pomodoro means tomato in italian tho

Windows, Apple, Google are all common words. Trademarks be a trademarking.

Google isn't a word; it is a misspelling of “googol” [1], itself hardly a common word.

Or more technically correct: google wasn't a word when Google was founded, but today google is listed in dictionaries [2] as a verb that means searching for something on Google.

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/googol

2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google

imagine getting sued for using the word apple in things

Imagine a small mini golf course getting sued by Monster Cable for using the word "monster."

https://www.techdirt.com/2008/12/03/monster-mini-golf-using-...

Um. Apple records (the Beatles) had a lengthy legal dispute with an American fruit company from Northern California.

Sure, but a trademark applies for products and services in the same category.

If someone makes Apple crayons, that’s okay.

But somebody making media or computing devices with the name “Apple” in it, that’s a problem.

True, but the trademark is in this category though, "Pomodoro" along with "Pomodoro Timer."

> Examples of products can be, but are not limited to:

> - Timer

> - Software application – desktop, server, mobile

https://www.pomodorotechnique.com/pomodoro-trademark-guideli....

Just saying. Not sure they'd come after a project this size (thanks for sharing OP!). You could probably safely make a line of Pomodoro brand jet skis.

holy crap just read through the site and it was bizarre how somebody could spend so much effort reinventing an old Japanese time management technique by slapping an Italian name and demanding rent from anyone using the italian word for tomato

As noted in the trademark

> The English translation of "POMODORO" in the mark is "tomato" or "tomato plant".

https://trademarks.justia.com/857/90/pomodoro-85790837.html

Also, FOCAL used to be thing, a programming language by DEC, kind of a precursor of BASIC. (E.g., Lunar Lander was originally written in FOCAL.)

I feel like that’s unlikely to cause much confusion.

Personally, I think we should respect the classics. Quite literary overwriting computer history (e.g, as far as search results are concerned) may not be the wisest thing to do.

I think this is a pretty naive take to have here because it assumes that you cannot have two or more things/events/people with the same name but completely different details and history within the context of computer science while being useful.

I feel pretty confident in assuring you that FOCAL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCAL_(programming_language), which first appeared 56 years ago is ever going to have to compete with this app in the language space. In fact as the link to the Wikipedia clairifies, there are other things named FOCAL other than the “Formulating On-line Calculations in Algebraic Language” programming language.

If this was another programming language and it didn’t explicitly callout its namesake I think I’d probably side with you here, but this isn’t a programming language and you implying that someone isn’t respecting the classics here is misguided at best. For example, If someone created an application called Java that helped you brew the perfect cup of coffee or maybe plan a trip to the island of Java, that certainly would not be something that is “not respecting the classics” and “overwriting computer history” for Java the programming language.

In general I agree we should strive to preserve history, especially in such a young field. However criticizing an application developer over their name choice where there is no actual conflict with the things that share its name is pedantry.

I still think, we should honor the very beginnings in the same space. Also, in the context of OP, most of these names were once protected by trademarks, some may be even still alive. (I guess, FOCAL is now IP owned by HP?)

E.g., I didn't like seeing Simula reused (probably one of the most influential programming languages, since it introduced OO), or LiveScript (the original name of JavaScript that was a functional synonym for many years). And, regarding FOCAL, you've to start a quite specific search, already, for this showing up in Google top ranks, and this won't become any better, when there are other products by this name in the IT space. Especially, since there won't be much new pages on this and Google prefers newer entries.

(Regarding Java, you are probably aware of the concept of product domains in trademarks? Clearly, a computer programming language and a computer application are in the same domain.)

And I don't think there is any fault with expressing a perceived conflict early on, as compared to when it's already an established product and the conflict really plays out.