There's no "this is too simple.& basic" constraint on tradrmarks & wow is this ever an obvious case for that & wow does that ever delegitimize trademarks in general. I dont think this has been handled well, but there's some very generic terms like this that no one ought have special protected rights to. I dont know how intellectual property is supposed to figure out how to walk the line of respect; it shouldnt be up to Linux Foundation to decide here, but this is affrontery that I dont respect as legit, even though the projects response here is unmannered.
If we asked 100 engineers who'd never heard the term before what a "buildpack" might be, I 25%+ would have the general idea. If we asked people with at least moderate familiarity with containers what it might be, we could be probably get to 50%.
The specifics here are unimportant & nonspecial. They might not jave been invented. But there have been plenty of container appkit ideas for a while & this specific incarnation offers little in specific.
This trademark is over a very broad obvious term, & as such it insults the idea of trademarks. Trademarks should have to have se novelty. I shouldnt be able to go trademark "computer system" or "software application". This isnt quite that broad but kt's hardly far off. The specific meaning is irrelevant because the term already has a broaderly useful generic sense: to ignore the general obvious sense is to disrespect common sense.
Im not conflating. I think the law is debasing itself by failing to set a reasonable minimum bar for what can be trademarked. This feels like a case where the law should recognize the self obviousness of two terms smashed together.
