Calumet files Chapter 7

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
No, not that I'm aware of. Tony incorrectly thought I
had used the word "onslaught" inappropriately, but failed to
show how, and I have since substantiated that I was using it
correctly - which is when he quietly left the thread to lick
his wounds.

Tony Cooper:
You used the word in a way that is not idiomatic in English.

Sandman:
This is an incorrect claim from you, as I have shown.

... shown, only to yourself.

No, in this group.

Tony Cooper:
The usage would not have been written by anyone who understands
how the word is used.

Sandman:
Incorrect. And ironic to be coming from you.

He is correct.

Incorrect.

Tony Cooper:
There is a difference that you don't seem to grasp between
"inappropriate" and "incorrect". This is part of the reason you
come out with these clangers in usage.

Sandman:
Ironic.

And correct.

Incorrect.

Tony Cooper:
An inappropriate usage can be a usage where the word just
doesn't fit. It's wrong for the application. An incorrect usage
is when the word is not just wrong for the application, but
wrong enough to make the usage not understandable or misleading.

Sandman:
Luckily, I used the word appropriately, which I showed in my
substantiation, which you snipped and ignored since you can't
counter it.

Anyone familiar with English can tell that you are not a native
English speaker.

No doubt.

Not in a big way: your English is generally very
good. What gives you away are the subtleties of word usage.

I bet.

Not sure if you have a point here or not.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

nospam:
plenty of places sell apple products, including best buy and
walmart, two huge retail outlets in the usa. there are other
stores in other countries that sell apple products. heck there are
even vending machines that sell apple products.

as for the price controls, what the stores often do is include
other stuff, like gift cards, printers, carrying case, etc., to
spice up the deal.

and of course, there are all the non-apple products being sold.

there is *plenty* of competition.

There is a lot more competition when you are subjected to an
onslaught of choices from a plethora of competing products.

Oooh, interesting. "onslaught" ey? May I be so bold as to ask what you mean
by "onslaught" here? Just so you're prepared when Tony will question your
usage of the word.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Savageduck:
...but why do we have to revisit this again and again when the
issue has been beaten to death several times?

Because there's no talk of photography. Here, I'll get the ball
rolling with some recent shots.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Babe-R...-02-051-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-121-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-122-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-123-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...3-16-12-XL.jpg

First photo-related post from Tony in like, forever! Welcome back!

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Ever heard of protecting a trademark?

nospam:
calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is,
after all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was
authored by adobe.

Hmm. The same plugins will often run with Paint Shop Pro, Gimp,
Irfan VIew etc. Does that make them Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Irfan View
plugins?

It does, and it's not the same plugins, they are all different actual
binaries (that sometimes, in turn, launch the same external binary).

I.e. the plugin *file* installed into the applications are not the same.
You can't take a Photoshop plugin file and put it in the PSP plugin
directory and it will work. Tony once thought so (as did Savageduck) with
regards to Lightroom, but after some research it turned out not to be true.

It's an important disctinction, since otherwise people might think the
plugins are interchangeable. Many plugins are available for different
applications, but they're not the same plugin.

You should see
http://www.thepluginsite.com/knowhow...troduction.htm
which will give you some idea of why, when and how Adobe may
restrict the use of Photoshop as part of the name of plugins.

I couldn't find anything in this non-Adobe document that tells the
developer what naming restrictions Adobe poses on the plugins. Maybe I just
missed it, it's a big document. Would you please be so kind as to quote
and/or direct me to the salient parts?

Thanks in advance.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Sandman
wrote:

calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is,
after all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was
authored by adobe.

Hmm. The same plugins will often run with Paint Shop Pro, Gimp,
Irfan VIew etc. Does that make them Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Irfan View
plugins?

It does, and it's not the same plugins, they are all different actual
binaries (that sometimes, in turn, launch the same external binary).

I.e. the plugin *file* installed into the applications are not the same.
You can't take a Photoshop plugin file and put it in the PSP plugin
directory and it will work. Tony once thought so (as did Savageduck) with
regards to Lightroom, but after some research it turned out not to be true.

some non-adobe apps pretend to be photoshop so they can claim to run
actual photoshop plug-ins (same binary), usually not very well because
they do an incomplete job of pretending to be photoshop.

