Guys like me that run businesses that want to be honest about things are punished for our truthfullness. Consumers demand to be lied to.
No, consumers actually *want* unlimited access and actually *believe* that's what they're getting. They don't want to worry about how much they download a month, if they get an unlimited account, that's it, they don't worry. It removes yet another potential stressful bill from ones life.
You're both right.
First of all, many ISP customers don't know what they want. Advertising is most effective on people when they're in this condition. So, you advertise "unlimited," and customers decide they want, no, *need* unlimited access. They are not in a position to know whether or not it's possible to provide it. They simply want to know what their bill is going to be from month to month.
So advertising unlimited service creates a demand for unlimited service. Folks 'round here know that it's not possible to provide "unlimited" bandwidth, but your typical user wouldn't stop to think about that. Therefore, there is a demand for something that is a lie.
In the end, it's the old problem of flat-rate vs. metered service. People like flat-rate because they know how much it will cost every month. But under a flat-rate system, the light users subsidize the heavy users, and a few extreme users can break the system. Furthermore, when people are not paying for what they are using, they are more inclined to overuse the system. Metered service is much more economically efficient, but not nearly as marketable.
I will agree that, no, they have not stated that they have maximums. However, they are stating very clearly that you are not guaranteed, well, anything, and your are EXPLICITLY not guaranteed any amount of speed or consistent service.
I don't think you really understand what Comcast is telling these people.
It's not that someone is overusing the service, so Comcast is limiting them, and then they're complaining "But, wait, it's unlimited, waaaaa!" It's that they're overusing the service, and Comcast tells them to stop, so they say "Ok, what does that mean?" and no answer. "How much bandwidth am I using?" No way to find out. "How much bandwidth is acceptable?" No one will say. When Comcast says these users are using about 100 times the average bandwidth, the question is "Ok, so what's the average?" and they won't reveal it. The issue is not that people are demanding a particular level of service that Comcast says is unreasonble, the issue is that Comcast has established a reasonable level of service and won't share that information with the folks that are exceeding it. They are not making it *possible* to deliberately stay within the limits... they only want the customers who will do it by accident, which is disingenuous at best.
Also, the folks who are saying "It's not possible to use that much bandwidth unless you're doing X Y and Z that you're not supposed to" are highly unimaginative. My best friend and her husband are having their first child in April, and his family are in England. If they get a digital video camera, how much data do you think they'll be sending across the Atlantic? When you get into high-quality images and full-motion video, you jump into a different ballpark. Just one 8x10 TIFF image at print-resolution is 16 MB. What if you want to send or receive a whole roll of them? You've burned 400 MB right there. People can send MP3s that are perfectly legal... sharing their own music (that they wrote & performed) with friends and family. You combine a couple or three people with these unusual bandwidth-sucking hobbies or habits into one household, and you *can* exceed the limits while in line with the law. Then on top of that, Comcast won't tell you what the limit is, or how much you've exceeded it by. It makes compliance a bit difficult.
And whose fault is that but Google's for altering their own trademark by creating Froogle.
They didn't. They hold two separate trademarks on Google and Froogle.
That "Google" has become a verb also weakens their case. Not that I agree that all trademarks must be adjectives. Remember the jingle when you were "stuck on Band-Aids"? Now you're "stuck on Band-Aid Brand" to better defend that trademark against infringement.
If a particular trademark becomes common parlance, it does restrict how you can defend it, and what you can defend it against. Band-Aid, Kleenex, and so on have this problem... they were a little *too* successful. But you still can't sell a box of self-adhesive bandages and put the term "Band-Aid" on the box.
On the other hand, while "google" has become a verb, I've only ever heard it used to describe searching for something *on google.com*, rather than a general term for using any search engine. Heck, Yahoo! launched a big marketing campaign to try to do this with their name ("Do you... Yahoo!?"), but weren't terribly successful.
Well, first of all, anyone who doensn't react when the "lawyer button" gets pushed may want to spend some time re-examining goals. The U.S. Legal system is very diseased. I've never been sued, and I've never sued anyone, but any casual observer can see that the process is destroying what little faith people place in the system.
Believe me, I agree that the system is heinously flawed and flagrantly abused. As I think it was Voltaire once said, "Poor people have access to the legal system the way Christians in Ancient Rome had access to the lions."
However, that's no excuse for reacting rabidly because a button was pushed. Sure, react with skepticism when a corporation engages in litigation. Have a tendency to want to hear the "little guy's" story. But do not *assume* that you can automatically tell because of the net worth of one side or the other, or because of who is on which side of the vs., that you know abuse is happening. First look at the facts, and be prepared to discuss them.
