Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sue Googe Uses Google's Font To Run For US Congress (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the tongue-twister dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Sue Googe is running to represent the 4th Congressional District of North Carolina in United States Congress. Since her last name resembles "Google," she has decided to use Google's font to help market her campaign. You can view a picture of Sue Googe standing next to two people holding her campaign signs here. You'll see that "Googe" is written just like "Google," but without the "l." Even the "e" in "Googe" is slanted like the "e" in "Google." "Sue" on the other hand, is not written in the same font as "Googe." It's possible the campaign accidentally selected this font, but upon closer inspection, that seems highly unlikely. It begs the question: Will Google sue Sue Googe? While we wait for Google to comment on the story, you can read all about Sue Googe on her website.

179 comments

  1. Sure, whatever... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Google OWNS that font? It's not even the same font Google now uses. It's a "sans serif" font that is a little more "stylized" than Helvetica, but the "Google Font"? Sure, OK, whatever. By the way, how is this any story at all? Good grief, did she fart in public and mention Donald Trump? News for nerds? Stuff that matters? Not really... Does Timothy still work at Slashdot? Seriously, file this under "No One Give's A Shit" .

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Sure, whatever... by WarJolt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.

      It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit. They can afford really good lawyers. Trademark infringement cases have been won on shakier grounds.

    2. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Product Sans, created by Google... and it is the same font as Google is currently using.

    3. Re:Sure, whatever... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.

      Intent is a difficult thing to prove. FACT is that Google does not own the font.

      Here's another "fact" Google has not yet done anything, this is all "The Verge" (whatever web site that is that is paying Slashdot for stories) and Slashdot whipping up some sulatious story where there really is NO STORY!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between "Googe" and "Google" if the trademark is Google, you can't sue for trademark infringement when your trademark isn't even being used.

      And even if they did try to sue Sue, she could claim parody use which is legal. Though I doubt that would get claimed since in fact... it is her name, so can't very well sue someone for printing their own name.

    5. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Intent is a difficult thing to prove.

      Usually I'd agree with you. It wouldn't be hard to convince a jury in this particular instance, though.

    6. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Prior art is a Patent law concept. Patents are different to Trademarks and Copyright.

    7. Re:Sure, whatever... by omnichad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course they'll Sue Googe. It's right in her name.

    8. Re:Sure, whatever... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit.

      So will Google sue Sue Googe or will Sue Googe sue Google?

      Now try to say that outloud five times.

    9. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be fucking blind. The font Google uses for their logo is not the same as any other font.

    10. Re:Sure, whatever... by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      Google OWNS that font? It's not even the same font Google now uses. It's a "sans serif" font that is a little more "stylized" than Helvetica, but the "Google Font"? Sure, OK, whatever.

      It's the exact same font that I see when I go to google.com but more importantly, it is more than just the font. The 'e' is really what makes it a copy of the google logo. That is not a part of the standard font. I think it's actually a brilliant plan and having the first name Sue makes it that much funnier. It gets her name out there and chances are that step one is going to be a cease/desist so the only cost that she'll be out is any material that she has printed but not distributed yet.

    11. Re:Sure, whatever... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      You must be fucking blind. The font Google uses for their logo is not the same as any other font.

      Thatnk you for yout thoughtful comment.

      Clearly you are not a designer or a font guy, so I will allow your completely asinin comment.

      Fact is, Google might have "tweaked" the font, but they did not originate the basice font.

      Simply a fact.

      Fonts are an art form, and there are many variations. Very few including Google's font are "original".

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    12. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sulatious?

      That's not very cromulent...

    13. Re:Sure, whatever... by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      Trademark law would be useless if you could just drop a little bit of a trademark and call it your own.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      You could try to prove parody, but it's going to cost you a lot in legal fees if they try to sue. It's not an easy defense.

    14. Re:Sure, whatever... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit. They can afford really good lawyers. Trademark infringement cases have been won on shakier grounds.

      That's not nearly enough for Google to win a lawsuit. Just because your brand is hurt -- for example, by every news agency in the world reporting that you've cheated on emissions tests -- does not mean that you can sue for trademark infringement.

      To infringe a trademark, the accused infringer must be using the trademark in commerce:

      15 U.S.C. 1125
      (a)(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact... shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
      * * *
      (c)(1) Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the ownerâ(TM)s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.

      News reporting is commerce, but is usually exempt from the potential infringement issue due to the first amendment and the concept of nominative fair use. To report upon businesses and products, you pretty much have to use trademarks to efficiently refer to them.

      All snark aside, politics is not commerce. I don't see any indication from any of the summary's links that she's even selling items like hats, T-shirts, buttons, and other items. Which leaves you with a nebulous theory of "trademark dilution." But if you look even further down in the dilution subsection there's an exception for "Any noncommercial use of a mark." Which reemphasizes the fact that you can only control commercial uses of a trademark.

      Thus, no. Google would be fools to take this to court, and really good lawyers would advise them that it is a really bad idea. Someone may get the bright idea to send a nasty letter, but Sue Googe would be an even bigger fool to pay attention to it. A lawsuit would provide the sort of publicity and news exposure that money cannot buy, and what exactly can Google claim for monetary damages? Come November, the campaign is over and any lawsuit would be dropped for being more trouble than it was worth.

