Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules the "Google" Trademark Isn't Generic

Posted by samzenpus on from the what's-in-a-name dept.

ericgoldman writes Even though "googling" and "Google it" are now common phrases, a federal court ruled that the "Google" trademark is still a valid trademark instead of a generic term (unlike former trademarks such as escalator, aspirin or yo-yo). The court distinguished between consumers using Google as a verb (such as "google it"), which didn't automatically make the term generic, and consumers using Google to describe one player in the market, which 90%+ of consumers still do.

159 comments

  1. Well, if you're going to push... by jimmetry · · Score: 2

    ...then I'll just have to start calling it the googley.

    1. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by saloomy · · Score: 2

      To google something is to use a company's search engine to search the web, and that fact was created by said company. Search engines existed long before google, so it wouldn't be fair to allow another search engine such as bing to present a text box and a button that said "Google It!". Trademarks don't come with usage limits.

    2. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More to the point, when people use, "Google," as a verb, they mean to actually use Google, as opposed to using any brand of facial tissue available when saying, "Kleenex."

      Besides, if Coca-Cola can retain, "Coke," as a trademark when vast portions of the country refer to basic soft carbonated soda drinks of any type as, "coke," then I don't think that those challenging Gogole's trademark have much of a chance.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      sometimes I google with bing or duckduckgo.

    4. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      More to the point, when people use, "Google," as a verb, they mean to actually use Google, as opposed to using any brand of facial tissue available when saying, "Kleenex."

      Besides, if Coca-Cola can retain, "Coke," as a trademark when vast portions of the country refer to basic soft carbonated soda drinks of any type as, "coke," then I don't think that those challenging Gogole's trademark have much of a chance.

      Let me Xerox off a few examples of when similar Noun/Verb phrases lost their trademark in the past.

    5. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by msauve · · Score: 2

      I can certainly envision someone, having been told to "google it," simply searching using Google or Bing or Dogpile to search.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by msauve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In my experience, very few people use "Xerox" as a verb. I've much more often heard "make some copies on the Xerox machine" (and less often without the "machine") referring generically to a photocopier.

      In any case, bad example, as Xerox still holds their trademark.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by preaction · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's a Band-Aid to apply to that burn. Take some Aspirin, too.

    8. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But will that person still internally think they are "googling", or do they make an active choice in their mind, like "Nah, I won't google it, I prefer X"?

      I know I would fit in the latter camp - google is not generic in my head. However, I'm prepared to accept that what goes on in my head does not match what goes on in the majority of heads.

    9. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by RenderSeven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Take some Aspirin, too.

      Interestingly the trademark 'aspirin' (and the trademark 'heroin') was taken from Bayer AG and made generic as part of the war reparations from WWI. Outside of the major WW1 allied powers, 'aspirin' is still a trademark of Bayer.

    10. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the googly" is a term from English cricket, somewhat similar to the baseball knuckleball.

      he was making a joke, jmmetry should be upvoted to shit as "Funny", and the rest of you should get downvoted for being all "whooshy"

      source: I'm a 'murican with a sense of humor

    11. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, sort of -

      Whatever search option pops up when asked to "Google" something is what I'll use to _____+oogle it...

      Unless it's like the default Verizon or (insert ISP name here) search engine - then I go straight to Goog-orac-le!

    12. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 2

      Nah, I google with bing all the time.

    13. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Let me Xerox off a few examples of when similar Noun/Verb phrases lost their trademark in the past.

      One of them isn't Xerox, which is still a valid trademark. Most people say "photocopy" as the generic term. I have seldom heard "Xerox". I don't ever recall anyone using "Google" as a generic verb for search, as in "I googled for it with Bing."

    14. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      More to the point, when people use, "Google," as a verb, they mean to actually use Google, as opposed to using any brand of facial tissue available when saying, "Kleenex."

      Exactly! You can't google something using Bing, for example. Not that you'd want to anyway. You can only google something using Google.

      (Now I feel like I need to go wash my hands after mentioning Bing. Eww.)

    15. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Just remember, your own experience is anecdotal. When I was in school 'Xeroxing' was used more often than 'copying' by the government worker types I was exposed to.

      Darn near everything today is 'copied' using a form of laser printer technology, but back when I was a kid 'photocopies' were xerox machines, but you also had 'ditto' machines that the schools would use when they needed 60+ copies of something - it'd produce slightly funny looking blue ink copies that were normally not quite centered/straight on the paper. From what I remember, it used photographic technology to make a sort of screen, which would then be mounted on a drum that rotated the paper through. More expensive by far than a Xerox for a single copy, but it gave you a negative good for hundreds of prints, after which the only cost was the paper and ink that was probably a couple bucks per gallon. It was called a 'ditto machine', which wiki also calls a 'spirit duplicator'.

      In short, back then a 'copy machine' back then could refer to any of a number of devices depending on your needs - a photocopier/Xerox for a copy or two. A ditto machine for a moderate number of low quality copies(like giving kids a test), a mimeograph for larger numbers of copies, all the way up to full up printing presses for stuff like government forms.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    16. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by preaction · · Score: 1

      But "Kleenex" is still a trademark, like "Band-Aid", "Lego", and "Nintendo". It's a very fuzzy line, and companies fight like hell against it.

