I guess there&#x27;s something valid to what you&#x27;re saying, but at the same time I generally think about these things in scales of gray and not in black and white.<p>What if someone comes up with a new technique (or new material) for manufacturing paper.  It&#x27;s not technically the same material being used in the product, but everything about it, and everything about people&#x27;s experience with it, is exactly the same as their experience with and uses of &quot;paper&quot;.  Should they be forced to stop using the word &quot;paper&quot; on their product and start their advertising pitch with &quot;please buy our &#x27;something that is flat and white and you can use it to write things on.  But it is certainly not paper&#x27; product, in the same aisle and probably on the same shelf as the real paper products&quot;<p>and come to think of it, by taking a hard line approach we may be asking for a &quot;naming crisis&quot; (a marketing company&#x27;s wet dream) and making things unnecessarily complex for consumers.  Think of all the different names we&#x27;d need to start giving fruits and vegetables.  Well it&#x27;s yellow, not red.  So it&#x27;s not an apple.  That has oats in it?  It&#x27;s certainly not bread.<p>We all know how difficult &#x2F; expensive it is to educate consumers on a new product.  Why create artificial barriers to entry for startups or companies trying to do things a little different?  &quot;A little different&quot;.  We&#x27;re not trying to call spaghetti moon rock, and we&#x27;re not saying it&#x27;s ok to market napkins as beer.