Adobe Threatens Microsoft With Suit

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. "

Comments

Summary incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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)

Re:Summary incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

So

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So

[$RANDOMLUSER]

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).

Yet another misleading summary.

[TripMaster Monkey]

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.

Re:Yet another misleading summary.

[backwardMechanic]

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.

Playing Devil's Advocate here

[ajs318]

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?

Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here

[falcon5768]

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.

Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here

[kilgortrout]

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.

What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsoft?

[Robotech_Master]

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?

I used the PDF export in Office 2007 Beta 2

[timecop]

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.

So why isn't Adobe expected to sue Apple?

[dunsurfin]

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

Re:So why isn't Adobe expected to sue Apple?

[tak amalak]

Because Apple licensed it from Adobe.

gimme a break

[tehwebguy]

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?

This isn't licensing, it's antitrust.

[cduffy]

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.

Re:What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsof

[LnxAddct]

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

Re:When you whine...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

They can't.

[cduffy]

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

Re:What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsof

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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)

Software Dictatorship

[B_SharpC]

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.

In other news..

[Rob T Firefly]

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

Re:In other news..

[windowpain]

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.

Well, if you RTFA...

[cduffy]

...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.

Clearly FUD

[LWGLIN]

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.

This was expected.

[MMC Monster]

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.

There is an easier way than Adobe Distiller

[Weaselmancer]

...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.

Re:What's the Correct One?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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?

Re:What's the Correct One?

[RemovableBait]

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!".

Adobe can't have its cake and eat it too

[GreedyCapitalist]

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."

Re:What's sauce for Apple isn't sauce for Microsof

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

Even if it's true that Adobe wants to sue..

[Trelane]

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....