That's the point. If your mark becomes generic it weakens it in legal terms, and makes it much harder to recover damages or register new derivative trademarks. From a trademark owner's point of view, having your trademark go generic is extremely undesirable because it erodes the mark's economic value, and it's the job of the lawyers to put their client's interests above all other considerations like short-term popularity on the Internet.
I understand weakening of a mark, but nowhere in trademark law does it say "you can sue over uses of your mark that threaten to make it generic". The law only says something like "if people use your mark to sell their product and you do not sue, then you might lose your mark".
Just because someone is articulating someone else's perspective on an issue, doesn't mean that they're excusing their actions or sympathizing with them. Lawyers can get itchy trigger fingers over the Kleenexing of brand names, and understanding why that is can be enlightening. I don't think the person you're responding to was saying that the IMAX lawyers were right all along and Ars was wrong, and I don't think the numerous other people in this thread that have gotten downvoted to the bottom of the Marianas Trench for saying similar things intended their comments to be taken that way either. There is nothing evil about trying to understand the reasoning of people you disagree with. I seriously question the intellectual honesty of the people who did the downvoting though, they should be ashamed of themselves no matter where they stand on the issue.
