Slashdot Mirror
Verbing Weirds Google
MoNickels writes "Back in January, the American Dialect Society voted the neologism "to google" as the most useful word of 2002. Now bring on the lawyers! Google's have sent a cease-and-desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of the famous Word Spy site, demanding he remove google as a verb from his lexicon, or else. Frank Abate, an American editor for the Oxford English Dictionary, points out, however, that you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb." Update: 02/26 03:19 GMT by T : MoNickels writes with an update: "Frank Abate is not
an editor of the OED, but he is a former editor of the New Oxford
American Dictionary, both published by Oxford University Press." Thanks for the amendment!
a site we're less likley to boycot then MPAA.
suing over a verb, indeed.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The post office has been pretty peeved over the usage and meaning of the term "Going Postal", but haven't had much success stopping it's usage. The makers of Spam the meat haven't been to thrilled with it's usage when referring to junk email either, but haven't stopped it. Even if Google gets "to google" out of the lexicon, it will still be used rampantly. The only thing they will accomplish is making themselves look like asses for complaining in the first place.
..to Xerox
I'm going to go and google myself until this blows over. Don't worry, I won't google on the carpet.
is Google going to stop everyone else from using the seemingly more popular "go google for it"? Wouldn't Google want this sort of publicity? Become a common-place-word?
Does it hurt Kleenex that people refer to facial tissue as Kleenexes? Yeah, I didn't think so.
But you CAN claim proprietary rights to a noun such as your name, in this case: google. Still, its a bit silly to try and turn back the clock, using 'google' as a verb is surely free marketing for an already highly successful business. Oh to have MY companies name used as verb!!
Do you need a website upgrade?
Obviously they have to defend their trademark: Serial #: 76314811 (USPTO.gov)
If it becomes a common word and then it's not trademarkable and they loose the rights to it. Every company would be doing the same thing in their place. Don't blame Google for good business.
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Come on Google! This is free marketing of your product.
What did Mark Twain say about all the lawyers?
This is interesting. Is google a trademark? Is it in sufficient common usage to be acceptable (I.e. coke for any soda down in the south, xerox for generic photocopy, kleenex for a tissue).
Although in this case, googling something means going to google, and not a generic search.
I need to take a google.
Seems to work.He's a total google.
What a google.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Back in the day, Xerox fought the use of 'xerox' as, to 'xerox' something being equivilent to photocopying. They had a point, same as Google does, to prevent watering down their trademark.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Sounds like they're just trying to avoid losing a trademark on their name through common usage, a la Xerox.
Google is just fine with Josh on The West Wing telling Donna to "go Google it", but they're terrified once it goes into print.
What I wonder is this - did Google ever just ask the site to take it down nicely? Did they just go straight to the cease-and-desist order? And if they did, is this for some indisputable legal "we'll look like dicks, but..." reason? I'd hate to see a chink in the "we're all for them" online armor they have right now.
Schnapple
...should sue people who refer to tissue as "Kleenex" unless they specifically mean that brand! Who needs mindshare anyway?
Whether or not you can secure rights to a verb, you have to make an effort to stop dilution of your intellectual property if you want to keep it. Google is just protecting their turf.
.. it seems reasonably likely to me that 'Google' is constructed from 'go ogle'. If this is indeed the case, it seems especially hypocritical to be trying to defend from 'verbing' a trademark that is itself derived from a verb.
If I'm completely wrong, then.. well, this still sucks. This kind of behaviour inevitably leaves a bad taste in people's mouths -- a real shame, since Google's been doing a lot of things reasonably well..
This is almost to be expected; companies need to actively protect their trademarks lest they lose their rights to them. If a word falls into common usage and no longer represents a brand, but a category of product (a la aspirin), they will have their trademark taken away. Lawsuits are the best tool companies have for this sort of thing.
goats.com: better than
I know many people who "oogle" things online, it involves searching and 'one-handed typing.'
--------
Free your mind.
and this is a bad thing how?
courtesy of http://www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: xerox
Pronunciation: 'zir-"äks, 'zE-"räks
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: from Xerox
Date: 1965
1 : to copy on a Xerox copier
2 : to make (a copy) on a Xerox copier
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Now that's hardcore. Suing the dictionary.
(yeah i know the guy they are sending that to isn't the dictionary, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it)
This isn't all that bad, as long as Google stops after he put in the trademark mention. That's just being legally consistent. If I had a trademark on something, I'd want people to respect it too.
Btw, I didn't know "googling" also applied to internet searches in general. I don't refer to a Yahoo! search as googling. (Well, at least not any more, since Yahoo! quit (publicly) using the Google engine.)
This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
What about Slashdotting?
;-)
Come on Timothy, we know what you're thinking
Might the title have been taken from that one Calvin and Hobbes comic strip where Calvin talks about how he likes to verb words? One of the last lines is "Verbing weirds language"
Hmm. Just curious.
**Admits to being a total C&H fanatic**
-- n
-- wonders if Papa Smurf will get sued now for using 'smurf' as a verb? I smurfed the web!
I just googled all over my keyboard.
someone hand me a towel.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Hasn't the term "slashdotting" been around for a longer period of time?
that I can say ANYTHING AT ALL, as long as I use it in the form of a verb? muwhahahahhaha
The Slashdot corporate karma quotient is becoming a contrary indicator for fiscal success. The more hated you are by Slashthought, the more succesful you will likely be. Someone should try a mutual fund predicated on this.
Looks like Google is Amazoning WordSpy.
Now that's an angle I hadn't thought of - is using the DeCSS source code as a verb protected speech?
1. The English language has a verb, google. It is new, but it is in widespread use, and this can be documented.
The English language has a noun, google, as well. It means 10^100, and has been around longer than Google (the trademark). I wonder if they want to have this use removed from the dictionary as well?
Seriously though, what is their problem? Every time someonw says 'to google' instead of 'to search' it is re-enforcing the idea that using Google is the same as searching, and this is the very best for of viral marketing they can have. Imagine if Hoover objected to people referring to operating a vacuum cleaner as 'hoovering'.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Give me a friggin break. This is good publicity for them. What could possibly make this a matter of "not being evil"?
When people say to Google they mean search with Google...not "Internet search."
Scott
Sugle (soo-gil) v. To litigate against anyone else who uses the name of your product or service as a verb. (Alt. form: "Sooooooogle")
IANAL, but my understanding of trademark law is:
<ul>
<li>you can't trademark normal words (hence they made up google
<li>you have to protect you trademark or you lose it (Kleenex brand facial tissue, not a kleenex)
<li>the only real source of revenue available to a company like google is eyeballs and brand, they HAVE TO PROTECT IT OR THEY LOSE IT
</ul>
What happened to you google? You used to be cool.
Google still cool! You keep verb! You keep verb!
-Foxxz
*If* Google wants to keep their trademark, and there are good reasons for them to do so, then this is exactly what they need to do, whether you like it or not.
Many products have lost their trademark through changes in the language. Aspirin used to be a trademark. Everyone else had to sell "headache powder" or something similar. Now, aspirin is a generic term. Something similar is happening now with Kleenex, Post-It Notes, and White Out.
The question you should ask yourself is: Is it right for there to be a website that calls itself "Google: by Microsoft"? Because if Google looses its trademark, there's nothing to stop Microsoft from producing its own google. Just like there is now Bayer aspirin, St. Joseph's children's aspirin, etc.
So if Microsoft's google is ok, then Google is wrong. But if you don't want Microsoft to have the ability to rebrand MSN Search as Microsoft's Google, then Google needs to do this.
v. to inflict the slashdot effect on an typically unprepared site.
That lexicon makes google look like a dating service for horny young teens. No wonder they are doing this.
Help!
I don't know what to think! Google is the best thing since sliced bread, women, and leatherman pocketknives, but now we have a dissenting article!
Reminds me of that old Star Trek show...
Error! Error! Must analyze.... Error! Error! Must analyze...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Google's have sent a cease-and-desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of the famous Word Spy site, demanding he remove google as a verb from his lexicon, or else.
How appropriate to use "have" as a noun. Stick it to them grammar police!
We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the trademark status of Google.
The story makes this out to be a whole lot worse than it is. It doesn't seem like they're being unreasonable. They're likely not going to go on an all out attack, they just want the trademark status accounted for.
I remember that the founder of google had mention that the internal slogan of google was "Don't be evil". Did the engineer that created it get fired? He also mentioned that people someone complained that he and Sergey Brin couldn't properly spell the term googol. He never stated if he misspelled the word for trademark purposes or if he was a poor speller that coincindentally created a nonsense term that could be trademarked. While it's understandable that they wish to protect their trademark. Has the marketing and/or legal department taken over? Is google now evil?
I guess they don't want their company name to go the way of others previously- there's a term for it, though I forget what it is exactly. The "Dummies" books publisher recently sued someone to keep them from using that term, it's a similar situation though I think it's already too late for them. Like Saran wrap, Velcro, and even Hoover and Coke, Google is now a non-corporate aprt of the English language, and most likely several other languages as well, despite the French government. These things happen when a product becomes so popular it's creator is even eclipsed by it. No doubt some day people will 'google' something on Teoma or whatever. For now they should ride the wave and not bother trying to stop the inevitable, because trying only makes them look like the other evil giant entities out there, like the MPAA and RIAA.
This is just a "request" from a lawyer:
"....We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of
"google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the
trademark status of Google."
Lawyers do this all time. You have the option of saying "No".
It is NOT a Cease and Desist letter.
thanks Timothy for more FUD.
to shut up and keep pretending it is not a company ruled by lawyers!
example: "to google someone" - lots (668,000) of hits. Seems like a case of closing the gate after the horse has bolted :-)
So how about a verb - "ungoogle" for when they alter the PageRank system and you are no longer in the top 10?
OK, so what I notice is the difference in capitalization. Google's lawyers spell their trademark with a capital 'G', while the verb in question is spelled with a lower-case 'g'. Couldn't it be argued that they're NOT the same word? Just a thought.
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
Language evolution is a whole field of study. Linguists and diadacticians, speech therapists are among a few who take this very seriously. New words mean new approach to old problems.
Simple rule, simple solution. Confusing new word, confusing situations. "To Google" is a good example of this!
I suggest you read Slashdot
Hormel has stated that people can use the term spam to refer to junk mail as long as they don't capitalize it, so I think Google should do the same (so the verb would be "to google", not "to Google").
This stories gonna get slashdotted & farked, googles gonna get hoovered by hoardes of angry Slashdotters who will feel lucky by typing in anti-googlistic messages that will 0wn their zietgiest.
This is a goatseficated link that has been googlised
"
Bill: Boy, we sure Microsofted that company, eh Steve?
Steve: You bet Bill, good work!
Trolling is a art,
Of course, the downside is that if Google loses it's trademark then other companies can use the term for themselves. Alltheweb can say, for example, "come google with us".
On the other hand, unlike the situation with Nintendo, no one can take google's domain name. If google does become a term meaning "to search the internet with an effective relevancy calculator" then their domain name will always be synonymous.
Personally, though, I say screw google. They put autopr0n on the 11th page on a search for "autopr0n", which doesn't make any damn sense. And no one is ever going to say "Let me Alltheweb for it."
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
That was the most civilized cease-and-desist letter I have read linked to by a Slashdot story. (It's a shame more lawyers don't use similar language in their cease-and-desist letters.)
I believe the request made by Google's lawyer is quite reasonable. Google created the word, and they don't want it diluted.
Why shouldn't Paul McFedries comply?
Google are far from the first, and will certainly not be the last company to have their name turned into a common word.
Hoover, Frigidaire, Kleenex, Xerox, and many others have "suffered" the same fate.
Most of them have tried to fight it, and most of them have failed.
But having your name used as a common word can have it's advantages - it is caused by brand awareness, and generally cements it in place. It doesn't garuantee that you'll have complete market share forever, but it can certainly help.
It should also be pointed out that "to google" was already an (informal) verb, meaning "to look" (where did you think the name came from?). Google may quibble over semantics, in that it's mostly being used in a different context these days, but they certainly can't remove it from from the dictionary.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
I don't understand why Google would want to complain about having become so ubiquitous and such a powerful force that their very name is synonymous with what they do. That is the ultimate compliment, yet they want to avoid it. It's not like "to google" means "to knife-rape a cute virgin nun," it means "to search the web," which is exactly what Google does. Why wouldn't they want this?