    15. Re:Sure, whatever... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.

      It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit.

      Honestly it feels like she did it on purpose, because she wants the publicity and sympathy a lawsuit by a huge company would bring.

    16. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, I have been a graphics artist for three decades.

      You're the one who thinks it looks identical to some random garbage on "dafont". Go get your eyes checked. You might want to take a lesson or two in graphics design while you're at it.

    17. Re:Sure, whatever... by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      All snark aside, politics is not commerce.

      Not true. Look at Radiance Foundation v. NAACP and Hershey v Hershey. Political activity is a service.

      Like in Hershey v Hershey there is no first ammendment case here. Googe is trying to co-opt a brand like Hershey was.

    18. Re:Sure, whatever... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      All snark aside, politics is not commerce.

      Not true. Look at Radiance Foundation v. NAACP and Hershey v Hershey. Political activity is a service.

      Ok. Let's look at Radiance:

      To find Lanham Act violations under these facts risks a
      different form of infringement -- that of Radiance's expressive
      right to comment on social issues under the First Amendment.
      Courts have taken care to avoid Lanham Act interpretations that
      gratuitously court grave constitutional concerns, and we shall
      do so here. We hold that Radiance is not liable for trademark
      infringement or dilution of defendant's marks by tarnishment. We
      vacate the injunction against Radiance entered by the district
      court and remand with instructions that defendant's
      counterclaims likewise be dismissed.

      The danger of allowing the "in connection with" element to
      suck in speech on political and social issues through some
      strained or tangential association with a commercial or
      transactional activity should thus be evident. Courts have
      uniformly understood that imposing liability under the Lanham
      Act for such speech is rife with the First Amendment problems.

      Policy stances are neither goods nor services, though the
      means of conveying them may be.

      Radiance's use of the marks was undeniably to criticize the
      NAACP's perceived position on abortion, thus falling squarely
      within the statute's explicit exclusions. See 15 U.S.C. Â 1125(c)(3).

      That case agrees with my analysis, not yours.

      I'm not going to waste my time analyzing a 4th circuit district court case that is still in progress and is in severe trouble in view of the intervening Radiance decision by the 4th circuit appellate court.

      Care to try again?

    19. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tilted 'e' is kind of a giveaway.

    20. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ARE aware that copyright rules regarding fonts differ from regular copyright rules, explicitely to deal with the detailed differences that laymen would percieve as identical, right?

    21. Re:Sure, whatever... by alzoron · · Score: 1

      Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark (or a substantially similar mark) on competing or related goods and services .

      Unless Google's business is running for Congress I don't see how they would have a case for a lawsuit. Trademark has very limited scope compared to copyright and patent. You don't just trademark something and get exclusive rights to it for everything.

    22. Re:Sure, whatever... by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      the defendant in a trademark infringement . . . case must use
      the mark in connection with the goods or services of a competing
      producer, not merely to make a comment on the trademark owner's
      goods or services

      In Googe's case the defendant is using the mark in connection with the defendant's service. This service is Googe's political activity. You have failed to show that political activity is not considered a service.

      Radiance's use is protected under the first ammendment. Googe's is not. Clear and simple.

    23. Re:Sure, whatever... by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      Political activity is a service.

      MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004)

      In August 2000, MasterCard became aware that Ralph Nader and his presidential committee were broadcasting an allegedly similar advertisement on television that promoted the presidential candidacy of Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election. That political ad included a sequential display of a series of items showing the price of each ("grilled tenderloin for fund-raiser; $ 1,000 a plate;" "campaign ads filled with half-truths: $ 10 million; [*3] " "promises to special interest groups: over $ 100 billion"). The advertisement ends with a phrase identifying a priceless intangible that cannot be purchased ("finding out the truth: priceless. There are some things that money can't buy"). The resulting ad (the "Nader ad") was shown on television during a two week period from August 6-17, during the 2000 presidential campaign, and also appeared on the defendants' web site throughout that campaign.

      * * *

      In the present case, as previously discussed, defendants' use of plaintiff's marks in the Nader Ad is political, not commercial, in nature. The Ad was not being used in connection with the sale or promotion of a product or service, nor in the conduct of business, trade or commerce.

      It is not a service, and even if you consider political activity a service a campaign poster or advertisement is not a use in commerce.

      The Nader case also usefully shows how difficult it would be to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion between the respective uses of Googe and Google.

      So, again, a suit would be a really bad idea.

    24. Re:Sure, whatever... by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      Except Google does own the font. It's not an off the shelf font. They took Futura and tweaked it to their liking. Googe used Google's version with all the tweaks.

    25. Re:Sure, whatever... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      In Googe's case the defendant is using the mark in connection with the defendant's service. This service is Googe's political activity. You have failed to show that political activity is not considered a service.

      Radiance's use is protected under the first ammendment. Googe's is not. Clear and simple.

      1. It's spelled "amendment." Once is a typo. Twice is an error that requires correction.
      2. Radiance's use is protected under the first amendment, why? Radiance's use is not in connection with Radiance's service, why? Googe's political speech is not protected under the first amendment why? Disconnected tautologies do not constitute arguments.
      3. MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004). Political activity is not a service, and is not use of a mark in connection with a service in commerce.

