Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adobe Threatens Microsoft With Suit

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the waving-a-big-stick-around dept.

lseltzer writes "Adobe has threatened an antitrust suit against Microsoft, over PDF writing in Office 2007. Adobe wants Microsoft to separate the feature and charge extra for it. Microsoft has agreed to remove PDF writing, but won't charge extra." From the eWeek article: "In February, Adobe Chief Executive Bruce Chizen told Reuters he considered Microsoft to be the company's biggest concern. 'The competitor I worry about most is Microsoft,' Chizen said at the time. Adobe's PDF technology lets producers create and distribute documents digitally that retain designs, pictures and formatting. "

59 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. Summary incorrect. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Adobe isn't "Threatening Microsoft With a Suit" - Microsoft is speculating that Adobe will file an antitrust suit in Europe.

    I think its FUD on MS's part: From Adobe's PDF Reference page:
    The PDF Reference provides a description of the Portable Document Format and is intended for application developers wishing to develop applications that create PDF files directly, as well as read or modify PDF document content.
    Unless MS extends PDF in a manner imcompatable with adobe's PDF. (but that would never happen)
    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Summary incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Unless MS extends PDF in a manner imcompatable with Adobe's PDF

      I tend to agree, unless MS is mis-stating its case to garner early sympathy. Adobe Opened the PDF spec, unless they specifically reserved some portion as "trade secret" or the license restricted implementation of certain features. Adobe's been making money on their Portable Document Format for a decade, and if the product is doomed to slide into the non-profitable abyss, then they will need to adjust. Perhaps they could react by extending Acrobat into a full featured Word processor?

    2. Re:Summary incorrect. by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Errr, right, your fluff (it was all attributed to a MS spokesperson) piece link pretty much confirmed what this guy said

      Well, I'm sure this person's theory is more accurate than MS saying they are pulling XPS out of Office. Sure, this post you reference has to be more CORRECT than MS's official press statements about removing XPS from Office 2007.

      Adobe was trying to get $$ from the great MS and threatening them with going to the EU if Microsoft didn't pony up royalties, and people here are rushing to defend Adobe even if they have to make it up...

      The irony, this story doesn't mean much as the PDF and XPS capabilities will still be free downloads for Office 2007. The real story here is watching Adobe try to bully $$ from MS by threatening them with the EU.

      How many other companies that can Export or Save in PDF format have you seen Adobe go after, and if they haven't why is MS so special? It is called getting greedy because they think they can pull strings between pulling the feature from Office 2007 and EU threats.

      If this is how Adobe handles business maybe we should consider kicking PDF and Adobe's Memory Hog Viewer and crappy PDF creation tools to the curb once and for all...

      (One sad note, as a Office 2007 tester, the MS PDF Save feature in Office 2007 worked better than using the real Adobe PDF Creation tools, maybe this is what POed Adobe.)

      Give me a break...

    3. Re:Summary incorrect. by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well my sources at Adobe and MS tell me that XPS has Adobe POed, even though Microsoft has pulled Adobe into every XPS event and even has provided them with more development and technical details than developers are getting access to.

      XPS is basically what the Print Engine, or Vector compose in Vista uses to pass data around, although it can be dropped into a file format. Even MS admits that XPS is not in the same category as PDF, nor includes the features of PDF.

      However, for whatever reason, Adobe's bargaining with MS was to have them RIP XPS out of Vista. (Hard to do, since it is how the Video and Applications and Printers pass data around - although I guess MS could pull the mechanism that turns this data into a file.) However, XPS technology is what Adobe should be using to BUILD their Vista version of Acrobat, but instead see it as a threat.

      MS refused to pull XPS out of Vista, so Adobe came back to the table telling them to rip PDF out of Office 2007 then. PDF is NOT an open standard, even though Adobe has let companies make software with PDF Export/Save abilities for years without fighting them on it. (Corel, Open Office, etc etc...)

