Slashdot Mirror
AOL Sues Over "You've Got Male"
A reader sent us today's stupid
lawsuit. AOL is suing a Denver-area woman to get her to stop using the phrase "You've Got Male" in her book to online dating. *sigh* Put your own pithy comment about stupid lawsuits here.
Yes, AT&T was using the phrase, and AOL sued them. AOL lost, because the phrase was ruled to be a common phrase (I think that was the reason).
If the lawyer for this woman is any good he will reference the AT&T lawsuit, and possibly counter-sue AOL for a frivilous lawsuit
-- Error: Cannot find file REALITY.SYS - Universe halted, please reboot!
Standard "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer here.
Could the book title possibly fall under the protection of parody? I remember when 2 Live Crew took this to the supreme court. I don't know all the details, but since it's not derogetory of AOL, I'd think it has a chance.
"I am not a number! I am a free man!"-- The Prisoner
Unix states "You have mail" or "You have new mail". AOL says "You got mail" if you have new mail. "You got mail" is a catch phrase recognized by millions with AOL. I have used UNIX for the past 4+ years and it took some time to remember that association. I have never used AOL in my life and instantly think of AOL when I here the phrase "You got mail".
2) AOL has never gone after the people who parody them on The Simpsons, etc.
That is called freedon of speech. Simpsons are protected by the first amendment.
3) As usual in these cases (such as WB against their FANS), AOL is trying to sue someone for parody
This is not a case of parody. This is not making fun of AOL. This is using AOL's brand name to be able to obtain easier recognition so more books can be sold. If no disclaimer is by the phrase "You got male", believe it or not, one can believe there is an association with the AOL brand name. AOL is a highly recognized brand name among the general population. (General population, not the techies folks)
To me this "small potatoes" bookwriter is not worth their time.
It is if they are profiting off of a brand name. This is a book about internet dating. AOL is largest ISP in the World. Millions of people chat on AOL and people meet or discover new people using AOL.
Valid points, all, but I would respectfully disagree with you on the "successful business plan" idea. I think both of those companies have achieved their status not through their technology, dumb or not, but through their unbelievable, world-class marketing.
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I believe there's a difference between "making usable" and "dumbing down". Companies like AOL are trying to convince people that computers are like toasters, just plug 'em in and they work! They aren't. There's a learning curve. Back in my desktop support days, AOL was the bane of my existence because of how it would intrusively whack a PC, all in the name of "ease".
And, yeah, we're all dopey, me more than most. But when someone can't properly string together the phrase "America On Line", they've truly EARNED the moniker..........
-F
If I had heard "that guy saying You've Got Mail!" every time I used my computer in the past ten years, I would have long ago removed the sound card. Wait-a-minute! I already did that when I installed USB speakers...
Then again, I've programmed the "Mail Notification" WAV file (which hooks into Outlook Express, of course) to be HAL9000 telling me I have a message. But I know I will get bored with it and change it to something else long before ten years has elapsed.
Check a dictionary. The possessive form of "it" is "its", not "it's". It's weird, but no one ever said English was a sensible language. Correct English is most certainly NOT "obvious".
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Actually, Apple's slogan is perfectly fine. They're not telling you *how* to think, they're telling you *what* to think. As in: "Think Big."
As for AOL, their slogan doesn't break any hard rules, but it is awkward. "You have mail" would have been a lot better. A far superior slogan would have been none at all -- all one needs is a little bell or something. At the very least, they could have used a less anglo-saxon, white-aryian sounding male for the voice-over.
I agree that the phrase is more stupid than the basis of the lawsuit, and I believe that trademarking such a common phrase is *beyond* idiotic -- both for AOL to attempt this and for our legal system to allow it to be done. But I must say one thing...the phrase is NOT grammatically incorrect. Contractions are legal in casual english, and "You've" is an acceptable contraction. "have got" is in the frowned upon but still perfectly legal passive tense, but it is still correct, as there is nothing that says you shouldn't be able to use helping verbs if you really want to do so. The subject-verb agreement is correct. Now, "You got mail" WOULD be grammatically incorrect, but it would also be so funny and therefore singular to the company that I think that they might actually be justified in trademarking that (imagine a soul-drenched Shaft-esque voice pronouncing that as you logged on ; ). You have got mail is fine, however, just boring and as far as I'm concerned, as un-trademarkable as "AOL has got some nerve." -English teacher
Hey, maybe the usual assertion that lawyers are stupid isn't the whole story.
Maybe it's the judges that are stupid for entertaining these silly lawsuits, and the lawyers are clever enough to see that and know a profit when it's dangled in front of them.
