🚀 go-pugleaf

larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence) writes:

>In article <1701@adobe.UUCP> hollin@adobe.UUCP (Benjamin Hollin) writes:
...
>Quoting InfoWorld quoting John Warnock, 1/29/90:

>"If a company were to come out with a typeface program that had the same
>design *and rendering* as the Adobe typeface, then we would have grounds
>to sue them for copyright infringement on the basis that their methods
>for rendering the typeface -- and not the design -- were similar [to 
>Adobe's]."

>Ack!  I'm confused again!  It seems to me that there would be an infinite 
>number of methods for creating the same bitmap.  Is duplication of the
>"behavior" (bitmap appearance at different sizes, rotations, etc.) of a 
>typeface taken to imply duplication of rendering mechanism?  How exact
...

I think a lot of this all boils down to one word: *capitalism*. If Adobe
really wants to protect its intellectual property, then it must employ
pricing and supply tactics that ensure that their customers (potential
and otherwise) will find it more economical to purchase their (Adobe's)
product. If Adobe sets the price too high, it will encourage others to
create their own fonts, in the belief that they can create them cheaper
than it would cost to buy them. Then, Adobe would have to be sure that if
the font program is a copy of one of theirs, Adobe would have to use the
legal system to force the competitor to cease and desist (with that font).

If you price yourself out of the market, then that's precisely where you'll
be. If you price competitively, you still need to watch out for zealous
competitors who would steal your product and sell it as their own. One means
of protecting yourself is by being the first to get the government to
recognise that yours is a unique product and deserves the protection of
the society you live and work in.

NPN