Slashdot Mirror
ACS Sues Google Over Use of 'Scholar'
headisdead writes "John Batelle is noting that 'The American Chemical Society yesterday filed
a complaint against Google, claiming the new
Google Scholar infringes on its own
product, called SciFinder Scholar.' Fairly typical subscription vs. free dispute, but with intellectual property issues thrown in for good measure."
Step 1: Copywrite the dictionary
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
The name is fairly obvious for a product such as this, but not that obvious. I'm surprised Google allowed such a clash of names to occur, especially with such related products. I imagine it'll get settled out of court.
apterous.org
Next, Coca-Cola will sue Pepsi Cola over the use of the word Cola.
although i highly doubt they will win their side of the dispute, seems like a great publicity stunt for them and their pay-to-use service ;) plus, their service is only a subset of google's service, so really it is just a clash of appropriate titles. can't google just scratch the name "google scholar"?
The same could be said of a well-known operating system, of course...
Dang I just need to get my profs to approve me using this for papers and I'm set!
True true. Another example -- I can't believe that McDonalds have trademarked the phrase "I'm lovin' it" (plus a dozen over translations of the phrase in other languages)... that is just so wrong.
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
scholspire
Google Scholar gets the message out though, as Google Scholars allows you to find articles. With Scholarships, and scholars, its an apropriate name, and I can't see them winning against Google.
The article indicates the basis of the suit is that Google Scholar infringe upon SciFinder Scholar trademark. Granted that Google Scholar appears to do more or less what SciFinder Scholar do (minus the fee.)
But I doubt anyone would confuse the word Google and SciFinder. If their entire suit hinge on the word Scholar, I think ACS is facing an uphill battle.
The real problem here is that you can trademark a word in common use, like "scholar". Since the ACS did exactly that, roughly 6 years ago, they have no choice but to go after Google (or else have their own trademark claims painfully diluted, or maybe just nullified).
I don't much like what's happening here, but if I were Google, I'd be strongly considering just changing the name of my service. (IANAL, but it really looks like Google will have an uphill battle here.)
Kai MacTane: Web developer for hire in San Francisco
Doesn't this also seem like nothing more than a poor excuse for advertising the Google Scholar beta?
"Google Scholar" isn't even a very good name. Hardly worth fighting over.
...but that SciFinder thing sounds more like a search engine for Star Trek episodes.
You don't think the dictionary is copyrighted? There are many different versions by many different companies in many different languages and I bet you each one is copyrighted.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
So does this mean that only chemists can call themselves scholars? Damn, I guess I HAVE been wasting my life...
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
The only thing they do when companies make a big stink about stupid shit like this is make themselves look bad.
"OOooh you used SCHOLAR, I'm gonna SUE YOU!"
Fuck off.
Just like Microsoft getting pissed at MikeRoweSoft. They really made an ass out of themselves.
We REALLY need to start adding some common sense into IP laws. They don't own the word scholar, they most certainly don't own the word "scholar" in conjunction with a search engine.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Give it back you word thief!
Whenever I see a story like this I feel this unquenchable compulsion to imagine the most absurd extension of the legal quarrel.
So, to that end, I've trademarked the intake of breath that one makes before speaking, and therefore all verbal communication is in violation that contains such a sound.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
From the ACS lawyer: ..."But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action--to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace."
Sounds like this lawyer is spouting his basic litigation script and is getting ready to go to trial.
These guys have been doing this stuff for six years and I'm sure almost nobody here has heard of them. I doubt seriously there will be any "confusion" in the marketplace or "loss of goodwill".
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Er, "Windows"??? We've been all over this before with Lindows. Google should have known better.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Nothing to see here, folks. It's just the name of Google's service that the ACS is complaining about, not the functionality or content.
CAS (a division of the ACS - go figure) sells their SciFinder Scholar product, so they're just protecting their money maker.
Perhaps Google should have searched for "scholar" before they decided to name their new progeny? It is the 8th result in the search, after all.
A subscription to one of their journals is OUTRAGEOUS. Our library has over 50 grand a year set aside for ACS journals. A chemist friend joked with me saying that some of the titles never even get read while in the periodical room.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Please remove the "mail" part of the product name "Gmail", as it infringes on half of our product's name. Thanks, The Hotmail Staff
"I've gotta ask you about 'the Penis Mightier'"
Registered Linux User #398602
Scientific citations are big business with players deep in the trenches. Thomsonisi sells the citation indexes, I believe (and endnote). ACS controls vast citation and manuscript papers. I hope Google is able to open up the field a bit, but it is going to take some court battles, I'm sure.
