LuKreme wrote: > SpamArrest WON THEIR TRADEMARK. And for that I am glad.
Perhaps my personal stance was improperly gauged; I understand Hormel's stance and actions, though I wouldn't support their legal actions and I sided with SpamArrest's fair usage given Hormel's stated policies. I see nothing wrong with electronic filtering programs and devices having either "Spam" or "spam" in their title (though "SPAM" is questionable) as it is difficult to confuse with Hormel's markets. > Hormel only stopped acting like total asshats after they lost all > their court cases. > > This is just revisionist. Hormel was frothing for several years > there threatening anyone and everyone who referred to spam as spam. Hormel's official stance looks unchanged since before that trial: http://www.dmnews.com/Eat-SPAM-Say-Spam-Just-Dont-Try-to-Trademark-Spam-Hormel/article/81424/ Perhaps their lawsuits warrant removing "gracious" from aptly describing them, but the policy still stands today. Heck, it's even profitable ... outside of Hawaii, every purchase I've seen* of SPAM has been for novelty or exploratory purposes, inspired by email spam. Getting back to my original point, spam in our context should be treated as a noun or adjective rather than a proper noun or "proper adjective" (Hormel's suggested notation for their product is an all-caps adjective). It should be capitalized only when leading a sentence or within the name of a product as its name dictates (SpamAssassin, SPAM, SpamArrest, spam. Spam leading a sentence). * Note, I don't hang around Hormel's target audience or otherwise have interest in Nascar.
