“Microsoft Corp.’s negotiations to use Adobe Systems Inc.’s technology in its new Office business software broke down earlier this week and Adobe threatened legal action, Microsoft’s top antitrust lawyer said on Friday. The previously undisclosed talks between the two sides centred around Microsoft’s plan to allow users to save work under Adobe’s Portable Document Format, or PDF, within the company’s Office 2007 suite of applications and its new Windows Vista operating system,” Daisuke Wakabayashi reports for Reuters. “Adobe objected to Microsoft building the ‘save as PDF’ option into Office and Windows, arguing that the ability to save a document in a fixed document format, such as PDF, is a separate product and should not be free, Microsoft said.”
“In order to avoid a legal clash, Adobe requested Microsoft remove the “save as PDF” option from the new Office and wanted to have users download the “add-on” function for a fee, said Heiner, who is also Microsoft’s deputy general counsel,” Wakabayashi reports. “Further, Adobe asked Microsoft to also remove the ability to save a document under Microsoft’s XML Paper Specification, or XPS, format — a rival to Adobe’s PDF technology — and then charge a fee to add the XPS feature into Office. Microsoft agreed to remove the built-in ability to save a document using both the PDF and XPS file format from Office, but refused to charge users a fee to download the two formats because there are rival products that already allow users to create PDF documents for free… Microsoft argues that Adobe offers for free the technical specifications to allow other software companies to build applications that allow users to save documents using PDF. A competing software to Microsoft’s Office from Apple Computer Inc. and an open-source product called OpenOffice allow users to save in PDF.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: Just a sec – we’re saving this as a PDF. Okay, done. Since it was first released, Mac OS X has been able to read and write PDF files. MacOS X is the first operating system on the market that actually uses PDF-technology within the operating system itself. Quartz, Mac OS X’s native graphics system, is built on the Portable Document Format (PDF) drawing model and all native Mac OS X applications can create PDF documents automatically.
According to Apple (2.7MB PDF, appropriately enough), “The Quartz imaging architecture is based on a digital paper metaphor. In this case, the digital paper is PDF, which is also the internal model used by Quartz to store rendered content. Content stored in this medium has a very high fidelity and can be reproduced on many different types of devices, including displays, printers, and fax machines. This content can also be written to a PDF file and viewed by any number of applications that display the PDF format. The PDF model gives application developers much more control over the final appearance of their content. PDF takes into account the application’s choice of color space, fonts, image compression, and resolution. Vector artwork can be scaled and manipulated during rendering to implement unique effects, such as those that occur when the system transitions between users with the fast user switching feature. Mac OS X also takes advantage of the flexibility of PDF in implementing some system features. For example, in addition to printing, the standard printing dialogs offer options to save a document as PDF, preview the document before printing, or transmit the document using a fax machine. The PDF used for all of these operations comes from the same source: the pages formatted for printing by the application’s rendering code. The only difference is the device to which that content is sent.”
According to the The PrePressure Page, “Some people have been wondering whether Apple pays licenses to Adobe for the technology used in Quartz. Here is what an Apple employer had to say about this: ‘The Quartz renderer and the PDF interpreter that Apple ships with Mac OS X are built with Apple code, with no external licenses, by Apple employees. Adobe just publishes a specification for how it’s supposed to function. This gives Apple considerably more flexibility with regard to what Quartz and the PDF interpreter can be used for.’”
Advertisements:
• Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook. Starting at just $1099
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
>There seems to be a considerable difference in file size in Apple’s >implementation of PDF versus Adobe’s. Apple’s are much, much, MUCH >larger.
That is one of the big differences from the full blown Acrobat and Apple’s PDF generator. Acrobat’s Distiller will let you do image compression and even tweak all the nitty gritty details within the PDF.
Apple’s does little to none of this.
My rule is, if the document is all text or small web images, use Apple’s PDF generator. If you have bigger or lots of images in the doc, then use Distiller and pick the resolution and compression you want for your final PDF.
I see users with Acrobat using it wrong to many times making a PDF of some ad layout to send via e-mail and it’s comes out as a huge PDF. They didn’t change the PDF type from Prepress to Screen.
Mike and Ray, Adobe’s Acrobat does offer many additional features, but the common user does not need them. As for the file size difference, that’s one of the things that concerns professionals who are probably making documents for site use. Apple’s PDF may not conform to the common library of fonts that I remember from the earliest days of Acrobat (now Adobe Reader). That would account for a significant increase in file size. The important things about Apple’s PDF for the non-professional are documents will look the same anywhere, there are various apps that can read the format, and text is still text, vector images are still vector, etc. PDF is essentially a more constrained form of HTML.
M$ must to have its own alternative version to everything.
I understood Vista was to have at its core a new imaging system, similar to what Apple has done with Quartz and PDF.
Apple developed its imaging core from published PDF Specs. M$ must be wanting to utilise Adobe’s code (read: licence needed) to cut the cost of having to develop PDF imaging core in addition to its alternative.