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
You can do anything to any/everybody just as long as the alternatives are made less palatable tham what you offer.
The use of language as a medium of inter personal communication is at the heart of this trade mark crap. Its not going to dissapear until we learn to do without language when creating trademarks.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
No, it doesn't.
Google sues SciFinder for using the term Search in their web pages.
teh google has stoleded my wordz0rz!11
As a daily user of scifinder, i must say that it sucks. It's search results are not only incomplete, they are MISLEADING. The only good thing about it is it's user interface, and that does not matter much to a researcher for whom this product is aimed for.
We need something better than scifinder. something that is as accurate as beilstein but as easy to use as scifinder.
my $ 0.02.
We use SciFinder. We use SciFinder Scholar. I don't know one person who would confuse SciFinder Scholar wtih Google Scholar. I think the ACS is full of it.
I can't believe that McDonalds have trademarked the phrase "I'm lovin' it" (plus a dozen over translations of the phrase in other languages)... that is just so wrong.
It sounds stupid and trivial, but remember the frame of reference for trademarks. If I start my own fast food restaurant chain and use "I'm lovin' it" as a slogan, I think it is fair for McDonald's to sue me (and win) for trademark infringement. My use of the slogan would easily cause confusion with customers. Maybe they think my restaurant is sanctioned or supported by McDonald's when it is not.
If I started an amusement park and used that slogan, McDonald's would have a tough time getting me to stop unless I was also infringing other trademarks (e.g. the entrance to the park was a pair of golden arches).
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Or Quaker Oats "Do the right thing". Not original in any sense of the word - maybe they can duke it out with Nike "Just do it" (similar-sounding), and Jesus "Do unto others" (similar core idea).
No wonder the least popular people are marketroids and human resources.
Why doesn't Google just change the name of the service and get it all over with?
How about Google Sch0l4r?
Dear ACS,
Shame on you and your lawsuit against Google!
I know your type -- you've found a nice little money-maker with SciFinder, and you don't want to lose it, even at the expense of stifling the free and unencumbered flow of scientific information.
I think you should know, you'll anger many of your intended 'grassroots' with this move, which is, in my opinion, unethical.
I'm a chemist, and I sincerely hope that the ACS either mends its ways, or is squarely put in its place by Google and tide of changing times!
Sincerely,
David Hart
Google can just change the name with little pain and avoid legal fees. While the word scholar is generic, the ACS has trademarked it within a suite of products to search scientific literature. "Google Scholar" has the same function and might be confused as an ACS product - at least by an idiot lawyer. Certainly if you have a product that does something other than search scientific literature you can call it "Blowup Betty Scholar" - or whatever - and the ACS won't bother you.
But what's the big deal with Google changing the name to something else? Using the term Scholar certianly won't make or break the service for Google.
BTW, this definitely is not a pay vs. free issue as it states in the description - ACS says that Google can have it's literature search service - it just shouldn't call it Google Scholar.
Note that Google will need to do much better than the current beta product they're testing. Currently it's worthless without sophisticated booleans to smartly narrow the searches - or is there a way to do this that I didn't see when I played around with it?
Since I own the words "a" and "the", you all owe me an asanine amount of money. Woohoo, now I don't have to write my finals! :-)
almost positive they already had a court case on that
Several months ago there was a mini-scientific scandal when it was discovered that the former director of the American Chemical Society had been making $750,000/year and had a private chauffeur and limo, paid of course from ACS funds, which a large part derive from journal subscription fees and fees for things like like their 'scholar' service. If free services Google can take over the citation business from ACS and ISI, and the Public Library of Science can take over journal publishing, then I won't weep too much when these "professional societies" curl up and die, or at least shrink to more useful proportions.
What really gets me is Volkswagen's attempt to hog the words "Driver's Wanted"
They can keep it. The rest of us will just not stick in a random apostrophe and will use the more proper phrase "Drivers Wanted".
And the oh! so desirable side-effect of going a long way towards mainstreaming geekdom - maybe more slashdot readers will get lucky then.
