Google Sends Legal Threats to Media Organizations

rm69990 writes "Google, becoming more and more concerned about the growing use of the word google as a verb, has fired off warning letters to numerous media organizations warning them against using its name as a verb. This follows google (with a lowercase g) being added to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in June. According to a Google spokesperson: "We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet, and using the word Google to describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues.""

Comments

Generic Brand Name Issue

[eldavojohn]

I think the reasoning behind this is that Google is attempting to preemptively stop any possible legal issues with their name. I mean, you run into issues when things are known by a brand name. Take for instance Kleenex, Jell-O, Frisbee & Hoover. You know what all these are and there's a fairly good chance you've called an imposter brand the same name.

What I speculate Google is worried about is that the verb "googled" becomes generic for search as in "I googled it." And the law says you can't trademark something that is generically used. Essentially, if a case occurred with a rival search engine putting "Just google it!" at the top of their page and the court said they could do that because 'google' is a generic term, then you would have precedent for millions of Google imposters seeking to make money off the Google name (since it just means search to the general public).

Google figures it already is a household name. The last thing they need is the media dumping 'google' as a verb in the papers because if they start putting it in headlines and stories--it's a much easier case for another company to claim it is part of the English language. Hell, it's already in two entries in the Oxford dictionary. I think you could already argue a case to use the word "google" to mean search on your site.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[James_Aguilar]

I agree on your analysis of what Google is doing. I also have a question. They're trying to avoid losing their trademark by keeping the name from becoming too mainstream a word. However, do they actually have to succeed in order to maintain the trademark? Or, do they only have to demonstrate that they are trying?

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[elrous0]

Corporations are in a tough spot on this one. On the one hand, they WANT to become a household name and the de facto standard in their industry. On the other hand, they don't want to be accused of being a monopoly or have their trademarked name become a generic term in their industry. It's a VERY hard balance to try to maintain.

Incidentally, I suspect the Apple is having the same problem now with the iPod. Increasingly, I hear "iPod" being used synonymously with "MP3 Player."

-Eric

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[babbling]

What I speculate Google is worried about is that the verb "googled" becomes generic for search as in "I googled it."

There's no need to speculate. That's exactly what they're claiming!

"We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet, and using the word Google to describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues."

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[howlatthemoon]

There is no need to speculate as to why they need to do this. Marks work differently than patents or copyright. Failure to defend a mark can allow it to fall into the public domain. Google could lose the exclusive right to use google as a mark. They do not need to pursue every infringement, but need to demonstrate that they are defending the mark. They need to take special care to defend it against significant infringement which could weaken their case for exclusive use. IANAL (as if you couldn't figure this out by my taking time to read and post), but my spouse use to to work in mark protection, so I learned a bit about it.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Take for instance Kleenex, Jell-O, Frisbee & Hoover.

You forgot: Nothing sucks like a VAX!

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Intron]

"Take for instance Kleenex, Jell-O, Frisbee & Hoover. "
I will only eat Jell-O brand horse's hooves.

(Go ahead, google for gelatin)

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Hal_Porter]

Trademarks can be revoked if they become generic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining _trademark_rights_.E2.80.94_abandonment_and_generi cide

Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.

For example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin" has been ruled generic in the United States, so other companies may use that name for acetylsalicylic acid as well (although it is still a trademark in Canada). Xerox for copiers and Band-Aid for adhesive bandages are both trademarks which are at risk of succumbing to genericide, which the respective trademark owners actively seek to prevent. In order to prevent marks becoming generic, trademark owners often contact those who appear to be using the trademark incorrectly, from web page authors to dictionary editors, and request that they cease the improper usage.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[fafaforza]

(I assume) Google already trademarked their name, so popularizing the term will not make it impossible for them to trademark it, cause they already hold the trademark.

They are concerned that when you say "google it," the term will get so generic that many people will understand it to mean search online, using Yahoo, ask.com, or google.

Frankly, I don't understand their concern. People could just as easily say "just search it online" instead of "just google it". Hell they could even use "just yahoo it." At the very least, their brand name is being used in the context, and anyone new to the internet who hears the term over and over, will come accross google.com and think that it is the real McCoy, just like I believe Kleenex tissues to be the real McCoy of tissues, anything else being a cheap, generic knockoff.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[g2devi]

That's what happens when you get too popular. Xerox faced the same fate:
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=xerox

I've always been amused when someone has been asked to xerox something on a Minolta photocopier or google something on MSN, but that's humanity for you.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[TEMMiNK]

I know that in Australia (which counts for nothing) simply acting to defend your trademark is enough to keep it, if you allow people to utilise it and don't protect it you then run into a problem when you try to sue them for millions.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't get it... Just how in hell would somebody search the internet without using Google?

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[skoaldipper]

Or, do they only have to demonstrate that they are trying?

Like the former googlegear.com? Now it's zipzoomfly.com. Lindows anyone? On and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows. When does it end? I predict by the year 2037, the Blue Union Labor League Society Helping Industry Trade will mandate that all our children lose their first and last name to avoid any future trademark lawsuits, using their social security numbers instead.

"Do you 103569872, take 324091256 to be your lawfully wedded wife? To have and to hold, until death or soylent green do you part?"...

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[steincastle]

How can you get 5:Insightfull and speculate on a generic name? Google was trademarked BEFORE it was baked into the language so there can't be any dispute about legitimacy of the trademark. Quite contrary, if that is happening then their trademark is super-golden egg. This is about something else, I think that Google's ever growing lawyer department is just trying to earn their skyhigh wages by doing what lawyers do: sending threatening letters etc.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[James_Aguilar]

Read this Wikipedia section about trademark abandonment and genericide and you will understand.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Dog-Cow]

Or you might just be a clueless fuck that posts on slashdot. Trademarks can be lost if they are not defended from generic use. No one is disputing that Google holds the trademark for the word google when used to refer to Internet search engines. That's precisely the point: they hold the mark and they have to defend it. That's the law in the US for companies wishing to retain exclusive use to a trademark.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I speculate someone will claim this is exactly what they're saying.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[flumps]

I would have done but its been slashdotted. Or is that Slashdotted. erm.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[boarder8925]

Pfft. You read articles and summaries?

You must be knew here.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Antifuse]

(I assume) Google already trademarked their name, so popularizing the term will not make it impossible for them to trademark it, cause they already hold the trademark. It won't make it impossible to trademark it, but it WILL make it impossible to hold ON to that trademark if it becomes too generic.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[russ1337]

I'm sure that question was on my entry forms last time I entered the USA....

> Have you ever participated in genericide?

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[flooey]

(I assume) Google already trademarked their name, so popularizing the term will not make it impossible for them to trademark it, cause they already hold the trademark.

One of the requirements of holding a trademark is that you must both use it and defend it from intrusion by others. If you don't do those things, the government can rule that you don't really care about it, and remove its protection. It's not like a patent where you can hold it without using it for anything.

At the very least, their brand name is being used in the context, and anyone new to the internet who hears the term over and over, will come accross google.com and think that it is the real McCoy, just like I believe Kleenex tissues to be the real McCoy of tissues, anything else being a cheap, generic knockoff.

How do you feel about Zipper brand metal fasteners? DryIce brand frozen carbon dioxide? Yo-Yo brand...whatever you'd call a yo-yo aside from "yo-yo"? There's a real threat to their losing the trademark.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[pthisis]

From wikipedia's entry on gelatin: "Contrary to popular belief, horns and hooves are not commonly used."

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[spun]

Yes, but did you know the number of horns and hooves used in Jell-o brand gelatin has tripled in the last three months?

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Penguin]

That article could use a couple of more clear examples. Like the elephants in Africa that lost the rights of their own name since elephants tripled in population without preventing it themselves.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Take for instance Kleenex, Jell-O, Frisbee & Hoover.

Or even more to the point, zipper. How many people even know that was originally a trademark?

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[NixLuver]

Usually by adults who are somewhat 'out of the loop'. I've seen lots of kids disappointed with "iPods" that were really something else entirely, when what they wanted was an iPod, not generic MP3 player X.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[hackstraw]

The difference with Google is that it is also the name of the company, which cannot be revoked.

The only popular revocation that I know of is the thermos, but that was a brand name by a company, not the company's name itself.

I wish I had problems with being too successful and popular.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Hal_Porter]

Strange thing is, it's actually a legal term not a pun -

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/2AECC3FA-2 32B-4EDB-AADEABF5E5658306/alpha/G/

And we may mock Wikipedia for it's arcane legalese but they mock us too -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trademark#slashd ot

The HTML entity for the symbol is , while the HTML entity for ® is ®. On a Microsoft Windows computer with American keyboard layout, alt+0153 types , while alt+0174 makes ®. On Macintosh computers, opt+2 for and opt+r for ®, and their Unicode encodings are 2122 in hexadecimal/8482 in decimal for and 00AE in hexadecimal/174 in decimal for ®.

Charming and amusing paragraph. This certainly is the encyclopedia made by Slashdot.

Actually this is kind of ironic

http://www.wordspy.com/words/genericide.asp

On Feb. 22, 1983, by refusing to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court let stand a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the trademark registration of the term "MONOPOLY" for Parker Brothers' ever-popular real estate board game. The 9th Circuit declared that the term "MONOPOLY" had become generic, i.e. had become a common descriptive name for that type of board game and thus no longer afforded trademark rights to Parker Brothers, the owner of the "MONOPOLY" trademark registration. ...

Parker Brothers no longer have a monopoly on the word monopoly.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Hal_Porter]

That's ridiculous!

Children would be should be given GUIDs, not numbers like that. That way you wouldn't need a central number generator, which would be vulnerable to anarchists.

Or hydrogen bombs in wartime of course.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Anonymous Drunkard]

Read this Wikipedia section about trademark abandonment and genericide and you will understand.

You mean Wikipedia this section, don't you?

(Jimmy Wales oughta be damned glad that 'Wikipedia' makes no sense as a verb...)

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[john83]

There already is a distinction: one googles for pron on Google.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[enharmonix]

They're trying to avoid losing their trademark by keeping the name from becoming too mainstream a word. However, do they actually have to succeed in order to maintain the trademark? Or, do they only have to demonstrate that they are trying?

I believe the term in question is dilution, and if I'm not mistaken, you can't stop the public from using your term, but you do have to take measures to remind everybody that the trademark is a brand name of a product, not a type of product. IIRC, Bayer Aspirin used to be called Aspirin, but nobody bothered reminding anybody that Aspirin was a trademarked name, and as such, it no longer was. This is probably why Microsoft is able to call their OS Windows -- even though "window" is a generic term, MS has been careful to distinguish their OS from other windowed operating systems.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[plague3106]

I think they only have to actively defend it... which means that anyone getting such a letter could likely be sued if they continue to treat google as a generic term.

Kleenex and Jello still have their names... but that's why you start seeing 'Jello brand gelleten' on the box... to remind you its a brand name.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[painQuin]

I think Jell-O brand actually switched to synthetic gelatin a while back...

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[bogado]

The problem is that people learn the generic term before he learn about the company. Take me for instance, I have 35 and being born in Brasil where there were no advertising for xerox I always have used "Cherocar" or as it would be rendered into english "to Xerox" when I meant to copy something using a copier. It was only later that I learned that Xerox was a company that first produced those copiers.

I believe that I also learned that gillette and bandaid were products after the words were already part of my vocabulary. This is quite common in fact. In fact I think that here in Brasil there is no other word for those little replaceble blade that have two sharp edges and a sinuos hole in the middle. I am not sure if those are still being produce anymore... :-)

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[tacocat]

Wait a minute. Doesn't anyone know that the word google isn't a verb, isn't owned by a company, but actually refers to a mathematical number?

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Intron]

"The gelatin you eat in Jell-O comes from the collagen in cow or pig bones, hooves, and connective tissues." Wikipedia is brain-damaged on some topics.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Intron]

Oh. and lest you be misled by the many denials put out by Kraft PR that the hooves are not used because they are unsuitable: beef hoove thats 62.9% digestible protein they are widely available as dog treats and are a ready source of gelatin. I like Wikipedia, but I don't trust unsourced articles -- which is most of them.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[NMerriam]

Wait a minute. Doesn't anyone know that the word google isn't a verb, isn't owned by a company, but actually refers to a mathematical number?

Google is a made up word. Googol is a one followed by a hundred zeros.

Trademarking a made-up spelling of a real word is perfectly acceptable, and quite common.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[langelgjm]

Doesn't anyone know that the word google isn't a verb, isn't owned by a company, but actually refers to a mathematical number?

Actually, I think you're referring to a googol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[lcsjk]

NCR Corporation trademarked/copywrited the words "Tower" and "Mini-Tower" for computers back about the time the PC started. When they went after infringers, the press and editorials made such an uproar about the 'big guy going after the little guys' that they dropped the enforcement. Now, years later, it is just another word with no value.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Sark666]

If that's true, how come I've never seen some knockoff tissue say 'the softest kleenex'

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Jesus_666]

Take for instance Kleenex, Jell-O, Frisbee & Hoover. You know what all these are and there's a fairly good chance you've called an imposter brand the same name.

Note that generic brand names tend to be region-specific. Here's how a German reads that list:

Kleenex: An american brand of cellulose tissues that never quite became popular in Germany. The German equivalent would be "Tempo".
Jell-O: I have no idea what that is, but from what I've heard so far it's either a soft drink or (looks up the translation of "Götterspeise") jello. No German equivalent.
Frisbee: Yup, that one works over here.
Hoover: An American politician and a dam. We have no generic brand name for politicians and dams. (Okay, I know about the vacuum cleaner thing. No generic brand name there, either.)

"Google", however, is already frequently used as a verb.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Khashishi]

There is no synthetic gelatin. Vegetarians, Jews, and Muslims would be rejoicing if there were.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[BootNinja]

Tell that to Duncan, you know, the company that makes Yo-Yo's. You remember their ad campaign, "If it isn't a Duncan, it isn't a yo-yo." Yo-Yo was a trademarked name. Other manufacturers had to call them return tops. Eventually Yo-yo became a generic term through people's usage. This was despite Duncan's attempts to protect it via lawsuits and the aforementioned ad campaign.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Escalus]

Both are unacceptable - it should be "rendered inoperable by the Slashdot Mob"

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[OhioJoe]

""Do you 103569872, take 324091256 to be your lawfully wedded wife?"

I don't know if you did that on purpose or not, but one of those is my actual Social Security number.

OJ

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[pthisis]

There is kosher and even parve gelatin. I don't see a reason off the top of my head why Muslims couldn't eat it, but I'm no expert on Islamic dietary law (it's pork-free anyway, obviously).

There is vegetarian jello-style dessert stuff (Hain SuperFruits) I think it uses carrageenan from seaweed. Supposedly it's pretty good, but I've never had it.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[pthisis]

I just don't see why Kraft would lie in this way. It's not like they're saying that it comes from magic jelly dust. Presumably if they were going to risk lying (and potential FDA fines) it would be to say something other than "it's not hooves, it's bones and hides".

At least hoof stew is a real meal, I've never heard of people willingly eating bones and hides; hardly seems like a big marketing ploy.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[mancunian_nick]

I was reading about this yesterday morning on the bus in the Metro newspaper and was a bit surprised, too. I would have thought that they would welcome the trade name becoming more commonly used - good publicity, isn't it? I can see why they would want to protect the "good name" of Google but surely using the word in every day use isn't necessarily going to degrade it? Mind you, they're a huge company now so maybe that's why? :)

As the article said, in part, "Although the word google is in the Oxford English Dictionary, the company is worried its brand will be diminished if it becomes jargon."

[snipped]

"Statistics show about 60 per cent of all Internet searches are done through Google. Struan Robertson, editor of legal website OUT-LAW.COM said the company was right to protect its name. "It's a problem for a lot of brands that don't want their brand to become a verb," he added. "What can happen is they loose the value of their name. For example, Escalator, Aspirin and Linoleum are all brand names that have passed into common useage. I think Google is doing the right thing."

Jo Steele, who wrote the article, says "Google is not the only company getting litigious, however. Xerox and Jacuzzi are both quick to police their name in dictionaries and the media."

And as for 'Portakabin' - don't spell it 'Portacabin' and don't describe any old shed as a Portakabin if they've not made it.

I wonder if PC is really going mad? :)

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[arglesnaf]

Sure there is. It's made from Seaweed and called Carageenan instead. That is what Royal brand "Gelatin Desert" uses, as does my bag of veggie marshmallows. It's sold as Kosher / Halal gelatin even.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Intron]

I don't have a box of Jell-O handy, but I think the ingredients list will say "gelatin". No lying and no trouble with the FDA there. The FDA knows what gelatin is. My observation is just that

• hooves are a source of protein from which gelatin can be made
• the beef industry doesn't like to waste useful stuff
• there is no source cited in the Wikipedia article for the claim that Jell-O does not use hooves or on Snopes for the claim that Kraft denies using hooves
• anonymous statements made by PR departments aren't necessarily the same as what actually happens in the meat-packing plant

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[pthisis]

Be careful not to use kosher gelatin as a proxy for finding vegan gelatin; some kosher gelatin uses animal products.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

you getting married to bluez3 ?

Trademark :-(

[ExE122]

What the hell is Google thinking? Any mention of their name is great publicity and they should be happy with it. Instead they look like a bunch of corporate penny mongers trying to be a general inconvenience.

