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!
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?
...but that SciFinder thing sounds more like a search engine for Star Trek episodes.
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
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.
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
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!
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
I'm sorry, Word Thief® is a registered trademark of the American Plagarists Guild. Unauthorized use is, in an acknowledged irony, forbidden.
If you wish to avoid lawsuits, you may join the Guild. Just send us a photocopied Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America membership form with a check made out to cash. (We couldn't be bothered to come up with our own form, and over 90% of our members have professional access to the NG/CWA form anyway . . . )
Don't take my word for it ... http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/win dows/story/0,10801,94634,00.html
Or is this link biased because I got it by googling the following: 'lindows name change microsoft paid'?
It's a big deal because you presume that ACS "owns" the term "scholar" when applied to a literature search service. ACS's term, I believe, is actually "SciScholar" and it's a desktop (vs web-based tool). IMO, that is plenty of difference to invalidate legal action.
What I resent, being in business myself, is every idiot that tries to make money on a legal technicality versus working to creat something that a customer actually cares about. Patent and copyright legal fights raise the cost of goods and hurt consumers (as well as legitimate, honest businesses).
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
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
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.
What currently exists is the ability of ANY publisher to take the term "Webster's", and combine it with their own name, or another term, and THAT term is a trademark, and enjoys trademark protection.
In other words, you can produce a "Y3K Webster's Dictionary", a "Fuck You Webster's Dictionary", or any other combo that no one else currently enjoys trademark protection on.
As to the contents, you'll find that only the unique parts in your "copyrighted" dictionary are covered by copyright - the actual list of words and their definitions aren't. That's why most dictionaries include "extra material" - so that they can actually put a copyright notice in the book.
The trademark protection on the term "Webster's" in connection to dictionaries expired LONG ago.
.
.the actual list of words and their definitions aren't.
Trademarks don't expire. Ever. They may become unenforcable.
What currently exists is the ability of ANY publisher to take the term "Webster's", and combine it with their own name, or another term, and THAT term is a trademark, and enjoys trademark protection.
Of course. I said nothing contrary to this.
As to the contents, you'll find that only the unique parts in your "copyrighted" dictionary are covered by copyright. .
Again, of course, but of course, the issue is left to the courts to decide what is and is not your unique contribution.
. .
Work;
1. Technically defined as F=wd, but in practice is defined as
2. Something to avoided.
"Work" and "F=wd" I cannot claim copyright protection on. The whole I can.
You'll find that the definitions are often a unique contribution. Read Dr. Johnson's, it's a hoot. Maybe the funniest serious dictionary ever.
That's why most dictionaries include "extra material" - so that they can actually put a copyright notice in the book.
Publishers of almost all public domain works employ this trick, as well as the trick of introducing deliberate mistakes into the work as a watermark.
KFG
All current dictionaries have relied upon other "common sources", including other dictionaries. Again, not copyrightable.
I think you are thinking of the "compilations being copyrightable" area, but this only applies if the compilation is more than just a collection of facts. Dictionaries don't meet this standard. Encyclopedias (at least most of them) do.
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.
ACS will win because it has trademark for the name which is a name for a scientific search engine.
If there was a homework&tutoring service "Private Scholar" or a academia singles service "Lonely Scholar" and ACS went after it, if would be stupid and ACS would lose.
Kellogs successfully prevented Chevron from using a tiger as a convenience store food maskot because the cartoon tiger looked a lot like the one on the box of cornflakes. (If the tiger was used to sell gasoline or motoroil it would be OK).
On the free vs. fee-based controversy: unlike Google, Scifinder Scholar abstracts all chemistry and biology journals and chemical formulas there. With many leading journals producing thousands of pages every month each and hundreds of journals indexed, it costs enormous amount of man-time to keep the database up-to date. Maybe modern search technology can make the database building process cheaper. But there is no good way to index the structural formulas. Someone (with degree in chemistry) has to read the article, understand what it means and enter the chemicals, reactions and keywords one at the time.
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
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)
It's not like Google Scholar has a lot invested in that name yet anyway, should they lose. Google will just rename it to something else and still blow ACS out of the water.
$8.95/mo web hosting
And still misguided. There ARE limitations to what you can claim a trademark in. Someone CAN open an amusement park using "I'm loving it" and not infringe McDonald's BECAUSE they are marketing different consumer goods. That's the existing law today. Yeesh. But what McDonald's would sue under is Trademark dilution, a completely different cause of action. However, they would probably lose because "Mc" is a famous mark that everyone associates with McDonald's whereas "I'm lovin' it" has not gained nearly the fame the "Mc" family of marks has.
For the record, there are duration limitations to trademarks too so that if McDonalds isn't using a trademark in commerce when it comes time to renew the mark, they will lose the mark and anyone may use it on anything, including fast food.
Now, as for your war of attrition complaint, well that comes down to economics. McDonalds can afford the best lawyers and can afford to wear competition down. If we level the playing field, well then we just go to socialized law, at which point the lawyer you would get could be some knucklehead who got his JD from a 5th tier school while McDonalds gets a Harvard grad just because they can pay off whoever is assinging counsel that day. Money talks and always will.
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
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.
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