dmr@alice.UUCP (03/23/88)
The Chicago Style manual advocates spelling trademarks with an initial cap. Common usage prefers not to spell words, except acronyms or other abbreviations, in all caps. The U word is a trademark and it is not an acronym. Ownership of a trademark permits the owner to keep others from using that mark in trade. It doesn't generally give the owner legal rights over permissible English usage. If you are offering a U product, you had better be sure that your usage of the term (particularly in advertising and other sales literature) complies with AT&T's requirements, because you are using it with their permission. If you are writing ordinary English discourse, you may treat requests from AT&T as indications of AT&T's preference, and decide for yourself which form you prefer, and whether AT&T's opinion of your English matters to you. (If you are an AT&T employee, it might well matter.) Similarly, a footnote or other mark is, for most people, a matter of choice. Few general or trade publications decorate trademarks. Some do; but it would be thinkable for ACM (say) to decide, as a matter of style, to forbid the decorations. They would surely get letters from AT&T and others, and it would be perfectly safe to write back saying "Thank you for your opinion." Dennis Ritchie
friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) (03/24/88)
In article <7763@alice.UUCP>, Dennis Ritchie writes:
< The Chicago Style manual advocates spelling trademarks with an
< initial cap. Common usage prefers not to spell words, except
< acronyms or other abbreviations, in all caps. The U word is
< a trademark and it is not an acronym.
<
< Ownership of a trademark permits the owner to keep others from
< using that mark in trade. It doesn't generally give the owner legal
< rights over permissible English usage.
I recall reading that the U.S. Trademark Office doesn't consider
case when registering a trademark, and I think this came up with
regard to Ashton-Tate's "dBase" trademark.
Disclaimer: friedl@vsi.com != attorney
--
Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. *Hi Mom*
friedl@vsi.com {uunet,attmail,ihnp4}!vsi!friedlerict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (03/31/88)
In article <7763@alice.UUCP>, dmr@alice.UUCP writes: some stuff about trademarks, etc. > If you are offering a U product, you had better be sure that your > usage of the term (particularly in advertising and other sales > literature) complies with AT&T's requirements, because > you are using it with their permission. If you are writing > ordinary English discourse, you may treat requests from AT&T as > indications of AT&T's preference, and decide for yourself > which form you prefer, and whether AT&T's opinion of your > English matters to you. (If you are an AT&T employee, it > might well matter.) -- A quick comment -- If you are writing an article for publication, or are doing anything other than making your own notes (I think educational purposes may get counted with publication) you should use "UNIX". It's just like using "Xerox", "Coke" or "PS/2" ( 1/2 :-) ). Like you said... It's their trademark, they get to say how it works. I'm not sure if educational purposes/publications are exempt from following trademark laws/rules. Anybody ever notice the number of ads taken out by big corps in press/media related magazines that state: `"Foo" is a trademark of Foo, Inc. Don't say "Foo", say "bah" -- the common noun`? "UNIX", "Xerox", "Coke" and "PS/2" are all trademarked by big, uncaring, ignorant, repressive and generally bozonic corporations. :-) > Dennis Ritchie -- ... They'll take the place apart -- Any minute now -- I've seen it happen before on Mercury where we put out a Cool Issue -- And the law is moving in fast -- Nova Heat -- Not locals, boss -- This is *Nova Heat* -- Well boss?" -- from _The_Ticket_That_Exploded_, William S. Burroughs J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (04/02/88)
In article <485@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > > Anybody ever notice the number of ads taken out by big corps in press/media > related magazines that state: `"Foo" is a trademark of Foo, Inc. Don't say > "Foo", say "bah" -- the common noun`? To keep a trademark the company has to show that it *has not* fallen into common usage and that the company has defended it's trademark against infringement. A trademark like "Xerox" can be preserved only as long as the lawyers dance fast enough, while one like "Coke" requires only occasional object lessons that Coke doesn't mean "generic cola drink". The ads serve both a putative educational puropose and as a demonstration that the company has made the requesite efforts to defend their trademark. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|ihnp4|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) (04/02/88)
In article <3563@cbmvax.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: > In article <485@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > > > > Anybody ever notice the number of ads taken out by big corps in press/media > > related magazines that state: `"Foo" is a trademark of Foo, Inc. Don't say > > "Foo", say "bah" -- the common noun`? > > To keep a trademark the company has to show that it *has not* fallen into > common usage and that the company has defended it's trademark against > infringement. A trademark like "Xerox" can be preserved only as long as > the lawyers dance fast enough, while one like "Coke" requires only occasional > object lessons that Coke doesn't mean "generic cola drink". I believe the list of trademarks-gone-generic includes (notice no initial caps) aspirin, linoleum, cellophane, trampoline, probably lots others; my guess is that Jacuzzi and Magic Marker are the next to fall. Isn't is a nice world we live in where such phononemal marketing success is met with such a fate? Next thing you know Xerox will be forced to license their toner patents to anybody who asks on anti-monopoly grounds.... Naaaa, never in America. -- Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. *Hi Mom* friedl@vsi.com {uunet,ihnp4}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl
djfiander@watmath.waterloo.edu (David Fiander) (04/03/88)
In article <474@vsi.UUCP> friedl@vsi.UUCP writes: >In article <3563@cbmvax.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: >> In article <485@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: >> >> object lessons that Coke doesn't mean "generic cola drink". > >I believe the list of trademarks-gone-generic includes (notice no >initial caps) aspirin, linoleum, cellophane, trampoline, >probably lots others; my guess is that Jacuzzi and Magic Marker >are the next to fall. Carefull! Asiprin is a registered trademark of Bayer still in Canada. It's really weird watching American television, where everybody makes `aspirin', when in Canada only one company is allowed to use the name. -- It was one of themselves, one of their own prophets, who said, "Cretans were never anything but liars, dangerous animals and lazy": and that is a true statment. - Titus 1:12 UUCP : {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!djfiander CSNET : djfiander%watmath@waterloo.CSNET
dmt@ptsfa.PacBell.COM (Dave Turner) (04/05/88)
In article <474@vsi.UUCP> friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >> >I believe the list of trademarks-gone-generic includes (notice no >initial caps) aspirin, linoleum, cellophane, trampoline, >probably lots others; my guess is that Jacuzzi and Magic Marker >are the next to fall. > And my personal favorite: corn flakes -- Dave Turner 415/542-1299 {ihnp4,lll-crg,qantel,pyramid}!ptsfa!dmt
al@gtx.com (0732) (04/06/88)
There are several important considerations in deciding how to refer to our
favorite operating system. Using UNIX as a noun has the advantage of
annoying lawyers, whereas always writing "the UNIX operating system" earns
more if you're being paid by the word but makes you sound like a
wimp or pedant. You can get the advantages of both usages with none of the
disadvantages by using my favorite, "the UNIX brand operating system".
Just imagine Robert Young is peddling it on TV to a distraught programmer:
DP: Goddammit, Bob, this PC-DOS is making a nervous wreck out of me. If
I have to write one more module, they're going to have to carry me
out of here with the heebie-jeebies.
RY: Why DP, haven't you heard about the UNIX (r) brand operating system?
You can program all night if you want to. The soothing utilities
of the UNIX (r) brand operating system never upset your stomach, either.
Here, let me boot you up...
--ONE WEEK LATER--
DP: Gosh Bob, this UNIX (r) brand operating system is great. I haven't
awakened in a cold sweat or puked on my keyboard in days-- and this
Usenet and hack-- from now on it's the UNIX (r) brand operating system
for me!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
( {ihnp4,cbosgd,decvax,hplabs,amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~berryh@udel.EDU (John Berryhill) (04/07/88)
Are you absolutely sure you want to do this? [ny] The proper form to be used when reffering to the folks who use this operating system is "eunuchs." -- John "There are no more Lectroids" Berryhill Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (04/14/88)
In article <474@vsi.UUCP>, friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > In article <3563@cbmvax.UUCP>, grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: >> In article <485@flatline.UUCP> erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: >>> `"Foo" is a trademark of Foo, Inc. Don't say "Foo", say "bah" -- >>> the common noun` Which is pretty silly, because generally `Foo' is commoner than `bah'. >> [Trademarks can go generic] > I believe the list of trademarks-gone-generic includes aspirin, > linoleum, cellophane, trampoline, probably lots others; my guess is > that Jacuzzi and Magic Marker are the next to fall. I'd put Band-Aid right up there. It's either fallen or it's on its way. I don't know anyone, including myself, who calls them anything but band-aids, even when they aren't Band-Aid(R)s. (Except, of course, for other companies who make the things.) Skil-Saw and Easy-Out are moving towards genericity too.... The problem with trying to think of these is that the really good examples are the ones we aren't aware are (or were) trademarks! der Mouse uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) (04/15/88)
In article <1052@mcgill-vision.UUCP>, mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: > >> [Trademarks can go generic] > > I believe the list of trademarks-gone-generic includes aspirin, > > linoleum, cellophane, trampoline, probably lots others; my guess is > > that Jacuzzi and Magic Marker are the next to fall. > > I'd put Band-Aid right up there. It's either fallen or it's on its > way. I don't know anyone, including myself, who calls them anything > but band-aids, even when they aren't Band-Aid(R)s. (Except, of course, > for other companies who make the things.) Skil-Saw and Easy-Out are Add Kleenex to the list. These only become generic terms if the owner of the trademark lets them. As long as J&J refers to Band-aid Brand adhesive bandages in their ads and other documents and take reasonable effort to protect the trademark from other companies infringement it stays a trademark. Regardless of how you (or I use the term). Tombo