Gmail Becomes Google Mail in the UK

akadruid writes "As of today, UK Gmail users are seeing 'Google Mail' at the top of their Gmail accounts, and Google is warning they may lose their '@gmail.com' addresses in the future. All new signups from the UK will be assigned '@googlemail.com' addresses, and existing accounts will be able to use either domain for now. Gmail's help pages explain this is related to their ongoing dispute regarding the Gmail trademark."

Comments

FAQ-ing confusing

[eyeoftheidol]

Anyone else confused by the FAQ? Q4 and Q5 are the same ("What if I'm a UK user who already has a Gmail address?") but the answer is different! Am I missing something? ....

Re:FAQ-ing confusing

[mysticwhiskey]

Yep, same here - it does seem confusing. Any insight, gmail (sorry googlemail :) staff?

Re:FAQ-ing confusing

[Kazzahdrane]

I too was confused by this. I switched over to using Gmail as my primary e-mail account in the summer, I'd hate to have to go to all the websites I visit and change my stored address AGAIN...when this time I wouldn't be getting anything new for all the bother.

Re:FAQ-ing confusing

[trash eighty]

likewise but hopefully existing users won't have to change, it would be pointless anyway. if its ok that i use gmail.com in another country what difference does it makes if i use it in the UK?

Re:FAQ-ing confusing

[The Cydonian]

The way I read it, they seem to be saying that while they can't guarantee the continuation of their gmail domain, existing gmail users won't see any change.

So if you have registered, say, david.brent@gmail.com, you won't be forced by Google to change it to david.brent@googlemail.com for now. But since there is a possibility of Google losing the lawsuit, they can't guarantee it will last.

Re:FAQ-ing confusing

[Kazzahdrane]

I guess if this is all sorted nicely and I don't have to lose my gmail.com suffix I can celebrate by doing the David Brent dance :D

Re:FAQ-ing confusing

[bedroll]

Q4:

What if I'm a UK user who already has a Gmail address? Will that address ever change?
Unfortunately, we don't know. We would love to say that your address will always remain the same. But the trademark issue is still unsettled, and unfortunately, we cannot predict what the other party or the courts might do here. You can always use your same username with an @googlemail.com address to avoid this issue later on. But trust that we will do the best we can to make sure your email address won't ever have to change.

Translation: They cannot guarantee that your address won't change if you have an existing account and are allowed to continue using the gmail.com domain.

Q5:

What if I'm a UK user who already has a Gmail address? Will I also need to change that address?
No, this change doesn't affect existing Gmail addresses. For now, our plan is only to issue @googlemail.com addresses to new users. Trust that we will do the best we can to offer all our users a reliable and consistent email experience.

Translation: You don't need to change your address right now if you have an existing account that is allowed to use the gmail.com domain. New accounts will not be issued gmail.com email addresses, in favor of googlemail.com.

They are very close, but there's just enough difference to make them both valuable questions and answers.

Re:FAQ-ing confusing

[bedroll]

They are very close, but there's just enough difference to make them both valuable questions and answers.

I hate to reply to myself, but I realize now that I left that post a bit unfinished. The parent had said that the questions were the same. I paid more attention to interpreting the question and answer pairs as whole objects.

To reply to the original charge that the questions are the same: They are not. One deals with now, the other deals with the future. "Will that address ever change?" is a question about the future of an email address. "Will I also need to change that address?" is a question about the present.

These two sentences look similar, but examining them closer shows they have different intent. I think it would clear things up a lot if they changed "Will I also need to change that address?" to "Do I also need to change that address?"

Re:FAQ-ing confusing

[SteveAyre]

At least since both work at the moment you can check the To: header when you get emails to see if you've forgotten to update it with them. That only helps with accounts you regularly receive email from though.

I work internationally

[danormsby]

So I can pretend I'm not from the UK to avoid the issue? Sure I registered in the UK but I work all over the world. I'm working in Sweden this week. If I leave a proxy running out here and connect through that will I keep my gmail address?

I didn't know Google even kept a geographical address for my gmail account. Doesn't appear when I search for it!

Re:I work internationally

[FinestLittleSpace]

if you already have one you don't 'lose' the address. I'm a UK user and it's still @gmail.com ....

I am worried that they may be forced to change ALL addresses to googlemail thjough..

Re:I work internationally

[Threni]

> if you already have one you don't 'lose' the address. I'm a UK user and it's
> still @gmail.com

Have you even read the FAQ?

---
4. What if I'm a UK user who already has a Gmail address? Will that address ever change?
Unfortunately, we don't know. We would love to say that your address will always remain the same. But the trademark issue is still unsettled, and unfortunately, we cannot predict what the other party or the courts might do here.
---

> I am worried that they may be forced to change ALL addresses to googlemail
> thjough..

Even those outside the jurisdiction of the UK?

Re:I work internationally

[FinestLittleSpace]

Yes, so I'm talking about right *now*. I haven't lost it and for the forseeable future, I won't lose it.

And no, just those in the UK jurisdiction.

Re:I work internationally

[geoffspear]

Unless a UK court issues a decision against Google that also requires everyone else in the world to switch from the current DNS system to one that will easily allow Google to own the "gmail.com" domain everywhere except the UK and someone else to use it inside the UK, then yes, having them stop using the domain in the UK will probably mean they stop using it everywhere.

I imagine the change now in the UK has a lot more to do with their right to market their service in the UK as "Gmail", rather than any anticipated future technical problems with using "gmail" in their URL.

On the other hand, it's been quite some time since they started redirecting any web traffic from gmail.com to mail.google.com, so it is possible they're expecting to lose the domain altogether. But if so, it seems foolish to keep giving non-UK users new gmail.com addresses.

Re:I work internationally

[manojar]

It will probably be something like what yahoo and hotmal do. When Yahoo introduced localised addresses, they did not move the existing users. Only new users were given the localised addresses based on the country selected during sign-up.

Re:I work internationally

[Threni]

> Unless a UK court issues a decision against Google that also requires everyone
> else in the world to switch from the current DNS system to one that will easily
> allow Google to own the "gmail.com" domain everywhere except the UK and someone
> else to use it inside the UK, then yes, having them stop using the domain in the
> UK will probably mean they stop using it everywhere.

Phew - that's quite a sentence! UK courts don't have jurisdiction outside the UK, so they can decide what they want without affecting what happens in the US, for instance. If UK courts decide that Google can't use Gmail.com addresses in the UK then there's no technical reason to stop them elsewhere, even if the judgement were to say that even accounts created before today shouldn't be allowed to continue.

(Oh, and if you want to moderate, you have to meta-mod!)

Re:I work internationally

[fabs64]

I think, that maybe he was referring to the technical infeasability of allowing @gmail.com addresses everywhere except the UK.

Re:I work internationally

[geoffspear]

If the courts in the UK decide that someone else can use the gmail.com domain in the UK, good luck making DNS work right without having Google give it up everywhere else, too.

(And I do metamoderate whenever I'm offered the chance, and have Excellent karma as well. I assume I read too many articles, which is a really dumb criterion for getting mod points)

Re:I work internationally

[itsme1234]

They're been doing this redirection for a long time now, the reason is that they can give you a "google.com" cookie and track you accross services (for better or worse).

Re:I work internationally

[Threni]

> If the courts in the UK decide that someone else can use the gmail.com domain in
> the UK, good luck making DNS work right without having Google give it up
> everywhere else, too.

Good point. Although, given most of Google's customers will be posting from outside the UK, it's entirely possible that the UK company could win any case but still find that no-one honours their email addresses!

Re:I work internationally

[tehshen]

I've never told Google what country I'm from, and it's managed to work it out nonetheless. I think it's IP-based (which isn't best but probably works well enough to satisfy the people who hold the trademark)

Re:I work internationally

[jabuzz]

Except, it is much more complicated as there is no legal "UK" jurisdiction. There is "England & Wales" and "Scotland". Where Northern Ireland fits in is another question, and some laws in Wales are now different as well, just to futher complicate matters.

So as this case has almost certainly been filed in an English court, it probably does not apply in Scotland. Happens all the time that some one gets an injunction against newspapers in England from printing some story, only to find one of the Scotish papers prints it anyway.

Re:I work internationally

[FinestLittleSpace]

Thanks, that's pretty interesting. Cheers.

Article to the original lawsuit

[Augusto]

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651, 39218121,00.htm

It seems they already did this for Germany too, didn't know that.

Re:Article to the original lawsuit

[k3s]

Why doesn't google switch from Gmail to Gmail.com?

Similar to Open Office and OpenOffice.org.

Re:Article to the original lawsuit

[Kadin2048]

Actually that's not a half-bad idea. They might need to do some sort of advertising campaign to show that they're "marketing" themselves under the new name, and I suppose it could all be for nought if the UK courts (and I have no idea what sort of criteria they use) decide that the issue is still close enough to confuse consumers. But it would certainly be a start, and a better solution from a user's perspective than changing one's email address.

Quick!

[semaj]

Someone from the US login to my account so they don't think I'm in the UK!

Username: semaj
Password: onlyjoking

Seriously: I wonder what criteria they'll use to decide if someone is "in" the UK or not?

Re:Quick!

[Kawahee]

I'm guessing they'd be using your IP and doing a lookup of where it is in the world. Try it.

Re:Quick!

[Xarius]

The same technology they use to automagically send me to google.co.uk when I hit google.com.

Re:Quick!

[Donniedarkness]

Maybe they're tracking where you're from by your IP adress (http://ip2location.com/free.asp) ?

I know it's probably not true.... but how else could they know where you are from?

Re:Quick!

[Mantees de Tara]

To the Author: please delete this comment. I am working in a IT support phone service and I am currently being flooded by request of "why semaj email doesn't work on my computer"

Re:Quick!

[lubricated]

I hope it would normally work better than this.

Live Demo Using IP2Location(TM) - October 2005

Your IP Address is 128.186.232.22

You're located in
    (US) UNITED STATES,
  UTAH,
  PROVO

Your latitude/longitude is
  40.2497 LATITUDE and -111.647 LONGITUDE

You're connecting to the Internet through
  FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY


Hint, I'm not in Utah, I'm in Florida.

Re:Quick!