It almost reminds me of the time that Despair, Inc. patented the frowney emoticon :-( and threatened to charge anyone that used them. "Let our message to trademark violators be clear. Whether you are a 4th grade nothing using your momma's AOL account, or you are Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year', we are going to hunt you down, and when we do, we're really going to give you something to :-(® about."

The only difference is that Despair was only joking :-P.

--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong

Re:Trademark :-(

[Kevinv]

Because if they don't do this they lose their trademark, and once their trademark is gone anyone can use the term Google, for the name of another search engine even. At that point all that great publicity is worthless.

Ask the original makers of aspirin how all the great publicity for the word aspirin is working out for them now.

Re:Trademark :-(

[ssundberg]

... and Kleenex ... and Scotch tape ... and ...

Did anyone hear about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone hear about that one site that got slashdotted the other day after it got posted on Digg? It was down for ages!

Too late

[ral315]

Like many other companies, they didn't worry about it until it became too mainstream to stop. It's like LEGO wanting people to call them "Lego bricks" instead of "Legos", or Kleenex using "Kleenex brand tissues"- it's not going to happen, and at some point they will lose their trademark rights because of it.

Re:Too late

[Novotny]

I've never heard anyone refer to Lego bricks as Legos. Least, not in Europe anyway. The first poster nailed the issue I think - did no-one else read it? the first post? oh wait - I'm on Slashdot. 'To Google' , does mean to employ the Google Search engine. I can easily understand why Google wish to protect that meaning which became widespread as a result of their engine being (in many people's minds) the best engine to use. Of course they're going to be pissed off if Yahoo or MSN can start using the term and getting a little cooler as a result. They don't deserve the association.

Re:Too late

[peipas]

...and at some point they will lose their trademark rights because of it.

I think Kimberly-Clark will have to worry about losing their Kleenex trademark no sooner than Disney's copyrights expire. Read: never.

Re:Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of all the retarded parts of IP law, this part seems the most retarded to me. I can understand asking companies not to use your trademark to advertise their products, but to require consumers to speak in a certain way is pretty damn dumb. Who wants to talk about "Lego bricks" or "Kleenex brand facial tissue" (as the box calls it) or "Coca-Cola brand carbonated sugar water product" or whatever.

Re:Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that 'kleenex' was just the polite term for 'belly wipe'?

Re:Too late

[snafu109]

I think Google could use a few Kleenex brand tissues. Boo-hoo.

Re:Too late

[scruffy]

Too late? There is no way Google could have stopped it. You might as well try to stop the world from turning rather than prevent new words from being created and adopted.

Re:Too late

[srw]

I remember, it was probably about 25 years ago now, that we would "xerox" something on the "xerox machine" if we wanted a copy. Around that time, Xerox started a large ad campaign on TV and in print in which they referred to "Xerox brand photocopiers." I can't speak for the rest of the world, but now the verb around here is "photocopy" and the machine is a "photocopier." So it can happen.

Re:Too late

[B11]

I remember, it was probably about 25 years ago now, that we would "xerox" something on the "xerox machine" if we wanted a copy. Around that time, Xerox started a large ad campaign on TV and in print in which they referred to "Xerox brand photocopiers." I can't speak for the rest of the world, but now the verb around here is "photocopy" and the machine is a "photocopier." So it can happen.

That's interesting, because in my office there's a sort of strata (by age) of people who use the term "xerox," "photocopy," and just "copy." The people that have been around a copy machine the longest use "xerox," the ones in the middle "photocopy" and the youngest (20s to early 30s) simply say "copy." Oh noes, I think xerox's campaign is having success.

Re:Too late

[paintswithcolour]

It often seems to me that American English (as opposed to British English) is usally more adaptive to incorporating trademarks into its language. I'm not saying this is always the case (espically seeing that this article comes from a British newspaper, and Oxford English tried to add the word in June) but there seems to be a higher frequency of trademarks turn household names in American usage.

There's probably a reason for this maybe legally or the dominance of the inventing brand at first release.

Re:Too late

[Phat_Tony]

You're right that removing genericized trademarks from the vernacular can happen. Although "copier" and "copy" have made inroads, and so has "tissue" (vs. Kleenex), there are better examples. Hoover and Kodak both fought this war a long time ago, and won. You never hear a tourist ask if you'd mind "taking a kodak of them," and your friends don't ask if you've gotten a "digital kodak yet." Does your significant other (yeah, yeah, Slashdoxy Moron, whatever) ask you to "hoover" before company comes?

Language does change, and there's a good case to be made, especially for Kodak, that the change occurred due to their campaign to remove "kodak" from generic usage. So Google might win too.

What I want is to see Coca-Cola wage a campaign against all the areas in the south where people refer to all soft drinks as "coke." I don't care about the east/west war over the terms "soda" and "pop," either one's fine with me, but calling Sprite, Root Beer, Ginger Ale, Mountain Dew, et al. "coke" is just plain wrong.

I'd best include a preemptive counter-attack here. Whenever I generic use of "coke," people say it's just like using "kleenex" and "xerox" generically. No it's not, because those don't cause confusion. If you ask for a "kleenex" and someone hands you a Puffs, do you get mad? If you ask someone to "xerox" something for you, and they bring back a copy that was made on a Canon copier, do you yell at them "No! I said a XEROX!" I hope not. But when my girlfriend orders a Sprite or a Pepsi and then asks the waiter why her "coke" hasn't come yet, and they bring her a Coke, she get mad. And if her parents ask if I'd like a "coke" and I ask if they have any other soda, they think I'm crazy, because to them all "soda" is "coke." When I'm in a restaurant down there and they take my order and I say "Coke," they immediately ask what kind, and if I say "regular," they get confused. I think they're asking if I want a diet, but to them the word "coke" means basically "anything other than juice or coffee." I'd think Coca Cola, having the most valuable name brand in the world, should be extra touchy about the possibility of losing it through generic usage.

For me, this distinction about brand selectivity introduces the question, is the supposedly-genericized "google" generic or not? That is, [common usage] != [generic usage]. If you ask someone to "google something for you," will you be surprised if they got to Yahoo! to search for it? Are people using "google it" generically as "search for it in any search engine," or do people really mean "Google it?" I suspect it's the later. People could say "search for it," and I think when they say "Google it," they really mean to use Google, not the way they have no brand preference when asking for a tissue or a xerox. If someone told me they'd "Googled themself," I really would assume they were using Google, not Yahoo!. To me, this means Google, while being used commonly, isn't being used generically.

Re:Too late

[Badfysh]

The same with Photoshop. Adobe seriously expect people to say "manipulating with Adobe Photoshop" instead of "photoshopping". Never gonna happen.

Re:Too late

[Alioth]

That's another funny language thing. In Britain, 'lego' is rather like 'sheep' (sheep is both singular and plural - you have a flock of sheep, not a flock of sheeps). In the same way, lego means a single lego brick or the collective - we don't say a box of Legos, just a box of Lego.

Re:Too late

[ColdWetDog]

What I want is to see Coca-Cola wage a campaign against all the areas in the south where people refer to all soft drinks as "coke."

You realize that we had a real war with these folks over one hundred years ago - they haven't yet owned up to the fact they lost - you expect them to change their tiny little parochial minds about ... a soft drink?

Re:Too late

[Shaper_pmp]

Yeah, "Legos" are an American invention. Everyone else uses "Lego bricks".

Re:Too late

[Shaper_pmp]

Does your significant other (yeah, yeah, Slashdoxy Moron, whatever) ask you to "hoover" before company comes?

In the UK, yes.

When I'm in a restaurant down there and they take my order and I say "Coke," they immediately ask what kind, and if I say "regular," they get confused. I think they're asking if I want a diet, but to them the word "coke" means basically "anything other than juice or coffee.

Ok, that's just stupid. "Coke" is short for "Coca Cola". It doesn't matter what brand of vacuum cleaner you use, as they all do the same thing (more or less). But calling all carbonated drinks the same thing is bloody stupid - there are clear differences between them, and while one might be perfectly acceptable you might violently object to another.

Re:Too late

[Jesus_666]

Well, over here (northern Germany) the term I hear most commonly is "Lego" (the term is uncountable).

Re:Too late

[ArtStone]

Keeping the great unwashed from saying "I'm going to google it" is pretty much impossible.

However, Google's message was sent to publishers - not "consumers". They are saying that they have a problem if publishers allow their writers (say John Dvorak, for example) to misuse their trademarked term. In that instance, Google has a pretty good chance of getting what they want - even if they don't really want it.

Re:Too late

[Shaper_pmp]

Yeah, we use Lego as the plural in the UK too. I still don't know where "Legos" came from in the USA.

Re:Too late

[drachenstern]

So the yanks are still pissed that they weren't able to tax us into oblivion, or are you telling me that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments DO need to be overturned since they were never processed the way the Constitution demands of amendments?

Now then, I don't mean to start a flame war, but what Lincoln and his Congress did were cheap shots, and I hate to see this sort of misrepresentation continue.

For those less fortunate and well-informed, the abolition of slavery was a cheap shot, since there were plenty of slave owners in the "North" at that time.

Evil

[nighty5]

See, Google is starting to become Evil.

Everybody, use the word as you see fit.

The english language is always evolving, the term to become a verb definately will weaken Google's legal stance.

Re:Evil

[D-Cypell]

See, Google is starting to become Evil.

This is what I am starting to worry about. I had held to a naieve hope that Google could demonstrate that it could be successful without messing around with stuff like this. If there was a specific case of someone clearly abusing their trademark (for example and MSN add that read... "Come to MSN and google the internet") then I would say... yes.... that qualifies as, "Taking the piss" in my book.

But sending general threats? If this is true I am concerned. Honestly thought that they were above it.

Re:Evil

[tknn]

Wasn't helping out an evil totalitarian regime oppress their citizens sufficiently evil for you? Apparently not... but enforcing a trademark is?

Re:Evil

[tgd]

How is protection of a trademark evil?

If they don't do that, then Microsoft could legally set up "google.microsoft.com" and run all their searches through there.

IE could say "Google: " and point the query at MSN.

Google is a business. If they don't protect their trademark, they're committing suicide. If the management doesn't, they're going to be sued into oblivion by their shareholders.

Evil? Just because you don't understand an action doesn't make it evil.

Re:Evil

[williamhb]

See, Google is starting to become Evil.

"Evil.com are on the phone, sir. They'd like you to use the generic term 'very naughty boys' instead."

Re:Evil

[gEvil (beta)]

See, Google is starting to become Evil.

Don't worry. I'm still in the early beta stages. I'll let you know when I've become fully actualized.

Re:Evil

[emergencyselfconstru]

Um, i think the issue here is that this is to my knoledge the second action of Google that causes concern among some members of the public, for obvious reasons stated above.. The second one, as you will know is the storgae of search results, that is currentl causing privacy issues.. I remember a post on slashdot not too long ago, which i paraphrase as: "at the moment google is everyones darling, how long until they become an evil corporate identity." Guess you gotta do, whats good for business...

Re:Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The english language is always evolving, the term to become a verb definately will weaken Google's legal stance.

Indeed, the English language is constantly changing to meet the needs of those who use it. Perhaps the word "definately" will one day find itself in the dictionary as well.

Re:Evil

[badfish99]

Protection of a trademark isn't evil, but Google made a big mistake when they chose the "don't be evil" motto. Now every negative press article about them quotes the motto, in a context that makes it look hypocritical. Just look at TFA, which begins "... Google, known for its mantra "don't be evil", has fired off a series of legal letters ...".

Re:Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil? Are you a W fan? Have you added Google to your internet Axis of Evil with Microsoft? LMFAO!

you's a /.moron!

Re:Evil

[avalys]

This is only causing concern among members of the public who are idiots.

Re:Evil

[kokoloko]

I think the "evil" part of it is that Google is warning media outlets to stop using a perfectly cromulent word or (presumably) face legal action, just because it is, as you point out, inconvenient for them.
Google is a business. If they don't [DO X], they're committing suicide. If the management doesn't, they're going to be sued into oblivion by their shareholders.
Pointing out that a corporation needs to do something to protect it's business is no defense against the claim that the action in question is evil.

Re:Evil

[EndlessNameless]

The point--mentioned by previous posters I might add--is that Google has to take corrective action now, or they will have no trademark to defend.

And those aren't really legal threats. It's standard cease-and-desist verbage, nothing more. The companies receiving such letters will simply take note of the "proper" way to phrase things in their articles (perhaps adding a note to their style manuals), and business will continue as usual.

Re:Evil

[russ1337]

^Parent shouldn't be marked as troll. I think its a pretty fair observation. Google did aid in the repression of citizens (restriction of knowledge and communication), and started that slippery slope toward the dark side. They recieved a whole heap of crap about it and vowed to fix it.

I can totally see how the 'ruthless' enforcement of a trademark can be considered evil, but it appears the 'system' requires Google to make an attempt to enforce its trademark - which makes it much less evil.

If they were to go after a 12 YO kid who wrote a note to his mom about googling something, then yeah - evil. But not if they have to do it to please the courts in a future lawsuit. What if MSN tried to provide a 'google toolbar' that used MSN search..??

Re:Evil

[tgd]

The law says that you must protect the use of your trademark to keep the trademark.

So which part is evil? The ownership of the trademark, or the obeying of the law?

Re:Evil

[tgd]

Sadly, all evidence points to that group being the substantial majority in the US, these days.

Re:Evil

[jakarta-milwaukee]

Suing a dead man's family for copying music is legal. Is it evil?

Re:Evil

[tgd]

This isn't that complicated. If I could post an MP3 I'd say it very slowly for you, but instead just read it slowly:

1) The law REQUIRES google to defend the use of a trademark
2) The law does NOT require anyone to sue dead people.

Re:Evil

[jakarta-milwaukee]

So if some kid uses that term incorrectly in his school paper, the law REQUIRES Google to take legal actions against that kid?

Oh, if you have to, please use OGG instead.

Re:Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

> So which part is evil? The ownership of the trademark, or the obeying of the law?

Ownership of the trademark. Trademarks are intended to unambiguously identify products. This goes beyond that and wants to control how people use language. Besides, it's *too damn late* -- I assure you, if I'm ever on the jury, I'm absolutely convinced that "google" (the lowercase version) is 100% generic.

Re:Evil

[Yes BlueBerries]

I think they only have to if it is brought to their attention. I don't think Google is going to actively search for students inappropriately using the term. Now if the student was writing in a contest and wins it using the term incorrectly, Google might be forced to take legal action to have extra verbage added to correct the mistake.

I saw a disclaimer for Velcro (TM) hook and loop fastener products and they explained the issue well. Unfortunately, I tossed out the packaging. I like the hook and loop fasteners that have one side that is the hook and other that is the loop side that they sell and don't think they would have continued innovating if other companies could have edged in to their market selling low cost versions of the same thing and made people more uncertain of the quality of the products. Consumers can get the cheaper version from other companies, but the higher quality and innovation of the main player keeps the standard for the product from getting too low.

Re:Evil

[Phisbut]

Google made a big mistake when they chose the "don't be evil" motto. Now every negative press article about them quotes the motto, in a context that makes it look hypocritical. Just look at TFA, which begins "... Google, known for its mantra "don't be evil"

And there I was, thinking that Google was known for its search engine...

Come on. I bet 90% of Google users have no idea what Google's motto is. And "Don't be evil" is pretty much a no brainer. What public company would willingly admit to being evil.

Why would google be concerned about that?

[walterbyrd]

How does it hurt google for it's name to used as a verb?

I think, if anything, it would help google. I think that anything that makes your business name a household word, would be be helpful.

The media using google as a verb simply reflects the reality of the widespread use of "google" as a verb.

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[gnasher719]

'' How does it hurt google for it's name to used as a verb? ''

Same as it hurt Xerox that their name was used as a verb. Once it becomes part of the language, it can lose its trademark status. Like Xerox, Google doesn't really care if you use the word, they are just legally obliged to send you a threatening letter.

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[babbling]

If that happened, Yahoo would be able to use the word "Google" in their advertising. Trademark laws are actually in place to protect consumers. Imagine if Yahoo were able to advertise and say things like "Come use our Google Search at yahoo.com!"

People know about Google and know they want Google, so if Yahoo were able to use "Google" in their advertising, people could end up being tricked into using something that isn't what they want.

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[joabj]

>How does it hurt google for it's name to used as a verb?

It would hurt Google when the owner of Joe's Shitty Search Appliance Co., branded his product as a "Google Box" and people would buy it, thinking they were getting Google-quality searches. Once the owner of trademarked name loses control of its use (i.e. the word becomes a generic description of something i.e. klennex, white out, etc.), there is nothing Google could do to stop Joe from selling his shitty boxes under Google's name.

joab

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[jakarta-milwaukee]

"Once the owner of trademarked name loses control of its use (i.e. the word becomes a generic description of something i.e. klennex, white out, etc.), there is nothing Google could do to stop Joe from selling his shitty boxes under Google's name."

Really? Then why did they choose the name
"Sam's Cola" instead of "Sam's coke", or
"Canon Copier" instead of "Canon xeroxer", or
"Target Facial Tissue" instead of "Target kleenex"?

Because they would still get sued, right?

Having your brand used as a generic is close to the holy grail in marketing. It helps you maintain leadership.

Of course, IANAL, etc, etc.

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[jakarta-milwaukee]

Name another copier that dares to use the word xerox to describe their product. Or another cola drink that dares to use the word coke to describe their product. Or another facial tissue that dares to use the word kleenex to describe their product.

