Adobe Says: Delete Your Older Software Versions Now Or Else!


Really!?!?!

It's a trifecta of issues at Adobe over the last few
weeks. Now, only 2 days after removing all down-
loadable versions of cloud-based software from
their website older than 2 iterations back, they are
sending their customers letters ordering the remo-
val of any older CC software or risk a possible co-
pyright infringement claim by a third party! This is
not a joke, some might think it is.

It seems that Adobe is currently being sued by mul-
tiple sources and one of which is Dolby who as of
March 2019 claims Adobe has infringed on their intel-
lectual property and breached their contract.

What next in this Adobe saga? — J. Christina 

I looked this up and there are references to this back in April of 2017. Also, I am not sure how Adobe has any legal ground to sue their customers. Pretty sure they can't be held responsible unless they are selling old copies. I am willing to get that's the case. People might be trying to sell the old serial numbers. 

I think they are messing up the privileged position they had.

Huh?  Man Adobe isn't in the best of light recently.  

Am I ever happy I sold my Master Collection
Creative Suite 6 some years back.

Troponin wrote: I looked this up and there are references to this back in April of 2017. Also, I am not sure how Adobe has any legal ground to sue their customers. Pretty sure they can't be held responsible unless they are selling old copies. I am willing to get that's the case. People might be trying to sell the old serial numbers. 

This isn't about Adobe suing their customers, it's about license holders (like Dolby) suing Adobe customers for violating license agreements. If Adobe terminates an agreement users of that software must do so as well, or risk being in violation. That's part of what we agree to in the EULA.

I also saw (today) a remark on the PPA forum that Dolby is making somewhat outrageous demands regarding auditing of adherence to agreements. Including immediate online access to Adobe's customer data. (Allegedly... this is second hand.) It's not real clear what's going on, and the finger pointing is probably only just beginning.

So who has the popcorn.  





PT where is the popcorn eating smilie?  

garyrhook wrote:

Troponin wrote: I looked this up and there are references to this back in April of 2017. Also, I am not sure how Adobe has any legal ground to sue their customers. Pretty sure they can't be held responsible unless they are selling old copies. I am willing to get that's the case. People might be trying to sell the old serial numbers. 

This isn't about Adobe suing their customers, it's about license holders (like Dolby) suing Adobe customers for violating license agreements. If Adobe terminates an agreement users of that software must do so as well, or risk being in violation. That's part of what we agree to in the EULA.

I also saw (today) a remark on the PPA forum that Dolby is making somewhat outrageous demands regarding auditing of adherence to agreements. Including immediate online access to Adobe's customer data. (Allegedly... this is second hand.) It's not real clear what's going on, and the finger pointing is probably only just beginning.

Lovely. So Adobe screwed up and they dodge the bullet? Hmmm, me thinks that there won’t even be an Adobe if they pull this stunt, whether it’s legal or not, it will affect enough people that the company will get boycotted, I’m sure. I will delete and cancel mine if they do. 

Troponin wrote: Lovely. So Adobe screwed up and they dodge the bullet?

Um, how did you arrive at that assessment?

A licensee usually has to agree to some sort of auditing by the licensor. If the licensor wants to change the terms of that auditing (either mid-stream, or at renewal time, or even through assertion that may or may not be supported by the agreement) then the licensee usually has the option to terminate the agreement. That may very well be what happened here.

But we don't know. I'm only passing along rumors.

I don't think we yet can conclude that anyone "screwed up", because we don't have anough verifiable facts.

But if what I read is accurate, Dolby (or any licensor) has no right to define how access for auditing should occur, without agreement by the licensee. So until any details come out, I'll just figure greed and mistrust are involved, and ignore it until such time as it becomes personally relevant. Which, at this time, it is not.

garyrhook wrote:

Troponin wrote: Lovely. So Adobe screwed up and they dodge the bullet?

Um, how did you arrive at that assessment?

A licensee usually has to agree to some sort of auditing by the licensor. If the licensor wants to change the terms of that auditing (either mid-stream, or at renewal time, or even through assertion that may or may not be supported by the agreement) then the licensee usually has the option to terminate the agreement. That may very well be what happened here.

But we don't know. I'm only passing along rumors.

I don't think we yet can conclude that anyone "screwed up", because we don't have anough verifiable facts.

But if what I read is accurate, Dolby (or any licensor) has no right to define how access for auditing should occur, without agreement by the licensee. So until any details come out, I'll just figure greed and mistrust are involved, and ignore it until such time as it becomes personally relevant. Which, at this time, it is not.

www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/14/a_dolby..._cloud_license_fees/

They gave them the wrong numbers when Dolby asked for an audit. They also continued to delay the information as well.  Usually the numbers are off bit a few million, but it sounds like this was massive. So now it sounds like Adobe is trying to clean up its mess and the customers are potentially getting pulled in. 

Troponin wrote: www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/14/a_dolby..._cloud_license_fees/

They gave them the wrong numbers when Dolby asked for an audit. They also continued to delay the information as well.  Usually the numbers are off bit a few million, but it sounds like this was massive. So now it sounds like Adobe is trying to clean up its mess and the customers are potentially getting pulled in. 

Ah, very good. I hadn't found this one yet. Thanks.

Adobe probably found out that the original agreement was going to cost it more than anticipated. But we don't know, so who can say? In any event, don't agree to something you're not going to do.

As for customers, this points to a poorly structured license with Dolby, and Adobe should never have allowed for this situation. Of course, we, as end users, aren't privy to those sorts of details, so we're just along for the ride.

I really doubt that Dolby is going to go after any end user. This is (or should be) just about auditing and getting paid properly. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me. But what do I know?

Nikon Shooter wrote: I think they are messing up the privileged position they had.

Amen.  I think they did that when they started renting software instead of selling it.

fmw wrote: Amen. I think they did that when they started renting software instead of selling it.

I adopted Capture One though still owning and using my
Master Collection CS6 and had a good time.

But you're right, that was the point where I was looking
for alternatives to Ps, Ai, and InD and found them all under
Serif's roof… great move it was.