=https://www.autodesk.com/company/terms-of-use/en/general-terms \|title=General Terms \|author=Autodesk, Inc. \|date=2026-03-30 \|website=Autodesk \|access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
			<ref name="gt-2021">{{Cite web \|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308102410/https://www.autodesk.com/company/terms-of-use/en/general-terms \|title=General Terms \|author=Autodesk, Inc. \|date=2021-03-08 \|publisher=Autodesk, via Internet Archive \|access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
	<ref name="lsa17">{{Cite web \|url=https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY17/Suites/LSA/en-us/lsa.html \|title=Autodesk License and Services Agreement (FY17) \|author=Autodesk, Inc. \|website=Autodesk \|access-date=2026-07-06 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260706065432/https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY17/Suites/LSA/en-us/lsa.html \|archive-date=2026-07-06 \|url-status=live}}</ref>		<ref name="lsa17">{{Cite web \|url=https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY17/Suites/LSA/en-us/lsa.html \|title=Autodesk License and Services Agreement (FY17) \|author=Autodesk, Inc. \|website=Autodesk \|access-date=2026-07-06 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260706065432/https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY17/Suites/LSA/en-us/lsa.html \|archive-date=2026-07-06 \|url-status=live}}</ref>
	<ref name="ss-scan">{{Cite web \|url=https://scottandscottllp.com/autodesk-audits-how-to-effectively-scan-your-network-and-prepare-accurate-results/ \|title=Autodesk Audits: How to Effectively Scan Your Network and Prepare Accurate Results \|publisher=Scott & Scott, LLP \|access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>		<ref name="ss-scan">{{Cite web \|url=https://scottandscottllp.com/autodesk-audits-how-to-effectively-scan-your-network-and-prepare-accurate-results/ \|title=Autodesk Audits: How to Effectively Scan Your Network and Prepare Accurate Results \|publisher=Scott & Scott, LLP \|access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>

Louis: new article on autodesk software license compliance audits, from the eula audit clause and the vernor v. autodesk ruling to the network scan demands and settlement figures; sourced from the terms of use, the ninth circuit opinion, sec filings, and cad trade and legal coverage

2026-07-06T12:13:50Z

new article on autodesk software license compliance audits, from the eula audit clause and the vernor v. autodesk ruling to the network scan demands and settlement figures; sourced from the terms of use, the ninth circuit opinion, sec filings, and cad trade and legal coverage

New page

{{#seo:
|description=Autodesk enforces its software licenses by auditing its own paying customers under the EULA, requiring a scan of every device within 15 days to cure shortfalls.
}}
{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Autodesk
|StartDate=
|EndDate=
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=
|Product=
|ArticleType=Service
|Type=Anti-Consumer EULA,Software Licensing
|Description=Autodesk audits its own paying customers, forcing a network scan within 15 days then billing them to cure shortfalls plus its audit costs
}}

'''Autodesk license compliance audits''' require [[Autodesk]]'s own paying business customers, within 15 days of an audit notice, to run an Autodesk-approved tool across every device that accesses its software & submit the results, then to buy licenses covering any shortfall the audit finds plus Autodesk's own cost of the audit.<ref name="gt17" /> The requirement is Section 17.8 of Autodesk's General Terms, which labels a customer's failure to comply a ''"material breach"''.<ref name="gt17" /> Attorneys who defend companies in these audits describe settlement demands ''"as high as $50,000 or more"'',<ref name="vondran" /> trade coverage reports that EULA missteps can cost a studio ''"six-figure fines"'',<ref name="cga" /> and a compliance consultancy reports that Autodesk escalates to its legal department or outside lawyers when a target objects.<ref name="prolicense" />

== Background ==

Autodesk distributes its software under license rather than sale. In ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010),<ref name="vernor-cl" /> the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Autodesk user is ''"a licensee rather than an owner"'' of the copy, applying a three-factor test that turns on whether the copyright owner grants a license, restricts transfer, & imposes use restrictions.<ref name="vernor" /> Because the user is a licensee, the [[First-sale doctrine|first sale doctrine]] (17 U.S.C. § 109(a)) & the essential-step defense (17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1)) do not apply, so reselling or copying the software without authorization infringes Autodesk's copyright.<ref name="vernor" /> Timothy Vernor, a reseller of used AutoCAD Release 14, had brought the declaratory-judgment action himself after Autodesk sent DMCA takedown notices over his eBay auctions; a federal district court ruled in his favor, & the Ninth Circuit reversed for Autodesk in 2010.<ref name="vernor" />

[[File:Vernor-v-Autodesk-9th-Circuit-holding.png|thumb|center|upright=2.0|In ''Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.'', the Ninth Circuit held that Autodesk's customers are licensees rather than owners of their copies, so they cannot resell the software or rely on the first-sale doctrine.<ref name="vernor" />]]

Autodesk has moved its customers off perpetual licenses & onto subscriptions. Its fiscal-2025 annual report ties that change to unauthorized use, which it says ''"negatively impacts our revenue"''.<ref name="form10k" /> The filing describes moving customers ''"from perpetual use software licenses to a subscription-based business model"''.<ref name="form10k" />

