Google| Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/04/2014 14:53 (04/04/2014 14:53) |
| Message-ID | <slrnljtaub.6ee.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
In article <040420140703151981%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
nospam
In article <j1esj9tg2kdml1shinhn45sidrko3cnhgo@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
Unless, of course, we ask Tony:nospamEric 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?
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.
Tony Cooper 03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM <81qdi9p509anhalqskqa7cqu8d57g8412o@4ax.com>
"Only Adobe can call a plug-in a 'Photoshop Plug-in'"
Surely that claim is based on well-grounded research on the matter. Of course, he hasn't shared that research with us... yet.
-- Sandman[.net]
03/13/2014-
-
