Slashdot Mirror


No "Ungoogleable" In Swedish Lexicon, Thanks to Google

jfruh writes "The Swedish Language Council is a semi-official, government funded body that regulates, cultivates, and tracks changes to the Swedish language. Every year it releases a list of new words that have crept into Swedish, and one of 2012's entries was 'ogooglebar' — 'ungoogleable,' meaning something that can't be found with a search engine. After Google demanded that the definition be changed and the Council add a disclaimer about Google's trademark, the Council has instead decided to remove the word from the list altogether."

130 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. A paradox? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does that mean that the word "ogooglebar" suddenly became ungoogleable?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:A paradox? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      It probably was until Google made an issue out of it.

      What's the phrase I'm looking for here? .......Like some performer that doesn't want her mansion photographed?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:A paradox? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."

      The way trademark law works, you have to fight very hard to keep the word from becoming generic or you lose the trademark. Google is doing what any rational trademark holder would do.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:A paradox? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."

      Oh, they do:

      1.1 A heap or pile: formerly of stones, earth, trees, dead bodies, as well as of corn, potatoes, and the like

      If you don't like it, "bing" also seems to be an onomatopoetic word for suddenness with the connotation of destructive change. I'm not quite sure if that's better for MS.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:A paradox? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL, that is a pretty funny definition I wasn't aware of. But in any event, it isn't search-related so it is no threat to Microsoft's short term plans for the word. When they move on to their genocide, they may want to make sure that they can brand their dead-body-piles as Bing-brand dead-body-bings. :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:A paradox? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Because Google would hate the free advertising, right?

      They've already ticked the boxes for defending their trademark, if they get the free publicity they had to sacrifice in order to do so anyway they'll be delighted.

    6. Re:A paradox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The way trademark law works, you have to fight very hard to keep the word from becoming generic or you lose the trademark. Google is doing what any rational trademark holder would do.

      Oh, cry me a river - here's a Kleenex to wipe your nose. And while you're at it, take two Aspirin for your headache.

    7. Re:A paradox? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I wasn't "defending" Google so much as saying that it's our own fault that companies behave this way. If you want different results, set up a different incentives system.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:A paradox? by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      What's the phrase I'm looking for here? .......Like some performer that doesn't want her mansion photographed?

      Just Google It... Now I've made both Google and Nike upset. Actually, I'm sure Google isn't one-bit upset that their trademark has been verbalized. Wasn't there a campaign from M$ with celebrities saying, "Just Bing it" ?

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    9. Re:A paradox? by dintech · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a Scotsman, bing is definitely in my dictionary.
      We think of it as a big pile of detritus left over after excavating a mine. Somewhat apt maybe...

    10. Re:A paradox? by sjames · · Score: 1

      What we have now are courts that behave like lazy and over-indulgent parents. If they would say no to the darling little spoiled brats once in a while we wouldn't see all of these behavior problems.

    11. Re:A paradox? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Google would LOVE the free publicity from all of this: "Our product is so popular that we have to fight prevent dictionaries from including it! Bing doesn't have this problem."

      Oh, they do:

      1.1 A heap or pile: formerly of stones, earth, trees, dead bodies, as well as of corn, potatoes, and the like

      If you don't like it, "bing" also seems to be an onomatopoetic word for suddenness with the connotation of destructive change. I'm not quite sure if that's better for MS.

      I always thought they were named after the cherries.

      What Would Crosby Say?

    12. Re:A paradox? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't feel bad. "Ubinglebar" didn't even make the shortlist.

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:A paradox? by tattood · · Score: 1

      Google is however doing nothing to prevent this usage, they are specifically targeting the usage of the word ungoogleable.

      This is probably because they don't want anything to be ungoogleable. If something exists, but cannot be found in Google, then Google is not doing their job of making that thing searchable.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    14. Re:A paradox? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      A pile of trees...so like a very large bundle of sticks?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:A paradox? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Google is however doing nothing to prevent this usage,

      Really? Check out Merriam-Webster.

      They also specifically ask that we respect their copyright for "Google" in this blog post.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:A paradox? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, but trademarks are only good for the product that they are used to brand. I'm pretty sure you can use "Word" to advertise a brand of pretzels - just don't try to sell software branded as "Word".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:A paradox? by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 1

      It seems pretty strange that the Swedish Language Council wanted "ogooglebar" to mean "something that can't be found in *any* search engine"

      As far as I'm concerned, if I say something is "un-google-able" then I mean "I can't find it in Google"

      For example, the search term ||= is ungoogleable, but is it ogooglebar?

