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. "

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 [adobe.com] 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 [slashdot.org])

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?

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).

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?

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

[tak amalak]

Because Apple licensed it from Adobe.

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)

Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here

[jimicus]

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.

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

[gEvil (beta)]

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...

What's the Correct One?

[lseltzer]

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?

Re:Well, if you RTFA...

[KarmaMB84]

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

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.

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.

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

[chill]

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?

Repeat after me. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, Apple is not. The rules are different for a monopoly.

Re:So

[vijayiyer]

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.

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.

Obvious PDF FUD to support Microsoft's new format

[damg]

Anyone remember Microsoft announcing it's PDF replacement last year? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/27/042225 0 [slashdot.org] "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..."

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing the mods lack a (-1, Misinformed).
The PDF format is open [adobe.com], like many previous comments have pointed out. The situation with the Russian programmer, while detestable, was only tangentially related to PDF (it was their DRM'd ebook format).

Apple's not breaking any rules - and likely what Microsoft is trying to do is drop PDF in favour of a Microsoft portable document format. Only guessing here, but the article is pretty speculative as well.

Re:There is an easier way than Adobe Distiller

[Anonymous Coward]

And who else would need it? PDF writing is built into OSX. Most any Unix I've seen can print to a Postscript printer (dumped to a file) that can be converted to a PDF. I think KDE supports that natively. Anyone who uses OpenOffice can do that directly without a printer at all.

Re:Playing Devil's Advocate here

[uhoreg]

openoffice has pdf export - no money - no lawsuit.

Are you saying that Sun has no money?

Re:Summary incorrect.

[TheNetAvenger]

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...

Re:Summary incorrect.

[TheNetAvenger]

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.