Get in touch with your inner geek.
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
"The ACS complaint contends that Google's use of the word scholar infringes on ACS's SciFinder Scholar and Scholar trademarks and constitutes unfair competition."
ACS has SciFinder Scholar AND Scholar trademarks.
Google's trademark is Google Scholar.
Aren't those different trademarks? Can they actually argue that the source of Scholar and Google Scholar service be confused? Is there a full text of ACS' complaint available?
Very interesting indeed.
Looks like a souped up Avara game to me.
Link: http://www.ambrosiasw.com/games/avara/
As a scientist, I think that this is a really cool. I have been wondering how long it would take Google to come out witih something like this. The current searching provided by the NCBI via PubMed is woefully inadequate. Scholar not only finds the relevant papers, it also tells you how many citations each has, which is very important when deciding the impact of a paper.
However, Scholar does highlight the problem with much of the Scientific literature. If you do a search, and find a paper of interest, you will be directed to that journals website, where you will need to pay for access. Big universities pay several million dollars annually for the right to have onlince subscriptions. Which is really dumb, since the content comes from those Universites in the first place! So, check out Public Library of Science if you want a free alternitave
What is the next thing Google should do here? Index the data, so if I want to find the picture of a gel that supports some theory, I can. That would be really nifty.
... will have to pay royalties on their scholarships if ACS wins?!
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
ACS are doing this purely for the publicity.
Everyone has heard of Google, we use the word Google every day.. If someone were to say ACS won a law suit against Google, you'd think ACS must be pretty big in order to have a valid claim against Google. OTOH you may think ACS are pretty small for Google not to have heard of them.
Why UNIX?
We are the keepers of the sacred words: "Scholar", "Peng" and "Neeeeewom"
Next, Coca-Cola will sue Pepsi Cola over the use of the word Cola.
They can't. They already did, and settled. Previous to that suit Coca-Cola made dozens of competing products either change their name or put them out of business.
KFG
VW took a sex shop to court over their use of the phrase "Lovers Wanted". Claimed that it was trading on their trademark phrase, which was pure BS. A "slap-suit", nothing more.
Maybe I'll use the phrase "Lovers Wanted" in any porn site I set up - add a whole new twist to the idea of "pimping my site" :-)
No, it's not. Increasingly, high quality journals and research articles are kept hidden away from the general public by restrictive copyrights, exhorbinant fees, and other such crap. Unless you're a grad student or researcher at a company, it's very difficult to get your hands on articles printed in journals that require transfer of the copyright. The scientific knowledge is then closed off and the field is NOT open.
Open to all? Not with this kind of system.
Humorless sig goes here.
Sounds like they're claiming the tort of "passing off". This requires:
(a) Some goodwill/reputation in the plaintiff's product
(b) Some sort of misrepresentation on the part of defendant that could deceive customers
(c) That because of this misrepresentation the goodwill/reputation of plaintiff's product will be harmed
For example, there's a Canadian case refereed to as "Andres Wines" where French wine producers went after Canadian wine producers for the use of the term "Canadian Champagne". Based on this case, assuming that there is some goodwill in the ACS name, it helps them that they filed this claim not that long after Google started their service. Part of the reason why the French wine producers lost is because they did not take action early on and "Canadian Champagne" developed a reputation of its own (for better or for worse).
Mind you, I only have 4 months of law school to back these guesses up. And since we haven't dealt with trademarks as such yet, there could be a whole piece of the puzzle that I'm missing. Which reminds me. I should go back to studying for those December exams!
I see the high level of your point but "Where's the beef?".
Dear American Chemical Society:
This letter is an instruction to cease and desist immediately in the following activities: 1st, your use of the word society. We at the Language Nazi Society have copyrighted the use of the term "Society" and will not tolerate the dillution of our trademarks by your use of this term. 2nd, your use of the term Chemical. As we have trademarked the entire dictionary, any other words you use can only be interpreted as an infringement on our rights. 3rd, the practice of writing letters as this also infringes on our dictionary tradmarks...
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
This has, impressively enough, quite a bit less merit than Microsoft's case against Lindows. For starters, both SciFinder and Google Scholar have logos that minimize "Scholar" relative to the rest of the sites' names (See SciFinder and Google logos).