That makes lawyers merely amoral and antisocial, rather than stupid.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Out where I live it goes: "Youse'es Gawt Mauil, he-hilk!" It is typically followed by "Whares ma shotgun? Dinner's-a-gettin away!"
Those are my words, you will have to remove your comments.
I usually only read comments scored 2 and higher, and as of this post there are 27 of those. Almost every one refers to this mythical lawsuit. (It's the fault of Hemos for getting the ball rolling)
AOL sent a cease-and-desist letter. That is not a lawsuit. It is the common first round in a any trademark dispute. It basically says, "BOO! We don't like what you are doing and we want you to cut it out." I've recieved dozens of these over my lifetime, and I've sent a few out. It's a formal notification that you have been noticed doing something that irritates someone. It's never gone to court.
Companies seldom start with a lawsuit because they are costly, drawn out, difficult to endure, and most non legal people are scared off by a formal looking letter from a lawyer (just look at how many web sites fold on a cease and desist).
All she has to do is send a polite letter back telling them that she feels she is well within her rights, and that she isn't going to budge or give an inch. End of story.
If they persist, then she offers to clean up the second printing by putting in a disclaimer that the book is not endorsed or affiliated with AOL. Again, End of story.
If they still persist, then she points out why a lawsuit would be costly to them, require them to travel to CO to sue her, be a loss for them (no confusion, parody exemption, reasonable assumption exemption, similarity exemption, etc) or that it would endanger their trademark, or that it would generate bad press etc. Again, this is an end of story point where they come to an agreement
Finally, you can drag it out until a change in management, validity of the trademark, work the politics in the company, etc, and they decide to go away. Again, endgame.
It's also important for everyone to realize that when you are issued a trademark, you must defend or lose ownership. Defend doesn't mean sue, it means you just need to "care". A lot of these actions are merely for "show".
I can asure you that if I decided to print the slashdot.org trademark, or something similar (news for Geeks, stuff that matters) on a shirt tommorow, and then flaunted it in front of Andover legal staff, I would recieve the same letter. It is the way the real world plays.
To purchase it is not like spending money but rather it is an investment in the future in a blow against the empire
Umm the figures are true. Not on a per capita basis, but in absolute numbers, America has 50% of the worlds lawyers
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
AOL's BLOODY ANNOYING "Hello! You've got Mail!" chirp is one of the most annoying things in the world and I thank Tux I don't have to listen to it.
...:)
Now we have a film using the BLOODY ANNOYING phrase and some lady using a modification of said BLOODY ANNOYING phrase.
AOL: Don't be silly she isn't going to hurt you, honest.
Lady: Think up something more original
Film, I believe this was Tom Hanks who has been in some good films so I'll let him off this time
Companies that use common words or phrases for ad campaigns or products shouldn't be allowed to trademark the phrases in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, anyone ought to be able to use the phrase "you've got mail" without fear of being sued.
If you have ever seen the movie "a murder of crows" it tells a lot of interesting facts about lawyers.. My favorite quote from that movie is "If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers."
Back in school we learned that "You have got [whatever]" indeed is the way to express possession. As in "You have got a nice car". Or is it in the context of mail not a case of possesion?
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Are you sure? "You have a nice car" sounds more correct to me. I could be wrong, though. After all, there's 10 good years of beer drinking between me and my last English class. :)
IANAET
sorry, but
'You've got mail' is correct. it means
You have got mail. Doesnt mean you've got any new mail...if they want to have a phrase to say you've got new mail..and not old junk in yer box, then it should be
'You've got new mail'
pretty straightforward.
/me -pedantic "you've got mail"
"you've" is a contraction of "you have", so this statement evaluates to "you have got mail", which is poor english. the correct phrases are:
you've gotten mail (you have recieved mail in the past)
or
you've mail (you have mail)
You'd lose. You'd do better to register it as a trademark, since your phrase is not a created work.
Even then, you'd lose. You can't show that your phrase would cause confusion among consumers in a common marketplace, or that you'd used it prior to AOL's use of the similar phrase "You've got mail."
Not that AOL wouldn't fight you "tooth and nail", which sounds suspiciously similar to...
-jm
You've got {bail, bale, dale, fail, hail, kale, nail, pail, sail, tail, quail, rail, vale, whale, wail, Yale, ale, frail, grail, stale, trail}. Any questions? :)
Exactly. Exactly! This is amazing coming from a company whose only claim to fame is setting up modems around the country and dumbing down technology to a point where even the previous kings in that arena, M$, could never compete. Most people I know who use AOL are so dopey that they can't even say the NAME right, calling it "American On Line". Then they buys a truly innovative company like Netscape and corrode it slowly from within. What's gone wrong with the world? I need sedation.