== Audit clause ==

Autodesk's [[End-user license agreement|end-user license agreement]] reserves a contractual right to audit a customer's use, & the mechanics have changed across contract generations. The current General Terms, last updated March 30, 2026, set out a self-audit in Section 17.8, ''"Verification of Compliance"'':
<blockquote>''You must use an Autodesk-approved tool to gather information from all devices accessing Your Offerings and obtain any necessary access and consent from Your Authorized Users. Within 15 calendar days of audit notification, You must submit Your audit results to the notifying party. Audit results must include machine IDs, serial numbers, Autodesk IDs, NT/Windows username, device ID and other information relating to Your Offerings. If, through a Verification, Autodesk determines You are in violation of these Terms, You must immediately purchase new Offerings at least equal to the total of the value of the identified noncompliance and Autodesk's reasonable costs to complete the Verification. Failure to comply with this Section 17.8 is a material breach of these Terms.''</blockquote><ref name="gt17" />
This version puts the scan on the customer, who runs the tool & produces the machine-level data.

An earlier generation of the agreement, Autodesk's fiscal-year 2017 License and Services Agreement, put the audit in Autodesk's hands rather than the customer's and expressly allowed it to be conducted ''"electronic or otherwise"''. Section 9.7 gave Autodesk the right, on 15 days' notice, to inspect the customer's records, systems, & facilities:
<blockquote>''As part of any such audit, Autodesk or its authorized representative will have the right, on fifteen (15) days' prior notice to Licensee, to inspect Licensee's records, systems and facilities, including machine IDs, serial numbers and related information, to verify Licensee's Installation of and Access to the Autodesk Materials.''</blockquote><ref name="lsa17" />
The same clause required the licensee to provide ''"full cooperation"''<ref name="lsa17" /> and, on a finding of noncompliance, to buy licenses to cure & ''"pay the reasonable costs of the audit"''.<ref name="lsa17" />

[[File:Autodesk-LSA-FY17-audit-clause.png|thumb|center|upright=2.8|Section 9.7 of Autodesk's fiscal-year 2017 License and Services Agreement gave Autodesk the right to audit a customer ''"electronic or otherwise"'' and, on a finding of noncompliance, to make the customer buy licenses and pay the costs of the audit.<ref name="lsa17" />]]

== Verification tool ==

The current General Terms name only ''"an Autodesk-approved tool"'' & do not identify a specific product.<ref name="gt17" /> In practice, Autodesk directs audited customers to a particular scanner that named sources call by different names. The German compliance consultancy ProLicense identifies it as ScanWin & says customers are told, on short deadlines, to install it & transmit the data it collects.<ref name="prolicense" /> The defense firm Scott & Scott says Autodesk has begun to ''"advocate heavily for the use of its own AIA scanning tool"''.<ref name="ss-scan" />

Product documentation for a ScanWin scanner published by the software-asset-management vendor License Dashboard describes an agentless system that uses Microsoft Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) to inventory Windows machines, discovers devices by Active Directory registration & by IP-address range, & requires that Windows firewalls be configured to permit WMI communication.<ref name="scanwin" /> Scott & Scott warns that the tool over-reports: its clients have found that free viewer installations are counted as product installations, so submitting raw scan output could produce ''"drastically over-inflated audit exposure"''.<ref name="ss-scan" />

== Selection of audit targets ==

Autodesk selects audit targets using data its own products report back to it. Its analytics page states that desktop products collect the user's Autodesk ID, IP address, & product & license information, & that some of this collection is required & cannot be turned off, expressly including data used to ''"identify non-valid use of our offerings"''.<ref name="analytics" /> Scott & Scott describes the enforcement side of that telemetry: many Autodesk products contain embedded reporting technology that updates the company on installation & usage, & its compliance teams check those deployments against a company's registered licenses.<ref name="ss-know" /> The same firm says Autodesk also tracks ''"cracked"'' serial numbers, & that entering one into an Autodesk database or online profile can itself trigger an audit.<ref name="ss-know" />

In a February 2, 2021 CGArchitect account, Jeff Mottle described a contractor who connected a laptop carrying pirated software to a studio's network; Autodesk's ''"phone-home"'' tools flagged the installation, & the studio became the audit target.<ref name="cga" />

== Enforcement and settlements ==

Attorney Steve Vondran, whose firm defends companies in these matters, describes the enforcement arm as an ''"Autodesk internal"'' team, ''"a small team of lawyers inside of Autodesk"'' who force targets to run scans & then seek settlements ''"as high as $50,000 or more"''.<ref name="vondran" /> Vondran calls the opening demand a ''"love letter"'' & reports that Autodesk attorneys have threatened ''"shutoff of even licensed software"'' if a company refuses to engage.<ref name="vondran" />

ProLicense, which markets itself as an audit-defense consultancy, calls Autodesk ''"very aggressive in the industry"'' & says it audits ''"several million customers worldwide"''.<ref name="prolicense" /> The firm says audits often conclude that a target needs five to ten times the licenses it holds.<ref name="prolicense" />

