Slashdot Mirror
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.""
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.
My work here is dung.
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.
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.
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Wasn't helping out an evil totalitarian regime oppress their citizens sufficiently evil for you? Apparently not... but enforcing a trademark is?
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.
'' 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.
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.
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.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
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 ...".
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.
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.
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).
According to this Wired story, Xerox "successfully defended their legal ownership."
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,53040-0.html
google: verb - to search for information on the Internet.
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.