-F
I have never used AOL in my life and instantly think of AOL when I here the phrase "You got mail"
:-)
Weird, I use AOL all the time, and now when I hear "You got mail" I instantly say "Me too"
Seriously, I only realised the connection between AOL and "You got mail" when I started reading about their silly lawsuits. If anything, the two phrases I associate with AOL are: "Me too" and "I'm calling from AOL, give me your password."
It is obvious you attended a public school in the 'Good Ole' USA.......
Yes! Smear honey on their buttocks genitals, and face then release them in to a chamber of starved, angry bears and africanized honey bees.
--Z.
Zontar The Mindless,
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
If you can trademark "You've got mail", then you might as well be able to trademark the sound of a phone ringing! It's the same thing...
Did you know that the US has like 4% of the world's population but over 50% of the world's lawyers? Everybody wants their chance to roll the dice.
What is it with sue-happy americans?
(Yes, I'm an american and I'm shamed by this garbage)
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
brennanw writes:
.... Fourth District.
Didn't the courts already rule that AOL can't own the phrase "You've got mail"? [snip] then there's no way they can sue someone for using a phrase that is derived from something they don't have the right to enforce as a trademark.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The Judge who issued that ruling, Claude M. Hilton, is in the Eastern District of the Fourth Circuit. At this point, his ruling is only enforceable within that court district. AOL is free to sue anyone in any other district court in the country and hope they get a more favorable judge (in practice, this is rare, as judges tend to respect each other's reasoning -- but it keeps lawyers employed, and if all judges agreed in the first place, there would be no reason for appeals courts to exist).
The Hilton ruling, according to this CNET article, has been appealed to the Fourth District U.S. Court of Appeals. If and when a ruling is issued from them, that legal precedent will then hold throughout the entire
Again, other judges are free to rule in concert with the Hilton precedent, or not if they feel strongly about it. Hilton's ruling is a legal ruling: it is not the law of the land.
Presumably, ideally, AOL will also lose at the Fourth District level, and appeal to the Supreme Court. At that time, an individual Supreme Court justice will consider the appeal and whether to take it up. If he does, good for AOL: they get the entire U.S. Supreme Court to consider their case.
At this point, the earlier paragraphs still hold: other judges are free to respect the Hilton decision, or not. It is not law, only a legal precedent that a judge may consider in making her decision.
After the U.S. Supreme Court considers the case, they will decide whether to affirm the original decision. They may do so without taking arguments, usually indicating that they feel there is no new point of law to be discussed. They generally then simply affirm it without comment.
If they take arguments, they will then (often after months of research and quiet haggling) issue their respective opinions. Generally there is a majority opinion and a minority opinion.
Only at this point will the Hilton ruling become effective across the entire United States.
But wait, there's more! Perhaps AOL's lawyers can creatively argue to another judge that the previous decision was flawed based on a different arcane point of law. Then, the entire process starts again at the Federal District court level.
Whee! Ain't a federal democracy judiciary fun?!
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
To be fair if you have a trademark you legaly
have to defend it every time. Or it stops being a
trademark. So it is atleast part the fault of a
dumb system.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
aol wants to create an image of themselves as being down to earth, folksy, non-technical and non-threatening. So, they used a phrase which sounds like it's slang more than correct. In their minds, they're trying to shake the image of computers being elitest, threatening, etc., and so they chose a phrase that sounds like it's colloquial and not quite correct.
"We believe when people hear that phrase they think of AOL." -Jim Whitney, AOL
;)
Close, Jim. Now when people hear that phrase they will think "AOL sucks". Is that what you want?
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Will this 'trademark infringement' idea hold up in court?
Probably not, as they found out in Virginia. But the Denver judge may be more sympathetic; we'll see.
Besides, isn't 'You've Got Mail' as generic nowadays as 'Kotex' or 'Xerox' or 'Kleenex'?
Careful. None of those trademarks is generic; to this day, they have all been successfully defended by their owners. You may ask, more accurately, "as generic as 'escalator' or aspirin'?" The owners of those trademarks did not have lawyers as good as AOL's, and they lost them. The fact that they lost, means that people like AOL realize they have to aggressively defend their marks.
It's difficult, but not impossible, to claim a trademark on a common word or phrase. In this case, AOL is trying hard, but I think in the long run they are going to lose.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
"When people hear that phrase we believe they think of AOL."
