Subject | Re: Calumet files Chapter 7 |
From | Sandman |
Date | 04/06/2014 05:44 (04/06/2014 05:44) |
Message-ID | <slrnlk1jhb.cc4.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Tony Cooper |
Why no examples? I want to see these letters to plugin developers that Adobe sends out "usually".Tony CooperTony CooperSandman
You shouldn't be unsure. "Photoshop" is a registered trademark of Adobe. That's legal protection. How that registered trademark is used is up to Adobe to enforce.
And how do they enforce it?
It usually handled by a series of actions. The first is simply a letter to an alleged violator from the firm's attorney telling that person to cease and desist an action that is considered to be a violation. That's usually enough.
From there, the next action would be to ask for an injunction or court order for the violator to cease and desist. If this is granted, and the violator persists, it goes to court as a civil action.Where are the links to information about the civil actions Adobe has started against plugin developers, Tony?
So where is the support that Adobe considers this infringement? Why are all your posts filled with claims but totally empty of support?Tony CooperAdobe apparently doesn't pursue infringements.Sandman
Infringements according to whom?
Adobe, of course. As the holder of the trademark, they decide who is infringing on their rights. From there, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not Adobe's case has merit.
In some cases of trademark infringement, where the holder of the trademark does not pursue infringement, the courts have ruled that by allowing infringement to go unchecked, the holder has abandoned their right to later enforce the infringement. That's why it's a "ticking bomb" when it isn't pursued. See Bayer and "aspirin".So there should be no problem for you to reference specific suits where Adobe has sued third party developers for infringing on their trademark when calling their software a "Photoshop plugin". That is, after all, what we're talking about.
Irrelevant, we're talking about using "Photoshop plugin" vs "Plugin for Photoshop". Both cases use the trademarked name, so the presence of tyhe trademark can in no capacity be the center of the argument.Tony CooperIf you develop a flavoring that can be added to Coca Cola, and call it a "Coca Cola Flavoring", Cocoa Cola would most probably take legal action.Sandman
On what do you base this theory? What if I were to post a "Photoshop tutorial", or hold a "Photoshop class"? Same thing, according to you?
Anytime you use a trademark of some company without their permission, you are taking a chance of having that company take some action.
SandmanTony Cooper
What about other instances where a manufacturer encourages third party solutions for their products, say.. Apple? So Apple owns the trademark "iPad", right, so the only "iPad dock" would be one made by Apple - no one other than Apple "can" say "iPad dock"?
I did a very cursory search, and the only instance I saw of such a product that is not offered by Apple is Amazon's. In that case, the descriptions are "IPEGA Speaker and Charger 2 in 1 Stand Mount Cradle Multi-Function Docking Station for iPhone 5/4/4S, iPad 2/3" and others like this. Note "for".
However, it doesn't have to be "made by" Apple. If Apple distributes it, the actual maker is immaterial.You failed to answer my question, as expected. Is it your claim that no one other than Apple "can" say "iPad dock"?
Eh? "Could" is past tense of "can". They have the same meaning. "can" can refer to ability/possibility, but also permission. I.e. "I can drive" - "Can I use your phone?"SandmanTony Cooper
For the record - I am totally with your line of thought, what I am questioning is the entire "can". Anyone can call a plugin a "Photoshop plugin" and Adobe can do nothing about it. And it is my position that they don't want to do anything about it.
You have a good point. I mistakenly used "can" when I should have used "could". "Can" has the meaning of "it's possible", and that's not the meaning that I wanted to impart.
The creator of a plug-in *should* call it a "plug-in for Photoshop" to eliminate any ambiguity.You have yet to support this.
That's what I just said, Tony.SandmanTony Cooper
Indeed - but that was in order to enforce the brand where "Coke" could refer to a competing brand.
No, the actual case was to protect the brand name, or trademark.
The basis of the action was that "Coca Cola" and "Coke" are not a generic term for "soft drink".Exactly what I just said. Or rather - no one feared that "Coke" could refer to "soft drink", but to any similar cola product from a competing brand. Coca Cola didn't fear that people would start calling 7-up "Coke".
As does "Photoshop plugin".SandmanTony Cooper
In fact, you make quite the opposite case here. If third party developers were to only call their software "plugins", then Adobe would probably want to encourage them to include their trademarked name in the moniker as well - to ensure branding. In short, a developer that calls his software "Photoshop plugin" strengthes the brand.
"Plug-in For Photoshop®" has the same effect.
Which is not what's under discussion here. Third party plugin developer are not genericizing anything when calling it a "Photoshop plugin", since "Photoshop plugin" is not a trademarked name.Tony CooperThe reason that firms take action to protect their trademark is to prevent that trademark from becoming a generic term as happened to the makers of aspirin, escalator, thermos, and many other products.Sandman
Indeed. "Photoshop plugin" is not such a case, however, since it does not encourage a generic usage of the brand name. Quite the opposite.
You're not following. What's at issue in the area genericizing a trademark is that if the holder does not take action to protect the use, then holder can lose the right to protect it in the future.
Adobe may very well like the proliferation of plug-ins, but not like how the trademark name is used.Another claim from you, without any support. Where is your reference that Adobe does not like how the trademark is used?
I'm not interested in "evolving" this "discussion", I am more intrested in getting you to realize and admit to an error you made. I know, I know - you never ever admit to mistakes, but I can dream, can't I?SandmanTony Cooper
But we're not discussing the "errroneous" usage of "Photoshop" to refer to "image processing software".
C'mon, you can't rule out something based on what has been discussed in the past if it contributes to what is being discussed now. Discussions evolve and expand.
Even so, this is part of the trademark issue. Remember Adobe's campaign to get people not to say "Photoshopped"? That was in line with the genericization of the brand name.But not in line with the current issue of supposed "infringement" by third party developers using the term "Photoshop plugin" that you're claiming.
Yes, because there will never come a time when you can offer any support for any claim you make.Tony CooperSandman
And, as stated, so far you have provided nothing to counter this but meaningless words.
Well, if you can't find meaning in my words, then move along to something else.
You seem to want me to find someone else to say what I'm perfectly capable of saying.I want you to support your claims. It's as easy as that. You can't do that becuase your claims are bogus, I know, but me requesting support from you should at least have the chance of making you understand that if you were an adult you would either actually, you know, offer support or retract the claim.
What things "seem" to you is of no importance to me. Support for your claims is, however. Support from you so far: None.Tony CooperIn your opinion, but then we know that understanding words is not your forte. nospam also argues with the premise, but his defense is "everybody does it" or something like that.Sandman
I see you forgot to append any substantiation for your position in this post as well. So you're firmly set with a big fat zero for your claim.
To you, "substantiation" seems to be providing a link to someone else even if the link does not substantiate the premise.
Posting links to misusers of something does not prove that they are right.No one has claimed this, so I have no idea why you're bringing this up.