CompuServe Messages

I don't disagree with your observations about Adobe versus clone fonts. There are large non-Adobe font libraries available (and Adobe machines can use them, while non-Adobe machines can't use Adobe fonts), and I respect the craftsmanship that Bitstream, URW/The Company, and Compugraphic have applied to creating these fonts. But it is important for prospective buyers of expensive equipment to recognize the restrictions of non-Adobe PostScript implementations, especially in the font area. As far as the "cracking" of Adobe's hinting algorithm, I imagine that any code can eventually be broken–and there's certainly a strong incentive for anyone who can accomplish it! John Warnock of Adobe sounded quite confident that it couldn't/wouldn't be done at last September's Seybold Seminar, and offered to hire anyone who could do it on the spot. I am generally in favor of rewarding innovators over "cloners". Unlike the situation elsewhere in the computer world, the makers of laser printers, typesetters, and other imaging devices are able to license Adobe's PostScript for their own use. A company choosing to use a non-Adobe implementation is either trying to save money or gain a performance edge. I don't think that Adobe will continue to lag in performance against the RIPS-based systems; Warnock stated his firm's intention to pursue whatever hardware architectures and software techniques were necessary to improve speed. Also, I bought Adobe stock at the initial public offering two years ago. It's doing very well….