Adobe Legal… please think twice
21 04 2006There luckily aren’t too many occassions where I find it necessary to criticize Adobe but lately there have been a number of actions by the legal department that do more harm than good in my opinion.
Back in the Macromedia days I’ve dealt with the legal department a number of times and all things considered it went relatively smoothly. Today I read that Geoff Stearns of FlashObject fame was forced to change his project name to SWFObject, apparently they’ve started taking objection to third party tools using the term Flash.
http://blog.deconcept.com/2006/04/21/flashobject-to-become-swfobject/
I’d estimate round about half to two thirds of all third party tools use the term Flash in their product name — imagine what this means for the community. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to any company protecting its trademarks but what we desperately need is clarity.
- What are acceptable uses of any Adobe trademarks?
- What is Adobe’s position on open source Flash projects that use their proprietary protocols?
- Is Adobe commited to support its user base and open up communication channels regarding legal matters?
- Does Adobe recognize it needs to act internationally as opposed to the rather US-centric approach we’ve been seeing up until now?
Some of these issues were already there from the Macromedia era but it does look as though its getting more and more difficult to get a point across.
Legal departments move notoriously slow but in order to maintain a thriving community its vital that we get clear information from Adobe on what is acceptable and what is not. We need some assurance that efforts to contribute are not blocked months or years down the line because of legal issues the author wasn’t aware of.
My suggestion would be for Adobe to set up an email address where people can submit any legal questions and a more comprehensive legal FAQ can be compiled.
With regards to the current situation why not have projects register with Adobe and, once approved, be granted a restrictive license to use the Flash trademark in its name. Approved third party tools could then be listed on the exchange. This gives end users assurance that the third party tool they are using is not contested by Adobe, something that is often a question mark these days.
Thanks for listening!
I totally agree Peter. Clarity is needed.
I remember a few years ago we were trading as ‘Flashcomstudio’ and Macromedia would not include us in the ‘resources of interest’ section of their site because of ‘Flash’ in our name…
I’ve now managed to get Flashcomguru on the list - and there are others with Flash in their name; I’m unsure how or where the invisible line of acceptance lies.
thats crazy…what about Flash Memory, Flash Cards, Flash Gordon
I’m not suprised they are starting to crack down on this really… There’s probably some statement somewhere in some EULA or website legalese that states this point.
I mean, at least when it comes to creating Flash components, if you read the EULA you’ll see that it clearly states you cannot use the word “Flash” in your website name or your product name.
That’s why I changed my Flash2PDF project to blazePDF when I started selling it (including domain names); I wanted to be sure I was “legal” on that end. (Luckily, with the plethora of products with “PDF” in the title, I’m hoping I won’t have to change that now that Adobe is in control
)
[...] The OSFlash mailing list currently has some discussion on the matter in this thread. And Peter Elst has posted a good level headed appeal to Adobe regarding this manner. [...]
For what it’s worth, I know that there are internal conversations on this today, but because there are multiple groups involved it may take a little while to get better word out.
(I personally like your line “we need better info”… that was my own take too.)
Summary: In process… I anticipate better info soon. Good?
jd
Thanks John, appreciate the feedback!
I pulled together a little more context… still not definitive, but I hope it helps:
http://osflash.org/pipermail/osflash_osflash.org/2006-April/008509.html
jd