September 29, 2008
Maker of EndNote Citation Software Sues George Mason U.
Thomson Reuters Inc. sued George Mason University in a Virginia court this month, arguing that a free software tool made by the university makes improper use of the company’s EndNote citation software.
The company’s complaint argues that programmers at George Mason’s Center for History and New Media reverse-engineered EndNote to create a free program called Zotero. The university’s free software is a plug-in for the Firefox Web browser, and it is designed to help scholars store and organize their online research. It has been downloaded more than 1 million times.
Thomson Reuters argues that the latest release of George Mason’s software, which can import files created by EndNote and turn them into files that can be used and shared online using Zotero, “is willfully and intentionally destroying Thomson’s customer base for the EndNote software.” The company seeks $10-million in damages for each year the university has offered the software and to stop the university from distributing versions of Zotero that can convert EndNote files.
The Web site for Zotero boasts that the software “includes the best parts of older reference manager software (like EndNote) — the ability to store author, title, and publication fields and to export that information as formatted references — and the best parts of modern software and Web applications (like iTunes and del.icio.us).”
Dan Cohen, director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing advice from his lawyer. Officials from Thomson Reuters also declined to comment. —Jeffrey R. Young
Posted on Monday September 29, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Educators Say Wall Street Collapse May Result in More IT Applicants
Next: How to Survive the Technological Onslaught on Your 'iBrain'
I’ve extracted the relevant parts from the PDF of the complaint into a blog posting and posted directions for following the official reports on the case via the Virginia court information website. I also recommend looking at Mike Madison’s legal-oriented comments on the lawsuit.
— Peter Murray Sep 29, 05:04 PM #
Thomson Reuters should save their money. People will continue to abandon proprietary software, such as EndNote, to save money and gain independence. Removing the import feature will make little difference… someone will write a plugin that does the same and it will be invulnerable to lawsuits because it will be unsupported and probably posted anonymously. Software publishers are in for a rough ride.
— gregS Sep 29, 05:29 PM #
Greg S is correct. This is one more example of an old business model fighting to maintain market share in a world of open sharing.
— Cable Green Sep 29, 05:42 PM #
While Thomson Reuters did allege that Zotero “can import files created by EndNote and turn them into files that can be used and shared online using Zotero,” their claim is factually incorrect. This was a read-only function and it was not possible for users to save or share these files.
EndNote style support is disabled in the most recent release of Zotero.
— Richard Karnesky Sep 29, 09:45 PM #
It is interesting that Thompson didn’t go after JabRef. JabRef is another Open Source Citation Manager, albeit with a smaller set of Import functions. However JabRef DOES support import of Endnote. Guess the JabRef people are not seen as a threat,…yet.
— A7Bo Sep 30, 09:54 AM #
This isn’t about data; it’s about citation styling. JabRef does not AFAIK read Endnote style files. Zotero does (er, well, it did). That’s what the suit is about.
— Bruce D'Arcus Sep 30, 09:58 AM #
I see a distinction between the reverse engineering of software vs. output of the software. My question is whether GMU picked apart EndNote or bundles created with it. This also comes up with learning bundles that are (or are “almost”) IMS-CP, IMS-QTI, SCORM, etc., generated by any number of proprietary apps, but without protections like, e.g., patented encryption.
— Noah Botimer Sep 30, 12:36 PM #
@Noah
There is no evidence that GMU decompiled EndNote in order to figure out how the undocumented .ENS style files worked & nor would there be any reason for them to try to do so. .ENS files are relatively simple and unencrypted.
— Richard Karnesky Sep 30, 09:32 PM #
An interesting wrinkle I’ve seen reported in the blogosphere is that at some time in the past 8 months, EndNote added language to the output styles download page that their output style files are only to be used in conjunction with a licensed copy of EndNote. It’s basically a clickthrough license – by downloading them you agree. BUT archived copies of that same download page in the Wayback machine show no such language. So it seems entirely possible to me (librarian, not a lawyer) that the Zotero developers would not have been in violation of anything by downloading these files in order to look at them to make their product compatible – they would not have had to even use EndNote itself at all.
— Jenny Reiswig Oct 1, 12:56 PM #
@Jenny
Yes, and that new language is STILL missing from Thomson’s FTP site!
Since many of EndNote’s styles have been contributed by publishers and end users, it is frustrating that Thomson is “relicensing” them in any manner.
— Richard Karnesky Oct 1, 02:05 PM #
Thompson are suing because they are worried – and they should be. I have stopped using Endnote in favour of Zotero and I have never looked back. I’m sick to death of updating Endnote on all the computers in the library where I work (300+) every time they release a new version. I hope Thompson loses this.
— Cybergrunt Oct 1, 10:49 PM #
As others are saying, it’s yet another example of a large corporation trying to protect its business model instead of trying to improve its products.
Thomson is quite powerful and complacency seems to have settled in. It’ll take a while before their academic products lose their quasi-monopolistic status, but it will eventually happen.
Whatever happens, the landscape is changing in terms of software and services relevant in academic research and publication. Thomson can adapt to the new context, spin off ISI, or abandon the academic market altogether.
Is academia finally waking up?
— Alexandre Enkerli Oct 5, 11:31 AM #
They’ve now got a click-through contract.
Gripes on their forums
— Rick Oct 6, 02:11 AM #
I just found out about this and find it stupid. The only reason the Zotero folks might have to reverse-engineer EndNote is to ensure Zotero doesn’t suck like EndNote :) I’ve tried both, and Zotero is clearly superior.
— Todd Sipe Oct 16, 07:51 PM #