[brettermeier]

You could have read the whole article, then you wouldn't have missed this paragraph:

"The other, perhaps more urgent issue is the threat of Adobe’s legal department. The marketing and branding of the software looked a little too on the nose for the multi-billion dollar company to ignore. Semple says he’s ready should Adobe decide to flex its legal muscle.

“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,” he says.

Examples of the software icons Abode displayed on its Kickstarter. “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.”"

[tmpX7dMeXU]

No part of what you’ve quoted changes my view an iota.

I’m not sure what has in your mind justified that immensely snarky response.

This is the equivalent of a perked-up overconfident guy bragging about his MMA skills to an uninterested date. This is the equivalent of a Tesla salesperson telling you not to worry because the car will DEFINITELY hit its stated range.

It all means nothing.

Anyone with a measly $200k or thereabouts wouldn’t be looking to waste a single cent of it on unnecessarily legal costs all to…blatantly copy a brand. This is a naive whoever looking to kick up some publicity with a meme vapourware product. Anyway, if a court ruled in Abode’s favour, it would quite frankly be a disgusting perversion of trademark law. It doesn’t pass the smell test at all. Adobe being evil doesn’t change that fact.

[quitit]

Despite also reading the full article, I also have the same impression as the earlier poster.

Regardless of what this person says, my own experience and knowledge of trademark law tells me he's full of it.

My knowledge of software development seconds that thought, as does my knowledge of the software packages he's aiming to replace.

It's a scam, I'll happily eat my hat if he achieves -anything- close to what he's promising.

[traceroute66]

> 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

Honestly, that statement doesn't sit well with me.

Most sensible business people like to have a generous buffer between themselves and the legal line.

If you make it your business model that you constantly try to test the boundaries legal line, then one day it is going to come back and bite you in the backside. The history books are littered with examples.

It also means in practical terms that most of your $235k is going to disappear on lawyers fees.

[postmodest]

I agree. This quote is the "we have acoustic sensors that detect impending hull failure" of IP lawsuits.

[Guvante]

> One specific case of interest comes from British artist Stuart Semple who is both challenging and protesting the concept of “owning a color,” through the release of a purchasable paint offering dubbed “Pinkie” — which he says is the “barbiest pink.”

https://hypebeast.com/2023/7/stuart-semple-barbiest-pink-mat...

I assume this is the Mattel reference.

Trademark disputes can be won by just not competing in the trademark realm. If Mattel is protective of toys that are a certain pink and you release paint that color they won't/can't come after you.

Bringing out software that is a direct competitor while using a marking similar isn't just harder, it is effectively what trademark was designed to prevent.

Unless you can win a lawsuit where Adobe says "people assumed it was a cheaper version of my normal product made by me" you will lose in court.

Honestly my view is also someone fleccing given the whole Ventablack story being him making a mountain out of a molehill when a manufacturer gave one artist access to avoid having to work with a ton of people on a distraction from their usual work.

Additionally wouldn't GIMP and other open source tooling be good enough if Adobe tools could be cloned for a year's Salary of a Senior Engineer plus overhead?

[boomboomsubban]

>I have successfully challenged IP owned by Tiffany and Co, Pantone, Mattel, and others over the years

So their rip off versions of Tiffany and Co, Pantone, and Mattel presumably failed? Or surely they wouldn't need a kickstarter for this one. Doesn't inspire a ton of confidence in me.

[somsak2]

Pebble didn't need to use Kickstarter for their second watch and did so anyway

[solarkraft]

> no software that infringes on any of Adobe’s trademarks has been produced

Yeah but a damn company that infringes on Adobe's trademarks has been produced