    18. Re:A paradox? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ASPIRIN is a special case. It became generic in the US due to the mark holder being Bayer, a German company, and us being a little upset about WWI. They also lost the HEROIN trademark that way.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    19. Re:A paradox? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      A pile of trees...so like a very large bundle of sticks?

      Careful with that, boy, you're leaning dangerously close to fascism here.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:A paradox? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The real reason is that "obingbar" just sounds stupid in Swedish.

    21. Re:A paradox? by Peter+Bortas · · Score: 1

      The Swedish Language Council does not define words, they document how words are currently being used. Unlike say France, Sweden does not have an opinion on how it's citizens uses and forms the language.

      This also means that when your word turns up on the list the fight for any trademark is pretty much lost. Google might have made the case that most people in Sweden use Google and thus most people really mean Google. By now they are fucked though, every Swedish journalist and blogger will use it in the generic sense just to spite Google.

  2. I am OK with this by X0563511 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... seriously, we needed a word for this?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:I am OK with this by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      No, but there are a lot of esoteric concepts that don't need words, where the creation of words allows one to communicate a complex concept full of idiosyncrasies while retaining brevity. If I had to remove "esoteric" and "idiosyncrasies" from this post, I'd probably have to double its length to say the same thing.

    2. Re:I am OK with this by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you're saying more words is double plus ungood?

    3. Re:I am OK with this by jc42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, in this case it was silly to have any official recognition of the Swedish word "ogooglebar", just as it would be somewhat silly to consider whether "ungoogleable" should be recognized as an English word. Both words are formed by adding standard prefixes to the base word. Thus, "o-" + "google" + "-bar" is a standard Swedish construction, just as "un-" + "google" + "-able" is in English. Most dictionaries don't bother listing such words, since a moderately competent speaker of the language will know those prefixes and will construct such words routinely.

      And note that, contrary to what some people have said, this wasn't done by a Swedish dictionary maker; it was a language "standards" committee. It is rather pointless (and silly) for such a committee to waste time with such questions. The "o-" and "-bar" affixes are already part of standard Swedish, and that's really all they should be concerned with. They might be concerned with whether "google" is listed as a verb in their list, but there's really little point in listing words constructed with standard affixes, unless the result has an idiomatic meaning that can't be deduced from its component morphemes.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    4. Re:I am OK with this by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Looks like you're using the old dictionary. Better get a new copy (I mean... there was no old copy, so... erm) ... X0563511 REPORT FOR REEDUCATION!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:I am OK with this by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      No, it's google+ ungoogle

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:I am OK with this by jgrahn · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is rather pointless (and silly) for such a committee to waste time with such questions.

      The point *is* being silly. Most people like a bit of silliness. This group's yearly list of new words gets a lot of media attention in Sweden, and reminds people that the language is slowly being reshaped by what we do.

    7. Re:I am OK with this by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the French have something silly like this also. The french want to avoid the assimilation of english words into their vocabulary, so "le weekend" is verboten :>) en francais! (How do you make the little cedilla under the c on this slashdot world?)
      .
      Despite these restrictions, there are many french cultural items that use english words, including a movie called Le Weekend !!! The Quebecois also have a bugginess about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language where French text prevails over the English one, in case of any discrepancy.

    8. Re:I am OK with this by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Double google ungood.

    9. Re:I am OK with this by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      ç :-)

      ç

      Amusingly, this is something that is fairly easily googled...! ("Cedilla in HTML")

      Though having an international keyboard layout (or copying from an outside source) works too: ç

  3. Good? by Kenja · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I'm getting old, but I'm tiered of these new fangled words that keep geting pushed into common use.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need a new word for "get off my lawn"?

    2. Re:Good? by QilessQi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, come on.... you just have to embiggen your vocabulary a little. And 'ogooglebar' is a perfectly cromulent word.

    3. Re:Good? by Desler · · Score: 1

      What an idiot. English is constantly evolving in both words added, grammar and spelling.

      If you don't want "newfangled words" than shouldn't you be writing like this?

      "Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
      eodcyninga, rym gefrunon,
      hu ða æelingas ellen fremedon.
      Oft Scyld Scefing sceaena reatum,"

    4. Re:Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Depratumate?

    5. Re:Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you don't want "newfangled words" than shouldn't you be writing like this?

      I see, you are already writing in 2048's reformed English.

    6. Re:Good? by Desler · · Score: 2

      Or just realize he's a moron? He uses plenty of "newfangled" words and spelling that didn't exist in, say, the 17th Century. For example:

      The English speach doth still encroche vpon it [Cornish], and hath driuen the same into the vttermost skirts of the shire. Most of the Inhabitants can no word of Cornish; but very few are ignorant of the English.