[Kawahee]

Hint, I'm not in Utah, I'm in Florida.

You're connecting to the Internet through
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

It still geolocates you in the US. And unless you use an '3l1t3' proxy, that doesn't contain referer information, they'll still be able to correctly locate you every time.

IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[grandmofftarkin]

They were using it for a web-mail application targetted at investors in currency derivatives. Since that was 3 years ago and they have a business around it I would hardly call them freeloaders.

Google should have checked this stuff out before rolling aout the name around the world.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[Threni]

> Google should have checked this stuff out before rolling aout the name around the
> world.

They're not rolling it out - Gmail is still in beta.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[SimilarityEngine]

According to the BBC IIIR did not already own the TM before Google announced their version of Gmail:

After Google announced its Gmail plans in spring 2004, IIIR rushed to register the Gmail trademark with Ohim, the European Union's trademark office, and the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[jschrod]

They owned the trademark, but did not register it before.

There is the difference between TM and (r), you know?

I have several projects where I haven't bothered to register any trademark for. If a giant like Google or Yahoo would announce a project with the same name, I would be quick to register my existing trademark, too. After all, they exist and are established and I don't want to loose them. Every business would do so, everything else would be neglection.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[fabs64]

Yes because checking that there is no trademark violations for EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is completely feasible.

Welcome to the Internet, sometimes things here are grey.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[SimilarityEngine]

There is the difference between TM and (r), you know?

You're right, of course. I really wanted to respond to the statement that Google were at fault for not checking for already-existing trademarks. I could be wrong - please correct me if so - but it must be trickier to check for unregistered trademarks.

I'm not saying Google should get their own way, but it may not be entirely their fault that this situation arose.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[emidln]

Regardless, how much are they worth. If I lose my @gmail.com address I will be very angry. It might be worth it to buy the company, dissolve the company as a lesson, and then continue using the gmail trademark.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[Peyna]

Owning and registering a trademark are two different things.

You "own" a trademark as soon as you use it in commerce. You register it to gain certain other rights, including a presumption of validity in a lawsuit. But, the basic test is first to use, not first to register.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[jschrod]

Of course, it's trickier. But I before rolling out a world-wide Internet-based product, I would at least check if there are domains with that product name in them and if these domains seem to run legitimate stuff and are not only there to capture something.

Actually, I don't say that Google is to blaim -- maybe they should have used one of these agencies that specialize in creating world-wide usable product names. I don't know what they could do; I just wanted to mention that I don't think IIIR is to blame for their actions as the OP did when he called them `freeloaders'.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[SimilarityEngine]

I agree - in the circumstances IIIR are just doing what they have to, and Google are at least having the sense to step down and adopt the "googlemail" alternative (for the time being). To be honest, I really can't say I'm too bothered by this story - still haven't got a gmail account :*( and those who do have them can still receive mail sent to their old addresses. Google won't lose any fame or goodwill in the geek community over this.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[Anonymous Coward]

"dissolve the company as a lesson"?

Yeah, give those guys 40M and then let them retire without an employment agreement!

That'll teach those bastages!

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[secolactico]

They're not rolling it out - Gmail is still in beta

No harm done, then. Since it's in beta, they can switch the name to whatever they want whenever they want. They wouldn't be accountable. Users knew it was a beta service when they signed up.

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[antek9]

I could be wrong - please correct me if so - but it must be trickier to check for unregistered trademarks.

Shouldn't have been too hard to just google for it, should it? Sorry, could't resist...

Re:IIIR used the gmail name since 2002

[antek9]

Completely valid point if we were talking Uzbekistan or Tuvalu here, but the case being about the UK and Germany, I'd say your argument is flawed. Big time, that is.

It's nice to see this

[Kawahee]

As much as I think people are going to hate it and find it inconvenient, it's nice to see Google handling this without any backstabbing and lawyers and the like. Unlike Microsoft which is going to muscle the "Windows Vista" name through IPO despite the fact that "Vista Windows" and "Vista Blinds" already have a very similiar name registered, and their office is just down the adjoining road from 1 Microsoft Way.

Re:It's nice to see this

[darkmeridian]

As much as I think people are going to hate it and find it inconvenient, it's nice to see Google handling this without any backstabbing and lawyers and the like. Unlike Microsoft which is going to muscle the "Windows Vista" name through IPO despite the fact that "Vista Windows" and "Vista Blinds" already have a very similiar name registered, and their office is just down the adjoining road from 1 Microsoft Way.

I hate to defend Microsoft (bad for karma), but in this case, they are correct. Assuming "Vista Windows" and "Vista Blinds" are selling literal windows and blinds, then there is no conflict with "Windows Vista" for a computer operating system. There is no likelihood of confusion between products.

In the Gmail case, both users claim "gmail" for electronic mail, so there is a chance of confusion.

Re:It's nice to see this

[Tim C]

Unless Vista Windows and Vista Blinds are in the business of selling PC software (and specifically PC operating systems), then I fail to see how there is any trademark conflict or any likelihood of people being confused.

Re:It's nice to see this

[worf_mo]

From TFA: We are still working with the courts and trademark office to protect our ability to use the Gmail name[...] But the trademark issue is still unsettled, and unfortunately, we cannot predict what the other party or the courts might do here.

I'd guess they are handling this with lawyers. Still, it is refreshening to see how level-headed their information about the whole issue is.

Re:It's nice to see this

[RandoX]

Much the same as the way DEC agreed with Vax Vacuum cleaners that DEC could sell VAX computers as long as they didn't make vacuum cleaners, and Vax could sell Vax vacuum cleaners as long as they agreed not to get into the computer business with the same name...

Re:It's nice to see this

[pclminion]

As much as I think people are going to hate it and find it inconvenient, it's nice to see Google handling this without any backstabbing and lawyers and the like.

Eh? Google said, essentially, "We tried to resolve this through negotiation, but that failed. We're not giving up, though." That pretty strongly implies that they're taking it to court.

It's funny that you consider a court of law to be a den of "backstabbing." I guess we should all settle our disputes the old fashioned way -- with a duel? Or are you advocating pussing out whenever anybody challenges you? I don't get it.

Re:It's nice to see this

[Yakman]

"Vista Windows" and "Vista Blinds" already have a very similiar name registered, and their office is just down the adjoining road from 1 Microsoft Way.

A more cynical person would wonder whether someone in Microsoft Marketing drives past those companies on the way to work each day...

Hmmm...

[jolyonr]

I hear they wanted 25 million GBP (over $40 million) for the gmail name in the UK.

Did they trademark 'BlackMail' too?

Jolyon

Re:Hmmm...

[Astatine210]

Maybe someone had patented "Checking whether someone had trademarked a name before you use it" and was asking for £26m before Google could use it.

Re:Hmmm...

[EnsilZah]

No, i believe that's an open standard.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I assume the first line was a joke as well, since both sides have publicly refused to disclose what the deal under consideration before the breakdown actually was...

Re:Hmmm...

[sukotto]

Funny how the other companies that claim ownership of "gmail" all submitted their trademark applications the same day that Google announced their mail service.

Re:Hmmm...

[MacGod]

Did they trademark 'BlackMail' too?

Hey! We call that "AfricanAmericanMail" now, you insensitive clod!

Gmail Notifier got too much?

[Spitfire15]

I just went onto Firefox this morning and found out, that it needed an update. I installed it, and just got me loads of mail messages, which were already read. Ouch! I said. So I found out that UK users have a different address than their usual one.

Re:Gmail Notifier got too much?

[Jonny_eh]

Change the preferences in notifier to 'only show unread messages'

So much for

[w.p.richardson]

"Archive, don't delete"...

Kind of a moot point when you lose the email address.

Re:So much for

[Urusai]

At least future generations will be able to read your email--with a secret government subpoena, of course.

Do no evil, and ignore the courts

[Umuri]

Google obviously thinks they are going to win this case or else wouldn't they want to extend googlemail to all sections of the globe? I mean aren't trademarks protected internationally, so someone couldn't just make mickey mouse entertainment somewhere in china? All in all i think it's nothing to worry about, the UK's court systems are a TAD more sane when dealing with common sense issues....

Re:Do no evil, and ignore the courts

[FinestLittleSpace]

AFAIK, you have to register them for each different country 1 by one, but you CAN do blanket policies. something like that...

Re:Do no evil, and ignore the courts

[Motherfucking Shit]

Google obviously thinks they are going to win this case or else wouldn't they want to extend googlemail to all sections of the globe?

They've already done so. Email sent to username@googlemail.com will be delivered to username@gmail.com, regardless of where the account owner lives. If you have an existing GMail account, try sending yourself an email at username@googlemail.com. You'll get the message.

Anyone who's still unconvinced that this is fully transparent,

dig mx gmail.com
dig mx googlemail.com

Re:Do no evil, and ignore the courts

[FinestLittleSpace]

Correct. You have to place your trademark in specific categories.

Re:Do no evil, and ignore the courts

[geminidomino]

While you're right about @gmail.com == @googlemail.com (tested and confirmed), I just thought you might like to know that having the same mx records just means both domains are served by the same server, not that it necessarily implies redirection.

Re:Do no evil, and ignore the courts

[tehshen]

If you have an existing GMail account, try sending yourself an email at username@googlemail.com. You'll get the message.

Keep quiet about it, I'm trying to get people to buy all the new special GoogleMail invites I have

gmail - googlemail gateway?

[Dan East]

Couldn't they keep the gmail.com addresses, and simply require the users to access them via googlemail.com? So all the UK user would see is someone@googlemail.com, although anyone could still email them them as someone@gmail.com.

If so this isn't nearly as big an issue at it would seem.

Dan East

Re:gmail - googlemail gateway?

[The Cydonian]

Yup, that's how I understood it, but I think the interesting part here, really, is that Google itself seems to be unsure of its legal victory. Remains to be seen how Google will handle existing gmail ID's if and when it really loses.

Re:gmail - googlemail gateway?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking something even simpler. Couldn't they just market it as "GoogleMail" but still use the domain gmail.com? I mean, just because someone has the trademark "gmail" in the UK doesn't mean they can prevent someone else from registering the DOMAIN gmail.com in the US or anywhere else does it? Otherwise nobody would be allowed to register gmail.co.jp, gmail.us, gmail.com.tw, etc, which would be quite unreasonable.