I would pay to be "hurt" like that.

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[rukidding]

When a company markets their product/Brand they are trying to explain to the target customers why their product is better that the competition in the same product category. If a company's brandname becomes the description for the entire product category, then their marketing efforts are no longer effective in differentiating their product from the others.

Google's marketing message to customers: Google is a better way to search the internet.
Customers: Great! So when I Google stuff on MSN.com its better!!

Do you see the problem now?

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[jakarta-milwaukee]

Becoming a generic name for the entire category is the greatest thing that can happen to a brand. That means you are the leader. The others are the ones that must find a way to differentiate from you.

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[rukidding]

The greatest thing that can happen to a brand is becoming the leader. I agree with that. But, being the leader and still "holding on" to the brand name is better than loosing control of the name.

When customers can no longer differentiate one product, the leader, from the others, then the others can use promotions, lower prices, make agreements with resellers, etc to take market share from the leader.

When customers know the difference from one product, the leader, from the others, then the leader can use this difference to show why the customer wants its product more than the others and the company can keep its market share.

Its about staying in the lead. Not just about getting in the lead.

Re:Why would google be concerned about that?

[raxx7]

"Coca-cola" is the trademark, not "coke".
Both Kleenex and Xerox take measures similar to the ones Google has just engaged to ensure their trademarks remain as such.

Re: Google Sends Legal Threats

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if I'll have to stop hoovering my house as well.

I like using Google, but...

[Veetox]

That's fine... we'll just use "yahoo" (Of course it would be lower case "y") as a verb instead... *sigh* "I'm going to yahoo that..." -It just doesn't have the same ring to it...

Re:I like using Google, but...

[wouterteepe]

In our household, the verb "to Yahoo" means to search, without finding it, as in "You have been Yahooing again, the car keys were on their usual spot!"

Re:I like using Google, but...

[Veetox]

Good point. And, see? Our lexicon is just getting larger, and I would expect anyone whose name or organization became a commonly used addition to a popular lexicon (Such as the English language)would be happy about it. I'm sure Xerox and Kleenex are better off with their appellation immortality.

Re:I like using Google, but...

[pthisis]

Here, we call that jeevesing.

Re:I like using Google, but...

[mad_minstrel]

That's probably because "to google" means "to find", while "to yahoo" just means "to search".

Re:I like using Google, but...

[TheoMurpse]

"I'm going to yahoo that..."

*sigh* I remember my first yahoo: I was 16, and she was living with her grandmother for the summer...

Nothing new here

[Billosaur]

Xerox (see "The Xerox Trademark" at the bottom of the page) has been getting bent out of shape for years over the thought of people "xeroxing" things; why should Google be any different?

Re:Nothing new here

[Aneurysm9]

Oh yeah. Who can forget the classic "You can't xerox a xerox on a xerox, but you can copy a copy on a Xerox copier."

Did I miss something...

[Krezik]

I don't understand why Google would be upset by this usage. They have lots of word-of-mouth advertizing that gets done when people refer to "googling" something.

My Chem 101 teacher even used the term often in lecture. And I'll bet that the kids who "googled" the things he recommended used Google 10 times out of 10.

It seems to me that Google has a lot ot gain from being synonomous with searching the internet.

Re:Did I miss something...

[clickclickdrone]

I guess that ruins things for www.justfu**inggoogleit.com?

Re:Did I miss something...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) "Google" becomes generic verb.

2) You have pathetic search engine and want traffic.

3) Get sites with articles to use links with phrases like "Google this author" and "Google this topic" but they link to *your* search engine instead of Google.

4) Profit!

Re:Did I miss something...

[49152]

Yes, you missed something.

If google/googling effectively becomes a part of the English language then their trademark becomes part of the public domain. You cannot have/enforce trademark on generic words.

When this happens everyone and their dog can call their own search engine for google. This will greatly reduce the value of their trademark. It might already be to late now, google is in the latest versions of Oxford dictionary.

BTW: This is what happened to Xerox. 'A xerox machine' once used to mean that the machine actually was made by Xerox Corporation.

Re:Did I miss something...

[mobby_6kl]

>I guess that ruins things for www.justfu**inggoogleit.com?

For what?? I don't think wildcards are valid or supported in URIs.

Re:Did I miss something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I don't know what the big deal is. Sometimes I google for stuff on MSN and sometimes I use Google.com. Yahoo even has a way to google stuff.

Re:Did I miss something...

[Reality Master 101]

This is what happened to Xerox. 'A xerox machine' once used to mean that the machine actually was made by Xerox Corporation.

That's never happened to Xerox. It has never been legally declared a generic word, though the company has an ongoing battle and concern over it.

Re:Did I miss something...

[clickclickdrone]

The firewall here would have blocked my reply if I'd typed it in full.
That or it was a woosh moment for you?

Re:Did I miss something...

[49152]

Actually I have to disagree. Xerox is defacto an accepted english word for a copying machine or even the process of copying itself (xeroxing). That no court of law has yet struck down the Trademark does not change the reality that the trademark is now very diluted indeed. Xerox Corp might be fighting this tooth and nail but it wont change reality. They might however prevent other companies using the trademark in their own marketing, and it might prevent the courts invalidating the trademark. But it WILL NOT prevent the populace from using the word in everyday english.

Also this does not invalidate my argument in my previous post. After all if you RTFA you will se this is exactly why Google is sending out those letters.

But I grant you that I could have chosen a better example like; aspirin, bikini, cola, margarine, petrol etc which are all genericized trademarks.

Re:Did I miss something...

[syrinx]

Except that most people really don't "xerox" things anymore. I used to hear it, sure, but nowadays it's just "copying". I'd say Xerox Corp. won that war.

Re:Did I miss something...

[plague3106]

I haven't heard of anyone using the term 'Xerox' to refer to making a copy. I know it used to be, but certainly in my lifetime I've heard everyone say copier / make a copy.

Re:Did I miss something...

[WilliamSChips]

justfuckingsayit

Re:Did I miss something...

[49152]

Well, thats good for Xerox. Perhaps they might save that trademark. But the very fact that you say "I used to hear it" means it have been in generic use, also several dictionaries list it as a english verb. This implies that they might actually loose it if they ever have to go to court over it.

Im wondering...

[salad_fingers]

Has anybody googled the author?

This coming from a company

[Anonymous Coward]

that has a "spam" section on its email product, and oncemore, all the ads when you click on the "spam" section are all recipies for the meat-type product.(Which Hormel has been very cool about). So I guess what goes around comes around....

Re:This coming from a company

[LordKronos]

I seriously doubt anyone is going to confuse an email from nigeria with a food product. However, if people started referring to a whole group of canned meat products as spam, I'm sure Hormel would be right on top of that one.

Re:This coming from a company

[humble.fool]

Actually, Hormel has been pretty explicit: calling junk email "spam" is fine and dandy by them, but call it "SPAM", what they've actually trademarked, and you're in for a world of hurt.

So, how to say: Kuro5hin is slashdotting slashdot?

[Reemi]

Kuro5hining?

Let's face it...

[Billosaur]

Would you rather be "googled" or "yahooed?" Somebody saying "I yahooed you" makes it sound like they zapped you with a yodelling ray. Suddenly you feel the need to climb mountains and wear Lederhosen.

Re:Let's face it...

[Scoria]

"I yahooed you"

I said this to a girl at dinner once and she slapped me in the face. Please advise.

Re:Let's face it...

[Grench]

She must be a Sims 2 player and thought you'd said you'd "Woohoo!"ed her.

Not offtopic

[Red Flayer]

Anyone hear about that one site that got slashdotted the other day after it got posted on Digg? It was down for ages!

Someone please grasp the subtlety of the parent (though I wish they hadn't posted AC)... The motivation for modding it offtopic is exactly why Google seeks to keep 'to google' out of the vernacular.

Obviously, some moderator was upset that 'to be slashdotted' was associated with Digg in the parent. I think this just validates why Google is taking this action.

Anyway, nice one, AC.

Re:Not offtopic

[Iamthefallen]

Yeah, modding him off-topic is kinda Farked up.

Re:Not offtopic

[andphi]

I agree. Both 'google' and 'slashdot', as verbs, have very specific meanings that are lost in generalization. For example, the other day, on some news site or other, I saw two links at the top of the story: "digg this" and "slashdot this". What they meant to say, of course, was "submit this story to (digg|slashdot)". However, to a long-time slashdotter (I have two UIDs, one orphaned, one active), "slashdot this" struck me as a Very Bad Idea, as it actually said "reduce this server to multi-kilobuck toxic sludge."

Protecting Trademark

[chad9023]

No, this does not make Google evil. Like any company, they have to protect their trademark, or they risk losing it. If some other company can show that people are using the term Google generically (not referring to Google itself), that Google knew about this and did not take action to prevent it, then they can challenge the trademark.

Re:Protecting Trademark

[Prof.Phreak]

using the term Google generically (not referring to Google itself) ...like googling the internet using Yahoo? :-D

Trademark Holders Are REQUIRED to Defend

[ausoleil]

Google is a trademarked name, and as such they are required to aggressively defend it or they will lose it.

There was even a case where Hershey Foods sued Simon and Schuster over using Hershey-owned images and trademarks in a book about their marketing of the book "Hershey: Milton S. Hershey's Extraordinary Life of Wealth, Empire and Utopian Dreams." Hershey Foods ultimately lost, but by law had they not attempted to defend their mark they could well have been facing an attempt to have the mark thrown out.

What Google is doing is much the same.

Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[interactive_civilian]

from eldavojohn's link:

+ google /gogl/ (also Google) v. informal [intrans.] use an Internet search engine, particularly Google.com: she spent the afternoon googling aimlessly. [trans.] search for the name of (someone) on the Internet to find out information about them: you meet someone, swap numbers, fix a date, then Google them through 1,346,966,000 Web pages. ORIGIN: from Google, the proprietary name of a popular Internet search engine.

(emphasis mine)

Would it not be more correct to make the exact definition of the verb "google" to be "to use the Google.com search engine to search for information on the internet"? I mean, with the current definition, a person could say, "Yeah, I just googled it on MSN." I'm surprised Google hasn't gone after the dictionary to get the definition changed.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[anagama]

"Yeah, I just googled it on MSN."

"I'll have a coke. .... No, not the red one. I want the green coke, the one with the number 7 on it."

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[lukas84]

"Yeah, I just googled it on MSN."

You don't talk with teenagers often, do you?

I've heard this phrase many times.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[andrewman327]

I take it you're from the South. The Coke example is interesting, as Pepsi is the primary one fighting it with their long running Ask for Coke campaign. Pepsi does not want people associating "Coke" with cola.

There is merit in defending the word "Google." After all, how many people (Simpsons fans excluded) associate the Dumpster brand with excellent trash bins? Similar to Google, the Xerox company has attempted to reclaim its name from generic use as a verb. After all, a TrashCo bin is not a dumpster. A store brand tissue is not a Kleenex. A bandage made by anyone other than J&J is not a BandAid. A Ricoh copier is not a Xerox machine. Yahoo! Search and Windows Live Search are not Google.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[jopet]

That depends on whether a dictionary should be seen to be normative or descriptive. As far as I know this dictionary is intended to describe how a term is actually used, no matter how a third party (or indeed the creators of the dictionary) think it *should* be used.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[SpiceWare]

I always hated that when I worked at KFC.

Customer,"I'll have a coke"
Me, "here ya go"
Customer, "That's not what I wanted, I wanted orange!"
Me, thinking, "then why didn't you ask for orange, ya friken moron"

After that happened a number of times, I started asking which soda they wanted, which would end up turning into

Customer,"I'll have a Coke"
Me, "what kind of soda would you like?"
Customer, "Uh, what do you mean, I said Coke..."
Customer, thinking, "is this guy dense or something?!?!"

It was a lose-lose situation. Even though I didn't drink Pepsi, I was glad when they bought KFC. That turned it into:

Customer,"I'll have a coke"
Me, "We don't sell Coke, we have Pepsi"
Customer, "That's OK, I want orange."

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[WormholeFiend]

Pepsi does not want people associating "Coke" with cola

Moot point. Have you ever been to a restaurant that serves BOTH Coke and Pepsi products?

Last time I tried to be funny with a waiter, I told him I wanted a Pepsi, and he replied "how about a Coke".

Me: "No I want a Pepsi"
Waiter: "Well, I could say 'ok' and bring you a Coke and not tell you about it"

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[pthisis]

This is definitely a regional thing, and I honestly have no idea whether you were trying to show how "google it on MSN" is analagous to acceptable usage or were trying to show that it's ridiculous.

In (at least parts of) the South, your Coke sentence is absolutely reasonable usage. In the Northeast, it's just as bizarre-sounding as someone saying "I want a Mountain Dew. No, the brown one in the red bottle!" Not knowing where you're from I can't figure out what you were going for.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who grew up in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area and relocated several times (home, school, first job, etc...), I've always found the The Great Pop vs. Soda Controversy interesting. I now tend to go with the term "soda" but grew up calling it "pop". My mother always gives me a hard time with this and other terms like "rubber band" vs "gum band".

Jim

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Ghostx13]

I've lived in the south my entire life, and as a whole, it's true that we typically say "coke" as a generic for carbonated soft drinks. However, I've never experianced anyone requesting a coke while wanting a 7-up or Orange Crush, etc... It's typically used more like saying "beer". "Let's grab a coke at the gas station" doesn't mean I want a coke, it means lets get a soft drink at the gas station. However, if I order a coke: "Waiter: And what would you like to drink? Me: A Coke." it doesn't mean I want an orange soda.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[courtarro]

I take it you're from the South. The Coke example is interesting, as Pepsi is the primary one fighting it with their long running Ask for Coke* campaign. Pepsi does not want people associating "Coke" with cola.

This is bad for those of us living in the South because "coke" (lowercase) has come to mean "whichever black soft drink you serve" even though I really only want Coke. Sometimes I just don't want Pepsi, and if you don't serve Coke, I'd rather have sweet tea. The problem is that waiters at Pepsi-only restaurants will often bring Pepsi when the client asks for Coke, leaving the client wondering why this Coke tastes so sugary.

As an Atlantan I'm all for Coke being the "standard" black soft drink, but I'd rather the name stayed specific to the brand.

*I assumed you meant "Ask for PepsiCola"

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[lowrydr310]

How about the black one or the white one ?

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[andrewman327]

I think that this page is important in this discussion. I wonder if the map would look different if this study were performed today. Maybe I can talk some of my schoolmates/professors into doing another study.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[slack-fu]

Obviously his recipe for Pepsi was (Pepsi = Coke + Spit) I never give my waiters a hard time :/

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[LoudMusic]

Would it not be more correct to make the exact definition of the verb "google" to be "to use the Google.com search engine to search for information on the internet"? I mean, with the current definition, a person could say, "Yeah, I just googled it on MSN." I'm surprised Google hasn't gone after the dictionary to get the definition changed.

I fully agree. Using 'google' as a verb is not the issue. The problem is the generalization of the term.

To google is to use google.com to search for sites on the interweb.
To yahoo is to use yahoo.com to search for sites on the interweb.
To dog pile is to use dogpile.com to search for sites on the interweb.

The definitions are wrong. It's time to educate.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Dun Malg]

This is bad for those of us living in the South because "coke" (lowercase) has come to mean "whichever black soft drink you serve" even though I really only want Coke.

Sometimes it's even worse than that. My boss, who's from Alabama somewhere, calls anything sugary in a can or bottle a "coke". This causes much consternation at the snack shop with the self-serve drink cooler when he says "I'll have a ham sandwich and a coke", and then after he pays, he grabs a $1.50 bottle Sobe tea rather than the 75 cent can of soda he paid for. Really the problem is two fold: his southern definition of "coke", and his thick-headed obliviousness to the notion that a 24oz of beverage probably costs more than a 12oz. No amount of pointing this out to him helps. Every time he orders he says "coke" and I tell the lady "he means a Sobe tea".

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[plague3106]

Its not as much of a moot point as you think; if the waiters are always hearing people want Pepsi, they may tell management that people are asking for Pepsi specifically. They may even change... which is probably the reason Pepsi doesn't want Coke to lose thier TM.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[plague3106]

Don't the restraunts in the south post what brand they have? Usually you can also tell; if they have sprirt, they have coke.. if they have 7up, its pepsi.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[plague3106]

Odd, here we say 'soda' when we don't want to imply any particular brand / flavor.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[porcupine8]

The state of Missouri is split down the middle - the Kansas City side is pop and the St Louis side is soda. What's worse, many people in St Louis don't even know what you're talking about when you say "pop" - I lived there during jr high, and sometimes people thought I meant popcorn, or just gave me a blank stare. I grew up in KC; when we moved to StL I *had* to switch to soda since pop is unintelligible there. Then we moved back to KC, and since soda is at least understood there (just less common) I never thought to switch back.

Now my husband (who is from Denver) is on an active campaign to switch me back to pop. It helps that we live in pop country now (Michigan), but it's hard to switch back.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, I could say 'ok' and bring you a Coke and not tell you about it"

My father-in-law refuses to eat at a restaurant that serves Pepsi. It must be Coca-Cola. According to my wife, he has actually been known to walk out of places that serve Pepsi -- particularly if he's asked for a Coke and they bring him a Pepsi and don't tell him about it.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[operagost]

7up is not a Pepsi brand. It's held by the Dr. Pepper-7up company (which seems to be currently owned by Schweppes).