      "I am stuck on Band-Aid (brand)" just doesn't have the same cadence as the original jingle...

    17. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by msauve · · Score: 1

      The most interesting trademark dispute is probably the one related to "Budweiser." "Jeep" is another, which started out in the public domain, but was then commercialized.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    18. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by volmtech · · Score: 1

      My wife would first google Google so she could do a web search. Technologically challenged doesn't begin to describe her.

    19. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all people. You're right that that's the most common usage, but as early as 2004 I heard people talk about googling on other search engines.

    20. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by mirix · · Score: 1

      Bayer still owns 'aspirin' in Canada, for what it's worth.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    21. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      However Google is not the original use of the word as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.... So Barney Google and his Googly eyes and this of course led to google eyed and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.... This is where Google management got it's search (visual action) from, just your typical nerdy geek derivative use of language, although they emphatically disingenuously deny it now. Looks like there'll be a right barney http://onlineslangdictionary.c... over the word google yet to come. Sorry guys just because it is old and drifted out of use a little doesn't mean you can steal it and you can just bet the comic is going to get a revival now.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by rajafarian · · Score: 2

      I used to use Bing to look up Katy Perry so I could say I binged her.

    23. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by apraetor · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that Aspirin was used as an example since, as you point out, it didn't become a "generic" term via the traditional routes; it's an incorrect example.

    24. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by bipbop · · Score: 1

      Although we can't actually observe what goes on inside the majority of people's heads, we can observe usage through corpora and the like, and it does seem that most people agree that the verb google means specifically "to search using Google". But it's also clear that not everyone uses the verb this way—it's generic for some speakers, and this is true regardless of what any court decides.

    25. Re: Well, if you're going to push... by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Registering a trademark after a common name that is already in use shouldn't be allowed.
      In the Budweiser case, Europe did its job right, but the US failed.

    26. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember that your opposite anecdote is nothing more than that either. Even if you attempt to back it up with your own explanation of why your anecdote is more right.

    27. Re: Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. If I ask someone to google something I don't know if they'll actually use Google nor do I care. I'm just asking them to perform an Internet search.

    28. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you 20? In the seventies and eighties no one said "photocopy" they said Xerox.

    29. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah this is what I was thinking. Nobody says to google it on Bing; they tell you to google it, or try using Bing instead. We may have forgotten what a "search" is, but we still say "use Yahoo" or "try Bing" if googling fails.

      Nobody says "well use Bing to google it then".

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    30. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      I know in some places (southern US mostly)...

      "what do you want to drink"
      "a coke"
      "what kind of coke, cola, sprite...?"

    31. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I am MUCH older than 20, and a lot of people said photocopy in those decades. Of course, they also said, "ditto" because of those machines.

    32. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I usually have to wash my hands after using Bing.

    33. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by aestrivex · · Score: 1

      I rarely would bother to use other search engines (and especially not bing), but if someone told me to google something, and for some reason I used another search engine, I would in my understanding of the terms have complied with the request to google the thing.

      The only way in which this could realistically occur, in my estimation, is if I conducted the search on a new installation of a distribution such as mint which doesn't have google as the default engine, and decided temporarily that completing the search using the default search engine were more important right now than changing the settings to use google.

    34. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm in my forties, and I don't recall anyone ever using the term "Xerox". I've heard it used as an example of someone using a trademark generically, but not actually seen that occur in practice.

      Same, BTW, goes for Kleenex. Everyone I know, since the dawn of time, has said "tissue".

      Coke and Tylenol, yeah. But not Xerox or Kleenex.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    35. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by s0nicfreak · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to the original jingle?

    36. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by preaction · · Score: 1

      Huh. Looked up a youtube video from the 80s, and they appear to alternate between "brand" and no-"brand"... It still feels like that word is out-of-place in the tune...

    37. Re: Well, if you're going to push... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of fiction books where "Xeroxed" is present in the dialogue.

    38. Re:Well, if you're going to push... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Nobody says "well use Bing to google it then".

      I've heard several people say "I'll google it on Bing." Mostly older people who have Windows 8 & IE as their browser by default. Your argument is invalid.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  2. Lucky them by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    But how long until googling becomes the standard term for any web search? It is conveniently shorter, after all. And probably more specific, since search engines sometimes search stuff not directly on the web.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Lucky them by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 2

      "Google" is not shorter than "search," and it even has more syllables.

    2. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's been about 15 or so years and it still isn't generically used.So....

    3. Re:Lucky them by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is how the word is used now, and the summery even states that the ruling takes this into account. They know that googleing is a generic word, but Google is not. A search engine is not called a google, only Google is called Google. This does not change just because googleing is a generic term for performing a internet searching.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Lucky them by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not, but "Google" refers to searching on the Internet using a search engine (preferably Google, if it becomes necessary to duplicate results). Therefore, "Google" is certainly shorter and more specific than "Search the internet".

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    5. Re:Lucky them by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      googleing is shorter than "performing a web search". Go google it, is quick than "go perform a web search on that".

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    6. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google" is not shorter than "search," and it even has more syllables.

      I thought it was the standard term now. I would say "search" or ""use Google to search" to everyone, but not everyone cares about the options.

