P: Disable built-in lens profile

"please do not overchampion your Adobe's advocacy"

Trying to understand Adobe's behavior is hardly advocating for them or agreeing with their decisions. Indeed, I wrote above, "In my opinion, [Adobe and manufacturers] are equally negligent in ignoring the desires of their customers." 

I also wrote above that Adobe appears unusual in its legal interpretation regarding non-standard, manufacturer-specific data in photos and that other companies haven't adopted that interpretation. Observing that Phase One may be one of those companies doesn't help us understand Adobe's position or contradict my analysis.

Different company, different or no contract.

>  But the issue appears to be driven by legal and contractual concerns. 

PhaseOne example clearly shows that it does not

> According to Adobe Principal Computer Scientist Simon Chen, the Adobe legal department believes that Adobe needs permission from manufacturers to read non-standard data fields: 

dear, to read the data is one thing - and what to do about it is another story ... for example PhaseOne is also not a one man shop that might be under the radar of camera manufacturers and yet they allow users to disable profiles... so please do not overchampion your Adobe's advocacy... 

Technically, of course, it's trivial to allow the lens profile to be disabled. But the issue appears to be driven by legal and contractual concerns.  Adobe believes it needs contractual permission from the manufacturers to read their proprietary raw files, which gives the manufacturers negotiating leverage to ask Adobe not to allow disabling of lens profiles embedded in those raw files. 

They don’t need to read any data fields, simply give us the raw data as they are in the file and don’t apply the profile

I've been testing the Luminar Flex plugin for LR by Skylum software. It allows opening the LR raw image file using its own raw converter with built-in distortion correction disabled. It's a destructive workflow, but another way to achieve that objective. I then use PS's Adaptive Wide Angle Filter to correct distortion with very little loss of image area. See below link:

https://console.getsatisfaction.com/photoshop_family/conversations/disable-built-in-lens-profile?rep...

Here's the Luminar Flex output file with no distortion correction compared to LR rendering. Skylum doesn't seem to have any issues with disabling the built-in lens corrections.

That shouldn't be an issue here since the suggested workaround strips this data completely and RAW conversion still works.

According to Adobe Principal Computer Scientist Simon Chen, the Adobe legal department believes that Adobe needs permission from manufacturers to read non-standard data fields: 

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/iphone_video_capture_time_is_shifted_upon_imp...

I'm not a lawyer but I would be very surprise if Sony, or any other manufacturer, claimed legal rights over how the files produced by their products are used (can you imagine Microsoft demanding to have a say in the content of documents created on MS-Word?).
Manufacturers have a vested interest in forcing certain settings to make up for possible weaknesses in their products (e.g. softness at edges of some lenses, or imperfect color rendition). Adobe should not. And users deserve to know what the data actually looks like when making buying decisions.
Perhaps Adobe has consented to this in exchange for early/better access to manufacturer specifications, but clearly this comes at a cost to users. I see nothing wrong with allowing manufacturers to provide their own profiles, and to give users the option of using them, but they should not be forced onto users. If Adobe is legally bound to do so, whoever negotiated this deal, perhaps unwittingly, has put their RAW conversion products at a disadvantage as other software vendors clearly do allow users to override these profiles.