So not only is this a common word, with many obvious uses, but it is not even the major part of the product name like, say, Microsoft Windows, whose logo is at least dominated by Windows.
--joedoe
from now on, every utterance or post containing the word fuck is violating my intellectual property and a whole lot of fuckwads, fuckheads, fuckups, and fuckturds owe me a fuck of a lot of money.
Maybe I can also copyright the, is and a.
ACS should just fuck themselves -- and I can use that word because I do own it.
Great, a bunch of asshole greedmonger wannabe chemists ruining it for the real academics in the world. Thanks ACS...and FUCK YOU.
"Aha! Google Scholar is free. SciFinder is paid. If Google Scholar wins out, SciFinder loses. They can't sue Google for making information free, but they can sue for trademark. Good luck, ACS. I think you're going to need it."
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
It sounds stupid and trivial, but remember the frame of reference for trademarks. If I start my own fast food restaurant chain and use "I'm lovin' it" as a slogan, I think it is fair for McDonald's to sue me (and win) for trademark infringement. My use of the slogan would easily cause confusion with customers. Maybe they think my restaurant is sanctioned or supported by McDonald's when it is not.
If I started an amusement park and used that slogan, McDonald's would have a tough time getting me to stop unless I was also infringing other trademarks (e.g. the entrance to the park was a pair of golden arches).
They would be unlikely to succeed, but if they so wished, they could give you a very tough time defending against such a claim, for the simple reason that they have more money and lawyers than you do. This is the real problem: it's not just a matter of who would ultimately win such a suit, but how long it would take and how much it would cost. Large corporations know this, and they know that they don't have to actually win a lawsuit in order to put their victim out of business.
Seems to me that, in some cases at least, only "limited" copyrights should be granted. For example, McDonald's could be granted a copyright on the phrase "I'm Lovin' It" as it is used for a fast-food restaurant (or even any restaurant). That would be reasonable, for the reasons you describe. OTOH, such a copyright would not apply to someone who opens an amusement park, or a publishing company, because no reasonable person could confuse those businesses with McDonald's. This, I think, would reduce the number of frivolous, "war of attrition" lawsuits filed by corporations with deep pockets.
I thought you couldn't trademark common words (e.g. "Windows"). Microsoft needed many attempts and lots of money, and it's still basically "Microsoft Windows", "Microsoft Word", and let's not mention "Excel", which they didn't seem to trademark at all until it was a little late.
So how do these people claim to own "Scholar"?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Something scientific and peer-reviewed.
Something solid and respected.
Something true and verified.
Something, dare I say it: Scholarly
How about: "ufo unidentified"
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sorry, WE had it first.
Cheers, Royal Mail, UK
People! This is a trademark, not a copyright! The two are different! (And patents are different too.) The three are often confused, but all three are different, with different rules and laws applying to each one. Stop confusing them!
(And ironically, trademarks do sort of work the way that you're saying copyrights should work.)
Copyright - covers a literary work, and prevents somebody from making a copy of it. Lasts a long time now -- at least 70 years. Books, movies, software are copyrighted
Trademark - covers a word or a small phrase, perhaps a symbol or shape or even a color, but only in a specific industry. Trademarks do not automatically expire, but they can be abandoned or become ubitquous, and therefore thrown out. `I'm loving it' is a trademark. (`Kleenex' is another, but one that's in danger of becoming ubitquous, if it hasn't already.)
Note that trademarks are valid only in a specific industry. So we can have Apple Computer and Apple Dodge, for example -- both have trademarks, but only in their industry. However, it's pretty common nowadays to register many different trademarks, one for every industry that you might *possibly* use that trademark in. I imagine that `I'm loving it' has been so registered in every industry that you've ever heard of, and a few that you haven't.
Patents -- cover a method for doing something. Last 17 years, but through some legal games you can delay their being granted for a long time. One example of a patent is the one that covers playing with a cat with a laser pointer. Or the one on LZH compression.
And of course, a specific item or group of items may be protected by more than one. For example, for the newest fighter airplane, the plans are probably copyrighted, the shape trademarked, and whatever spiffy new airfoil they use is probably patented.
And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn a few years ago. And I can read (and have read) many of the web pages on these topics out there.
And in case it's not obvious, I'm talking about the US here. Other countries may be different.