      So now that MS was going to use it, (actually a good thing for PDF, because people wouldn't be so apt to use XPS or OfficeXML), but instead Adobe is more concerned of the XPS threat from Vista, and is requested that MS pay 'fees' for each copy of Office to Adobe. (Again, not so on the table, as they have not asked for these fees from Corel or anyone else that also does PDF creation)

      So maybe it isn't just Adobe wanting $$ from MS, but Adobe is still the ones stiring the pot.

      My sources at MS that have been working with Adobe over the past couple of years on XPS and PDF in Office 2007 were freaking shocked that Adobe has taken the road it has in the past negotiations. With Adobe not only giving MS the finger basically, but using threat tatics of the EU and also trying to get additional help from the US govt.

      MS DID offer to bundle everything from Acrobat Reader to Flash in Vista as a way to offset any concerns Adobe had. Adobe still refused wanting $$ for the PDF support in Office 2007.

      It is almost like Adobe is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

      I remember when SGI and the rest of the OpenGL group that MS was a strong proponent of told MS to pound sand when Microsoft wanted to advance the OpenGL api for gaming and push 3d gaming GPU technology from the OpenGL APIs. MS said fine and went off to create their own technologies and why we now have DirectX.

      I can see this thing from Adobe doing the same, pushing MS to ratify XPS and OfficeXML as 'industry' document standards and tell Adobe to go pound PDF sand. MS at least is giving away the source and usage rights to XPS, something Adobe hasn't even done with PDF.

      All it would take is a few tools and some encouragement to get *nix and Mac developers to support MS's 'open' document format to seriously hurt Adobe. Now Adobe has given MS every reason to do so.

  2. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    will they be coming after pdftex/pdflatex next?
    Or ps2pdf?

    Whats the point of opening the spec for PDF, if you don't want other people's applications to be able to write them?

    1. Re:So by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the real concern is spectacular PDF authoring a la Acrobat. And then there's the darndest thing - Microsoft applications seem to import other peoples formats real well, but they don't export worth a damn (if at all).

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:So by vijayiyer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I tend to disagree - have you ever tried to lad a vector graphic into a Microsoft application? As far as I can tell, it's impossible.

      EPS? No. PDF? Usually not. SVG? No on that too.

  3. Yet another misleading summary. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Informative


    From TFA (emphasis mine):
    Microsoft Corp. said it expected Adobe Systems Inc. to file an antitrust suit in Europe after talks to use Adobe's technology broke down this week, according to the Wall Street Journal.
    Adobe hasn't 'threatened' anything. Nowhere in the story is the word 'threat' used.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Yet another misleading summary. by backwardMechanic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All Adobe need to do is release a press statement explaining that PDF is open, anyone can use it, and that they have no intention of sueing MS. They can even cite Apple and open source examples. It'll make MS look pretty stupid and foil their little FUD plan all at once.

  4. Playing Devil's Advocate here by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The script "ps2pdf" has been part of the Ghostscript package installed on every Linux, Solaris and BSD system for a long time.

    What do Adobe think of that?

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well the headline is just a blatant lie as other people have pointed out but...

      You don't sue people who don't have money. Why go after some shlub?

      Note: The above statement does not apply to creatures and other entitites that have eruptedd out of the orifices of the devil such as the RIAA and the MPAA.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't speak for Adobe here, but I would speculate that they don't think a Unix-based command line PDF generating utility which has been integrated into very little with a meaningful UI to a typical office worker is a particularly big threat to their Windows-based GUI PDF generating utility which integrates into other software.

      OTOH, Microsoft integrating such functionality into Office would effectively kill off a significant market for Adobe Acrobat pretty quickly. A lot of people either don't know of free Windows-based alternatives (hint: provided you don't need much more than "Print to PDF" functionality, they exist, and they don't have to be OpenOffice) or are still of the opinion that free software is free because it's worthless.

    3. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by blakestah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's different possibilities.

      One is that some subset of distiller is in Microsoft Word under an agreement with Adobe. If you install Adobe Acrobat (not the reader, the full version), it adds a subset of distiller to Word.

      There is a LOT of business out there that converts Word documents to PDF. Adobe makes a lot of money from it, and Microsoft is speculating that when they add PDF capabilities to Word for no extra charge, that this market will be quashed and Adobe will lose money.

