OSNews

I know there are freeware PDF writers out there. I guess if you can reverse engineer it you can give it away.

Maybe Office 2007 will allow you to write PDFs. In that case royalties should be paid since they're making money by including something for free that Adobe charges for. If this is the case I can see why Adobe is upset. That would be similar to the IE/Netscape case... bundle for free what the competitor charges for.

Valid point. However, unlike other products that have pdf capability built-in, none have the power of being delivered ala carte via the Windows and office monopolies. This is tying and the difference is that the potential for harm to Adobe's business is irreperable.

Personally, I use ghostscript and cutepdf and they work great, but I had to go find them, install them. I also have a legal copy of Acrobat Professional 7. However, it is expenseive and so dog slow that I would rather use the free versions with reduced features than suffer through a bloated start of Adobe along with its hideous user interface. I still agree with Adobe's position on this but maybe they ought to do a bit less bitching and get off their ass and produce a quality, efficient app that people can afford to buy and use without having to take a nap with some idiotic font initialization process is spooling for days.

Valid point. However, unlike other products that have pdf capability built-in, none have the power of being delivered ala carte via the Windows and office monopolies. This is tying and the difference is that the potential for harm to Adobe's business is irreperable.

Office was never ruled a monopoly and it is the product carrying PDF. Including export capability for a third-party, supposedly open format wouldn't be tying. If Adobe wanted to maintain control over who implements the format, they should not have opened it in the first place. MS already has included PDF export capability in Reporting Services and Sharepoint (maybe elsewhere). Adobe previously commented that they had no problem with MS' implementation in Office and that they expected the revenue around PDF generation to go away someday so they focused on complimentary tools (such as editing tools -- Office does not offer this capability). Yet now it appears they would sue rather than compete and adhere to the terms for which they licensed PDF.

You know, your argument is perfectly rational. I am going to be man enough to say it - you are right.

Wouldn't it hurt Adobe more if Microsoft didn't add support for PDF?

They are giving an option here. How can that be considered a bad thing versus not supporting it?

Had Microsoft just carried the PDF format, and not created XPS, then there wouldn't be an issue. By creating XPS, they now control most means of portable document creation.(Not sold seperately; included) Oh, and I'm assuming that Microsoft is allowing XPS to be fully alterable with Word or some other program, which means they're shoving into Adobe's space for both creation and edit of portable documents. This is where I think antitrust comes into it.

The antitrust settlement doesn't preclude MS from creating new technology even it it may step on a competitor. XPS is the same format used for WPF and the print path. It's integral to Windows much in the way PDF is to MacOS via Display PDF.

Adobe is using discriminatory practices in claiming format openness yet preventing MS from using it. PDF also has an ISO standard version which the MS Office implementation was capable of outputting. I'm wondering if Adobe's actions may violate terms under which they submitted the format to ISO.

Microsoft is the one with the monopoly and therefore the one in the position to abuse it's power (with a long history of doing so).

That's why Adobe cares. Because they don't want to be Netscape (Rev. 2.0)

Kpdf, OpenOffice, etc. aren't making money off of PDF. They're not being anticompetitive. They're not out to kill adobe or take over the market. That's the difference.

If you were adobe, you'de be on the offensive as well. For once, I'm actually behind them. Microsoft has gotten too comfortable and courageous since the last round of antitrust suits. It's time to knock them back a few pegs.

We're talking about Office here, not Windows. Until the courts rule it is a Monopoly, it is not.

Unlike IE, PDF is not a default, it's only an option. Just because Office will support exporting to it, doesn't mean it's unfair.

Honestly, I think you're hurting the consumers more here by trying to block PDF support in Office. Anti-monopoly crap is to protect consumers.

RTA: PDF is being STRIPPED in favor of a competing product. Not to mention, Microsoft was ruled a monopoly if I remember correctly- not just Windows.

As far as I can tell, this is more about microsoft's new proprietary format being a danger to PDF - which I would normally have no problem with - if it was in the name of true competition.

Not to mention, Microsoft was ruled a monopoly if I remember correctly- not just Windows.

Not true. Windows client (not Server) as an OS with majority share in the x86-compatible market (notice all the caveats) was ruled a monopoly.

Actually, YOU read the article.

Adobe told MS if you put PDF functionality in, you have to charge customers a separate fee to do so.

To make them happy, MS pulled BOTH XPS and PDF functionality out of Office and made them separate downloads. XPS, however, is Vista's native print driver as others have pointed out.

