Adobe general counsel: However, the prosecution of this individual in this particular case is not conducive to the best interests of any of the parties involved or the industry.
In other words, "We really, really wanted to nail this guy because he made us look bad. However, as corporate whores to the software-buying, money-spending public, we also didn't want to look bad so you'll all keep overspending on Adobe™ PhotoShop™. This way we have our cake and eat it too."
What scares me here is that this may set a dangerous precedent of corporations being able to use bad law to harass the citizenry, then back down to avoid a PR hailstorm and simultaneously keep the law from being seriously tested and thrown out for the steaming pile of unconstitutional lobbyist dung that it is. posted by Vetinari at 7:11 AM on July 24, 2001
« Older
Megawati is in, ...
| UnderEZ by UnderTec...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
In other words, "We really, really wanted to nail this guy because he made us look bad. However, as corporate whores to the software-buying, money-spending public, we also didn't want to look bad so you'll all keep overspending on Adobe™ PhotoShop™. This way we have our cake and eat it too."
What scares me here is that this may set a dangerous precedent of corporations being able to use bad law to harass the citizenry, then back down to avoid a PR hailstorm and simultaneously keep the law from being seriously tested and thrown out for the steaming pile of unconstitutional lobbyist dung that it is.
posted by Vetinari at 7:11 AM on July 24, 2001