http://www.google.com/patents?id=zFQDAAAAEBAJ&dq=Shantanu+Narayen

Look at claim1:

1. A method for publishing on a network operating according to an HTTP protocol a collection of digital media, said method comprising:

generating a collection of digital media at a client digital processing system;
transmitting collection information, which describes said collection of digital media, from said client digital processing system to a server digital processing system;
pregenerating automatically from said collection information a plurality of presentable media each of which is capable of being presented to other client digital processing systems which are coupled to said network which is operating according to said HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) protocol.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=cSkEAAAAEBAJ&dq=Shantanu+Narayen
http://www.google.com/patents?id=obt7AAAAEBAJ&dq=Shantanu+Narayen
http://www.google.com/patents?id=8GADAAAAEBAJ&dq=Shantanu+Narayen
http://www.google.com/patents?id=IioEAAAAEBAJ&dq=Shantanu+Narayen

Even Bruce R. Chizen, chief executive of Adobe Systems Inc. and chairman of the Business Software Alliance, which is leading the charge for the technology industry, acknowledges that allowing software patents in the 1980s was a bad idea. But Chizen argues that it's too late to turn back now.

Here is the position of Adobe on software patents in 1994 published by James Huggins:

Let me make my position on the patentability of software clear. I believe that software per se should not be allowed patent protection. I take this position as the creator of software and as the beneficiary of the rewards that innovative software can bring in the marketplace. I do not take this position because I or my company are eager to steal the ideas of others in our industry. Adobe has built its business by creating new markets with new software. We take this position because it is the best policy for maintaining a healthy software industry, where innovation can prosper.

The problems inherent in certain aspects of the patent process for software-related inventions are well-known, the difficulties of finding and citing prior art, the problems of obviousness, the difficulties of adequate specifications for software are a few of those problems. However, I argue that software should not be patented, not because it is difficult to do so, but because it is wrong to do so.

In summary, these are my main points:

• the software industry thrived without patents, creating its fundamental base in an era of no software patents;
• software patents harm the industry, with no corresponding benefit;
• software embodies mathematical algorithms;
• the law, starting with the Constitution, argues against patents for software-related inventions;
• and last, the proper form of protection for software is copyright.

Here is a press clip from a recent article published in an Indian newspaper TheIndu:

Naresh Gupta, Sr. Vice President, Print & Publishing Business Unit Adobe, and Managing Director, Adobe India, a leader of the imaging software and solutions business, says: “We believe in safeguarding of intellectual property rights. Adobe invests significant resources towards innovation and we expect protection of our Intellectual Property Rights, to be able to sustain business.”