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Dumb, Dumb, Dumb...
From Google's Trademark Lawyer:
"Our brand is very important to us, and as I'm sure you'll understand, we want to make sure that when people use "Google," they are referring to the services our company provides and not to Internet searching in general."
Band-Aids and Kleenex have been milking this name recognition forever. If you're trying to build a brand synonymous with "searching," what the hell else would you want to happen?
P.S. Mr. McFedries, feel free to include "washizu" in your dictionary as "to completely satisfied in the bedroom."
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
Google is a strong fanciful mark. They are trying to prevent its status from becoming "generic" a la aspirin. A generic mark cannot be protected. Ever wonder why when you go to a fast food chain and ask for a coke, they reply "Is pepsi ok?" Well, Coke's lawyers probably just got ahold of that chain and forced that chain to not allow customer to refer to a pepsi product as a coke. If a mark makes its way into the common lexicon as a generic term, it is no longer protectable under US trademark law.
It reminds me of how "Coke" has become a generic word for soda pop in some parts of the South. If you order a "Coke" in some sourthern establishments, the redneck bartender will ask you "what kind of Coke do y'all want? Orange? Pepsi? Root Beer?"
For a while, Pepsi was selling really cheap to restaurants (to get more customers accoustomed to the taste). If you went into a restaraunt and ordered a "Coke," you would often get Pepsi... until recently. These days, if you order a "Coke" and they only have Pepsi products, your server will have been trained to ask "is Pepsi okay," because Coke occastionally sends reps out to look for restaurants who are substituting Pepsi for Coke orders without telling customers, and suing the asses off anybody they catch doing it.
Trademark laws are not set up to favor the nice guys. The law is pretty much, "be a bastard about your trademarks, or they become part of the language and it will be okay for your competition to use them."
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I think that an update should be posted at the article level ASAP - this way, with the "or else" clause, it just shows the editor never read the linked in material, and makes /. look bad.
VKh
Posted on April 12, 2001
That entry has been active for almost two years. What took you so long, Mr. Lawyer? Could this long delay pose a hurdle to take the dictionary maintainer to court?
The difference between ignorance and apathy? I sure don't know, and I don't care either.
IANAL, but if the word becomes ubiquitous, then it's kind of like it's in the public domain and the trademark is weakened. Well, at least that's what the LAWYERS think, I bet. Real people know they can't start a company and start selling 'Band-Aids' and 'xerox machines' and hope they won't get sued.
that you can't claim rights to a verb. That is why they are trying their best to avoid having it be in anyway officially made a verb. The Coka cola people did this a few years ago in Texas. Those of you from certain parts of the country will know that the word "coke" is used as a generic word for soda in many places. Leading to things like "What kind of coke would you like?" "A Pepsi please". This has been documented by many linguists. To avoid dilution the company has tried to sponser studies showing that it is not used in this way. They are simply trying to avoid becoming a verb before it ruins their trademark. I'm not sure what I think of this but it is far from stupid.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
slashdot
v. to slashdot, slashdotting, slashdotted
In the words of Weird Al Yankovich's "I lost on Jeopardy", I was tense, I was nervous, as I read the slashdot article. Has Google become...gulp... evil ? Have they stepped over the line??
But then I read the cease and desist letter.
While they may yet prove to be evil, all it looks like so far, is that they are trying to protect their trademark. No more, no less. Whether this is late in the game to be doing so, I don't know. But so far, it doesn't sound too bad. It's worth keeping an eye on though.
--
Kleenex says "Bless you"
"Google" might be a trademark, but "google" isn't. A good example is "Ford" - the motor company, versus "ford" - a shallow place in a body of water that can be crossed (forded) easily :-)
har har har
oh i kill me.
It only implies that google has become so popular that people have started using it as a verb. That should make google happy. Why are they pissed off?
I once attended, as an observer, a swearing-in ceremony for the Florida Bar Association. From the judges conducting the ceremony, there was a lot of talk about "ethics" and "responsibility" and all sorts of other lofty things. It all sounded great.
But then we have lawyers like this one who works for Google who produces and out-and-out LIE and professes it to be the truth. Unless he's a complete IDIOT, then he should know the law in this area. It's his speciality, after all.
Makes me sick.
In Australia it is very common to hoover the floor - I didn't even know it was a brand name until one day my mum asked me to go into the vacuum cleaner store and buy some bags for it. I asked for the Electrolux Hoover bags, only to have the guy ask me whether I want Electrolux ones or Hoover ones - Aren't they all for the Hoover?...... :)
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
All the dictionary is trying to do is document and describe what the word means. Imagine if I said to you "I'm just going to YARRIC the goldfish" and you didn't know what it meant. Now, perhaps YARRIC is a name for the food the fish eats, or perhaps it's a chemical which helps keeps the fish's scales shiny... what Google's [tm] lawyers are doing is saying "You can't tell them what it means! It has to be a secret! Let them work it out!"
The Google team are a great bunch of coders, thinkers and implementers, but their legal department wants shooting. They already remove content when pressured, now they're trying to control the damn English language!
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
At this rate, when you query the word "google" on google.com, it will no longer return "google.com" as the number one hit, but rather "slashdot.org"
feel that Google is getting less and less cool as time goes on? I mean really, would the Google of 3 years ago have done this? It seems like just another example of a company taken over by lawyers and MBAs and it has lost it's soul in the process.
BC
It's really just a standard we need to stop trademark dilution spheel. 'Member the O'Riley people complaining a few months back about "Slacking for Dummies"? There wasn't any real force behind the letters then, and there isn't now
At least the war on the environment is going well
IANAL, but...
1) If they fail to attempt defend their trademark, they lose the rights to it. This means you could see competitors like "New! Microsoft Google. We Google like no one else!"
2) They aren't asking him to delete all references, just note that the term is a trademark. I don't think that's too much to ask.
From the link: We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the trademark status of Google. (emphasis added)
Today on the way to work some guy Macintoshed my car. I am going to court to Microsoft him! IF that doesnt work I think I may hire some thugs to Exxon his ass and Nike his wife!
That seems like a perfectly reasonable and polite request. The folks at Google are now on record as trying to protect their trademark, and they were pleasant about it to boot. Note also that they provided a reasonable alternative to deleting the entry altogether. Presumably something along the lines of:
would be sufficient for all involved. This sounds like much to do about nothing.Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
My understanding of Trademark law is that if you don't make a legal effort to keep your trademark from becoming a common use word, you can lose the trademark. All google did was ask that the definition they had take into account that google owned the trademark to the word. I saw no 'or else' clause in the letter. Seemed very polite to me.
My take on this is to give credit where credit is due. By all means, acknowledge that Google(tm) is a trademark. However, I think it's insane for Google(tm)'s legal team to get their knickers in a knot over being included in a dictionary. Especially if the same dictionary is willing to introduce a noun Google(tm) that acknowledges the trademark, and is willing to put a see-also reference in. The dictionary author hasn't explicitly offered to do this, but I think it would be reasonable to suspect that he would, since the link suggests he's willing to give credit.
Of course, co-operation (by Google(tm)) doesn't buy their legal team expensive cars -- but aren't the legal team supposed to report to someone?
unixkb.com -- articles on practical Unix issues.
The issue is trademark law. If you allow your trade marked name to come into common usage you lose your trade mark protection. Thats why it is called Kleenex(tm) facial tissue, or Lycra(tm) spandex or Spam(tm) luncheon meat.
If google the verb gets into the dictionary, then someone else could come along and start a MyGoogle.com search site and Google would not be able to shut them down.
Their lawsuit won't stop you or I from using google as a verb, but it will stop journalists from propogating the use. Just like everyone says they are going to make a xerox, you wont find that usage in an newspaper article (not without a nasty letter from the Xerox Corporation!!)
We spend a lot of time complaining about Copyright law on slashdot, but Trademark Law is just as screwy. I could Trademark JohnG for my online internet comment generating company and go around and get the accounts of JohnG's everywhere deactivated on every internet disucussion forum.
Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another
..the site now has added the following line to their 'google' entry.
"(Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)"
So that should end any furthur trouble.
google
(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)
--Googling pp.
Microsoft issues cease and desist to Oxford dictionary for use of hte word "Windows"
Apple issues cease and desist to Oxford dictionary for use of the words "Macintosh, and Apple"
Yahoo issues cease and desist to Oxford dictionary for use of the word "Yahoo"
geez, you can go on forever.
In case anyone doesn't know, google is a valid word that existed before google was even around. It stood for 10^100 , and a googleplex was 10^google .
~ kjrose
They should just replace the entry with a competitor's name (get permission first of course). Although to "Altavista" isn't as catchy, and to "Yahoo!" has already been overused in a different context by Yahoo!'s marketing machine.
Dupe posts are
IANAL, but I'm not certain this is a cease-and-desist letter. Having read quite a number of legal nastygrams, this has to be the friendliest tone I've seen yet. It appears to be nothing more than a request, as it makes no real demand, and implies no negative consequences for noncompliance. I would imagine the Google attorney is well aware of the fact that verbs are not provided trademark protection. Looking at the present definition of google on wordspy.com, Mr. McFedries seems to have complied with the request, in that he makes mention that the term is trademarked by Google Technology.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Using the word "google" as a verb looks pleasant and even amusing on paper, but let's face it: it just sounds ridiculous in conversation. If you are alone try actually uttering a sentence with the word google in it. It sounds horrible.
This is a stretch. But let's say you are talking to a girl that you just met about searching the net and the word google pops out instead of the word search. I know if it were me in that situation, I wouldn't blame her if she never spoke to me again.
So in short my theory is: the verb google will never catch on because every one will be too afraid to use a word that sounds wierd and makes you look like someone who spends too much time on the computer. Most people are much more concerned about what others think than the typical slashdot reader.
If I am wrong, communication via Instant Messenger and words like google will suck out all the beauty left in the English language.
What I don't understand is how "To Google" can possibly hurt Google. If anything I would have thought that it simply increases brand awareness.
Now if I had created my own search site, and said "works like Google" or "Google compatible" or some such nonsense so that I was benefitting from the 'association' with Google, I could understand getting a 'cease and desist' order.
As a complete side note, am I the only one who feels a little personally offended by the action of Google's lawyers ? Rightly or wrongly, Google in my mind has a reputation for being internet-community friendly. This action by their lawyers has, in my mind, blighted this reputation. Please don't say Google is going the corporate way and becoming just another big-named company with big-named lawayers. Or is this just inevitable ? Victims of their own (finiancial) success ?
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
On of the fundamental theories on trademark law revolves around defense. Xerox almost lost thier trademark for not defending their trademark. Google is just making sure the get to keep their trademark.
I can't believe this is being called a "cease and desist" letter. What is the deal with this bottom-sucking sensationalism? The letter simply said, look, that's our trademark, and we want you to either reference it adequately or remove it. It's since been referenced. Now, if Google doesn't think it's been referenced adequately enough, you might expect a second letter, which, if not followed up properly, might turn into a future cease and desist letter... but geez, this one was hardly threatening, and, as far as I know about copyright law, it was well within Google's rights to request that he reference their trademark.
I suppose it's too much to ask for the submissions to not always have the aura of inane paranoia...
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
So...any lawyers out there care to comment on this?
To me, the letter is a request that has no direct legal demands or implications, other than perhaps showing due diligence for an impending C&D. Sure it has a chilling effect, and we all know what this kind of letter means, but does this meet the legal defn of a C&D order?
Am I incorrect in my understanding that a C&D actually requires the offending party to be ordered to cease and desist or risk further legal action?
They actually sent a cease and desist because use as a verb is clear signs that a trademark is becoming (or has become) generic. See TMEP 1209.01(c). As such, another party can use that as a defense if Google tries to claim trademark infringement. So I'm not surprised they sent the cease & desist and would have done the same thing.
Anybody recall the Xerox ad of a few years ago... "There are two R's in XEROX(r) "? The whole purpose of that ad was to get people to realize that a) XEROX is a trademark and b) to stop using it as a verb (i.e., "I xeroxed this article for my friend") which causes it to lose its trademark status.
Trademarks, though a form of intellectual property, are more about consumer protection than about restricting people from using certain words.
-A
Why the hell is Google getting so ticked off about this? They should be happy that the world-at-large now equates "google" with the act of searching the internet. I don't hear of anyone "yahooing" or "alta-vista-ing" or even "lycosing" the web, even though they may use those sites to search.
