Monash's First Law of Commercial Semantics

I'd put all of your examples

I'd put all of your examples under "connoting goodness", but otherwise I wouldn't dispute your analysis.

What's more, creating even more confusions, sometimes vendors legitimately extend their products until what previously were separate product categories overlap.

For more information about Curt Monash, see his bio.

This phenomena goes well

This phenomena goes well past terms that "connote some kind of goodness". Look at commercial vendors peddling infrastructure software like Databases, Application Servers, even the new golden child of vendor marketing, Business Process Management Servers. All one must do is look over vendors’ feature lists and see how they are typically categorized and marketed. Most vendors use the same buzzwords and the feature lists do look remarkably similar. While sales people often live by the mantra “never confuse selling with installing”, it is clear some vendors, even industry leaders, take this to extreme.

Buzzwords by different vendors often mean slightly, in some cases even substantially, different things. Features are often named to connote functionality that does not actually exist. Even common technical definitions of functional behavior are under assault as some vendors morph the definition to fit their product.

Consider Oracle's use of the term "compression" in the context of backups. Most technically-savvy people understand this technology yet Oracle's implementation of "compression" simply does not backup unused space ... a truly novel definition! When Microsoft first released its "AES Cryptographic Provider", it didn't support the AES (Rijndael) encryption algorithm (although it now does) ...

Its no wonder IT shops are flocking to open source offerings and commercial vendors whose products and actions are more "Open" and less prone to marketing hype!