Looks like we better all be careful about using the phrase 'frivolous lawsuit'.
Patrick Barrett
Yebyen@adelphia.net
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
I'm copyrighting you've got ale... I'm suing AOL.
--
RumorsDaily
I seem to recall a court case from business legal studies course, where Johnny Carson sued a port-a-potty company for calling the company "Here's Johnny!" (get it, ha ha) Well the port-a-potty company eventually lost, and had to change their name since the average person would think it's referring to Johnny Carson and think that he's endorsing the port-a-potty company.
I think that should this go to court, that AOL has a chance of winning, on the same grounds. On the other hand, I'm just a computer geek, not a lawyer, so they could think up something totally different and AOL will lose (since they couldn't trademark their IM and "You've got Mail"...)
This should have been moderated as Informative with a 2 at least.
Thanks for the info.
Matyas
What is stupid is the trademark over the phrase "You've got mail". That's such a common phrase---or at least close enough to the grammatically correct version---that it's amazing that AOL can have a trademark on it. Gee, why don't I just trademark "what's up" or "see you later"? Anyone more familiar with trademark law know about any possible restrictions on trademarking common terms?
And oh yeah, how AOL can be so high on itself about protecting a phrase that is so grammatically incorrect is beyond me. We all make mistakes, but a company with AOL's millions should at least be able to have the grammar capacity of a ten year old.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Since the phrase is so common(That's what the laur says anyway).
LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
FRA: STFU GTFO
When I hear "You've got Mail" I think "Sleepless in Seattle", but then again I think all sorts of strange things.
+&x
"You're a freakin' moron"
But hey, that's almost too obvious.
LDAA #$80 BITA 0x40 BNE END
They basically steal because they know the law and cause the price of everything else to go up. They are the single biggest factor in limiting freedom in this (US) country, as well as representing the rich and repressing the poor. (if I can afford someone to bend the law for me and you can't, I win). Oh yeah, most politicians are lawyers, so there ya go.
+&x
But the funny part is the rest of the article.
Her book recommends "seeing a recent picture before dating someone".
Then, note that she wrote the book because her internet date said she was fat!
So, are we getting the *picture* here, boys and girls? Fat woman sends high school pic to some dude, he comes to pick her up, and she barely fits in the back of his 454 dualie club cab!
Oh man, I love this shit.
Isn't there a film called "You've Got Mail" - why aren't AOL suing over that?
(This film is also known in the US as "You Have Mail".)
Maybe she was referring to the film, not AOL's coined phrase...?
1. s/male/mail/
:-)
2. Add a line or two before the signature.
Sorry
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
Didn't AOL get paid for this? I think I recall reading that they either consulted on the film, or provided equipment, or something...weren't they at least named in the credits?
Short answer: if they were in on it (the film), they have no cause to bitch.
They might also take offense at the chick book.
> I have never used AOL in my life and instantly think of AOL when I here the phrase "You got mail".
Interesting, considering the phrase they actually use is "You've got mail"...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
(Trademarked by me, Anonymous Coward, but you can use it freely provided to remove AOL from your computer system. The first time I ever associated "You've got mail" with that ridiculous organization is when I read this slashdot article. That could be because I use a real ISP and not the Always off Line service (AOL) - tradmark that bozos!
>Did you know that the US has like 4% of the
>world's population but over 50% of the world's
>lawyers?
This and similar figures just aren't true. To take one where I've seen the actual figures, it's commonly repeated and believed that there are less lawyers in Japan than the U.S. Maybe in absolute numbers, but not on a per capita bases. Japan has roughly the same proportion being trained as lawyers, but the majority do not become licensed for the courtroom and general practice, but instead work in-house. In the U.S., virtually all of us take bar examinations and receive general licenses, and work for ourselves, prosecuting authorities, or law firms. (But then, I knew one who graduated from Stanford and never took the bar, instead teaching high school math [independently wealthy, though], and two more who became housewives after a few years of practice. And I closed most of my practice and picked up a Ph.D.)
hawk, esq.
Guess what? If you had heard that guy saying "You've Got Mail!" every time you used your computer in the past ten years, AOL would be the first thing you think of when you hear the phrase.
Non-AOL users don't understand this, I think.
Surely 'Americans On Line', which, as an unreconstructed brit, I'd consider fair warning...;)
That case will NEVER stand up in a US court.
If she's useing "You've Got Male", it is classed as a parody of AOL's "You've got Mail" trademark...and thus she is protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has made rulings about this sort of thing...
