Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 04/04/2014 13:03 (04/04/2014 07:03) |
| Message-ID | <040420140703151981%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Savageduck (1h & 48m) Sandman (1h & 50m) Eric Stevens (15h & 56m) > nospam |
In article <j1esj9tg2kdml1shinhn45sidrko3cnhgo@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is, after all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was authored by adobe.Eric StevensnospamSandmanEric Stevens
'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'
And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.
once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies do.
Ever heard of protecting a trademark?
03/13/2014-
-