      Googe's use is outside the scope of the act and has no realistic likelihood of confusion. It is clear and simple, just not in the manner that you believe.

    26. Re:Sure, whatever... by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      FACT is, no one mentioned copyright, so who owns the font is irrelevant.

      This is about trademarks and brand recognition.

    27. Re:Sure, whatever... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      You have failed to show that political activity is not considered a service.

      Actually, I said that politics is not commerce.

      Nader case:
      "Even assuming the Nader Ad caused greater contributions to be made to his political campaign, this would not be enough to deem Ralph Nader's Ad 'commercial.' If so, then presumably, as suggested by defendants, all political campaign speech would also be 'commercial speech' since all political candidates collect contributions. Ralph Nader's Political Ad attempts to communicate that other presidential candidates can be bought, but that the 'truth,' represented by himself, cannot. The Nader Ad is a strong political message which expresses his personal opinion on presidential campaigning. The legislative history of the Lanham Act clearly indicates that Congress did not intend for the Act to chill political speech. In speaking about the amendments to Section 43(a) that expanded what was actionable as deceptive advertisements, one of the new law's sponsors, United States Representative Robert Kastenmeier, pointed out that political advertising and promotion are not meant to be covered by the term "commercial."

      Kastenmeier statement:

      [The statute] uses the word "commercial" to describe advertising or promotion for business purposes, whether conducted by for-profit or non-profit organizations or individuals. Political advertising and promotion is political speech, and therefore not encompassed by the term "commercial." This is true whether what is being promoted is an individual candidacy for public office, or a particular political issue or point of view...

      134 Cong. Rec. H. 1297 (daily ed. April 13, 1989)

      Your request for a showing has been granted. I look forward to your reply.

    28. Re:Sure, whatever... by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Of course you can. I once got a 'Blackborry' phone from China. I loved it (until it got some weird and rare form of screen cancer), but I'm pretty sure it did infringe the trademark of some Canadian company...

    29. Re: Sure, whatever... by jsh1972 · · Score: 1

      Could it not be argued that the signs could be interpreted as a subliminal command to "Sue" Google? Especially if the first name is a regular font and the last name made to look like Google, and especially people just glancing at the signs, not really reading them but seeing commands to Sue Google all day long? I'll admit it took a second for this headline to parse for me for this very reason.

    30. Re:Sure, whatever... by fisted · · Score: 1

      that outloud, that outloud, that outloud, that outloud, that outloud.

      Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    31. Re:Sure, whatever... by Dominare · · Score: 2

      On the contrary, it embiggens his point perfectly.

    32. Re:Sure, whatever... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      You must be fucking blind. The font Google uses for their logo is not the same as any other font.

      Thatnk you for yout thoughtful comment.

      Clearly you are not a designer or a font guy, so I will allow your completely asinin comment.

      Fact is, Google might have "tweaked" the font, but they did not originate the basice font.

      Simply a fact.

      Fonts are an art form, and there are many variations. Very few including Google's font are "original".

      Googles Font is original, an original work does not have to be based off non original works, or no works at all. Google may have just tweaked the font, but as far as anyone can tell that tweak is original. It has trademark protection, because it is original... Under your definition of original nothing would be original, and therefore nothing would be protected, because everything is currently based on something else.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    33. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't even matter about fonts for the most part. It's already been ruled that font shapes aren't unique enough to merit copyright. The font file itself can be copyright but if you converted it to another format then you'd supposedly be safe.

      That said, this is going to be more about trademark and that'll be a different story.

    34. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. And it doesn't fucking "beg the question" either.
      Sheesh.

    35. Re:Sure, whatever... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Except Google does own the font. It's not an off the shelf font. They took Futura and tweaked it to their liking. Googe used Google's version with all the tweaks.

      Except the font is not the displayed letters, in legal terms; that is the typeface which are not copyrightable. Unless Google has a design patent on the typeface (the letters, numbers, etc...) they do not own its appearance. The font is the program that generates the typeface and it is copyrightable. The font name can be trademarked as well.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    36. Re:Sure, whatever... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      FACT: humans read familiar looking words looking at the first and last letters mostly. When you make the 'e' at the end all slanty that just re-enforces the likelyhood you'll read googe as google. I did the first time, and without the context of why is the a story, I would not have gone back.

      She is trying to pass as "Sue Google"

      Now I'll be surprised if Google does sue Sue Googe, for two reasons.

      1) It will bring more attention and confusion if they get involved in a legal battle not less. The law may or may not be a little more murky about using what is and has been your own name, even when its similar to someones mark, I don't know. The court of public opinion however certainly is more murky. Its unclear how it will play to have Google "beating up on" an immigrant running for congress.

      2) Google is a lot braver than most organizations when it comes to taking liberties with their own mark. Very few marketing departments would have the courage to do something like the doodle. Most are busy getting upset when someone puts the logo on an unapproved background color. You can get away with alot when you are a verb.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    37. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can then googe the results of this suwage afterwards, and report it right here in the slashdos.

    38. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, it will be easier to Google her name than the name of the language that Google maintains. One trouble for Go is that web-page authors have to be sure to put the string "golang" somewhere in the page or else it goes invisible. Sue Googe doesn't have that problem.

    39. Re:Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      outloud

      Try less whitespace

      Actually, OP's issue is that he's missing whitespace...

