Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe to sue Apple now?
- Thread starter netnothing
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But what does any of that have to do with html5 vs. adobe? Flash also uses h.264. Either way, if there are royalties to be had Apple gets their cut. (P.s.: no one has said there will be royalties in 2015 - they've only said there will be no royalties UNTIL AT LEAST 2015).
If this is your standard for law, then if I put a gun to your head and take your car then it is now legally mine. Again, coercion does not create a legal obligation.. unless of course you believe everything Google tells you.
Why not patent infringement?
I don't understand why everyone thinks it's an anti-trust issue. Since Apple is playing hardball and barring Adobe from the iphone app game, might Adobe try to throw a wrench at Apple with a patent infringement case?
To me it seems more plausible that maybe, just maybe, there is one claim in one Adobe patent that Apple hasn't licensed and one of their major products infringes. In my limited experience most companies don't assert their patents until things get ugly or they can make some serious $$$. But maybe the two companies have cross licensing agreements for all this stuff.
Anyway, I got to believe we're in for an interesting battle.
I don't understand why everyone thinks it's an anti-trust issue. Since Apple is playing hardball and barring Adobe from the iphone app game, might Adobe try to throw a wrench at Apple with a patent infringement case?
To me it seems more plausible that maybe, just maybe, there is one claim in one Adobe patent that Apple hasn't licensed and one of their major products infringes. In my limited experience most companies don't assert their patents until things get ugly or they can make some serious $$$. But maybe the two companies have cross licensing agreements for all this stuff.
Anyway, I got to believe we're in for an interesting battle.
You mean, Adobe will be paying Apple for H.264 after 2015? And that makes it O.K.?
Oh, silly me! And I thought that you guys were all for opensource on the web..., that's why Flash was bad.
As long as he was involved ONE, as a lawyer, that already kinda wins him the argument, dontcha think? Never mind the 3-4 years he spent at law school, which should *by default* mean he knows what he's talking about. But assuming we'll play your ridiculous game . . .
Duh.
According to John Stossel, lawyers are the 2nd greatest threat to the United States behind terrorists!
I'm not sure where on his list juries reside.
And being a lawyer does not make you more intelligent or smarter than other people either last I checked.
Nor does it automatically make you correct in your predictions.
How many lawyers thought OJ Simpson would get off on a slam dunk murder case?
Bottom line from a moral if not legal point of view
If you have a superior technology (something better than flash), you implement it without blocking an inferior one.
If you have to block a technology, than it's a threat and therefore NOT inferior.
Blocking technology for any reason (whether it be Blu-ray or flash or anything else) is fascist. That's what fascists do; insist things will be their inferior way and there will be no other option available from them.
Apple, under Jobs, is fascist, and has been for quite some time. It didn't start out that way, but it will end that way.
Emphasis on the word "end". For you see, people don't like fascists or fascism. Oh, they'll put on the armbands and give the salutes and wave the stars and stripes and swastikas and bully those less fortunate for awhile, but it never lasts.
Because sooner or later people wake up.
If you have a superior technology (something better than flash), you implement it without blocking an inferior one.
If you have to block a technology, than it's a threat and therefore NOT inferior.
Blocking technology for any reason (whether it be Blu-ray or flash or anything else) is fascist. That's what fascists do; insist things will be their inferior way and there will be no other option available from them.
Apple, under Jobs, is fascist, and has been for quite some time. It didn't start out that way, but it will end that way.
Emphasis on the word "end". For you see, people don't like fascists or fascism. Oh, they'll put on the armbands and give the salutes and wave the stars and stripes and swastikas and bully those less fortunate for awhile, but it never lasts.
Because sooner or later people wake up.
Sweet bit of Schooling.
But I don't think you have to be a lawyer to get that there was nothing in this one. It simply isn't in Adobes interests to even fight this battle.
Even if they did somehow "win" in bizarro world, there would be appeals as far as they could be taken, and it would be a distraction from real work. They won't get what they want even after the appeals. Apple could simply set up a Flash App dumping ground category and put up a disclaimer, here are the applications we were forced to include, we in no way endorse them...