Google needs to get a clue.
Maybe they could search for one.
If I were Google, I'd have more issue with the actual definition.
google
(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)
When anyone I know says "I'm going to go google 'x'" we, first, always explicitly mean Google, but I think more importantly: never mean anything related to a "potential girlfriend or boyfriend."
I "google" stuff all the time. As far as I'm concerned, it means "to look up information using Google." Does anyone actually use this purely to check out your new girl/boy?
Sig!
Google wanted TradeMark association with that entry on WordSpy's site, and it looks like they go it:
http://www.wordspy.com/words/google.asp
Finkployd
That Google's name is unoriginal in the first place. I can understand the makers of Spam, for instance, because the word Spam did not exist in the language until the meat product came about. Google, on the other hand, is a math term that I've used in competitive shouting matches since I was in 2nd grade. Oh yeah? I'm going to have a google! No, I'm going to have a google-plex!
Google needs to get off of the crack.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
The lexicon suggests that google is a verb that can apply to any search engine. I would counter that the correct and current usage is that you only google on google.com.
By way of contrast, I believe that "slashdotting" is a generic verb because for example, a listing in memepool might cause a site to be slashdotted.
Andrew
Google's band aid approach to brand protection should be xeroxed across the land for all to google the stupidity. This just makes me want to tear them up like a kleenex at a snot party. They would be advised to snap a polaroid of public sentiment before pursuing this unwise course. They may need a bufferin and some vaseline before the public backlash is over.
Googler m
Googled
Googler
Googlisation
Googleise
Googlificate
Googlifiation
Googleify
Googlis
Googlist
Googlogy
Googlelistc
You should see my vacuum, made by Eureka(tm), and it's a Dusie(tm). I felt like taking a break so I Osterized(tm) up a shake and went out for some Frisbeeing(tm). Had a little spill and I had to Band-Aid(tm) it, but it were nothin' really. If I hadn't been playing on the macadam(tm) I wouldn't have gotten hurt at all.
So all and all I was feeling pretty good when the mail came. A letter from the firm I applied to was in there. Man, they Borked(tm) me. I hate when that happens.
Well, guess it's time to pull the Brougham(tm) out of the garage and start pounding the pavement again. Maybe I should be a bit more Machiavellian(tm) this time.
KFG
... as in Barney Google ...
Whatever happened to grepping, anyway?
Is that old now?
Usually, it's no doubt about what exactly I'm saying one should search from the context.
- Where can I find info about that new space sim?
- Search for freelancer.
"To google" sounds like a redundant verb to me...
- Google for freelancer?
Sure there's no doubt about what search engine I'd like him/her to use, or at least that the web should be searched, but is that information really necessary? Would the person really think he'd search for an article about it in a computer mag? Or search for a CD-ROM at home that might contain a demo version of the game? And if my information would remind him/her that there *was* recently an article about Freelancer in a mag -- fine, that might be just as good info as you'd find on the web.
Perhaps that's a poor example because it's a computer game which is often related to the internet. But there would still be easy to understand what one would mean by saying:
- How old did Albert Einstein become?
- Try searching for einstein and age.
I'd like to see the person that walks to the local library looking for information about Albert Einstein and "age", etc.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I think it needs to be made absolutely clear the difference between GOOGLE'S IP lawsuit, and the other IP lawsuit you're comparing it to. There is a significant difference between a TRADEMARK and a COPYRIGHT. In terms easily understandable, a WORK is COPYRIGHTED, whilst a TRADEMARK is a term used to DISTINGUISH a WORK from another's. There's another integral difference as well - COPYRIGHTS also restrict DERIVATIVE WORKS. Personally, I believe copyrights ARE too RESTRICTIVE (the derivative works clause has crushed more innovation than I care to mention). .... but I digress from my real point -
Google is Justifed in it's request to preserve its Trademark. The trademark isn't being used to stifle competition (to the detriment of the public). They need to take this kind of action to keep other business from stealing their name. Is it really that unreasonable to ask that people don't turn your name into a verb?
The 1919 King Features comic "Take Barney Google, Fr'instance", and the 1923 Billy Rose song, both feature a character named Barney Google, with "goo-goo-googly eyes". Prior art? See a reference at http://www.toonopedia.com/google.htm
(Celui que tient la peur de devinir nuage)
In "Pattern Recognition", William Gibson's new novel, the word is used twice on the first page, as a way to describe the main character. Something like "Google her and you will find blah blah"
From:Dictionary.com
hoover
n
1: 31st President of the United States; in 1929 the stock market crashed and the economy collapsed and Hoover was defeated for re-election by Franklin Roosevelt (1874-1964) [syn: Hoover, Herbert Hoover, Herbert Clark Hoover]
2: (trademark) a kind of vacuum cleaner [syn: Hoover] v : clean with a vacuum cleaner [syn: vacuum, vacuum-clean]
Google would be on sticky ground here then.
You forget the ever-useful "Go google yourself!" and "Google you!"
I suppose eliding will eventually reduce it to "Goog it!" or merely "Goog!" I'm sure that future etymologists will have a field day trying to explain where *that* came from.
['...Some linguists, however, feel that the term is simply derived from the gurglings of babies, akin to the onomatopoeic "Goo-goo!" or "Gah-gah!"...'] --Toward a Theory of the Derivation of the Term "Goog" : Submitted for the Degree of Doctorate of Philosophy, University of Upper California, 2262
I thought it was a math term defined decades before Brin et al. started Google thr company. There's also "googleplex" which I though was 10^100^10 (or something like that).
There was a time when all companies aspired to having their brands be household generic terms, like xerox and kleenex -- terms that no longer even deserve capitalization, as they are now accepted words. The moral is your lawyers need to always be kept on a short leash, otherwise they'll make your company look like jerks and conflict with the overall goals.
I do not remember where I read it.
Yes, the origin of google is "Go ogle"
it is also a pun: a googol is a large number, actually a 1 with 100 xeroes or 1*10^100
it has also been seen in print to refer to making faces at babies. "google at infants" or making googlie eyes.
How do you describe cookie monsters eyes?
They are googlie!!
comment directly in my journal
I do believe a complete entry in the dictionary should, at least in its references, identify the source/derivation of the term. In the same way many have replaced "Cola" with "Coke", a complete definition of the word should at least note that it is derived from the drink Coca-Cola or Coke...
Off Topic but...
;o)
Timothy,
Is posting to Slashdot your full time job??
and not the fact that people are using the word google as an abbreviation for "to search google"
WordSpy defined google as:
I disagree.
If I told someone to "google jbuilder" I mean to tell them to search google.com for the string "jbuilder" and am not suggesting that they use some other search engine like yahoo.com or astalavista.box.sk. And the phrase about "related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend" seems silly and wrong in this case.
I suggest a simpler definition be used:This definition would allow people to continue to use google as a verb, and at the same time is not watering down google's trademark because it explicitly and exclusively refers to Google Technologies.
When I want a tissue, I say I want a kleenex. This means I have permanantly associated the company Kleenex with tissue paper. In other words, I'm not gonna buy a box of tissue unless it says Kleenex on it.
Its the same way with web searches and google. Why wouldn't a company be proud of such an honor and happy for the free publicity?
Jackal
William Gibson's new book, "Pattern Recognition", uses google as a verb quite extensively.
Gotta go now, gotta get a klenex.
C8H10N4O2 | Developer > Code
Google: (v) To multiply something by 10^100.
What the hell does that have to do with search engines?
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
v. googled, googling
Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still. -C. Coolidge
Rather than throwing a hissy fit, I suspect the problem can be resolved by simply placing a small note next to the "Googling" entry reminding the reader that "Google" is a registered trademark.
The reason why google does not want to be a verb is that U.S. law prohibits trademarking nouns or verbs (and probably a few more things as well). Those of you who played with Legoes when they were young (or now) will remember a part of the instructions asking parents to please refer to them as "Lego Building Blocks". That's because if a trademarked word comes into common usage as a noun or verb, it can lose its trademark status.
There's other language in U.S. trademark law that says you have to "vigorously defend" your trademark or you can lose it as well. I'm not sure if that comes into play here or not.
I'm pretty sure this is all about trying to maintain their trademark, because it really would suck if they had to change their name to "Gooooooogle".
An example of usage:
The bright, young man had a promising career in computer science until the day he was goatsecxed. From that day forth he turned into a demented, sexual predator googling skid row for transexual prostitutes.
IANAL, but to successfully hold a trademark (in the US at least), you have to prevent it becoming part of everyday language. If your trademark becomes part of everyday language, you no longer have a trademark. Then every yahoo (pun intended) in town can use your trademarked symbol.
That's the law. They *HAVE* to defend their trademark. If they do not, they lose it. Their trademark is worth a lot to them. Name recognition is very important.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
My word list contains: GOOGLE, GOOLED, GOOGLES, GOOGLING
A GOOGLY is an English cricketing term. So to be GOOGLED is to be bowled out by a weird delivery. So it's already a verb. They probably shouldn't have been allowed to trademark what was already in common usage.
Interesting to see a legal challenge to stop language development. "Cease and Desist" letters should better be labelled "barratry". Too many scum-sucking lawyers on this planet for my liking.
STF
...Xerox the site before it becomes slashdotted and you feel like going postal.
Welcome to the wacky world of terms becoming generic over time...it's a trademark lawyer's nightmare.
For those that didn't check it out at WordSpy.com:
(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine
such as google.com to look for information
related to a new or potential girlfriend or
boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a
trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)
--Googling pp. Emphasis added by me.
My comment about this is pretty straight-forward, it's their trademark, but it's everyones language. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. For the more obscure references, Typewriter used to be a brand name too.
This song was published in 1923, using capped and lower cases. How about prior use ?? Since Bert and Ernie featured the numbers 1 through 10 on Sesame Street, will we need to type 1TM, 2TM, 3TM... ??? I think I will just trademark the whole darn alphabet, on letter at a time.
IIRC, both Kleenex and Coke get pretty peeved about their names being used generically for facial tissue and cola, respectively. Ever order a "coke" in a restaurant and have them ask "Is Pepsi (or RC or Belchy Cola or what have you) OK?"? I have. This happens more often in large chains which stand to get called on by lawyers.
Bayer lost the name Aspirin that way. Anyone can call their acetysalycitic acid "aspirin" nowadays.
Terrycloth Lobster
I think google rocks, but this is seriously just a stupid law suit that makes them look really bad. I thought a smart company like Google would have better manners and maybe even take it as a compliment. Its not like the site claimed to have invented the name, nor did they claim rights to it. I dont think they made money of it...
So,
Really bad PR move.
Am I the only one who has NEVER heard "google" used in the context of searching for a date?
As a verb it has definitely become synonymous with "search", though.
My other question is, why would Google argue? It would seem to me that it would only promote the use of the Google search engine.
is futile, your verb will be added to our lexicon.
Is WordSpy's definition correct? I have always used the phrase "to google" meaning just to search the web.. Wordspy has it more about searching for info/dirt about someone using a search engine.. "I googled her before I asked her out"
Huh. I always thought Spandex was the brand and Lycra was the fabric...
Turns out that you are right, though. Lycra is the trademark. To confirm that you were correct, I googled for the answer.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I don't know about everyone else, but I commonly say "I'll just google it", meaning that I am going to look it up on Google.
Now, what would they want to get rid of that concept? Its obviously just one of those immoral lawsuits to make more money.
Malachi
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
Not true, as pointed out in the article. Since the guy has every right to do what he's doing, they have no obligation to even attempt to stop it. In general, you are correct, but not for this. Their position is like saying that the news couldn't do a story on Microsoft because the name is a trademark. Bullshit.
They're just getting edgy here, and probably they fear a slippery slope argument into ubiquity (and thus lack of trademark), but this is ridiculous.
It's funny, because Google got where it was because people trusted them (ie, their search results wouldn't be confounded with ads). Google is pretty well respected among net users. I dunno why they would want to go off sounding like a bunch of assholes. Probably a case of marketing not talking to legal.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
You can trademark what is in common usage, as long as the usage does not have anything to do (within reason) with what you're using the trademark to refer to.
Thus, Microsoft's trademark of "Windows" does not in any way stop Andersen from using the term in conjunction with their glass products. The question would still remain, however, as to whether "windows" in the computing sense (ie boxes on screen with text and/or graphics within them that are movable and so forth...) renders the term untrademarkable in that environment.