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
It does, and it's not the same plugins, they are all different
actual binaries (that sometimes, in turn, launch the same external
binary).

I.e. the plugin *file* installed into the applications are not the
same. You can't take a Photoshop plugin file and put it in the PSP
plugin directory and it will work. Tony once thought so (as did
Savageduck) with regards to Lightroom, but after some research it
turned out not to be true.

some non-adobe apps pretend to be photoshop so they can claim to run
actual photoshop plug-ins (same binary), usually not very well
because they do an incomplete job of pretending to be photoshop.

Ok, that is news to me, so I retract the statement where this scenario
applies.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
Tony Cooper 03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM


"they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for
Photoshop. The plugins on that page are evidently plugins
that Adobe has approved for use with Photoshop."

nospam:
it doesn't.

all you need to do is download the photoshop sdk, write
whatever plug-in you want and offer it for sale. adobe doesn't
even have to know about it.

Tony Cooper:
I don't know why you keep repeating this point. No one is
contesting it. We all know that anyone can write a plug-in for
Photoshop or LR and make that plug-in available to anyone
without Adobe's knowledge or consent.

What is at question is only what you should call it.

Sandman:
According to whom?

And where is the approval process "for use with Photoshop", Tony?

No one, as far as I can tell, has taken the position that plug-ins
must be approved by Adobe unless they are to be featured in Adobe's
Marketplace showroom.

Except, of course, from you, who said that the plugins are "approved" for
"use with Photoshop" - as opposed to "featured in Adobe's Marketplace
showroom".

Quite the opposite, in fact. It's agreed that anyone can write a
plug-in that works with an Adobe product and offer for free or for
sale. No approval from Adobe is necessary.

Unless you want it "for use with Photoshop", that is?

Sandman:
And regarding the name of the software, maybe we can go on what
others have called their plug-ins?

http://css3ps.com - "Photoshop plugin" http://www.cutandslice.me -
"Photoshop plugin" http://www.divine-project.com - "Photoshop
Plugin" http://subtlepatterns.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://webzap.uiparade.com - "PS plugin"
http://pnghat.madebysource.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://skeuomorphism.it - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.autofx.com/ - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"

All made by Adobe? Or Approved by Adobe?

You see, that's the question that the writers above prompt, and why
it's wrong for them to call their product a "Photoshop plugin".
Some might assume that "Photoshop plugin" means a plug-in authored
by, or approved by, Adobe. That may not be the case at all, and
probably isn't.

But it is your claim that only Adobe *can* call it a "Photoshop plugin"
(with "can" interpreted as "allowed" rather than "have the ability")

It doesn't make any difference how many wrong uses you find. All
that shows is that people do it wrong.

We have to first see some support for the claim that it is wrong, must we
not?

Sandman:
Tony Cooper post processing 03/17/2014


"Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"

True, and I stand by it.

Yet you can't support it. It's yet another one of your unsupported claims.
I should probably make a list.

You are asserting that only Adobe can (as in "is allowed", because we have
shown that it's not can as in "has the ability") call something an
Photoshop Plugin.

You have provided no support for this claim.

I have provided counter-support, by:

1. Listing a multitude of developers that call their software a Photoshop
Plugin
2. Showing a link to an Adobe page where Adobe themselve refer to
third-party plugins as "Photoshop Plugins".

I'm a bit unsure whether or not you mean that only the company Adobe have
legal right to call third party plugins "Photoshop plugins", where the
third party plugin developers musyt change the order of the words and add a
"for" to be legally valid.

And, as stated, so far you have provided nothing to counter this but
meaningless words.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

nospam:
plenty of places sell apple products, including best
buy and walmart, two huge retail outlets in the usa. there are
other stores in other countries that sell apple products. heck
there are even vending machines that sell apple products.

as for the price controls, what the stores often do is include
other stuff, like gift cards, printers, carrying case, etc.,
to spice up the deal.

and of course, there are all the non-apple products being
sold.

there is *plenty* of competition.