As a user of SciFinder Scholar I really don't think that ACS should be trying to draw a comparison between their product and google's scholar.
SciFinder is terrible. The UI is non-consistent with the standard windows suite, cf to google's wonderful UI. SciFinder is also ugly as a dog (a pug at that).
It's slow as a dog, cf to google's speed.
Tell it to save to results and all you get is unprintable ascii characters.
Performing a search is painful task with poor boolean support.
On the whole scifinder is poor product that I hope is supersceded with google's scholar.
--
A Commentary on 'The Hare and the Tortise' In reality the hare would have beaten the pants off the tortise in a race, rarely does slow and steady win the race. Instead it is the fast hare capable of the leaps and bounds of modern thinking that will win the race. This fable is told to encourage fat stupid children.
Perhaps it's worthwhile to remember that the ACS is a non-profit association of professional chemists that exists solely for the benefits of its membership. I'm sure that they would not have undertaken this matter lightly, but evidently did feel that Google would infringe their intellectual property. These scientific societies have large publishing interests to protect, and some on this board might feel that their motive is to stifle competition, which is really non-sensical since the ACS is a non-profit while Google is a for-profit corporation.
Yes, they do have a publishing interest to protect. But compared to commercial scientific publishers, their subscription fees to members are typically a small percentage (say 10%) of what the commercial publishers charge. Their journals, judged by the science scitation indices, are of much higher scientific quality than the commercial ones which, after all are there primarily to make a profit.
There was a recently settled court case in England in which a well-kown commerical scientific publisher sued one of the scientific societies for slander when they used the science scitation index results in their advertising.
The scientific societies are under intense pressure to keep their costs down to members while still providing quality publication services at low cost. I get several society publications, but can't afford even one subscription to a commercial journal since I'm self-employed and therefore don't have a simultaneous institutional subscription which would qualify for special rates.
The ACS is a conservative (in the business sense) society, and I'm sure they would not lightly sue Google unless they fealt a real threat to their intellectual rights. They are no SCO, and they deserve better than to be portrayed as such.
disclaimer: member,
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
Scholastic, Inc. sued my former employer over using the word scholastic in a product. They claimed in court that they owned all uses of that word for all purposes. Period. The lawsuit put my former employer out of business and about 100 employees out of work. The judge believed every single BS lie from those guys. We simply said our product would help a child's scholastic achivement. For that, we're all out of work.
If you have more questions about this type of abuse, call Alice L. Fradin of Frankfurt, Kurnit, Lein & Selz of NY, NY at 212-343-6560. She was the thug that handled the case against us.
I wish people would get over this notion that something like this is a "subscription vs. free", implying that Google is doing charitable work. Whether their service is advertising supported or a loss leader, they are maximizing return on investment for their stock holders. Google Scholar may be "free", just like your Yellow Pages may be free, but it's still a product. And Google will go aggressively after people who may be violating their trademarks.
However, in this particular case, I think the dispute is silly just because of the names: "SciFinder Scholar" and "Google Scholar" are not confusingly similar.
I'm a dues paying ACS member, have been for 10 years. I have never once used Scifinder scholar, I have found the ACS literature searching to "suck" and I avoid using their site. "pubmed" is much better.
The main problem with any of these is that you can find abstracts, but generally have to pay $25 dollars for the PDF. What bugs me about that is much of the research is publically funded, why should the general public have to pay for the paper when we funded the research?
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
They don't even have an OSX native version of their shitty SciFinder scholar software, and they just released a toolbar for the first time in the last couple months.
Typical king of the hill knocked down due to their own laziness. fuck'em.
You need to think a bit more outside your narrow discipline.
[Posting as AC as I don't want a discussion - see other replies]
I have been a user of Scifinder Scholar 2003-2004 for the past 3 years. It works pretty well for chemical structure and keyword searching for my chemical research. Our institution only has 5 user licenses, so for a large research institution it is a pain to keep logging off to share resources and is not conducive to my research needs. This is where "web of science" (another really good subscription literature search site) and Google Scholar come in to the equation. At our university the leased ip address information grants full text permissions to all e-journals in the schools subscription list. So, the job of finding relevant literature abstracts has been greatly simplified with the new Google site. I commend the researchers at Google for creating this outstanding product. I hope it helps to release the stranglehold imposed by the major scientific journal publishers on the advancement of an open access journal publication system.
