I've been thinking about the brouhaha a couple of weeks ago concerning Adobe's moves to protect their trademark of the Flash name. Geoff Stearns had to rename his FlashObject among other changes around. Maybe minor. After all, a rose by any other name...you get the point...but I'm wondering exactly where the dilution of Adobe trademarks really plays out? Is it with the developers that use the authoring tools and the technology? or is it with the client that we build things for? or is it with the end consumer of the things we all build?

I think we developers are fairly savvy about the tools we use. So I'm not worried to much about us. The biggest problem here is that the word "flash" is so generic that without qualification (e.g. "Macromedia Flash"), you're just as likely to get an exhibitionist site in a web search as a useful development site!

As for clients, it's been my experience that they usually don't know (or care) what technology is being used. In fact, I've always encouraged teams I've worked with not to even discuss technologies until we know exactly what we want to do on a project. You establish the parameters then you decide what tools to use. Clients that come and say "I want Flash!" many times don't understand exactly what it is they're asking for and are usually jumping on a buzzword. In fact, many times, the request cuts short the opportunities that Flash provides because the client's view of what Flash is is usually very narrow.

And as for end-users, I think they're just looking for a great experience. As a developer, I'm always trying to figure out how something cool was made, so I want to know if Flash was used, but how many "normal" users right-click to see if the Flash player is behind an amazing graphic or application? I guess since the Flash player is a download, there needs to be awareness of what it is and where to get it, but increasingly, the player is delivered pre-installed...on your new computer...with your browser install...or particularly with devices (phones, cameras...that new Jag you have in the garage...). So in many ways ubiquity equals transparency...which is not a bad thing!

In the end, I don't know where I come down on this. It feels like the kind of legalese that bloats our court systems. But on the other hand, as a user of Adobe products, I certainly want them to protect their assets so they can continue to provide me with top-flight tools to do my work. I guess I'm thinking less of the legal considerations here than of the branding process of tools. To whom is it important to maintain brand integrity (aside from the tool maker)? When you have a house built for you, in the end, do you care if the carpenter used a Stanley or a Craftsman hammer?