If we have to pay for a separate download to save to pdf, maybe we can get a version that actually has translucent overlays for highlighting sections of text?

If we have to pay for a separate download to save to pdf, maybe we can get a version that actually has translucent overlays for highlighting sections of text?

If we have to pay for a separate download to save to pdf, maybe we can get a version that actually has translucent overlays for highlighting sections of text?

If we have to pay for a separate download to save to pdf, maybe we can get a version that actually has translucent overlays for highlighting sections of text?

“What was Adobe thinking” you ask?
They are thinking that if Word, the standard WP of the masses, can easily create PDFs that puts a massive hurt in sales of its full product.
Remember they give away the reader, dependant on sales of the Full product to make a profit.

Can Adobe update, service, and supply its reader if its full product sales are cut by say two thirds?
MS may eliminate Adobes profit margin altogether by eliminating its need by all but the most demanding users.

Sure it seems unfair when others did it without objection.
But I can certainly see why Adobe doesn’t like it.
And to try to see if they can get support in the form of payment from MS if they add this feature doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Again the free reader is supported by the full creation tool.

In the end the law will determine who wins.
But put yourself in their shoes, what would you do?

This is clearly a business ploy to attack MSFT. Apple’s OSX, OpenOffice and Linux create PDFs on the fly. However, they are no legal disputes there. It just shows that Adobe is willing to stoop to any level to get a big pay-check! Apple and open-source programs aren’t going to bring in the bacon.

I’m sure that when we hear Adobe’s side of the story, you can place it all in a nutshell as, “MS Office is too big for us to have MSFT take our money!”