But, if I wanted to launch a new candy bar, I could call it Windows, and even trademark that term within the limited domain of "food products".
The people take some responsibility, if they allow others to control their actions and thoughts without seeking the protections of due process to prevent it. You really don't "have to" do anything until served with a court order. Until then, you can defend yourself, and you can insist that a jury decide each and every issue in a hearing.
IMHO, this is a typical case of a laywer being too trigger-happy to appreciate the big picture. If I owned google.com, widespread use of the term "google" would be music to my ears, trademarks be damned.
No, just no. Google has nothing to do with looking for a potention girlfriend or boyfriend or friendly friend. Not even an adequate definition. To google is NOT to use "a" search engine, it is to use Google. I don't call it "googling" unless I use GOOGLE!
What the hell is wrong with these people?!?! Dating . . . any search engine . . . these people have never GOOGLED!
hypocrites.
Just in case Google ever gets slashdotted, here's a mirror
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
IANAL, but IIRC, if a company wants to protect a trademark, they have to be able to demonstrate that they have taken measures to prevent their trademark from becoming a generic term for something, i.e. part of the lexicon.
Companies like Xerox, Coca Cola and Kleenex have had to do this for years. It's not important that they're successful, just that they can show that they've made the effort. That way, for example, if someone starts selling facial tissues as "Smith's Super-Soft Kleenex" then the Kleenex people will have legal recourse.
The Google people probably don't mind that "googling" now is widely recognized to mean "searching for information on the web." But unless they can document later on that they tried to prevent it from becoming a generic term for using a search engine, they might not be able to prevent someone from creating "Billy Bob's Google Page."
Not to be a word Nazi (but I will be)
10^100 is a googol, not a google.
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
I just googled for 'googled'. 12,700 hits. It's a verb.
"you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb"
But you can claim rights to a number, last time I checked a google was 1 with a 100 zeros behind it and a googleplex was a 1 with a google zeros behind it. So can I name my site "ten" and then get a mark on ten so no one can turn it into a verb?
I would never use "to google" to generically mean use any search engine to find something on the Net. The fact is that anyone who actually uses search engines knows that they don't work the same, and they don't have the same databases of links to search. It's just not like Kleenex or Xerox where the equivalent products really aren't easily differentiated. In fact, it is quite a tribute to their success that most people use "to google" literally to mean go do a search at google.com. Of course, it wasn't that long ago that Yahoo had the same status, and now they aren't really that significant. It is always possible that Google will suffer the same fate someday, possibly soon. I doubt that "to google" will remain the popular phrase it is today when/if that happens.
If you cannot trademark a verb, and you must protect your trademark, then we should change the law to explicitly define the verbing of one's trademark as not being dilution.
The somebody who tells you to "google for it", or even "Google for it" will not be diluting your trademark, but some cretin who says "Google for it on [OTHER SEARCH ENGINE]" should get a nice beat down from the corporate lawyers.
My Heart Is A Flower
They can't stop it. Google is a verb. I use it, you do, everyone does.
If the google lawyer sends you a cease-and-desist about your website just add "Trademarks owned by their respective owners" somewhere. They'll soon run out of paper, and the only ones hurt is the forest and google. I feel sorry for the forest.
Trademarks in this comment owned by their respective owners.
Google is just saying that "to Google" means to seach for something using Google. It does not mean "to search for something on the internet."
Google is right. They are telling WordSpy to fix their shitty definition before people like my mom start Googling up some stuff at anywho.com or AltaVista.
They don't have a problem with it being a verb, they just don't want it to be a common-use verb that refers to using SOMEONE ELSE'S product.
Which is right.
Some of the things people throw a hissy fit about on here are ridiculous.
or 'billyware' which means: Expensive, crappy software that crashes unexpectedly...
If you search USENET, you'll find that there are about 1300 uses of the word "google" prior to 1995, a variant spelling of "googol". One google/googol = 10^100. So, not only is it a verb now, it has been a variant spelling of "googol" since before Google even existed.
Kleenex is in my dictionary as a proper noun. Google.com may wish to sue but I don't think that they can get away with it. The most I think they could do is have a second definition as a proper noun listed. Which this online site might allready have.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
The /. story seems to me to greatly exagerate the facts.
The letter is a polite request - not a 'cease-and-desist'. All that they ask is that the dictionary entry acknowledge their trademark:
We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the trademark status of Google
Do they have the right to demand this? According to one of the links in the story, probably not. It is polite and sensible for Word Spy to do this? Yes. Have they done this? Yes:
(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
I'd take this lawyer's spam, wipe my nose with it as if it were so much kleenex and suck it up with the hoover.
-josh
Trademarks (in the US at least) tend to be divided by courts into four strengths in the US. The strongest are made-up words, then the next strongest are regular words applied to product competely unrelated to the word. In other words, "Linux" or "Coca-Cola" are very strong marks because they are made up words. "Google" might be construed as a made up word, and thus very strong. But even if "Google" is interpreted as just a form of the math term "googol", it is still strong because it isn't applied to math. Thats how people can trademark regular english words with almost the same strength as a made up word. But I couldn't trademark "Red Apple" brand apples easily or at all because it just describes what it is.
The problem is that if Google doesn't actively protect their mark and it becomes a word on it's own, then in effect the word "Google" just describes "Google" because it is a word with it's own meaning, refering to a type of search engine. Then they lose the ability to renew their trademark and prevent others from using it.
So then I would be able to create www.googleit.com or www.gogoogle.com. That wouldn't be very good for their business.
Uninnovate - Only the finest in engineering.
Whenever I'm in a place that raises that type of question, I'll order the "house cola". It makes me feel sophisticated, for a second or two.
I would think that to add a name to a dictonary is the highest possible market penetration that a company could achieve. When someone calls a product by your name (e.g. who doesn't call facial tissues 'Kleenex' or depending on your preference go into a restaurant and ask for a 'Coke' or a 'Pepsi' only to be told...we have the other...is that o.k.). My gut reaction is that the folk at google should be pleased when the world is associating 'Internet searching' to their product. --pete
There will probably be a googol of redundant posts about this. Oh wait, google, sorry....
Technically, only half of all Americans have intelligence below the mean for Americans. More than half would have intelligence below the average for Americans because there is a lower limit to intelligence, but no upper limit - those supergenuis types that pride themselves on their Six Sigma Society memberships will push the average above the mean.
In addition, to your mistake regarding mean vs average, you have assumed that Americans posess intelligence in the same proportion as the population of the world in general. Now since the world population in general includes people who say things like "Bloody Americans" and the French (who confuse arrogance with intellect), I assert that the average intelligence worldwide is somewhat lower than in the US.
Now don't you feel more informed?
I aim to please.
I watched the ad and went out and bought some Spam (TM).
First, Spam comes in a neat can. It's curved and low-to-the-ground. I like that. It's very appealing to purchase something and actually like the way it's packaged. I consider this a successful purchase.
Next, the can opens easily. Again: this is a good thing. The little pull-tab is nice.
Now, I expected lots of Spam juice to come dripping out when I yanked off the top, but I was pleased to see that no Spam juice flew forth.
Even better, the spam actually *filled* the can. It's not like a bag of potato chips. Open the bag and you're lucky to see fifteen chips.
Spam is most definitely "old-school" when it comes to packaging: they have a product, have a nice can, and fill the can with the product. Thumbs up, boys.
There are recipes on the side of the can. Better still, the recipes are fairly easy to make. I opted for the "fried Spam". The recipe indicated that I should scramble some eggs. I did this, toasted some Butternut Texas toast (thick slices of bread, in case you're not sure what 'Texas Toast' is), and then got my tried-and-true non-stick frying pan (lots of teflon for those of us who, like myself, have no idea what 'seasoning a skillet' means and so buy into the non-stick hype.)
Out of the can, Spam is a little on the pinkish side. It definitely needed some "color" (as they say) before it was completely palatable. I'm sure raw Spam would taste no different than cooked Spam, but I wasn't sure about the level of processing Spam underwent, so -- in the interested of safety -- I fried thin slices until they were dark brown and slightly burnt at the edges.
I slid the Spam onto the plate (thanks to teflon), slid the eggs onto the plate, and pulled the two pieces of Texas toast from the toaster. I slathered some *real butter* on the toast, cut it in triangles like they do at all fine restaurants, and went to sit in my favorite chair. I had to leave the food for a moment and go back into the kitchen because I forgot my Red Bull. But when I went back to the plate, the Spam was still warm, the eggs were perfect, and the butter had melted into my toast.
The fried Spam -- pork shoulder and ham -- was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't like Jimmie Dean sausage flavored with maple syrup. And it certainly wasn't like Pigs-in-blankets (pancakes wrapped around sausage) but it was damn good. It was a little bland. But it had texture -- a lot of it -- and felt good when I chewed.
The sweet, medicinal Red Bull sorta cast a pall on the otherwise good meal, but Red Bull at breakfast is a necessity for me, so I didn't have much choice.
Personally, though, I say screw google. They put autopr0n on the 11th page on a search for "autopr0n", which doesn't make any damn sense.
It does if you consider they've been tweaking their pagerank rating system to take google-bombing into account. Most (if not all) the links to autopr0n come from kiro5hin and slashdot; in essense, blog-like sites. Apparently, the number of UNIQUE sites that link to a target increase the standings.
Don't blame Google because no one links to you.
To quote:
""And are you not," said Fook, leaning anxiously foward, "a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?""
So, maybe the "google" search engine people owe the Adams estate... That would shut them up.
If you didn't read it, basically they're asking him to either remove it OR mention that "google" is a trademark of Google Technology. Yeesh. All he has to do is add one sentence to the definition, but instead it's "Waaah, I got a cease and desist letter, I don't know what to do, panic, panic, panic". He says he doesn't want to remove it, but he doesn't know what he should do. How about doing what they said, and mentioning the trademark?
Certainly, mentioning the trademark would even improve the definition. When I tell someone, "Go Google for information on this", I mean go to www.google.com. If they come back to me and say "It wasn't on yahoo's search engine", I'll say "That's because you didn't do what I told you to do." Yeesh. It's a trademark, and all they're asking is that you acknowledge it as such. Just do it. You're not giving up any rights of your own.
If you're really concerned about stupid trademark cease-and-desist stuff, there are bigger battles to fight, like the PCI thing, or MS's trademark of the word "windows".
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
A couple of the ads I've seen are Xerox(tm) and, of all places, Laundromat(tm). Seems that Laundromat(tm) is a trademarked name, too, and the erstwhile owners would like you to say "commercial coin-op[erated] self-serve laundry" rather than Laundromat(tm).
However with writers they are somewhat powerless as far as their influence goes (other than having a couple guys both named Guido visiting you some night) to have you stop.
Dunno if you can go after web sites legally for misrepresenting a trademark like this isn't, but I didn't see anything in the letter saying that they'd sic their lawyers (or both Guidos) on the guy. But you never know. Oh yeah: IANAL.
Is this thing on? Hello?
Dictionaries are in the business of reportage. People are using the word "google" as a verb, and that's a fact. The dictionary is reporting this fact. Any objection to their reportage is a straightforward suppression of free speech.
If so that would be a great way to take care of spammers!
So instead of saying "google" we should say "do a Google(tm) brand Internet search?"
If the definition by wordspy weren't so idiotic (does anyone even use anything but Google? Why explicitly search for information on boy- or girlfriend?) but said something like "To use the internet search engine google.com to look up information", there wouldn't be a problem.
What google.com DOES is more important and far more valuable than what they might call themselves.
Name recognition is certainly important, and the ease of *finding* that business on the web, is certainly a large element of its success.
But of course, this whole present day attorney induced phobia over trademark protection is based on the ease with which a new company might emulate an older well-established company. But this does not apply to google.com.
The advantages that google's operation has over its competition at the moment is far more than it's name. In fact, the name recognition that it enjoys is based completely on the superior performance of what they DO, not who they are.
Tomorrow google.com could announce that they are changing their name to shitbucket.com. And within a month or two of offering their services from that new domain name, the term "google" will have lost it's meaning, and the verb "shitbucketing" will have entered into daily usage.
Substance over symbol makes lawyers absolete.