      Consider this at least. "Google" is a hell of a lot more fun and interesting to say than "search" when they have nearly the same meaning in popular culture. I can't say the last time I referenced another service for finding information. Encarta maybe because of some idle banter, but I'd guess "wiki" is nearly in the same boat as Google.

    7. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A search engine is not called a google, only Google is called Google.

      A search engine is a Googler.

    8. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kleenex has been dangerously in that territory for years.

    9. Re:Lucky them by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, when people say googling, they really do mean "look it up using Google." They don't mean "look it up using DuckDuckGo" or "look it up using Yelp" or "look it up using Ask.com" or "look it up using Wolfram Alpha."

      When Google no longer dominates generic web search (as opposed to specialized internet search like Yelp) and there are other comparable players, only then would there be a case for genericization. Until then, when you say googling, people think search using Google. That's actually fairly specific (unusually so even) in terms of word meaning.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    10. Re:Lucky them by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Actually, when people say googling, they really do mean "look it up using Google."

      Actually, no, they don't. They mean "look it up with whatever search engine you usually use". As in, google it with Bing".

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    11. Re:Lucky them by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that "googling" something only has to do with web searches. If you "youtube" something, even though it's owned by google, you're still looking up videos specifically. It's just easier to communicate when you're allowed to be non-specific. "Get in the car" is much easier to communicate than "Get in the Mazda MX-5 Miata" and we all know it. It's only assholes that require specifics in this area. ...and we all know it.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    12. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it becomes necessary to duplicate results

      two people searching on google for the identical search term will likely NOT get the same results

    13. Re:Lucky them by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The closest analogy I can think of is Xerox. For a time during the 1980s, people would tell you "xerox it" instead of photocopy it. In both Xerox's and Google's cases, the company's name was being used as a generic verb for something their product did, but not as a generic description for a similar product by another company. And in both cases, the companies retained their trademark.

    14. Re:Lucky them by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      It's not shorter when you make an apples to apples comparison.

      "Go google it" is equivalent to "go web search it."

      More words and more characters, sure, but the same number of syllables.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    15. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, the sloppy booger territory?

    16. Re:Lucky them by GNious · · Score: 1

      How about we "bing" that?

    17. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But one rolls over the toungue quite easilly while "go web search" is like a trainwreck out of your mouth.

    18. Re:Lucky them by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      And "work" is much shorter than "having a beer at the local bar". But I still can't use the term "I'm at work" when I'm getting wasted. Words have meanings and are not interchangeable, you know...

      --
      bickerdyke
    19. Re:Lucky them by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      And my old clueless aunt calls Firefox "Internet Explorer". And even if she means Firefox, that's still wrong!

      Going to court to allow using wrong semantics... sorry, but we're definitly headed towards "Idiocracy"!

      --
      bickerdyke
    20. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually actually I do mean "look it up using any of those".

    21. Re:Lucky them by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      I'm calling the Walkman to the stand to support your point.

      (Intresting enough, over here "xeroxing" and "kleenex" never reached such a generic status)

      --
      bickerdyke
    22. Re: Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now wait one minute, are you saying I have to stop telling people in at work?

    23. Re:Lucky them by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Actually, when people say googling, they really do mean "look it up using Google." They don't mean "look it up using DuckDuckGo"

      No, they mean "look it up using an internet search engine." I've seen plenty of more clueless folks who just happen to have Yahoo or Bing or whatever as their default search page that opens in their browser, and they still use the word "google," rather than a cumbersome phrase like "use an internet search engine to find..."

      or "look it up using Yelp" or "look it up using Ask.com" or "look it up using Wolfram Alpha."

      You're right, they don't mean those things, because those are specialized search, not a generic web search, which is what "googling" means.

      When Google no longer dominates generic web search (as opposed to specialized internet search like Yelp) and there are other comparable players, only then would there be a case for genericization.

      There are other "comparable players," at least ones that work well enough for many people, like Bing and Yahoo. Look up the stats -- Google may have the majority of searches, but it's only something like 2/3 of general internet searches. The other 1/3 is done on other search engines.

      So, 1/3 of people are somehow managing to do general internet searching without Google. And many of them still use the word "googling" rather than "perform a general internet search" for what they are doing.

    24. Re:Lucky them by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      That sounds like something Microsoft would do on purpose to try to get Google's trademark taken away from them as being generic. Sleazy and low, just how Microsoft likes it!

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    25. Re:Lucky them by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The results I get seem to be mostly people trying to come up with clever blog titles, not actually cases where someone innocently said "Well, I googled what you asked for, and Bing gave me over a gajillion results."

      Indeed, I suspect there are multiple levels here. If someone tells me to "Go google something", I may use Bing in my quest to research whatever it is I've been asked to look up. OTOH, if I say "Well, I googled it, and found...", it'll generally be the case that I'm saying I actually used Google.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    26. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they mean Google. A lot of websites wouldn't be findable at all via Bing. It could take weeks for a new website to find it's way onto Bing. I'm also not going to be significant effort into getting my websites onto Bing. I might go into Google Analytics and request a crawler update though. Plus, Bing has totally different search results, so if you tell someone to google something and they use bing, they might not find the specific thing you wanted them to find.