1) Have slow unpredictable search tool that has sold in the measly 1000s over 6 years. (166 copies per year)
2) Fire staff of magazine due to slow advertising sales.
3) Give prefered treatment to companies that advertise in the employment issue.
4) Pay the president upwards of 600k.
5) Sue Google.
6) post on slashdot...whoops
The sad thing is that this association is supposted to support chemists. The stupidity of this move is mind blowing.
...and they know that they don't have to actually win a lawsuit in order to put their victim out of business...
However, there are some lawyers who will look at a case and if they think they can win easily, take it to help the little guy and themseves because they'll get the attorney's fees from the big company.
All theory is gray
This part of the article, which is quoted in the summary, doesn't really make any sense. You can't infringe on a product. In fact, you can't really infringe on a patent or trademark either, you infringe on the rights granted by those documents. But, it is definitely not correct to claim that something infringes on a product. I can't access the complaint because the server is "down for upgrades" but from other posts it sounds as though there may be a trademark issue because Google's name is so close. However, this may just require Google to change the name of a product that is in the Beta phase...no big deal.
If, however, the ACS has a patent on a search engine avaiable on the internet wherein a list of words matching a user's partially typed words are provided to facilitate a user entering a query in the search engine, there may be an issue.
I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that a product doesn't infringe on another product in any way. If you go out and make product A and don't get a patent, I have an almost unlimitted right to start making and selling product A as well.
...it's sad...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Reminds me of how Microsoft sued Lindows because their name sounds too much like Windows.
Scott Simontis
The US (and many other governments) paid for:
A. most of the people to write the papers
B. most of the equipment used in the research
C. grants at the universities and some companies to do the research
D. just about anything else to do with the published articles
So, why does anyone, like the ACS, think they have exclusive rights to any of the information?
Also, when did the US Government get the right to give the rights to the word "scholar" or any other word in the English language. I would think that the UK would have rights to common word use. After all, English is a UK invention.
No way. I'm a chemist, a member of ACS, I've used scifinder scholar, and I've used google scholar. They're not the same thing, they shouldn't be confused, and furthermore google scholar doesn't provide fulltext access to ACS journals. So there is no effect upon subscriptions. Nor is there any real competition - the products don't even really serve the same purpose. If anyone should be scared of google scholar, it's ISI, makers of Web of Science/Knowldedge, the worst search of all time.
The ACS is just being childish, and as a member, I'm embarassed.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"they could give you a very tough time defending against such a claim, for the simple reason that they have more money and lawyers than you do" Applying this logic to the actual topic on hand, I don't think anyone has to worry for Google.
With the number of businesses, companies and individuals creating new products these days, and our current laws towards what exactly constitutes property, there are bound to be be disputes like these.
First, they aren't going for the same business or market as you have stated in your post. ACS provides a specialized service to a specific part of the scientific and academic community.
Google is providing a specialized search of their own content, which in no way can substitute for the specialized service which ACS provides.
This has gotten out of hand. Apparently we have forgotten what these laws and rules were created to do. I've never heard of ACS. It's unlikely that I ever would have if this had not happened. On the other hand, if I did know who ACS was, it's unlikely that I would mistake Google for ACS or think that their service was tied to ACS in anyway. CASE CLOSED.
It's ACS's right to challenge Google, but I hope they fall flat on their noses and lose. In my opinion Google looks like a big fat cash cow, everyone is going to be taking shots at the company.
"identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others."
I don't believe there is any need to distinguish between CAS-Scholar and Google-Scholar. I seriously doubt that ACS will be losing any business to Google, or that their trademark will be dilluted as a result.
Note: Their website says CAS, not ACS. I don't know why you, who claims to know something about CAS, would call them ACS. wtf?
Look at SCO and you WILL CBS!
I lived in Germany for two years and I always saw the Chevron tiger at gas stations and wondered why I never had seen such a thing in the USA where I grew up. I never looked into it, but now I know.
Let's play video games with mailmanZERO
Telstra in Australia - semi private corp built out of public/gov body has done just this.. and put other publishers out of business as they just can't sustain the high legal costs.
I believe the legal argument was based on "copyright" and they put "copyright" on every page which are just plain lists of names and numbers.
I don't believe anywhere has this been achieved?
