Jens Ropers wrote:
I agree with what you said below, yet I will continue
to call ALL
kinds of napalm-type weapon "napalm", because the word very deservedly
carries a horrible connotation and the newer weapons' slightly altered
formula makes them no less despicable, especially in cases where the
they're actually worse (like having "added oxidisers").
Let's not forget that the article rightly pointed out that several
official documents from the U.S. military itself referred to the newer
napalm-alike weapons as "napalm".
"If that's what you call it yourself you can't scream murder over
other folks calling it that."
Actually, it wouldn't be the US military claiming the trademark. If the
trademark owner does misuse the name (i.e. DaimlerChrysler referring to
a Land Rover as a Jeep), then that's pretty much the end of the game as
far as the trademark. But in this case the supposed owner is Dow
Chemical, not the US military, though the (lack of) evidence
increasingly suggests this is not actually a trademark.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to criticize your use of the word, just
highlighting the fact that people are using it with different levels of
precision. Presumably our article on napalm could stand to have a
section dealing with the composition of napalm and discuss the varying
definitions being applied.
That link has expired.
Can you give us a description of what you did to get to the page or
point us to a screenshot or password protected copy of the content
On 25 Sep 2004, at 07:38, Stirling Newberry wrote:
The data indicates that
it's a search through the US Patent and
Trademark Office, which is something I already had done in my initial
research. Napalm, at least in the sense we are discussing, does not
appear in the search. That's a fairly strong indication that napalm is
not a trademark. In the absence of any other evidence, I would have to
conclude, as Stirling does, that napalm as a trademark is an urban legend.
isn't a crime, the accepted definition removes
trademark status when a word enters common use. Companies discourage
use of trademarked words as regular words, not because it is against
the law, but because it is not against the law.
Actually, it can be against
the law if they choose to pursue the issue.
Trademark owners have been known to seek injunctions against other
parties to prevent them from misusing their trademark as a generic term.
This is not a criminal issue, however, and genericide is barely a word,
let alone a crime.