One studio owner told CGArchitect that Autodesk's first contact was ''"very confrontational and aggressive"'' & that its compliance team ''"had no desire to listen to any explanations"''.<ref name="cga" /> Scott & Scott adds that Autodesk's settlement agreements often impose an ''"invasive audit provision that supersedes the license agreement"'', which shortens the notice period, shifts the cost of the audit onto the customer, & requires future purchases directly from Autodesk.<ref name="ss-settle" />

== Consumer and industry response ==

ProLicense says targeted customers ''"often feel helpless and up against the wall"'' & tend to comply rather than object.<ref name="prolicense" /> In the case CGArchitect reported, retaining counsel changed the dynamic: the studio owner said that once they ''"hired the lawyer, the tone of communications changed"''.<ref name="cga" /> Scott & Scott, Vondran Legal, & ProLicense each publish guidance for companies facing these audits.<ref name="ss-settle" /><ref name="vondran" /><ref name="prolicense" />

[[File:Autodesk-audit-studio-account.png|thumb|center|upright=2.2|A studio owner told CGArchitect that Autodesk's first contact was ''"very confrontational and aggressive"'', that the studio was made to install auditing software, and that it spent thousands in legal fees before Autodesk agreed there were no infringing copies.<ref name="cga" />]]

== See also ==
* [[Autodesk]]
* [[Digital rights management]]

== References ==
<references>
<ref name="gt17">{{Cite web |url=https://www.autodesk.com/company/terms-of-use/en/general-terms |title=General Terms |author=Autodesk, Inc. |date=2026-03-30 |website=Autodesk |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="lsa17">{{Cite web |url=https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY17/Suites/LSA/en-us/lsa.html |title=Autodesk License and Services Agreement (FY17) |author=Autodesk, Inc. |website=Autodesk |access-date=2026-07-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260706065432/https://download.autodesk.com/us/FY17/Suites/LSA/en-us/lsa.html |archive-date=2026-07-06 |url-status=live}}</ref>
<ref name="ss-scan">{{Cite web |url=https://scottandscottllp.com/autodesk-audits-how-to-effectively-scan-your-network-and-prepare-accurate-results/ |title=Autodesk Audits: How to Effectively Scan Your Network and Prepare Accurate Results |publisher=Scott & Scott, LLP |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="analytics">{{Cite web |url=https://www.autodesk.com/company/autodesk-analytics |title=Autodesk analytics programs |author=Autodesk, Inc. |website=Autodesk |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="cga">{{Cite web |url=https://cgconnect.chaos.com/features/articles/b29a684f-how-work-from-home-and-the-software-eula-could-cost-you-thousands-in-penalties?from=cgarchitect |title=How Work-From-Home and the Software EULA Could Cost You Thousands in Penalties |author=Jeff Mottle |date=2021-02-02 |website=CGconnect |access-date=2026-07-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260706065451/https://cgconnect.chaos.com/insights/articles/b29a684f-how-work-from-home-and-the-software-eula-could-cost-you-thousands-in-penalties |archive-date=2026-07-06 |url-status=live}}</ref>
<ref name="vondran">{{Cite web |url=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/autodesk-internal-getting-very-7707218/ |title=Autodesk Internal Getting Very Aggressive in 2023 Beware of Over-Assigning Licenses |author=Steve Vondran |date=2023-04-12 |website=JD Supra |publisher=Vondran Legal |access-date=2026-07-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260706065718/https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/autodesk-internal-getting-very-7707218/ |archive-date=2026-07-06 |url-status=live}}</ref>
<ref name="ss-settle">{{Cite web |url=https://scottandscottllp.com/autodesk-settlement-agreements-beware-restrictive-superseding-license-terms/ |title=Autodesk Settlement Agreements: Beware Restrictive Superseding License Terms |author=Keli Johnson Swan |publisher=Scott & Scott, LLP |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="ss-know">{{Cite web |url=https://scottandscottllp.com/autodesk-audits-how-did-autodesk-know-to-audit-you-and-what-to-do-now/ |title=How did Autodesk know to audit you and what do you do now? |publisher=Scott & Scott, LLP |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="vernor">{{Cite web |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf |title=Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. (slip opinion) |author=U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |date=2010-09-10 |publisher=United States Courts |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="vernor-cl">{{Cite web |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/175116/vernor-v-autodesk-inc/ |title=Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) |publisher=CourtListener (Free Law Project) |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="prolicense">{{Cite web |url=https://www.prolicense.com/en/autodesk-audit-consulting/ |title=Autodesk audit consulting |publisher=ProLicense GmbH |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="scanwin">{{Cite web |url=https://licensedashboard.com/products/scanwin/ |title=License Dashboard ScanWin |publisher=License Dashboard |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
<ref name="form10k">{{Cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/769397/000076939725000019/adsk-20250131.htm |title=Autodesk, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year ended January 31, 2025 |author=Autodesk, Inc. |date=2025-03-06 |publisher=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR) |access-date=2026-07-06}}</ref>
</references>

[[Category:Autodesk]]
[[Category:Copyright]]
[[Category:Software]]