It's a diversion tactic.
No, I'm afraid that it isn't. For the purposes of evaluating the merits of a complaint to the FTC, it is extremely relevant to any discussion of a potential remedy. To add to Jeff's history, back in 1996, when Adobe prevailed in the Aldus merger complaint, they had to divest themselves of "Freehand" to the Altsys Corporation within 6 months. Moreover Adobe had to refrain from the acquisition of "Professional Illustration Software" until 2006 without prior approval of the FTC. The point here is that Adobe characterizes itself to the FTC as the owner and producer of "Professional Illustration Software".
"OK, so what?", the photographers, ask. WTF has that got to do with our problem? Permit me, as a pedant, to analogize: Disston Tool decides to stop making handsaws and to concentrate exclusively on circular saws for cutting wood. Along come the saw musicians, armed with bows who say, "Hey!" "Not FAIR! I have learned, at considerable investment of personal time, to play music with a saw, and I have a special bow and because of the constant bending of the saw during my performances, it changes the temper of the blade and I require replacements in order to play my music." To this Disston responds, "Hmnn, but...but...our tools are intendedfor wood cutting
. We listen to and even admire saw music, but hey, the saw for music market is too limited to address economically. Our products are for cutting wood."
The FTC has already granted Adobe a monopoly for Professional Illustration Software, and the issue now is whether this Creative Cloud permits Adobe to unilaterally exercise market power, raise prices, reduce innovation and increases the likelihood of unrestrained domination in violation of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Photographers are the saw musicians.
with apologies, and intending no offense.