# Yeah, right Adobe **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 19, 2004, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188 "2004-01-19T09:27:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![paulberserker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@paulberserker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulberserker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/1 "2004-01-19T09:27:17Z")
[this from the adobe website](http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#photoshop) . How out of touch are these guys? Your program (photoshop) is the industry standard photo manipulating program. _Everybody_ says ‘its photoshopped’ or ‘I photoshopped it’. Whats the beef? They should be proud its become a commonly used noun etc. INCORRECT: “the senator was ridiculed with Photoshop” Toilets. Its common language now fools, get with the program. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Nanoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nanoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanoda)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/2 "2004-01-19T10:51:00Z")
> [@paulberserker](#): > > [this from the **Adobe®** website](http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#photoshop) . How out of touch are these guys? Your program ( **Adobe® Photoshop®** ) is the industry standard photo manipulating program. The proper authorities have been contacted - please edit your post to conform with the above requirements. – Adobe® Enfo®cement® Team® ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/3 "2004-01-19T11:08:59Z")
They have to. If they don’t actively maintain their trademark, they risk having it turn into a generic term that anyone can use whenever and wherever they want, even other companies talking about their own products. Once that’s happened, the brand has zero value as a corporate asset, and since the Adobe brand is probably the biggest asset they have, it’s a matter of some concern. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/4 "2004-01-19T11:38:15Z")
> [@Sublight](#): > > They have to. If they don’t actively maintain their trademark, they risk having it turn into a generic term that anyone can use whenever and wherever they want, even other companies talking about their own products. Once that’s happened, the brand has zero value as a corporate asset, and since the Adobe brand is probably the biggest asset they have, it’s a matter of some concern. but they have a great precedents. Sellotape. and Duck Tape. It’s hard to imagine that either of these companies have been damaged by their names becoming the popular reference name. aside from the copywrite issues, their attempt at control of language is a bit pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/5 "2004-01-19T11:43:04Z")
I’m sure Hoover® and Biro® never made the same demands. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/6 "2004-01-19T12:02:01Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > but they have a great precedents. Sellotape. and Duck Tape. It’s hard to imagine that either of these companies have been damaged by their names becoming the popular reference name. Do you mean that? I mean, “Coke” being used for any coke-like soft drink I’m sure helps coke, because you order it aloud, but if you buy “sellotape” aren’t you likely to walk to a store and buy the first thing that looks like sellotape? Do you know if it’s actually made by that company? I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/7 "2004-01-19T12:37:31Z")
> [@Shade](#): > > Do you mean that? I mean, “Coke” being used for any coke-like soft drink I’m sure helps coke, because you order it aloud, but if you buy “sellotape” aren’t you likely to walk to a store and buy the first thing that looks like sellotape? Do you know if it’s actually made by that company? I don’t. True, but is it not also the case that if it has “Sellotape” written above it, you are more likely to buy it if you are looking for sellotape? ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/8 "2004-01-19T13:38:57Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > but they have a great precedents. Sellotape. and Duck Tape. It’s hard to imagine that either of these companies have been damaged by their names becoming the popular reference name. Um, Duck Tape didn’t become the popular reference name. The item in question, used for sealing A/C and heating ducts, is called “duct tape,” and it existed long before the Duck Tape people named their product. In short, the folks who market Duck Tape took the generic name of the product, altered it slightly, and glommed onto it as their own. In effect, they’re just taking advantage of the fact that most people don’t enunciate clearly enough to pronounce “duct” properly, particularly when the following word starts with a “t.” Sort of the reverse of the situation being discussed in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/9 "2004-01-19T14:41:55Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > True, but is it not also the case that if it has “Sellotape” written above it, you are more likely to buy it if you are looking for sellotape? I’m not. I don’t even notice what is written there really. I assume you _do_? I had assumed people were like maybe, but I realise they may be like you; if so I suppose there is an advantage in being generic. ---
**Author:** ![paulberserker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@paulberserker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paulberserker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/10 "2004-01-19T14:59:14Z")
well, Sellotape (the brand) tends to have a logo that says “Sellotape” on it. Other brands tend to be called ‘adhesive tape’. Does anybody actually use anything else apart from photoshop to photoshop images? ‘hey,check this out, I microsoft painted it!’ I dont think so ---