Display Postscript (DP) was never a goer at Apple because the GPU power for rendering at that time was virtually nix, having to be done on the CPU (read: it was a dog for speed). And, the cost of licence for DP would have put it out of business.
PDF is a child of Display Postcript is a child of Postcript. Apple made Postcript engine popular on its first to market Laser Printers. We paid a hefty premium for having this Postcript engine on our printers.
Companies, such as HP, developed PS emulators for their printers, thus avoiding a costly licence to Adobe, thus undercutting Adobe monopoly.
I would not be surprised to learn that the M$ licensing issue somehows revolves around taking control of the PDF spec, much the same as it tried to take control of the Java spec, internet, etc., etc., etc., …
And, Apple would have paid to use DP through its purchase of Next.
Oddly, from my understandng Adobe never actually threatened legal action.
It was MS reps who originally said “they expect Adobe to take legal action”, NOT Adobe actually saying anything.
I think this is just posturing on MS part to set themselves up to be able to dump PDF in the future.
I don’t get it, why is MS fighting so hard to allow saving in PDF?
If Adobe wants to play hardball, why doesn’t MS play back and push their own Office document formats? Why doesn’t MS counter Acrobat with a free “Office Reader”? (Just keep its d/l size under 500mb, please.)
Although for all that matters, I think it’s entertaining to watch two monopolies clash…
I have a friend who works in a windoze office, and hates it, but, she sends me files to be made into pdf’s. All anyone needs is a friend with a Mac….
IMO Mafiasoft is trying to now move into the PDF format just like they are now trying to come up with a new standard for graphics.
Adobe created the standard for PDF and is the leader of the technology – of all the PDF creation software available, Acrobat is still the best, no question. Period. Hands down, etc. etc. etc.
Microsoft constantly tries to see how far they can go without going back into court charged with being a monopoly. Its like a 2-year old child who constantly tests his/her parents limits.
MS is never happy when someone else creates something that becomes a standard. They cannot and will not accept it. If they can’t own it then nobody should! They refuse to live in peace with other software makers.
This situation just reeks with greed. I really don’t believe that Adobe will lose money on this at all. They can still add the “Create PDF” technology into their software regardless and those of us who create electronic documents and pre-flight or pre-press will continue to use the best-in-the-business, which is PDF created by Adobe Systems Inc.
How is Apple able to implement PDF technology of any kind without paying a fee to the creator of the PDF specification — Adobe?
The “PDF interpreter that Apple ships with Mac OS X are built with Apple code…” argument would not seem valid to me. It would be as if I made a painting that was a stroke-for-stroke replica of the Mona Lisa. I used my own canvas, my own paints, my own brushes, and so forth. Nonetheless, the Mona Lisa wound no more be my painting than any PDF code could ever belong to Apple.
The only answer that I can formulate is that maybe Adobe has made PDF code opensource for Linux/Unix OS’. That would qualify Mac OS X to use the code for free. That would explain all of the programs for Linux that are PDF readers/writers. Perhaps this “opensourceness” does not extend to the Microsoft Windows family of OS’.
I figure PDF will remain dominant for the simple reason that it’s cross platform where XPS is not!
The best we can hope for is that Microsoft loses the XPS versus PDF battle so consumers and businesses win in the long run.
How is Apple able to implement PDF technology of any kind without paying a fee to the creator of the PDF specification — Adobe?
Because Adobe published the specification?
What if I came up with a file format, published its entire specification to the world, yet demanded that people pay me to use that specification? (i.e. “Here it is, but you can’t use it.”) Wouldn’t that be a bit… self-defeating? If I wanted to keep the spec under wraps, wouldn’t it make sense to disclose it only to those who were licensed to use it?
The bottom line is it all depends on what terms Adobe disclosed the PDF spec under. But it seems to me the PDF genie is out of Adobe’s bottle.
To i can’t figure it our,
You couldn’t claim (based on you making a “stroke for stoke replica) that the original Mona Lisa was yours, but you can claim the replica.
The key here is that “Adobe just publishes a specification for how it’s (PDFs) supposed to function.”
OS X’s PDF making ability makes files that meet Adobe’s published specs for PDFs. Apple isn’t the only company that doesn’t use Adobe’s code or infringe on Adobe patents to do so.
Adobe released these specs a long time ago (and has been updating them over time) in order to facilitate widespread acceptance of the PDF format as a file type standard. It’s also why they give away Acrobat Reader.
Microsoft is trying to use Adobe’s products (plug-ins, perhaps other code) in order to avoid having to write their own code to add the functionality.
IOW, Microsoft is trying to get a shortcut for free, and Adobe called them on it.
This is a perfect example of the philosophical difference between Apple and Microsoft.