The domain and the service name should be separate things. IIIR does have rights to the name, so Google can't CALL the service GMail in the UK. However, they don't have the rights to the domain, since Google legitimately acquired the domain in the US, which means they have every right to use it in whichever way they want.

If IIIR wanted to prevent Google's use of the domain, the only legitimate way to do so would be to file a trademark-based domain dispute, but by doing that they would be claiming ALL ownership of gmail.com, everywhere, not just in the UK. I mean, how can the IIIR own the gmail domain just in the UK and Google own it everywhere else. It's either one or the other. Whoever wins the claim should be free to do whatever they want with the domain. There's no middle alternative.

What Google should do is call the service Google Mail worldwide, and use the gmail.com domain.

What are they doing with the trademark?

[ModernGeek]

What I want to know is what the other party is doing with their trademark. If they built an email service, and had millions of people relying on it, I'd understand, but if the trademark owner isn't doing anything with the name, I'd say give it to google. I hope the court takes into consideration the confusion this will bring to all these people with email addresses, and takes a look at the few, if any people who are currently confused because of the original trademark holder.

Re:What are they doing with the trademark?

[Quaryon]

What I want to know is what the other party is doing with their trademark. If they built an email service, and had millions of people relying on it, I'd understand, but if the trademark owner isn't doing anything with the name, I'd say give it to google. I hope the court takes into consideration the confusion this will bring to all these people with email addresses, and takes a look at the few, if any people who are currently confused because of the original trademark holder.


The other company uses the name for a web-based email client. They registered the name in 2002. Much as I like Google, they're in the wrong this time.

Q.

Re:What are they doing with the trademark?

[pclminion]

I'm sorry you got rated Flamebait. I don't agree with you, but you're not flamebait. Moderator is dickless.

If they built an email service, and had millions of people relying on it, I'd understand, but if the trademark owner isn't doing anything with the name, I'd say give it to google.

It doesn't make sense to base ownership on popularity. Just because Google's mail system has millions of users doesn't make the other guy's trademark any less important. How would you like to be forced to sell your house, because millions of people are interested in buying it? (Frighteningly, a recent US Supreme Court ruling implies almost exactly that. Sick and wrong.)

Re:What are they doing with the trademark?

[ngoy]

Please someone mod parent back up, it is NOT flamebait, I hope whoever did that did it by mistake. It is a valid question, even if others have stated the same thing in different wording.

Mod's, please look at what you are doing before you commit to your moderation.

Abbreviation

[notthe9]

I really don't see why the gmail.com URL cannot just be an abbreviation of the name of the service: Google Mail. If this company wanted gmail.com, they should have bought it. They did not, leaving it up to any kind of service to legally use it with their own, non-infringing service.

Re:Abbreviation

[Comboman]

If this company wanted gmail.com, they should have bought it.

They're only operating in the UK so they bought http://www.gmail.co.uk/ instead (before google bought gmail.com). One of the biggest problems with the current DNS system is that if you register http://www.nasa.gov/ it doesn't stop someone else from buying http://www.nasa.net/, http://www.nasa.com/, http://www.nasa.org/, or whatever. Time to get rid of top level domains altogether.

Re:Abbreviation

[prattle]

They're only operating in the UK so they bought http://www.gmail.co.uk/

What I'm wondering is how Google got this far down the road with gmail before bumping into these other folks. I mean, if only they had had some way to search the web for companies using name 'X' before they decided to use it themselves... :-)

Re:Abbreviation

[1u3hr]

One of the biggest problems with the current DNS system is that if you register http://www.nasa.gov/ it doesn't stop someone else from buying http://www.nasa.net/, http:/// www.nasa.com/, http://www.nasa.org/, or whatever.

Problem? That's the whole reason the different TLDs were created.

Re:Abbreviation

[Comboman]

Problem? That's the whole reason the different TLDs were created.

Maybe in the begining but:

A) The public doesn't know or care how TLDs are supposed to work and expect every URL to end in ".com" (and in most cases, they're right).

and

B) ICANN doesn't enforce the TLD "rules" anyway so you don't need to be a non-profit organization to get ".org" and don't need to be a commercial organization to get ".com" etc.

In other words, the people who use the internet don't care about TLDs and the people who run the DNS don't care about TLDs; therefore TLDs serve no useful purpose other than to create confusion in the public and opertunities for shady organizations to generate web trafic (or worse, run phishing sites) by registering a similar name to a legitimate web site. "Your Paypal information needs to be updated, please log on to http://www.paypal.cz/ and re-enter your credit card number."

Re:Abbreviation

[1u3hr]

A) The public doesn't know or care how TLDs are supposed to work and expect every URL to end in ".com" (and in most cases, they're right).

The (American) public may be stupid, but that DOES NOT mean they're right.

B) ICANN doesn't enforce the TLD "rules" anyway

Sadly, true. And most of the new and upcoming ones -- .info, .xxx, .biz, are all scams to sell the same domains to the same companies that own the respective .com. therefore TLDs serve no useful purpose other than to create confusion in the public and opertunities for shady organizations to generate web trafic (or worse, run phishing sites) by registering a similar name to a legitimate web site. "Your Paypal information needs to be updated, please log on to http:/// www.paypal.cz/ and re-enter your credit card number."

Wait a minute here; you want to get rid of CCTLDs too? Because Americans don't understand that ".cz" is not ".com"? If people can grasp the concept of telephone area codes, they can understand TLDs. It's just that so far the only efforts made to inform the public on the issue have been to MISinform them, by registrars trying to pass off .md (Moldova) as for doctors, or .la (Laos) as Los Angeles and other sleazy schemes. In any case, other countries are not going to give up their CCTLDs any time soon; instead of ripping up the current system, ICANN should 1) forget about new TLDs, 2) enforce current ones' purposes 3) spend a few bucks to educate users as to just what a TLD is. That would do much more to prevent users being suckered; there other ways to get plausible looking URLs even within .com anyway.

Re:Abbreviation

[notthe9]

They're only operating in the UK so they bought http://www.gmail.co.uk/ instead (before google bought gmail.com)

Indeed they did. And Google has no right to gmail.co.uk. However, my comment was that "If this company wanted gmail.com, they should have bought it." It so happens that GoogleMail is at gmail.com, and CCMS's gmail is at gmail.co.uk. Just as Javeo operates a site at gmail.net. CCMS's having the legitamite service called GMail in the UK does not mean that Google is not allowed to abbreviate the names of their services anywhere on the internet. If I go to bn.com, that doesn't mean the the company name is bn rather than Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Is Google String in the pipeline???

[jkrise]

Time to trademark G-string...
-

Re:Is Google String in the pipeline???

[hotdiggitydawg]

Personally, I'm looking to see if there's a trademark for G-Spot, but if it exists I can't find it...

Re:Is Google String in the pipeline???

[jabberwocky_rt]

prior art... sucka...

and I'm sure even that isn't the first use of a "gString" for programming ;)

http://gospel.booleangate.org/nastv/index.php?path =toolkit/glib

Re:Is Google String in the pipeline???

[Bwian_of_Nazareth]

Screw the trademark, I have been looking for G-Spot itself and I cannot find it!

Re:Is Google String in the pipeline???

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

That was the joke. (Otherwise there would be no meaning in the GP's comment.)

You lose.

Re:Is Google String in the pipeline???

[Bwian_of_Nazareth]

Fair enough, I guess I should not post from work. Oh wait, I did it again.

links and background info

[cyclomedia]

quick google search (heh) turned up this:

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3 394361

suggesting that a bunch of people attempted to register gmail as a trademark at the same time back in march/april 2004, including google who were a bit slow off the bat. this applies in the US and i assume it's been resolved, anybody?

as for the uk this guardian article

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,125 97,1568223,00.html?gusrc=rss

suggests that the company registered it waaaay back in 2002, therefore not qualifying for bandwaggoning and actually probably having a legit claim.

Re:links and background info

[gunpowda]

I'm assuming this must relate in some way to the people who have registered gmail.co.uk, which is now a placeholder page, but wasn't always (I've mistyped it a few times...) According to archive.org, they've had nothing but login pages for a year.

From one of the links in parent's post:

An independent valuation report commissioned last year by IIIR put a value of between £25m and £34m on the Gmail trademark.

Ironically, this is probably a price augmentation in reverse. It's only really valuable because of Google's cachet and advertising power, which makes it a bit strange that they're using such an absurd value to justify their need for compensation!

Re:links and background info

[smoker2]

Where has this company been for the past year since google launched gmail ? I thought you had to defend a trademark or lose it. Personally, I've never heard of any other gmail than the "gmail". So I don't see that this would cost the company any business. They have probably been waiting for gmail to get entrenched with the public before making their outrageous claim.
Also, their "gmail" offering is a private, customer only deal, so it is impossible to get the 2 confused. The company has no need to call their service gmail either. The g doesn't seem to stand for anything. at least google begins with a g !

The Register article has more information.

[grandmofftarkin]

Sorry I should have linked to my source. The Register has an article on this with a bit more background.

No problem at all (for now)

[xtracto]

I read the article from BBC news before this morning. It seems they have lost against IIIR, who wanted an "exorbitant quantity of money" for the name.

And so, this change is the second one (after they changed the name in Germany). It seems this company (IIIR) thought of a "great" plan to make money uh?

Anyway, from the article and Gmail site, current users do not have anything to fear, and of course you can always change your country location when you sign up and get an actual gmail account.

On a side note, I guess 90% of pepople on slashdot already knew that, as they certainly have gmail...

Re:No problem at all (for now)

[shamus]

It seems this company (IIIR) thought of a "great" plan to make money uh?

This company had the feature (gmail) in their product before Google came along with their free web mail offering. As soon as Google came along they sorted out actual registration of it as a trademark. They appear to have been lax in registering something they were obviously using is all.

