Harassment, Threats, and Intimidation – Many Architects in India report Autodesk’s Aggressive Tactics

It’s hard to find an architect in the country who hasn’t heard of AutoCAD, regardless of whether they’re actively practising or not. 

In the world of computer-aided design (CAD), Autodesk’s AutoCAD stands as a titan. Created by Michael Riddle and later acquired and developed by computer programmer and entrepreneur John Walker (founder of Autodesk), AutoCAD has become synonymous with architectural design software in India. However, despite its near-monopoly and widespread popularity, an increasing number of Indian architects from small, medium, and large firms are voicing concerns about the company’s aggressive and allegedly unfair trade practice tactics and pricing model, tarnishing its once-sterling reputation.

---

The Rise to Dominance

AutoCAD’s dominance in India didn’t happen by chance. Autodesk’s deep pockets and aggressive marketing strategies across the world have played a significant role. One of their most effective tactics has been to offer free educational licences to architecture institutes, cementing AutoCAD’s position in the minds of future professionals.

Prasad Shetty, Professor and Founder at the School of Environment and Architecture (SEA), Mumbai, shared that “Institutes possibly don’t talk about or use alternative software because the entire Autodesk suite is freely available for educational purposes.”

Similarly, Raj Menon, Academic Chair at Seed, Kochi, admitted to the use of only AutoCAD in the institution, as it is offered free by Autodesk.

Such policies help Autodesk retain its near monopoly and make it difficult for students when they enter the profession. A number of young architecture professionals admit that they weren’t aware of alternative CAD software until they entered the profession. 

Sanskriti Vashisth, a young architect shares “As students, we were introduced to the trial versions or student versions of the software. This led to minimal to zero knowledge about the actual reverse engineering.”

Habeeb Khan, former President of the Council of Architecture and Director at PIADS, Nagpur, acknowledges, “We’ve inadvertently contributed to Autodesk’s monopoly. There’s hardly any awareness about alternative CAD software among teachers or students. This makes it difficult for the newly graduated to explore available cheaper alternatives, and they often get trapped in Autodesk’s marketing strategy.”

He continues, “it is not unfair to totally blame Autodesk for their approach towards architects not using their legal software. But we architects also need to understand that we need to use legal software. Autodesk may be having an exorbitant price tag, almost touching fringes of exploitation, but there are many other legal and cheaper alternatives which architects can look up to. Monopoly and exploitation is history in today’s world.”

---

The Shift in Subscription and Its Impact

Autodesk’s decision to discontinue its perpetual licence model in favour of a subscription-based system in 2017 has been met with significant pushback, especially from younger and smaller firms in India. Many architects express that the new model is unaffordable for their businesses. 

But India, as an emerging economy, also faces unique challenges that Autodesk seems to overlook. Some architects argue that the company should develop pricing tailored to the economic realities of the country. This is especially crucial given the existing challenges and difficulties architects face in running their practices in India, including lack of work, intense competition, delayed payments, and fluctuating project pipelines.

Bhavuk, an architect at a young architecture firm in Gurgaon, shares, “I feel Autodesk should promote the software by changing their payment policies. Annual payment is somewhat impractical and unsustainable for consultancy practices in India, at least considering factors like payment conditions. A single software for yearly use costs almost as much or more than the cost of some of the PCs. They should rather encourage small firms to adopt the software and then create more lucrative pricing for it. But how do they expect people to buy? Everyone is receiving threatening emails and calls, which is traumatising.”

---

Aggressive Marketing Tactics by Autodesk

But beyond the pricing, the most concerning aspect of Autodesk’s approach in India is the alleged unprofessional and aggressive marketing tactics employed by its agencies. Numerous architects across the country have reported experiences of harassment, threats, and intimidation in an attempt to force them to buy new licences or upgrade existing ones, in some cases even when unnecessary.