Apple will probably start building a Creative Suite alternative partly through acquisition with it's mountain of cash, but they could probably build a credible Photoshop alternative in house in no time.
Adobe needs the Mac more then ever
Aren't you used to it by now? Adobe has been slow in releasing Mac versions of their software for years. Nothing new here.
Frankly, I don't think Apple really needs the design market anymore. Apple's future is in mobile technology. If Adobe stops developing for the Mac it's really their loss not Apple's. I'm sure Adobe's share holders would have something to say about it.
Adobe is sitting on an antiquated technology and bet their future earnings on it. Technology changes. They need to change with it. Apple isn't burning Adobe, Adobe burned themselves. Adobe suffers from the same problem that Microsoft suffers from, they assumed everything would continue as it is. Apple innovated in mobile technology and changed the equation. They can bitch and whine about it all they want, but in the end Adobe won't be able to grow their business in this way. They need a new strategy.
So, the irony is that Adobe needs it's Mac sales now more then ever.
Aren't you used to it by now? Adobe has been slow in releasing Mac versions of their software for years. Nothing new here.
Frankly, I don't think Apple really needs the design market anymore. Apple's future is in mobile technology. If Adobe stops developing for the Mac it's really their loss not Apple's. I'm sure Adobe's share holders would have something to say about it.
Adobe is sitting on an antiquated technology and bet their future earnings on it. Technology changes. They need to change with it. Apple isn't burning Adobe, Adobe burned themselves. Adobe suffers from the same problem that Microsoft suffers from, they assumed everything would continue as it is. Apple innovated in mobile technology and changed the equation. They can bitch and whine about it all they want, but in the end Adobe won't be able to grow their business in this way. They need a new strategy.
So, the irony is that Adobe needs it's Mac sales now more then ever.
I never said anything about opensource. I still don't understand what your commentary has to do with Adobe having a reason to sue Apple. Somehow you think that because Apple is part of a standards setting body that has adoped h.264 that means that Adobe has the right to sue Apple for some unspecified cause of action?
As long as he was involved ONE, as a lawyer, that already kinda wins him the argument, dontcha think? Never mind the 3-4 years he spent at law school, which should *by default* mean he knows what he's talking about. But assuming we'll play your ridiculous game . . .
Duh.
I've been involved in many more than one. From New York to California. And I don't at all agree with his opinions. That's all they are. Opinions.
Inconvenient, not unfair...
You just admitted that you had a perfectly viable option when needing to visit those websites. Inconvenient? Yes. Unfair? No. Apple has not made Flash unavailable on its computers, only on it's highly portable internet devices. That is how they decided to guarantee best possible user experience in terms of reliability, security and battery life. How is this not good business? It has kept me a repeat customer for years.
You just admitted that you had a perfectly viable option when needing to visit those websites. Inconvenient? Yes. Unfair? No. Apple has not made Flash unavailable on its computers, only on it's highly portable internet devices. That is how they decided to guarantee best possible user experience in terms of reliability, security and battery life. How is this not good business? It has kept me a repeat customer for years.
Just saw that you now claim to be an attorney. Okay. Don't know what to say to that based on your commentary so far.
So lawyer, tell me what the cause of action is?
I hope Adobe will retaliate and not release, or significantly delay CS5 for the Mac. I know that would cost them huge, but they could prove a point.
As long as he was involved ONE, as a lawyer, that already kinda wins him the argument, dontcha think? Never mind the 3-4 years he spent at law school, which should *by default* mean he knows what he's talking about. But assuming we'll play your ridiculous game . . .
Duh.
I just checked the HTML5 Youtube beta.
It's EXTREMELY FEATURE INCOMPLETE compared to FLASH.
And of course Youtube is at the forefront of HTML 5 conversion away from FLASH.
That does sorta make all you FLASH haters look like idiots.
You do realize that right?
And boy are you under Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field in a big way! LOL
Prove what? That Apple can move some of that $40 billion, mobilize its vast developer base (that is part of the most lucrative operation in consumer tech) and put out a competitive suite faster than you can say Adobe Freehand?