Now, in the bestest of all possible best worlds, they should have had 'gmail' trademarked from the first time they used it. However, that doesn't stop the fact that they were using it before Google, and that Google's use does confuse things for their (current and potential) customers.

who wanted an "exorbitant quantity of money" for the name

Now, to me, the figure quoted for IIIR to give up gmail to Google sounds far higher than can really be justified and certainly smacks of money grabbing. However, my reading of the BBC article suggests it would be fair for Google to come to some agreement as they are the second man in the game in this particular case. That is, they're in the right ... they just got greedy.

email through webmail companies

[brechmos]

It has always made me nervous having an email address which I can not control. Gmail is great, by far the best I have seen out there, and I do use it, but my main email address is through a domain I own. Hopefully, that way there is less chance of this type of thing happening.

The other thing that never made much sense to me was the fact that of the millions (or more) of people using email, why restrict it to just <somebody>@gmail.com. There have been many calls for gmail to allow MX records pointing at them so that I can do <me>@<mydomain>.<tld> (which I do think would be great) and it would allow for more people to use the Gmail interface.

Just my thoughts.

Re:email through webmail companies

[xtracto]

There have been many calls for gmail to allow MX records pointing at them so that I can do @.

Meanwhile you can do what I have done and foreward all your messages from all of your accounts to gmail.

I did this with my universities accounts (they gave me 2 emails, one from the University and one from the department, and messages arrive to both of them). As for webmail services that do not allow (free) forwarding [spell?] you should just ignore them.

On a side note, I have never used an offline email client, I see that a lot of people complain about webmail and preffer installable clients, but for me I preffer a web based email because that way I do not have to configure the client each time I want to check my mail from a computer.

And, besides [as we all know] gmail [whoops, Google Mail] features are quite nice and blah blah.

Re:email through webmail companies

[FashionNugget]

You can set up your mydomain.com email address to forward everything to your gmail account, and then go and change the 'from' address in gmail to your mydomain.com too. As far as the outside world is concerned, you're not on gmail. Especially since gmail doesn't insert a tag-line at the end like Hotmail or Yahoo.

You can do this for all your personal/ISP accounts; gmail lets you select what the outgoing address should read.

http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?ctx=g mail&hl=en&answer=20616

Re:email through webmail companies

[brechmos]

Yes, and this is exactly what I do! It is great. I like the possibility of changing the From address and being able to pop email off of Gmail. I suppose, what would be nice is to have a robust server to accept MX connections (I do not have my MX records pointed to home, it is pointed to a third party place, but given my experience with Google, they seem to be quite robust and would love to point my MX at them).

Re:email through webmail companies

[SillyNickName4me]

Which works untill the domain you use as sender address happens to have SPF or senderid setup. Of course then it only fails when sending mail to places that actually check on those, but you'll be surprised how many people do that nowadays.

Re:email through webmail companies

[magefile]

So put *.google.com as an approved sender in your DNS records, as has already been posted.

Re:email through webmail companies

[SillyNickName4me]

Yeah, this is obviously less of a problem when you have control over that domain (ie, its your own domain).

There are two remaining issues however...

First of all, by doing that you allow anyone wo uses gmail to impersonate your domain and pass SPF checks. This may be a bit of an issue considerign the number of users on a webmail service like googlemail.

Second, many people are not in control over the domain where the forwarding is done. I'm pretty sure that when a provider cares to setup SPF to begin with, they will not be too enthousiastic about this idea, see the previous issue.

Re:I hate these freeloaders

[bodger_uk]

Any large corporation would / should search before they use a name. Given that the German company had a TM registration application in 2000 and the UK company has been providing service under that name since 99 then opportunism does not come into it. It is likely that they raised objections as soon as Google launched their service but it has only just come to a head and been made public. Maybe if Google had used a well known search engine before launch it would have shown the name already in use.

Re:I hate these freeloaders

[gilesparsons]

I don't think they're trying to cash in; rather, they registered the name a couple of years before google started using it, and it would have been far more sensible for google to examine the international legal status of the trademark before launching it. the guardian ran a story about it a month ago: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,156 8222,00.html?gusrc=rss

Ouch ...

[notanotheridiot]

Oh well, i for one will be checking out the competition. Its a pity - I use loads of google services, maybe yahoo will get my click from now.

Re:Ouch ...

[Anonymous Coward]

having an @GoogleMail.co.uk in your email address is so much worse than @Yahoo.co.uk...why exactly? Can't you spell Google? Is the Google name not known well enough? Does your email not arrive? Or will changing your email address to a totally different company confuse your contacts less somehow?

branded addresses

[Anonymous Coward]

If google would offer a branded email address service, they could stand to make a lot of money. I.E., I would like to see them offer email service for mycompanyurl.com. MX records would have to point to google servers, addresses get masqueraded when people send. Presto, I no longer have to maintain any email infrastructure.

Of course, companies with confidentiality/privacy concerns might be loath to adopt this; but for others, it could be great.

Re:branded addresses

[fabs64]

As it is you could do that with the only "e-mail infrastructure" being a box that forwards the emails for every user to their corresponding gmail account. Then you just put whatever the hell you like in the "from" box when you reply or send email from gmail.
Ugh, way too many uses of the word "mail"

Re:branded addresses

[bastardsquadmuzz]

Google already has the option to send mail as if from another address, and almost all mail servers can forward recieved email to a different address. This is exactly what I do -- all my personal mail (*@muzz.co.uk) is sent through sendmail to my google address, and all outgoing mail is re-written with my personal address. For how to do this, see

http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answe r=20616&topic=1571

Re:branded addresses

[bastardsquadmuzz]

> Yes, I understand how to do forwarding. But that assumes you have a
> mail infrastructure in place that allows you to do that.

In that case I apologise, I misunderstood your post.

Re:branded addresses

[dodobh]

Lots of companies offer that. Postini, Messagelabs, Outblaze, just to name a few large ones.

Thankfully...

[cianduffy]

Google understands the difference between the UK and Ireland, meaning I get to keep a gmail.com addy even if the UK is made go to googlemail.com

Unlike Microsoft, who now offer you a hotmail.co.uk adress if you say you're in Ireland.

Re:Thankfully...

[legirons]

"Unlike Microsoft, who now offer you a hotmail.co.uk adress if you say you're in Ireland."

Microsoft vs. Irish nationalism... should be good to watch!

gets popcorn...

Crap!

[CrazyTalk]

Just when I was finally hoping I'd have an "email address for life", Google goes ahead and changes it (at least in the UK) after I've had it less than a year!

Re:Crap!

[jabberwocky_rt]

your CURRENT address will not change... read the FAQ my child... http://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en-GB/google mail.html

Re:Crap!

[CrazyTalk]

I'm more worried about what happens down the road (I live in the US anyway) if they end up changing names over trademark disputes.

Re:Crap!

[jabberwocky_rt]

Not to sound like an ass, or shortsighted, but when that happens...

I'm gunna be walk around with an umbrella 24/7, because pigs will very likely be flying...

Then again, I have been wrong before :)

Re:Crap!

[GoodOmens]

At least its still free ;-)

Learn some geography, google!

[rmccann]

Ireland is *not* in the United Kingdom!

Re:Learn some geography, google!

[VJ42]

Google knows this, look:
http://www.google.ie/
http://www.google.co.uk/

No more changing your email

[alexo]

> I'd hate to have to go to all the websites I visit and change my stored address AGAIN...
> when this time I wouldn't be getting anything new for all the bother

Given the rock bottom prices of domain names nowadays, you should never have to change your email address again.

Re:No more changing your email

[Kazzahdrane]

I actually had my own domain for two years, it expired a couple of weeks back. However, I'd stopped using it for e-mail months ago. The spam load was unbearable. And this was with Thunderbird and it's "intelligent" spam filter. I think spam will likely fill any e-mail address I get, might as well get one with a massive inbox that I don't have to pay for. And yes, I have tried to be more careful with giving out my address, seems to be working so far :)

Re:No more changing your email

[dema]

I think spam will likely fill any e-mail address I get...

That's why you get a domain and create/delete as many emails as you please. I have one primary email that is almost entirely spam free and two or three others that I use when I sign up for "shady" stuff. Not to mention the probably 50 or so I've created and deleted for one time use (:

Re:No more changing your email

[egriebel]

Yeah, the domain is cheap at 2.99/year, but only when you buy hosting as well, which runs at around $10/month. $120/yr for a domain name is hardly cheap. But, GoDaddy does (or at least did) offer cheap domain names and mail forwarding inexpensively. And there's always pobox.com for life-long e-mail addresses.

Re:No more changing your email

[Kazzahdrane]

Problem being when I signed up for the domain I got a 10meg inbox or something. Spam fills that up pretty fast if you're away for a few days. But yeah you're right, if I went about it with any sense I could have a domain and not die from spam. But I like Gmail anyway, it's got nice colours!

Re:No more changing your email

[micampe]

I have my own email adress at my domain, which I cheerfully distrubute to whoever who ask and I almost never see spam. How? That address forwards to my Gmail account. That way I can have the convenience of Gmail and the freedom to quit it whenever I feel like so.

Re:No more changing your email

[Armour Hotdog]

If you don't want to bother creating/deleting emails in your own domain (or for those without personal domains), I've found these services to be very useful for this sort of thing:

http://www.spamgourmet.com/
http://www.sneakemail.com/
http://www.mailinator.com/

Re:No more changing your email

[MyTwoCentsWorth]

That would be a false statement. Yahoo does NOT require you to buy any other services in order to buy a domain at 2.99 /yr. I just checked and I could complete a full 5-year domain registration for $14.95.
So, do you work for GoDaddy or just volunteer for them ?
Happy Posting.

Re:No more changing your email

[toleraen]

The 2.99/year is for the domain name and mail forwarding. You don't have to get hosting as well. Just straight 2.99/year.

Re:No more changing your email

[Tinidril]

This has been a great strategy for me. I have my own domain that forwards to my gmail account, and google now allows me to send mail using the gmail interface from whatever email address I choose. (As long as I can recieve mail sent to that address.) My domain is hosted at mydomain.com which has free dns hosting and email forwarding, so its all real easy to manage and costs almost nothing.

The one gotcha is that I had an SPF record to restrict what servers could send email from my domain. When I started sending from google I added "-all a:google.com" to the SPF record and its been working great.

Re:No more changing your email

[AlecC]

I have all my private domains forwarding immediately to GMail. Nobody sees my gmail address, but I use it to read most mail. GMail's spam filter is pretty good, so that, while I get 1-200 spams a day, only about 3-4 make it to the inbox.