Architect Abhishek Bij, Partner at Design Plus, Gurgaon, recounts, “We continue to receive show cause calls and emails from Autodesk or their legal consultants every year, even though we have stopped using Autodesk products years ago. Most cases, they seem to be looking for another firm.
In 2022, one particular call and following emails were meant for our studio. After initial exchanges, we permitted Autodesk representatives to conduct an audit after signing an NDA. Upon which they never followed up.
However, I have to go through these conversations frequently. It’s a distressing experience that makes us question the ethics and motives of such a renowned company.”

An architect from Navi Mumbai, on the condition of anonymity, shared, “Autodesk-appointed agencies showed up at our office unannounced, demanding to check our licences. Their behaviour was intimidating and disruptive to our work environment. We ended up buying some AutoCAD licences, which we soon stopped using, and moved to alternative software.” 

Architect Nishant Machhar from Bhavnagar shared that he was harassed by Autodesk and its agencies, in spite of not using any Autodesk software for many years. He tried convincing Autodesk-appointed agencies that they had stopped using AutoCAD and had moved to the alternative CAD software.  However, the agencies continued pursuing the matter with Nishant. Nishant’s email to Autodesk read: 

“So far all the communication that has been coming from Autodesk and its channels is inconsistent and speculative.
We once again insist that Autodesk provide us with supporting documentation of their communication and claims with due authentication.
If at all you wish to further communicate, let it be through emails only.”

After this email, Autodesk stopped pursuing the matter with Nishant Machhar.

Madhav Raman, partner at Anagram Architects, New Delhi, whose firm has also moved to alternate CAD software, shared that “Architects receive calls or mails to verify their licence compliance from contractors hired by software companies, usually lawyers and auditing consultants. To initiate verification (by way of an audit), they would need to possess verifiable MAC addresses of the machines suspected of running non-compliant software, or, in other words, credible information of a violation. In order to notify a user of non compliance, the offending MAC address will need to be shared with them. Knowledge of the addresses is only possible these days when the machine communicates non-compliant use to the software company online (colloquially called pinging). As such, a verification of MAC addresses, if genuine, doesn’t require an installation audit (of the software) but rather an ownership verification of the machines. This is not possible without the active cooperation of the owner of the offending machine or a police warrant. If a magistrate needs to be convinced enough of a violation to issue a warrant, then they would need to see evidence of ownership.

As this is next to impossible legally, contractors tend to prefer aggression to credibility. For sector-specific software like CAD, I suspect they move on information supplied by the software companies’ sales teams. That is, if a market-dominant software company feels sales to a user (like an architecture studio) are not commensurate to their estimated target for it, rude communication is bound to follow.”

More architects from across India came forward and shared their experiences on this issue. Some of the comments we received are shared below:

Dwaipayan Chakravarty: My previous office and another close acquaintance have been at the receiving end of third-party Autodesk enforcers. Their job is to scare architects with non-compliance legal jargon related to the Software Act and blackmail them into purchasing expensive Autodesk products.

Sharath Nayak, from Biome Solutions, Bangalore: Some years back, we allowed them into our office for an audit. On completion, they found us to be compliant. A client of ours walked in with his laptop. The Autodesk representative was rude to our client and insisted that he wanted to audit his laptop too.

Viveck Vermaa: I once received an email notice accusing me of illegally using a product at my parent’s house, where I do not reside. When I contacted the sender to inquire on the matter, they replied that because the said address was registered in an architect’s directory, they assumed that their products were being used. I asked them to remove the address from their database and to stop sending baseless notices. Despite my request, they sent people to my parents’ house, pretending to be salespeople from other companies, trying to confirm the presence of an architectural office. I had to call the person again to warn them about their actions, and they stopped after that. 

Chitra Vishwanath, from Biome Solutions, Bangalore: I believe in using licenced software; it’s unethical to use illegal products we rely on. But as a long-time customer, Autodesk’s harassment is unbearable. Their seemingly flawed system makes it impossible for admins to control user access, yet we’re treated like criminals. There’s no warning for concurrent usage or remote logins. It feels like a trap, not customer service. Even our vendor’s talks with Autodesk higher-ups haven’t stopped the enforcement emails. I’m starting to suspect everyone involved.