      Kinda like when Microsoft gave away IE while Netscape was charging for their browser. Killed the browser market, killed Netscape.

    4. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by falcon5768 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      very valid reason (well on Microsofts part) They want to release a "superior format" and lock people into it by removing it from thier software and saying Adobe made us do it.

      Basically they are flat out lying to ruin adobe by getting the idiot masses to rebel against Adobe.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    5. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by kilgortrout · · Score: 4, Informative

      Remember, there are different rules for monopolies. As a monopoly, MS was found to have improperly bundled its browser with windows by US courts, while this same bundling commonly occurs in linux distros. It's improper leveraging of a monopoly position to force a competitor out of business that may be at issue here assuming you can show that MS has a monopoly in the office suite area.

    6. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 2, Informative

      What Adobe (apparently) thinks of that may be found at http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailarchive/eitaac-l/we b/eitaac.9901/msg00025.html/

      From the article on the web-page:

      "Adobe gives copyright permission to anyone to:

      - Prepare files in which the file content conforms to the Portable Document Format.

      - Write drivers and applications that produce output represented in the Portable Document Format.

      - Write software that accepts input in the form of the Portable Document Format and displays the results, prints the results, or otherwise interprets a file represented in the Portable Document Format.

      - Copy Adobe's copyrighted list of operators and data structures, as well as the PDF sample code and PostScript language Function definitions in the written specification, to the extent necessary to use the Portable Document Format for the above purposes."

      Therefore.... without expansion of the original article, we really don't know what the issue is. It's possible that Microsoft has extended PDF in some incompatible manner, or that Adobe's more recent innovations, allowing PDF to be edited, aren't being respected, or that someone panicked about The Beast implementing it's own version, and making the original irrelevant.

      Basically, we have a smallish company with a few dedicated niches on one side, and a convicted, predatory, behemoth on the other, except that the behemoth looks vulnerable to EU anti-trust hunters. Years ago Jeff Danziger http://www.danzigercartoons.com/, an editorial cartoonist, summed up the New IBM with a drawing of a man at a desk, the old IBM THINK logo in the trash, and a new "BUY" logo on the desk. If updated for 2006, and for a generic tech-company, the new logo would read "SUE".

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    7. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think there has to be something more to this: Microsoft wanted to include more advanced PDF generation capabilities than would be provided by the usual printer-driver type output plugins.

      Agreed. OO.o version 2 can not only generate PDFs, but also generate the table of contents that you sometimes see on the left hand side with PDFs - something which a printer-driver type PDF creator cannot do because by the time it sees the document it knows nothing about its structure.

      It's the extra features like this which make people buy Adobe's Acrobat product - many organisations wouldn't install a separate full-blown office suite like OpenOffice, but would happily install a Microsoft office upgrade or Adobe Acrobat. Adobe are quite right to be concerned - past history has shown that "the best on the market" doesn't necessarily translate to "the one which gets picked" - quite often "the one which is good enough and requires minimal additional effort" is the one which gets picked. If Microsoft Office is going on a person's computer anyway, it's likely to to qualify as "good enough" with zero additional effort.

    8. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by Jon_S · · Score: 2, Informative

      "You also often lose the ability to embed fonts, and it just creates representations of the characters that look crap when zoomed in on, which also tends to make the file much larger."

      No it doesn't. PDFCreator and for that matter and print-to-PDF applications generate vector PDFs, not bitmap PDFs.

      ALso, nobody has mentioned that Word Perfect has had export to PDF since at least 2000. There is obviously something fishy about this story. Most likely a combination of poor reporting and MS spin to make sure it will look like Adobe's fault if PDF isn't in vista or the new Office.

    9. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here by uhoreg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      openoffice has pdf export - no money - no lawsuit.
      Are you saying that Sun has no money?
      --

      To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

  5. What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsoft? by Robotech_Master · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is it that Apple is able to get away with allowing easy generation of PDFs via OS X's printing utilities, but Microsoft can't? Did Apple pony up Adobe's danegelt? Or are they too small for Adobe to care?