Apple hasn’t always played nicely with third party software vendors, but they’ll only go so far. Remember the uproar when Apple included Font Book in OS X? It’s a simple way to manage fonts in the OS, but it’s not enough to replace a professional font manager for those customers that need one. Extensis probably hasn’t lost that much business because of it, but it’s great for casual users who need to keep a limited number of fonts in order.
It’s the same thing with PDF generation. The version in OS X will never truly compete with Acrobat Professional, but it’s good enough for “normal” users.
Then we have Microsoft. “Embrace, extend, extinguish”. If they can’t completely own every aspect of a technology they’ll do their best to undermine it. Interesting that the battle is over the inclusion of PDF capabilities in Office, rather than Vista. Microsoft likely wants to implement similar PDF functionality to what Apple provides. But Microsoft will include Acrobat Pro functionality with its XPS product. This is why Adobe insists it be a separate paid product–Microsoft will be giving away a good chuck of Adobe’s revenue to gain market share in a space where they don’t currently compete. We’ve seen this all before…
Unfortunately, Microsoft probably can’t lose this one. Not including PDF is now Adobe’s fault, not Microsoft’s. After all, they TRIED to play fair and use the standard.
MDN magic word “tried”. See above.
Macaday your comment: “MDN: DUMP THE TEXT LINKS.”
Why? They’re non intrusive and they don’t react unless you mouse over them. How the heck do you read web text? Using the arrow cursor to point at every word as you read it through the paragraph, triggering it to display info? : )
MDN does such a great job of staying on top of all things Apple at least let them make a bit of cash somehow for the trouble. Beats the first way they tried some months ago.
“Microsoft likely wants to implement similar PDF functionality to what Apple provides. But Microsoft will include Acrobat Pro functionality with its XPS product. This is why Adobe insists it be a separate paid product–Microsoft will be giving away a good chuck of Adobe’s revenue to gain market share in a space where they don’t currently compete. We’ve seen this all before…
–> Agreed. MS wants people to import a PDF file into Office, but EXPORT it as an XPS (because, as stated above, XPS will probably include Acrobat Pro-like functionality)
This is Adobe trying to protect it’s Acrobat business, nothing more nothing less.
They know Apple and the various open office products are not really a major threat to that business, but if every copy of Office can read/write PDFs natively, and does a half way decent job, who’s going to buy Acrobat? Only a few very high end users.
PDF is a terrible document format. The only thing that would be worse would be a digital document format standard from MS.
My apoligies if this is not true, but some of your statements sounds like the typical Microsoft fanboys I’ve run into for the last couple days. “Adobe is just trying to keep Microsoft from full access to the PDF format. Adobe is the bad guy. Microsoft is just trying to supply what customers want.”
If Microsoft used 100% cleanroom developed code which could read in and export PDF documents then Adobe would have no legal way to stop Microsoft from including it in Microsoft Office. *AND* Microsoft would not have been so quick to pull it from Microsoft Office. Microsoft would have said, “So sue us. You’ll lose.”
What is extremely likely is Microsoft used either 1) Adobe code (or some fraction of it) to read in or export PDF documents or 2) Adobe supplied technical details and/or technical expertise (consultants) about how to read in and export PDF documents beyond what Adobe had put into the public domain.
Microsoft did not want to pay Adobe the royalties that Adobe wanted. It’s very likely Adobe said, “If you don’t pay us an agreed to amount then you have to pull it from Microsoft Office. Then you can have it be a separate download for a fee (or free, I’ve heard conflicting reports on the fee versus free part) that says ‘PDF by Adobe'”.
Apple ran into the same issue in the early days of development of OS X. Apple wanted to use Postscript (including Display Postscript similar to what NeXT had done) with the ability to output anything as either Postscript or PDF. Adobe wanted *way* too much money for Apple to be able to aford to do this. So… Apple developed its own “cleanroom” code to do everthything in a PDF equivalent that was compatible with the open portions of the PDF spec. Is Apple’s “PDF” exactly the same as Adobe’s PDF? I don’t know but I’ve never heard of any incompatibilities.
Sorry shadowself, wrong!
Adobe’s playing the antitrust card, that MS developed PDF capability or MS developed XPS capability shouldn’t be included in the operating system because it would be using one monopoly to gain another.
It’s the same legal argument others have used to say that a browser or music player shouldn’t be included in the OS.
To some degree you can read this as grandstanding by Microsoft, to make the point that PDF isn’t as open as Adobe says it is. (Yep it’s open, right up to the point where a significant competitor wants to use it, then we’ll think up a creative legal way to thwart that).
Hope a way will arrived to solve this problem.
Document Imaging is an information technology category for systems capable of replicating documents commonly used in business. Document Imaging Software converts paper documents to digital content and stores the resulting information in a central computer server. It eliminates the problems associated with paper, such as loss and damage. A good document imaging system stores more than just digital images of the documents.
Best Regards
[url=”http://www.ademero.com/products/document-imaging-software-system/”]Document
Imaging Software[/url]