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[gardyloo]

You don't talk with teenagers often, do you?

    It usually ends with "Get off my lawn, ya damned whippersnappers!" That's me, not the teenagers. Then they flap their toothy gums around and all I hear is a lot of high-pitched squeaking noises.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[AK Marc]

The definitions are wrong. It's time to educate.

That's pretty funny coming from someone that used the word "interweb."

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Vindaloo]

I prefer restaurants that serve Pepsi. Not that I like Pepsi (or Coca-Cola), but it usually means that they also serve Mt. Dew.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[autOmato]

Wikipedia says:

7 Up (or Seven Up) is a brand of a lemon-lime flavored soft drink. The franchise for the brand is held by Dr Pepper/Seven Up in the United States, by Britvic in Great Britain, by C&C in Ireland and by PepsiCo in the rest of the world.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[PepeGSay]

That is because when people ask for a Coke they actually want a Coke. Pepsi is only synonymous in the sense that its what you settle for when they don't have Coke.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Lord Kano]

Man. you're showing your age. My first job was at KFC and they had long since been owned by Pepsi Co. when I started there.

LK

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[kinglink]

Personally I never ask for Coke. I ask for Pepsi and they tell me they have coke and then I say anything like mountain dew, no but we have sprite, and then I get belligerent and they call the cops.

I don't like coke, I usually grab mellow yellow at best, or lemonade if I'm forced to choose.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[quigonn]

Whenever I ask for coke, all I get is this expensive white powder...

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[daft_one]

And you, in turn, show yours ;-) KFC is currently owned by YUM brands, which was spun off from Pepsi in 1997. (NYSE:YUM, http://www.yum.com/about/default.asp)

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Lord Kano]

I'm 31.

LK

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[LoudMusic]

That's pretty funny coming from someone that used the word "interweb."

Yeah, I thought so too ;)

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[TheRealBlueEAGLE]

This is not as uncommon as one might think. Nor is it generally american.

However it is fun to notice how people keep saying stuff they don't mean. Or rather to say stuff when they mean something else and then giving other people sh*t for not being able to read their minds.

Another such "feature" of language that has become more and more popular is to make a statement and then pretending that it's a question. The most common one I hear is "You haven't got the latest newspaper yet(?)". My favorite response to that is "That is correct" which is very, very often followed by the correct question "Have you got the latest newspaper yet?" on which I gladly answer "No, as you have already stated I haven't got the latest newspaper yet."

Usually makes people smile but some go into a real fit and say "Don't be teaching me my language!" on which I've always wanted to reply (but never do) "If I don't do it and since you don't know it then who will teach you?". Instead I just stand there smiling like a good morron.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Michael Wardle]

In Germany, lemonade is a generic term for soft drink or soda. On a hot day in a bar in Dresden, I asked for a "limonade", to which the barman replied: "Fanta"?.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[dave420]

That's not how dictionaries work. They don't define the proper use of a word, but merely report on how it is used. If a dictionary was just the ages-old definition of a word, it would be pretty useless in a modern context. If people are using it as a verb to describe searching on the web, then that's how the dictionary will define it, regardless of what Google has to say.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[OhioJoe]

Here in Ohio, they say "Is Pepsi okay?" as well, and I am glad.

But an aside, I was on a no-caffiene kick there for a few years, and always bought caffiene free coke at the store. But no restaurant serves that, unless it was diet also. So I realized my preference was any black, non-diet, caffiene free soda. Well, rootbeer fit that bill since rootbeer tradionally has no caffiene in it. Mug or A&W were always available at any restaurant. That is until Coke, with their marketing behemoth, got restaruants to start carrying their "new" soda, Barq's rootbeer with caffiene. So all the restaurants traded their A&W or Mug rootbeer taps for Barq's taps. I could no longer get a dark caffiene free non diet soda at a restaurant after they did that. Shortly thereafter, I fell off the wagon.

OJ

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on whether a dictionary should be seen to be normative or descriptive. As far as I know this dictionary is intended to describe how a term is actually used, no matter how a third party (or indeed the creators of the dictionary) think it *should* be used.

True, but if they don't have good evidence that it's used to describe other search engines, they're probably next in line to be sued...

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[celery stalk]

Moot point. Have you ever been to a restaurant that serves BOTH Coke and Pepsi products?

...there's a reason the first question I ask a waiter is "Pepsi or Coke (products)?"

It tends to keep that kind of scenario from happening.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[tehcyder]

My father-in-law refuses to eat at a restaurant that serves Pepsi. It must be Coca-Cola.

It's a similar problem to the one I have with restaurants: if I ask for a 1961 claret and they try to fob me off with a 1960, I feel perfectly justified in horsewhippig the wine waiter.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[tgrigsby]

I take it you're from the South.

No, if he'd been from the South, he would have said, "I'll have a Co-Cola with my catfish, hushpuppies, collard greens, and cheese grits, please."

Man, I just got really hungry....

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[drachenstern]

Figured you might get a kick out of this then:

A young man that I work with was asked his opinion about a pre-shift staff meeting that we have about 20 minutes into our shift*. He was in favor of the meeting as it gave him time for his "getting ready 'fore his getting ready". Naturally those of us who actually speak English had to spend a few minutes wrapping our brains around his pronunciation, then we had a good laugh while we attempted to understand this phrase. In retrospect, it's a perfectly reasonable phrase, however, at the time it was unintelligble, compounded by his lack of diction.**

* We work in a 24 hr production facility with 10 min overlaps. Therefore it is necessary to spend the first 10 mins getting the daily passdown from the prev shift and then the next ten putting out any fires, then we have the aforementioned mtg.
** Now I feel like a grammar prof or something. I really am just an average joe, but I cannot stand the way people want to cut off half their words, then mumble the ones they do say, while mangling the entire language. /rant

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[drachenstern]

And where is here from? The headquarters of one of the major brands of soda/pop? In Atlanta, GA, the only word in use for a beverage that is non-alcoholic is coke, unless your background includes either a direct move from a non-Southern area or parents/gaurdians who are not from the South.

And yes, we do capitalize the South, what are you gonna do, tax us more?

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[plague3106]

Here would be the North East.

Sue Me Google, I dare you!

[neonprimetime]

I'm going to google Angelina Jolie right now! What do you think of that?

Re:Sue Me Google, I dare you!

[Anonymous Coward]

it works better then "i'm going to ask jeves angelina..."

Re:Sue Me Google, I dare you!

[shis-ka-bob]

Perhaps 'Google Images' should be rebranded G-oogle when the adult content filters are off.

Losing interest in their searching business

[clickclickdrone]

If they are trying to disconnect the word Google from searching in the public's mind, it can only be because searching isn't high on their future plans and they want people to think of Google in a different way.
The fact they want "Google searching" or "searching to with Google" to be explicitly stated really does sound like they want 'googling' to be something else entirely in five years.

Re:Losing interest in their searching business

[Anonymous Coward]

no idiot read the fucking comments, they have no problem with people useing the word google to mean using googles search, the problem is when people use the word google to mean ANY internet search, then its an issue.

YES its great publicity that we say google isntead of 'look it up' or some other such, but since google is their word they have to make sure its not absorbed into common language or it cant be protected.

Re:Losing interest in their searching business

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are trying to disconnect the word Google from searching in the public's mind, it can only be because searching isn't high on their future plans and they want people to think of Google in a different way.

No, they still want people to say they "googled it" to mean they searched for it on google. They just don't want "googled it" to mean they searched for something on the internet on any old site like yahoo or ask. This has nothing to do with them expanding into other product areas. Trademarks are specific to a market, so google could lose trademark protection in Internet Searches, but then still retain trademark protection for email and other services.

Re:Losing interest in their searching business

[clickclickdrone]

You sir (or madam) are a very rude and angry person and the tone of that reply was quite unwarranted.
Addressing the central theme of your reply though, you're right, I was wrong. I read it too fast. I appologise most profusely.

Any legal weight?

[Ancil]

Perhaps someone who knows about trademark law can enlighten us:

Does Google have any leverage over these people?

If ABC News (or a private individual) wants to use the word "google" as a generic term, what if anything can google do about it?

I understand that if Lycos or Yahoo tried to use the trademark "google" to describe their search engines, that's actionable. But can Google (the company) do anything about google (the generic word meaning "to search on the internet"?

Re:Any legal weight?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Google probably doesn't care that much if they stop using it or not. The important thing here is that Google can now say they sent letters asking them to stop, which would show that they tried to keep the word from being diluted.

Not taken aback.

[ayeco]

From the article: Web veterans have also been taken aback by Google's suddenly humourless approach.

I'm not sure why The Independant is speaking for this web veteran. I'm not taken aback. I respect this move by Google. This seems like a perfectly legitimate way to defend their trademark.

Re:Not taken aback.

[Larry Lightbulb]

I'm not taken aback either - I've always viewed Google as humourless.

Re:Not taken aback.

[Kpau]

Lets see, I've been using the Internet since the hosts file was all there was (no DNS) and it had to be copied across the network a lot. I guess that makes me a Web Veteran and I can state with confidence that The Independent is blowing smoke out of their ass. This is basic good old tradition trademark protection .... it doesn't even need the word "internet" to make it "different".

Googled does sound dirty though

[Rik Sweeney]

Anyone remember Buffy The Vampire slayer?

Willow: Have you Googled her yet?
Xander: Willow, she's seventeen!

"Help" Season 7, Episode 4

Re:Googled does sound dirty though

[Anonymous Coward]

No, nobody watched that shite. Buffy fans, do yourself a favour and google for 'help'.

Re:Googled does sound dirty though

[krajo]

Yep, I remember. And there was some mention of Google(TM) even before that, IIRC.
regards, krajo

MSN...

[interactive_civilian]

The problem is that, according to the current dictionary defintion of the verb "google" it would be correct for someone to say, "I googled it on MSN." or "I googled it on Yahoo."

That is probably part of why Google is concerned.

It's as I feared

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that Google is a full US corporation owned by its shareholders, its number one priority by law is to make profits for its sheareholders. It is actually illegal to stick to its Don't be evil mantra if this conflicts with shareholder profits. The accountants and the lawyers will slowly turn the company into a creature as grasping and malevolent as Microsoft. It's not the influence of the directors, it's the demands of the shareholders, and the law supports them. It is as avoidable as tomorrow's sunrise.

Googling woes

[Rob T Firefly]

Once I was feeling artistic, so I Googled how best to Xerox my head onto a Playboy Bunny, maybe using some Scotch Tape, but found out I could Photoshop it instead. So, I had a Coke, grabbed some Kleenex, and got to work.. but was disturbed by my mom coming in to Hoover. So I quickly shut down the PC, and decided to use Crayolas and Play-Doh instead.

Re:Googling woes

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you know you liked it. Don't go all homophobic on me now.

Re:Googling woes

[Rob T Firefly]

That's very nearly clever! Watch out before you make the other trolls jealous.

-- Rob T Firefly, posting as AC so as not to clog the real posts.

Re:Googling woes

[Anonymous Coward]

HAH, and I fail at posting as AC. Happy Monday morning, Slashdot!

-- Rob again

Re:Googling woes

[Anonymous Coward]

Then i decided to listen to my Creative walkman.

Re:Googling woes

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I see on your other comment you posted as AC as you mentioned:

Oh, you know you liked it. Don't go all homophobic on me now.

Dude, that's just sick. I mean, let us not assassinate this lad further, sir. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Re:Googling woes

[Anonymous Coward]

Once I was feeling artistic, so I went to Google® searched how best to place a Xerox® photostatic copy of my head onto a Playboy® Bunny*, maybe using some Scotch Tape® adhesive, but found out I could use Photoshop® digital editing instead. So, I had a Coke® soft drink, grabbed some Kleenex® tissues, and got to work.. but was disturbed by my mom coming in to clean with her Hoover® vacuum cleaner. So I quickly shut down the PC*, and decided to use Crayola® art supplies and Play-Doh® modeling compound instead.

You are welcome.

-The Legal Team

*While Playboy® does have trademark status, "Bunny" does not. If one were looking to mention the trademark around the term you should be refering to the Bunny Costume® outfit. The associated website is NOT safe for work/school (http://www.playboy.com/help/legal_notices.html)

*To the best of my knowledge "PC" does not have trademark status. I did do some nominal amount of verification and at http://www.ibm.com/ibm/us/, IBM did not refer to it as such.

Re:Googling woes

[TheoMurpse]

Once I was feeling artistic, so I googled how best to xerox my head onto a Playboy Bunny, maybe using some Scotch Tape, but found out I could photoshop it instead. So, I had a coke, grabbed some kleenex, and got to work.. but was disturbed by my mom coming in to hoover. So I quickly shut down the PC, and decided to use Crayolas and Play-Doh instead.

I actually think, when using the terms generically, they should not be capitalized ;) And does anyone use "crayolas" to mean "crayons"? I mean, it's a longer word, less-known, and sounds funny. I've never heard that used generically in my entire life.

Re:Googling woes

[ph43thon]

You forgot the part where you spammed (nobody remembers poor old Spam) out your story all over the Internet.

Give Google a box of kleenex

[krell]

Sounds like Google is quite upset over this one. I hope someone comes up with a good solution and doesn't just put a band-aid on the problem. In the mean time, I hope their warning is xeroxed and distributed to all. So just sit back and drink a can of your favorite coke and wait for the results.

This kind of thing is how you know...

[Sqreater]

...that a company has "jumped the shark." Welcome to big-company-asshole land, Google.

Watch them sue grannies putting out newsletters to their grandchildren next. They can't stop this, but they sure can make themselves look old and curmudgeonly.

It's not the news media...

[sheldon]

I think google is fucked. I understand what they are trying to do, but...

the news media didn't invent google as a verb, they started using it after it became common place in the populace.

Re:Tough call...

[Oligonicella]

Part of the trademark process is active protection of same. This is all Google is doing. Making a good faith effort to prove they're intent on keeping their trademark. Neither Lego nor Kleenex has lost their trademarks, right? Neither shall Google.

P.S. Google -- if it starts with a lowercase letter, it's not your name.

Tough Titty

[DataCannibal]

If I (and millions of other people) wish to use the verb "to google" to mean "to search for something on the internet" then we will and Google can do fuck all about it.

Dictionaries, whose job in the English speaking world is to descriptively (we don't have prescriptive dictionaries like the French and Germans) document meaning and usage of the English Language, would be failing in their duty if there was no entry reflecting the use of "to google" in the sense described above.

Me(to Google the search engine company):

google! google! google! (hops around like the mad hermnit in life of Brian) I've said it again. What are you going to do about? google,google,google.

Google (looking like John Cleese): Shut up!

Me: google,google,google, I'm going to google for something!

Smart move

[videocrew]

Ever use a zipper, margarine, or aspirin? All of those used to be trademarks of a company, but the company allowed their usage to become generic, and therefore lost the trademark. So now every company that wants to make a Zipper-brand zip fastener can just call it a zipper! If Google allows their trademark to become generic like that, every search engine can call themselves a google and confuse the hell out of the average internet user, as well as weaken or possibly destroy Google as a company.

This is not just a Google thing either. Xerox ran a huge campaign a while back encouraging people to "photocopy" things using a Xerox machine, not to just "xerox" it. Ever wonder why if you order a Coke in a restaraunt the waitress asks if Pepsi is ok (if that's all they have)? It's not just to keep you happy, it's to keep Coca-Cola's legal department and the legions of secret shoppers they employ off their backs.

Google's legal team are idiots. Here's why....

[gatkinso]

...you WANT your brand name to be synonomous with the product/service you provide. This is the ULTIMATE marketing coup.

For instance, many times somebody will say, "Do you wnt a coke?" when they mean, "do you want a soda." "You will need a Jeep to get up that trail" meaning "you will need a 4x4..." The list goes on.

Everytime the Washington Post or Time prints, "the father found out his daughter was a prostitute after googling her name..." is free advertisement for Google, and simply reinforces a self sustaining behavioral feedback to use Google to google information on the net.

Wanting it both ways

[lseltzer]

Would these be the same media companies whose content Google is stealing on Google News?

the point is...

[excelsior_gr]

There is no such thing as bad publicity. It is fairly sure that all those Google executives really love the fact that Google is being directly connected to the action of "using a search engine to recover information from the internet". They are currently expanding their activities in all possible activities one would use the internet for: random information searching, email, chatting, maps, etc (this is a really long list). I bet they want the same to happen for all other areas of their interest as well. Like, perhaps in future one would say: "What's your google account?" and really mean "What's your email account?".

What they dont't want is some other companies using their name to offer the same services as they do. Can you imagine a website www.nobody_has_heard_of_us_before.com displaying: "Google the internet now! Accurate results in only 0.000000032354 seconds!". Besides, they can not prevent the people from using the word any way they like (and they don't want to). But they can (and should) prevent other firms from using it in the fashion shown above.

Hoover?

[krell]

"Take for instance Kleenex, Jell-O, Frisbee & Hoover. You know what all these are and there's a fairly good chance you've called an imposter brand the same name. "

I've heard these used as "generic" terms (along with others such as kleenex, bandaid, and Xerox). Except for "Hoover". I've never anyone use this as a term for vacuum. I've heard it used as a misprunciation for "hover", though. ("That there yew eff oh! It done hoovered over the cow pasture! I'm tellin' yall!")