      Richard Carew, The Survey of Cornwall (1602)

    7. Re:Good? by Desler · · Score: 2

      All old things are eventually new again.

    8. Re:Good? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps I'm getting old, but I'm tiered of these new fangled words that keep geting pushed into common use.

      I'll keep this brief: yes, that is just you getting old.

    9. Re:Good? by RougeFemme · · Score: 1

      Look at the positive side. . .The new-fangled words force you to use some new/different brain cells. . .helps to keep you sharp as you get old. . .and yes you are getting old. We all are.

    10. Re:Good? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Nobody's "making" the words (well, except truthiness). They arise out of natural usage as many individuals find the need to communicate a new or nuanced idea with brevity.

      You do not need a mimeographed sheet to tell you the definition of "ungoogleable." It's obvious from context and construction. It's the exact word you would make up yourself to say "that piece of information is not of the sort you can find via Internet search engine." "Unsearchable" doesn't cover it because ungoogleable information is probably still available via physical search, and is therefore searchable. And "uninternetsearchable" is nowhere near a cromulent word.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:Good? by sjames · · Score: 1

      There's a word for the popular leprechauns.

    12. Re:Good? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Or just realize he's a moron? He uses plenty of "newfangled" words and spelling that didn't exist in, say, the 17th Century. For example:

      The English speach doth still encroche vpon it [Cornish], and hath driuen the same into the vttermost skirts of the shire. Most of the Inhabitants can no word of Cornish; but very few are ignorant of the English.

      Richard Carew, The Survey of Cornwall (1602)

      plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    13. Re:Good? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you think "need" is relevant to the development of new words.

  4. what about "Social Contract"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I feel I should set up Social Contract, Inc. and remove that term from the dictionary. It does seem to have lost all meaning after all.

    Google, you're cunts.

  5. Removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So it's ungoogleable?!

    1. Re:Removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. But it's unlookupable in the Swedish lexicon. :-)

  6. Unbingable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Google suggested unbingable as a replacement.

  7. Translation assistance needed! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does anybody know how to say "Just for that, I'm going to do my best to genericize the shit out of your precious little 'trademark', motherfucker" in Swedish?

    1. Re:Translation assistance needed! by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      fukgooglebår

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    2. Re:Translation assistance needed! by LongearedBat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bara för det, kommer jag göra mitt allra bästa att generalisera skiten ur ert lilla "varumärke", din jävel.

    3. Re:Translation assistance needed! by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      "Just for that, I'm going to do my best to genericize the shit out of your precious little 'trademark', motherfucker"

      That's actually what Google just prevented.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Translation assistance needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because not being in a dictionary keeps people from using words. Ain't that right?

      No.

      If Microsoft renames bing to "Google", google will sue them for trademark infringement. Microsoft could get away with tricking people in this way if they could show that google did not try to defend their trademark in any other instance. So, google has to fight this. It doesn't matter what you do on a non-commercial basis.

    5. Re:Translation assistance needed! by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, people are modding this informative. I for one have been wanting to know how to say shit and motherfucker in Swedish. Now I think I know! "Skiten" is shit and "din jävel" is motherfucker. Now, can someone provide the pronunciation?

    6. Re:Translation assistance needed! by Krishnoid · · Score: 1
      Bara för att jag ska göra mitt bästa för att genericize skiten ur din dyrbara lilla "varumärke", din jävel.

      Source: Google Translate

      That's not cheating, right?

    7. Re:Translation assistance needed! by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      din = din and jä =yar (but in a deep voice).

    8. Re:Translation assistance needed! by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Skiten" is "the shit". "Skit" is "shit".

      "Jävel/Djävel" means devil or demon so not exactly "motherfucker" but then I've never heard anyone who has Swedish as his/her native language call anyone a "mammaknullare" (I suspect mainly because in Swedish culture insulting someone's mother really isn't that big a deal while for some immigrants coming from cultures with a different view on this it seems like a good insult).

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    9. Re:Translation assistance needed! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, but Google's position was that if the work WERE printed in the dictionary, it should be clearly marked as a trademark. The committee chose instead to remove the word altogether.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Translation assistance needed! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      If it's not in a dictionary, it's one step closer to being ungoogleable.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:Translation assistance needed! by Henriok · · Score: 2

      Bara för det, kommer jag göra mitt allra bästa att generalisera skiten ur ert lilla "varumärke", din jävel.

      [Bah-rah fir debt commer yog yirah mitt ahl-rah bess-tah aht yenneh-rawl-ee-seh-rah sheet-en ew-r yeert lillaw varoo-myrrh-kay, dean yeah-vell.]

      with a very large amount of salt. There are several sounds, especially vowels, that just doesn't exist in English.

