asd@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Kareth) (03/04/90)
In article <20258.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange> sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) writes: >In-Reply-To: message from gbrown@tybalt.caltech.edu >Being used as a generic term does not make it one... As long as Xerox >Corporation tries to teach that Xerox is NOT a generic term and legally >enforces its trademark vigoriously, it will never =LEGALLY= be a generic >term.. as Aspirin and Kleenex are... they -are- such because they did NOT >adequately defend their trademark. Thank you in advance for your >understanding. You are already too late in my opinion. 'xerox' has become a generic term. Or at least I certainly don't think everybody thinks 'Xerox (tm)' the company when they ask for 'xerox that will ya?' My Webster's dictionary in addition to listing Xerox as a trademark, also lists it as a noun, "a copy made from xerography" and it also lists it as a transitive/ intransitive verb with "to reproduce by xerography." As such, seems like to me you can use it as generically as you want. I don't see what this has to do with Apples, but I thought I'd put my two cents in and see if we can't get back to discussing em. -k