Re:Hoover?

[MarkGriz]

. Except for "Hoover". I've never anyone use this as a term for vacuum

I've heard (read) it once or twice. Seems to be a British thing.

Anyone?..... Bueller?

Re:Hoover?

[StevoJ]

Possibly it is just a British thing. Everyone uses it here.

Re:Hoover?

[BridgeGarth]

Yes. In Britain we use the verb hoover almost always in stead of "vacuum". Some people simply use "sweep". We also, like everyone else, use coke to mean generic cola. But we use photocopy/photocopier and almost never Xerox. We use a plaster and never a Band-Aid. We certainly don't have dumpsters, only bins. We don't use the word Kleenex, we call them tissues. Jell-O is, erm, jelly (your jelly is jam, except when smooth and then its jelly!). Amusingly a news reporter this morning got into a mess when she tried to avoid a proprietry name for a handheld gaming system: "A mother was sure her two small boys would be able to take their (pause) playboys onboard their plane". In fact, apart from Hoover and Coke I think we generally don't use brand names. I await the many corrections.

Re:Hoover?

[raining]

I'll correct you on that by putting a line through your comments with my red biro.

Re:Hoover?

[BridgeGarth]

Sorry to reply to myself, but of course we have Velcro. There are very many that I would never have guessed were trademarks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_g enericized_trademarks and I suspect most people wouldn't have guessed either.

Re:Hoover?

[pthisis]

Being from the US, our jelly is always smooth.

Homogeneous grape/blackberry/mint stuff = jelly. This stuff is of uniform consistency, often overly sweetened, and usually clear as opposed to cloudy.

Smashed up strawberry/raspberry/blackberry/etc stuff = jam. This stuff has seeds, skins, etc in it.

Yes, blackberry comes both ways. Strawberry is usually jam when sold in grocery stores, but if you eat out you'll sometimes get little packets of strawberry jelly. Grape is invariably jelly.

If it's got citrus peel in it we call it marmalade instead of jam, and it's not nearly as common as the other kinds.

Re:Hoover?

[Anonymous Coward]

corrections:

sellotape
tannoy
tipex
jacuzzi

also older ones we probably share with the US:

aspirin
cellophane
nylon
thermos
escalator
heroin

Re:Hoover?

[VdG]

As someone else pointed out, I think that iPod is becoming quite widely used. Partly because of the wide brand recognition and partly because it's both easier/quicker to say and write, and also less specific. (I could call my little machine an "MP3 player", but what if I'm actually playing some other format?)

Biro is often used to mean any (cheap) ball-point pen.

Jeep often seems to be used as a generic.

There's a lot of this sort of thing covering regional food products in the EU. e.g. Parma Ham may only be produced in Parma, Italy. Cheddar, however, is too ubiquitous and can come from anywhere.

Re:Hoover?

[BridgeGarth]

Then I stand corrected. I do, however, think it is a common British belief that Americans call jam jelly. Possibly that jam is much more common in UK than jelly and perhaps a lot of British people call jelly jam.

Re:Hoover?

[Badfysh]

Yeah it's very common in the UK. Probably because it's a nice onomatopoeic word. As a kid I thought all cleaners were called that because of the sound they made.

Re:Hoover?

[BridgeGarth]

I knew I had fanned the flames. Yes, I missed the really obvious biro. Jeep I agree, though I think it is falling out of use now. Some of the ones on the Wikipedia list I find astonishing though. Someone can trademark Plasterboard for a board made of plaster? Still I think less than 10% of those on the Wikipedia list are used *commonly* in UK. I speculate we use trademarks for generic products less than Americans.

Re:Hoover?

[pthisis]

Probably because the classic American school lunch is the peanut butter & jelly sandwich, and grape jelly is by far the most common preserve over here.

Personally I believe strawberry jam to be the pinnacle of preserves, both on toast/English muffins/etc and in peanut butter sandwiches. Raspberry is right up there too.

Re:Hoover?

[Alioth]

It's a British thing. Virtually everyone in Britain (and probably Ireland too) calls a vacuum cleaner a hoover (lower case 'h') - and using one is called 'doing the hoovering'. I remember when I was a kid, and I first saw a Hoover branded appliance that wasn't a vacuum cleaner being a bit confused why they'd mislabel something that was quite clearly a washing machine as a hoover!

Re:Hoover?

[VdG]

Possibly, though there are a few I use regularly which aren't on that list. Cordura for example, or plasticene. Some of these might not be used in the USA, (although there are several UK-specific entries in the list). Blu-tack they have as an Australian use, but I think it's common over here, too.

(I guess you were looking at the same list as me, on Wikipedia.)

There are also a lot of products in the list which simply aren't commonplace in the UK, like Gatorade or Lysol.

Looking through the list, there are a few things which I wouldn't consider using because they're innacurate, like Gatso, but which I recognise that most people wouldn't care about. (For me, the difference between a Gatso and a Tru-Velo is important, because only one of them can catch a speeding motorbike. :-))

Or Ribena, 'cause none of the generic alternatives taste as nice, (although I guess they rot your teeth just as well).

They have Ethernet in there, too, and I hope that if I was referring to Ethernet it would actually be Ethernet, because usually the difference would be important to my job.

And if I say Phillips Screwdriver I don't usually mean simply a cross-head, because I know they're different.

Re:Hoover?

[BridgeGarth]

I agree on all counts I think. It annoys me that a few people think that Gatso = generic speed camera. I don't think it is totally genericized as only a few people do this. My wife uses Ribena generically, I do not. I too distinguish between Philips and Pozidrive. I think most people do not though. the proof is in the pudding since, as I said earlier, there are many I didn't know that are/were trademarks - they are truly genericized. (If genericized is a word).

Re:Hoover?

[Hemmer]

Our family always use to call it Hoovering, but since the arrival of our new Dyson, it has become Dysoning...

Re:Hoover?

[Misch]

"Jelly is clear, Jam is not. Conserves have nuts, Preserves have chunks and Marmalades always have peel."

Good Eats, "Urban Preservation: Part I"

Re:Hoover?

[pthisis]

"Jelly is clear, Jam is not. Conserves have nuts, Preserves have chunks and Marmalades always have peel."

That sounds wrong to me. Preserves are a superset of jams, (fruit) jellies, and marmalades. Conserves are a superset of preserves. There are nut conserves, but a jam is a conserve as well. There are non-chunky preserves, though often the term is used to refer to non-jam non-jelly preserves (which are usually chunky).

Marmalades always have peel. I've never seen a non-citrus marmalade but I don't know if citrus is a requisite.

Re:Hoover?

[tehcyder]

In Britain we use the verb hoover almost always in stead of "vacuum". Some people simply use "sweep".

I suppose it depends where you live, but I would only say "sweep" if I was using a broom (e.g. sweeping up leaves outside).

Brand Mismanagement?

[Viceice]

Before everyone starts with the "OMG, Google is Evil!" let me say this.

Companies have collective wet dreams about their product names replacing generic terms, like Panadol instead Paracetamol, or Coke instead of Cola. But this is always as a reenforcement of their brand, if the term "brand" is understood NOT as simply a logo and pakaging, but all the intrinsic values of the product combined. For instance, if you ask for Panadol, it's for the brandname drug that is fast acting and effective in a low dose.

So when we say "to google" we mean to use this very efficient search engine with a low signal to noise ratio to quickly come up with a useful fact. Googles beef with this is the use of "to google" to mean "Use any search engine to...", this is akin to you going to a restaurant and upon asking for a Coke, you are instead served a Pepsi or Dr. Pepper.

Re:Brand Mismanagement?

[Rik Sweeney]

this is akin to you going to a restaurant and upon asking for a Coke, you are instead served a Pepsi or Dr. Pepper.

Not really, every resturant I've been in to will ask you if it's OK to serve you a different type of cola. If I ask for a Coke and they don't serve it then I'm asked if Pepsi will be OK.

At which point I ask for a lemonade...

Re:Brand Mismanagement?

[Viceice]

Well, yes. The point being if you were served a Pepsi instead of being asked if it was ok to, you'd be outraged. Just like Google will be outraged if "to google" was used in refrence to say, MSN Search.

Re:Brand Mismanagement?

[pthisis]

For readers in the US, Panadol is apparentl a foreign brand name for what's commonly sold here as Tylenol, and paracetamol is a foreign generic name for what's called acetaminophen here.

Re:Brand Mismanagement?

[DrMorris]

Companies have collective wet dreams about their product names replacing generic terms [...]

Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted to write. I don't understand how Google could be unhappy when people are using their brand as a verb. This certainly means that they've accomplished something big (like Xerox => xeroxing).

Re:Brand Mismanagement?

[TheoMurpse]

What I think is interesting is that languages other than English have begun to do this as well. In Japanese, "Guuguru/Guguru" is used both as the Japanization (Japanese phoneticization?) of "Google" and as a verb (the "-ru" ending signifies a verb in dictionary form). Here is an example of a page using it, in case you read Japanese. I'm not sure how generic the verb has become, but the fact that it has become a verb is interesting.

Re:Brand Mismanagement?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're unhappy because they could lose their trademark. They don't want MSN search saying "google the web" instead of "search the web"

Theft?

[krell]

"Would these be the same media companies whose content Google is stealing on Google News?"

I google the news on Google News a lot. However, I've never seen stolen news there. I've seen copied news, but nothing stolen. I'm always able to find the original source, still there, easily.

Re:Theft?

[Rob Kaper]

Always? Or only when Reuters needn't retract some of their bias?

I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Could someone Xerox it for me?

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[kzinti]

Oh gawd! I need an Aspirin.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Comboman]

That's just a Band-Aid solution.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Rude Turnip]

About 100 years ago, your doctor could have also given you some Bayer Heroin(tm).

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[MikeB0Lton]

After I find the Tylenol.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[TheCrayfish]

...and wrap it in cellophane?

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[hackstraw]

Could someone Xerox it for me?

That is funny, but it also says volumes (in triplicate!)

Google, like other companies, has issued press releases in the attempt to preserve their brand name. But with the Xerox example, that is a little different.

Xerox started out as a photocopying company, and Xerox used to be synonymous as a verb to do photocopies. But now, that term (at least in the US) has lost its uniqueness with just "copy" or "photocopy" and I guess the reason is that the technology is not new anymore, and Xerox does not hold anywhere near a monopoly on the market anymore.

Now with Google, I would bet the same thing would have to apply. Google may lose the monopoly on searches, but I surely don't see the company going away in at least 20 or so years. My hunch is that they are going to be around for a loonng time, and that is a good thing(tm).

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[plopez]

Actually this is different. After WWI, as part of reparations, German companies lost a lot of trademarks, copyrights and patents. Asprin, IIRC, was one of them.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[liak12345]

Sorry, I threw it out in the Dumpster. Want a Kleenex?

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Prof.Phreak]

Hey, maybe you can google for it here?

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[TheRaven64]

This does seem to be a lot more prevalent in the USA. I have never heard someone in the UK use Xerox as a verb; people just say 'photocopy.' Similarly, we say 'tissues' not 'Kleenexes.' 'Hoover' used to be popular here, but now people tend to say 'vacuum cleaner' or 'Dyson,' although the latter is only used when the machine in question is made by Dyson. Most of the things from the list posted on Everything 2 were US-only. The main exception was Biro (ball point pen), which I believe is mainly used in the UK. Google seems to be used as a verb a lot in both countries.

I wonder why verbing trademarks is so much more common in the USA than the UK. It could be something to do with the advertising density (I am amazed when I am in the USA at how many adverts assault my senses, especially when I watch US television).

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[flooey]

But now, that term (at least in the US) has lost its uniqueness with just "copy" or "photocopy" and I guess the reason is that the technology is not new anymore, and Xerox does not hold anywhere near a monopoly on the market anymore.

Actually, Xerox ran an advertising campaign that urged people to "photocopy", not "xerox", and also sent a lot of letters to the media to make sure they didn't use xerox as a verb. The use of "photocopy" instead of "xerox" is something Xerox spent a lot of money to achieve.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[plague3106]

Asprin IS a generic term though.. its the generic name of the drug, and I don't think it was ever a brand name.

Indeed, my bottle of Exedrin lists Asprin as one of the ingrediants.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[T-Ranger]

Well, yes and no. The generic term is acetylsalicylic acid, though its 'discoverer' called it Apirin. The German company Bayer lost much of its forign assets after WWI and in the USA, for example, the formula was bought by a private company from the government, but that company tried and failed to maintain "Aspirin" as a trademark. In other countries this played out differently - in Canada Aspirin is (still) a tradmark.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[WilliamSChips]

Biro pens are called Bic pens in the United States. And yes, US television has way too much advertizing and the BBC seems to have about the right amount.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[khallow]

Now with Google, I would bet the same thing would have to apply. Google may lose the monopoly on searches, but I surely don't see the company going away in at least 20 or so years. My hunch is that they are going to be around for a loonng time, and that is a good thing(tm).

Well, I don't see the brand going away, but the company is a different story.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[chemisus]

just google for it.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Fishstick]

Similarly, we say 'tissues' not 'Kleenexes.

When I travelled to London on business years ago (early 90's), I had occasion to need Kleenex and went into a shop. Caught myself before looking the total ignorant yank asking for 'Kleenex', but still got a perplexed look when I fumbled and finally uttered 'facial tissue'.

"Oh, paper hankies? Right over there..."

BTW, moust foul sandpaper I ever had the misfortune to attempt to wipe my nose with. I think there was still bark in that crap. And don't get me started on "English Breakfast" ;-)

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[lcsjk]

Hand me the scotch tape will you, and I'll put this on the bulletin board.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Edzor]

agreed, although its starting to annoy me when they 'Dyson' mainly due to those hov..err vaccum cleaners being rubbish compared to the likes of the mighty Henry http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00008Z9XZ/202- 8882964-3659063?v=glance&n=11052681

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[plague3106]

Yes, I should have scrolled down just a bit more before posting.. :-)

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[chemisus]

bleh, just now saw that the person above said the exact same thing.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[beebware]

What's wrong with an English breakfast? I love having
* Bacon. Freshly sliced from pigs
* Sausage. Pig mean in sheeps intenstine
* Black Pudding. Congealed pigs blood.
* Mushrooms. Tasty fungi!
* Eggs. Chicken ovulations
* Baked Beans
* Bread fried in animal fat
all in a nice greasy spoon cafe! Doesn't that list make you feel hungry? (well, unless you are a pig!)

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Fishstick]

Huh, I warned you not to get me started -- that morning I was trying to catch a train from Paddington station to take me out to the sticks where Vodafone had some office. I was still all screwed up from the flight (first time I had travelled international on business at that point) and was trying to get there, get something to blow my nose with and something in my stomach.

I wasn't so thick as to think I was going to find a micky-d or something familiar to grab a quick bite, but I walked into a little place and asked if they had a special or something quick as I was hurrying to a train. "sure, you want 'English Breakfast'? That's quick"

Ok, sure -- yeah, my own fault for being abroad and not knowing anything, I was like 25. I got this plate of what I regarded as slop and did my best to choke it down as quickly as I could. I finished and dashed out to the station to catch my train. About 20 minutes later, my stomach started to reject this meal. Was the most miserable hour of my life, trying not to puke, trying to find somewhere to puke, trying to clean up after having puked, etc.

I got there, no doubt looking like Keith Richards and the meeting went ok. But they worked through the lunch hour, my stomach growling angrily at me the whole time and my head pounding. They explained they wanted to work through and would supply "tea". I took this to mean sandwiches or something. No, they came out with somekind of hard boiled egg wrapped in sausage. I couldn't have been more revolted if they had served haggis. I think I made some excuse about not feeling well and stepped out around the corner to a shop I had seen on the way in and bought some crackers and soda water or something.

I should say that other than this first day I had a lovely time. I found lots of good food and good times the rest of the week, that first day was a killer.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Chowderbags]

Why not just use post-it notes?

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Achromatic1978]

And don't even start me on "sharpies", called felt pens / markers (not magic markers), in every other place on earth...

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[kabz]

Exactly, I now do all my 'googling' on Yahoo.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[EggyToast]

Of course, unless you actually want a pen made by Sharpie. They're a heck of a lot better than most indelible ink brands.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[EggyToast]

I've only been in the professional workforce for 4 years, but I've never heard anyone use "xerox" as a verb. Similarly, the only people who use "kleenex" instead of tissue seem to be over 40, and even then it's selective.

Granted, the people who write these articles about how common certain terms are and how they're used everywhere in the US are also likely over 40, but using the brand name for everyday items certainly doesn't seem to be as common as it used to be. I personally chalk it up to the fact that competing companies have stepped up their own brand advertising and calling products by what they are -- "bandage," "tissue," etc.

Lately, the only times I've heard people use brand names for verbs or in general conversation is when the product is specifically intended. Such as "just swiffer it up," meaning to use a swiffer broom-thing.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Anonymous Coward]

Or should that be "going to be around for a loooooooooong time"?

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[spongman]

guess again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_g enericized_trademarks

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[lcsjk]

Congratulations! Yours was so subtle that I missed it myself the first time through. I'll bet the moderaters don't even notice yours or mine.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean Nikkos?

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Kosi]

About 100 years ago, your doctor could have also given you some Bayer Heroin(tm).