    27. Re:Lucky them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "perform a general internet search", really? I think it's more like, "go search for" rather than "go google for" and the like.

  3. I google things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I don't use the Yahoo google or the Bing google to google things. I use the Google search engine to google things.

    I use the Bing search engine to google porn.

    1. Re:I google things by TWX · · Score: 1

      "Get the EEG, the BP monitor, and the AVV."

      "And get the machine that goes 'bing!'."

      "And get the most expensive machine - in case the Administrator comes."


      "Ah, I see you have the machine that goes 'bing!'. This is my favorite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to - that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account."

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:I google things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find the fish!

  4. Don't google it. Bing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey I'm just here to warn you! Don't get scroogled! Use Microsoft Bing for all your search needs! Why just the other days I Binged for some tips on my Microsoft Xbox One home entertainment system with Kinect and I got a high score!

    This message brought to you by MS's laughably inept advertising department.

    1. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Funny

      BING
      IS
      NOT
      GOOGLE

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha !

      Nice GNU type recursion.

      The non-copy right for Google is 10 ^100

    3. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, I've heard a number of people outright say "Just google it on Bing."

      I still don't know what to think of either that phrase, or the people who have uttered it.

      That said, I really want to go to the Google office and non-chalantly say that around the googlers.

    4. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I am not sure why "google" works as a verb, but MS made a bad choice in "Bing". I'm sorry, but saying you "binged" it sounds slightly obscene...Of course, it also does not work because the following sentence would feel right, "Ray Rice is in trouble because he did a bit more than just bing his girlfriend (now wife)."

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by TWX · · Score: 1

      I hate it when my surface gets all binged up...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Ballmer pulled Stallman. Nice!

    7. Re: Don't google it. Bing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1e100

    8. Re: Don't google it. Bing it! by darkain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fun fact. Check the reverse DNS of any Google server IP address, and it'll probably reside under xxxx.1e100.net

    9. Re: Don't google it. Bing it! by sensei+moreh · · Score: 1

      googol = 1e100. And, yes, I googled it to ensure I got the spelling correct

      --
      Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
    10. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by msauve · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see you have the machine that goes "Bing!"

      This is my favorite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to - that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    11. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Silvrmane · · Score: 2

      mind. blown.

      --
      planet texture maps and more
    12. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bing is just ONE of the MANY bad choices MS has made....see also paying $2.5 billion for a SINGLE GAME....or Windows Phone (pick your particular mistake in that case)...or Windows 8 (again, pick your mistake)...or the Xbox One (the jokes write themselves, don't they?).

    13. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme bing that to be sure.

    14. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but saying you "binged" it sounds slightly obscene...

      Could be worse. Microsoft originally considered calling it "Bang".

      ...

      I'm not kidding. I guess they liked "Bang" because it conveyed a sense of, uh, instant gratification. Specifically:

      The company had several criteria in rebranding the search engine, he said. The company wanted a name that was one syllable and couldn't be misspelled and was as short as possible.

      Webster said he initially came up with "Bang." The name had a few things going for it, he noted. "It's there, it's an exclamation point," he said. "It's the opposite of a question mark."

    15. Re: Don't google it. Bing it! by wrygrin · · Score: 1

      Fun fact. Check the reverse DNS of any Google server IP address, and it'll probably reside under xxxx.1e100.net

      True. Cool!

      Whereas, whois google.com yields some quite other, unexpected spew. Unexpected by me, at least.

      --
      everything leaks
    16. Re:Don't google it. Bing it! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Bing is just ONE of the MANY bad choices MS has made....see also paying $2.5 billion for a SINGLE GAME

      Wow, a whole week ago and it's already definitely a bad idea? Please tell us more about your psychic powers.

      (not that I actually disagree)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  5. Valuable insight by istartedi · · Score: 2

    You might even say this opens windows into trade mark law.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Valuable insight by houghi · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  6. Would Google be happy with this? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Just wondering...

  7. well, how about /.? by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Generic doesn't begin to describe it.

  8. Nice try by mauriceh · · Score: 1

    Nice try..

    Who was it?

    Apple, M$? Some other vested interest?

    In any case, people know exactly what you are saying when they refer to "Googling".
    And it ain't Bing!

    --
    Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
  9. So Google isn't the next Xerox?! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that Google isn't another generic Silicon Valley company.

  10. Binging is googling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically Binging was Googling it, remember Bing copying Google search results?

  11. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going "web surfing"
    I'm "webbing"
    I'm "ISurfing"
    I'm "ISearching"
    I'm gonna "websurf"
    I'm goona "netsurf"
    I'm gonna "netsearch"
    I'm gonna "webnet"
    I'm gonna boomboom
    I'm gonna webbels tonight
    or like clueless non-IT old people: I'm gonna "internet"

    1. Re:hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gonna webbels tonight

      Ok, but I'm gonna wang chung tonight. Everybody should do that.

  12. Re:Lucky them. Envy their googliness. by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    "When we hire new talent", Prasad Setty said the company looks for those who are comfortable with ambiguity. It seems clear that's only a hiring credential, as opposed to a mission statement.

