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!
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
.. 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..
They kind of have to try, actually. Trademarks can only be held if you actively defend them - if Google didn't take *some* kind of action to protect it's trademark, they could lose it!
That said, it really sucks that it had to happen - I wonder if Google has to actually sue this guy in order to satisfy the defense clause for trademarks... I would hope not.
The Free desktop that Just Works
*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.
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.
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.
Well, given that Google is an invented word, Google can are quite within their rights to claim common-law trademark rights to it - just like Coke, Kodak etc. (in fact looking at their homepage they seem to have filed for a trade mark for the word).
The reason why they don't want it genericised is that once that happens, they lose any proprietary rights in the word "Google" and any other party can use it at will. So, it's not really surprising at all that they are trying to prevent someone adopting it in a lexicon.
The same thing happened with Rollerblades, Thermos, Hoover etc etc.
The perils of a too popular Trade Mark! It may be free marketing, but they lose any rights to the name if/once it is 'adopted' into the language.
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?
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!
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.
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.
Which, IMO (and others already voiced) is incorrect. To google, or googling specifically implies using google.com to search...not just any search engine. I don't know how the definition was listed beforehand, but the current definition includes
which is closer to the truth.
The C&D letter then points out that
which is perfectly reasonable, considering that it was their name and search engine that is being used as part of popular slang.
And then, they even give wordspy.com an easy out:
which seems reasonable to me, once again. Why not honor the search engine that has become a daily part of life for millions of users? It does no harm to the usage or definition of the verb, and is actually more accurate.
All in all, I wouldn't even call this a C&D letter. More like a, "Hey! Show us some respect" letter.
Isn't this similar to the very common vacuum manufacturer "Hoover". Everyone I know says they will "hoover the carpet" e.g. "I'll google for it".
Again, it is similar to Xerox being used when photocopy was meant. I'm not sure if "making a xerox" is used so much nowadays thanks to the proliferation of photocopy machines but it certainly was common.
Having said that my old copy of bookshelf has TM next to the term. Same for Xerox.
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
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?