Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnhenry | Hacker News Reader

I'm mostly disturbed by the sentence "Since Photoshop is a trademark, you should always use it as an adjective only to describe the Adobe products associated with the Photoshop brand.", as Photoshop is clearly a noun.

View on HN

This is how they want you to use it:

> 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

Someone should alert them that their phone number on the bottom is missing a digit somewhere.

The number is correct, it's an Australian number [0]. Specifically a FreeCall number following the format: 1800 xxx xxx. Not to be confused with the United State's 1-800-xxx-xxxx format. An easy mistake to make if you didn't notice the /au/ in the URL.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_numbers_in_Australia

Hmmm... so in the case of a "dog collar", Adobe would we consider "dog" to be an adjective? Interesting... I never thought about it like that, but I guess that makes sense. Still, they need to work on their definitions.

Grammatically this is known as apposition, where you have two nouns (or noun phrases) next to each other and modifying each other. In English appositives aren't considered adjectives, but they do behave similarly.

I have an issue with the whole thing. I think they've already lost the trademark to the language.

  Correct:   The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
  Incorrect: The image was photoshopped.

I love how they expect people to assert their trademark rights with the ® symbol. Unless this document is aimed at Adobe employees or contractors, that's inappropriate.

Ya, this is bordering on REALTOR® level.

My favorite part is the assumption that Photoshop only ever enhances images.

Ianal, but my sense is that as long as they keep trying to hold back the tide, they're eligible for trademark protection. Once they give up, there's nothing to stop Google Docs Photoshop mode, Microsoft Office Photoshop, or rflrob's awesome photoshop. Though there's nothing that says that vigorous enforcement needs to be mean—see, for example, Jack Daniels: https://brokenpianoforpresident.com/2012/07/19/jack-daniels-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com