~Donald / Just RTFM
Is there a way to defend yourself from a (at least frivolous) lawsuit without spending thousands of dollars you can't get back even when you win?
Unlike trademarks, it's very difficult to lose a copyright by abandoning it. You probably have to do nothing about it (not even cease-and-desist nastygrams) for years.
I have to say aol goes WAY too far when it comes to far when it comes to lawsuits. For example if yahoo changed yahoo messenger to yahoo instant messenger would aol sue Yes would it make since No way
> Is there a way to defend yourself from a (at least frivolous) lawsuit without spending thousands of dollars you can't get back even when you win?
If you're really confident that it's frivolous, you ask for it to be summarily thrown out of court. This usually doesn't happen, in which case, hope for a lawyer that does pro bono work or you're screwed. And you still get to miss a lot of work. Welcome to justice, American style.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I have never used AOL in my life and instantly think of AOL when I here the phrase "You got mail".
I've never used AOL in my life and I instantly think of AOL when I hear the phrase "Stupid Lawsuit"
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
Dear Sir,
It has come to my attention that you have issued a "cease and desist" letter to the author/publisher
Madeline Sabol for the use of the phrase "You've Got Mail" in the title.
I thought you should know that there is a much more blatant usage of your phrase that is likely to
cause much more confusion. It is vary likely to confuse users not only on the web but in video stores
as well. After all if I go to Blcokbuster and rent "You've Got Mail" from Warner Brothers I would
expect to see the story of AOL not the sad story of two spoiled yuppies in love.
It would only be fair that you issue a "cease and desist" letter to them as well. You must vigorously
defend your trademark. In fact if you don't, won't that compromise your case against Sabol?
Please let me know if you have asked Warner Brothers to stop using your trademark? Inquiring
minds want to know (tm National Inquirer).
Best regards,
Robert Shaver
rshaverNOSPAM@austin.rr.com
Actually, I have a friend in Hollywood whotold me that the original title of the movie was going to be "Uh oh", after the common ICQ sound effect, except that AOL offered 5.7 million if they would help give them some GOOD press for a change.
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
ewe goat gnu male
(I should put this in my mutt)
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
What's brown and black and looks good on a Lawyer?
A pair of Dobermans
Just for fun, Please don't moderate me down
Anonye else notice that this really should be: you have mail. Or for that matter Apple's : Think Different should be: Think Differently
I don't know what's scarier, the fact that we're gonna have to face the Krull invasion after bothering them with our Mars probes (obviously they're pissed, the stole our latest orbiter) or this. Hmmm... I think I'd rather be an alien slave than use AOL, so hail Krull invaders!!! Hail!!! I better get in my bombshelter.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
Grammatically, this really should be: You have mail. Or for that matter Apple's : Think Different should really be: Think Differently.
This suit is about brand protection.
Just like Apple suing anyone who sells a computer in blue/white translucent computers.
Or if Corel releases binaries of GPLed code. The GPL contract *MUST* be defended.
Otherwise, the contract becomes less enforceable. Just like the 'iMac look' or the phrase 'youve got mail'.
Face it: As the economy changes from physical things like steel formulation, tool design, etc la to electronic information and products are 'the same' (except for the brand on the box), these kinds of lawsuits will continue.
This is just one of the many problems of the electronic world we are forging. And, you, the consumer, are what give the brands power buy buying them and making them WORTH defending. So deal with it.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
That icon on the desktop says it all.
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
I remember that some three years ago a guy from Poland trademarked "on-line" and "online" and tried to sue everyone for using it.
Frankly I don't recall anyone taking him or his case seriously. And I wouldn't take AOL's either.
AOL may have lots of money behind them but certainly not enough to bribe our common sense.
Disclaimer: I work for AOL, but not for AOL Legal. I just help keep the email moving.
The AT&T Suit was over different wordings, 'You Have Mail' (which is what the AOL UI reads, though the voice is different), 'Buddy List', and 'Instant Message'.
This one is regarding 'You've Got Mail (Male)', and has to be decided separately, because of the different wordings involved. Trademark law is the killer here, because it forces AOL to aggressively defend all possible dilutive references in order to retain the trademark's validity.
Scott
Whenever I ask someone for their email address and they tell me it's "username@aol.com" I always repeat it while writing it down (almost muttering under my breath, but in a very serious manner.) "Ok, that's _______ (username) at "I'm an idiot dot com" and then I look up from my pad and say thanks. AOL is for tecno-fools. I was one once. It's department store network access. It belongs with Packard Bell computers. Hell, it should belong to Microsoft... "This is where you will go today."
AOL just plain sucks!
For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know.
I used to be a cab driver and I used the phrase "Where do you want to go Today?" a lot. Way before Microsoft started using it. If AOL can sue so can I.
Cab drivers of the world unite. We could start a class action suit against Microsoft.
Since it's already been ruled that AOL has no right to the phrase "You've got mail," she should counter-sue for frivolous prosecution and demand punative damages of at least 10% of AOL's monthly income.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Hello, you've got male-pattern-baldness!"
I pretty much say this every morning
when looking in the mirror. I'm suprised the
peddlers of hair restorers haven't used
the above slogan.
While the suit is heinous, "You've Got Male" does not in any way constitute parody. However, unless the book is subtitled "How to get laid on the internet", it would be rather hard to believe that this is confusing people. And even that is only plausible because AOL consists largely of lonely divorcees looking for a date and porno spam in your mailbox. But what's really apalling is the attempt to trademark plain (if not good) English.
God Bless You (tm)
Take care! (tm)
Rock On! (tm)
Eat my shorts! (tm)
Obviously, the title of the book is a parody! It is not a parody of AOL per se, but a parody of their retarded little catchphrase. In part or in whole, this is a parody of the "you got mail" not AOL(tm).
/usr/spool/anrkngl" WHATEVER. This also strikes down to the heart of the matter of english words being copyrighted.. cough*windows*cough...
I can see if aol would go after even AT&T for the "you have mail" if they had said "You've got mail" *and* just ripped off the WAV file. That much is obvious. They cannot, contest something that has prior art by saying "we copyrighted that". The prior art in this case is unix saying "you have mail" or "you have new mail" or "you have mail in
To think my company didn't call a product "***** for Windows" because M!cr0s0f7 told us we couldn't.
It's just words.
Lowmag.net
People have been using that phrase for longer than AOL has been in existance. It'd be interesting if they tried to trademark the phrase "AOL Sucks". At that point I guess we wouldn't be able to say that in public without getting sued, either.
I've always believed that languages should adapt themselves to common usage, not the other way around. A language that doesn't change fast becomes a dead language. Latin, anybody? I like the way that many languages today are becoming more tolerant of this, especially French and Japanese. The rate that these two languages import technical and business terms from other languages is very healthy in the long run.
Sure, "You've got mail" is a really dumb catchphrase, but when you hear it you know exactly what it means. Meaning by context is far more important than some arbitrary ironclad description of "proper grammar".
Verdict: Parody.
No trademark infringement.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Funny to see that word. I know this is a bit OT, ;-) One of my faves.
but has anyone ever watched a cartoon called "Blazing Dragons"? It's the brainchild of Terry Jones and some other guy. The dragons go on a
search for the Holy Quail, end up with a kale, and a very holey pail
Dumbing down technology, if measured by your arbiters AOL & Microsoft, appears to be a successful business plan. Dumbing down technology, in and of itself, isn't a bad thing. I mean, not everyone needs to know hold to put together a Beowulf cluster. At some level we're all seen as dopey by someone else.
I think exclusionary or proprietary technology is far more insedious.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
Thankfully AOL is about the /last/ damn thing I think about when I hear the phrase "you've got mail".. Usually what comes to mind is a) I've got bills or b) I've got a letter from my favorite girl or c) something I ordered from Amazon just arrived. That's such a bland and generic "trademark" I want to scream at them for even thinking they could protect it, or register it, or anything else. I think we should go back to public beatings. Take the entire AOL legal department, their CEO, and all of their networking "gurus".. and beat them senseless. Well, no not really.. but I do wish Americans would stop using their horrible service and switch over to a /real/ ISP so we can be rid of these idiots.
~ Kish
The article says that this is SOP when they find someone infringing on their trademark. And that they think that whenever someone hears that phrase, they think of AOL. But I have to wonder -
Yes, when I *hear* 'You've got mail(male)', I think of the silly AOL thingie that pops up to tell you that mail has just arrived in your in-box. However, this is a *book*. It is *obvious* that it is not 'mail', but 'male' (I mean, duh, it's right there in print). Yes, the woman is obviously making a play on a trademarked phrase, but she's *not* using the phrase! And instead of thinking, "Oh, this must be AOL!", people will think, "Wow, that's a cute turn of a phrase! I must have this book!" which is what I would assume is what she intended.
Will this 'trademark infringement' idea hold up in court? If it was a look-and-feel copyright case (like the iMac clone idea which I personally don't think has much of a leg to stand on anyway if it doesn't actually run MacOS), I can see them having a case ("well, it's a homophone, and so it *sounds* the same, even if it's not the same word! Therefore it has the same 'look-and-feel' of our trademarked phrase!"). But in this case? I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like AOL has no sense of humor.
Besides, isn't 'You've Got Mail' as generic nowadays as 'Kotex' or 'Xerox' or 'Kleenex'? I mean, if I bring the snail mail in from the mailbox, I'd like to think I can call through the house, "Honey! You've got mail!' without AOL suing.
Didn't you know that AOL patented the phonemes for "you got mail"? So also out are the phrases "Ewe got male" and "U Gought Mehl." Sorry.
There are probably 100 wacky lawsuits filed a day. Why? Mainly because there are too many lawyers from your local dim-witted law school dying to make SUV payments.
This *MIGHT* have been news if AOL won the suit after losing its "You've got mail" rights. You guys even recognize it as being less than flame/troll bait but post it anyways.
I'm still waiting for the 'I wanna patent my daughter's virginity' lawsuit. Hillbillies of the world don't let me down!
This screams stupidity yet again. Do we remember this?
1) Unix has said "You have mail" for a long time.
2) AOL has never gone after the people who parody them on The Simpsons, etc.
3) As usual in these cases (such as WB against their FANS), AOL is trying to sue someone for parody.
The problem isn't whether this woman meant it to cause harm to AOL or not, but whether AOL has a right to restrict the use of a phrase they don't even own! Since the words "mail" and "male" are completely different, and merely homonyms, this lends me to believe AOL's assertation will be this book serves to "confuse the public" or somesuch. Such confusion would be hard to find:
1) The book will be in the "self help" section.
2) Books about AOL are not.
3) Any 1st grader knows the difference between "mail" and "male"
To me this "small potatoes" bookwriter is not worth their time.
Lowmag.net
I think the only reason this "news" was picked up was that someone thought it was so damn clever to use 'male' instead of 'mail'.... *sigh*
Ok, you have a trademark that more people then common sense should allow, hear on a daily basis. DUH, THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE FUN OF IT, OR CHANGE IT TO MEET WHAT EVER NEEDS THEY HAVE FOR IT TO BE USED FOR PROFIT~!
Wait, they are AOL, they never learn...
The Secret Government Ego Project
If AOL lost the right to keep others from using "You've got mail" for the exact same business purpose that they use it, how can they expect to have the right to keep others from using it for purposes unrelated to their busines?
Also, could "You've got male" be considered parody and under fair use? Would anyone be fooled into thinking it had anything to do with AOL?
IANAL, but AFAIK, you can't countersue for frivolous lawsuits unless they constitute a pattern of harrassment. One suit don't do it. You can challenge the suit as being without merit, but that's for the judge to decide, and to the defendant, every suit is without merit.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
This movie was largely underwritten by AOL. It had the effect of turning a dull, tepid movie into a dull, tepid commercial, a trend that hopefully will die a silent death. If not, look for things like "'Just Do It!' the story of a May-December romance between a lonely marathon runner and an aging power walker.' Complete with Nike swooshes in every scene.
Paradoxically, Creationists do present good evidence against evolution: not their arguments, their existence.
..."You've gotten stale!"
Freedom's pretty tough
Sounds a lot like AOL's legal team saw the same "3rd Rock" rerun that I did. Dick is insanely jealous of an author friend of Jane Curtin's, so he barges into the booksigning. "This man is a fraud! Every word of this book has been published before! Perhaps you've heard of...(thumping a large tome on the desk with a righteous flourish) The Dictionary!"
Paradoxically, Creationists do present good evidence against evolution: not their arguments, their existence.
Not that they should. It's too common of a phrase to own a mark on. That's like patenting "Holy Shit!", and charging royalties everytime it's said in media.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Know what? I don't think AOL has any right to the phrase "You've got mail." Millions of stupid little kids have been saying it around 2:00, when the Mailman comes and drops off his goodies. Since when does AOL get to be the owner of a poorly constructed phrase? .wav file installed with the AOL software and I showed him how to chenge it. I think that every AOL user should do something along those lines, change their AOL to a much more intellectual version. We already have enough public schools contributing to the dumbing down of America, ISPs shouldn't be doing it too.
I still remember my grandfather bitching about it every day. "Every time I hear that, it makes me cringe." Lucky for him, it's just a
"Drugs are like education; the more you hvae, the better off you are." -junk ($me)
As has been pointed out, AOL was in on the You've Got Mail business. Interesting note: At the end of the credits for the movie "American Pie" it says American Pie is a trademark of Don McLean.
(BTW, I have trademarked "Baseball" and "Mother.")
Associated Press 9/24/99
In todays news America Online Inc. announced they will be pressing suit against the United States of America. "The federal government knows that when people hear the word "America", they are really thinking of America's largest Internet Service Provider.", a company spokesman said. "We only ask that they never use "America" when they refer to anything having to do with technology or the internet. The use of "America" is easily confused with our operation and it makes us look bad when they say dumb things."
Negotions broke down yesterday after a 24 hour run. AOL said they will be file an injunction tommorow unless the Justice Department yeilds to their demands. "If Columbus was still alive he would be entitled to the IP, but he's not."
AOL(NYSE) was trading at 111 1/2 up 20 3/32 points in heavy trading following the anouncement.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Sigh, AOL just keeps going and going... Even Jacko got replaced by the Energizer Bunny, and hopefully even that will end up roadkill some day. Around the house, whenever we hear someone spouting some AOL rhetoric like "You've got mail!", or another idiotic user logs into a discussion, the catchphrase of the day becomes: "America On Line! So idiots can use the internet too!" so far, it's yet to be proven wrong... is that a good or bad thing? ----------------------- this wasn't meant to be anonymous, but I'm getting server errors when I try and log in... anyone else?
why dont we all cut our little fingers with free aol cd's and then sue because they dont have warning labels
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.
Thank god I live in a country where people don't even *THINK* to bring stupid cases to court, let alone are actually *ALLOWED* to do so.
Get Rich Quick: The amerikan dream.
Go spill some coffee, aOL.
The American Lawers Association (ALA) is to sue AOL for making such a mockery of lawsuits filed in america. In this unprecedented comment, and ALA spokesperson said "We dont need AOL to demonstrate how far money-grabbing lawyers will go just to get their cut, we are quite capable of doing that ourselves."
Wasn't there a movie a little while ago called 'You've Got Mail'? Now, why is AOL going after this one little person when they can go for the real money and try to kick a major movie production company in the teeth? Hell, they can try going after all kinds of people in that regard... =) Wouldn't mind seeing that... -- - dom
- dom
- gnome
What's up, Mr Jones?
You know, if judges would just stop listening to stupid lawsuits, they'd stop being filed. It's only because they keep getting press, keep getting heard, and keep thinking that the lawsuits make sense, that people, corporations, etc. think they can make such lawsuits and get away with it. Sad thing is, they usually do get away with it. How much damage to AOL is really going to be done by this lady using "You've Got Male"? Most likely, none. They just have to make a point, but lawsuits are really a stupid way to just make a point. The judge should throw the case out without even hearing it, or even punish AOL for making such a lawsuit to discourage these kinds of things in the future.
Yes, there are legitimate times when lawsuits are necessary. This isn't one of them.
Didn't the courts already rule that AOL can't own the phrase "You've got mail"? I seem to recall reading that here in /.
If that's true, then there's no way they can sue someone for using a phrase that is derived from something they don't have the right to enforce as a trademark.
So I think that in return, the lady being sued should countersue for a whopping big sum of money. Seems fair to me.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
That is a really, really stupid line. Somebody should put a stop to it, and I applaud AOL for stepping forward and saying, "We will not let this obnoxiously stupid pun go unchallenged!"
Bravo, Mr. Case.
Actually, if you want to be nit-pickey you could argue that 'Think Different' is correct. If 'diferent' is a modifier of 'to think', than it needs to be the adjective form: 'differently'. However, if you consider different to be a thing, thus a noun and accusative of the verb 'think', than it needs to remain in the adjective form, 'different'.
-----
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Instead of sueing about this and getting bad press, couldnt they just go along with it? As the article stated, most people think of AOL when someone says "You've got mail". Isnt this good press? Its free advertising, sort of like LegOS. AOL wouldnt be thought of badly when someone saw this book. I think AOL needs to look at the fact that it doesnt hurt their reputation; it can only help it.
Didn't they sue AT&T over this and lose?
Do you know what is wrong with this country?
We don't charge people for excessive use of the exclimation mark.
Also, we turn people loose with a keyboard before they know how to write complete sentences.
Dang it, stop SHOUTing.
More than three exclamation points in a sentence is a sure sign of a sick mind.
So I can happily put that on my slasdot ignore list along with other no-news?
Maybe I should file a feature request...
Jon
I would think that most authors would kill for that type of publicity--free media coverage all over the place. If she loses, then she loses some of her royalties and gets the free publicity. If she wins, she keeps her royalties and the publicity. Signed, MEEPT fan