    40. Re: Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just look up (googe) the McDonald brothers. Or that Japanese guy named Nissan. etc. Or every Greek restaraunt that happens to have "olympic" in its name where the Olympics are getting held at...There was even grumblings that the IOC & USOC were contemplating trying to sue regarding Olympic peninsula, Olympic National Park, etc...

    41. Re: Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      politics may not be commerce, but running a campaign is.
      Companies dont like their likenesses (trademarks, copyrights, tradedress) being used by others.
      Sanrio would be suing her if her first name was Kitty, and she figured a clever way to use "Hello Kitty" in her slogans and advertising...

    42. Re:Sure, whatever... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The question is, "does Google's trademark extend to political candidates?"

      (If the answer is "yes," of course, then the logical follow-up is "which office is Larry Page or Sergey Brin planning on running for?")

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    43. Re: Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the layout, stylings, coloring, etc constitute trade dress, and be the basis of design patents. companies do protect that stuff... sometimes to absurdity.

    44. Re:Sure, whatever... by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      It probably depends on if she is a Democrat or a Republican.

      Hard to tell from her website, her positions are a blend of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. (3rd party site: Republican)

      She is running against a Democrat, but it is North Carolina, she does not have to downplay being a Rep, like if she were running in New York.

      America’s lethargic economy is due to out-of-control spending, corporate welfare, a burdensome tax code, undeclared and expensive wars, an unsustainable trade deficit, and policies that punish success.

      The government has a duty to protect it’s citizens from physical, mental, and financial harm by others, not to create more criminals through a disproportional system of punishment.

      vrs

      As your representative, I will support legislation that replaces the current tax code with a new system based on a low flat tax that is fair for all Americans.

      In order to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, we must eliminate the barriers that make it impossible for us to compete and create a business friendly environment right here at home.

      But there are also centrist ideas:

      The U.S. Constitution is very clear, our nation should only go to war when the President has received Congressional approval.

      America should have the strongest military on the planet, but that does not mean we should be the policemen of the world. The United States has a leadership role to play in the world but that does not always mean military action or intervention.

      And libertarian ideas:

      America was founded on the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and equal opportunity for all.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    45. Re:Sure, whatever... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I forget the legal term, but she's clearly trying to conflate her running and Google in the minds of voters, or at the very least, to claim that they're endorsing her.

      False color something , maybe?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    46. Re:Sure, whatever... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      As far as trademark law goes, the way I see it is that Google is not a political candidate and Googe is not a technology company, so they don't conflict.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    47. Re:Sure, whatever... by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

      Excellent job turning gibberish into cashflow!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    48. Re:Sure, whatever... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      All snark aside, politics is not commerce.

      In a country where money is speech, politics is commerce.

    49. Re:Sure, whatever... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Excellent job turning gibberish into cashflow!

      Thank you. That will be $1000.00

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    50. Re:Sure, whatever... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The way copyright works, and fonts are copyrighted, is that new works based on previous works have a new copyright. So if Google "tweaked" a previous font, Google owns the copyright on the resultant font (as well as the owners of the previous font, if Google did so without permission or proper license).

      So, even if you are 100% right on the origin of the font, that in no way supports your implied conclusion that Google has no grounds.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    51. Re:Sure, whatever... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      If they put it on a tshirt, do charitable fundraising or provide grants?
      http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/...

    52. Re: Sure, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your use of enbiggen is perfectly cromulent, the original post is clearly not cromulent. She simply mispeld it.

    53. Re:Sure, whatever... by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Well the point isn't could they but should they. It would be awfully bad PR.

      --
      J
  2. Mike Rowe Soft? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Remember one guy who used his fortunate name to start a company and wangle some deals from Microsoft?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Mike Rowe Soft? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Remember one guy who used his fortunate name to start a company and wangle some deals from Microsoft?

      Sorry dude, Mike Rowe is cleaning sewars with a camera crew.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Mike Rowe Soft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My Mike Rowe crow's mic row rows Mike Rowe's mic crows while he cleans the sewers with a camera crew.

      Sue Googe's Google gaff goes agoo as Google sues Sue Googe; her campaign goes awry.

    3. Re:Mike Rowe Soft? by ailnlv · · Score: 1

      I think I just had a stroke

    4. Re:Mike Rowe Soft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I just had a stroke

      Me too, Mike Rowe is really cute and I just couldn't help myself. Now who wants to clean this up?

    5. Re:Mike Rowe Soft? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Fitting: Microsoft makes sewers.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:Mike Rowe Soft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he lost his domain and got a shitty xbox out of the deal, that's it. the kid should have fought it.

  3. Next Up... by dmomo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Google Sues Sue Googe.

    1. Re:Next Up... by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      RTFA. You're not that clever.

    2. Re:Next Up... by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      Before or after they read this book? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  4. Yuck by youngone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sue needs to employ a photographer for her website before she does anything, at least someone who has a basic grasp of colour balance. What an awful site.

    1. Re:Yuck by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google should just blacklist any positive mention of her name across all Google properties, then ignore her.

      That's more of a proper response to a publicity stunt like this (which apparently worked).

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:Yuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say she also needs to hire a webmaster that can count open and closed tags. I bet this is NOT html comformant:

    3. Re:Yuck by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sue needs...a photographer...at least someone who has a basic grasp of colour balance. What an awful site.

      But she has to save money for the Google logo lawsuit.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Yuck by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Sue needs to employ a photographer for her website before she does anything, at least someone who has a basic grasp of colour balance.
      What an awful site.

      Maybe it's deliberate so she can later claim that using Google's font was an accident of incompetence.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    5. Re:Yuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the web site change since the posting of this article? Because it looks pretty nice to me. A Metro-ish design with purple and navy blue and white. The only thing that slightly irritates my eye is the cyan-ish colour used as a highlight ('Join' button, menu bar).

      Or are you talking about how the US flag in the photograph is a dirty white instead of pure white?

    6. Re:Yuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fonts can't be copyrighted. They'd have to go after the whole logo, and it's probably sufficiently different to make a lawsuit a waste of time.

      Google can blacklist her on their search though, which is a much better use of their time.

  5. Sue Google by rossdee · · Score: 1

    for breach of privacy

    1. Re:Sue Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Will Sue Googe follow the critical "don't be evil" slogal Google has abandoned?

    2. Re:Sue Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google sues Sue Googe" would make a great what-the-hell-did-I-just-read headline!

    3. Re:Sue Google by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously her version would be "don't be evi".

    4. Re:Sue Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they missed a comma there: "don't, be evil"

    5. Re:Sue Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *shakes fist* darn grammar nazis

    6. Re:Sue Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COMMENT DESERVES AWARD!
      *Dog-Cow you are king/queen for the day*

    7. Re:Sue Google by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      Since she's a conservative Republican, not being evil is probably not high on her priority list.

  6. Re: Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Republicans have no respect for IP. No respect for IP.

  7. Chinese name by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't that be Googe Sue - Or is Googe her husband's surname?

    1. Re:Chinese name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Her Chinese name is Jiangxiu Fu (FU Jiangxu; surname fu2, first name jiang1xiu4 (meaning "graceful river") (thanks, Slashdot, for not supporting UTF-8!)). She must have taken the common name Sue when she moved to the United States 18-20 years ago. I found her name on Chinese websites (she speaks quick but very clear Mandarin), but it's mentioned here too. As for her American surname:

      I've tried to find out who her husband is, solely to determine the origin of his surname, but haven't had any luck. There is no Chinese surname of Guge ("goo guh") (that'd be weird anyway; gu3ge2 means bones/skeleton). In Hangul (Korean) the family name would have to be goo-geu (again, no UTF-8...), in the case she married a Korean, but I've never heard of such a family name. We can safely rule out Japanese too. So that leaves American-European. Digging around on houseofnames.com for Googe turns up an etymology of French or British 14th-century origin; alt. spellings include Gouche, Googh, Gooch, and Gooche.

      Tennessee and Georgia both have histories of having citizens and politicians with the surname of Googe (see 1940s). So yeah, must have got it from marrying an American, probably of European descent. Point being: it's not a Chinese surname.

      Opinion footnote: given that she has absolutely no political history (see above biography link), for a first-time approach at gaining recognition, this is not going to end well for her socially. Legally... well, that's for lawyers to debate. :-)

    2. Re:Chinese name by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Cool thanks for the info. I guess Jiangxu is a bit of a mouthful to American ears... But at least 'Sue' is something of an abbreviation.

      Nonetheless, I'd be tempted to vote for a candidate named "graceful river"!

      (Gooch is well-known as the name of an English cricket captain).

    3. Re:Chinese name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, are you like a crazy stalker? You're taking that a little too far.

    4. Re:Chinese name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with Googing Google? Er, Googling Googe?

    5. Re:Chinese name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do you or anyone assume that she is married to a Chinese person. My wife is white but now, like my mother (who is white) and my daughter (who is only 1/4 Chinese) has the last name Chan. In this day and age you can't determine someone's race by their name or assume that because they are one race that they wouldn't marry outside of it.

  8. Re: Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She is first-generation Chinese. They don't typically understand copyright law.

  9. Re: Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And her grandfather was executed for being a capitalist. Their kind just doesn't respect the rule of law.

  10. Begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It begs the question:

    Nope.

    1. Re:Begs the question by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure one day the more common incorrect usage will become the standard and accepted usage.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Begs the question by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Does it beg the question of whether trolls bait readers by begging the question just to lure the grammar pedants out of the woodwork...

      Come at me, bro. :)

    3. Re:Begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It begs the question:

      Nope.

      Sure it begs the question, unless you're a hopelessly pedantic introverted grammar Nazi. Language evolves. Deal with it.

    4. Re:Begs the question by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I counter with http://www.egscomics.com/index... which is a much more entertaining read.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    5. Re:Begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're right, that was too much reading and thinking and learning and stuff. From now on we'll keep it simple, like this:

      begs the question

      STFU, moron.

  11. Internet Implosion Imminent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I googled Google Suing Sue Googe, a googol or so results for Google Suing Sue Googe

  12. Sue Googe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Don't mind if we do." -Google

  13. Re: Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was a library science major at UNC. She has no excuse.

  14. Re: Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was executed for being a criminal. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

  15. Re: Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And self-made wealthy. Their kind has no empathy. She grew up without enough to eat so she has no sympathy for the children now that are hungry.

  16. "Beg the question" by jodido · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    "Beg the question" doesn't mean "beg for the question." It means to avoid answering the question.

    1. Re:"Beg the question" by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Beg the question" doesn't mean "beg for the question." It means to avoid answering the question.

      No, it doesn't. It means assuming something unproven as basis for a conclusion, or more typically a circular logic, using the conclusion as a premise for drawing the conclusion. Also known as "petitio principii".

      A typical example is "God exists, because the bible says so, and the bible comes from God, so it must be true".

      It's called "begging the question" because the one who makes the fallacy petitions the opponent to accept the premise that's in question.

    2. Re: "Beg the question" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This begs the question"

      No you fucking moron, it doesn't.

      "do people literally use"

      As opposed to metaphorically use speech? I suppose we can interpret your ignorant rant as an attempt at, thus a satire, and not literal speech.

      "such phraseology"

      Phraseology is the study, you mean phrases. It's always hilarious when idiots try to sound smart.

      "just to trigger you morons irregardless of correctness?"

      Irregardless is nonstandard improper english. It's regardless.

      "Shut up moron, you sound like a fucking BASIC prompt puking out syntax errors. Even simple AIs have now advanced beyond that level of primitive communication."

      And yet you have not.

      "Languages evolve. Your "rules" are a shitty and wrong."

      A shitty what?

      "It's like Pee-We Herman, "I meant to do that" or a fucking Creationist, "This language was designed to follow these patterns". No, you fucking moron, it wasn't and never will be."

      Pee-WEE. Creationism has nothing to do with language. You're mixing metaphors.

      "Whatever popular usage is becomes the new meaning. No one is confused but you."

      YOLOSWAG the earth is flat fam. Popular is right. Might makes right.

      A person with your language skill arguing against proper speech is like Creationists arguing against science. See what I did there? That's how you use metaphor you fucking moron. No one is confused but you.

    3. Re:"Beg the question" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuuuuuck Offfffff

    4. Re:"Beg the question" by a+whoabot · · Score: 2

      "It's called "begging the question" because the one who makes the fallacy petitions the opponent to accept the premise that's in question."

      Where do you people get these etymologies from?

      It's called "begging the question" because that's just the translation of the Latin, "petitio principii". The word "beg" has had more than one usage and certainly the word "question" still has more than one usage. So where does this story about it referring to petitioning some opponent even come from? It's unnecessary. "Begging the question" is plainly just a perfectly fine translation of "petitio principii". If you tried to make a very literal translation you would just end up with Latin-English "translatese".

    5. Re:"Beg the question" by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      An example of "translatese" for the phrase:

      "An appeal of the principles" or an appeal of the premises". Neither of these are real English but just stand as word for word translations of the Latin while preserving word class and case. Hence why a non-literal translation like "begging the question" is far superior: translations don't have to show that you know Latin grammar perfectly, unless you're doing them for an undergraduate course.

    6. Re:"Beg the question" by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Beg the question" doesn't mean "beg for the question." It means to avoid answering the question.

      No, it doesn't. It means assuming something unproven as basis for a conclusion, or more typically a circular logic, using the conclusion as a premise for drawing the conclusion. Also known as "petitio principii".

      Actually, "beg the question" doesn't really mean petitio principii anymore, outside of philosophy journals. A post over at Language Log from 2010 noted that of the 20 most recent hits for "beg the question" in the New York Times, only ONE was an actual example of "correct" usage: 15 used it to me "raises the question," and 4 were just people bitching about other people using it wrong. A survey of 50 usages in Google News showed 49 uses to mean "raises the question" and 1 hit discussing its usage (not just using it "correctly").

      When the vast majority of even educated, edited prose adopts a new meaning for a phrase, it's standard. Deal with it.

      It's called "begging the question" because the one who makes the fallacy petitions the opponent to accept the premise that's in question.

      Well, that's sort of in the right direction. The link above has detailed etymology -- the problem is that the phrase originally comes from Aristotle, where (in Greek) it would have been understood in context as meaning something like "assuming the conclusion," which is a pretty clear description of the philosophical fallacy. Then it got rendered in medieval Latin as petitio principii, which used two words that had changed meaning since Classical Latin and had connotations that confused things. THEN it was rendered in English about 400 years ago as "beg the question" which was a literal translation of petitio principii, except not really the meanings of that phrase that got across Aristotle's meaning well. THEN both the words "beg" and "question" changed their meaning over the past 400 years to exclude the original connotations that caused that translation from Latin.

      To sum up, we're a couple millennia, three languages, and a few major meaning shifts from the original phrase... so it's no wonder the original meaning of the phrase got lost somewhere.

      Bottom line: nobody but philosophers and language pedants actually know the original meaning of that phrase anymore. Heck, you can find citations of the phrase meaning "raise the question" in good writers' prose even back in the mid 1800s!! The meaning of "raise the question" is well-established and completely dominates current usage.

      Thus, it's time to give up the battle. I used to have my "pet peeves" for usage too, but an English teacher once gave me very sound advice: "When saying the 'correct' thing sounds weird enough or is obscure enough that it distracts from your writing/speaking, it's time to just avoid that 'correct' construction -- because language is about communication, and you're no longer communicating effectively."