Google is a play on the word "googol", which was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, to refer to the number represented by 1 followed by 100 zeros. A googol is a very large number. There isn't a googol of anything in the universe. Not stars, not dust particles, not atoms. Google's use of the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense, seemingly infinite, amount of information available on the web.
(from Google's Corporate History)
Cue The Sun...
I remember seeing the word "google" in a Peanuts comic years ago referring to a huge number. This strikes me that they actually have no claim to the word, except maybe under business circumstances (ie. I couldn't start a business or manufacture a product with the name Google.).
Music wants to be free.
-- Vladimir
Did Word Spy get slashdotted over google?
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Guess not.
As of a few minutes ago, the WordSpy definition is:
(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)
So he did what Google asked: noted that it was a trademark. The site's still up. The definition's still valid. Presumably the Google lawyers are happy. I don't feel my civil or lexical rights have been trounced upon.
As has often been said...move along folks, nothin' to see here.
Cue The Sun...
Do you do anything besides wanking off to your site, lowering your iq, and complaining on slashdot?
And with lawyers sending out letters like this, how long before, "I sure lawyered him on that deal."
Geez - how long before lawyers force us to use Marklar for verbs in addition to definite objects.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
I did a 'wordspy' for xerox and it didn't come up.
What was in there:
Other corporate verbage /nouns which were not included:
Personally I think Word Spy should expand on the meaning so it doesn't simply mean to search out personal information. Also specify the use of the google search engine as being the engine.
-
Rod
Paul Abate, the OED editor, says verbs no know owner. Surely he doesn't mean that any trademark is fair game, as long as you attach "-ing" to the end. In that case, what's to stop a "Whopper up at Wendy's" ad campaign? And when the ads go negative? "Last night, my roommate drank so much he Big Mac'ed all over the sidewalk."
But, you say, Mr. McFedries was simply documenting the word's use by others, such as the "West Wing." That may get him off the hook, but it still leaves trademarks wide open: An advertiser can buy product placements, so why couldn't it buy a verbing?
First of all, "to google" is just a fad word-of-the-minute that makes people sound completely retarded when they say it.
Secondly, Q-Tip, Popsicle, Kleenex, Chip Clip, Post-It, Scotch Tape, Coke (by southerners who use it to mean all different kinds of pop), Wet Wipe, Xerox, etc., all quickly spring to mind as brand names that are used generically.
This is the problem with companies that become too successful and make too much money; they almost invariably turn evil.
Oh well, Google, guess I'll be switching my homepage to www.alltheweb.com, they're just as good.
To MoNickels?
Oh wait, this is just another case of bicth at the site runners and get easy mods points.
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
Seems to me that most any other company would kill to have their brand name become the new word for the product. Like 'Kleenex', or 'Aspirin'. You can't buy that kind of advertising.
If you search google with "google: v", the first result is info about Google's struggle with the church of Scientology:
...
Church v. Google - How the Church of Scientology is forcing
Just thought it was interesting that what comes around goes around...
An online Starcraft RPG? Only at
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
just as a note of usage in print
william gibson uses 'google' several times as a verb in his latest (dissapointing) novel, pattern recognition
my thought was he was just trying for another citation in the complete oed - but the word had probably been used in print before - anyone know any other examples?
Google the company name probably comes from the noun google, meaning a large number - specifically a one followed by 100 zeros.
You can try Googling (the verb) for that, but you have to be careful, as most links that say 'google' in them are about, well, Google...
Seriously, a google is 1*10^100. I believe it was named by some math guy's kid somewhere along the line. Google probably choose it to suggest that they were going to search a large number of pages on the internet. At last count, they were around 3*10^9 - only 10^91 more pages to go before Google will let you search a google of pages for information about the verb google vs the noun google. That's a lot of google...huh!
-Vornzog-
-V-
Who can decide a priori? Nobody.
-Sartre
It is interesting that this is the first comment I've seen mentioning alternatives, and one comment joked, "are there any others?". I don't use any others right now, and I'm wondering if there are even others that people would recomend (besides teoma).
http://www.wordspy.com/topwords.asp
What the hell is chewable liquor anyway? Oh wait, I can just check the definition...
Where I'm from, pigs in blankets are better tasing, and even more unhealthy. They're little sausages wrapped in bacon rashers, traditionally roasted around the christmas turkey, and served dripping in fat. MMMMmmmm!
As an attorney myself, I think that letter was downright friendly. All they want is an acknowledgment that it is a trademark, and ANY good lexicographer should include the etymology (e.g. a trademark that is working its way into general usage) of a new word. Also, including it in his list does not infringe on trademark rights, so there really isn't a problem here. Google just wants a little recognition, and I think they deserve it.
IAAL
It's not unusual. If you don't protect your name and you let it become a part of the english language, you can lose all your rights to it.
For example, back in the 80's to Xerox was heavily used instead of "making a copy". It became so common that Xerox had a hard time defending it as a brand. Same thing. What's a Bandaid? What's a QTip? A Bandaid is a brand of medical bandage used for small cuts, QTip? Cotton Swab. I don't say Cotton Swab or bandage, I said QTip and Bandaids. They're are really brand names, not things but they were so popular and became commonplace that consumers referred to them as things and not a brand of a thing.
Nothing interesting here, move along.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Man, Google is getting pretty agressive with their lawsuits. I own gewgle.com, which forwards search requests to google.com, but I always made it fairly clear that gewgle.com wasn't related to Google and I never made a profit on the site (no advertising,for sale,etc). Anyway, we've gone back and forth a few times, I don't think they have much of a case, but if you want to check out the proceedings, check gewgle.com's legal section or just plain ol' gewgle.com
So on one hand its good to be in the popular lexicon, but on the other its bad due to control over your company's name.
Lets just kill all the lawyers, like Shakespeare said.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Just yesterday I was talking digital cameras with a colleague and when he googled for it, I said 'no, froogle for it'. I'm not sure what my point is. That is all.
This is chicken and egg, Google is a trademark and a valuable one. Someone decided one day to call it a verb, not the other way around. It's one thing to be unable to calim proprietary rights to a verb, quite another when someone starts calling your incredibly popular and valuable trademark a verb. You can legitimately claim proprietary rights to your trademark and stop people coopting it in a way that dilutes it's value.
--file this customer service ticket with the ID 10 T stamp. I can't believe it. To have your business model be so succesful in a POSITIVE light that it becomes an understood "new word" is GOOD. Suing the people who noticed that this happened-really, all they did was SEE THIS HAPPENED IN SOCIETY- is BAD. This is just elementary free advertising for them in the worst possible case. After that it can only get better.
Here is Mr. google deep in contemplation over this while juggling algorithms in his head and not really paying attention to this word issue --->"Hmm, free advertsing,WHAT?!? Our company so well respected and in such widespread use it's now an offical word in the language, man I am so whizzed off! I wanted to stay obscure, have no one know our name! I must protect my name from being used as a word by...well by anyone, all those TALKERS out there! The nerve! I'm gonna SUE 'EM! That'll teach 'em to say my word!"
Can't they see how dumb that is to feel that way? Guess not, maybe someone will clue them in on it. I will only charge them 100$ for this service, too. It's a deal at that rate.
Once again, you can see where advanced brains that can be successful in a highly specialised field, and are simultaneously completely clueless in other areas. Zee-ro common sense it appears. I've had some bosses like that. Example. "Uhh boss, if I do what you tell me to do this generator will 'splode" No lie, happened to me, had my boss tell me to run the generator in such a way as it would have overheated and had a "catastrophic failure" but he wanted me to "just try it". Well, I didn't obviously, started to walk away, said I would go call 911 and let the fire department get a head start on coming over..
Anyway,and g**gl3 (gotta be careful, don't want to get sued now) HQ masterminds were lame enough to listen to their tame lawyers and persue this. Missing the forest for the trees mistake 2, dealing with lawyers,a necessary e-vile, like you know God got a plan for mosquitoes, but dang if you can see it.
OK-lawyers got to either create laws that society was perfectly able to do without the day before,or write extremely arcane things called "contracts" that are compilations of said laws with people's names now attached to them which apply to the previous laws they created, or argue what they already did between themselves, and get paid both ways and up and down on this deal. That's all they do. This is called "job security" or if you are a low level peon or like still in school "busywork".
Like scorpions stinging and the old fable, it's just their nature,that's it, just got to deal with it, so one needs to pay attention to what they recommend all the time and apply a "common sense" interpreter to it. And it's also why you should NEVER "vote" to "elect" one to governmental "office", OF COURSE they will make your life more expensive and more complicated if they wind up there!
...of using Google to google for uses of the word google as a verb.
We've been microsofted out of legitimate use of a common word! What an enronish act of worldcomism...
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
The restaraunts ask if the other cola is ok because they don't serve Coke. They already made a deal with Pepsi or Belchy (heh) or whatever.
So, when you ask for a "coke" (aka generic cola beverage) they recognize that you might be asking for a "Coke" (the Big Name Cola Choice). Coca-Cola has your mindshare and has you asking for a Coke whether or not you care which cola you drink. Coca-Cola still wins in this scenario because the restaraunt acknowledges that Pepsi is not Coke. Of course, Coca-Cola should be concerned about the restaraunts that bring you a Pepsi or Belchy without asking.
I'm sure it's a fine line between mass-mindshare and trademark dillution, but as long as they keep a tight grip on market usage they should be fine. After all, when I go to the tissue aisle in the grocery store, all I see is "Kleenex" and "notKleenex" as far as brands go. (Damn this commercial culture!)
Then again, I'm (happily) not a marketing guy and IANAL certainly... so all this blathering about Coke/coke should be considered a layman's conjecturing... but it seems logical to me. Which means it's probably way off. :)
PS: Glad I preview. I first wrote that "I go to the isle of tissue". heh.
I was hankerin for some spam and oreos the other day. I wanted to hoover them suckers right up, then wash it down some coke from my thermos. But as I was closing the frigidaire I tripped and fell smack into the xerox machine. Then I started bleeding so I held kleenex on the wound till I could find some band-aids. I got a dustbuster to suck up the crumbs, but when I plugged it in the power surge borked my server as if it was slashdotted, and I can't google for the solution! I'm gonna go postal!
~~~
"The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
"Goggle" means to stare. "Googol" is a large number. They hitchiked on those ideas to come up with Google.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an Exxon is.
"Lovely spam, wonderful spam!"
Now "googol" as a noun and "google" as either a noun or a verb are pronounced (as far as I can tell) essentially identically. So the "Google" folks want to protect the spelling, not the word. Is this valid trademark law? That is, can you trademark a spelling variant of a single word? What then happens if people happen to pronounce it the same as the generic term?
On the other hand, maybe the solution is for people to now spell the "search the web" term as googol - or can "googol" as a verb be trademarked despite its common (?) use previously as a noun?
I looked through several online dictionaries as well as Merriam-Webster (not the Unabridged site) and I can only find definitions for "google" that are in fact google.
If this is the case, then it seems that wordspy should define the verb "to microsoft" as "to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women".
Apologies to Conan (no, not the late night one)
Do you know what that symbolizes? It's _funny_. Laugh.
But what about the opposite, where a company takes a common word and tries to make a trademark out of it? Even though it's already been used untrademarked in such a context by someone else?
Say, something like, say, oh maybe...
"Windows"? :-)
in other news, Microsoft uses DMCA against the use of BSOD as a verb...
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Verbs are protected, huh? I Windowed to work in my car today. Then I Windowed up the stairs Windowed the door, and Windowed down at my desk. Tomorrow I will Windows a bagel for breakfast, Windows a call to my brother, and Windows the web for a while, more than likely ending up at Slashdot.
Hormel has a very good sense of humor (and also business sense) about things
And increased sales of Hormel's product have actually been attributed somewhat due to popularity of the term "spam" (lower case). Sales of stuff like t-shirts, baseball caps, etc., with the Spam® logo have definitely increased a lot due to popularity of the Internet.
Frank Abate, an American editor for the Oxford English Dictionary, points out, however, that you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb."
:-)
Where else would you get somebody called Abate offering advice about a cease-and-desist letter
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
I know you can smurf a router, but the whole web?????
You don't get much nicer for lawyers. It's not like they can just call up and ask, one, because you could later just say they never called, and two, because it's harder to bill, and three, because sometimes it's just plain difficult to get people on the phone...
Asking NOT nicely is "We've filed suit against you, see you in court on March 12 at 1:30 PM."