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  6. I used the PDF export in Office 2007 Beta 2 by timecop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And it's great.
    Its integrated, its almost as quick as saving the file, and most of all, it doesn't require 300megs of crappy Adobe junk to be installed which hogs your system, installs a printer driver, and adds its toolbars to every fucking application.

    I hope microsoft does NOT remove PDF export functionality, because the alternative (adobe acrobat) is annoying and bloated. Sure, it might have OCR and some other niceties, but it should stick to that, instead of trying to take over every document publishing app on my PC.

  7. Well.... by linuxkrn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like most /.ers I hate Microsoft, and love it when they get it stuck to them. However, this does worry me a bit. Right now MS-Office is the industry standard. For both work and home I use OpenOffice.org and tell everyone else to use it to.

    What worries me about this is that OOo has PDF export that gave them a nice "feature" that MS-Office didn't have. Now Adobe is going after MS, I have to wonder if OOo gets popular enough they will demand that it be removed too.

    Maybe it's just my cynical anti-big-corporation views, but I don't trust Adobe enough to not use their big stick against OOo.

  8. So why isn't Adobe expected to sue Apple? by dunsurfin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So why isn't Adobe expected to sue Apple? Print to PDF is an integral part of OS X.

    1. Re:So why isn't Adobe expected to sue Apple? by tak+amalak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because Apple licensed it from Adobe.

      --
      Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
  9. gimme a break by tehwebguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    if any of this is really true it should be pretty embarassing for adobe. i would NEVER buy an acrobat product. the free acrobat reader is such a disaster on windows, especially in browsers, that buying an advanced version is like a joke to me.

    for reading i use foxit: http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php

    for saving i make an html page and run it through some pdf generator online (i have to do that maybe twice a year for clients who will only take pdf invoices)

    not to mention, isn't "Save As PDF..." built into like every other apple application, and can't pdfs be opened with apple's Preview?

    --
    -- lol pwned
  10. This isn't licensing, it's antitrust. by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The argument isn't that Microsoft doesn't have a license -- it's that Microsoft is leveraging a monopoly. The dichotomy isn't whether something is open or licensed; Adobe isn't arguing that PDF isn't open, or that Microsoft needs a license. What it's being speculated that Adobe may argue is that Microsoft, by taking advantage of that open format, is illegally extending their monopoly.

  11. Re:What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsof by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Informative

    Neither. Microsoft said they *think* Adobe will want to sue them, and so Microsoft is releasing preemptive FUD against Adobe.
    Regards,
    Steve

  12. Re:When you whine... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    When you whine without reading the article, someone will point out to you that Adobe hasn't threatened anything.

    You are wrong in this instance. They've opened the format for anyone to implemement since it's good for them gaining market share and ubiquity.

    Now that Microsoft wants to add PDF support like thousands other 3-rd party PDF writer products out there (including OpenOffice), they're spreading FUD about adobe, rather then just quietly implementing PDF support.

    PDF is an open format for anyone to implement.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  13. They can't. by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

    This "big stick" is anti-monopoly laws. OOo isn't a monopoly in any way, shape or form.

  14. Re:What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsof by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is it that Apple is able to get away with allowing easy generation of PDFs

    How is it that the MS fanbois leap to defend MS & Bash Apple without reading the article?

    Adobe's threatened nothing. Microsoft is spreading FUD.

    (and Apple uses PDF for a helluva lot more then what you've mentioned)

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  15. I don't understand why people still are using PDF by layer3switch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    when dvi is much better. Personally I stop creating PDf file long time ago. There is nothing like that feeling when your browser (Firefox) is trying to open up 10 MB pdf file, "Oh, crap..."

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  16. Re:What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsof by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, NeXT did have a license to use Display PostScript in NeXTSTEP. So even if there were licensing fees for PDF (which there aren't, afaik), Apple would probably have been covered under NeXT's previous license agreement. This is pure speculation, of course...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  17. Software Dictatorship by B_SharpC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Software is a dictatorship eg Microsoft. Other businesses are more fairly partnerships eg law partnerships, real estate partnerships, medical etc.

    It is because techies have such poor social skills. They talk of libertarian ideals but in reality are mostly doormats who feel safer with a monolithic dictator. Nerds sadly trade proper ownership for the false substitute of being controlled by surrogate big daddy.

