The Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

tramadol — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:32:17 -0000

81e31de21f46 Very good tramadol tramadol

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

tramadol — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:49:04 -0000

81e31de21f46 Hello! http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

tramadol — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:19:38 -0000

81e31de21f46 Hello! http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

hot and horny girls — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:22:47 -0000

ed4d6dd518ec Very good http://hornygirls.da.cx hot and horny girls
http://handjobs.da.cx mature handjobs
http://redhead.da.cx sexy redhead
http://hotmodels.da.cx nude hot models
http://milf.da.cx milf hunters
http://hotnakedgirls.da.cx ecw hot naked girls
http://girlsgonewild.da.cx girls gone wild pic
http://schoolgirls.da.cx asian schoolgirls
http://tiffanyteen.da.cx tiffany teen nude
http://topless.da.cx olsen twins topless

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

short url — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:30:22 -0000

e2c5e8221917 Nice site short url short url

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

Ted — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:20:32 -0000

If the Government would have gone forward with the breakup, all this would have gone away -- the finding of fact in the antitrust case would no longer be binding on third parties, because the situation would have been remedied by the removal of the monopoly.

Since Microsoft convinced the Bush administration to drop the case, Microsoft remains a monopoly and remains subject to special treatment under the law. This is good and just, but certainly not as efficient or good as a structural remedy would have been.

Consumers don't lose when monopolists are restricted. Consumers lose when monopolists are allowed to destroy competition unabated.

The consumer surplus that you claims is destroyed actually is not destroyed. Users who really, really want this PDF generation feature have many choices: Open Office, Adobe plugins for Office, switching to a Mac and OSX, etc. If users don't view lack of integrated PDF creation as sufficient stimulus to migrate away from MS's Monopoly Office product, it must not even be that important of a featuer, no?

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

Gary McGath — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:07:38 -0000

If Microsoft is using or reverse-engineering Adobe code, Adobe hasn't used that as an argument yet. PDF is a published standard, and lots of people have written their own PDF-generation code.

By threatening this suit, Adobe has done serious damage to itself. Up to now, it was assumed that PDF was an open format that anyone could generate. Now Adobe is saying that it can yank permission to generate PDF's, creating uncertainty for everyone. This increases the attractiveness of alternative formats.

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

Steve_R — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 23:10:31 -0000

I think that we are overlooking a critically important concept; reverse engineering. First, I need to state that I do not know how M$ is actually implementing its PDF compatibility,so my comments may or may not be applicable.

If M$ is "borrowing" Adobe PDF code then I would have a limited degree of sympathy for Adobe's position. However, if M$ is using its own "clean room" code to generate a PDF compatible document then I don't have any sympathy for Adobe.

To use the proverbial automobile analogy: if I own a Chevy and I design an adapter that allows me to use a Ford fuel pump in the Chevy; neither Ford nor Chevy should have the ability to prevent me from using the pump with that adapter.

Re: Adobe vs. Microsoft II: Users Lose

Luis Villa — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 10:35:25 -0000

Question, which I've seemed to get conflicting answers to: does adobe give away a plugin to generate PDF from existing versions of office? I know such a plugin exists, but some pieces of coverage of this story have implied that the plugin is free, while others have implied that the plugin is not available stand-alone and hence is expensive.