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
I'm going to go and google myself until this blows over. Don't worry, I won't google on the carpet.
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
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
.. 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..
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
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
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
Looks like Google is Amazoning WordSpy.
*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.
If he does remove it from his web site, will it still be available via the Google cache?
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.
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.
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").
"
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?
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
"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 :-)
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.
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?
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.
A guest on Conan also said he would "google" for something. And Conan didn't act like he was surprised by the word or anything. It is clearly well a part of our language if late shows use it casually.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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
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
Of course, 'noone' isn't part of the American language... :-) j/k
... and on Buffy. More than once I've heard Willow say something about "googling for [insert mystic sounding stuff here]".
No, but they have to at least be seen as trying to protect against the dilution of their trademark.
Wouldn't Google want this sort of publicity? Become a common-place-word?
If "Google" becomes the common word that means "to search on a search engine", then everybody can and will set up "google engines". That can confuse people, and allow competitors to ride on the marketing and popularity of Google. I remember an advertisement from Xerox that pleaded for people to use "photocopy" instead of "xerox", for the same reason.
Worse, when it stops being a trademark, the company loses control over the meaning of the word. Over time, "microsoft" can become "mean and ugly", and the original trademark holder will have to suffer the connotation or change names.
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
Maybe we should all UPS them a letter of complaint. I'll just run down and xerox off a few hundred copies, duck tape them in manilla envelopes, and we can let them know how postal we feel about this. After all, verbizing is the band-aid we use to keep our language bounty fresh.
Anyone else think of any?
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
actually, the c&d letter alternatively asked him to note that "Google" is a of Google Technology Inc. Which is what he appears to have done.
Naturally, the submitter above chose to ignore that and focus on the "please remove" part of the letter.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
William Gibson's new book, "Pattern Recognition", uses google as a verb quite extensively.
Gotta go now, gotta get a klenex.
C8H10N4O2 | Developer > Code
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
Sorry, no - the noun is googol.
"Google" comes from a pun on googol and a contraction of "Go ogle".
-T
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.
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".
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!
or 'billyware' which means: Expensive, crappy software that crashes unexpectedly...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Did Word Spy get slashdotted over google?
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
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...
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.
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.
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
I thought that was patents that you had to defend?
/me ducks :o)
No, that's copyrights!
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
Ironically, according to what I've read in the retail industry, one of the best things that can happen to your brand is that it become colloquially accepted as the overall term for a group of products.
;P
ie:
a "coke" instead of a carbonated beverage
a "thermos" rather than a... err a thermal flask?
a "kleenex" instead of a paper tissue
On the otherhand... according to this the quickest way to lose your copyright is to have your brand perceived as a generic term.
By the way, I found the above article by googli^U^U^U using the search engine Google®.
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
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.
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:
My daughter said she was googling for her other sock,
yesterday. I think it's coming to mean much more
than just searching online. More like, searching
every possible location. A comprehensive search.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
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?
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.
So let me get this right, if I'm googling, I'm bogarting a verb, and the lawyers will ralph-bunche me to death???
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.
--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
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?
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.