It's just the nature of software license agreements. You say that they used third party shit that they should not have, but why should they not have? The inclusion of Pantone swatches in Adobe products was of huge benefit to users, and therefore Adobe, and also to Pantone themselves.
You're missing the point. The "shouldn't have" in the GP is purely from a legal standpoint.
It's not important whether it was a net good to have Pantone integrated into Adobe products. What's important is that Adobe provided something under a certain set of terms, then changed those terms to the detriment of all their users not because of anything the users did, but because of their own failure to get a perpetual license from Pantone from the start.
Comments
It's just the nature of software license agreements. You say that they used third party shit that they should not have, but why should they not have? The inclusion of Pantone swatches in Adobe products was of huge benefit to users, and therefore Adobe, and also to Pantone themselves.
You're missing the point. The "shouldn't have" in the GP is purely from a legal standpoint.
It's not important whether it was a net good to have Pantone integrated into Adobe products. What's important is that Adobe provided something under a certain set of terms, then changed those terms to the detriment of all their users not because of anything the users did, but because of their own failure to get a perpetual license from Pantone from the start.
I'm not missing the point. This is normal, it happens all the time. Look at video games with music licenses, or licenses for car brands for instance.