    Adobe software is fighting a losing battle in a totalitarian industry where the tech worker attitude enables tyranny.

    --
    Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
    1. Re:Software Dictatorship by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe we can apply your post to society in general. People really don't want freedom. They don't want to make "hard" choices. I have the same problem. I can't decide whether I want salsa or mustard on my hotdog. I will literally dwell on it for at least five minutes. Life would so much easier if there is only one choice.

      --
      What?
  18. In other news.. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Funny

    In order to continue to include PDF functionality, OpenOffice.Org has been forced to double the price of their product.

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    1. Re:In other news.. by windowpain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, I was suprised years ago when free, legal products started showing up that can create PDFs (e.g., OpenOffice). If they're OK legally then Adobe is on mighty thin ice going after Microsoft.

      And for you folks saying PDFs are a scourge of the Internet I agree. My pet peeve is links that open PDFs without warning, especially when they're incorporated into some kind of fancy button that doesn't even reveal the destination in the status bar on the bottome of the browser.

      However, PDF is the de facto standard for distributing print-ready documents, and in that role, it's a Good Thing.

      --
      Insert witty sig here.
    2. Re:In other news.. by SEE · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously, I was suprised years ago when free, legal products started showing up that can create PDFs (e.g., OpenOffice). If they're OK legally then Adobe is on mighty thin ice going after Microsoft.

      Not in this case. Adobe is purportedly talking antitrust. Under antitrust laws, actions that are perfectly legal for normal people and companies are nontheless forbidden to monopolies. For example, Linux distros and Apple can bundle any media players they like with their OSes in Europe, but Microsoft was slapped down for doing the exact same thing.

  19. What's the Correct One? by lseltzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, I'm stumped. Why would Microsoft leak this story unless Adobe were threatening legal action? Why is Adobe refusing to comment on it?

    There's no reasonable reading of the story that doesn't include an Adobe threat of legal action. And do you really find it hard to believe that another software company would threaten Microsoft with an antirust suit?

    1. Re:What's the Correct One? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is Adobe refusing to comment on it?

      Why do you say that? All I could see in the article was: Representatives of Microsoft and Adobe were not immediately reachable for comment. - that's not refusing to comment.

      Now, I suspect the reason Microsoft & Adobe have been negotiating, is over rights to use Adobes proprietary DRM extensions (the ones that are not implemeneted by openoffice, Apple's print to PDF feature, etc).

      When negotiations broke down (who knows what reason for, perhaps Adobe was trying to screw MS or vice versa), MS was left without being able to fully support PDF.

      There's no reasonable reading of the story that doesn't include an Adobe threat of legal action.

      You haven't been following Microsoft stories for long have you?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:What's the Correct One? by RemovableBait · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, I thought this was pretty odd too, until I remebered about one of the Vista 'features' that Microsoft were pushing a while back.

      Microsoft are developing a competitor to PDF, codenamed 'Metro', that allows all the same functions as PDF as well as being integrated with the Vista printing system (much like Mac OS X's 'Print as PDF'). They also demonstrated it (I think at WinHEC 2005) printing direct to 'Metro-enabled' printers with a noticeable quality boost. They later renamed the format 'XPS' and it is present in the current Office 2007 builds.

      I think this is typical style Microsoft FUD to make it look like Adobe wants them to drop PDF, when actually, it's MS that wants rid of PDF in order to promote its XPS format. Despite PDF's strong foothold, integration of XPS within the widest used operating system and widest used office suite could change things. I reckon this is MS saying "sorry, not our fault you have to use our format!".

    3. Re:What's the Correct One? by RemovableBait · · Score: 2, Informative

      Metro has been a component of Office 12 since the first technical beta release. If you are a tester/user of Office 2007, you'll find Metro here:

      [OfficeLogoMenu] > 'Save As...(arrow next to it)' > 'PDF or XPS'. Guess what? XPS is Metro.

      Whoever modded you informative needs a +1 cluebat to the head.

    4. Re:What's the Correct One? by lseltzer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sure it's still not enough for you, but Microsoft is now on-record saying "they (Adobe) are threatening legal action".

