A preliminary injunction is how the court might stop someone from doing something BEFORE a judgment is reached. This is a constitutional issue because it kinda looks like "guilty until proven innocent" (though its not quite that, but similar). So, in order to get an injunction, you have to show that there is a high likelihood that you will win. Read the legal standard in the case, that sets the stage. Looks like they revisited the sale vs. license argument and cited cases that reflect software as being sold rather than licensed (I have long since believed that the 'license' agreement is not valid since it really and truely is a sale). The court did not bind Softman to the shrink wrap adhesion agreement because that was not how they obtained the software. Beware, because for us, that's how we obtained most of the software we bought and opened. I say most because some software is a web DL and whether or not a web adhesion agreement is enforceable is not yet challenged to my knowledge. Softman is entitled to use the copy of the software as an owner within the rights of copyright law. Be careful there too. While you can, as an owner, sell your copy(like selling a book), you cannot make copies of it and redistribute it (which is a copywrite thing). Adobe did not show that they would be irrepairably harmed. As large as they are, they can likely recover from the harm that will occur during the course of the trial. Keep in mind that if they win, softman has to stop doing what they do. Further, Softman was doing this since '97 and there was no showing of irrepairable harm from that time. (Note: I think a good comparison of lost revenue to warez and unauthorized usages would sway this argument the other way. However, there is little data on economic loss due to warez etc, that can be used in general and for the injunction, it would have to be a specific company statistic unique to this software, which would cost a fortune to compile.) Court looked to public policy and leaned towards the side of oversophistication on the part of the EULA. Its about time! Guess the backlash to MS is starting to surface, which I thought it would. Court goes back to the shrinkwrap and leans towards the strength of an adhesion contract that an end user has to face in making the 'rip it open' decision. Yet at the same time, acknowledges the sophistication issue again in how some companies emasculate general law with their EULA's. As for trademark and the Lanham act, I guess there was merit to raise that issue, but unless the interface is similar to adobe's, there's likely no issue here. However, on a preliminary injunction, the Judge would not see the expert testimony and interface similarities. That's for later at the trial. So Adobe lost the preliminary injunction. Quite frankly, its very hard to win one. You have to be at the level of a summary judgment to win one from what I've seen. Thus, not liable until proven liable is the decision here on the prelim. Make no mistake, Adobe may still win their case, and most likely will. While it appears to me to be a clear cut copywrite violation, the standard for a prelim of irreparable harm was not met. Ok, I typed fast and the secretary isn't here to spellcheck. Just my 2 cents. I do know of one 3d software company that has found a way to bypass all this and control their software well beyond the attempts of adobe, but I won't say how they did it cuz we really don't want to give anyone any ideas.