So you got Gear's reply this morning? Here's another way of thinking; Strava (who just acquired $18.5 million in VC funding) and Garmin thought it best to create their own terms. In other words is it worth the headache?
I am not a lawyer, I am not speaking for TP or Strava or Garmin or anyone. I am batting .500 when it comes to helping people get permission though ;) I wish I could have helped more.
Wow, very Renfield of you. Actually, I wrote what I did above *before* you ran off and asked Gear to respond, as I was assuming I wouldn't hear from him. Yes, he did respond yesterday, but it's very much irrelevant, I'm just curious at this point. If you think Strava secured extra funding to go to battle with Peaksware so they could use their terms, that's...unfortunate. Again, the math isn't legally protected and can't be. I do appreciate your time in connecting me with Peaksware in the first place.
Strava calls NP Weighted Average Power (which makes more sense anyway), TSS Training Load (again, easy to understand) and IF Intensity. There's no reason anyone else ought not to do the same. If they were my trademarks, I'd *demand* that NP, TSS, and IF were used - I'd get free advertising on my competitor's product. As a friend pointed out recently, these terms are not science, they are merely ways to try (TRY! It's NOT SCIENCE) and approximate how much work is being done cycling and gauge recovery/progress. By using those terms, one endorses them as being more reliable than any alternative. By not using them, one inadvertently casts aspersions on them.