Oh wait, that's the hearing for my speeding ticket. Nevermind.
paintball
Searched the web for googling. Results 1 - 10 of about 21,700. Search took 0.09 seconds.
Searched the web for googled. Results 1 - 10 of about 12,700. Search took 0.07 seconds.
Searched the web for googles. Results 1 - 10 of about 43,600. Search took 0.05 seconds.
Searched the web for googleing. Results 1 - 10 of about 397. Search took 0.17 seconds.
Marklar: marklar
And what happens if 'to google' is permitted without acknowledging the trademark? restating what someone else stated, then a site could use uGoogle.com meaning you search. So protecting the use of the use of the word IS protecting against confusingly similar products.
The "Navigator" argument is completely irrelevant, as both are based off of the noun form of 'navigate'. Without Lincoln or Netscape, there still would be navigators in the world.
It's not like someone would arbitrarily have picked out 'googling' for searching if the company weren't out there.
In other words, a product could be released called 'Law Navigator", but "LegalGoogle" probably could be contested legally.
-- If you can't laugh at yourself, someone else will do it for you.
Today I Xeroxed a few pages and Fedex'd them; putting my initials (AMD) on the folder...
Sigh! three violations in a single event!
Why would Google(*) want to stop this use of the name? They have become synonomous with 'searching' shouldn't they be thrilled? How does this hurt their brand? I don't hink the Band Aid people are like 'No no.. You should ask for a self adhesive bandage that is sold under the brand name Band Aid'. Now if a competitor was using the name thats one thing, but if the term has simply entered the language, whats the big deal?
;)
* - Google is a trademark of Google, Inc.
The new definition is already there :
(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)
If Yahoo!(TM) were to make a similar claim, we could point our collective fingers at them for verbing "yahoo" in their own ads.
Nothing wrong with "slashdotting" either. Though there are unpleasant aspects of being slashdotted.
Marklar: marklar
The problem Google is faced with here is defending their trademark from Genericity. At least in some jurisdiction around the world, when your trademark becomes 'generic' you loose the right to enforce it. That is why Xerox pushed the name 'Photocopier' when they realised people were begining to call it a 'Xerox machine.' Problem is, if 'Xerox machine' enters into the language, any manufacturer could call their photocopier a "Xerox machine" and Xerox would be unable to stop them. This is also why McDonalds threatens any one who calls their restaurant McX.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Base truth: Google needs to defend it or lose it. While a verb is not trademarkable material, Google can fight to prevent the term "Google" from becoming a verb. It doesn't matter that the verb listed differs from what "Google" is or does. If they want to remain protected, they need to defend their term.
Though this does bring up another subject, that of shafting people and basically bullying people around. Some example uses may include:
It seems obvious that the term has a multitude of uses not unlike that of f#ck.
Some sites which so beautifully illustrate the various uses of the word f#ck include:
When one thinks of all the meanings associated with f#ck and the similarities between it and the m-word, one can only wonder how long it will be before the m-word will make it into dictionaries the world over. Probably not in m1cro$0ft branded dictionaries or encyclopedias, however.
Just a couple of cents.
Winged Power Photography
...if anyone still googles on Yahoo! or some other search engine.
if anyone else can find themselves searching by username but not by real name.
The adjective google seems to have been in use for some time before search engines came into existence:
http://whatevernot.com/house/2001-01-13/google-eye s.html
-- Stamp out entropy. ->dryguy@bellsloth.net
This might make the folks at Google a little happier, but it's still wrong! "To google" means to use the Internet search engine at google.com, not "an Internet search engine such as...". Plus, it's commonly used to mean search for X, not merely for info on people. Maybe a few thousand letters of correction from people who actually speak the language will help these guys get their entry straight! :)
I just thought I'd run this up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. I've mother-henned it for a while and it's about ready to hatch. When I throw it on the slashdot fire, it's bound to spit back. I never metaphor I didn't like.
Google has a good argument, but ultimately, they are screwed. They know this, which is why this letter isn't a real C it doesn't demand anything, it just asks. It pleads.
You see, this isn't some Google competitor abusing the word to confuse people into thinking they are interacting with Google when they're not. If Altavista had told people that the best googling tool was altavista.com, Google's lawyers would be all over them like flies on shit, and the letters would not be nice. That would be a real violation and infringement of trademark.
What's happening here is just dilution. Maybe that's unpleasant for Google, but it's not really abuse, nor does it really have (short-term, at least) much potential for causing confusion in the marketplace. Google is a victim of their own success here, rather than a victim of fraud or malice, and that's important, IMHO.
I don't think there's really anything they can do about this, except to try to persuade people to stop using the word, out of the goodness of their hearts. And that's really what the letter is about. If they try anything more heavy-handed than that, then they will certainly lose, because the battle is already outside the scope of the legal system. It would be a battle in the language-sphere, and nobody (not even governments, and they have tried!) can effectively wield force there.
Fun fact, slightly related: yesterday I got a music shipment in the snailmail, that included a CD by the band Su Ta Gar. They're a Basque-country heavy metal band, who sing in their native tongue. The Spanish fascists tried to wipe that language out last century, but they couldn't do it. There's no way Google's lawyers will stamp out the verb "google" if even fascists aren't up to the job.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Don't forget Buffy:
Willow: "Have you googled her yet?"
Xander: "Willow, she's seventeen!"
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
the letter said to remove the word or indicate that it is a trademark. Seems like a no-brainer to me...
The truth doesn't care what I think.
"(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)"
looks like they resolved it.
Google cools searching.
Groovy. Far out. Fab.
(Calvin and Hobbes funnies post.)
"Derp de derp."
Kleenex is happy to have prople in general refer to tissue as kleenex. However, they would not be OK if Puff's brand tissue changed their name to Puffs kleenex. Anyone could agree with that. So the same is true with Google, they probably like that you say to google for it when needing information, but if another search engine starts to describe itself as a googler then that is bad and would be a copyright infringement for sure. Part of this is that kleenex is a noun so it just stays that way in normal usage. But, if google became some everyday verb then you are asking for problems with other companies incorperating it into their names. Google is just trying to be pro-active to keep the watering down from occuring and it's a good thing for them to do so.
The appropriate action is to ignore the letter. In 1980 I was Editor-In-Chief of Infoworld. We got a letter from Exxon's corporate lawyers. At the time Exxon owned Zilog who made the Z-80.. the hot microprocessor chip of the day. The letter took exception to InfoWorld running ads for the Turbo-Z compiler, and asked us to refuse to accept advertising for any product with a Z in the name!
We did the only rational thing... we published their letter and made fun of the request in print.
Companies have to defend their trademarks or they risk losing them, but most trademark lawyers stop at a single notification letter unless it really is in infringing use of the name. The Word Spy usage isn't.
RAM5
>Otherwise, they lose the trademark.
Nonsense. Google is not only a real word (think back to wacky math facts from 4th grade) they're complaining about being in a dictionary. Google could make a principled stand like, "This is a dictionary, not a competing company."
But they won't. Google has become the 800lbs gorilla we love to complain about. Arguably, any company that grows fast enough eventually becomes Microsoft.
Techies used to love Bill Gates, he was the lone nerd vs. the IBM suits. He won out, yet we all lost. Now he's the most hated man in the IT industry.
Apple plays the IP game all the time. From ridiculous "look and feel" lawsuits to their lawsuit against the Church of Satan for using their Apple logo on their page. Of course I've seen that logo on every Mac lover's page, but it looks like someone in power at Apple has no love for religious tolerance or some fundie writing campaign really paid off.
Google in any practical sense of the word "owns" USENET. Its the number one search engine and possibly the one useful one around. It keeps, arguably, illegal caches of webpages. It just bought blogger.
This isn't some lame conspiracy theory. Google is expanding aggressively and there's lots of money to be made. Obviously this lawsuit shows that the lawyers are very much in charge and Google wants to protect its business come hell, highwater, or harmless little online dictionaries. You can keep making excuses or you can call them on their over-litigious attitude.
Welcome to the real world. Companies aren't nice, they're money making machines. The best we can hope for is that they don't constatly piss on the rest of us while trying to make a buck.
To microsoft. See spot. See spot microsoft. Run, microsoft, run! See what happens to you!
This has to be the first time I agree with a IP lawyer. While I would protest if they were objecting to the use of google as a verb in its strict sense (i.e.: to google: to search for something using the google search engine), I do think defining it to mean any search engine (to google: to search for something using a search engine) is wrong. Mainly because it's inaccurate. Google is the highest quality search engine on the Internet. Most of the rest are garbage. If someone told me 'I googled for X and found no information' and I later found out they'd used Sam's Search Site I'd consider them to have lied. Google means google. Of course, I'm pretty sure pissing off the user community by harrassing an obscure site author who's only refering to already existing abusive use is not a very good way to help their cause. I would ask that those who want to sound hi-tech refer to "greping" vs "googling" when a generic search engine is involved.
a colleague of mine used to work in a canning factory.
you want to know why the spam fills the can, and there is no "juice" that falls out when you open it?
because they cook it in the can.
the ingredients go in, they seal it, then they cook it.
mmm mmm good. D:
GOOGLE lawyers YOU!
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Paul McFedries wrote IEEE Spectrum's Technically Speaking column for February. I just got around to reading it today, coincidentally.
He mentions not just the verbing of "google", but other derivative terms such as "google-whacking", "google cooking", and "google bombing".
I can't include a link to the column since the IEEE website requires a member login.
If there's a copy on the web anywhere then it could probably be found by googling.
Unlike patents and copyrights, companies have to actively defend their trademarks, or risk losing them. I'm sure that when they lawyer sent this letter to the word-spy, it was a standard xerox of a form they've sent to many a place.
There are no band-aid solutions here. I don't feel this is a Mickey Mouse legal principle that Google is trying to uphold. They worked hard to build a brand name, and they don't want to lose it because some yahoo decides it should be in the dictionary. He doensn't need a Twinkie defense, he just needs to compy with Google's request to acknowledge the Trademark, as they indicated in the letter.
I wouldn't get all excited about this. If you get your legal know-how as I did, by TiVoing The Practice, you'd know that this is routine.
I mean, haven't boys been googling at girls for ages?
Aren't the cookie monster's eyes "Googley" or somethin'?
At least we can still kleenex things.
Thank you. Excellent explanation.
Not a big deal I guess. I suppose people shouldn't take c&d letters personally, they are written by lawyers after all.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
GREAT GOOGLEY MOOGLEY!
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
..I've seen those points, and btw that post you referenced was funny and a good way to illustrate them, but my point can be clarified even further. It will still happen. "Google" as a verb or googled meaning "to look for something hidden but you have a good idea it's there to find-past tense" will continue to happen unless google.inc goes out of business tomorrow and we all get brain wiped. Unless you are physically prepared to literally sue anyone for using your name "wrong", it's futile and silly. Where do "words" come from? I mean really? The english dialect I speak is not the same as what is spoken in other areas of the nation, or back in history, nor is it what will be spoken 20 or 100 years from now. It will still be "english" but it will have changed. Carry this to the very next step. Printing or publishing a copyrighted word, without permission. How can you even discuss the org or corp or person behind that copyright without first contacting them and getting permission? Far fetched? Not if this goes to suit and passes and they get a judgement it's not. Say Bigco just didn't like people dissin them or even talking about them some place "unapproved" by them. (side note-dissin, a relatively new english word). It could be anything they didn't like. So, you as a poster talk about them in a post, merely used "their" word. You didn't get permission. You don't "own" that word. You now owe them whatever a court/jury decides after they sue you, after all that person who "owns" that word has the "right" now.
This isn't the same as another search engine company calling themselves google. That would be a copyright violation, and that makes sense. This is different, and right now it's silly, if it sticks, it's incredibly harmful. If I can say I "googled for the result" out loud, is it legal, or should it be made illegal, especially if at least one other human hears me say it? Now, if that is legal, can I now write that down or post it on the web? May I say that in a phrase over a radio? May I write a novel in which a character uses that phrase? Do I "owe" google money, or can they have my publication stopped and all the copies destroyed? How far is "reasonable"?
This is one of the reasons I fully favor corporate review, and holding them to "of the public benefit" besides them just "making money". I am not saying google would be crossing the line here, but edging pretty close if they persue it. I can think of several large still in business and "profitable" corporations who have so abused their incorporation that they should be dissolved, no matter the "monetary" loss to anyone.