Eeshaan Shanker: AutoCAD is bullying people to buy extra licences. I’ve got AutoCAD licences, and even after that, they are constantly emailing and calling us with threats of compliance codes, and audits. We’ve forfeited all the AutoCAD licences and are working on alternative software.

An architect from Goa shared their experience with us on the condition of anonymity. We were unexpectedly visited by someone wearing a PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers) badge, claiming to inspect our office for illegal use of AutoCAD. I did not allow him entry, as I had heard about the negative experiences of other architects. Instead, I provided him with a list of all our AutoCAD licences. Following this, I received a call from someone, claiming to be from AutoCAD, who insisted that I comply with the email and threatened consequences if I did not. I explained that I had already provided all the necessary data for our licences, as we don’t have any pirated software in our office. I also conveyed that, while I understand the need for checks, they should avoid threatening us in this manner. Having heard stories of inspectors installing malware on computers during such visits, we found the entire process unpleasant and intimidating. 

These incidents aren’t isolated and have reportedly been occurring for over a decade. However, architects are becoming increasingly aware of their rights and are starting to handle Autodesk’s alleged unfair trade practices more firmly. Some have even involved legal experts, resulting in the Autodesk agencies backing off. 

Architect Sivaraman S. shared his experience, “We stopped using AutoCAD six years ago when they got rid of the one-time perpetual licencing. We shifted to other CAD software. Soon after, they started sending us threatening emails falsely accusing us of using an unauthorised version of their software and demanding that we purchase their yearly licence. Even though we explained that we had moved on to other software, they hired a random agency to pressure us into buying their software in the name of licence regularisation. Additionally, they sent emails through their legal consultant in Delhi. I had my lawyer send them a legal notice in response, detailing my legal rights and expressing that their tactics of coercion and threats were unethical.”

Architect Suditya Sinha shares the similar experience from 2018 and talks about having to send similar emails to Autodesk, which read, “Someone claiming to be an authorised Autodesk / Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) personnel entered our office premises without any prior communications or scheduled appointment. He had a letter addressed to someone who was never our employee. He insisted on accessing our systems and speaking to our senior management while disrupting the office environment. The individual was uninformed, uncivil, and aggressive, as he kept demanding his right to be there. We wrote to Autodesk informing them of the incident and asking for clarification, mentioning that we can take legal action for trespassing and harassment.”

He shared that even after having moved to alternate software, the follow up by people claiming to be from Autodesk has not stopped.

Similarly, architect Amol Chaudhari from Nashik also had to send a stern email to Autodesk. He mentions, “We had repeatedly informed Autodesk and PWC representatives that we do not use any of their products. We asked them to cease any further attempts of contacting us regarding the issue. I mentioned that if we were to receive any future emails or visits from Autodesk or any third-party representative concerning this matter that would disrupt our office hours, my legal team will take action for criminal trespassing, under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the court.”

When contacted for comment on these issues, Renée Francis, Director, Head of Corporate Communications at Autodesk provided the following statement:

“I’m not aware of any specific instance as you describe below, but can share our general approach which is that Autodesk works hard to protect its customers from nonvalid software, which can contain malware and leave customers open to risk and hours of lost productivity. The Autodesk Genuine Service checks for nonvalid software, then sends users with nonvalid software notifications about how to resolve the problem. For more information, visit autodesk.com/genuine.”

While there’s no denying the prevalence of software piracy, there’s a growing sentiment that Autodesk is primarily targeting those who already have licenced software. Some architects have raised concerns about compliance agencies like Ernst & Young (EY) and Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) acting more like salespeople with targets, raising questions about ethics and legalities.

Faced with these challenges, a growing number of architects have already begun exploring alternatives to AutoCAD. While most agree that no alternative quite matches AutoCAD’s capabilities, Autodesk’s alleged unfair practices are pushing users away. 

Architect Meeta Walavalkar comments, “Even services consultants generate input/output in CAD. There are many other software, but these are not marketed enough or cannot be bridged with AutoCAD. There is now a wave around Revit wherein clients are demanding submission through integrated models.” 