Of course with the competition now eliminated the next step is to market your directories to your "exclusive" market.
*of course* they have been very slow to do anything much with it in 12 months since court win so perhaps with no competition they don't have much reason to?
Our gov likes to call this the "clever country" bu realistically (most) of our political leaders are one extreme or another - either "no idea" of stupid waste on "incubators" and such.
Alex.
I've used SciFinder too- several versions over the years, in fact... It's got a lot of issues that, sadly, have yet to be resolved.
In particular, I've often found that searching for a named chemical reaction by reactants and products (or only one) gives very different results than searching for the rxn name...
Likewise, the "subject" search can't find the same references for a molecule name as the "molecule" search can (...and that finds different results depending on the variant of the name or CAS identifier used....!!!), and for even MORE different results, just input the structure of the molecule you want. You need four separate approaches to find the same thing!!
Further, most schools only have the right to use a couple copies of the program at a time- my undergrad institution of >30k students and 30 chem faculty students had 5 licenses, and every semester, a major OChem assignment using SciFinder came due... the same week as several grant proposals!
On the OTHER hand, though... Google scholar can't yet refine by articles available online, it can't figure out which journals your institution has access to (and thus recommend the best way to get the article linked to), and can't search within results (the only refinement I've yet found is the "author:" keyword- not even searching by date or language!). It's got a lot of potential, and while I hope one day to see SciFinder either killed by something better or fixed so as to be unrecognizable, Google sadly has a long way to go to catch up. In particular, I imagine that making it really useful to all the people in each specific field would be a real challenge, since fields like chemistry have a pretty wide range of specialized needs.
Organic chemist and long-time /. lurker here.
It's interesting to see people here ganging up on the ACS. Among academic and industrial chemists they aren't seen as some kind of evil organization. Their main activities are publishing journals, organizing meetings, and maintaining things like the Chemical Abstracts database that SciFinder searches. Their journals are high-quality and very reasonably priced compared to for-profit scientific publishers like Elsevier.
SciFinder's main value lies in chemical structure searching. Complex molecules are way easier to draw than to name, and though SciFinder may have a clumsy UI, I can use it to draw an arbitrary organic structure, complete with wildcards, and have it search the literature (including patents) as far back as the 1880s for references to it. Google Scholar has nothing close to this capability.
It's great that Google is implementing this kind of free search function but no-one should get the idea that Google Scholar is in any way a SciFinder killer (yet).
Just my $0.02.
>>on merits, or evolve their product, is
>>pretty much admitting that they're behind
>>the tech curve by doing a slap suit.
Yup - when you can't compete, sue.
This ticks me off so much because it's completely without merit. No company has the right to profit or the right to their market. If I want to give something away that someone else pays for (assuming I have the rights) then boo-fucking-hoo. I'm not arguing for price-dumping, which is how the big boys run the little guy out of business.
What irritates me is that XYZ process becomes unprofitable because of a technological shift or competition or whatever and XYZ company decides that it's going to have its existence legislatively mandated, tax its customers (blank CD 'royalty'), and/or that it's going to crapshoot by suing competitor ABC for bullcrap reasons.
Screw the ACS.
Why is a chemist studying time travel?
Copyright - covers a literary work,
False. Photographs, music, and movies are non-literary, but absolutely copyrightable.
Note that trademarks are valid only in a specific industry.
Sometimes true, but not always.
As far as I can tell, the ACS is not too dissimilar from the ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) online journal database. You have to be a paid member of ASME to access it and I believe some of the full-texts have an additional fee. This has been around for years, but no complaints that I know of. For that matter, my school's library has subsciptions to several online journal databases. Not only would it be silly to press forward with this suit, but based on precedence this doesn't even seem like a fatal threat to ACS's database, unless they are totally inept and can't find anything to provide that the author doesn't want freely published.
Now all of us ChemEs who keep track of Google are aware of the SciFinder product. And you didn't even need to win the suit to do it! I salute you, you clever bastards!
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Americans have modified the language from UK english at least as much as the UK modified it from latin and old english. Probably more, given expansions in technical vocabulary since the 1800s and our predilection for turning slang and acronyms into common-use words. In fact, a bunch of our slang has been adopted by the Europeans in their futile quest to understand what the hell we're talking about.