      --

      - Henrik

      - when the Shadows descend -
    12. Re:Translation assistance needed! by slickepott · · Score: 1

      I actually use it as a joke though. No one could take it seriously. :)

    13. Re:Translation assistance needed! by robpow · · Score: 1

      Typiskt, hade precis använt mina sista modpoints. Förut kunde ord vara ogooglebara men nu är dom o-ogooglebara!

    14. Re:Translation assistance needed! by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      If I use bing to google something and i use google to bing something, will any of it ever make sense at all? Perhaps I should ask jeeves, or should I ask wooster? If only this fucking duck would duck instead of go! At least I have the sense not to yahoo it, 'cuz who wants Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle to tell us anything? Delphi? Delta-Phi? Delta-Delta-Delta? Animal House? Toga party? (I think this stream of consciousness is flooding my brain)....

    15. Re:Translation assistance needed! by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Mei a majestik mööse bite yer seester while she is visiting the löveli lakes!

    16. Re:Translation assistance needed! by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I've actually seen non-swedes try to use variations of it as an insult directed at swedes. They tend to get confused by the lack of reaction...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  8. For those Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For those curious to why Google raised a ruckus about this, there is a concept that once a word has become used in the more generic sense that the term may be used by other companies and the original company may lose their trademark rights . Xerox went through this in the 80's when Xerox was synonymous with photocopying... I remember my mom "Xeroxing" on the office machine even though it wasn't a Xerox. Xerox went through a significant ad campaign to get folks to change their behavior.

    -- MyLongNickName

    1. Re:For those Curious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      For those curious to why Google raised a ruckus about this, there is a concept that once a word has become used in the more generic sense that the term may be used by other companies and the original company may lose their trademark rights . Xerox went through this in the 80's when Xerox was synonymous with photocopying... I remember my mom "Xeroxing" on the office machine even though it wasn't a Xerox. Xerox went through a significant ad campaign to get folks to change their behavior.

      -- MyLongNickName

      Sandwich. Laundromat. Mac(k)intosh. Zipper. Wellingtons. Escalator. Thermos. Uhm, Xerox? This has been happening for centuries. If you study language development, this is completely normal. Even "Dog" in English is a genericized name.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:For those Curious by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      So, they could change it to "oGooglebar®".

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    3. Re:For those Curious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That has absolutely nothing to do with trademarks. It's simply your ordinary case of semantic widening. Sometimes it's complementary: In English, the meaning of "dog" was widened, the meaning of "hound" was narrowed. It's exactly the other way in German: While in English, "hound" is a particular kind of "dog", in German, a "Dogge" is a particular kind of "Hund".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:For those Curious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      My "semantic widening" is a generification of your "generification". How's that for meta?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:For those Curious by swillden · · Score: 3

      Sandwich. Laundromat. Mac(k)intosh. Zipper. Wellingtons. Escalator. Thermos. Uhm, Xerox? This has been happening for centuries. If you study language development, this is completely normal.

      Sure it is. It's also quite destructive to a company's trademarks when it happens to affect one. It's possible to keep from losing your trademark even though it's becoming a common word by aggressively searching out print uses of the trademark and requesting that a trademark notice be added. The fact that it's used as a word in spoken language doesn't affect its trademark status.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:For those Curious by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      What about Jello?

      Jello brand jello is distinct from other brands of "gelatin desert product."

      At least here in flyoverland USA the term "jello" is suitably generic, and covers all brands of fruit flavored gelatin.

      Similarly with "coke" being generic for almost all kinds of soda, though "pop" is also commonly used. It retains specific brand meaning when used with other flavorings, like "cherry coke" though.

      I would argue that genericisation happens when a product becomes ubiquitous. Jello was basically the pioneer of chill to set fruit flavored gelatin products, and as such, the desert itself has become synonymous with the brand.

      SPAM is another such product in danger of being genericised, by being the archetype for "potted pork shoulder processed meat product." It's just easier to say "spam", and everyone immediately knows what you are talking about.

      Rather than force (IIRC, hormel foods?) To lose the spam trademark, or the jello company to lose thiers, simply because they have products that epitomize and set the standard by which copycats are measured by, it would be better to simply forbid commercial language publications from encroaching on the name.

      I would be happy with the following language, for instance:

      "Jello(tm) brand jello; the first and finest maker of commercial gelatin products."

      Vs

      "Newcastle fruit flavor gelatin. Offering 50 delicious and inexpensive flavors snce 1976." (Apologies if there really is such a company. Date pulled out of ass.)

