The Googlez say that Steve Jobs rejected the use of on Apple keyboards as a "overuse" of the brand, which led the use of ⌘ (place of interest, St. John's arms, Bowen knot) for the "command" key.
Generally typefaces are not subject to copyright.
The proposition that Apple can impose its discretion on others' use of unicode is unreasonable by the intention, definition and nature of the code.
I find that the more thought I give this, implications of such constructs expand far beyond this particular use case.
For example, consider other other brands which are a re-use a character, X being the most notable.
At what specific points in digital systems does a number become regarded as an IP asset? Whose choice is it to regard a number as IP (when is a number just a number)?
The questions continue to unfold with further thought.
Comments
The appearance of in unicode is weird.
The Googlez say that Steve Jobs rejected the use of on Apple keyboards as a "overuse" of the brand, which led the use of ⌘ (place of interest, St. John's arms, Bowen knot) for the "command" key.
Generally typefaces are not subject to copyright.
The proposition that Apple can impose its discretion on others' use of unicode is unreasonable by the intention, definition and nature of the code.
I find that the more thought I give this, implications of such constructs expand far beyond this particular use case.
For example, consider other other brands which are a re-use a character, X being the most notable.
At what specific points in digital systems does a number become regarded as an IP asset? Whose choice is it to regard a number as IP (when is a number just a number)?
The questions continue to unfold with further thought.