[free-sklyarov] Implication for Adobe - what can be reversed?

[Huaiyu Zhu]

EFF says that Adobe did the right thing. Well, yes,
but only in the sense 
 of not continuing doing the wrong thing. The wrongs
they have already done 
 are still continuing. And there are more questions to
be answered. 

 It has been said many times before that Dmitry did
not sell the product 
 anywhere, even in Russia. Adobe just confirmed this.
They withdraw because 
 his employer Elcomsoft no longer sells the offending
product. This raises 
 some serious issues concerning the legality of the
arrest: 

 Was he arrested because he wrote a program in Russia?
Or because his 
 employer sells a product in Russia? At what
management level should an 
 employee be held responsible for a company's wrong
doing? If Adobe did 
 something wrong, should some of its upper management
team go to jail? 

 Elcomsoft stopped selling the product before Dmitry
got arrested. Does 
 Adobe consider it broke the law? If so, shouldn't
they prosecute the 
 company instead? How do they explain their dealings
with the company long 
 after they reported the alleged crime? Note that US
courts not only allows 
 suing foreign companies, but also allows suing even
foreign governments. 

 Was Dmitry arrested because he came to US to give a
speech about a product 
 his employer sells? If a company violates an IP law,
should its marketing 
 team go to jail? 

 Or was he arrested because he came to US to give a
speech about a program he 
 wrote? What does this say about academic freedom and
free speech? 

 If none of the above is a crime, do they become a
crime when put together? 

 An alternative explanation, that he was arrested
because his employer sells 
 a product in US is too ridiculous to merit
consideration. It is like if 
 you work in a winery and some of the wine gets sold
into a country that 
 prohibits alcohol, and you tour that country and tell
people about your 
 work, and you get arrested. This kind of logic should
not fit the US. 

 The real reason is more likely to be that he revealed
flaws in Adobe's 
 products. 

 The more I think about this, the more this whole
thing looks like a big 
 company bullying competitors and whistle blowers by
threatening the personal 
 freedom of their employees. Isn't this thuggish
behavior exactly what FBI 
 is supposed to be busting? 

 No doubt many people within Adobe are now regretting
their heavy handed 
 tactics. But unless they actively reverse the damage
they have already done 
 to others, there is no reason the community should do
the damage control for 
 them. One small token of gesture they could show is
to post bond for bail 
 for Dmitry. This could be a good way to substantiate
their claim that they 
 are not involved in, and are in fact against,
depriving of his personal 
 freedom. 

 Even putting aside all the legal issues, the
reputation Adobe has acquired 
 as covering up flaws in their products by threatening
the personal freedom 
 of whistle blowers should stick. People should avoid
products of such 
 companies even though they seem to make "great
products" right now. There 
 is no guarantee you will get an honest dealing in the
future. 

 As past examples have shown, any company invoking
DMCA is likely to be 
 motivated by having shoddy product to cover up or
other underhanded 
 business practices. The more users smell the stink of
DMCA the less likely 
 any company would want to touch it even with a ten
feet pole. 

 Too bad Adobe touched it and even "embraced" it. They
made a bad business 
 decision. How do they get rid of the stink and redeem
themselves is their 
 problem. But we can of course offer some good
suggestions. 

Huaiyu Zhu


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/