Technology

59572 readers

3098 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

840

After Raising $235K, Abode Remains Committed to Taking on Adobe (petapixel.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by simple@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TL;DR:

Semple, a multi-disciplinary British artist, promised to build “a brand new suite of world-class design and photography tools, with an uncanny similarity to the tools you’ve been indoctrinated in.”

“There’s a really urgent need for a suite of creative tools for creators that they actually own rather than rent. In a way, this first started when Adobe and Pantone decided to paywall the Pantone colors and I created Freetone — which was a free color plugin so creators could continue to access their palette,” he says.

“I have lawyers, and I’ve taken advice. We have solid plans in place. I would also point out that nobody has seen the final branding and no software that infringes on any of Adobe’s trademarks has been produced,”

“I have successfully challenged IP owned by Tiffany and Co, Pantone, Mattel, and others over the years. I feel we have a good and thorough understanding of where the legal line is and an ability to get as close to that as possible without overstepping it.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wether I agree with how trademarks are legislated or not, I don’t understand why anyone would expect that they could use another company’s trademark on a sold product, regardless of the industry they are operating in. It’s not hard to imagine people would be confused that Jack Daniel’s in this case, decided to release a funny dog chew toy, and regardless of the #2 wording being acceptable or not, Jack Daniel’s would have no way to ensure product quality to protect their trademarked brand that’s printed right on the damn thing. Supreme Court got this right in my opinion.