Also, the ACS is a private organization that makes money by distributing information, so they owe us and our governments nothing beyond what is set out in law.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
So, for it to be a trade mark, there has to be the possibility of confusion. If they this that their members, the leading chemists in America, are going to be confused by the similarlty between 'ACS' and 'Google' then perhaps they are saying that the rest of the world should be wary of the products of the American chemical industry?
that McD's acn reasonably take you to court and because of tenuous reasonableness can extend the case beyond where you can afford to fight.
Anyone remember Intel vs the Geologiacl Survey company called "Gentium"? That was a TM issue, but the only similarity between Gentium and pentium is that various bits of earth were used in its construction.
Genium changed their name rather than fight.
Google and PubMed do not come close to the usability of this tool except in price point.
I look forward to serving my new money-bloated overlords
I make my face look like this and concerned words come out.
Some years back, my old company unveiled a LAN simulator they called SimNet. Shortly thereafter they got a nice lawyerly letter from SimNet Inc, saying the name was a trademark violation. We decided not to change the name, because it was two different markets -- LANs and simulations -- and no way would they be confused. About a month later, Datamation magazine ran our product ad and SimNet Inc's. product ad... on facing pages. We changed the name.
I've posted a more detailed analysis of the lawsuit on my blog for those who are interested.
To the citizens of the United States of America,
In the light of your failure to elect a suitable President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise". You will learn that the suffix 'burgh is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.
2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize".
3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to Cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon". If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.
4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.
5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.
6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "footba
Not if it's been previously published and they handed over the copyright, which is the case with academic journals, ACS specifically. You do NOT have the right of reproduction, even as an author.
Maybe you can help them move from a subscription to an open model, or some hybrid of the two, that would help them to feel that a lawsuit is not in their best interests. Just a thought.
Yeah, I don't see those issues being related. Not my cause.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The first hit is an interesting and semi-ironic article about patent reform, as it pertains to original innovators and how they deserve more benefits than latter innovators who build on top of the original.
Re: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8250/8250acs.html
t ml
The American Chemical Society (ACS) should (and will) be ashamed of
itself, forgetting it is a Scholarly Society and acting for all the
world like just another corporate bottom-feeder, trying to squeeze the
most revenue out of the leastmost commodity ("branding"). They might as
well be peddling hog-bellies, or H2O rights in Bolivia.
Fear not. The bottom line is not the scruple-free conduct of its handsomely
paid executives and legal staff
http://www.idontcare.com/acs
but the ACS membership (and history itself), which will hold ACS
accountable if it continues down this solipsistic, sociopathic path
instead of doing what scholarly societies are meant to do.
Meanwhile, it would be fun if the various other "X Scholar" entities took
out a class action suit against ACS's "SciFinder Scholar"...
Eligible candidates include:
American Scholar http://www.pbk.org/pubs/amscholar.htm
Black Scholar http://www.theblackscholar.org/
Zetetic Scholar http://tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZeteticScholars.h
Stevan Harnad
Go figure! We are in the middle of a similar lawsuit with ACS (or AACC) and the website entity labtestsonline.org over trademark infringement on the mark "Lab Tests Online." We used the very, very descriptive term unknowingly on one of our websites that is used solely for selling lab tests online to the general public. Some sites linked to us using the anchor text "lab tests online" along with some other variances of this term. It seems very ridiculous to me that something like this could stand up in court. They are a non-profit company. We did not take away from their revenue since they make no revenue from that site. We immediately took down any mark closely resembling "lab tests online" even though we felt we did nothing wrong. I would like to hear others opinions on this as we are looking to beat the alleged infringement case. I've performed searches in Google and other search engines for terms relating to the "lab tests online" mark and the "scholar" mark these companies are trying to sue for ownership privileges over only to find hundreds if not thousands of cases where it is being used on sites and for products. It seems to stop the use of such broadly used terms, these companies should monitor the use of the terms more frequently. I found some companies and sites using both sets of marks back to several years ago. Comments very welcome on this... Thanks
Doubt anyone will ever read this, and unfortunately, the response was from an AC, so, whatever. To clarify: CAS stands for "Chemical Abstract Services" and ACS stands for American Chemical Society. CAS is a sub-service of ACS, so wtf to you, Mr. AC. Don't question my chemical authority, because it will bitchslap your ass. /nobody will read this.