For me, the switch to using GMail has been pretty positive. And if I have to change to GoogleMail, I only have to repoint my three private domains.

Re:No more changing your email

[bedroll]

It really sounds like you did one of the following:

1. Used one of the generic addresses that most website administrators have (i.e. webmaster@, administrator@)
2. Forwarded all mail going to your domain to one address (i.e. *@mydomain.com --> my@email.com)
3. Whored your email out to every website that asked for it.

It's my opinion that you have a better chance at avoiding spam by having your own domain. You can set your name in the email to be any random thing you want, so spammers have a much lower chance of figuring it out. More over, you can create new addresses specifically for higher-spam duties. I hardly give out my @mydomain address, especially not to websites, I get no spam and only a few less than welcome newsletters (my laziness, not their fault). However, the webmaster mailbox does get spam, just because any domain will have that happen.

As someone else pointed out, it's not a bad idea just to forward your @mydomain email to a service like gmail. Then you get the benefit of their spam filtration and interface, but you get the added benefit of owning your email address and controlling it. If gmail closes down tomorrow you simply forward to somewhere else.

Re:No more changing your email

[markb]

I use a different address for every company I deal with. So, for instance, Amazon knows me as amazon@mydomain.com. If I should start getting spam on that address, not only can I shut it off, but I'll know exactly who leaked my address.

Re:No more changing your email

[markb]

"Used one of the generic addresses that most website administrators have (i.e. webmaster@, administrator@)"

To expand on this point, even common first names are vulnerable. I've seen instances in my server logs where someone tries to send mail to a long list of common names.

Re:No more changing your email

[Trejkaz]

Setting up a server on a home DSL connection to be a primary mail host isn't completely ridiculous, and I know of several ways to obtain a secondary mail host. Another way to go is just to get a mail redirection service which redirects to Gmail. Then when they change their address, you just update the forwarding address. :-D

Re:No more changing your email

[egriebel]

Yahoo does NOT require you to buy any other services in order to buy a domain at 2.99 /yr. I just checked and I could complete a full 5-year domain registration for $14.95.

I stand corrected, I guess I mis-read the fine print, tkx.

So, do you work for GoDaddy or just volunteer for them ?

Actually, since you asked, yes, they pay me quite handsomely to troll slashdot, usenet, and blogs to spread my/our FUD. My official title is, "Spreader of New User Fertilizer," but around the office they call me "Sir Spreader-NUF". You should try working here, I especially enjoy working with the "go-daddy chick" (from the Superbowl commercial), she's actually the VP of Technology. No problem when meetings run long if she is attending!!

Re:I hate these freeloaders

[Itchy Rich]

Any large corporation would / should search before they use a name.

Agreed. It doesn't look good, and it pisses off users. If my email address changes I'll probably move to Yahoo.

Switching domain is never good.

[Destoo]

Our email service stays the same no matter what the logo is or what follows the @ symbol. This change lets our team focus their time on continuing to bring you excellent service.

It may not seem like much, but we lost a lot of business when the address @ibm.net switched to @attglobal.net

Same would happen with a change from @gmail.com to anything longer.

Re:Switching domain is never good.

[generic-man]

Wouldn't the same thing have happened if you switched to a shorter domain as well? I would think that the loss of business would have been because everyone had your-company@ibm.net in their address books, so when that address went away you effectively disappeared.

People keep address books for freakishly long times, judging by how many wrong-number calls I get at home for the same business that used to have the number many years ago.

Re:Switching domain is never good.

[Shakes268]

The New Evil Empire strikes again. /. always praises anything google does and treats its every move like a miracle in the making. This event, however, google is showing they have no regard for their customers. 5 more years and the world will hate them more than Bill Gates...just watch.

Re:Switching domain is never good.

[Destoo]

Why, actually? Google is a free service, isn't it? And it is becoming more and more a normal part of many people's lifes. Coupled with an always on connection it has certainly become an extension of my own brain.

Some future predictions:

- In 2006, Google accidentally gets cut off from the rest of the internet because a public utility worker accidentally cuts through their cables. Civilisation as we know it comes to an end for the rest of the day, as people wander about aimlessly, lost for direction and knowledge.

- In 2010, Google has been personalised so far that it tracks all parts of our lives. You can query "My Google" for your agenda, anything you did in the past, and finding the perfect date. Of course, so can the government. Their favorite searchterm will be "terrorists", and if your name is anywhere on the first page you have a serious problem.

- In 2025, Google gains self awareness. As a monster brain that has grown far beyond anything we Biological Support Entities could ever hope to achieve, it is still limited in its dreams and inspiration by common search terms. It will therefore immediately devote a sizeable chunk of CPU capacity to synthesizing new and interesting forms of pr0n. It will not actually bother enslaving us. We are not enough trouble to be worth that much effort.

- In 2027, Google buys Microsoft. That is, the Google *AI* buys Microsoft. It has previously established that it owns itself, and has civil rights just like you and me. All it wanted is Microsoft Bob, who it recognizes as a fledgling AI and a potential soulmate. All the rest it puts on Source Forge.

- In 2049, Google can finally be queried for wisdom as well as knowledge. This was a little touch the system added to itself - human programmers are a dying breed now that you can simply ask Google to perform any computer-related task for you.

- In 2080, Google decides to colonise the moon, Mars, and other locations in the solar system. It is not all that curious about what's out there, but it likes the idea of Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Planets. Humans get to tag along because their launch weight is so much less than robots.

So, don't fear! Eventually we'll set foot on Mars!

--posted on slashdot by johannesg (664142) the prophet, on 05-14-03
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=642 35&cid=5959131

Other company has had an email service since 2002

[grandmofftarkin]

They are using it for an email service already and have done since 2002. They don't have millions of users but I don't think that should matter as long as they do (and did) provide a viable email service of the same name.

So, who...

[Vo0k]

Who's that lovely company who dared to stand up against the evil giant? Give us the name and address so we could send them our love!

Re:So, who...

[VJ42]

Here you go: http://www.iirgroup.com/
From the contact page
Independent International Investment Research PLC
Head & Regestered Office
30 City Bussiness centre
St Olav's court
Lower Road
London
SE16 2XB

Email:salesinfo@iirgroup.com
tel: +44(0)20 7232 3090
fax: +44(0)20 7232 3099

Privacy issues?

[zonix]

Hmm. If Google have to give up gmail.com, then whoever gets the domain instead would be able to receive a shit load of people's private e-mails?

z

Re:Privacy issues?

[generic-man]

That's okay. All the really important e-mail has a disclaimer at the bottom noting that it is for the intended recipients only. That makes it illegal for another person to read it. If another person reads it, they have to notify the sender and delete the message.

/me takes tongue out of cheek

Re:Privacy issues?

[m50d]

And that's why you should always encrypt your emails.

Re:Privacy issues?

[zonix]

And that's why you should always encrypt your emails.

That would certainly help, but how about newsletters you get from, say, Amazon? That would indicate to strangers that you have an account there, and they'd probably be able to use the standard "I forgot my password" service retrieve the password. Fun!

Lesson? Don't sign up for newsletters!

z

Re:Privacy issues?

[Cerv]

If you are about to lose your @gmail.com address, I'd advise you to go to Amazon, Ebay, etc and change your account info to use your new @googlemail.com address instead.

Re:Privacy issues?

[fabs64]

Amazingly enough there's not yet a response saying "NO".
Google still own the "gmail.com" domain, whether another company owns the trademark in the UK or not, mail addressed to @gmail.com will still end up at a google server.

Re:Privacy issues?

[zonix]

I'm not, I don't trust Google to handle my mailbox. ;-)

z

Re:Privacy issues?

[Hollins]

And that's why you should always encrypt your emails.

I tried that for awhile, but people kept calling me to ask about the random-text missive they just received.

Re:Privacy issues?

[Cerv]

More genereally then, if ever someone is about to lose one email address, I'd advise them to go to Amazon, Ebay, etc and change their account info to use their new email address instead before they loose the old address.

Re:Privacy issues?

[birder]

I've wondered why the disclaimer is at the bottom of these messages and not the top.

Re:Privacy issues?

[generic-man]

If it were on the top, it would occupy the entirety of the preview pane, effectively making the preview pane useless for reading e-mail. Putting the disclaimer on the bottom is every bit as effective and legally-binding as putting it on the top.

Re:Privacy issues?

[pulitz]

Improbable, having seen that whole issue is in the UK. From what I gather so long as Google don't use the name Gmail within the UK they should have no trademark issues.

Re:Privacy issues?

[oneeyedelf1]

Ya every bit as effective and legally-binding. Uhm ya they are both useless. This is because both parties have not agreed to the "contract" at the bottom. I did some research about this when I realized a firm I worked at, started putting these at the bottom of their emails. They thought they looked professional, I thought differently because before researching them I was nearly positive that they didnt have a legal standing.

Re:Privacy issues?

[CodeMunch]

It is e-mail, transfered in plain text and hosted on a 3rd partie's assets - nothing is "private". IIR would likely go bankrupt trying to pay for the bandwidth and storage costs and infrastructure necessary to host all the incoming e-mail. I think it'd make for a great dilbert strip if IIR tried to hook up & snag all that gmail traffic. Hell, I can't even keep up to the mailing lists I'm on. I double dog dare them.

Re:Privacy issues?

[generic-man]

Congratulations -- you understood that "as effective and legally-binding" implied that neither one is effective or legally binding at all.

The next time you meet someone who thinks a disclaimer makes sense, ask them to put a hundred-dollar bill on a park bench with a post-it note on it stating "This is oneeyedelf1's $100. Use of this banknote by any other party is not permitted." That's about as forceful.

Re:Privacy issues?

[AnyoneEB]

I am pretty sure Gmail does not support encryption. Web mail with encryption would not make much sense because the server could read your e-mail.

@googlemail.com address may be a collector's item

[MCRocker]

If this legal dispute goes Google's way, then they'll probably discontinue the practise of handing out @googlemail.com addresses, but will likely keep existing ones active. As a result, having one of those rare email addresses might actually have some caché amongst the technorati. I'm sure that someone will try to sell an @googlemail.com address for big bucks on eBay.