---

Professional Responsibility of Architects and Legal Rights

It’s crucial for architects to be aware of their legal rights in these situations, especially those related to trespassing and unauthorised conduct by software companies. Architects should also be aware of how to handle these situations properly. No software company has the right to enter office premises unannounced or without a court order allowing auditing and scanning of software. 

At the same time, it’s important to note that architects have a responsibility to ensure compliance with software licencing agreements. Understanding Autodesk’s End User Licence Agreement (EULA) is crucial for all users of their software. Failure to comply with these terms gives Autodesk the right to audit architecture studios and, in cases of piracy, to pursue legal action.

Dwaipayan Chakravarty comments on the same, “While I understand that AutoCAD is the preferred option amongst colleges, credit goes to Autodesk for their effort to build a strong brand association and their outreach to colleges. Architects also must use valid software subscriptions, without exception. There is no excuse for using pirated or hacked software.” 

Another architect, Aman Bhadauria, adds to this, “First and foremost, always be compliant and read the terms at least once. Always ask for proof and, if possible, employ a lawyer if they’re pushing too much!”

While architects should be aware of their rights regarding unannounced visits or harassment, they must also ensure they are using software legally and in accordance with the agreed-upon terms to avoid potential legal repercussions.

Some legal experts’ views on this issue are that Autodesk or its agents do not have the right to search and cease computers on your premises without a warrant issued by the district court. All threats, whether on calls, emails, or in any other form, are illegal. Architects can also obtain damages and injunction against the continuance of such threats.

---

The Role of Education Institutes and Professional Bodies

The architecture community in India needs to push for change, beginning with education. There is a growing emphasis on the necessity of introducing students to alternative software, such as open-source and community-maintained options. The Council of Architecture (CoA) must ensure software parity in the architectural institutes so that the curriculum does not encourage monopolies by any company. This diversification would not only provide more options for future architects but also create a more competitive market that could drive innovation and fairer pricing.

Abhay Purohit, President of the Council of Architecture, and Principal at IDEAS, Nagpur, shared, “The Council of Architecture never specifies a particular software or company. Schools have the freedom to choose software. But I agree that architecture schools must explore various possibilities.”

The Indian Institute of Architects (IIA), as the country’s oldest architects’ organisation, has a crucial role to play. By providing guidance, legal support, and collective bargaining power, the Institute could help architects navigate these challenges and push for more ethical practices in the industry. Architect Nitin Patel, from Nashik, comments on the same, “I feel that governing bodies like the IIA or CoA should negotiate with Autodesk to make the software affordable and offer low-cost upgrades.”

Vilas Vasant Avachat, President of the Indian Institute of Architects, comments, “We had several meetings with Autodesk regarding this. They briefly stopped this practice of harassment but resumed very soon. So, we decided to shift to other software. Most of the IIA members have purchased IIACAD, which is effective and at a reasonable pricing in comparison to AutoCAD.”  

However, Lalichan Zacharias’s view on this differs from Vilas Avachat, “Threatening calls to architects are repeated whenever the companies or dealers find their [sales] targets are not achieved. IIA tried to resist and support the architects during such events, and motivated members to use only legal software. As a perpetual solution to this problem, IIACAD was introduced. But sadly, after almost three years of its inception, we have not [even] sold 1000 copies.”

He continues, “But I think things can change if we question such things and put up a fight. Individuals may have limitations, but IIA as an organisation can lead a protest, which I believe even such multinationals can’t ignore.”

As the architectural community in India continues to evolve and adapt to changing technological landscapes, the hope is that a balance can be struck between protecting intellectual property rights and encouraging a fair, competitive environment that benefits all stakeholders in the architectural profession.

---

Rajesh Advani

Credits: Geethu Gangadhar and Simran Gandhi

We would like to thank all architects who came forward and shared their experiences on this issue. However, we regret that we were unable to incorporate many comments, to avoid repetition and irrelevance to the issue.