Today, he could even give you stuff like Fentanyl, which is ~ 100 times stronger than morphine.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[shellbeach]

I've only been in the professional workforce for 4 years, but I've never heard anyone use "xerox" as a verb. Similarly, the only people who use "kleenex" instead of tissue seem to be over 40, and even then it's selective.

I think it depends on your locality. "Xerox" is gradually dropping out of use as photocopies drop out of use - most things get printed, and when you print out something for yourself, you might also print someone a copy. Thus "copy" has replaced that verb. "Kleenex" still seems fairly prevalent. I might ask someone if they've got a tissue, or I might ask if they've got a kleenex - the words are synonymous in my mind at least.

But Google's now got the same problem that Xerox and Kleenex had: there really isn't any other decent search engine around, so suggesting that someone googles something is literally suggesting that they use Google's search engine. I doubt that the few oddities who use Yahoo or MSN (god forbid!) to search would talk about googling something, although it'd be interesting to know. Funnily enough, I don't recall anyone ever verbifying Lycos or Alta Vista back in the day - maybe they just didn't roll off the tongue the way google does.

But what I *really* want to know is how Google can trademark a number in the first place ... :)

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Anonymous Coward]

xerox does *not* mean photocopy.

It refers to a 'xerographic' copy.

Calling a xerox machine a 'photocopier' is actually a mistake.

Back in the day, people actually took pictures of things as copies- photograph copies. Nowadays, people scan and copy, which is really the same thing. But for a while, the process was, heat up a drum with the reflections from a page, charge it, stick ink to it by static electricity, and then melt the ink on. thus, the ink and paper were runny and hot when you took your xerographically copied document. incidentally, laser printers use a similar process, though they use a laser instead of the reflection from a strong lamp.

Re:Google's legal team are idiots. Here's why....

[Todd Knarr]

Not quite. Go look up the history of the word "xerox" for an example. Xerox lost the trademark on their own name over this exact issue. No company wants that.

There's lots of precedent

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Q-tip, Xerox, Escalator, Velcro, and Band-Aid are some more that haven't been mentioned yet.
Wiki entry for Genericized Trademark here

Re:There's lots of precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget "heroin" "aspirin" and "biro".

In related news

[MECC]

A class action lawsuit has been filed by people with the name "john" has been filed against toilet manufacturers and publishers in an attempt to prevent the term 'john' from being used to describe the latrine.

Re:In related news

[Aneurysm9]

Laugh, but Johnny Carson successfully sued a portable toilet company on pretty much that basis. See Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc.

Re:In related news

[MECC]

Worth reading for the citations alone.

And, relevant to Google's case - they appear to be defending their 'right to publicity'. All but exactly like 'carson .vs. toilets'.

Can I get a Xerox of the warning letter?

[nebulous_afterthough]

I need to Google it for my companies name.

Re:Can I get a Xerox of the warning letter?

[night_flyer]

Im lauging so hard I need to get a Kleenex

Joss Whedon, prepare for lawsuit.

[w4rl5ck]

... he used this back three or four years in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", season six. Forgot which episode, sorry.

Dialog, roughly:
"Did you google on her?" - "Jeez, Willow, she's 14!" - "No, I mean, did you do an internet research..."

Google does no evil? Well, let's think again. I tend so think different lately.

Grammar correction: team is idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google's legal team are idiots"

That should be "team is idiots". The singular applies, as there is only one team being referred to. "Are" could be used if you said "Google's legal teams are idiots".

Re:Grammar correction: team is idiots.

[Seraph]

I'm probably responding to a troll, but take a gander at this.

Re:Grammar correction: team is idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

The page you refer to makes a false distinction when it creates the category "collective nouns". Every single noun is one of their "collective nouns":

A person is made of living cells: "The vicar are walking on the road".

An automobile is made of many car parts: "The automobile are parked on my foot!"

The best solution is to check to see whether the noun is looking at the whole, or at the individual parts, so you never end up using "are" unless you are looking specifically at the elements in a collective noun. Here are some examples of consistent, correct usage:

"The BBC is..."

"The workers of the BBC are..."

"The broadcasting companies of the United Kingdom and France are...

"The football team is..."

"The football teams are..."

Re:Grammar correction: team is idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google's legal team are idiots"

That should be "team is idiots". The singular applies, as there is only one team being referred to. "Are" could be used if you said "Google's legal teams are idiots"

Depends on whether you are using British English or American English. You have to realize that this is the Internet: not everyone in the world speaks and writes exactly like you do, no offense.

American English:
"Microsoft is based in Redmond."

British English:
"Microsoft are based in Redmond."

If you don't believe me, just watch a European soccer (football) broadcast with English announcers, and listen to the language they use. They will always refer to teams in the plural. e.g.:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/m an_utd/4790213.stm
"Manchester United are renewing efforts to boost their midfield ahead of the new season..."

Anyway, British usage may sound weird to American (and Canadian) ears, but the American convention is equally "illogical":

"The Yankees have won 5 in a row."
"New York has won 5 in a row."

In the first sentence "the Yankees" are treated as plural; in the second sentence "New York" is treated as singular. In both cases, they are referring to the New York Yankees baseball team, which is a group of players (plural). Sometimes American broadcasters even switch from singular to plural in the same sentence:
"New York is red-hot, having won 8 of their last 10 games."

Tell me how that can be possibly be consistent with any "proper" rules of grammar.

It gets even worse when you have a team with weird name like "Heat" or "Jazz". Then no one can even figure out whether it should be treated as plural or singular.

At least the British way is consistent: any time you have a team, company or organization, it is always treated as plural, even if it sounds weird to the rest of us.

Re:Grammar correction: team is idiots.

[Seraph]

Except that is not the way it works in English as spoken in the U.K. Saying "The BBC are" would be perfectly legal, moral, and ethical there.

Japanese

[kahei]

Aww, the Japanese verb 'guguru', to search on the internet, is almost the only import from English that I don't hate. It's cool the way it becomes a proper verb with a full set of conjugations:

guguru -- google it
guguritakunakunaru -- to no longer want to google it
guguriyagaru -- f@@king google it
gugureba -- archaic pluperfect tense, now used as a subjunctive
gugurikarikeri -- poetic form: 'to have once been googled... and perhaps to be googled again'

Possibly from proto-Japonic '*gugumi', c.f. Goryeo '*g-g-o'.

Mind, I suppose it would depend on whether Google trademarked 'google' spelt in katakana.

Re:Japanese

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Why would the Katakana be Guguru? Surely Gu-ge-lu would be more accurate.

Or just reverse the Katakana for Gelgoog since it's more or less Google backwards any how.

Re:Japanese

[WilliamSChips]

"Guguritakunakunaru" sounds really awesome.

Re:Japanese

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no 'l' sound in katakana or hiragana.

So they substitute in 'r'.

Re:Japanese

[TheoMurpse]

Possibly from proto-Japonic '*gugumi', c.f. Goryeo '*g-g-o'.

Nice examples of usage, but where did you get this notion that "guguru" descends from proto-Japonic? I mean, you even called it a loanword from English at the beginning of your post! It obviously is a shortening of "guuguru suru", ("to Google") and last time I checked, "Google" was not proto-Japonic. Check ALC, Jim Breen's WWWJDic, or here.

As a side note, I've seen other "loans" from English such as "guuguru bakudan" (Google bomb), meaning the same thing as its English equivalent (with dictionaries even citing "miserable failure" on Google as an example.

I also wish I could have found information about "guuguru" (in katakana, of course) being trademarked, but alas, I failed. "GOOGLE" and "Google" are trademarked there, as you can find out by searching for "google" here. I think it would be interesting to know this: if Pepsi trademarked, say, "pepushi-" in katakana, could another company use it in hiragana, or does syllabary matter?

Re:Japanese

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I happen to read Katakana and I'm working on Hiragana.. There is no R or L sound in Japanese, the both are combind to be the same sound. Hence Ru and Lu are the same thing but in this case I used Lu as it made more sense in the context.

Re:Japanese

[kahei]

Nice examples of usage, but where did you get this notion that "guguru" descends from proto-Japonic? I mean, you even called it a loanword from English at the beginning of your post!

Yes. Yes, I did. It's looks like a loanword... and I called it a loanword... and it is a loanword. Hmm. About this time, you might begin to experience a sort of 'whoosh'ing feeling. This is the sensation of having completely missed a very, very, VERY obvious joke. I think you ought to consider the possibility that I don't _really_ believe that 'guguru' is from 'proto-Japonic' (whatever that is). Not all sentences are to be taken at their literal face value; some are humorous or dramatic inventions or exaggerations, and some are metaphors or other imagery, or are to be understood allegorically. This one, for example, was a humorous invention.

It obviously is a shortening of "guuguru suru", ("to Google")

Hrm, I'm not sure it's just an abbreviation. For one thing, you get mostly 'guuguru suru' but mostly 'guguru'. I think it's more of a tongue-in cheek effort to create a fake kokugo word than an attempt to abbreviate. It would be interesting to consider other english words that have become 'suru' verbs ending in 'ru', such as 'insutaru suru'.

Re:Japanese

[TheoMurpse]

Yes, that did indeed go whooshing over my head. For future reference, proto-Japonic is a language similar to classical Japanese, but older, that linguists hypothesize about. I'm not sure about the name, but it's like proto-Germanic in that there are no written records of it, but theories can be derived based on links between Korean and Japanese, and perhaps some Turkish (an Altaic language, as Japanese is hypothesized to be as well).

As far as my assertion that "guguru" is a shortening of "guuguru suru", I came across a page with the etymology of the word (it is posted in another comment I made in this discussion about these legal threats) that stated that "guguru" came about in this manner: "guuguru suru"-->"guuguru"-->"guguru".

Re:Japanese

[TheoMurpse]

Oh, and for proof that I'm not just making up the concept of proto-Japonic, here's a page that lists some scholarly articles written about it by people at Oxford, Hawaii, National Institute for Japanese Language, etc.

Re:Japanese

[kahei]

I know what proto-Japonic is. How could I possibly know that the -eba form used to be a pluperfect-like form, and know of the existance of a 'Goryeo' language, and know that the word proto-Japonic exists, and yet not know what it means?? Whoosh factor... INCREASING!

It's worth bearing in mind that Korean is just the last, heavily Sinicized, survivor of a large group of languages in which the languages of Goryeo, Goguryeo, Balhae, Buyeo, those bastards Shilla, and early Japan all had a place (and which presumably had some relationship with the Tungusic languages to the north). Unfortunately the fact that they tended to leave all their inscriptions in Chinese, and that the whole area has been Chinesified with the suppression of other languages and cultures, makes it pretty well impossible to reconstruct the relationships.

I'm glad you didn't rush in and assert that 'Japanese is an Altaic language'. I can't help but feel the Altaic language group is more of a cool idea than a real language group. Turkish is Turkic, but the relationship between Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungusic, and modern Japanese/Korean is probably lost forever.

Such, then, is the sadness inherent in N Asian linguistics. In the end it always comes down to '...and then the Chinese wiped them out'. Substitute 'Russians' for 'Chinese' where appropriate :)

The link you give is interesting. The guy does not actually consider 'guguru' an abbreviation, though; he just says that the fact it ends in 'ru' makes it lend itself to conversion to a verb. He also seems to suggest that 'guguru' goes back as far as 'guuguru' which is reasonable because it would be unusual to abbreviate a word in Japanese by shortening a vowel (although there's an example on the tip of my tongue...)

Anyway, I must dash, I have a shoulder of lamb in the oven.

Re:Japanese

[TheoMurpse]

I know what proto-Japonic is

Here, I'll quote you:

from 'proto-Japonic' (whatever that is)

So much for "Do No Evil"

[geeksdave]

So much for "Do No Evil"

Re:So much for "Do No Evil"

[pclminion]

So much for "Do No Evil"

So much for understanding of basic trademark law. If Google does not act to defend its trademarks, they will lose their legal status as trademarks. How well off do you think Google would be if anybody could put any software on the web and call it Google software?

Ala Wargames....

[MedBob]

(Ripping the Google letter from the lawyer's hands....)
You know how you asked me to let you know when you are acting rudely and insensitively?
(nods)
You're doing it now.....

We can't use it as a verb? Great Googley Moogley!

[aapold]

That's just totally google, man.

Lessee. that's an exclamation and an adjective. I'm having trouble making it sound right as an adverb.

On second thought, I think we should use it in the manner the Smurfs used the word "smurf".

More examples

[Anonymous Coward]

You can google to easily find more letters, like here.

Google = hypocrites

[Hao Wu]

Google copied their own name from "Googol", which has been claimed by the descendants of Milton Sirotta who invented the term.

They also stole "Googolplex" to name their corporate offices.

Google is as bad as Micromart, Wal-soft, and LOL. Part of their success is making you think otherwise.

Re:Google = hypocrites

[ZeroExistenZ]

Google is as bad as Micromart, Wal-soft, and LOL.

Not to forget Mike Rowe, the bastard...

*shakes fist*

Re:Google = hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Google copied their own name from "Googol", which has been claimed by the descendants of Milton Sirotta who invented the term.
WTF? Using an existing word as an inspiration (notice they didn't even use Googol literally) to create a brand name is NOT the same as using an existing brand name to create another brand name, such as the examples you provided! Duh...

Re:Google = hypocrites

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, and if you don't believe it, just google it on MSN or Yahoo....

Re:Google = hypocrites

[pogen]

Google copied their own name from "Googol", which has been claimed by the descendants of Milton Sirotta who invented the term.

Too bad they never registered it as a trademark for their nonexistent search engine. If they had, you might have a point.

Oh, but they "claimed" it, whatever that means...

Re:Google = hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

The point was not a legal argument, but a moral one.

Re:Google = hypocrites

[Just Some Guy]

Google copied their own name from "Googol", which has been claimed by the descendants of Milton Sirotta who invented the term.

Oh, will the tragedy of number theft never end? Milton Sirotta's leaches^Wdescendants can kiss my untrademarked butt.

The kid was only nine years old when he "invented" the term. Along those lines, maybe I should trademark the word and concept "pootbutt" and "10^2001" in honor of my son and the year he was born.

Re:Google = hypocrites

[Hao Wu]

Both the Sirottas and Google are wrong, but only Google is being hypocritical.

Re:Google = hypocrites

[NetRAVEN5000]

Google stole nothing. Googol is a number, anyone can use it. So is 711 - what, should we sue them? Ritz is a real last name, as well as a camera service store chain and a rock club - should we sue Nabisco? Should we go after Porsche, too, since 911 is a nationwide emergency telephone number?

Consider the alternative

[SpacePunk]

It beats the hell out of saying that you are 'yahooing' the internet.

Join Me In Turning This Around

[aplusjimages]

Help me end this use of google as a verb and lets pick a lesser known search engine and make it a common word. Try these on for size.

"I Kartooed it last night"
"You can just Clusty it" "I found out how much your house was by icerocketing it"

These already sound so much catchier.

Re:Google's legal team are idiots. Here's why....

[Anonymous Coward]

.you WANT your brand name to be synonomous with the product/service you provide. This is the ULTIMATE marketing coup.

Only as long as it's synonym with the service YOU provide, and not the service anyone else provides.

As long as people were saying "I'll just google it" and meaning http://www.google.com/search?q=it there was no problem. But once non-geeks started to "google it" on MSN, it was no longer a marketing coup. That's when it turned in to what is called "dilution of a trademark".

This suit is not evil. Imagine someone has a question and you tell him to google for "question keywords", and he comes back saying he didn't find anything, even though you just tried and got the answer by hitting "feeling lucky". Turns out he was using Yahoo instead of google. Making google a word for Google instead of a word for searching would solve this problem, and you could once again tell people to use google instead of having to give them the entire URL.

You Google. I Google. We all Google.

[sizzzzlerz]

Unfortunately (for Google), this is probably a lost cause. When a product or a service becomes so dominant that its very name comes to represent the entire genre, that battle is already lost. Siccing a whole herd of lawyers (that's what multiple lawyers are, right? A herd? Any way, I digress) on offenders won't put the genie back into the bottle. Xerox, Kleenex, Frisbee and other companies and company's products have gone through with little success. People still refer to the name as the generic identifier.

So, suck it up, Google. This means you've won!

Re:You Google. I Google. We all Google.

[Aneurysm9]

Siccing a whole herd of lawyers (that's what multiple lawyers are, right? A herd? Any way, I digress)

Not if they're from Google. Then it's a gaggle of Google lawyers.

Re:You Google. I Google. We all Google.

[AK Marc]

Chrysler won. Jeep (a registerd trademark of the Daimler-Chrysler Corporation) as announced in every commercial now, however there was a time when they didn't care. Jeep has been a generic name for a general purpose off-road vehicle since before Chrysler owned it. However, they still retain the trademark. Like many others, they let it get to the point where it should have been lost, then they spent the time and money to recapture it. Xerox lost it in the 60s and 70s, but fought and one it back (I'm talking about usage, not legality of the trademark). Older people will call copies and copy machines Xerox. Yonger people no longer do. That so many older people call them making Xeroxes on the Xerox (for copies on the Minolta) clearly shows it was lost at some time. Google isn't quite as far gone, so it should be even easier for them to keep the trademark than it was for Jeep or Xerox.

Google is a number first and foremost.

[TechGranny]

Google is okay with me, but one quick bit. Google is a number. A very large number. There is also google-plex. I never understood how they hijacked a public domain term like Google in the first place. IIRC, a google is a number constituted by a one with a hundred or so zeros after it.