People complain abpout "frivolous" lawsuits, I think there's some merit to it, and also lawyers get away with what in other circumstances I would call a direct threat,an assault, and especially the way our society is set up so that those with the deepest pockets frequently seem to be able to use "the law" to beat up on people. They don't use a club, they just bankrupt you, on purpose. Because it's polite and gen-teel and proper they can get away with it.
I don't know how to say it any better than "it's just wrong"
And I wasn't joking about not electing lawyers to office either, I'm completely serious about it. About the worst and most harmful conflict of interest running. The class or society or organization of people who profit financially in a professional sense from "the law business industry" should not be in charge of writing more complex and invasive and pervasive "laws". It's an absurd and obvious conflict of interest. There is little to no profit involved in writing less laws, simpler laws, more fair laws, and easier to understand laws, if you profit from the opposite. There are maximum profits to be made by requiring the "law" to be so complex that only "your org" can "do it". I am also in favor of "loser pays" with a twist, it's proportional to your gross income. Big corp sues little guy, they lose, then little guys law expenses he incurred as a proportion of his gross income for that year are applied to bigcos, that's what they pay him for "legal expenses". And vice versa of course. Not net, gross. In my view, that would eliminate a huge percentage of what is termed "frivilous" when it comes to lawsuits, without having to legally define frivolous. It depends on everyone's common sense then, and how lucky they feel. It wouldnt stop frivolous suits, but it would both slow them down and still protect all parties concerned, both sides.
And dicussions about the law and lawyering are directly related to this article, it's exactly 50% of it. There would be no article at all if it wasn't for the way the "law" and lawyers work.
Google is a good search engine, but to be quite honest, I really think they're a bunch of hypocrites.
They take a political stand against advertising for firearms, which I can understand, completely disagree with but understand, but at the same time they are willing to help China with censorship!
They are blaming a tool(guns) for doing evil, but they are willingly helping to commit a great evil themselves.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
This is not evil. Google has every right to be pissed. Of course the joke was in good humor, but consider what this does to Google's brand reputation. Google is not intended to be used to stalk people, nor is it a source of informational; it is a search engine.
If the definition was simply 'to search for something using Google', it wouldn't be an issue.
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:19:26 -0800
c a
Reply-To: American Dialect Society
Sender: American Dialect Society Mailing List
From: Ben Ostrowsky
Subject: Re: Google trademark concerns
Comments: To: ADS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I'd guess that you can report accurately that many people use 'google' as a generic term, especially if you can cite some utterances.
And you could send them a pamphlet of your own about the difference between prescriptive and descriptive definition-writing -- a sort of Lexicographer's Apology (like the Actor's Apology, "this is fiction, don't blame us if it looks painfully familiar to you") to explain that you're not urging people to use 'google' but merely recording the fact that some do, and what they mean by it.
Good Lord, the OED had better watch out -- it's got 'xerox' and 'Kleenex', at the very least, and might get sued by companies after their trademarks have become common words.
This argument sounds familiar: "I'm not responsible for the fact that this exists; I'm just recording that fact." Isn't that how Google's counsel would likely respond to charges that their site enables pedophiles to find depictions of illegal sex, like so?
http://www.google.com/search?q=young+girl+eroti
If they have no duty to remove this from their site, what duty do you have to remove a harmless bit of lexicography?
To google doesn't have to mean to use google.com any more than to xerox means to use a xerox-brand photocopier.
I have no problems with it applying to any given search engine, and I'd bet that people are in fact using it that way.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Just what we need...a candy bar with updates...
-- Insert wisdom here:
I tried to look up "kleenex" in my dictionary, and it's not there. But I did find this: "klaxon: n a type of loud horn used on fire engines ... [former trademark]"
How many of you knew that a klaxon refers to a specific brand of horn, and not to just any annoying horn?
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
... 3M moves to have the letter M stricken from the alphabet as a trademark violation.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
So it's better to sue words out of the English lexicon in order to provide a few people making money, than allow the language to change even if it means a certain person (or small group) can no longer be the only users of a particular string of words...
Dictionarys are reflection of language, not the other way around. Leave it alone. Else, how would someone who didn't know what the term "to google" mean, be able to find out? THAT's what dictionarys are for.
A modern day witchhunt.
googol,or google, as it is spelled by douglas in HHGTTG, I "dictionaried" that on dictionary.com. I had heard that word many years before the world wide web existed on a show called, Square one, a show demonstrating to kids the fun of math, used this word in one of their episodes. it was on PBS, what do you expect..... anyway, it meant on that show a number which is a 1 with a hundred zeros after it, which i guess would be 10^100. They can't trademark a word that already existed.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
To wit: ... Such conclusive evidence of the right to use the registered mark shall be subject to proof of infringement as defined in section 1114 of this title, and shall be subject to the following defenses or defects:
...
US Code TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 22 > SUBCHAPTER III > Sec. 1115. Sec. 1115. - Registration on principal register as evidence of exclusive right to use mark; defenses, specifically paragraph "(b) Incontestability; defenses" clause (8) stating:
(b)
(8) That the mark is functional;
QED
Well, alltheweb digs up 41 sites other then slashdot or k5 that have links to me. Google apparently can't handle the link:... and -site:... commands together, but finds 87 pages not on slashdot or k5 that discuss me. Most of those pages also link. None of them were written by me.
Lets not forget that nothing else out there is called autopr0n, and almost every single page that does have the term also has a link to my site. Especially those which appear at the beginning of the search results.
Intresting experiment, try doing a search for "redhat 8 ISOs" on google and on Alltheweb, then get back to me on how great google is.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
a world in progress...
Did anyone look up Slashdotted on the Wordspy website... no entry....
I'm not sure i buy the whole "to google" is a common word. It's not really. As much as I love google, its really not even heard of by most of the aol using masses. While "to google" might be popular with the crowd I run with, it's certainly not commonly used. Isn't there some time limit on how long it is commonly used before other people and start claiming it's part of the english language and doing what they please with it? The whole xerox example is flawed because although people say "to xerox" just like they say "to google" but you won't see a commercial for a Canon Brand Xeroxer nor will you see commercials where another brand claims to xerox documents.
So let me get this right, if I'm googling, I'm bogarting a verb, and the lawyers will ralph-bunche me to death???
To google doesn't have to mean to use google.com
:)
Doesn't have to? Sure? But that fact is that it does. If I told you to go google for "google for", where would you go? So, go google for "google for", and see how many counter-examples you can come up with. If you'd like, you can even search for "google for" on other search engines, and see if you do any better.
Since 'google' already existed as a word long before Google.com, I can't see what they are complaining about.
A google is a very large number, defined as:
"google: a google is a fantastic number; it is a number followed by 100 zeros."
If you can't claim proprietary rights to a "verb" then I might have to obelix them.
Crap this makes me question the legitimacy of trademarks as much as I question patents.
What do you call a dried grape? It's call a raisin. It's in the dictionary.
What do you call a dried cranberry? You can't call it a Craisin, because that word is a trademark of Ocean Spray.
Why isn't raisin trademarked? Legal fiat is getting ridiculous.
Software Wars
It's a noun describing a number. The lawyers haven't got a pot to piss in.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I knew you could
If we all started talking about "Microsofting" something, I'm sure you'd get a cease-and-desist, and you'd deserve it. The word is trademarked.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
I hope this does not affect my ability to look up googlisms.
Excellent Calvin and Hobbes reference, Tim.
Rock!
This is the very definition of branding. Marketing people kill for this type of exposure. Apparently Google's sales and legal dept's don't speak to each other much.
"That was a wicked googly!" -- Jerry Seinfeld.
In case you guys and gals haven't noticed, "google" is just an intentional misspelling of "googol," a perfectly good English word for a one followed by 100 zeroes, 1,000,000,000...[88 0's]...000. The misspelling results from the fact that the word is already generic--it's a noun. So the lawsuit is not over the word "google," it's over the replacement of the third "o" with an "e" and its transposition across the letter "l". Talk about an overly litigenous society. Does this mean I can trademark the word "slashdaht"? How about "Santy Claus"? "MacDonalds"? "Blue cheese"? Where does this stupidity end?
To the tune of...M-I-K...K-I-E...M-O-W-S...
Think I'll start a music award called the Grannys...
"Kill the lawyers."
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
If they wanted to, would you take the job to deliver them?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I know that I saw this product on the grocery shelves here in the US recently. For sure it has been around for a while because I bought it for the kids when they were small. Used to come with chocolate or jelly already mixed into the peanut butter. The label had a pair of eyes on it. There was a big ad campaign on the television for a while and then it got relegated to the back shelf. I think it was by Kraft foods (but maybe not) and came out in the 70's. I think that they called it that because of the googly eyes.
Wouldn't that be prior use of the name????
He suggested that title and pointed out the strip from which the reference is drawn; I prefer Dilbert and Boondocks, myself.
It's not that C&H was *bad* -- I just thought it was awfully cloying, and I respect the artist for stopping when he obviously could have cranked it out for years ala Peanuts, Spiderman, Prince Valiant, etc.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I almost microsofted my shorts when I read that.
Usually, if I need to find out what a word means, and I don't have a dictionary handy, I'll just google for it.
Said bluprint: Else, how would someone who didn't know what the term "to google" mean, be able to find out? THAT's what dictionarys are for.
I really thought Paul McFedries response using Lexis Nexis to prove his point was a nice touch!
ôó
They might just be trying to break out of the shell as being labeled as a search company. Especially now with their purchase of Pyra and Blogger software it seems that Google is trying to do and be more than just a search engine. They weren't even originally trying to develop a search engine in the first place. So it seems that this is more like a cry like "hey stop calling me a search engine, I'm more than that". Their suit may be unjustified but it looks like they are just trying to protect their image, since becoming a household term should never be frowned upon, you can't get better advertising than that.
MoRe... LaTeR... -=PJK=-
In Australia, IIRC, you can lose your trademark if you don't actively protect it (e.g. send in the clowns).
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Introducing Spamdex, the luncheon underwear.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Will this have any effect on Wm Gibson, as his latest book Pattern Recognition, uses Google in the verb form at least 4 times?
Paul McFedries got sent a letter and posted it to the American Dialect Society list for discussion and to find out what people recommended he do. I hardly call that panicing.
/., and then everyone else started making armchair assumptions.
Someone else, presumably someone on that list, posted it to
By the time I got to the wordspy page, it referenced Google as being a trademark of google.com.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
That has got to be the stupidest fucking thing I have read all week.
Oh, I'd use Google. But that's merely because I prefer to use Google. If liked Alta Vista more (and once upon a time it was the champ), then I would've used that in response to your request, provided that it offered a service that could fulfill it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I don't know what everyone is getting upset about. This isn't a C&D letter this is standard boilerplate thats sent out to writers and publishers all the time by trademark holders. Read any issue of Writer's Digest and they take out full page ads with that say the same things. This kinda of thing has been going on for decades.
btw: does anyone actually use google as a verb, I'd feel kind of embarrassed to myself.
Google or google isn't a verb.
At least not in the English dictionary.
Xander (shocked and disgusted): Willow! She's 17!
-- "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", episode 7.04: "Help"
this just shows how effective "google" has become on the internet. dont know if they really need all this legal humbug
I did the same thing (searched for 'calvin') and was very surprised to find that there was only one thread (with only two replies) on the topic. Surely the author was thinking of Calvin. I love Calvin and Hobbes... Sigh...
I read the ADS-L Digest daily, it's pretty interesting. Anyhow, here's a post to ADS-L that I haven't seen posted here.
Subject:
FW: Google trademark concerns
From:
Frank Abate
Date:
Tue, 25 Feb 2003 06:44:02 -0500
Dear lexos and others:
Paul McFedries gives us (see below) a classic instance of what happens when
the growth of the language cuts across someone's proprietary interest.
Of course google is used as a verb. And why not? It only makes sense, it
is short, it is fun, it works. And what the Google (TM) lawyer knows, but
does not say, is that the company he represents cannot do anything about its
use as a verb, legally. They cannot sue, as one cannot claim proprietary
rights to a verb. Jesse Sheidlower recently pointed this out to me;
apparently it is an explicit part of US law re trademarks.
So the lawyer is really merely trying to get Paul McF to do something that
he need not do, but hopes he will be scared into it by having received a
letter from a corporate attorney -- enough to get anyone's attention. I'll
bet it was sent certified mail with a return receipt requested -- that
always impresses (and scares) people.