      Eg, just because people use "jello" to refer to all "clear gelatin deserts" in an informal fashion, shouldn't mean that Newcastle can call its product jello in commercial literature. Jello is important as a word because of the jello brand jello being ubiquitous, and the product archetype. All others aspire to be jello, but are not.

      Additionally, "jello" specifically is the clear, fruit flavored desert kind. "Gelatin" can be either a coating on pills to help you swallow them, a powdered stabilizer, envelope sealant emulsion, a bacterial culture medium, an explosive composition, etc. When you say "I want jello", you mean you want the fruit flavored desert. When you say "I want gelatin", the meaning is far more ambiguous. Do you want powdered gelatin? Blasting gelatin? Gelatin culture medium? Emulsion for photo paper? You get the idea. Jello is a gelatin product, but not all gelatin products are jello. I have yet to see jello brand gelatinized explosives. :D

      The law is retarded if it doesn't segregate common and commercial use of the term.

    7. Re:For those Curious by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      Another curious note - in English, Xerox sort of won. The words photocopier and photocopy are actually used in English now. In Russian, they lost - the verb used in Russian is still "to xerox" and I guess without many even knowing that it's a brand

    8. Re:For those Curious by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      The law is retarded if it doesn't segregate common and commercial use of the term.

      Well, it doesn't, but I think it's better than you think. The raison d'Ãtre of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion. If you buy a bottle labeled with the COCA-COLA mark, you should be able to expect the contents to have the same quality (taste, ingredients, etc.) and same origin as every other identically marked bottle. OTOH, if you buy a bottle labeled SODA, POP, or COLA, there are a lot of different things that it could be, some of which might even be worse than the crab juice. Where there is no consistent quality, or no single origin, there's no trademark.

      If the public uses a mark to refer to goods or services of differing qualities or origins though, they redefine the mark so as to make it generic. Typically this is caused by confusing the mark for the name of the underlying good or service, rather than as a trademark identifying that a good or service is interchangeable with other so-marked goods or services, which may have different origins. E.g. XEROX brand photocopiers vs. xerox machines.

      The typical way to stave this off -- a trademark becoming dangerously synonymous with the marker good or service -- is advertising. Xerox has been doing it for years. My favorite ad of theirs was "You can't xerox a xerox on the xerox." But I wouldn't put a lot of money on their continued success as keeping their mark for photocopiers if it came down to a fight.

      The closest thing I've ever seen to what you describe was that Thermos is entitled to use the THERMOS mark with a capital T, but everyone else who makes vacuum insulated flasks can use it without the capital T.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    9. Re:For those Curious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Another curious note - in English, Xerox sort of won. The words photocopier and photocopy are actually used in English now. In Russian, they lost - the verb used in Russian is still "to xerox" and I guess without many even knowing that it's a brand

      That may have something to do with the fact that the Xerox folks decided to name themselves after the generic name of the process, as in "xerography" or "xerocopy" (the process doesn't use any liquid solvents). If you do that, you can expect people to get confused. They should have named themselves The Carlson-o-graphica Company, and they wouldn't have any such problem now!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:For those Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Either this means that Google has lost already because Swedish people use it in a non trademark sense. (To Google something really means to use a search engine in Swedish.)

      In German: "googeln". In Czech: "googlovat". I'm sure it doesn't end here. It's a folly, trying to fight against this...

  9. So much for "Don't be evil" by second+class+skygod · · Score: 1

    Google is turning into Microsoft.
     

    1. Re:So much for "Don't be evil" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google is turning into Microsoft.

      How is preventing genericization (for lack of a better word) of your trademark evil? If they said it couldn't be found on google, and that was the official definition and then they whined, I would be more on board.

  10. The original article by pswPhD · · Score: 2

    The inquirer has the link to the original post

  11. we can all do that by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    start using google and "google"-containing words with completely generic meanings. e.g. "I used twelve search engines but couldn't find anything in all of google-dom" "I googled my way through my homework using yahoo search", etc.
     

  12. Oh, Google Bar... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

    That's how I begin my prayers to the internet gods, before hitting "Search".

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  13. Official or not, it's in the lexicon. by Qrypto · · Score: 1

    Don't be stupid.

  14. The English Oxford's "Googling" term by tomer · · Score: 1

    And What with the English Oxford usage for the "Googling" and "Gogleable" terms? Have Google already demanded them to remove it as well? Last time I checked it was still there. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/google?q=Googling

    1. Re:The English Oxford's "Googling" term by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      The Oxford dictionary specifies that it only applies to using Google, not just any search engine, so I would imagine it not being a threat. The problem is if googling becomes the generic term for searching.