. So before you go telling me that I can't use the term Google, let me remind you that you are already borrowing the damn term from humanity.

They don't own it, they can't control it. Sure its a trademark, but its also stolen.

Re:Google is a number first and foremost.

[Fuzzums]

Almost right...

http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=go ogol&btnG=Google+Search

Re:Google is a number first and foremost.

[nurmr]

• Googol and Googolplex are large numbers.
• Google is a search engine.

Re:Google is a number first and foremost.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's actually no problem with their trademark. Allow me to explain.

Firstly, there's no rule saying that you can't trademark a word if it already exists in a language, and furthermore using an existing word is not considered stealing. Just about any permutation of syllables exists in some language or another anyway.

Secondly, the public domain is for verbatim descriptions only, not for abstract or more creative trademarks. Furthermore, a word may be registered as a trademark by multiple entities, provided that the respective "trades" don't overlap. For example, a computer manufacturer could name themselves Apple, as could a record label, but a seller of fruit could not stick a label "apple" on apples and then sue another fruit-seller for doing the same.

Thirdly, the number googol is not spelt "google".

Re:Google is a number first and foremost.

[snurfle]

Yeah... Googol is the number... I just googled it.

Re:Google is a number first and foremost.

[TechGranny]

Spelling aside. From wikipedia:

" * The Internet search engine Google was named after this number. The original founders were going for 'Googol', but ended up with 'Google' due to a spelling mistake on a cheque that investors wrote to the founders. [edit]

Re:Google is a number first and foremost.

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you mean 'googol', not 'google'

They want to avoid the Sony fate

[Opportunist]

Sony lost its "walkman" trademark for just the same reason: It became an everyday word for a portable cassette player with earphones, so everyone may call his product "walkman".

I can understand the move. They sure as hell don't need more "market presence", they already have it. But isn't it interesting how things change? During my marketing courses, our teacher was running up and down with the primary goal to make your product name the "generic" name for the product group, so your brand is on everyone's mind when they think about the product group. Today, it's the worst thing that could happen to you, you may well lose your brand that way.

Did I already say today that brand/patent/copyright laws are sometime a little off the path of common sense?

Re:They want to avoid the Sony fate

[courtarro]

Sony lost its "walkman" trademark for just the same reason: It became an everyday word for a portable cassette player with earphones, so everyone may call his product "walkman".

While it's true that Sony lost the Walkman trademark in Austria due to technicalities, it remains under their control everywhere else.

Re:They want to avoid the Sony fate

[Opportunist]

Shame on me. I acted like a true American, I took my country and claimed it's the world.

I disagree...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just googled for 'Evil' and Google was not even mentionned once in the first 5 pages.

Hoops! wait a sec! I have 'Google Investor Relations' in the middle of the 1st page.

Google knows what it is doing

[neoviky]

Google is now much beyond the "free publicity" thing to feel good about it. Those benefits were enjoyed by the company around 2002/03. Now everybody uses Google to search for any term. Firefox has a right click search build in for the highlighted word which is set to google by default, and opens in a new tab. That is by far the quickest way to research anything, yet. Now Google knows it has come full circle, and the usage of the term "to google it" or "googling him" opens a dark pit for the company. "Google" has always meant search, and if it is increasingly more generic, it would start to mean "Internet" or "Web" in a short while. That is what the company is afraid of. You can't be too paranoid with the US Governement! Vicki

Re:Tough call...

[digitrev]

So aol, msn, yahoo, nintendo, sony, etc... aren't actually AOL, MSN, Yahoo, Nintendo, and Sony?

You're arguing semantics. If I write a book titled "harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban" (sic), then I'm still infringing on Rowling's copyright / trademark.

Unavoidable

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what they get for being so good.

Obligatory Simpsons' Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a perfectly cromulent word.

Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[brunes69]

...this is akin to you going to a restaurant and upon asking for a Coke, you are instead served a Pepsi or Dr. Pepper.

I can't fucking stand when that happens. Whenever it does I send it back. I didn't order a Pepsi (aka sewer water with sugar added), I ordered a Coke. If they don't server cokde they should have told me so I could order root beer. When a waiter/waitress does this I feel like throwing it all over them and saying "oh, you didn't order a Pepsi? Well, neither did I".

Re:Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't fucking stand when that happens. Whenever it does I send it back. I didn't order a Pepsi (aka sewer water with sugar added), I ordered a Coke.

Right, the difference being that Coke means "water from a different sewer" - and you're lucky to have it with sugar, some people have to make do with high fructose corn syrup. And uphill, both ways.

Re:Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[plague3106]

I guess its too hard to look at the menu... pretty much every restraunt I've been at advertises that they sell Coke or Pepsi products. If it isn't explictly speeled out, you could always look to see if they have Sprit or 7up, which will tell you as well. Failing that you could, you know, ask politely if they serve Coke or Pepsi.

FWIW, I've never gotten a Dr. Pepper asking for a coke...

Re:Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[khallow]

I can't fucking stand when that happens. Whenever it does I send it back. I didn't order a Pepsi (aka sewer water with sugar added), I ordered a Coke. If they don't server cokde they should have told me so I could order root beer. When a waiter/waitress does this I feel like throwing it all over them and saying "oh, you didn't order a Pepsi? Well, neither did I".

Witness the amazing power of Coca Cola's brand. That people actually get emotional over which brand of sugered (actually corn syruped to be technically correct) sewer water they get.

Re:Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[drsquare]

I can't fucking stand when that happens. Whenever it does I send it back. I didn't order a Pepsi (aka sewer water with sugar added), I ordered a Coke

Pepsi is a type of coke. If you wanted a particular brand you should have been more specific, although most places only sell one type. They both taste of the same thing anyway (i.e. nothing at all).

Re:Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[beebware]

No - "Coke" is a trademark term of the Coca Cola company. Pepsi and Coke are both types of COLA.

Re:Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[blueskies]

What are you talking about? Types of coke are things like: coke classic, vanilla coke, cherry coke, etc. Pepsi is the competitor of coke.

Re:Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[drsquare]

Coke is a trademark, the same way Hoover is a trademark, but a Dyson is still a type of hoover. I'm afraid your rant is about a century too late.

Re:Pepsie IS NOT Coke

[brunes69]

It has nothing to do with brand.

Soft drinks seems to be the only area of commerce in which people will place an order for an item, get a *totally different* item, and often not even complain or ask for any kind of substitution whatsoever.

I mean, if you order a steak and fries and the waiter brings you roast chicken and mash, do you just sit there and eat it anyway?!?!

What Google means at Google

[null etc.]

Amongst the general population, the accepted usage of the term "google" is to denote the process of performing a search via the Google Internet search engine. However, at Google's own corporate campus, the verb form of the word "Google" takes on several different meanings, depending upon context. Following are some examples to illustrate the multi-faceted use of the word "Google":

"He insisted on programming the solution in Perl, but I googled him around a bit and he finally reprogrammed it in PHP." Translation: to bully.

"The manager wanted the TPS reports yesterday, but I told him my email must have been googled and that I would have to resend it." Translation: to get lost in a mess of seemingly incomprehensible data.

"She has nice legs, but I heard that one guy who asked her out got reprimanded by the googles." Translation: overly sensitive PC/PR lawyers who retain power through the threat of incoming litigation.

"I checked my stock balance the other day an my shares had dropped $200! I lost over a million dollars! Then I woke up and realized it was just a google." Translation: nightmare.

"I wanted to buy the new GM hybrid, but after I read the consumer safety warnings about its sneaky legal tactics, that googled me over to Toyota." Translation: to drive away customers via bad corporate reputation.

Re:What Google means at Google

[Anonymous Coward]

You, ma'am, deserve a few mod points for your well-crafted humor. About halfway through the post did I realize you were not being serious, but instead were describing Google's poor corporate practices.

Well I sure as hell didn't MSN it on Google! (n/t)

[Anonymous Coward]

no text today, sorry.

Coke should threaten too

[EvilMoose]

I have discovered those strange beings in southern United States of Americia (As opposed to Canadia) describe all soft drinks as "coke" even though they are from rival companies. They are truly strange beings.

Re:Coke should threaten too

[TheoMurpse]

Yeah, just like others call them "soda water" even though there is no water in them, or "pop" even though the drinks are not my father, or "soft drink" even though they are, in fact, high in mineral content (hard water).

And, in fact, others call them soda, which is just as bad as calling them "coke". "Soda" is merely an ingredient. This is similar to calling all cookies "butters" because they have butter in them! Then they might get sued for trademark violation by South Park!

Don't be evil?

[imbaczek]

My ass.

It's in the dictionary, you fools. Some puny corporate machine can't stop natural language evolution.

Welcome to the Too-Big-for-Your-Britches club

[ItsMeJohn]

This is what happens when super good small companies get big and powerful, and then get lawyered up. Expect the same life cycle of arrogance to continue at Google just as it has at Microsoft, Sony, etc.

Re:Welcome to the Too-Big-for-Your-Britches club

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't just point fingers and yell, "BAD!!!" Explain what is terrible about this. They are merely defending their trademark so they don't eventually lose it. This is not evil. It wouldn't even be evil if this article was about MS instead of Google.

losing trademark

[TheSHAD0W]

They do have to succeed to maintain their trademark. Question is... Do they really have to? Whether or not they are able to maintain their trademark, they can't take away Google's domain name for it; it's not like when everyone started putting "aspirin" on their bottles of acetylsalycilic acid, other search engines can't intercept google.com. Wouldn't it be more valuable to essentially have ownership of a verb?

alternative

[crabbz]

Just say "googol" instead!

There HAVE to be at least TEN ALTERNATIVES...

[The_REAL_DZA]

The Top-10 Alternatives to "I googled it" (note the lower-case 'g'):

• 10 "I AltaVista'd it" (potential ad campaign: "Hasta la vista, Google!")
• 9 "I Yahoo!'d it" (Good luck with that lawsuit; it's been in the official motto of several states for decades!)
• 8 "I Asked it" (AKA "I just axed it", since they "axed" poor Jeeves...)
• 7 "I HotBot'd it" (She's not all that hot these days...)
• 6 "I WebCrawler'd it" (Crawl being the operative word; no speed records broken here!)
• 5 "I Accoona'd it" (Possibly illegal to admit in several states)
• 4 "I Lycos'd it" (Not to be confused with "I Pecos'd it" from the 1950's...)
• 3 "I Netscaped it" (That's netscaped not netscraped)
• 2 "I AOL'd it" (Roughly analogous to "I screwed it up")

  and the #1 alternative to "I googled it":
 

• 1 "I Dogpile'd it" (Imagine Cartman in the "red rocket" scene...)

 

For more information

[SpiritGod21]

Check out the blog of ex-Google employees, which recently featured this event.

From the entry:

This week googling officially became a verb. The 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary now includes "googling" (lower case g). Actually the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) beat them to the punch a month ago by listing Google (upper case g) in their authoritative lexicon of the English language. It's about time. People have been using Google as a verb for years, despite protestations by the company (many of which I authored myself) about the genericization of the trademarked name.

Having your brand name used as a generic term, is of course, a mixed blessing for a company. On the one hand, it's great to have your name become the common shorthand for an entire category. It implies acceptance that your product is the standard by which all others in the category are judged and it's great word-of-mouth for building awareness and trial.

On the other hand, you want to protect your trademark and it's difficult to do that if overuse dilutes its connection to your product. If Google becomes synonymous with "searching the internet" without a connection to the specific service offered by Google Inc. at www.google.com, then anyone can offer a way to "google for information." Say, for example, Microsoft. They could offer an MSN google box if Google's trademark on the name were to be revoked through genericide.

Misspelled words cannot be used?

[msergeo1]

Google is just a badly spelled number with 100 zeros. For what media organization is using it is their problem - its the same thing like if they would use word "splendid" to describe a war.

This is just another example that Google (not google) extracts the money any way they see fit - wait until they have the same market cap as Microsoft - will they be easier to bear? I do not think so...

I agree but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree with Google's effort to protect their name, however, the problem with trying to protect a trademark in some cases is that I can imagine how frustrated a writer would get trying to keep all trademarks straight. Take this for example:
Which of these is correct usage?
The image was photoshopped.
The image was Photoshopped.
The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.

Answer? None of the above. The correct usage when referring to image manipulation using this ubiquitous adobe product would be: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software. (http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#photoshop)

I'm sure google isn't going this far, but it's a bit funny how unnatural it would be to write/speak as trademark compliance would demand for the average person.

Use of Google as a verb

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the fact that there exists an old song that goes Barney Google with his goo goo gooely eyes make "google" prior art?

YouTube is suing Stevens

[slashdotmsiriv]

On related news, YouTube is taking legal steps against the US Senate for using its brand name to describe the internet ... Senator Stevens was not available for comment ...

How Can They Lay Claim To A Mathmatical Term

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a mathmathical term. It's a Fucking number! My high school teacher described it in 1978.....

Right...

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Because the last thing that Google wants is to join the ranks of Coke and Xerox and other companies whose product is pretty much synonomous with their respective industries.

Aspirin trademark -- not in the US since

[Secrity]

Bayer AG lost the aspirin trademark at the end of WW1 when the US confiscated Bayer AG's holdings. Sterling Drug bought the American and Canadian "Aspirin" and "Bayer" trademarks from the US government. In the US, aspirin was ruled to be a genericized trademark in 1921. In Canada, Aspirin remained a Sterling Drug trademark. Bayer AG bought Sterling Winthrop (and the Aspirin and Bayer trademarks) from SmithKline Beecham in 1994.

Heroin was also a Bayer trademark until the end of WW1. Bayer AG was merged into IG Farben sometime after WW1. After WW2, IG Farben directors were convicted of massive war crimes, as a result, IG Farben was broken up in 1951 -- Bayer AG was again a separate company.

Google != googol

[infernow]

Your high school teacher was talking about the googol, not Google. They may sound the same, but they're rather different.

What about Booble?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure where I heard there was a google-like site for just those kinds of searches. What I do know is that it's name was Booble.. So technically you are boobling for pr0n.

Man, does that sound weird or what..

UNIVAC

[wandazulu]

Strange as it seems, but there was a time when UNIVAC was in the same boat as Google, Xerox, Kleenex, etc.; you didn't say a computer was going to help streamline your business, you said that a UNIVAC was going to help you streamline your business, even though you probably still bought from IBM.

At the end of the day, you still have to remain a viable business lest time wash away every aspect of your existence, entrenched meme or not.

A few companies have been down this road...

[bpevansncsu]

I googled a phrase that I'll xerox onto frisbees once I find a kleenex to wipe off the band-aid goo on the pretty kodak that'll be above the phrase.

Adobe is a bit uptight too

[BertieBaggio]

Although in some ways the pervasion of Google as a verb might possibly be a Bad Thing (TM) for them (as reflected in earlier comments), they just appear petty to people by doing this. I would have thought such widespread use just reflects the strength of their brand.

Adobe also gets their knickers in a twist about the use of 'Photoshop' as a verb. Though I'm not totally sure it's not meant in a 'It's funny. Laugh' sense...

Re:Adobe is a bit uptight too

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, if they were being serious...well, that's just sad, and funny at the same time.

Use psychology not lawyers

[SquareVoid]

When I was a wee lad, my parents used to call my Gensis a Nintendo. And later, my Super Nintendo just a Nintendo. It could be that Nintendo was about to loose it's trademark then as well, but they just made it uncool to call a Sega a Nintendo. Maybe what Google needs to do is make it uncool to call MSN searching googling!

-- "No more Nintendo if you don't do your homework!"
-- "Its not a Nintendo, its called a Genesis"

Coke and Bins

[krell]

"We also, like everyone else, use coke to mean generic cola. But we use photocopy/photocopier and almost never Xerox. We use a plaster and never a Band-Aid. We certainly don't have dumpsters, only bins"

The "coke = any sodapop" in the US seems to only be used in the Southeast. Never heard of the term plaster being used for a bandage; that is a new one to me. In the US, "Dumpster" is actually one of those brand names that has become generic. It refers to a trash container large enough to contain a Mini Cooper, and never refers to the small "dustbin" by the desk. Do you always use the same term for any size bin?

Re:Coke and Bins

[BridgeGarth]

I mean Coke = generic cola, not generic soft drink. Nobody would call anything but cola type drinks Coke in UK. Plaster is universally a "small piece of sticking plaster with absorbant middle" in UK. Band-Aid in your words, I believe. Bin is used for anything from paper basket to industrial size waste container in Britain. Dumpster, nor any equaivalent, just isn't in the language.

Hoover?

[szrachen]

I've never heard of Hoover being used in place of vacuum. I don't Hoover the carpet to clean up the coke that I spilled on the carpet. I vacuum it.

The way I see it

[C_Kode]

If a term becomes generalized in a specific use (i.e. as a verb like Xerox, Coke where as pointed out before) by the public and is excepted in to the english language. I think any person regardless of who they are or work for should be able to use it in *that* sense without retribution from the company. I beleive the term "Google" has become greater than the company itself.

Understandable, they should *NOT* be able to use it to compare in likeness or otherwise to the actual company itself or use it in a defamatory sense.

I drink very little "coke". Coke refering to Coca Cola, Root Beer (always with Pizza), or Dr Pepper.

Eh? I say what I mean.

[jafiwam]

When I say "Google it."

I mean exactly that.

Go to www.google.com, type in your search phrase and press "search".

