Is this really true, or is it just something people have repeated enough times like 'nuclear Ghandi'?

I mainly ask because Microsoft has another product called Linux Integration Services: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=551...

▲

wvenable 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not a rule, it's just convention. Trademark law is about whether there is confusion about who made the product but not specific wording. Using "Blah For XXX" wording just makes it clearer.

"Tool for Windows" vs "Windows Tool"

The latter sounds much more like it could come from Microsoft. People repeat this because it avoids this confusion but it is not mandatory. A few projects on Github have had to be renamed because they've been challenged and the accepted solution from the trademark holder has has been to switch it around and become "for XXX".

	▲	jasomill 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In the present context, I'm reminded of IBM's "OS/2 for Windows", which, while actually a reduced-price version of OS/2 2.1 that used a customer's existing copy of Windows 3.1 to avoid the cost of licensing the Windows 3.1 components IBM shipped with OS/2 to support Windows compatibility, was also a marketing ploy to reposition OS/2 as a Windows enhancement rather than a replacement OS (which, to be fair, is not as misleading as it may sound, since OS/2 2.1, unlike Windows 3.1, is capable of memory protection and preemptive multitasking between Windows applications).
	▲	Nition 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That makes sense, although in that case personally I would have named it Windows Linux Subsystem.