  20. Well, if you RTFA... by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...it's *antitrust* (read: monopoly-busting) law they're potentially going to be using, not anything regarding copyright or patents -- so yes, it's an open standard; and no, the Ghostscript team isn't vulnerable to the same argument.

    1. Re:Well, if you RTFA... by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not really open when the vendor producing the operating system that 90+% of the world uses can't use it, is it?

    2. Re:Well, if you RTFA... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why not? Since when does having a monopoly mean that you can't give things away free?

      MS has a monopoly on their OS. Thus, they are not under normal market pressure for the price of the OS. They can, theoretically, raise the price $10 with little or no effect upon sales, to whatever the maximum amount of income will be, regardless of any competition. Why does this matter? It matters because nothing is truly free. It costs money to purify, bottle and ship water. Thus by "giving it away for free" what they are really doing is including the cost of it in the cost of Windows. When you buy Windows, you are then paying for bottled water, whether you want it or not, just as you are paying for the development of IE, Windows media player, etc., whether you want it or not.

      What they can't do is use their monopoly in one area to kill their competition in another area. Since Microsoft is not in the "water selling" business they aren't killing the competition by giving away water for free with their OS.

      There is a market for water. By bundling water with their OS and paying for the cost of this operation with it, they are entering into the water market, and no one can compete against them because even if it costs them twice as much to bottle and it tastes a little off, people still buy it because they need an OS, and they have no choice after that.

      What Microsoft is doing here is adding some basic functionality to it's[sic] office suite.

      Actually, they have created both a PDF generation and a generator for a new competitor to PDF (an MS proprietary format) and built it into the OS.

      This is functionality that all or most of its competitors in the office market already have. So by adding it, Microsoft is just keeping up with its own competitors.

      This matters not at all. OS X has built in PDF generation, but Apple does not have a monopoly on OS's. You can only bypass the market forces and the advantages of capitalism if you have a monopoly. Apple is getting close to having one on portable mp3 players and could get in trouble for bundling PDF generation software with that, but they don't so they are not at risk.

      That is a legal action, even if you are a monopoly.

      It is probably legal for them to bundle PDF or a competitor to PDF generation with office, but not with their OS or browser. Even this, however, is somewhat iffy as the office suite is illegally tied to the OS, via bundled support for the proprietary .doc format.

  21. Re:What PDF writer? by wadetemp · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Office 2007.

  22. Clearly FUD by LWGLIN · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's clearly FUD. There is absolutely no ground for such a lawsuite. Everybody can write a PDF engine and distribute it for free.
    The proof? Adobe is shipping a product (MacroMedia's Cold Fusion Server) with my F/OSS library iText to produce PDF from Cold Fusion pages. I never heard anybody at Adobe complain because I wrote a free PDF engine.
    As a PDF specialist I know that the big money isn't in the conversion from Word to PDF. PDF is a lot more than text documents. The Acrobat product family is used for completely different reasons than a product like MS Word or a free library like iText.

  23. This was expected. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This way, with microsoft "worried" about Adobe bringing a suit, Microsoft can introduce it's PDF replace technology.

    The best thing Adobe can do is publically state that it would like MS Office to include an unadultered version of PDF output ability.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  24. There is an easier way than Adobe Distiller by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...it doesn't require 300megs of crappy Adobe junk to be installed which hogs your system, installs a printer driver, and adds its toolbars to every fucking application.

    There is an easier way. See PDFCreator. It's a simple printer driver, doesn't take up but a meg or two, installs no toolbars or nag crap. It just makes PDF files.

    It's simple, clean, accurate and elegant, IMHO.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  25. Adobe can't have its cake and eat it too by GreedyCapitalist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The key to the success of Adobe's PDF format is that it is free of any licensing restrictions, so anyone can implement PDF readers/writers. Microsoft's competitors have - both operating system vendors like Apple and Linux and competing office suites like Star Office and OpenOffice.org. However Microsoft isn't allowed to - not because Adobe has any legal right to prevent it, but because Adobe claims that it won't be able to compete with Microsoft if Microsoft makes PDF features available for free like most everyone else does. Adobe charges $449 for Adobe Acrobat - something it can only get away if Microsoft isn't allowed to compete with it. In effect, it is saying "anyone can use our format and compete with our products... unless you actually present a competitive challenge."