The bottom line on this is the following:
1. The English language has a verb, google. It is new, but it is in
widespread use, and this can be documented.
2. It is perfectly right and legal for dictionaries to cover this new verb,
or any new usage for that matter.
3. The company Google apparently has a trademark interest in the use of the
term "Google" (whether capital or not), but legally, by statute, can only
protect that use as anything other than a verb. So, if someone were to come
along and set up a similar service to what Google does and use the word
google on that service, then Google could sue to stop that. They could
even, conceivably, get a cease-and-desist order from a judge to stop that
use instantly, during the waiting period for a trial on the matter. This is
within their legal rights as trademark holder, assuming that they have filed
for a trademark for the exclusive use of the word commercially.
4. Paul McF -- or any lexicographer or dictionary publisher -- can and
should cover the language as they see fit. They should not feel restricted
by trademark issues, as regards whether they report on actual, documentable
usage. That sort of reporting is the same as what journalists do, and so,
in a sense, if not in actual, legal fact, is protected by the First
Amendment as a matter of free speech. Reporting on usage is not a violation
of another's commercial interests, at least not unless the circumstances are
VERY unusual.
5. The best policy to follow in cases like this, as regards how a dictionary
should handle these sorts of things, is to report on the usage and have the
evidence ready to back up what the entry says. If a term is a trademark
item or may be a trademark item, it is good practice to acknowledge this
explicitly in the entry, in a note or in the etymology. Having done that,
the entry should report on the usage.
6. Finally, it is good practice to put a general note in the front matter of
a dictionary (or equivalent place for an e-dict) saying that the mention of
"trademark" (or similar words) in any of the entries does not affect the
actual legal status of the term, but is merely an acknowledgment that the
lexicographers have found in their research that there may be a trademark
(or similar) claim with regard to certain terms in the dictionary.
In short, Usage trumps Legality, in this instance, at least.
Frank Abate
Google have no choice - if it turns into a commonly used verb then they can no longer trademark it and then any compitetor can use the name.
Gilad.
good lord man, don't do that to me this late at night! roflmao..
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Are there any other languages with this "to google" neologism? It fits to Polish like a hand to a glove. goglac - "to google", wyguglalem - "I have googled", wyguglaj to jeszcze raz, Sam - "google this once again, Sam".
How to say "I have googled" in German: Ich habe gegoogled? And in French would it be j'ai google? In Japanese, could it be something like googaro?
'Nuff said.
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
In my opinion, the American Dialect Society should ignore this mickey mouse complaint.
perhaps 'to slashdot' should be a verb to? meaning to subsume with excessive quantities of requests for information.
1 with 100 zeros after it?
therefore I would propose that 'to google' is to count very large numbers...
This guy should be careful not to upset any trademark lawyers: his name is nearly McFries.
A similar situation exists for dobro, which is a slavic (slovenian?) equivalent of "good", a type of resonator guitar, a style of playing hawaaian guitar, and a trademrk, now owned by Gibson. They appear to claim exclusive rights to the terms "Dobro" and "dobro", while ironically replacing the word "Dobro" on the headstock with "Gibson" on new models.
My vote's with Google.
Registering a trademark is done in an effort to justify the enforcement of two important points.
- Preventing competitors from misleading customers by using your brand for their product or service.
- Preventing your brand from becoming generic and therefore losing it's uniqueness.
This guy really wasn't thinking when he did this. Why on earth would Google want their name used in a manner which would allow their competitors to use the term? If everyone uses it generally to mean 'to search', that sets a precedence usable in court. If Google doesn't counter each attempt to use its name improperly, an argument can then be made that anyone can use it.
It's not a parody, and it's not freedom of speech. He's microsofting Google's brand.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Perhaps one of the most interesting words in the English language today is the word "google".
Out of all the English words that begin with the letter 'g', "google" is the only one referred to as "the g-word". It's the one magical word.
Just by it's sound it can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love.
In English "google" falls into many grammatical catagories. As a transitive verb for instance:
"John googled Shirley"
As an intransitive verb:
"Shirley googles"
It's meaning is not always searching. It can be used as an adjective, such as:
"John's doing all the googling work."
As part of an adverb:
"Shirley talks too googling much."
As an adverb enhancing an adjective:
"Shirley is googling beautiful."
AS a noun:
"I don't give a google."
As part of a verb:
"Absogooglinglutely" or "Ingooglingcredible" and as almost every word in a sentence:
"Google the googling googlers".
You must realize there aren't many words with the versatility of "google". As in these stituations describing fraud:
"I got googled at the used car lot!"
Dismay:
"Ahh.. google it!"
Trouble:
"Oh, I guess I'm really googled now."
Aggression:
"Don't google with me buddy!"
Difficulty:
"I don't understand this googling question!"
Inquiry:
"Who the google was that?"
Dissatisfaction:
"I don't like what the google is going on here!"
Incompitence:
"He's a googleoff!"
Dismissial:
"Why don't you go outside and go play hide and go google yourself!?"
I'm sure you can think of many more examples. With all these many purpose applications, how can anyone be offended when you use the word? We say, use this unique, flexible word more often in your daily speech. It will identify the quality of your character immediatly. So say it loudly and proudly: "Google you!".
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
Abate may be a good dictionary editor but he's not much of a lawyer. A trademark can be protected against use as a verb, noun, adjective, or any other part of speech.
that's life
Anyway it's every venture capitalists dream that the new business they backed becomes so synominous with that business its name becomes a verb.
IE they can't have their cake & eat it 2.
If they want success they must accept the costs of that success, one being the potential verbalisation of their trademark.
googleplex.com, a website Googleplex Media, a business
According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
google:
intr. Of the ball: to have a 'googly' break and swerve. Of the bowler; to bowl a googly or googlies; also (trans.), to give a googly break to (a ball). Hence googler, a googly bowler.
1907 Badminton Mag. Sept. 289 The googlies that do not google. 1909 Westm. Gaz. 5 July 7/4 Mr. Lockhart, having 'googled' to no purpose from the 'nursery' end. 1923 Daily Mail 9 July 11 In R. H. Bettington they have a googler who might triumph over the best of wickets. 1928 Daily Tel. 12 June 19/2 Constantine..was out to a semi-yorker, which also 'googled'. 1930 Ibid. 25 Apr. 8/5 Grimmett..can spin the ball and google it.
And...
obs. form of GOGGLE a. and v.1
I. 1. a. intr. Of persons: To turn the eyes to one side or other, to look obliquely, to squint; also to goggle with the eyes and to goggle at (a thing). In later use, to look with widely-opened, unsteady eyes; to roll the eyes about.
That one dates back to 1380.
Who decides how and why and when a word changes its meaning? The speakers of the language.
This is annoying. They can protect trademark without having to be assholes about it. If they sent a letter that stated their case and asked that the tag, "as popularized by the Google(tm) World Wide Web search engine" (or something like it) be added to avoid confusion, the sites would be in the clear and Google would come off looking (and smelling) like a champ.
I am always surprised how altruistic really-smart(tm) geeks and their projects are co-opted by the lawyers (I say take Shakespeare's advice... kidding). As a geek, in their place, I would be ashamed.
You can be a good person and extend that into successful businesses. It takes effort and a willingness to stay true to yourself. Hopefully the Google founders will catch on.
They could choose to fight some of the fights they've come across (the whole scientology and China things). Instead they take passive stabs. Annoying at best... dangerous also...
I say... stop using google for a week. Explore what else is out there. A significant drop in searches for an extended period of time might get noticed. You may even discover other search technologies out there that are more useful and more to your liking.
Use Dmoz.org as a first shot at the very least.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3907/orange_alert_sir ens.html
And how does this even work, anyway?
I mean, I'll admit that I don't have any really interesting web pages up at the moment, and I've not been a long-time participant in any huge news flamewars, but I have had at least some personal web pages up since 1994 or thereabouts. (sure, they moved as I moved schools, but so?)
So anyway, I ought to be about as google-able as your average 20-something. But you see, this google search on my name doesn't actually produce any useful information about me. It doesn't say what high school I went to, it doesn't give who I work for, etc. All it gives is hit after hit about some artist who doesn't even really share my name. Sure, I have a somewhat common name, but it's not as though my last name were "Smith".
So what do people search on in order to find out dirt about their dates? I just can't see it as producing anything useful for most people.
When you're googling for a particular sock, you always find it in the very last place you look.
Now, if you're googling for socks in general around your house, you don't stop when you find a sock. You keep going and when you've searched all possible locations, you have a list of a bunch of socks. Then you have to look in your list and find the sock that best fits your needs.
In my case, "no smell" has to be added to the search criteria in order to weed out unwanted results.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
the law is bullshit. there isn't much difference between a noun and a verb in english.
I just googled up that image and then photoshopped it up.
----------------------------
Esobofh - Currently drinking fresh mango juice.
Since "almost every single page that does have the term also has a link to my site", I'd say you have nothing to worry about.
Google isn't perfect (no one is), and it's trying to stave off attacks by those who wish to abuse its system and profit from it. If someone is looking for "autopr0n", then they already know about your site, and if so, the myriad of links on the other listed pages point back to you.
Seems that they're being rather harsh with the penalties for apparent google-bombing, but... hey, I'm not the boss there.
It also could be because autopr0n is broken...
This is also why McDonalds threatens any one who calls their restaurant McX.
Ever been to Scotland or N. Ireland? Every restaurant is either O'X or McX.
Fact is, in the US, any restaurant owner whose name is actually McDonald can call their establishment "McDonald's" with impunity. In a few towns in Texas, some restaurants had "McDonald" in their name before the chain tried to move into town. They successfully forced the franchises to use a different name-- they chose "Golden Arches" until the 1980s, when they switched to "Mickey D's."
Where's William Wallace when you need him?
Be careful. Amazon could shut this whole operation down with their new patent...
It's a VERB!!!! Bush would be SO PROUD!
Could anybody really use the name Xerox like that just because of people call a device by the company name? That seems wrong. How can this be legal? Can anyone reassure me or prove it?
the word's been a verb since at least 1907, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. just making a comeback:
google, v. (cricket) intr. Of the ball: to have a 'googly' break and swerve. Of the bowler; to bowl a googly or googlies; also (trans.), to give a googly break to (a ball). Hence googler, a googly bowler.
also, google: obs form of google, v. I. 1. a. intr. Of persons: To turn the eyes to one side or other, to look obliquely, to squint; also to goggle with the eyes and to goggle at (a thing). In later use, to look with widely-opened, unsteady eyes; to roll the eyes about.
b. Of the eyes: To turn to one side, to squint. In modern use, to project from the head and move unsteadily, to roll.
2. trans. To turn (one's eye) to one side, or (in modern use) from side to side with an unsteady motion. Also with about.
II. 3. intr. To sway or roll about; move loosely and unsteadily. Also to goggle with the head, to shake or wag the head. Obs. exc. dial.
4. trans. To cause to shake. fig.
it's all moot, anyway. newbies google, pros use any of a number of metasearch engines.
When I worked in web-dev software, I turned into such a webhead that I'd regularly (sometimes accidentally) use netspeak in everyday language. I even didn't realize I was doing it until the Co went belly-up and I returned to college, where I frequently got "huh?" in return. I think 'googled' got the most weird looks out of any of them; "you did *what* to him?!" HEH ;)
-=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
Any cricket-playing slashdotters out there know of this term? Sounds like "to google" is already a verb, but nothing to do with searching.
MMMMMM GOOGLE....
Some words are bound to become household words. When you want to copy something you "xerox" it. When you need to blow your nose you use a "kleenex". And now when you want to search for something on the internet you "google" for it.
English changes with usage. Despite what Google's lawyers might want or think, people will use the word in whatever way they wish.
Google may own the trademark on the term Google when it comes to their intellectual property and their company, but they CANNOT stop the use of the word in other contexts *particulary* when it involves how people use the word "google". This is exacerbated by the fact that the word has been in the English parlance since 1938 (although spelled slightly differently):
googol
The number represented in base-ten by a
one with a hundred zeroes after it.
According to Webster's Dictionary, the name
was coined in 1938 by Milton Sirotta, the
nine-year-old nephew of American
mathematician, Edward Kasner.
Besides, doesn't this effectively help Google by giving them lots and lots of word of mouth advertising??
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep