The notice I received has slightly different wording, that I interpret as more threatening:
“Please be aware that should you continue to use the discontinued version(s), you may be at risk of potential claims of infringement by third parties.”
They didn’t mention anything about claim coverage. What third party would have an interest in suing me for using Photoshop 2017 rather than Photoshop 2019? This just looks like Adobe trying to push their subscribers around.
Dolby? Weird. That’s an audio company. I can see how Adobe might have infringed on Dolby technology in some of their products, like Premiere. I can’t see how it could affect much of anything else. It’s interesting that it’s a copyright suit and not a patent infringement.
Anyway, I suppose nobody really knows what’s going on with the exception of their attorneys. I suspect Adobe’s reaction is all driven by their attorneys to support their legal arguments and fend off additional potential lawsuits rather than to protect their customers (which to them are little more than captive sources of operating cash). I can’t image Adobe’s customers could ever be held liable for some sort of breach or infringement caused directly by Adobe’s malfeasance.
Reading the whole story they may indeed have a case. Dolby has contracted with Adobe for years. But when everything went online Dolby said it needs to adjust how they are being compensated since Adobe has changed the distribution.
Adobe also refused to let Dolby do an audit … which Adobe demands from everyone.
Crazy stuff. Again … the tale of the rich and powerful believing they’ve become untouchable.
So who is the next contender?
Corel couldn’t do it. Apple barely tried. Affinity seems promising, but they have a long way to go.
I know Quark is trying its best to stay relevant. What amazes me is that Quark hasn’t tried to compete by purchasing/creating a photo/image editor and an Illustrator competition. I think with their history they in theory could compete.
Whatever it is, I hope it’s open source.
I wondered about that way back when they were the dominant player in the whole page layout software market. QuarkXPress put Aldus and Adobe Pagemaker to shame, but the company was never more than a one-trick pony.
Back in the early '90s when I was heading up the design of a newspaper. I was put in charge of looking into a pagination system for a weekly tabloid supplement we had developed. The old Quark Publishing System (QPS) seemed perfect (sort of like the current InDesign-InCopy combination). I don’t remember the price, but it was several tens of thousands of dollars.
Anyway, I kept calling Quark (since that’s the only way it was sold). For days, I could never get them to return my calls. When I finally reached a real sales person and began to explain what we needed, he interrupted me and said that he was late for lunch but that he would call back. He never did.
We had cash in hand but they couldn’t even be bothered to take our money (a very different problem than with Adobe). We eventually went with an entirely different system at a much higher price because of Quark’s unresponsiveness and everything that attitude implied.
I know today’s Quark has different owners, but they still have no equivalent to Illustrator or Photoshop. It’s weird.
B, you must have the multi-seat licensing with Adobe, right?
I’ve had run-ins with their business division. Very aggressive.
The sales rep’s phone number is aliased on my phone as “Adobe A…le.”
I only answer it when I want to take some rage out on an individual who can’t fire me.
Not sure what the problem is. Affinity works primarily in vector but it also has the ability to work in a ‘pixel mode’, and it can open and edit any Photoshop or Illustrator file people send you. Affinity is great for print.
Yes, it’s a multi-seat license, but it’s our IT people who get the pleasure of dealing with them. I hear stories from them, though. I have a personal license for home (freelance business).
That’s hooey.
What they are saying is since they are getting sued by a 3rd party, they are trying to share the responsibility and make you joint and severely liable. We have no contract with 3rd party developers. Our contracts are with Adobe. Adobe is responsible for providing legal to use products. We, as users, are not responsible for Adobe’s theft of Intellectual Property in any way shape or form.
IN ADDITION: If Adobe pursues this course of action they will open themselves to a massive lawsuit from their users because they are breaking their contacts with us. Proof of bad faith action by Adobe against their users is proven if a 3rd party wins a lawsuit.
Let’s just say I harken back to the days when it was a major headache to open any file in any software other than what the designer used. Even to the point of matching versions. And since I communicate files in native format back and forth with Designers in an effort to get their designs to realize properly post rip, I usually need to be working in the version they are using.
Because wide format works in native file format (at least for the near future…)
I’m not going to open photoshop or illustrator production files in Affinity. If a Designer wants to send me Affinity files, I will download Affinity and figure out how to get it’s PDF engine to work within our work flow (it’s actually already there, but just illustrating my point.) If you want to send PDFs for Wide format, you get whatever falls out the other end of the machine. I can guarantee you won’t have the printer profiles needed for the machine and media, but no one seems to care about quality these days anyway. As soon as they care a bit less, then maybe we will stop requesting native files, and stop caring so much about color control.
I really do enjoy the comments I get from designers who do trade shows that tell us our colors are so much better than the stuff they got from their broker or online vendors. The other half of the comment is always, “but you’re so expensive.”
Quality, Fast, Cheap. Pick Two.
I’m sure I’ll be labeled an Adobe apologist for this, but such opinions notwithstanding, the law is simply not about our emotions.
Nowhere are they saying that. What they are saying is that the EULA may not protect you from legal action by a 3rd party. That was already known by anyone who read and understood the EULA. It’s pretty standard stuff.
They are not in breach of that responsibility. In fact none of this is about whether it’s “legal” to use any version of the software. Adobe has simply shut off availability of all but the current and prior major versions of CC apps. If you read the EULA, that’s all they’re obligated to provide.
Of course that statement is true on its face, but it has no relevance whatsoever to what’s going on.
What course of action? All they’ve done is limit access to product they aren’t legally bound to offer anyway. And, there’s no “if”. It’s already done.
Can you cite the clause they’re violating?
Uhm, not it’s not.
*BUT this is all just crap anyway. Once you click on the terms of service K you have given up your rights because it always has boiler plate “We can change our terms at any time…”
Lawyers working on what? Defense of the Dolby suit? Yes, of course. But Adobe hasn’t turned any action toward its customers that wasn’t already covered by the same EULA that went into effect from day 1 of the Creative Cloud subscription model. There’s no addendum, no contracted service discontinued.
Well, I was trying to keep it respectful, but apparently yes, it must be.
lol, you’ll notice spellcheck got me. I meant semantic lol.
Lack of action is also considered action. The taking away of something is a negation. The taking away of something priorly given is prima facia evidence of a broken K. They are negating a service (or they have done and are now dealing with the fallout from it).
Good points though. This is why lawyers always answer “It depends.”
And why I stopped being one.
Heh, yeah that’s me; a hopeless semantic.
We disagree on this. The only evidence of a broken contract is an unfulfilled stipulation, and there just isn’t one here. They are discontinuing availability of something they were never contractually obligated to provide. They are not “negating a service;” they are withdrawing a courtesy. (I know, god forbid I credit Adobe with having extended a courtesy.) From the aforementioned contract:
2.1.2.3 Subscription Edition. For the Software available on a subscription-basis (“Subscription Edition”), Customer may install and use the Subscription Edition only on the Permitted Number of Compatible Computer during the License Term. Subject to the Permitted Number of Computers for the Subscription Edition, Adobe may allow Customer to install and use the most recent prior version of the Subscription Edition and the current version of the Subscription Edition on the same Computer during the License Term. Customer agrees that Adobe may change the type of Software (such as specific components, versions, platforms, languages, etc.) included in the Subscription Edition at any time and shall not be liable to Customer whatsoever for such change.
Adobe may have sent out this email as a means to scare users still using versions of the software which contain the older Dolby technology. I’m assuming they have changed something in the current versions which makes those users not as expensive to license. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a difference between an old version user or a current version user from the perspective of licensing costs. The old software will become a fixed cost for Adobe. If Dolby wins this lawsuit, Adobe will have to pay Dolby the cost of every user that continues to use an old version. The only way to cut this cost is to legally threaten their customers to remove it.
Their goal was to get as many users to upgrade, so when they are eventually legally forced to submit to an audit of usage numbers, it will be significantly lower than it is today. I’m sure the email has worked on some people, but they likely will keep moving forward because Adobe shareholders are not going to be cool paying a licensing fee for non-subscription users.
This is a horrible customer experience. If they would have allowed Dolby to complete the audit, paid them their fair share, and then gave their customers a “free” one-time upgrade/patch which switched out the old Dolby-licensed technology, they could have come out on top. I’m interested to see what the ruling will be.
It just gave me an incentive to free up some hard drive space.