I don't mean go somewhere else. I mean go to Google.

Maybe some journalists are too stupid for the distinction (ok, so maybe _most_ of them), and Google has a point.

But anyone caught going to MSNsearch when I said "Google" within my line of sight is going to get beaten with my belt.

OT: Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

As an Atlantan I'm all for Coke being the "standard" black soft drink, but I'd rather the name stayed specific to the brand

You had to go and bring race into it, didn't you. I've heard that about you Southerners...

Yes. This was a joke. I wasn't going to clarify, but given some of the comments I've seen modded as "Insightful", "Flamebait", "Interesting" and "Troll", I felt it best to be safe.

No, you just assume that

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is just trying to protect its trademark, and you're wrong about Google's name coming from Googol--that was just a happy coincidence that did lead to their corporate offices being named after the Googol.

Have you ever watched Monty Python? Reeeally closely? Remember the episode with the Scotsmen and the blancmange who loses Wimbledon? Watch it again. Look out for a police officer reading "The Rise And Fall of the Roman Empire" by "Arthur Google". Same lettering and everything.

Also, though the descendants of Milton Sirotta have only his uncle Edward to blame for popularizing the term "googol" without covering it by trademark, they will be pleased to know they aren't missing out. Much as the trademarks office would like to award Milton's descendants for his hard work, 10^100 cannot be called a business, product, or service, and therefore isn't trademarkable material anyway.

Re:No, you just assume that

[Shaper_pmp]

Actually, that's wrong.

Page and Brin were going to name their company Googol, after the number. However, their first investor handed them a $10,000 cheque made out to "Google Inc", so they went with that spelling instead.

The Monty Python connection is a coincidence. Were you ever actually told differently by anyone, or did you just see it, assume and then start presenting said assumption as fact?

Aaah, Ahhh, AAACHOOOO

[xrayspx]

Gesundheit.

"Want a kleenex?"
"No thanks, you got any q-tips?"
"Ah man, you got snot all over my xerox, hey throw me that windex."

Google means using google.

[kinglink]

Last I checked I noticed that when people said "I'll google it" they are talking about going to a computer or cellphone, opening up google and doing a search for X. They don't use MSN or Yahoo or some other crap for it. Googling something means getting the best core sample of the internet and finding your truth in it, and the best way remains google.

On the other hand Google's a bit insane here. As people have said Xerox did well, except now everything is acceptable when you Xerox stuff, and the Xerox company has dropped quite a bit from the public eye, especially with HP on the move. I white-out (wite-out) paper work though, I scotchguard (ok I never used that actually), I used post-its.

The problem though is I think Google knows it will not always be number 1, and they are afraid of becoming a "xerox" rather then a post-it.

Re:Google means using google.

[mh101]

I suspect that terms like 'Xeroxing' fall out of general use after a while if the original source falls out of use, or something like that. I personally don't think I've ever referred to Xeroxing something, and I don't think I've even heard anyone I'm around on a regular basis mention Xerox in a while either. (For that matter, I'm not sure if I've ever actually seen a real Xerox photocopier.) The only time I've used the word Xerox was when I was telling someone about the work at Xerox PARC, but that's something completely different.

So, perhaps 20 years from know, our children will look at us with that "Only old people say that!" look when we talk about googling for something (unless Google is still alive and kicking as a search engine at that point...).

Hey! 103569872's my social security number

[blueZ3]

You insensitive clod!

I've got one!

[xtracto]

I've got one and I am not from even from UK (although I've lived here for some time).

Blu-tack.

It was a funny experience when I learn it was called that, because I have seen it sticked in all the bloody places, at first I thought it was bubble gum (kheewwww!) they used to stick the advertisments and other papers (not very logic in a university). Then someone told me it was a special adhesive "thing" they use in the UK.

After that, once I wend to ASDA and did not know where to look for it, so I asked one of the workers for "the clay like thing they use to stick paper and other things to the walls" and immediatly she answered with a smile "Oh, Blue Tack!" and told me where to find it.

I have never used blu tack as in Mexico we often use "cinta durex" which is an adhesive band sold by the brand "durex" among others.

Wired says Xerox successfully defended...

[jakarta-milwaukee]

According to this Wired story, Xerox "successfully defended their legal ownership."

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,53040-0.html

An irony?

[ElephanTS]

Remember in the dotboom when household word named domains like pets.com sold for 6-figures? People paid the money for having an easy to remember word that they thought would guarantee them massive sales. Fast foward on to now and all the big sites (eg Google) are made-up words that were probably bought a few dollars. Funny how it works out isn't it?

Re:Tough call...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, book titles aren't covered under copyright. On the other hand, using "harry potter" on your tshirt is a violation.

From a Coke drinkers aspect...

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I tried to be funny with a waiter, I told him I wanted a Pepsi, and he replied "how about a Coke".

Me: "No I want a Pepsi"

Waiter: "Well, I could say 'ok' and bring you a Coke and not tell you about it"
 
From the Coke drinkers aspect it's even worse when you associate "Coke" with cola. You ask for a Coke and instead of telling you that they don't have Coke but some other form of cola they just assume any cola will do.
 
I'm sorry but I simply do not like most other colas, at all. When I ask for Coke it means Coca Cola, not Uncle Joe's Cola.

Re:From a Coke drinkers aspect...

[tcc3]

Yeah, I actually welcome it when they correct me by asking if Pepsi is ok. I'll choose Mountain Dew instead, given the option. I hate getting blindsided with Pepsi when I asked for a Coke.

Sorry, forgot the sarcasm tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tag. My second argument (googol as a trademark) was my serious point. After noticing the Arthur Google coincidence, I started presenting said observation as an assumed fact as a joke.

As amusing as it would be, I'm not sure that I quite believe Google was a misspelling, either.

Stole?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I'm not sure where you're coming from. That a mathematician gets a catchy number for 10^100 from his nephew and popularizes that without using it for a trademark doesn't warrant any sort of protection. As a single word, it's hard to claim it would be worthy of copyright protection.

Google is as bad as Micromart? How? Did Milton Sirotta's descendants have a company named Googol?

I'd say "Google" is about as bad as "Microsoft". After all, somebody in the 20th century came up with the term "software".

And how would naming some buildings the "Googleplex" be unfair to said descendants? They should be happy of the increased interest Google has generated for their much cooler forefather.

Google Evil (Beta)

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this what you meant? If all companies could release everything as beta the world would be a better place.

Re:Google's legal team are idiots. Here's why....

[plague3106]

For instance, many times somebody will say, "Do you wnt a coke?" when they mean, "do you want a soda."

I've never, ever heard anyone say that and mean soda. At most, its a coke flavored soda, which brings it down to Pepsi vs. Coke. I've heard pop used before, but only in Rochester NY. Jeep to most people I know refers to an actual Jeep (either modern or the army brand from Vietnam). So a 4x4 pickup truck or SUV doesn't fit the bill there.

You obviously aren't from the North East US.

As far as your advertisement theory goes, it doesn't work like that. If google loses its meaning and comes to mean 'search on the internet' that in no way means that people WILL use google to search; they could use anything else.

lower-case google

[Anonymous Coward]

    They are only doing this to call attention to the ubiquity of Google

    Please don't throw me into that advertising tar pit ....

Slashdot law suit

[ThePopeLayton]

How long until /. starts suing people for using the term slashdotted?

ps. Please don't sue me for this post

More info

[Slovenian6474]

Has anyone googled more info on this?

Right on Que

[KidSock]

Well, as predicted, with the public IPO of Google many claimed board meetings and shareholder interests would open doors for the suit gangs to take over business operations. So it's official. Google's now Evil. The next step will be for the suits to take over technical direction. Then you can expect a long and painful decline in stock price (e.g. Sun Microsystems).

Soft Drink alliances

[Kelson]

These days it's more likely to be Sierra Mist if the restaurant's preferred cola is Pepsi.

IIRC, Coca-Cola owns Sprite and Mr. Pibb. Pepsi owns Sierra Mist. Dr. Pepper/7UP has deals with other companies for bottling and distribution. For instance, in some states, Dr. Pepper is actually bottled in Coca-Cola facilities. In those states (California, for instance), you'll never see Mr. Pibb in a can or bottle (unless someone's made an effort to bring it in from another state), because Coke is already making money on bottles of Dr. Pepper. But when you go to a restaurant that serves Coke, they'll generally have Mr. Pibb in their drink machine. Since Pepsi doesn't have an equivalent to Mr. Pibb, restaurants that serve (or are owned by) Pepsi will generally offer Dr. Pepper.

I'm not sure where this leaves 7UP in restaurants.

Re:Soft Drink alliances

[plague3106]

For instance, in some states, Dr. Pepper is actually bottled in Coca-Cola facilities.

Which I suppose is why I thought Dr. Pepper was owned by Coke, since the labels here indicate this and cold DP only be found in Coca Cola coolers. I'm in VT, I never noticed one way or the other in PA.

First remove the beam out of your own eye

[GeorgeH]

Wow, maybe they should have thought of genericide before they partnered with Pontiac to use the verb "google" in their ads. Remember kids, trademarks are nouns, not verbs.

Webster re-dined google this morning

[Anonymous Coward]

google: (noun) see hypocrite

The battle is over...

[Lord Kano]

Google may as well be trying to stop the sun from shining. "google it" is an everyday phrase.

They can join the ranks of xerox, jello and kleenex. Their trademark is so successful, that it's become a generic term.

LK

Better: Arrested Development

[kurtmckee]

Michael: Kitty, did you type up those papers for me?
Kitty: No, I've been Googling your father.
Michael: ...so I've heard.
*Both laugh awkwardly*

Almost!

[raehl]

because Coke is already making money on bottles of Dr. Pepper.

Actually, the local coca-cola bottler/distributor is making money on bottles of Dr. Pepper. Coca-Cola the international syrup manufacturer doesn't see a dime.

They Paid for This!!!

[joshandjessica]

Uh, did anyone see the god-awful Maid in Manhattan? Google paid to have Jennifer Lopez tell her brat kid to "Google it."

Don't cry for Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to waste any kleenex wiping away tears for them! They should just relax and eat a bowl of jello.

Imagine this were Microsoft.

[Rotten168]

There is no way Slashdot would be defending Microsoft if an MS product were to suddenly enter the lexicon as a common verb.

What will it take Google to do for Slashdot to criticize them? If Google executives were arrested for eating babies, there'd be people in here claiming that they had no other choice but to eat babies, and that everyone eats babies and that they needed to eat babies because Microsoft executives eat babies.

Re:Imagine this were Microsoft.

[beebware]

I'll like to have a Word with you in my Office about these Windows. Unfortently, Microsoft likes taking generic names and trying to make them trademarks (instead of trademarks becoming generic).

I googled

[Kuvter]

I googled to find out that my patented jello frisbee is really a gelatin dessert flying disc. I asked for a kleenex to wipe away the tears and someone handed me some generic tissue paper instead.

HA!

[newsong]

Waiiiit. There's people out there who use other search engines than Google? Crazy humans. I'm sure if anybody actually listens to this sillyness there's a few companies (Band-Aids and Frisbees and Kleenex and Xerox...) who will want on the futile letter writing scheme.

Or

[Aexia]

"We'd like to thank Pepsi for the providing the Cokes for the picnic."

I xeroxed it, and I'm proud.

[Markus Registrada]

You mean, "could someone xerox it for me?" It's not a proper name when it's a generic term.

Google would like to claim the verb form, "google", as a trademark. Unfortunately for them, under U.S. trademark law no one can trademark a verb. Whatever the status of "Xerox", you can still xerox a piece of paper, and write that you did it, and nobody has a right to harass you about it. You can google with your browser, or you can google with your vibrator, and either way it's your business and not Google's.

Since Google can't legally enforce their preference that "googled" be their trademark, they have tried to convince people through press release. It looks as if they have succeeded, here, because no mention of the inconvenient (for them) legal status of the verb had been moderated up to the readable level at the time of this posting.

(I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)

I Drink Dr. Pepper, and I'm Proud

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I'm part of an original crowd...

The Google name

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the estates of Billy DeBeck or Fred Lasswell have something to say about the Google name? DeBeck created Barney Google nearly 100 years ago...

its too late

[sepharious]

Google has passed into zeitgeist. Their success at doing their chosen job so well causes the very condition that they be intimately associated with that job. Search now equals "google" for all intents and purpose, such is the nature of language. As Jeremiah points out (who's three digit number is somewhat intimidating), its not the first time something like this has happened. They need to embrace this blessing bestowed on them by acceptance to humanity's vernacular. The better they do their job the more people are going to trust Google. They advocate an openness to information, perhaps they should be as open with their business practices.

We don't want your acceptance

[darkhitman]

In recent headlines: "Google sells off mindshare"

Re:Dictionary definition wrong / Mod GP Funny

[Shilkanni]

I agree - mod Grandparent "Funny"!!1 - incidentally, the ones were also intentional.

Re:Aspirin trademark -- not in the US since

[OhioJoe]

Your post is so informative, I suspect you wikied it.

OJ

if they are successful at satisfying themselves

[MePhuq]

by sucking their own genitals, then and only then can they proceed in the lawsuit

It's now official.

[singingjim]

If anyone thinks that Google®(TM) isn't a faceless mega corporation now, this kind of corporate, much to do about nothing, whining should convine even the most ardent Google®(TM) apologist. Way to go guys, you've made it to the big time. Now go ruin the company and alienate your customers. I know, I know, it's just the natural evolution of big business. You can't help yourselves.

Re:Aspirin trademark -- not in the US since

[Secrity]

Parts of it were from wikipedia. I had already known about the bayer and aspirin trademarks in teh US and Canada and that Bayer AG had reacquired then by buying Sterling Drug, I got the actual company names (which had changed) and dates from wikipedia. I find it interesting that Sterling Drug didn't obtain the Heroin trademark at the same time as it obtained the Bayer and Aspirin trademarks.

I also have an interest in some of the companies that were part of IG Farben, especially Bayer AG, Agfa AG, and BASF AG and their relationships to American companies prior to, during, and after WW2. Agfa AG (IG Farben) was intimately related to Agfa-Ansco/GAF/General Aniline and Film/American IG Chemical/IG Chemie.

My hair bristles when I see a Bayer insecticide commercial. Now that Bayer AG owns the Bayer trademark in North America, there are now many more products with the Bayer name brand. IG Farben (of which Bayer AG was a part) at one time owned the patent for and provided materials for the manufacture of an insecticide called Zyklon B -- which was used in the gas chambers of German concentration camps.

What kind of a .....

[radpole]

mickey mouse organization is this Google anyway!

Google Warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

First amendment anyone? "A little too big for thar britches I'd say." The bullish argument for Google is that the stock, despite its high sticker price, is actually not that expensive based on the most widely used method of valuing a stock - the price to earnings ratio. Analysts expect Google to earn $8.47 a share in 2006. So the stock is currently trading at about 45 times next year's earnings estimates. Once you start quibbling about legal matters like this you are done for. 16:1 is the long haul, in the meantime you're just gambling without free drinks.

OT: Three things

[drachenstern]

Wow, did not know that about Zyklon B and Bayer AG/IG Farben! That's horrible!

Secondly, I've noticed a seeming consolidation of top-level companies, and very few breakups (such as the IG Farben references above). Have you ever seen any lists or do you have more information such as the above for parent companies (ie, I would love to start making a list of who owns whom, but without input from other researchers such as yourself, I would not have (i believe) enough time, ability and resourcefulness to adequately or knowledgeably compile such a list)?

Thirdly, your nom de plume, is that a play on Socrates, secretary or security?

[Oblig] Oh, you know ....

[drachenstern]

Google
a googol

The Internet search engine Google was named after this number. The original founders were going for 'Googol', but ended up with 'Google' due to a spelling mistake on a cheque that investors wrote to the founders.

source can be presumed to be known

Re:[Oblig] Oh, you know ....

[shellbeach]

The original founders were going for 'Googol', but ended up with 'Google' due to a spelling mistake on a cheque that investors wrote to the founders.

The investors wrote a cheque for $10^100??!! Boy, did they have faith! :)

Re:OT: Three things

[Secrity]

I found that Wikipedia has great historical bios about companies and company web sites frequently have a history page. Be careful about Wikipedia, make sure that you verify data (or that it sounds about right if you are reasonably aware of the topic) and be especially careful about company history on company websites because public relations types tend to neglect to mention things. For instance, Coca-Cola does not admit that the original Coca-Cola formula contained cocaine. aspirin.com, from Bayer AG, gives a small history of Bayer aspirin but does not mention that the Bayer aspirin sold in the US and Canada for over 50 years was not at all associated with Bayer AG. Bayer AG also neglects to mention the IG Farben years.

For some I.G. Farben history, get a copy of "The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben", it is available from http://www.soilandhealth.org/copyform.aspx?bookcod e=030311

Secrity was picked because I needed a random nick and I saw a magnet on my cube that said "Secrity - all that's missing is U".

Re:Aspirin trademark -- not in the US since

[OhioJoe]

Sorry about that, I wasn't being accusational. I was making an excuse to use the word "wikied". :)

OJ

PS. I wonder why "eBay" is not as often used as a verb like google is, given it's equal or possibly greater prominence.

'podcast' that.

[XLR8DST8]

podcast. yeah.

Re:OT: Three things

[drachenstern]

Thankeee
Thanks

and HAha.. Cute tho, aint it?