Software copyright in Mexico... a true story

This true story is brought to us from a small business of architects in Mexico, by our Mexican member Colectiva Ecologista Jalisco. The relevance of this story to consumers comes in the very compelling conclusion that the author reaches at the end.

We were—and I say were because the crisis caught us unprepared—an office with 80 staff members at that time. We had the same number of computers for very large apartment and office building projects. However, we went from being a small office just one or two years beforehand, and our practices, with respect to the purchase of “legal” programs was the same as all the other small offices. Not a single license.

We have always used AutoCAD as our drawing program as it is the industry standard for graphic representation, at least in Mexico, even among engineers. AutoCAD is a program which has constantly been launching new versions.  So, we decided to call some Autodesk suppliers to ask them to come and explain the latest program and its advantages. They offered to give us a course to learn to use it. The course was given  and we discovered that we would still need to use AutoCAD for detailing. We asked them, however, to quote a price for about 49 licenses. A huge amount of money.

As such, having received the quote, we never sought out the supplier to buy the licenses and we continued using the AutoCAD platform in its “illegal” version. Six months went by.

And suddenly in June 2008, a letter arrived from a company called BSA (Business Software Alliance, www.bsa.org) in which they warned us that they would come with the IMPI (Mexican Institute of Industrial Property) to check the authenticity of our equipment. They had received news that we were using 49 “counterfeit” licenses. And that’s where we made the connection...

We started to panic and had to undertake evaluations of how many computers had licenses of any kind, from Microsoft, Adobe, Autodesk, etc. As you surely know, as architects we use a lot of graphics and administrative programs, so that each computer had several programs installed. The damage they could do if they “caught” us was massive.

We contacted some lawyers specialized in copyright issues, and they advised us as to what to do... the strategy was that they would take charge of communication with the BSA and delay  their imminent visit.

While one thing or another was going on during the time we gained through the intervention of the lawyers, we purchased 40 AutoCAD LT licenses (in other words, AutoCAD light, which costs one third of the cost of the full AutoCAD). We invested more than a million pesos, because we also had to buy licenses for everything we were lacking... even if we only bought the bare minimum.

By having purchased licenses, BSA had achieved its objective. But this generated a big financial hole for us, and after three months, when the global crisis happened... well, we were unprepared to face it. There was a significant staff cutback, and we ended up with a portion of brand new AutoCAD LT licenses not in use. That’s how things are.

Mexico is a country which doesn’t have the per capita income levels that they have in the U.S.  That is, a program that in the U.S. costs you $5000 USD, might be an option when your income is regulated by the associations of architects, and architectural services are well paid. Here everything is halfway or less. We compete by charging as little as possible in order to get work, as there are no associations to regulate and ensure that fee levels are respected, if they exist at all. Therefore, to pay $5000 USD for an essential software program plus the yearly updates and then face these times which demand competitiveness, is not an option. Everyone has counterfeit programs and everyone charges “as little as possible”... So, if you buy a license, and it impacts your indirect expenses when billing, well... you’re out of range and can’t compete. It’s a terrifying catch-22.

We need programs to be priced according to national income, in other words, “tropicalize” the price. One option would be to make the licenses so cheap that not having them would be stupid. That is, if having them gives you access to online support, complete software functionality, bug-free software, without the pressure of being “caught” by the IMPI, well we would have them.

If this were the case, there would be a lot of people buying original programs, and the software development companies would have much greater revenue than at present.

If there was open source software that really worked, it would be fantastic. But I don’t see anything wrong with companies developing good, almost error-free software. There is nothing wrong with them charging for their work, if that means that their products work very well.

The problem is with the Mexican mentality.

On the one hand, the “wise guy” mentality: even if it’s cheap, nothing’s cheaper than counterfeit. On the other hand, the political myopia: putting State tools and resources to work in the wrong order and for the wrong reasons. In other words, using public resources to protect private interests, without having first generated the conditions in the country for competition under equal conditions, within and beyond our borders. Mexico should be able to generate its own technology—in this case, its own software. If this were possible, we wouldn’t have to beg Autodesk to please, please, please sell us their programs more cheaply “because we’re poor!” ... Technology is a product of technique, which is a cultural product. Technology, therefore, is always appropriate for the culture which has generated it.

One practical example: The IMPI (the State in this case) protects the companies (foreign companies in this case) and leaves domestics companies unprotected (in this case us). By protecting Autodesk they almost sink us (40 jobs lost).

Don’t misinterpret me, I think it is essential for the State to defend principles, first such high principles as national autonomy, and then lesser principles such as intellectual property.