    2. Re:The English Oxford's "Googling" term by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      You mean the definition that strengthens their trademark by saying "with the search engine google", even though we all know if someone was using bing (or even spokeo or 123people) they'd still call it googling.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  15. Natural result of government power over something by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In ancient Rome, there was a government official responsible for determining whether or not this particular year would have a "leap month" (mensis intercalaris), rather than it being based on a mathematical formula as it is nowadays. Naturally, a certain degree of power came with this ability; if a contract or a political office expired later in the year, by inserting (or not inserting) the intercalary month after February, one could effectively extend or cut short the term of those contracts or offices.

    And of course, men of power or influence were eventually able to bribe, or coerce, the calendar officials into doing just that for them. Yes, the government actually had the power to tell you what time it was---and, what a surprise, this power was soon corrupted.

    Maybe it's time people who speak Swedish start ignoring the Swedish language "police" and their obviously-bought (or coerced) decisions on what makes up the "real" Swedish lexicon.

  16. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by Literaphile · · Score: 2

    That's a little dramatic, don't you think?

    Sweden is not alone in having an official body to oversee their lexicon - lots of countries do it. English is somewhat of an anomaly in that way, since, unlike most other languages, it's just kind of a big melting pot for everything else.

  17. So there! by Eddy_D · · Score: 1

    Meeeayh (me sticking out tongue)

    --
    - I stole your sig.
  18. Do it the Ikea Way by anorlunda · · Score: 2

    Instead of googlebar make it ogööglebar.

    1. Re:Do it the Ikea Way by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And after assembling it they will have 3 letters left over.

  19. Copyright Reform by JacobLeclerc · · Score: 1

    Just another reason.

    1. Re:Copyright Reform by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      This is a trademark issue; no copyright laws apply. Likewise, copyright reform doesn't apply here.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  20. Re:How thin skinned of them. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    Yes, the parody is protected and doesn't risk diluting a trademark. In fact It's specifically relating what should be generic (a window in computing) with their specific product, if anything it boosts their trademark.

    If, on the otherhand there was a word to mean "used poorly thought out slides that made a presentation worse" and it was PowerPointed (i found an ms product with a non-generic name), MS would need to clarify that PowerPoint is a specific product and you could use OO impress to the same ill effect. Google runs some risk already with their name.being used generically, but to be officially recognized as such by a government body would be a real problem.for.them.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  21. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by Kidbro · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're vastly exaggerating their "corruption" here. They're not a language police[0]. They are simply making an observation about words they notice have popped up in common usage[1]. Nobody really cares about this list, people just read it for the curiosity value.

    To make this clear, the final sentences in their own comment about the debacle translates roughly to: "Everybody's part of deciding what words are introduced in the language by choosing what words we use. If we want ogooglingsbar in the language we'll use the word and it is our use that is important - nothing a multinational company can change by coercion. The word is free![2]"

    [0] If we have one, it's not them, but rather Svenska Akademien - the same folks that award the Nobel Prize in Literature.
    [1] Not that I've ever actually heard ogooglingsbar it being used by anybody.
    [2] A little word play there - "ordet är fritt", literally meaning "the word is free", is a Swedish expression used when you invite anybody present to speak their mind on something.

  22. Hidden flattery by tech.kyle · · Score: 1

    If "Ungoogleable" means it can't be found via search engine, doesn't that imply that if anything can find it, Google can? Also, I didn't hear them complaining when their name started becoming a verb.

    --
    If we colonize Mars, it won't be the World Wide Web anymore. UWW?
    1. Re:Hidden flattery by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      I didn't hear them complaining when their name started becoming a verb.

      You are incorrect. This is them complaining about their name becoming a verb....

    2. Re:Hidden flattery by tech.kyle · · Score: 1

      "Ungoogleable" is (or would have been) an adjective and, more specifically, could cast a negative image on Google since it doesn't imply other search engines wouldn't be able to find it, hence why I think they're making a decently good fuss about it now.

      They're complaining that it could be negative. Checking Wikipedia now, "Google" as a verb was discouraged by Google. I'll give you that.

      --
      If we colonize Mars, it won't be the World Wide Web anymore. UWW?
  23. oh, no, Google does no evil... by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Google is just like any other corporation. IMHO, worse so, as Google pretends to have ethics and morals. Bah! Where is Dogpile or Bing...

    1. Re:oh, no, Google does no evil... by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

      Methinks the AC is the idiot.

      I did read the fraking article, you trog. Quoting the article; "Google does not own the language!" And the same thing was said in other articles this morning.

