5 ms·
But I dont think anyone copyrighted a fundamental particle's name.
by andrewvijay 10y ago
But I dont think anyone copyrighted a fundamental particle's name.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- archgoon 10y agoI think it's pretty uncool to copyright a word which is a fundamental particle and prevent people from using it.
- cowsandmilk 10y agoTrademarks are fairly narrow in what they restrict other people from using. While not a "fundamental particle", is it uncool for Intel to have processors called "Atom", so now no one else can release an "Atom" processor?
- archgoon 10y agoThank you, I shouldn't have reused the incorrect terminology here (it matters). Thanks for bringing this point up, I completely agree with you, because there is no chance of consumer confusion between these products, which is a reasonable standard to adhere to. Now, if Intel were to go after the Atom Text editor, we would agree that'd be pretty silly, no? Obviously they wouldn't, because there is no confusion. Now, if AMD were to start selling ATOMe processors, I'd also agree that Intel would have a reasonable complaint. There is no reasonable confusion (for the target markets) between this gluon project, gluonhq, and the router gluon project (linked to above).
- kej 10y agoNobody is prevented from using anything. Can you not talk about gluons (or apples, or atoms, or whatever) just because the word has been overloaded with the name of a business?
- archgoon 10y agoUm... are you responding to a different thread? I believe that we're in agreement here. It's the original poster who thinks that once a corporate entity has laid claim to a word, other people should feel obligated to avoiding using it.
- cowsandmilk 10y agotrademark != copyright...
- heavenlyhash 10y agoCopyright doesn't apply here. Trademark does. Trademarks are scoped by product category.