    We had this conversation on a thread not long ago, but the consensus was the brand of a new product that garners the biggest market share stands the best chance of eventual induction into the Generic Hall of Fame.

    It's self-evident your product was marketed FTW if your competitor's customers ask for your product's nickname when they shop. My personal example is when I one and a hundred zeros some random information I need to look up.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  13. So annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really cannot stand when people use a company name to refer to doing something. I would go so far as considering that person to be a royal douchebag if they speak in such a manner.

    Xerox it.
    Give me a kleenex.
    Google it.

    What kind of jackass talks like that rather than say "search the net", "make copies" or "pass me a tissue." Unless you are heavily invested in those companies you sound like a brown noser.

    1. Re:So annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Unless you are heavily invested in those companies you sound like a brown noser."
      Hence why you need the tissue :P

    2. Re:So annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I refer to google because found it on google, if i tell them to "search the net" and they use another engine, the site might not even be in the database.

      And good luck escaping human culture, it does silly things. being a jackass about others being jackasses only adds to the jackassing.

  14. If there was only one viable choice ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Let me Xerox off a few examples of when similar Noun/Verb phrases lost their trademark in the past

    Before Xerox came out with the photocopy machine which uses plain-paper for duplicating purposes, were there any such machine on the market?

    No?

    Before Google was online, was there any online search engine?

    Yes!

    Yahoo, Astavista, ... amongst others

    Coke gets to retain its trademark precisely because Coke wasn't the first mass-marketed bottled soft drink either

    The one big problem with Yahoo is it cluttered up its interface - even from the start we users already complained about their interface, but they just won't listen, and when Google came out with its back-to-basic minimalist interface users flocked to Google (including me) and since then the only time I go to yahoo is when I need to log on to my yahoomail account

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      It wasn't just about interface. People tend to forget how search engines did an absolutely horrible job of intelligently ranking the sites you wanted to see. They relied primarily upon keywords and other sort of fairly obvious metrics on the site itself, which of course can be significantly gamed. I've seen "tag clouds" on some sites and blogs, which I'm presuming is due in part to one of the historical metrics being how large a visible word is on a site - the obvious presumption being that keywords in titles should be weighted more heavily.

      Google showed up and not only provided a vastly superior interface (look, all you want is to search, right? Here you go!), it also was the very first search engine that actually had a really good chance at returning the most relevant search as the very first result due to it's PageRank algorithm - hence, the "I'm feeling lucky!" button. Such a button would have been labelled "I'd love to win the lottery!" for other search engines, since the results you were looking for might well be on page 13 of a hundred pages of results returned.

      One could argue that although Google did not invent web searching, they may have been the first ones to invent truly effective web searching algorithms. It was only the pressure of Google's overwhelming effectiveness that forced other companies to significantly improve their own search engines. Even today, other companies have a hard time even reaching parity with Google search, let alone exceeding it, although such metrics are obviously somewhat subjective.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by bipbop · · Score: 1

      For over a decade, there's been a simplified search page similar to Google's at http://search.yahoo.com/. Of course, there's no reason to use Yahoo! Search anymore, but they did listen back then. (I was working there at the time, so I have a decent but probably imperfect memory of the timeline.)

    3. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, noone cared about Yahoo, We used Altavista. Yahoo was too yuppie and was used only by Agent Smithes.

    4. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      altavista.digital.com (altavista it you hipster!)

    5. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Yahoo, Astavista, ... amongst others

      Astavista? Thank you for pointing out what kind of search queries you were intrested in :-)

      --
      bickerdyke
    6. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It wasn't just about interface. People tend to forget how search engines did an absolutely horrible job of intelligently ranking the sites you wanted to see.

      I find it pretty easy to remember - I go to Google today.

      The UI was what made me switch both to Google originally and from it some years later. When I started using Google - and when Google started gaining significant market share - most users were on 56Kb/s or slower modem connections. AltaVista was the market leader and they'd put so much crap in their front page that it took 30 seconds to load (and then another 20 or so to show the results). Google loaded in 2-3 seconds. The AltaVista search results had to be a lot better to be faster. I switched away when they made the up and down arrow keys in their search box behave differently to every other text field in the system.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > I switched away when they made the up and down arrow keys...

      Didn't notice that yet. What's putting me on the verge of switching is Google's phasing out (or appearance thereof) of any kind of "hard" searching. Unfortunately, I haven't found any good alternatives with better "hard" search capability.

    8. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I switched to DuckDuckGo and haven't looked back. They used to be noticeably worse in results quality, but Google has gone a long way downhill. Occasionally I don't find things with DDG and try Google. When I do, I have to wade through pages of totally irrelevant stuff to find that there are no matches, whereas at least DDG tells me straight away that it can only find half a dozen possibly-relevant things. I especially like the way DDG integrates with a number of domain-specific search engines.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:If there was only one viable choice ... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Pro-tip, which I learned recently: Google has actually a hidden (well, obscure, it's there but there's no reason you'd think it does what it does) option that means "Just give me the results using the algorithms you used back when Google was useful." Search Tools -> (All Results) : Verbatim.