**Author:** ![DogMom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9c0ed/32.png) [@DogMom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DogMom)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/11 "2004-01-19T15:01:00Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > but they have a great precedents. Sellotape. and Duck Tape. It’s hard to imagine that either of these companies have been damaged by their names becoming the popular reference name. Perhaps they haven’t and perhaps they have. In any case, [a bunch of trademarked names, including Aspirin, Zipper and (interestingly) Cellophane](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/meponym.html) have indeed lost their trademark through overuse of the “generic” form. Adobe is just trying to protect their name. After all, you wouldn’t necessarily buy “Adobe-brand Photoshop” if you could get “cheaper-brand Photoshop”. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/12 "2004-01-19T15:06:36Z")
> [@TwistofFate](#): > > …but they have a great precedents. Sellotape. and Duck Tape. It’s hard to imagine that either of these companies have been damaged by their names becoming the popular reference name. As I think about it, the same is true of Sellotape as of Duck Tape (see my post above). There was “cellophane tape” long before there was a brand name called Sellotape. The company appropriated the generic name. This is the reverse of the situation being discussed in the OP. More proper analogies would be referring to tissues as Kleenex, photocopies as Xeroxes, or cellophane tape as Scotch Tape, situations in which a brand name became the generic name, not the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/13 "2004-01-19T15:39:21Z")
> [@](#): > > **Trademarks must never be used in possessive form.** > > ``` > CORRECT: The new features in Adobe® Photoshop® software are impressive. > INCORRECT: Photoshop's features are impressive. > > ``` Of course, while companies trying to prevent generication, the actual page is rather funny to read. Even in protected trademarks it’s a lost battle to get everyone to never use the phrase as a noun, and say ® afterwards whenever they use it. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/14 "2004-01-19T16:59:45Z")
> [@DogMom](#): > > After all, you wouldn’t necessarily buy “Adobe-brand Photoshop” if you could get “cheaper-brand Photoshop”. I doubt that it will ever become generic enough for them to lose the copyright to “photoshop”, ala Aspirin. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/15 "2004-01-19T18:36:34Z")
> [@paulberserker](#): > > Does anybody actually use anything else apart from photoshop to photoshop images? ‘hey,check this out, I microsoft painted it!’ > > I dont think so Actually, yes they do. Maybe not Microsoft Paint, but there is image manipulation software other than photoshop on the market. I process my digital photographs using Photoshop, but i know that many other people use [Jasc’s Paint Shop Pro](http://www.jasc.com/products/paintshoppro/) because it has excellent features and is much cheaper than Photoshop. [Corel](http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel/Home) also produces products that perform similar tasks. Also, most digital cameras come with image manipulation software that allows the user to modify things like contract and brightness, as well as to resize images and add special effects. I’d be willing to bet that many digital camera owners just use this software instead of forking out for the more expensive stuff. Photoshop might be a sort of benchmark, but it’s definitely not the only product on the market. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/16 "2004-01-19T21:49:57Z")
There’s also [The Gimp](http://www.gimp.org/). ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/17 "2004-01-19T23:22:03Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > Um, Duck Tape didn’t become the popular reference name. The item in question, used for sealing A/C and heating ducts, is called “duct tape,” and it existed long before the Duck Tape people named their product. > > In short, the folks who market Duck Tape took the generic name of the product, altered it slightly, and glommed onto it as their own. In effect, they’re just taking advantage of the fact that most people don’t enunciate clearly enough to pronounce “duct” properly, particularly when the following word starts with a “t.” > > Sort of the reverse of the situation being discussed in the OP. Oddly enough (and I was surprised to find this out myself), the original name _was_ [Duck Tape](http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ducttape.htm) (another cite [here](http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030502.html)), because it was waterproof like a duck and was made out of cotton “duck” cloth. The name “Duct Tape” came later after it started being used to fix ducts. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/18 "2004-01-20T01:04:17Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Oddly enough (and I was surprised to find this out myself), the original name _was_ [Duck Tape](http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/ducttape.htm) (another cite [here](http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030502.html)), because it was waterproof like a duck and was made out of cotton “duck” cloth. The name “Duct Tape” came later after it started being used to fix ducts. That might explain why in a recent study they found that it works great on almost any job requiring tape… except fixing ducts. ---
**Author:** ![Ryle\_Dup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Ryle\_Dup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryle_Dup)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/19 "2004-01-20T01:16:05Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > That might explain why in a recent study they found that it works great on almost any job requiring tape… except fixing ducts. Aluminum duct tape is the best for ducts usually, it’s a bit more expensive though. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188/20 "2004-01-20T03:02:01Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > This is the reverse of the situation being discussed in the OP. More proper analogies would be referring to tissues as Kleenex, photocopies as Xeroxes, or cellophane tape as Scotch Tape, situations in which a brand name became the generic name, not the other way around. True, and Xerox and Kleenex are even more fanatical than Adobe about not wanting people to use their brand names as generic terms. Whether its a losing battle or not, the fact that they’re actively fighting it works in their favor should they ever go to court in an actual trademark dispute. By showing evidence that they’re making efforts to keep it from becoming generic, a court is more likely to find that the Photoshop brand belongs to them and nobody else. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yeah-right-adobe/225188.md?page=2)