This is the way companies protect their trademarks. For example, if you are in a restaurant and order a Coke and they serve Pepsi, if they don't tell you, Coke can sue them. If Coke goes for several years without doing trademark enforcement, the courts can rule it a generic term.


>I understand that Ken Levy is going to get us an "official" rendition of the UT-evolved graphic/item. That's a very good thing.
>
>But something doesn't feel right about the MS legal folk pressing (or causing the pressing of) UT management to remove the original on the basis of "re-branding".
>Since I can't find a definition of "re-brand" in my dictionary I can't offer anything tangible as an argument.
>But I can say that my view of this is much along the lines of 'with friends like this, who needs enemies?'. Those legal folks ought to look long and hard at designating position titles as "Evangelist", because that has far more potential to hurt MS than does a graphic of a sweet fox head and the words 'powered by Microsoft Visual FoxPro'.
>
>Can't recollect too many companies complaining when their full product name, including company name, was threatened to be included within other products. Most pay to make this happen! Even in questionable spots.
>Gotta wnder.
>
>JimN
>
>PS I wonder if Plinio will get a cut if (when) something similar becomes a standard inclusion in most developer products?