Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!mintaka!ogicse!milton!cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Newsgroups: sci.virtual-worlds
Subject: Re: We Need A New Name
Message-ID: <15469@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 91 16:11:56 GMT
References: <15454@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: hlab@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Lines: 29
Approved: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu




The "name" debate is one whose substantive contents intrigue me
less than the fact that this issue keeps coming up, before we have
products.  Did geographers debate the name of their trade when making
the first maps?  What was the history of the term, "computer"?  Was
it as hotly debated as are the names suggested for our field?

Trademarks are really beside the point.  First, they only are
applicable to products on the market and, so far as I can see, the
"RB2" trademark is the only one that is truly original and thus
probably protectable.  "Virtual reality," "virtuality," and
"artificial reality" are both too generic and have too many prior
uses to be protectable (IMHO).  Second, trademarks come and go
with most products.  The "Mac" is about the only computer trade-
mark that I can easily recall.

Of greater interest to me is the question of who shall define our
field, ultimately:  will it be the developers, the users, the
promoters, or the press?  Or none of the above?  For now, given 
the tiny audience of people actively involved in developing "x,"
maybe this is beside the point except as an epiphenomenon
attendant on our perception of reality as a mediated situation.

But let me not be a wet blanket on this topic.  If others want
to discuss "naming the thing," I'll look forward to the dialogue.

Bob Jacobson