      No, you can't make it a default. They track that you're probably male, probably interested in tech, and that you'd be a good person to present ads for spiked leather underpants to, but they don't track that you actually want useful search engine results. Sigh.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  15. Aspirin by Adrian+Harvey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a pedant, I'd like to note that aspirin did not become a generic as a result of its mass usage nor as the result of a court case, but was part of war reparations with Germany. See here for more detail, or just google it :-)

  16. go google it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjbTHFJf6FE

  17. It Doesn't Hurt That There Are No Real Competitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like Bing said in a meeting, "I know we provide a ridiculously inferior product as it is, but let's make it even worse arbitrarily excluding things we don't like. The only reason Bing isn't being sued for antitrust is that no one actually uses it.

  18. Re:It Doesn't Hurt That There Are No Real Competit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "

    FTFY!

  19. So annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you do not like it then you can just Ford it!

  20. Google stole "APK" from ME... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facts, are facts: I wonder just how MUCH that's worth to them as those are MY initials & I was out here doing software BEFORE there was a "Google" or their "Android PacKage" even EXISTED for Pete's sake (governmental documents with seals prove that much on my birth certificate).

    APK

    P.S.=> Yes, I have always wondered about that - any thoughts from "the peanut gallery" here? apk

    1. Re:Google stole "APK" from ME... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why haven't you sued their infringing asses, then? For fuck's sake, you should own Google now with all of their horrible violations of your intellectual property. Hosted right there on google.com itself.

      P.S. => This may also interest you

    2. Re:Google stole "APK" from ME... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FrankNFurter are you stalking apk by ac posts again http://news.slashdot.org/comme... ?

    3. Re:Google stole "APK" from ME... apk by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyone's going to confuse Google's Android package filename extension with the Slashdot kook who's always banging on about hosts files like they cure AIDS and raise the dead, spamming Slashdot in the process. It's kind of strange as your divine hosts solution is supposed to stop advertising, yet it can do nothing to stop yours.

    4. Re:Google stole "APK" from ME... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it does not stand for Andrew Peter Kowalski manager. IE,

      => something
        * TO MAKE YOU *
      => shut the fuck up

  21. Re:Let me Xerox off a few ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now days it would be more like "Let me Konica-Minolta off a few examples" or "Let me Canon off a few examples".

  22. Trade name/mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... only Google is called Google."

    That's a trade name, not a trademark. "Google" as a trademark/service mark would be "GOOGLE (brand) internet search services" or "GOOGLE DOCS productivity software" or "GOOGLE electronic mail services".

  23. Trade-off between mind-share and commoditization by Alan+Kennington · · Score: 2

    That's really interesting how companies expend such huge efforts to make their brand a household name, and then they say they still want to own it for themselves exclusively. For example, so many people talk now about iphones, ipads and ipods as generic terms. That's sort of good for the vendor, but then when it really does become a generic term, they bring a ton of legal bricks down on anyone who does use their name generically. In other words, heads we win, tails you lose.

    Another really evil example is "windows", which used to be a generic term, e.g. for the X window system. Microsoft continually tries to use words out of the dictionary to get "mind-share", and then they sue people who use their chosen dictionary words as they had existed for centuries. (The word "windows" comes from old English meaning "wind-holes". Maybe that's not what they really want you to think about though.) In my opinion, it is truly pernicious that so many companies are trying to steal words from the dictionary and pretending they own them. They should be obliged to invent their own words.

    In this case, Google did at least get a nonsense word and slightly change it. I still have a children's book published in 1961 by Wonder Books: "The how and why wonder book of mathematics" by Esther Harris Highland and Harold Joseph Highland, where on page 4 it says: "What is a googol? It is 1 followed by 100 zeros. It is a number so large that it exceeds the number of raindrops that would fall on New York, Los Angeles and Chicago in more than a century. Yet, it is smaller than infinity." In the Introduction on page 2, they say: "If you wanted to find a googol, where would you look? In a zoo? Through a telescope? In a deep well? No, you would look in a mathematics book." Well, at least Google does seem to have changed the spelling a bit, which is to their credit.

  24. Re:Lucky them. Envy their googliness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 is a googol. Just because S&B misspelled it doesn't mean you need to

  25. Re:Lucky them. Envy their googliness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should have been 1(100 zeros)

  26. bing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tell em to go bing that crap..

  27. I wonder if they knew that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is a old children's book that has a phase "...that magnificent google bird..", or something very similar and that it is far older than the company Google. How do I know this? It was one of the books scanned by Google's book scanning project. I wish I had a direct link to prove it but I don't at the moment, sorry.

    Oh well there is a nice treasure hunt for you. The book was illustrated and the page with that phrase had a drawing of a man and a large bird such an an ostrich.

  28. Contrast it with "iPad" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people use iPad as a generic term [citation needed] nowadays.

    1. Re:Contrast it with "iPad" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's sportscasters, not human beings. You can't generalize to intelligent life-forms.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  29. Because when I say Google it... by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, specifically GO TO FUCKING GOOGLE.COM and use the search engine there. Not Bing, not whatever else, and especially not your "ask.com" tool bar that infected your computer. GOOGLE. Nobody uses it generically, they all mean specifically go to Google to search. It's you retards that don't know how to search that think we mean something else.