    1. Re:Adobe can't have its cake and eat it too by TiggsPanther · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's an interesting situation, this one. Although maybe it's just because, for once, the other side is another company who is often seen as overcharging for their software.
      But, like other situations, here we have MS wanting to include something that would pretty much make their stranglehold on office software even tighter. And would definitely jeopardise the competition. In this case, Adobe. And in most of those situations I find myself loudly wishing that Miscrosoft would FOAD.

      Yet, this time, I find myself on Microsoft's side. Or, more accrately, against Adobe's.

      PDF is used a lot these days. For some reason, in education, it seems to be the preferred method of sending an electronic document around. Of course, you then get the scenario where more people want to create PDFs than you have licenses for Acrobat. This happens a lot where I work. The kicker, though, is that they don't need the full PDF-authoring capabilities of Acrobat itself, they only need to convert from Word document to PDF. So definitely not worth shelling out for a copy for every Academic in the department.

      Having said all of that, we also do take licensing seriously. So every so often we have to try and figure out who does and doesn't need it installed. And, when someone doesn't need Acrobat, it's often us IT bods who then have to take the file and convert it.
      Not too big a deal on the one hand. But, as a user of Open/NeoOffice and also a Mac user, I'm used to being able to print directly to PDF as supported by the software/OS itself. So, to me, it's a complete waste of my time. And every time another Academic wants to convert to a PDF I'm one step closer to suggeting to the IT Manager than OpenOffice becomes a part of the standard build.

      --
      Tiggs
      "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
  26. Re:What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsof by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

    So I'm guessing that apple took care of the licensing issues far in advance.

    Licensing issues? PDF is an approved open standard with perpetual free licensing and patent protection from Adobe. Why would Apple have to take care of anything any more than all the free software projects that re-implemented it?

  27. Even if it's true that Adobe wants to sue.. by Trelane · · Score: 5, Funny
    I bet I can see why the talks broke down. Licensing Java 1.1.1 to Microsoft for integration into Windows/IE worked out real well for Sun.

    Oh, to be a fly in that Adobe/Microsoft boardroom....

    Adobe: So, we're glad you want to license the PDF spec from us. Microsoft: Yeah, how 'bout that. Say, we thought it would value-enhance PDF to add the Win32DisplayDraw method to our implementation. Adobe: Umm, adding in Windows-specific bits would make the Portable Document Format kinda non-Portable, doncha think? Microsoft: Sure, but right now, the vast majority of your users use Windows, do they not? Adobe: Uh, yeeeah.... Microsoft And you want them to have the richest eXPerience they can with your PDF format and tools, yes? Adobe: Yeeeaah... Microsoft: So why shouldn't we give them Win32PaintControl to take advantage of the capabilities of 99% of your userbase? Adobe: Because it's the Portable Document Format! Hey, wasn't "Win32PaintControl" "Win32DisplayDraw" just a second ago? Microsoft: [waves hand dismissively] Details, details. We thought that the whole Portable thing was funny, since the portability only matters to 0.001% of your customers.

    We also thought you might want to take advantage of the new encryption capabilities for protecting your customers' valuable data with the upcoming Vista Next Generation Secure Computing Base.

    Adobe: PORTABLE! How is "Vista-only" more portable than "Windows-only"?! Microsoft: We understand. You see, we have a passion for your business. We can see that these minor modifications to the PDF standard require quite a bit of time and effort to help upgrade your customers' eXPerience and open to them new Vistas in computing through our partnership. [gets out checkbook]. How much time and effort do you think you'll need? Adobe: [eyes checkbook hungrily] Fi... Hey. Aren't you working on a PDF competitor for this new "Vista in computing"? Microsoft: Now you're just being difficult. For a talking point in our Office 2007 feature laundry list, you're sure annoying us. I think we'd better settle this in the market. We've tried to be reasonable. Adobe: Fine with me. I'm outta here! Enough of this "Windows users are the only users" crapola. [gets up and heads out] Microsoft: What was that?! You say you'll sue us for anti-trust, because you won't license PDF to us! Greedy backstabbers! Adobe: [from a ways off, without looking back] portable! Microsoft: [rolls eyes, sighs] Always with the zealots....
    --