I don't understand where Adobe is coming from. XPS may be Vista's default print, but PDF is the default business format. Just like wma is included in XP, mp3 is still king. Having PDF capability built in will only extend PDF's reach. Even if MS favors XPS, AT LEAST including it in Office gives it an even chance in against XPS. More than even since it has such a mindshare. By pulling this stunt, customers will have to dl the plugin; a step many won't take.

I just don't get it. Star Office and Corel Office charge and they don't pay royalties. I can think of plenty of for-pay PDF creation software, not just the freeware apps.

Maybe the fact that Netscape 4 was a total load of rubbish and IE 4 was not contributed to the celebrated death of Netscape.

Kpdf, OpenOffice, etc. aren't making money off of PDF. They're not being anticompetitive. They're not out to kill adobe or take over the market. That's the difference.

You are right by saying that the above software packages aren't making money off PDF and that they are not out to do harm to Adobe. But, put yourself in Adobe's shoes for a moment. You opened up a large portion of what is arguably your most successful creation and now, via several freeware and FOSS programs, your customers can do most of what they could with your PDF creation package, but for free. The only thing in my experience that Adobe Acrobat Pro can do that OpenOffice and all the other free PDF creators cannot is edit an existing PDF file (and I believe there exist, or used to exist, some programs that would). So Adobe has PDF editing they can hold on to but they have sacrificed a monopoly on PDF creation so the format would become more widespread. They have no reason to complain about the above free software as it benefits them, and to my knowledge they have not complained.

Now, here comes Microsoft who is making not only a commercial OS capable of generating PDF-like files, but their commercial (and highly profitable) office suite can generate PDF files as well! So here is someone getting paid for being able to create PDFs. Before you say "but that's not all people pay for with Office", no it's not, but most people who have Office 2k3 would probably hold onto it for a very long time if the new version didn't have PDF creation. For many people though, the upgrade price of the newest version may be more affordable than buying Acrobat Pro especially for just the one feature. Of course, once again, there are so many free alternatives. That is fine for the average home or small business customer who can afford to take the time to learn and adapt to a third-party offering, but for most corporate customers the newest version of Office will look very enticing.

According to eWeek Adobe has done nothing to sue Microsoft, It's just some comment from a MS representative saying that they expect a lawsuit from Adobe, nothing less, nothing more

Here's the link

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1970866,00.asp

I think the MS-Watch article is just a bad atempt to throw FUD against Adobe, but it's just my opinion.

As you rightly point out, this is strictly Microsoft's "Woe is us!" public plea, Adobe has offered no comment so until they do, everything is pure speculation.

Microsoft is simply making a pre-emptive strike against Adobe and attempting to use the court of public opinion for it. "Well, we wanted to offer 'Save ot PDF' natively but Adobe threatened legal action" To what end, who knows, pure speculation.

I'm not really sure how to connect this with an attempt to favor XPS. XPS will invariably be a proprietary MS-controlled protocol, so really, whether customers are producing documents in .doc or .xps format, the net result is the same, you're pretty much locked into a Microsoft platform to use it. .pdf will still remain the natural fallback if you want universally-readable documents. I remember Corel tried something similar back in the day with a comparable "portable" format (Envoy, I think?) and this was during a point where WordPerfect and CorelDraw were still relevant (though declining) players. It fizzled; if you're going to displace an established or de facto standard, you need to offer a compelling reason to change.

As for Adobe being hurt revenue-wise by MS including "Save to PDF", screw them, they're no different than MS in the big picture. They got very comfortable charging a premium price for a bloated software package forced on business / institutional customers that simply wanted to export to PDF format. Companies that take their customers for granted will invariably wind up in a similar position, and if MS Office can so easily displace Adobe Acrobat by simply offering "Export to PDF capability", it begs the question of just how much value Adobe was offering it's customers in the first place. How many customers really need the ability to edit documents, or create form-based documents etc. versus how many simply want to produce simple pdf documents but need to pay for the full package? If Office displaces Acrobat, that's the free market at work.

(Yes, I know free alternatives exist for pdf export, I far prefer CutePDF to writer/distiller any day, but as the OSS community can attest, free software is not a viable option for many organizations, for a variety of reasons, so let's set that argument aside, and Adobe isn't really concerned at all with home users).

MS is a monopoly organization, no doubt about it. But I don't care if they bundle additional functionality, that's sort of the thing I would expect from a software vendor if they want my hard-earned dollars. I take exception to their market-manipulating business practices with OEMs, which was the crux of their anti-trust suit, but as for bundling I say all the more power to them.

I think the industry has become a little too comfortable with blaming MS and screaming "Monopoly abuse! Anti-trust!" as a shield for justifying mediocre/second-rate/overpriced software, whether looking at the commercial world or OSS, and worse they turn to the courts for relief (and interference).

