Macromedia Sues Adobe, Claims Photoshop Infringes Patent 190
jmorse writes: "According to this article at sfgate.com, Macromedia is suing Adobe for patent infringement, claiming that Adobe's Photoshop and GoLive products violate a patent they filed in 1998. The article is a little short on details, so I'm wondering if there are other sources with more on this patent." Adobe and Macromedia have been skirmishing and counter-skirmishing over patents for some time now. The AP article doesn't say which patent Adobe is supposed to be violating this time, so just pick any random thing that Photoshop does that Macromedia might have patented and express outrage about it. :)
Let the titans fight (Score:2, Insightful)
All I can say is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, every software patent I've ever seen covers something silly and obvious that shouldn't be patentable based on the fact that it's so obvious and isn't a real advancement at all. The real-world equivalent to most such patents would be like trying to patent a new Lego brick because you made it two rows longer. Uh-huh. Ingenious.
Take the infamous 1-click patent for example. All it is is a fairly obvious way to make shopping on line just like shopping in real life at a store where you have an account or tab. Hand the clerk at the store your stuff with your ID or account number, order is rung up, store already has billing information, customer leaves with product. Amazon's 1-click patent does the same thing, only on-line. Patentable my ass. Anything simple and obvious shouldn't be patentable.
I bet whatever this new Adobe/Macromedia fight is about, it's over something that should never have been patentable in the first place.
Re:Why wait until now?? (Score:2, Insightful)
As to your hatred of Macromedia products, I'd have to agree slightly. I dislike the growing trend of using widgets. The problem: Adobe started it! As it is, I use Adobe for Photoshop and Macromedia for everything else.
For those who weren't paying attention.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't even get me started on Adobe's 'Rights Management' crap.
My company has spent a little over $1300 on Adobe products. Of course, I could never justify spending this much personally for what many consider to be 'essential' tools for web design and publishing. A great deal of this. I imagine that a great deal of this goes to fund Adobe's legal departement and executive management layer. We know for a fact that that all three of these flagship products could be replicated by OSS programmers with not a lot of difficulty. It would be a large project, but most of that art functionality is already in GIMP. The rest is spread around a few other art and publishing tools.
That's right. Adobe's hideously inflated prices go to support their vast corporate empire, and *not* to better their products. They could be doing better, but they're not.
Macromedia is no better, having done their best to replace Adobe in the position of being an unofficial 'industry standard' when it comes to web design. If they did this with quality products, it would be one thing, but they try to do it with lawsuits, legal gimmicks, and customer abuse. Flash could be so much bigger than it is now if it were an open standard. Most of the web developers I know would vastly prefer to work with Flash rather than crank out lameo HTML and CSS.
For shame!
cotton gin (Score:4, Insightful)
While I mostly agree with what you said, sometimes really obvious ideas are important (and not quite so obvious). The cotton gin is a great example- a simple device with a very basic purpose that should be very obvious, yet it didnt pop in anyone's head as early as we think it could have in hindsight. This bad boy invention ultimately helped bring some pretty big changes in the US.
But the cotton gin made it's inventer jack. The guy who make the first tv also made jack from his invention. Kind of makes you wonder.
Both inventions were made after patents were made available in the US, but the inventers both made zip. That also kind of makes you wonder.
GO MACROMEDIA (Score:5, Insightful)
Since tech details are a bit sparse, I'm not quite sure which patent this is or whether it is frivilous, but quite frankly, I like seeing someone (try to) take a bite out of the big guy... And Adobe is the Microsoft of the digital image world.
Re:It's probably over... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, they give student copies of the software, but you aren't allowed to upgrade those copies the same way you can with a retail version.
Re:All I can say is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because something is obvious or trivial in your fourteen year old casual opinion, does not mean that is in the real world.
I guess the old "open source closed minds", applies here.
Re:For those who weren't paying attention.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Then why aren't they?
Patent Weilding Corps. Are Not Champions of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad to see slashdot knows its history, NOT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if we accept that a small handful of individuals were willing to innovate (accepting all the costs that come with it) without IP, this does not make IP any less necessary. Besides the fact that they can STILL invent even with the existence of IP, they are a minority. Most individuals need IP if they are to quit their jobs, spend their savings, and years of their life towards such pursuits. This is especially true of companies. There is no comparison between the amount of time/resources spent on innovation today versus that of before reasonably-strong IP protections.
Re:I think Adobe.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you nuts, man!?!?! I might agree that there are open source web authoring alternatives to Adobe products, but the GIMP is no replacement for Photoshop. Where are the open source versions of InDesign, Illustrator, AfterEffects and Type Manager? They don't exist in any professional capacity. Sure, there Scribus and Killustrator, but those apps are mere toys compared to their commercial brethren.Where are the open source versions of Flash and Director? Again, they don't exist.
Linux and related open source projects are very important. Don't get me wrong, but until there are commercial quality publishing, illustration, vector animation and image editing apps (that at least have rudimentary support for CMYK color!), Adobe and Macromedia will be the leaders in design and multimedia software development.
Re:It's probably over... (Score:1, Insightful)
Your analogy to snap-on is inaccurate as well, because a home user can buy a decent set of lifetime-warranty tools for like $100 rather than be forced to spend $10000 on the same set of snap-on tools. To the home user, this toolset will have the exact same functionality. The only benefit snap-on offers is their service guarantees, which the average home user does not need.
AFAIK, there isn't a product that offers the exact same functionality of Photoshop for less than 1/10 of the price.
Re:All I can say is... (Score:2, Insightful)
"It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry 'I could have thought of that' is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn't, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too."
Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency