CPAPtalk.com

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:09 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:56 pm

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:55 am

Please note that the abbreviation BiPAP blah blah blah

thank you for taking your pointless crusade to your own thread, instead of derailing others.

I was de-derailing.

de-derailing = railing?

oh, does my head hurt.

"Eppur si muove"
Exactly my point.
The transformation of language is inevitable, and evolves with the spoken word.

zonker wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:50 pm

de-derailing = railing?

Yes. When someone tries to derail a thread by detracting from the question a newbie is actually asking and instead goes off by preaching incorrectly that only certain bilevels can rightly be called BiPAPs, I try to get the thread back on track by debunking that derailing. It's just that sometimes my work isn't fully appreciated here in my own country.

People in Paris rank my work right up there with Jerry Lewis, though, I understand.

Okie bipap wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:50 pm

My original prescription called for a "ResMed S10 Auto Bi-level (HCPC E0470)", not a BIPAP. Therefore, I will continue to refer to it as a bi-level machine.

The irony of this is choking me.

Wulfman... wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:24 pm

It's like the word "Aspirin".

OR "Kleenex", who here is old enuff to remember that?

Wulfman... wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:24 pm

P.S.......I rest my case!

SleepGeek wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:55 am

OR "Kleenex", who here is old enuff to remember that?

One difference, though, is that the entry for the word "Kleenex" in Merriam-Webster still acknowledges it as being only a trademark word; whereas, the abbreviation "BiPAP" is not so acknowledged as such in either its own standalone entry or when it is listed as the first of several perfectly valid abbreviations in the entry for "bilevel positive airway pressure":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Kleenex

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/BiPAP

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 20pressure

Again, though, I don't mind stubborn people refusing to use the abbreviation themselves (I personally generally avoid it); I would just prefer those stubborn people not make inaccurate statements about the valid status of the abbreviation as used by respected professionals and patients and especially not make inaccurate "corrections" of newbies who use the abbreviation in perfect harmony with valid dictionary definitions.

Euphony and ease of pronunciation has more influence on language than verbal drill sergeants.
This discussion is moot.
People will say what feels right--especially when told otherwise.
The minutiae of algorithm escapes all but the die-hard nerds.
Even though brand choice is relevant, cost remains a major factor.
The debaters are flapping their gums for no gain at all.

jnk... wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:08 am

I would just prefer those stubborn people not make inaccurate statements about the valid status of the abbreviation as used by respected professionals and patients and especially not make inaccurate "corrections" of newbies who use the abbreviation in perfect harmony with valid dictionary definitions.

It seems to me that many live here only to argue about moot points claiming to make "Internet corrections". Certainly they have 'job' security.

Wulfman... wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:24 pm

It's like the word "Aspirin".


P.S.......I rest my case!


Den

.

Hold your horses, judge. If you had read the entire Wikipedia article, you would have seen:

Bayer lost its trademark for Aspirin in the United States in actions taken between 1918 and 1921 because it had failed to use the name for its own product correctly and had for years allowed the use of "Aspirin" by other manufacturers without defending the intellectual property rights.

As far as I know, Philips continues to use the BIPAP trademark properly and no other manufacturer is using it. The trademark is still in legal effect, and Philips could successfully sue any manufacturer that began to use it.

The Wikipedia article fails to mention that Bayer lost the aspirin trademark at the beginning of WWI when the U.S. seized many German properties.

SleepGeek wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:55 am

OR "Kleenex", who here is old enuff to remember that?

Sorry, but Kleenex is still the legally registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark. And, they still write cease and desist letters to manufacturers violating their trademark. It can be seen in the following case how vigoursly KC defends the trademark in Turkey where they don't even sell Kleenex ---> https://www.mondaq.com/advicecentre/con ... mary--2012

I have updated the Wikipedia List of generic and genericized trademarks to reflect jnk...'s decision that BiPAP is now generalized and the accepted public-domain, nontrademarked way to refer to bilevel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... trademarks

The point you are missing, Granny, is that if someone comes to this forum and posts, "Last night I took an aspirin, blew my nose on a kleenex, then took a benadryl," are you going to try to be helpful to them? or are you instead going to nitpick and start correcting them that, no, they actually took a generic aspirin (lowercase), used a Scott-brand tissue, then took a diphenhydramine hydrochloride, when obviously none of that is relevant? And then defend that you were being helpful in case they googled those terms? (Oh please don't sue me, Google, for just having used your name generically in this forum!!)

TMs are being used by PAP manufacturers to keep their competition from using them. We don't have to let that fact make us unwelcoming to newbies who are simply using the same terminology that respected sources and their own doctors are using.

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:09 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:56 pm

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:55 am

Please note that the abbreviation BiPAP blah blah blah

thank you for taking your pointless crusade to your own thread, instead of derailing others.

I was de-derailing.

You're not usially delusional, what's changed?

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:42 pm

People in Paris rank my work right up there with Jerry Lewis, though, I understand.

well, you are an accomplished commodian, so I can see that.

Dog Slobber wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2020 11:30 am

I have updated the Wikipedia List of generic and genericized trademarks to reflect jnk...'s decision that BiPAP is now generalized and the accepted public-domain, nontrademarked way to refer to bilevel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... trademarks


BiPAP-BiLevel.png

It's a start, but it mght be better to use Pugsy as a source on that, as stated in the second post in this thread, since I consider her to be (unlike me) universally respected in this forum and all others.

If you recall, her words were as follows:

Pugsy, earlier in this thread wrote: I have long stated that the term "bipap" has become a "generic" term for bilevel.