> Trademarks are proper adjectives and should be followed by the generic terms they describe.
> Correct: The image was manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
> Incorrect: The image was manipulated using Photoshop.
Adobe's own marketing pages consistently use the ostensibly "incorrect" usage though: http://www.adobe.com/au/products/photoshop.html
Correct: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
Incorrect: The image was photoshopped.Adobe's trademark lawyers would very much like it to not be a verb, but it is. They've lost that battle long ago.
Adobe's Creative Suite is a little pet peeve of mine. Many people I know have it illegally (I'm a student, so that says something about the financial capabilities of my peers), and even if they can afford it they say they don't use it professionally or not enough to warrant buying it. Many are even software developers themselves. Some subjects in the study I do even require using Adobe Photoshop specifically, but kindly ask people to buy it rather than supplying a license "because it's too expensive to provide for everyone". (So they think the students can afford it then? I'm quite certain they're just covertly asking us to violate copyright laws here.) If it's all so terribly expensive and apparently we can't negotiate with this overlord, why don't we try to get rid of this industry standard?
I'm not sure what you mean by "apparently we can't negotiate." There are bulk licensing deals and student discounts. If you're a student, you can get Photoshop and Lightroom for $10/mo. If someone needs it for one course, that's seems pretty affordable.
It is a shibboleth, and the "Lego community" is incredibly serious about it, to the point of incivility, but who cares?
But interestingly, everyone I know in Germany says "Lego bricks/stones" (translated to German, of course) but not "Legos" - but maybe it helps we can/must contract many words to one :P
Adobe thoroughly enjoys the fact that 'photoshop' is synonymous with image editing. They just have to pretend otherwise. See also band-aid, aspirin, Hoover, Kleenex. (iOS capitalized the last two but not the first two)
Where I live many people call Kelloggs any cereal boxes. I though they should have been proud that their every such product is called by their name.
Pampers also comes to my mind - almost no one calls them diapers - just pampers be it from any manufacturer.
"No smiling, the cake hasn't been cut yet."
Apache holds the "Apache Maven" trademark. Apache Maven is a build management/automation tool which uses a lot of "plugins".
The peculiar part is that Apache won't let you name your plugin "maven-<foobar>-plugin" whereas "<foobar>-maven-plugin" is allowed. The wording is:
"Calling it maven-<yourplugin>-plugin (note "Maven" is at the beginning of the plugin name) is strongly discouraged since it's a reserved naming pattern for official Apache Maven plugins maintained by the Apache Maven team with groupId org.apache.maven.plugins. Using this naming pattern is an infringement of the Apache Maven Trademark."
https://maven.apache.org/guides/plugin/guide-java-plugin-dev...
To be clear, we're talking about technical naming here, similar to how you'd name a package or an executable file. These names are actually composite, the full plugin name consists of a "groupId" like "com.acme.foo" and "artifactId" like "<foobar>-maven-plugin". For non-"org.apache.maven.plugins" plugins groupdId is mandatory, so "com.acme.foo:maven-foobar-plugin" makes it pretty clear that it's not an Apache development.
I'm a plugin developer who had the bad luck naming my plugin "maven-<foobar>-plugin" before this convention was established. There's an established user base, a lot of documentation, StackOverflow tags etc. There exists also an alternative plugin named "<foobar>-maven-plugin".
But still once in a while I get contacted by someone (from Apache or totally unrelated) who educates me on how the name of my plugin infringes on the Apache Maven Trademark.
I strongly disagree with this and my position was ever since that if Apache wants to enforce this trademark, they are totally welcome to send me a "Cease and Desist" letter. I'll print it out, hang it on the wall and then shut down the project.
It was effective, in that I remember the ad many years later. But it didn't do much to change the way people use language.
Wikipedia: ... the word "photoshop" has become a verb as in "to Photoshop an image," ...