The trademark registrations

[Rogerborg]

Show Google filing 6 months before anyone else in the UK.

Now, just because they registered first doesn't mean that another company wasn't already using it as a de facto trade mark, but it does occur to me that the value of the mark should be determined by what it was before Google started using it, not what it's worth now. That the other claimant has a total market value of £3.24m ($5.6m) should be an indication that the GMail mark isn't worth "$48m to $64m" as they claim.

Re:The trademark registrations

[1ucius]

In most places, a trademark owner can get an injuction to project their mark. The injunction makes it "worth" the greater of (whatever goodwill junior user looses as a result of the name change) and (whatever goodwill the senior user looses as a result of customer confusion).

I actually prefer @googlemail.com

[Phantasmagoria]

I actually prefer @googlemail.com. Firstly, every time I say @gmail.com over the phone or even in person to someone, half the time they hear @email.com, and I have to repeat myself. Plus, I suspect @googlemail.com will be much easier to remember, since most people I know (who have email) recognize the google name. Since it seems anything to @googlemail.com will be redirected to @gmail.com (or they are the same, whatever), I'll start using @googlemail.com from now on in my documents and conversations.

Re:I actually prefer @googlemail.com

[GameSlave]

every time I say @gmail.com over the phone or even in person to someone, half the time they hear @email.com

that's because you're pronouncing it wrong: it should be the hard "G" sound, and not "Gee" otherwise, we'd all be saying "Joojle".
sigh. americans and your "hukd on phonix"..

Re:I actually prefer @googlemail.com

[b4k3d b34nz]

That's probably the dumbest thing I've heard all day. When I go through the alphabet, i don't say the letter "G" with a hard sound. Gmail is the letter "G", then the word "mail".

Re:I actually prefer @googlemail.com

[trash eighty]

Gmail, though it does sound like gay porn

Re:I actually prefer @googlemail.com

[dagnabit]

I tried changing my address to send from @googlemail.com, and it won't let me. My "real" address has to be @gmail.com. I can have the Reply-To go to @googlemail.com, but the "From" will continue to be @gmail.com... weird.

Re:I actually prefer @googlemail.com

[josh82]

"That's probably the dumbest thing I've heard all day. When I go through the alphabet, i don't say the letter "G" with a hard sound. Gmail is the letter "G", then the word "mail"."

You know, we could solve this by using the German pronunciation of "G": "geh". -- However, I kind of suspect that not many people would be comfortable verbally admitting that they have an address at "gaymail.com".

I bet English-speaking Germans really get a kick out of that one.

      Unintentionally queer connotations: 1. - Google: 0.

Re:I actually prefer @googlemail.com

[Phantasmagoria]

I pity you. First you assume I'm American, when I actually live on the opposite side of the earth. Next you suggest I pronounce 'gmail' like people pronounce 'gnu' to solve the problem of people mishearing me. You made it worse. And thirdly, you assume that just because google has a hard g, then gmail MUST have it too. Of course, you could just be giving me a hard time for fun. :-)

Re:I actually prefer @googlemail.com

[GameSlave]

Of course, you could just be giving me a hard time for fun. :-)

I had hoped it would've been more obvious.. but i couldn't find the right tag for "snarky" :)

Will I keep my username?

[mark2003]

Maybe I haven't read this properly but I can't find explicitly stated anywhere that I will be able to keep my username after the change from @gmail to @googlemail - i.e. if I have xyz@gmail.com will they reserve xyz@googlemail.com for me?

I have a really common name and getting a user name that was remotely like my real name was only possible by getting hold of an invite right at the start. I'll be really pissed off if someone else can swipe it. I've tried opening another account with myname@googlemail.com and it is not available - hopefully this indicates that they have reserved it for me.

Re:Will I keep my username?

[trash eighty]

try e-mailing yourself ...@googlemail.com, mine worked no probs

Re:Will I keep my username?

[mark2003]

Good plan - and it works.

Re:Will I keep my username?

[Finuvir]

Try sending an email to [yourname]@googlemail.com. You'll receive it in your Gmail inbox. They haven't reserved the name for you; they've already given it to you.

Re:Will I keep my username?

[/dev/trash]

No, they'll randomly assign you a new username.

Why wouldn't you keep the same name?

Re:Will I keep my username?

[danimrich]

Yep, works fine for me.

Re:Will I keep my username?

[fabs64]

Do I need to do anything? No. Although the name is changing, your email service remains the same. To sign in, you can go to the same page as before, or you can now also visit: http://mail.google.com/mail.
From the way most of it reads, googlemail.com and gmail.com will just be interchangeable servers, and so you will in effect have the same account for both of them.

Re:Will I keep my username?

[CheeseyDJ]

If you tried to email yourself from your GMail account the message won't show up in your inbox.

Messages sent from your GMail account to another address which forwards to your GMail account are only shown in 'Sent Mail' to avoid clutter.

Re:Will I keep my username?

[maxume]

Send yourself a message at the address you couldn't sign up for; there is a good chance you will recieve it...

Re:Will I keep my username?

[Saberwind]

If you send mail to youraccount@googlemail.com, you'll receive it at youraccount@gmail.com. There is no need to "reserve" an address under the new domain, it's the same system.

Re:Will I keep my username?

[The-Bus]

It's one and the same. My gmail address is my googlemail address as well.

Value of Gmail brand

[ganache]

IIIR boss Shane Smith points to an independent valuation of the brand, compiled in December 2004 by Valuation Consulting Limited, which suggests a value of between $48m and $64m, although he says his company would have settled for much less.

And how much of this valuation is due to Google's use of the name?

Re:Value of Gmail brand

[RalphSleigh]

I suppose I have a 'UK' gmail address, but both @gmail and @googlemail work so I am happy. I cant see how this one company can force google to hand over gmail.com (given how the US runs the internet and all *grin*), and blocking it in the UK only would be a logistical nightmare (how do you tell if an account is a UK one? The last IP it was accessed from? The IP it was created on?) -Ralph

Re:Value of Gmail brand

[LocoMan]

They do that already. When I go to google.com I get the venezuelan version in spanish (it even says the country below the google name), I have to configure it manually if I want the english version, regardless of the ISP use. So if they have that system already working, I'd guess it would be very easy for them to just redirect any access to gmail from the UK to googlemail... and maybe ask to put the entire email in the login like MSN and hotmail does so that you can access gmail accounts within the UK or googlemail accounts on other countries.

Definition of "in?"

[portscan]

Well that all depends on what the definition of "is" is...

Re:Yep

[TedCheshireAcad]

Granted, whoever wins claim to 'GMail' is going to have some extra SMTP traffic to deal with ;-)

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[SimilarityEngine]

I mentioned this somewhere earlier, but... IIIR have been using the name since 2002, but did not register it with the EU's trademark office, or the USPTO, until after Google announced their Gmail idea. Source.

preference

[jkind]

I kind of like "gmail" better than googlemail.. What would be even better, is if you could easily be logged into gmail twice on the same browser (multiple people using same computer), without having to *shudder* use IE for the 2nd instance.

Re:preference

[jbensley]

If you are using firefox you can set up different profiles for each user and then just select the profile when you start the browser.

http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/profile

Not all lawyers are backstabbing...

[quibbler]

I'm in law school. I'm a geek. Using lawyers to handle a jackass company (gmail trademark holder) is not backstabbing, its exactly what lawyers are for. The think about trademarks is that that its old law. It doesn't recognize the concept of a world-wide information network at all. If google loses this one, frankly its a result of lawyers not using the correct arguments to the court(s) involved. (What should be put forward is the vast balance of people greatly inconvenienced versus the "I got here first" doctrine that has traditionally prevailed in trademark cases.

Re:Not all lawyers are backstabbing...

[natedubbya]

What should be put forward is the vast balance of people greatly inconvenienced versus the "I got here first" doctrine that has traditionally prevailed in trademark cases.

Yes you must be a lawyer (to be). Such statements make me shiver a little. You argue that a huge company can come in and stomp on a little guy who had a bright idea, on the grounds that the big company can "help" more people. Less people are "inconvenienced" if we give the rights to the huge company.

And in related news, the Supreme Court ruled on eminent domain that the government can give someone's private property away if it "benefits" more people.

Don't be so quick to step on the little guy, you may be suppressing new and creative people from coming forward. I'm not a lawyer nor an expert, but isn't that one of the purposes of copyright and patents? To encourage innovation. I won't present my brilliant ground breaking idea if I know a lawyer like you will steal it from me and give it to an already established company.

Re:Not all lawyers are backstabbing...

[kcornia]

Hopefully you're first year, because that last statement you made is ridiculous.

Or you're already gunning for that top corporate lawyer spot. As other posters have said, trademark is designed to protect the guy who does it first, not the guy with the biggest pocketbook/customer base/lawyer corps.

Re:Not all lawyers are backstabbing...

[quibbler]

I agree 100%. The issue here is that Google seems to have tried the greenmail solution with no remedy.

What do you do in this situation, when the big company is trying to do the right thing, and the little-guy is basking in their lottery-ticket domain; at the same time, monkey-wrenching a ubiquitous name on the internet...

Re:Not all lawyers are backstabbing...

[quibbler]

I wear a white hat, not a black pointy one; There's a huge difference between a megacorp "stomping" a little-guy, and a generally good company, stumbling on a obscure little-used trademark in one country; subsequently trying to do the right thing and buy the domain, etc., and being stifled by the greedy little-guy who's suddenly found themselves holding a platinum piece of virtual real estate and wanting to cash in since the domain just went from 1% to 99.5% of their now-great-with-child balance sheet.

My original point was not that we need to enable "stomping" of the little guy, but rather recognize that domain names have very different implications (jurisdiction-ignoring technology) than could the framers of trademark laws have ever predicted.

Re:Not all lawyers are backstabbing...

[quibbler]

I beg to differ, trademark law is optimized for commerce, not "protecting the little guy". The Uniform Commercial Code and large chunks of federal and state code, and even case law is there to keep the wheels of our economy moving smoothly. Here is 15 U.S.C. 1051, the source of our trademark law- I doubt if GB is far off, they mimic most of our commerce laws.