    --
    Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  28. Obvious PDF FUD to support Microsoft's new format by damg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone remember Microsoft announcing it's PDF replacement last year? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/27/042225 0 "Hey if we support PDF, we think Adobe might sue us, so PDF sucks! Don't use it! By the way we have this new format coming out called Metro, you should check it out..."

  29. XPS is a better format than PDF for printing by lotzmana · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are probably quite a few high-end printers that can print PDF directly, no Acrobat Reader necessary. In the world of this industry the best achievers aspire to make the page rendering as multi-threaded as possible. Internally this means that the printer has two or more raster generators that work in parallel.

    Data fed to the printer is not a random-acess binary but is in a serial text format. What this means is that while rasters can be generated in parallel, most likely the parsing of the printing language (PostScript for example) can only go serially, hence a bottleneck.

    The next step in printing languages will be to have the pages described in a way that will permit parallel interpreting.

    One big disadvantage of PDF is that one has to receive the entire file before printing begins -- the index of the pages is at the end of the file. In contrast XPS is designed to explicitely help printer interprers begin to work immediately after page-end marker is received. All data referenced by this page has already been send to the device, intepreting of this page can start immediately and go independently and in parallel with another instance of the interpreter. In this regard XPS is better.

    1. Re:XPS is a better format than PDF for printing by Bazzargh · · Score: 2, Informative

      One big disadvantage of PDF is that one has to receive the entire file before printing begins -- the index of the pages is at the end of the file.

      Nonsense. Google for linearized PDF (its in an appendix of the PDF spec).

    2. Re:XPS is a better format than PDF for printing by SnowZero · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are probably quite a few high-end printers that can print PDF directly, no Acrobat Reader necessary.

      I've never heard of a printer that printed PDF directly, but there are very many that can interpret Postscript.

      In the world of this industry the best achievers aspire to make the page rendering as multi-threaded as possible.

      I doubt anyone cares about that right now. Do you have any reference backing this up at all? Most low end printers even render a single page multiple times because they lack the buffer memory to store the whole page, and the processors are quite slow compared to desktop CPUs (think tens of MHz). A high end printer is one that can store the whole page, and has a decent processor. I don't think they're at the point where they need SMT or multicore processors.

      most likely the parsing of the printing language (PostScript for example) can only go serially, hence a bottleneck.

      Interpreting is normally the bottleneck. Postscript is extremely easy to parse (by design).

      The next step in printing languages will be to have the pages described in a way that will permit parallel interpreting.

      Structured Postscript allows you to render different pages in parallel. I don't know why you'd need to go much beyond that anytime soon, at least for printing purposes.

  30. I totally disagree... by taharvey · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I constantly add type:PDF to my web searches, because I've found the ONLY things really whorthy of reading on the internet are in PDF format - all the HTML is fluff, opinion and marketing.

    Besides, until the abismal HTML format is replaced with something a capable as PDF, we'll be reading PDFs.

  31. Adobe sues Slashdot for Lying Headlines by Ragica · · Score: 2, Informative
    That's what someone should do.

    On another topic, unfortunately its probably not possible to sue publications, like the linked one, that routinely print the following phrase (as they do in the linked story): "were not immediately reachable for comment" (emphasis, mine).

    Every story that prints that should be forced to replace it with: "You should know, by the way, that I am an ass sucking reporter who couldn't manage to communicate to principle sources for my story, though I may have put in minimal effort to do so (and I reserve the right to define minimal), and I work for an ass sucking publication who's editors don't give a sucked rat's ass, so we're publishing this possibly substanceless collection of blurbs but feel the need to add this line so it sounds like the principle subjects of the story suck even more ass than we do; except worded this way it's clear we suck even more ass than they do, oops (did I use a semicolon? sorry)." Or, just leave the useless and idiotic line out.