Eric Stevens:
There is a lot more competition when you are subjected to an
onslaught of choices from a plethora of competing products.

Sandman:
Oooh, interesting. "onslaught" ey? May I be so bold as to ask what
you mean by "onslaught" here? Just so you're prepared when Tony
will question your usage of the word.

Evidently "satirical reference" is another concept Popinjay does not
grok.

It seems Andreas is busy ascribing motives to another poster yet again.
While it may be true that it was a humorous reference, it doesn't change
the fact that you are known to question correctly used instances of the
word in question - so either Eric used the word incorrect and thus you have
no problem with it, or he used it correctly and you should object loudly
(and for weeks, if not months).




--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-04-05 13:46:25 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Snipped for pain relief

For crying out loud!!!
Will you guys just drop this crappy, apparently irresolvable circular
**** of a debate?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
I'm a bit unsure whether or not you mean that only the company
Adobe have legal right to call third party plugins "Photoshop
plugins", where the third party plugin developers musyt change the
order of the words and add a "for" to be legally valid.

You shouldn't be unsure. "Photoshop" is a registered trademark of
Adobe. That's legal protection. How that registered trademark is
used is up to Adobe to enforce.

And how do they enforce it?

Adobe apparently doesn't pursue infringements.

Infringements according to whom?

The availability of plug-ins are beneficial to Adobe because it makes
Photoshop a more useful program and more desired. It would be costly for
Adobe to crack down. That doesn't mean that they don't have the legal
right to do so.

According to what law?

If you develop a flavoring that can be added to Coca Cola, and call
it a "Coca Cola Flavoring", Cocoa Cola would most probably take
legal action.

On what do you base this theory? What if I were to post a "Photoshop
tutorial", or hold a "Photoshop class"? Same thing, according to you?

What about other instances where a manufacturer encourages third party
solutions for their products, say.. Apple? So Apple owns the trademark
"iPad", right, so the only "iPad dock" would be one made by Apple - no one
other than Apple "can" say "iPad dock"?

For the record - I am totally with your line of thought, what I am
questioning is the entire "can". Anyone can call a plugin a "Photoshop
plugin" and Adobe can do nothing about it. And it is my position that they
don't want to do anything about it.

They've shown that they make an effort to protect their trademarked name
by forcing restaurants in the US to say "We serve (name of beverage)" if
the customer orders a "Coke" or a "Coca Cola" and the restaurant only
serves Pepsi or some other beverage.

Indeed - but that was in order to enforce the brand where "Coke" could
refer to a competing brand. It would be applicable here if "plugin" was a
common word that people usually connected with Photoshop but used it for
other cases as well.

Apple attempted a "get tough" policy with "App Store", but abandoned
it.

Again, not towards their third party developers who they very much
encourage to refer to the App Store as... the App Store.

In fact, you make quite the opposite case here. If third party developers
were to only call their software "plugins", then Adobe would probably want
to encourage them to include their trademarked name in the moniker as well
- to ensure branding. In short, a developer that calls his software
"Photoshop plugin" strengthes the brand.

The reason that firms take action to protect their trademark is to
prevent that trademark from becoming a generic term as happened to
the makers of aspirin, escalator, thermos, and many other products.

Indeed. "Photoshop plugin" is not such a case, however, since it does not
encourage a generic usage of the brand name. Quite the opposite.

Adobe does not want "Photoshop" to become a generic term for "image
processing software", but they have to balance their need to protect
with the benefits of allowing the erroneous usage to continue.

But we're not discussing the "errroneous" usage of "Photoshop" to refer to
"image processing software".

Sandman:
And, as stated, so far you have provided nothing to counter this
but meaningless words.

In your opinion, but then we know that understanding words is not
your forte. nospam also argues with the premise, but his defense is
"everybody does it" or something like that.

I see you forgot to append any substantiation for your position in this
post as well. So you're firmly set with a big fat zero for your claim.

--
Sandman[.net]