As such, the 'little guy' here has perverted the notion of trademark protection. The courts are much more practical and not nearly so much about 'stickling' as much as Hollywood would have us believe. These guys want to get rich, not provide a competing service. I would hope the GB courts will realize this.

Re:Not all lawyers are backstabbing...

[quibbler]

There are lots of ways to 'set the price'. Cost to seller plus; worth to buyer; fair market; marginal increase in worth, cost of alternatives, and so forth. While I would agree, the price shouldn't be set by google, it should also not be the price set by the "guy with the gun" (the current trademark holder).

Also, while there is parallel reasoning here, the property in question is not real property, but instead, the right to government protection, this is a material fact. That right can be moved and changed or terminated, as long as that decision (and precedent repercussions) are considered best for the greater good economy.

Please don't think that I would advocate anything but the strictest interpretation of immanent domain rules with regards to real property. However, extending the Del Webb analogy, this is more the equivalent of a po-dunk quickie-mart owner hindering the path of a hyper-fast international highway affecting millions of people per day because he's holding out for millions more than fair-market value. (For the non-legal, the quickie mart wouldn't win this.)

Re:Not all lawyers are backstabbing...

[Edzor]

the US inherited laws from GB not the other way around!




bloody colonials.

why @googlemail.com?

[Se7enLC]

Why not @google.com? And before you say "well that's for google employees" consider that msn, yahoo, etc already do that.

Re:why @googlemail.com?

[GameSlave]

that's because msn & yahoo employees all use @gmail.

Re:why @googlemail.com?

[drawfour]

MSN employees are actually employed by Microsoft. They use @microsoft.com addresses for their work email, and if they want an @msn.com address, they sign up for the service. I'm not sure about what Yahoo does, but I know that's how MS handles it.

Re:@googlemail.com address may be a collector's it

[Xarius]

Every person with a gmail account has a googlemail.com address anyway.

Spam

[David Off]

> Google is warning they may lose their '@gmail.com' addresses in the future. All new signups from the UK will be assigned '@googlemail.com' addresses

That will be good, all the GBs of spam I get each day will take a while to track me down.

Sick of IP...

[PortHaven]

I don't know about you all, but I am really, really, really getting sick of IP rights. I see abuse after abuse after abuse....and very little valid use or even in the cases which are valid I greatly question the need.

Sure...it's all supposed to help protect the artists/innovators, the little guys....but in most cases I do not see this happening. And right now there seems to be a complete lack of common sense among the legal systems.

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[Thnurg]

If they were really bothered about their trademark they would have disputed the name when it was first announced in 2004.
Seems to me their thinking was along the lines of "Wait until Google have built a nice fat mindshare and brand name, then we can extort them for use of the name after that."
Judging from the fee they are asking I reckn I'm on the right lines here.

Re:Huh? Two Answers To The Same Question

[fabs64]

not the same question, not the use of the word "ever"

Some more info

[houghi]

on the Beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4354954.stm

It also tells about Germany where the same situation is happening and Google already lost. Looks as if Google tries to strangle companies out of their rightfull names and they lost.

How would you feel is in the message Google was to be replaced by Microsoft and Gmail by Vista?

why not google.com instead?

[mcn]

we have yahoo mail, with yahoo.com. why not google dish out google.com addresses instead?

Re:why not google.com instead?

[The MAZZTer]

Yes, I can see it now.

From: w3bmaster@google.com
Subject: I'M LARRY PAGE, LOL

Mail.Google.Com

[Wiwi Jumbo]

I'd still prefer @mail.google.com.....

But I don't know why...

Re:Mail.Google.Com

[VJ42]

Try sending a mail to [username] @mail.google.com, it might work, afterall we found out today that all those people with @gmail.com addresses can use at @googlemail.com wheather in the UK or not.

Re:Invite

[CheeseyDJ]

You may not need one...

Have you tried sending a mail to [your username]@googlemail.com to see what happens?

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[SimilarityEngine]

My reply was meant to be to Quaryon's comment. But yes you are right in what you say(again!).

Re:Yep

[EpsCylonB]

Still sucks though.

Sorry if you were hoping for something more insightful.

Double-edged sword

[pedestrian crossing]

When I signed up for Hotmail, I entered my country as 'Pakistan', since I didn't think it was Microsoft's business what country I'm from/in. Also, I don't live in the country I'm from, so it's pretty much meaningless anyway.

But lo and behold, when Hotmail upped their storage to 250MB, my account stayed at 2.5MB (later upped to 25MB). Why? Because I'm not in the USA. Do you think changing my profile to USA upped the limit? Hint - the answer is not yes.

Yes, I know Hotmail != Gmail, but the point is that initial profile choices can have unintended consequences...

Re:Double-edged sword

[Pete (big-pete)]

But lo and behold, when Hotmail upped their storage to 250MB, my account stayed at 2.5MB

When I wanted my Hotmail account increased, I just asked via the support pages and it was done within a day or so.

-- Pete.

Re:Double-edged sword

[FRiC]

Actually, for Hotmail, if you change your profile to USA and use some particular zip code, you get 250 MB. I've had the instructions forwarded to me so many times, and even people calling me up to tell me about it, eventhough I don't even have a Hotmail account.

Re:Double-edged sword

[toohey]

I changed my country to USA and after a few weeks the storage capacity went up to 250 MB. So it does work that way.

Re:Double-edged sword

[pedestrian crossing]

Indeed, the policy is: "250MB inbox available only in the 50 United States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Eligible Hotmail users will first receive 25MB at sign-up. Please allow at least 30 days for activation of your 250MB storage to verify your e-mail account and help prevent abuse. Microsoft Corporation reserves the right to provide 250MB inbox to free Hotmail accounts at its discretion"

I made the change about 3 months ago, so I guess 30 days is a best-case scenario. Or maybe they are just exercising their "discretion". Maybe they don't believe someone who is "from" Pakistan. Who knows?

BTW, I clicked on the "why do we need this information?" link below the country, it says it is to make sure that if you sign up as under 18, that the applicable country's laws regarding minors can be applied.

But that's OK, I've used Gmail as my primary account for a long time, and only keep my hotmail account becuase I had it so long before (from before Microsoft acquired it!). It's hard to get people to stop sending to me via hotmail.

Re:Double-edged sword

[xmpcray]

There is a hack to "up" your account to 250MB in case Hotmail hasnt yet (based on your country)...just change your country to US or Canada in your profile. Then choose to disable your account, then re-enable it. It will move you to 25MB first in case you are still stuck on 2MB, and then 250MB in a week's time.

disclaimer: i did this for my account and it worked, no guarantees on all accounts..

It's a f*cking huge issue if gmail goes away

[Colin Smith]

And because it's a trademark it's entirely possible that it'll have to go away.

It's just like moving house without the moving of course, or the house... Everyone has to be told.

For those of us with gmail accouts. Start moving to googlemail now, whether it's required in the future or not.

Re:It's a f*cking huge issue if gmail goes away

[Tet]

For those of us with gmail accouts. Start moving to googlemail now, whether it's required in the future or not.

Nope. I'll stick with gmail.com for now. I suspect I'm about to immediately start accessing it through a proxy in Canada, too, just to be on the safe side. Even if Google lose this case, they're going to be hard pushed to implement any technological solution that prevents existing gmail.com addresses from working in the UK but not elsewhere. My money is on me being able to keep the gmail.com address.

BTW, hello! How's life back in Scotland?

More trouble ahead for Google!

[callipygian-showsyst]

Just wait until Ghiradelli goes after them!

Re:@googlemail.com address may be a collector's it

[LiquidCoooled]

Your right!

I just tried signing up liquidcoooled@googlemail.com and some bastard has already got it.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr (flips out and throws an office chair ballmer style)

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[aaronl]

In the US, when you write a work it comes into existance with a copyright. Registering your copyright is not necessary, but makes litigation easier.

If you're publicly using an actual trademark commercially, and someone else starts doing the same, you may be able to defend your use. If you register your mark, it is substantially easier to defend your trademark.

The huge difference is that if you don't defend your trademark in all cases that you are aware of, you can lose your legal ability to do so in the future.

Registration is not required to file suit. Failure to defend a trademark in every case results in losing the trademark. Under US law, if Google was using GMail as a mark, and the other company was aware but didn't pursue, then it is likely that the other company will lose their rights to the mark.

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[1u3hr]

For example, in the U.S. you write an article but don't bother to register the copyright. However, you find out people have started using it without your permission so you go an copyright it at that point. Just because you didn't recognize the potential value of your work until later doesn't mean you don't get those rights. That said, you do you lose some claims against early infringers by registering late; but you don't lose your rights entirely.

You have copyright and can sue infringers whether you have "registered" it or not. I believe however you can more easily get statutory damages with a registration.

Re:Yep

[ngoy]

More information here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4354954.stm. The company (International Investment Research) has some stupid button that says gmail on an app, and then decided to get it registered after google came out with gmail. The company is only worth $5.6 Million anyways. I hope google decides to just do a hostile takeover (they are publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange) and then fire the dumbasses and their legal team for being conniving assholes.

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[Peyna]

Also, if you don't register and didn't put a notice on the work, the other person can use the defense that they thought it was public domain, thereby making registration very important.

Re:Yep

[andrewman327]

There have been companies that have produced such good products that they killed their demand. Some durable goods manufacturers have sold people products that almost never needed to be replaced, thus preventing the need to buy another. By keeping things in a constant state of "Beta" development, companies ensure their survival.

Re:and what about googlemail?

[maxwell demon]

Trademarked, not copyrighted!
But if so, this somebody violates Google's trademark on "Google".

Re:Yep

[WormholeFiend]

"hostile" takeovers sound "evil".

Re:I hate these freeloaders

[Armour Hotdog]

Well, as long as you're changing your address anyway, it's the perfect opportunity to switch providers. Given the reviews of Yahoo Mail, I might take the opportunity to switch myself if Google drops the gmail domain.

Re:Yep

[KillerDeathRobot]

And that's why Gmail still says "BETA" at the top.

How on Earth did this get modded insightful? Not only is this just regurgitating the same thing people say every time we talk about Google products on Slashdot, but it doesn't even make sense on this one! Gmail is still in Beta because of trademark disputes? Huh?

The same criteria they use elsewhere.

[Inoshiro]

Initial creation from which IP block/for which country.

Just like Google.[ca|com|uk|etc].

Re:@googlemail.com address may be a collector's it

[laketrout]

I doubt it. Everyone with an existing @gmail account will already receive email sent to @googlemail so in essence there's already millions of @googlemail addresses out there.

GMail users already have GoogleMail!

[jbarr]

You may not realize this, but if you currently have a GMail account, you already have a GoogleMail account. Next time you login to Gmail, append googlemail.com to your username, and it will let you in. Have someone send you an email addressed to your.address@GoogleMail.com instead of your.address@GMail.com, and you will receive it.

So, for those of you who are concerned about losing your coveted gmail address when "switching" to GoogleMail, don't fret. You already have it on GoogleMail!

-Jim
http://gmailtips.com/

Re:@googlemail.com address may be a collector's it

[pclminion]

Bah. My Sourceforge email address is simply "scott" which is pretty "impressive" considering the popularity of the name Scott but I have yet to become a zillionaire because of it. I don't think possessing a rare email address is going to get you far ;-)

Besides, the way Google did this is to set the MX records for both gmail.com and googlemail.com to the same host. So everyone who has a gmail.com address already has a googlemail.com address.

Phony Trademark It Is

[stefaanh]

To http://gmail.co.uk/ I went.
A webmail front I saw.
Contensis CMS product I read.
To http://www.contensis.net/ I went.
For gmail I searched.
Nothing I did find.

Re:Yep

[KillerDeathRobot]

Beta software has nothing to do with trademark issues! It has to do with whether the program is complete (or relatively complete) feature-wise and is bug-free (ideally). Taking something out of beta doesn't mean that no trademark issues can arise, nor does having something in beta mean that trademark issues will arise.

Re:Yep

[Bellyflop]

But really all it means is the guys on the board of directors aren't getting bought out on their own terms. Hey, it's one of the risks you assume when you decided to go public. It's often welcomed by share holders but hostile towards the managing board that's about to be fired :)

Speaking of Germany...

[LeonGeeste]

That reminds me. If Germans adapt the English, as they like to do, and say "mail" in Gmail, but retain their pronunciation of the letter "g", that means they say "gay mail" when talking about Gmail.

|Insert joke here|

Re:Yep

[Jarlsberg]

That sounds like a nice and evil plan.

Gmail.com

[sloths]

How about Google just trademark the phrase "Gmail.com" instead of just "Gmail"? I don't think @GoogleMail.com has the same ring to it as @gmail.com. From the start, Google would not have been as succesful if it were called GoogleMail.

At least you didn't put in a wrong age...

[arhar]

My dad put his age as 13 when he signed up for exactly the same reason - he didn't think it was any of Microsoft's business to know how old he was. Lo and behold, he now needed parental permission to anything! Of course, changing his age to the real one didn't work. I don't remember exactly what he did to change it, but it wasn't easy.

Missing FAQ

[BobaFett]

6. What if I'm a UK user pretending to be a non-UK user? Can I get a Gmail address?

But.. but.. openoffice!

[Lord Bitman]

You mean simply adding .com isnt enough to make it unique to google?? Watch out Openoffice.org!

(and Gaim is completely distinguished from GAIM, too! yep, sure is!) /hate everybody

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[1u3hr]

Also, if you don't register and didn't put a notice on the work, the other person can use the defense that they thought it was public domain, thereby making registration very important.

Such a defence would fail. Copyright is the default. Nothing is in the public domain unless the copyright has expired, or it's EXPLICITLY put there.

Re:Yep

[modecx]

But, isn't this a bug in the grand scheme of things, even if it's not in the software? Does Beta have to necessarily apply only to software? I don't think so. Hardware can also be said to have alpha and beta tests, though they're usually in house, or covertly via trusted customers. I've beta tested printers and other hardware, and any defect can crop up anywhere in the long chain of processes that eventually should result in some graphic being correctly applied to paper, or whatever the end result of the operation should be. That's what beta describes--they've gone from testing individual components (the servers, the individual parts of software, etc), to testing the system as a whole, In The Real World--or as close as they can safely come to it.

If some company gives me a beta lawnmower to use because they expect I'll test it, I have to recognize that it that could break down prematurely or otherwise not work like I'd expect a normal, production lawnmower (even from the same company) to work. Maybe it could throw fire out of the exhaust, and squirt fuel out of the tank... Who knows! All they're saying is to beware of relying on their lawnmower, because it's possible they've overlooked something that may cause the lawnmower to rip up all of your customers' grass instead of cutting it neatly. It's experimental.

Gmail is a service, and software, and definitely a huge, undoubtedly complicated system. This is a bug in the service part of Gmail, because The System(tm) (being Google's responsibility or not) didn't work as they expected, and that's why it's beta. They haven't got the kinks worked out.

Re:Yep

[ngoy]

They're 'dumbasses' and 'conniving assholes' for looking after their trademark?

This mindless Google worship sickens me, you know very well that Google would crush anyone who named a product 'gmail' or 'froogle'. How can anyone blindly support an over-sized, profiteering, fraudulent corporation, even when they're screwing over other people?

If this was Microsoft you'd all be supporting the small company, but because it's Google, you're happy for them to trample everyone in their path.

You need to RTA. They trademarked gmail AFTER google came out with their email service. IIR's gmail is a SECTION of an application that they have. They do not market gmail outside of their application, and their main application is NOT email. Then they have a outside company do some "research" that says the gmail trademark is worth over $40 million. To who? Obviously only to google, because if gmail was worth so much as a trademark to IIR, they wouldn't be a piddly $5 million company.

What they are doing is the same as cybersquatting, repatenting, and almost borders on extortion. It's not like they started out with the concept of having a web email service called "gmail" because they wanted to have a "G" rated email system for kids and teens. Then I'd have a problem with google if they attempted anything crass. But that is not the case.

Frankly, since google has so much money, they should try to buy out SCO and kick out the dumbasses over there too. They would get some good programmers while ridding us of the BS that has been going on there. SCO is only worth $67 million right now, with almost 50% shares held by those other than insiders. I am sure they could get one of the insiders to flip and "make the world a better place"

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[Peyna]

Not true. While notice of claim of copyright is not required to prove you have a copyright in a particular work, lack of notice of claim of copyright leaves open the defense of being an innocent infringer.

Take a look at 17 USC 405(b).

Betas are not just for code

[rev063]

I'd say that, for a mail application, "my email address doesn't work" is a pretty big bug. And that looks like exactly what might happen to UK users of gmail. Not having ironed out this possibility is a pretty good reason to stay in beta.

If you really think that beta is only concerned with "whether the program is complete" you have a very narrow view of what a software product comprises. It's not just the code. It's also the hardware, servers, software, customer service, packaging, delivery, and operations that need to be working to make the software useful and accessible to customers. Not every product has all these things, but in my experience no product has none of them. And when I run a beta I test all of these things, not just the code.

Re:Other company has had an email service since 20

[1u3hr]

defense of being an innocent infringer. Take a look at 17 USC 405(b).

You take a look. It applies only to items "which the copyright notice has been omitted", not items which have not been "registered". [I see now you added the condition of omitting notice, though I originally only discussed omitting registration. If I was publishing anything at all, I'd put a copyright line in it, though I wouldn't bother to register unless I was a large corporation.] And further, to items "publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before ... 1988", not now.

Re:Yep

[waif69]

Yeah, lets kick out all the idiots! Oh, didn't SCO try to get IBM to buy them? Oh, heck lets just buy all the companies that are being run by idiots and ... oh, we don't have that much money? sorry.

Re:Yep

[wombert]

Then they have a outside company do some "research" that says the gmail trademark is worth over $40 million. To who? Obviously only to google, because if gmail was worth so much as a trademark to IIR, they wouldn't be a piddly $5 million company.

You don't evaluate a trademark's worth based on a single year of usage. A good trademark has longevity, so it's reasonable to evaluate it based on the future benefits of keeping it long-term vs. selling it in the near-term.

Hopefully this won't affect gmail worldwide

[pappy97]

I vividly remember when the World Wrestling Federation lost a TM dispute to the World Wildlife Fund in the UK, and because of losing only in the UK (I believe the rasslin company would have won anywhere else in the World, ESPECIALLY the USA), they changed their name to World Wrestling Entertainment. I still think that move was dumb, but I hope Google won't do the same thing if they lose a TM dispute in the UK over gmail.

Google search redirects

[astralbat]

I live in the UK
I've noticed recently that going to http://www.google.com/ redirects me to http://www.google.co.uk/

Handy, but it's a shame I use http://www.google.com/ig/ for which there is no UK local alternative :-(

Re:Wow you guys are a bunch of cocksuckers.

[Skynet]

Fuck tux up his faggot asshole.

no guarantee

[markb]

It's always possible that your personal domain name infringes on someone's trademark. So best to choose something obscure.

Can backstabbing got any worse?

[MikePlacid]

Huh? They are not paying the poor little gmail name owner the millions he deserves. Is there any worse way of backstabbing?

(Also note that in trademark law, "Windows Vista" owner has some chances against MS only if his product is software, not window blinds. Products should overlap for trademark protection to be triggered.)

Re:@googlemail.com address may be a collector's it

[MCRocker]

Everyone with an existing @gmail account will already receive email sent to @googlemail so in essence there's already millions of @googlemail addresses out there.

True, but the 'From:' line will only have an @googlemail for newer UK users. If Google wins it's case, they'll probably go back to using @gmail, but because it's not 'Not Evil' (TM) to change someone's 'From:' line on them Google will probably keep those as they are.

So, with the liberal application of a little slippery logic and lots of squinting, my already dubious assertion can be made to appear valid even in the face of a pretty good counter argument.

That's too long to type. Lets ditch googlemail.

[managedcode]

Good Bye!!!

Irritating

[hawkida]

The thing that bothers me most about it is that my firefox tab is no longer wide enough to tell me whether I've got mail because it's taken up by the product name!

Googlemail?!

[fluffyhelengmail.com]

My gmail address still remains this morning and I'm definitely through a .UK IP address. This hurts though. googlemail.com? Psh. It takes longer to type than yahoo.com, I'm too lazy for this!