    1. Re:Because when I say Google it... by neminem · · Score: 1

      I would mod you up, but I don't have mod points at the moment. So I will instead comment that this is entirely accurate: when I say that I xerox'd something, I have absolutely no clue whether the machine I used to copy a paper was actual a Xerox brand machine. When I say I used a kleenex, it's extremely *unlikely*, in fact, that I actually used a Kleenex-brand tissue.

      On the other hand, when I tell someone to google something, I mean use freaking Google, not anything else. Because everything else freaking blows. (I tried using duckduckgo once, a couple years ago. I liked what they were doing, but I realized after a couple weeks that like 75% of the time I just ended up putting !google in the search if I actually wanted decent search results, so I said screw it and went back to Google.)

    2. Re:Because when I say Google it... by houghi · · Score: 1

      This might come as a shock, but this is not about you. This is about using a brand name as a generic word.
      Most people when they say "Google it" what they mean is "Do an online websearch with the searchengine of your choice."

      Most people will indeed use Google. The fact that some people do NOT use google when you ask them to "google it" is all the more evidence that it is generic.

      Just like when people used to say they had a Walkman, what they were saying was not "I have bought a specific device from Sony." They were saying "I bought a mobile cassette player, regardless of the brand."

      Language changes over time. Hacker does not mean anymore what it used to mean. The same is happening with "google it". In Belgium a 'Bic' is not brand related anymore, it can mean an expensive golden Dupont as well as the cheapo pen with the brandname 'bic'.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  30. In other news... by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 1

    Kardashian is still not a trademark..

  31. It's not used generically by Qhartb · · Score: 1

    People say they need a Kleenex and grab a generic brand facial tissue. Few people say they'll "Google" something then proceed to use Bing.

  32. Good. Should help fight spam. by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

    Looks like the plaintiff in the case is one David Elliott, who owns the domains "googleDonaldTrump.com" and "googlegaycruises.com" (maybe others as well? I don't know...). Getting rid of spam URL's like these should improve the overall Internet.

  33. Hey "ne'er-do-well": You've done better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & prove it, 1st of all. Secondly, stop putting words in my mouth I never said: Where have I EVER said hosts cure AIDS & raise the dead? Show us that too.

    Fact: You can't.

    I only post where they apply on topic (unless a dimwit do-nothing ZERO in the field of computing such as yourself sounds off on them). You're also welcome, @ ANY TIME to prove those points I post on hosts wrong... Which clearly, you can't (based on your effete off topic bullshit now).

    APK

    P.S.=> Pitiful little dorks like you make me laugh... apk

    1. Re:Hey "ne'er-do-well": You've done better? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      My references to the exaggerated benefits were an attempt at humour. It's unsurprising you didn't get it, as poor humour detection is a symptom of schizophrenia.

      None of this doesn't change the fact that your hosts files can't stop the deluge of spam coming from you, whereas a correctly-configured AdBlocker most certainly can. Surely you can see the irony.

      The fact you seem to think I'm a nothing in the field of computing is a great example of how you leap to conclusions. You don't know me, but as I challenged your beloved hosts files, you decided that the best way to deflect my accurate criticism is by attempting to belittle me. Normal, sane people who read your posts can see this, whereas I'm assuming you seem to think it as some wonderful debating technique.

      I'm not laughing - you need some serious help, as you are clearly mentally unwell.

  34. Take a read, goof (goes for you too) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject line above & this -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    APK

    P.S.=> Pitiful little "ne'er-do-well" trolls on /. DO make me laugh... apk

  35. You talk the talk: Walk the walk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show us you've done better than apk did then. You can't can you? You're pitiful.

    1. Re:You talk the talk: Walk the walk by dave420 · · Score: 1

      As pitiful as pretending to be someone else, APK? Hint: If you're pretending to be someone else, don't use your same writing style (change the subject, preferably using colons), and don't use similar working you used in the previous post.

  36. Prove my points on hosts wrong then dave420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    D.) Hosts files yield more:

    1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
    2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
    3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
    4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

    ---

    * Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

    * Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

    APK

    P.S.=> You challenged my points on hosts? Bullshit - you trolled: Prove those points above wrong instead (you can't & you know it) - you ARE nothing in computing... apk

    1. Re:Prove my points on hosts wrong then dave420 by dave420 · · Score: 1

      As I said before: AdBlockers can block specific spammy parts of websites, which HOSTS files can't do. For example, a good AdBlocker can block all your posts from Slashdot by simply matching some content and hiding it using CSS or even removing it using JavaScript. HOSTS can't do anything of the sort.

      Which is my entire point - your posts are spam, and your own product can't hide them if the user wanted. The irony is palpable.

  37. Dave420 = the 'SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk' of /. lol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you a licensed degreed psychiatric pro w/ a formal diagnosis of apk's alleged mental condition given in a professional psychiatric environs, according to you, the "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /." complete with your own 'delusions of grandeur' @ being a psychiatric professional with years of experience

    OR

    Are you merely projecting your own inadequacies and failings onto others again as usual for a failure in life like yourself again? Yes, clearly.

    * CLUE: If you don't have the degree, the license, and years of hands on practice in the psychiatric sciences, you are libeling me, dolt.

    Wannabe shrinks like you are truly, pitiful. What's more pitiful is that you ARE a zero in computing...