      Usage expert Brian Garner calls this a "skunked term": a word or phrase whose common meaning is branded by pedants as "wrong" but whose "right" meaning is no longer understood by even educated speakers. The only right thing to do then is choose a different term.

      If you mean petitio principii, then use "assume the conclusion" or "circular logic" or whatever MORE DESCRIPTIVE phrase actually makes your point clear. If you mean "raise the question," then say it. All of these pedantic arguments about what "beg the question" REALLY means are just BS now -- they're just a waste of time arguing about a ship that sailed LONG ago.

    7. Re:"Beg the question" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant. "Begs the question" is not the same as "Begging the question".

    8. Re:"Beg the question" by PRMan · · Score: 1

      "the phrase originally comes from Aristotle, where (in Greek) it would have been understood in context as meaning something like "assuming the conclusion," which is a pretty clear description of the philosophical fallacy"

      This is exactly what everyone thinks it means today. So I'm failing to see the point of your rant.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    9. Re:"Beg the question" by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what everyone thinks it means today. So I'm failing to see the point of your rant.

      Far, far, FAR from "everyone." Only in philosophy journals, and among certain older lawyers.

      If you read the link in my "rant," you'll discover that everyone else in the world (including educated people, editors at the New York Times, etc.) thinks the phrase means something like "raise the question." Do I like the old usage? Sure, I'm a pedant. But I'm also a realist, and if you try using your meaning before a general audience or even an educated audience that isn't mostly logicians, your meaning will likely be lost.

  17. Re: Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now has a pilots license. You don't get one of those without being part of the 1%.

  18. Say that 10 times fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will Google Sue Sue Googe if Sue Googe uses Google's font?

  19. Gasp - linked to a Republican's web site ! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0

    You're going to lose your Librul Media certification.

    (Or was that just to avoid a congressional investigation into your biases?)

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  20. I wonder by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does her husband sometimes come home, grab her and say "I'm feeling lucky"?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I wonder by zoefff · · Score: 2

      well, it doesn't always bring you where you want to be.

    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you stumble upon something you wish you didn't...well...

    3. Re:I wonder by drafalski · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sticking with the dropped Ls, probably "I'm feeling ucky"

    4. Re:I wonder by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Shouldn't it be "I'm feeing ucky"?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  21. Google should sue for punitive damages by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  22. It begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    1. Re:It begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuuuuuck Offfff.

    2. Re: It begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you fuck off, you dudebro prick. This is Slashdot, not fucking TMZ or whatever other cesspit you've crawled out of, and here we get things RIGHT.

  23. Begs the question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not the proper use of that phrase is it?

  24. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This wasted two minutes of my life and I want them back.

    1. Re:Seriously? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      wasted two minutes of my life

      hope she books a cruise on Boaty McBoatface to generate stories that really fuck your clock

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  25. IANAL by Lynal · · Score: 1

    I'm somewhat new to the industry, but my understanding is that there aren't copyright protections for fonts. So that won't work. However there is trademark protections, and the standard there is confusion.

    If consumers think Googe and Google are affiliated then Googe might be in trouble.

  26. Coming headline... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

    Google to sue Sue Googe over Sue Googe's use of Google's font.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Coming headline... by caseih · · Score: 1

      No they couldn't sue her over the use of the font. Fonts are not copyrightable, which means that the shape of the letters is not copyrightable. If someone makes a nice new font and sells it, there's nothing stopping someone from making a font that looks very similar to it.

      The issue I see here is one of trademark (IE the Google wordmark), not font.

  27. Trumps Running Mate? by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    She is a republican.

  28. Begging the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh for fuck's sake, stop misusing the phrase "begging the question" -- you don't have any idea what it means, and you have zero interest in finding out, so please just stop using it, period. Sick of stupid people abusing the language, but worse than that, for being proud of their own ignorance.

  29. Re: Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you survive childhood don't you technically have enough to eat?

  30. follow the pattern by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    and her political opponent is Hak Facebok

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  31. whatthefont says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I put the poster into whatthefont...
    Looks a lot like futura light ( https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/linotype/futura/light/ ) with a stylised final 'e'.

    1. Re:whatthefont says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks a lot like != =

  32. so what? You're snitching on her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the point of this article?

  33. This is news?! by tonyyeb · · Score: 1

    Really?!!

  34. The Verge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely, The Verge will ask her to check her privilege?

  35. Will Google Sue Sue Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *flips table*

  36. Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I was Google I wouldn't sue Sue Googe for using Google font. What if Sue Googe has has better lawyers and sues Google for suing Sue Googe. She could make a counter argument that Googe is not the same as Google and just the coincidence of Googe sounding and looking simalar to Google does not give Google the right to sue Sue Googe just because the font is the same. Does Google even have rights to sue Sue or anyone else for using that font? I think it would look petty on Google's part and they would not like the potential negative media attention that may result from Google suing Sue Googe.

    1. Re:Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol nice

  37. Say her name by iTrawl · · Score: 1

    So, her name isn't pronounced "Goodge" in one syllable, but "Goo-guh", so it sounds like Google without the L. If not, start calling her that and see how fast they switch fonts.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
  38. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She sounds like a typical embittered ex middle class Cuban exile who was annoyed that her family could no longer exploit her fellow countrymen, and now she's using her own talents not to better her country but to go full on "I'm all right Jack".