      And I still stand by my comment, that a company, such as Google, that claims to have an ethical or moral compass or charter that it follows and then obviously bullies a country, is more evil than if MS were to do the same thing.

      So, please, tell me why I am an idiot. And why you are a coward.

  24. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by MiskatonicAcademic · · Score: 2

    In addition: The head of the Swedish Academy, which is the institution that produces the most comprehensive dictionary of the Swedish language (SAOB) and also the dictionary that is generally considered most standard and normative (SAOL), recently commented that what Google is doing is actually making people more aware of the word, with the consequence that it's now much more likely that the word will make it into SAOB and perhaps even SAOL. But maybe that was Google's intention all along. I should probably also mention that the Swedish academy is an independent cultural institution and not under government control.

  25. Googlewhack by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    They could always use the swedish translation for "one less than a googlewhack"

  26. Streisanded by mistapotta · · Score: 1

    I have a feeling this will be Streisanded into a real word pretty soon.

  27. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    But this very article shows that they are not just observing. They have an agenda, and can be coursed or bought into saying that a grouping of letters is a word or that it is not a word.

    And most people go by dictionaries and official sources like this. If I used ungoogleable in a high school essay I would absolutely get marks taken off unless I could produce some official documents calling it a word. This means that that word is used less, which makes a cumulative effect for it not making it into dictionaries and spell checkers.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  28. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by Entropius · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised people actually *listen* to them. Taking a language that's about as widely-spoken as English: is there some central authority who can add and remove words from Spanish? Would anyone care?

  29. new English word by simplerThanPossible · · Score: 1

    ogooglebar: thought or concept forbidden by google

  30. I am an idiot by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    bullies a country

    Seriously, you got that from "Swedish Language Council has removed "ogooglebar", or "ungoogleable," from its annual list of new words after pressure from Google to respect its trademarks."...I don't think that is sound logic :)

    As for your suggestion that Microsoft would get chastised for defending its trademarks which it does *all* the time. It doesn't; just nobody cares. You should google it :) If you look at the page dedicated to Microsoft Litigation on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation it has links to some of the more popular trademark disputes. The most hilarious one listed is "Microsoft sued a Canadian high school student named Mike Rowe over the domain name MikeRoweSoft.com." The full details are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft

  31. Typical Google fanboi hypocrisy by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Until it's Apple or Microsoft doing it. Typical Google fanboi hypocrisy.

    The reality is is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademark is we have a look at Apple they sue everything with an Apple logo...and its a fruit.

    Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation think they have the same right over Windows a generic computer word.

    The reality is Apple and Microsoft are both heavily litigious companies, and bullies...but *routinely* have trademark disputes, that are *justified* and resolved amicably. Perhaps you should examine your own loyalties.

  32. It's here to stay now by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    3 different people in the office have already started using this word today. I imagine it will catch on like crazy now.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  33. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by jonbryce · · Score: 1

    Yes, the Real Academia Española for Spanish Spanish. Obviously that doesn't apply to for example Mexican Spanish.

    As others have pointed out, English is unusual in that it doesn't have a central language authority regulating it.

  34. I will be rewarded by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    THEREs the Tuppe666 reply. I was wondering when you'd come defend Google, surprised it wasn't sooner in the comment field. Busy being a fanboy elsewhere?

    No....Building a replica of Mountain View out of Matchsticks...and LOVE.

  35. Good! Ogooglebar would be bad Swedish anyway by Misagon · · Score: 1

    The word would have been more correct Swedish if it had been "ogooglingsbar". The verb that people use is "googla", not "googl". There should be an 's' before "bar" before the prefix is a composite.

    Take that, Språkrådet!

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:Good! Ogooglebar would be bad Swedish anyway by meza · · Score: 1

      See, that's what we get from NOT having a language police. Språkrådet should just stop observing peoples sloppy and bad writing and instead dictate how we should write. Then they could simply choose the word "obinglingsbar" instead :)

  36. Re:Vhat aboot unbingable? by grimJester · · Score: 1

    I was going to just mod you up, but I had to personally commend you on being the first Slashdot troll ever to post in Dutch with a Canadian accent. Good job!

  37. Hellbent for leather by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Government Ministry of Silly Words

    I say it, not you! *I* say what a word is!!!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  38. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by Entropius · · Score: 1

    But even if many languages do have such official bureaus, it is not right to think that these bureaus would have actual power to dictate what language people use in everyday communication (how silly would that be?). To the contrary, they are reactive rather than proactive: if a new word is documented (in press, literature, etc.), they investigate it and possibly add it to the lexicon.