    "I challenged your beloved hosts files" by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @08:17AM (#47925609)

    No you didn't: You were an off topic troll - but I have the CURE for that too, see below (prove my points wrong) & here where I am CHALLENGING YOU, you little "ne'er-do-well" done ZERO in computing libelous little fool -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, you also cannot prove my points on hosts wrong validly & technically either - so yes, I know it's fair to say you are a ZERO in computing as well! apk

    1. Re:Dave420 = the 'SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk' of /. lol! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you rail against being called schizophrenic with a textbook example of a schizophrenic rant? Brilliant. It doesn't take a doctor to diagnose a broken leg, just as it doesn't take a psychiatrist to know that someone who keeps vomiting nonsense on slashdot in the particularly acidic, uncoordinated, and generally nonsensical fashion as you do might need some help.

  38. You fail as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject line above. You can't even show a damn thing for yourself. APK can. You fail. Failing is not an effective debate technique little troll dave420. Neither is being a "ne'er-do-well" like you are.

    1. Re:You fail as always by dave420 · · Score: 1

      APK - why are you pretending to be someone else? I know multiple personalities are not a classic symptom of schizophrenia, so perhaps you also suffer from something else? You really should get some help - this is embarrassing and so unnecessary.

    2. Re:You fail as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you always fail? You claim you challenged apk on hosts yet you failed here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... but you are right about one thing: This was embarassingly easy for apk to destroy you publicly here with facts you can prove wrong from him and embarassing for you being crushed so easily by apk.

    3. Re:You fail as always by dave420 · · Score: 1

      APK, no, I was not "destroyed". I pointed out a short-coming in the hosts system, which you failed to counter. That's it. Please stop this charade - it's pathetic.

    4. Re:You fail as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illogical ad hominem attacks != effective debate. Why pretend you're a psychiatric pro when you're not? There's no pretending apk annihilated you 15:1 here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... though and your unrealistic fantasyland single point isn't even real: Ads that pay are not served on the same site as apk said. Admen don't trust webmasters. That's reality, not your fantasies. Especially your delusions of grandeur at being a shrink.

  39. Answer these questions dave420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

    1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
    2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
    3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
    4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
    7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
    8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
    9.) Keep you off dns request logs
    10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
    11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
    12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
    13.) Block out trackers
    14.) Block spam mails sources
    15.) Block phishing mails sources

    "?"

    * Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

    That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

    ... apk

    1. Re:Answer these questions dave420 by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I'm not denying all those things, I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming, as hosts files can't do that. That's it. Please learn to read and understand what I wrote before launching into a schizophrenic rage.

    2. Re:Answer these questions dave420 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for not denying you failed against apk's superior logic and skills in computing where you evidence you have none and are indeed the "ne'er-do-well" he stated you are.

  40. Evasion != effective debate technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You avoid answering a simple question: Are you a professional psychiatric pro. If not (and, you're not), you fail #1...

    (Typical "ne'er-do-well" troll dave420: Using the stale old calling others crazy crap - predictably he can be counted on to do the WRONG thing, & fail as always vs. myself).

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly - You also fail in showing you've done more or better than myself in the computer sciences ( fail #2 )

    and

    You CERTAINLY CAN'T PROVE MY POINTS ON HOSTS WRONG either for fail #3, lol...

    Thanks!

    (For making ME look GOOD, & yourself, by way of comparison? Well, lol - "not so good") - You fail (triple fail in fact)...

    ... apk

    1. Re:Evasion != effective debate technique by dave420 · · Score: 1

      1. As I pointed out, it doesn't take a psychiatric doctor to recognise the signs of a severely mentally-ill person, just as it doesn't take a chartered surveyor to recognise a house's roof has fallen off.

      2. I don't have to show you proof of anything, as I merely pointed out that you defensively jumping to conclusions about my abilities merely illustrates your tenuous grip on reality, and a complete lack of being able to conduct yourself in an open, public discussion

      3. I only pointed out that hosts files can't block spam such as your rambling slashdot posts. That's it. I'm not debating the rest of their abilities, as hosts files are so ridiculously simple to understand and implement, any 8-year-old could explain them in depth after 2 minutes of being told what they are and how they work.

    2. Re:Evasion != effective debate technique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't take more than anyone that can read to see apk crushed you here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... and as far as your DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR at being a psychiatric pro, which you are not, apk destroyed you there easily too.

    3. Re:Evasion != effective debate technique by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Why are you referring to yourself in the third person, APK? More mental instability?

  41. Unrealistic "shortcoming" 15:1 against you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line above, & paying ads DON'T get served on the SAME site (advertisers do NOT trust webmaster counts is why) - this IS the REAL WORLD - yours is fantasyland!

    Additionally (per my subject-line above):

    You didn't disprove 15 facts here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... in favor of hosts.

    "Argue with the numbers" as the saying goes.

    APK

    P.S.=> You destroyed yourself, fool... apk

  42. Delusions of grandeur at being a psychiatric pro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On your part dave420? You're not one and unqualified to judge anyone and your stale calling others crazy illogical ad hominem attack methods aren't valid in debate and ineffective. We do see you destroyed by apk here though http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... totally in a 15:1 ratio of odds against you (argue with the numbers).