  39. North Carolina... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon, Sue... Like it isn't already embarrassing living here.

  40. Google Won't Sue Sue Googe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Becasue Sue Googe is a Democrat, and Google loves Democrats. In fact, it was probably their idea.

    1. Re:Google Won't Sue Sue Googe by hey! · · Score: 1

      Actually she's a Republican... Which explains her cavalier attitude towards intellectual property when she's the one doing the infringing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Google Won't Sue Sue Googe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they didn't mention the party, and this is a scandal, which means obviously she must be a Democrat since the media always conceals the party when a Democrat gets in trouble.

  41. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google sues Sue Googe.

  42. @Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Raises the question". "Begs the question" is some badly formed argument.

  43. tl,dr; by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is why she wants to sue Google.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  44. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It begs the question." No, it doesn't.

  45. WORSE than HITLERS! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Hey, at least she wasn't using comic sans.
    Wow, surprised we've gone this long on this thread without that obvious joke font joke.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  46. Barney Google and Snuffy Smith by tepples · · Score: 1

    She is trying to pass as "Sue Google"

    Would Barney Google need to "pass"?

  47. Doesn't matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It begs the question: Will Google sue Sue Googe?

    It really doesn't matter. She's already gotten more free publicity out of this than any legal action will cost her campaign. Take the fact that it made The Verge and then Slashdot, for instance. All free publicity is good publicity to a politician.

  48. Trademark dilution by tepples · · Score: 1

    Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark (or a substantially similar mark) on competing or related goods and services .

    "Infringement" is not the only cause of action for unauthorized use of a trademark. Another is "dilution", which involves use of a famous trademark by another without authorization in a way that diminishes the mark's uniqueness, even in an unrelated field of use. Try selling "Coca-Cola" brand spark plugs, for instance.

  49. They'll sue if she is a republican. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's a Republican, They'll sue. Prolly take a little longer for them to do it if she was a democrat.

  50. Typeface designs can be patented by tepples · · Score: 1

    Prior art is a Patent law concept.

    And in the United States, a type designer secures exclusive rights in his new typeface by applying for a design patent.

  51. Okay, I will see myself out... by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

    So when will Google sue Sue Googe?

  52. Typefaces Cannot be Copyrighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it would have to be a trademark claim. Question - would anyone confuse Sue and Google?

  53. Assumptions by operagost · · Score: 1

    Are we making the assumption that she has no legal team, and didn't ask for permission (which may not be necessary since fonts can't be copyrighted) from Google?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  54. Most confusing headline of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Google Sues Sue Googe"

    Went and looked, if it had been colored like Google, they'd pretty much have to sue, but as it is, I think they could let it slide.

  55. Evi Appe by wasteoid · · Score: 2

    "Don't be Evi" - where her opponent in the election is "Evi Appe" - who is using Apple's font.

  56. Poor choice of colors by daveywest · · Score: 1

    Why the hell is a politician using colors other than red, white, or blue in the US? Plus throw a damn star in there. Those two factors increase your chances of election by something like 11%.

    1. Re:Poor choice of colors by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Why the hell is a politician using colors other than red, white, or blue in the US?

      And where is her Ford F150, Smith & Wesson, and 24 Oz T-Bone Steak? I hardly recognize this country anymore. God bless Payton Mann'n and the U, S of A.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  57. Who is suing who over what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The American legal system is so confusing....

  58. Then Sue Googe Should Sue Google Back :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    subj

  59. I'd show her my election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you get my dlift.

  60. Tootsie rolls by andrewa · · Score: 1

    Tootie Smith, Clackamas County Commissioner in Oregon, is using campaign posters in the style of "Tootsie" rolls - an American candy product.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:Tootsie rolls by dhalsim2 · · Score: 1

      It has a strong resemblance, but it's not identical.

    2. Re:Tootsie rolls by andrewa · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that clarification - put the pitchforks down boys...

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  61. Pedant alert: it probably should be Typeface by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    A typeface is a design. a font is a typeface at a specific size.

    Think back to movable type. You talk to your designer, "i want this headline in Palatino" or whatever. You get it in your head. Then you get to brass tacks, and have to go to a drawer, and pull out type at a specific size. That's a font.

    With TrueType and Postscript and Digital Presses, it's kind of all blended and become cloudy. But I'd wish there was a bit more specificness from actual News Outlets. Oh well.

    1. Re:Pedant alert: it probably should be Typeface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A typeface is a design. a font is a typeface at a specific size.

      Well, partly. The typeface is the design, and the font is a specific manifestation of that design. Kind of like "Avenir" is a class, and the .ttf file on my hard drive containing "Avenir bold 12" is an object of that class. :)

  62. Will Google Sue Sue Googe ? by bheading · · Score: 1

    perhaps ?

  63. Wrong question by Alypius · · Score: 1

    The better question is, "Why would she want to associate herself with a company that abandoned 'Don't Be Evil' as a motto?" Her opponent could have a field day with that.

  64. that's not begging the question by paiute · · Score: 1

    tisn't

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  65. Couldn't find by NotFamous · · Score: 1

    I tried to Googe this article, but couldn't find anything. Is it real??

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  66. Next headline: Sue Googe is Sued by Google by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    ...just to be confusing.