    This is a totally different thing (and IMO a natural and good thing) -- someone who just keeps tabs on the evolution of a language. English has no official body that does this, because nobody owns the English language, but there's the Oxford English Dictionary, etc...

  39. counter productive by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

    When a trademark becomes part of the lexicon it has a certain status. A legacy that lives on beyond the product. think Hoover, Kilner, Tilley or Roomba. all became de-facto names for the innovation. You cant just buy this shit

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  40. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    I don't know about Sweden, but AFAIK in Germany you are only required to adhere to the official language rules if you are either a teacher for German language in a public school, or if you are a government employee writing an official document. In any other situation you can see it as just a recommendation (at least as far as the law is concerned). For example, after the spelling reform, some German newspapers decided to continue using the old spelling, and some others made their own modifications of the new official rules for their house style.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  41. Re:10 Year Old Child Prior Art by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    The word "google" as invented by a mathematician's cild, as a response to what the number 1 with a 100 zeros after it should be called.

    Wrong. The word that child invented was "googol".
    Yes, "Google" is derived from "googol". But it is not exactly the same word.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  42. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    In England they also have people who come out with the 10 interesting new words in the year. Everytime there's a new English dictionary edition the news media will report on some of the interesting new additions to it.

  43. Obingbar. by snugge · · Score: 1

    Can't use ogoogelbar? Ok, we'll use obingbar then, it rolls off the tounge better anyway.

  44. Well, that does it by PPH · · Score: 1

    From now on, I'm using Yahoo! to google things on the Internet.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  45. Required to defend it any way by DrYak · · Score: 1

    But due to the weirdness of trademark law, Microsoft would still be require to sue the pretzel maker (They need to show effort in keeping the TM otherwise they risk losing it), until the judge obviously rule that there's no way someone could confuse a pretzel and a piece of word* processing software, even if they have similar names.

    If they don't they risk losing the trademark.

    (Notice: The full trade-marked name is "Microsoft Office Word". "word" alone is just a regular word and is generic in the realm of word processors. Just like you CANNOT trademark "Vehicle(tm)" or "Transportation(tm)" to name a car company.)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Required to defend it any way by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Just like you CANNOT trademark "Vehicle(tm)" or "Transportation(tm)" to name a car company.

      No, but you could trademark "Vehicle" or "Transportation" for GPS software, where usage is not common. Just like MS did with "Word". If I tried to market a word processor as "MightyYar Word", I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  46. Re:Streisand Effect of sorts? by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

    Most places I see this used, it's "photochop" or "photochopping" as a verb. Though, this is all somewhat off-topic...

  47. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    I think the government telling you what day it is, and the government telling you what words are really part of your language, is quite on the same level of absurdity.

    So a bunch of countries have language police. Your argument boils down to "waaaah everyone else is doing it!" ?

    But let's assume that's a legitimate argument. A bunch of countries also, for example, regulate official weights and measures. What would you think if some major, well-connected corporation pressured the government into redefining the units used for commerce? Maybe Coca-Cola would like to get away with selling 1.8L bottles for the same price they used to sell two litres for but don't want consumers to notice the labelling change, so they pressure the government into defining a "U.S. Litre" as 0.9 metric litres. Now they can print "Net weight: 2.0 (U.S.) L" on the label. Equally absurd?

    But I guess that's okay since "lots of countries" regulate weights and measures.

  48. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    I don't know what the rules are in Sweden, but many countries with official language institutes actually do enforce the official language in some contexts, for example text appearing on business signs, advertisements, &c.. Years ago Dunkin' Donuts was involved in a controversy in a French-speaking country over "Dunkin'" on their signs (that use of an apostrophe isn't legitimate in French apparently). At one point, the French were also enforcing the term cédérom be used for CD-ROMs.

  49. Re:Natural result of government power over somethi by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    See my earlier comment; in many countries these language institutes do indeed have the power to enforce: Using unofficial language in commerce, such as on business signs or advertisements, is often prohibited. They may not be able to tell you what you can say, but if you put unapproved language on a sign, it can be handled like a code violation.

    And no, they're not reactive,* they are quite pro-active: That's the entire point of this article, in fact; the Swedish language police refusing to acknowledge a word people are using because it upsets a big corporation. The OED is an example of a reactive lexicographic authority, but these government language police are the opposite.

    * This is typically referred to in lexicography as "descriptivist" rather than "proscriptivist" lexicography. Descriptivist lexicographers document the language as used; proscriptivists try to tell you how it's properly used. English has a mix of both schools; proscriptivism was particularly popular during the Victorian era, but no actual government authority was ever placed behind it.