Netscape Communicator became a bloated, slow, chugging mess that deserved to lose out to IE 4.0, which at least to that point became more innovative. Real Player was a spyware-infested system-destabilizing whore of a program that I was glad to easily replace with Media Player. And now, hey, let's see Symantec and McAfee forced to quality-check and rethink their sub-par consumer-oriented offerings now that there's an 800 lb. gorilla in the playground they dominated for so long.

Maybe, hopefully, Adobe could be forced to rethink their market and their value proposition.

Yes, MS is a bastard of a company and certainly warrant criticism for many of their actions. But I'd rather companies focus on writing the best possible software they can, being innovative and forward thinking, and offering value, in order to compete with Microsoft's decent but less than perfect "default" offerings. At least, I'd rather that than have them running to the courts and saying "How can we compete?", forcing Microsoft to backoff and continuing enjoying their own monopoly-like marketshare with medicore or flaky software.

Microsoft's dominance and desire to control everything can at least have some positive effect by forcing innovation and not allowing other software manufacturers to get too "comfortable", as they are all apt to do when given the chance. I want companies fighting tooth and nail for my money, rather than stepping to the front of the line, holding their hand out and expecting it. At the end of the day customers would be much better served by having higher quality offerings to choose from, rather than having to settle. Ok, that's idealistic maybe, but I can dream.

Bah. Just my ranting 2c.

Slightly OT, but there is something much better than CutePDF (which I used to use): PDFCreator (http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/) which has more features and is Open Source.

Adobe and Next originally worked together to create Display PostScript that ran on top of Nexts own windowing system to draw all the primitives onscreen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_PostScript

However, for OS X, they switched to PDF Display to (supposedly) avoid the expensive licensing costs of PostScript. Apple (Next) and Adobe has a long history of working together.

On the other hand according to the same Wiki entry

Adobe's copyright stipulations regarding their PDF standard are much less restrictive, granting conditional copyright permission to anyone to use the format in software applications, free of charge.

I bolded the word that could change matters quite a bit. Does it involve software that is makes money? And if so can anyone point to an explanation of this "condition"?

JRM7

Adobe's copyright stipulations regarding their PDF standard are much less restrictive, granting conditional copyright permission to anyone to use the format in software applications, free of charge.

I bolded the word that could change matters quite a bit. Does it involve software that is makes money? And if so can anyone point to an explanation of this "condition"?

As far as I'm aware, the conditions are basically that you are given the rights solely for creating a conforming implementation, and if you sue Adobe or (possibly) its partners over technology in the specification, your issued rights (if any) are revoked. It's pretty standard for licensing of this kind. The actual text would be found in the licenses for various PDF technologies.

Microsoft's Response (via ActiveWin):
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/06/02/613702.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/andy_simonds/archive/2006/06/02/XPSAdobe.aspx

PDF License conditions text below:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/adobe-ipr-draft-zilles-pdf.txt

Adobe gives anyone copyright permission,
subject to the conditions stated below, to:

* Prepare files whose 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, prints, or otherwise interprets
the contents

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


The conditions of such copyright permission are:

* Authors of software that accepts input in the form of the
Portable Document Format must make reasonable efforts to ensure
that the software they create respects the access permissions
and permissions controls listed in Table 3.20 of the PDF
Reference[1], to the extent that they are used in any particular
document. These access permissions express the rights that the
document's author has granted to users of the document. It is
the responsibility of Portable Document Format consuming
software to respect the author's intent.

* Anyone who uses the copyrighted list of data structures and
operators, as stated above, must include an appropriate
copyright notice.

This limited right to use the copyrighted list of data structures
and operators does not include the right to copy the PDF Reference,
other copyrighted material from Adobe, or the software in any of
Adobe's products that use the Portable Document Format, in whole or
in part, nor does it include the right to use any Adobe patents,
except as may be permitted by an official Adobe Patent
Clarification Notice [3].

Edited 2006-06-03 00:44

Bankrupt? PDF is hardly a large part of their revenue. They have a ton of other [expensive] products.

That said, I agree with most of the rest of your post.

By the browser standards of the day, IE4 was magnificent. Netscape was slow and crashy. IE4 was snappier (it restarted much faster after it crashed, at least ). Also, IE4 basically invented the whole DHTML thing and had more features. ActiveX was a disaster security-wise, but it was just great in the early days as a way to get plugins easily. It's analogous to email, which was a great communications medium before but now is just a cesspool of spam. I just hope that IMs don't get bad like that in the near future.

What are you basing your interpretation on? Nothing? Oh good. Carry on then.