Second, Booble isn't stepping on Google's trademark. Yes, Booble has a logo that is obviously similar to Google's in a humorous way, and also obviously different - you may notice the prominent breasts.
I would disagree about whether they are stepping on Google's trademark. The fact that the logo is "similar in a humorous way" is not sufficient to qualify it as parody. And, given Google's history of modified logos for special occasions, if they *were* to start up a service like this, it's very likely they *would* do something like turning the o's into breasts.
Yes, th ehumor is poor, but there is no concern that any person would confuse the two sites, nor consider Booble to be watering down Google's trademark.
Again, I totally disagree. Google has started up at least one specialized service in a similar manner. To say that someone could not possibly find Booble confusing seems to require an assumption that no one would "expect" a company like Google to start up a site like this. I don't think that's necessarily a reasonable assumption. Plenty of people think that porn is a healthy outlet for pent-up sexual desire, and don't see any reason why a company shouldn't "sully their hands" with it. On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of people who think porn is inherently evil and wrong, and a site like this will create a bad association in their minds with Google's brand *whether or not* they actually think Google started the site.
So, basically, we completely disagree on whether the Booble logo is trademark infringement, and whether it can harm Google's reputation as a company. This is a rational disagreement to have about an issue like this, and this is why courts exist... to resolve these issues. (The fact that the court system is biased in favor of money is a whole 'nother ball of wax, but for the time being, there's no alternative choice.)
And, to get philosophical -- is it really possible to meet people online? Can you really have "met" somebody... whom you've never met before???!
Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: I've never really formed a "friendship" with someone online except in the context of games. First it was when I used to hang out on the Zone (now the MSN Gaming Zone... I was young, and didn't know Microsoft was evil) and I became friends with someone my age and gender in Finland. We finally met up in Denmark when I was on that side of the world, and had a great time hanging out together. She's come to visit a couple times (including for my wedding) though I have yet to go visit her. But I felt like we "knew" each other to a certain extent before we met up, and we did share a hotel room and stuff.
Since then, I've met lots of folks in MMOGs, and there were three of those at my wedding too;-) one of whom was there from England (though he didn't make the trip across the pond just for that... they all just made the road trip down from the Bay Area).
I just don't get the point of these "friend networks," at all.
I didn't either. A friend invited me to Friendster because he was feeling inadequate having so few contacts. But then poking around, the "interests" link found me a random person who was also interested in transportation. On impulse I sent him a message, and we wrote back and forth a few times. I now have a broader idea of who out there is interested in transit, the sorts of things they do, and a semi-useful contact in Boston if I'm ever looking for interface designers who understand transit (and hey, given that I'm going into transportation planning, it could definitely happen).
It's a bit less anonymous than randomly searching the web, because you know someone who knows someone who knows them. It seems to work nicely.
If they were, then a google search on "booble" would return a Google link to their actions against them, wouldn't it? Instead, the first hit is www.booble.com.
Granted, the text that it pulls is "... immediately. Leave now. Booble.com is not affiliated with any other search engines. If you are looking for Google.com click here." But then again, Booble could put their name somewhere else on the page if they wanted to avoid that, I bet.
Wait, so a parody is okay...unless it's such a clever parody that it makes you money?
No... a clever parody that makes you money *because it is a clever parody* is ok (see: Weird Al Yankovic, Mel Brooks, Mad Magazine). A parody (which, maybe you think it's clever, but I think it's pretty cheesy) that is simply designed to give your otherwise ordinary adult sales site a familiar face is not necessarily a protected form of speech.
Google only gets to sue if Booble attempts to decieve the public into thinking that they ARE Google, or if they somehow damage the public's perceptions and expectations of Google itself.
I see no reasonable case where the public would be confused into thinking they were using Google when they actually used Booble. I see no reasonable way in which Booble damages the reputation of Google. Google therefore has no grounds to sue.
I disagree. They have a very similar logo, the site looks very similar, and the disclaimer at the bottom is in 6-pt type. Sure someone could get it confused. Me, I wouldn't be likely to think it was initially, and would look for an explanation... but your ordinary Joe Internet Luser might very easily think this was another Google spinoff, like Froogle.
And it could very, very easily damage Google's reputation, since it's a CRUMMY SEARCH ENGINE! It isn't any good at searching. If Google were to create a porn search engine, it would be a lot better, and people would expect it to be better.
What's going to happen to these others? Like xgoogle.com (irc search) etc? Hell they may as well go after www.googirl.com.ar too, pathetic.
I've already lost all confidence in Google, they're just another ecompany who's lost their way.
While xgoogle is a search engine, and therefore may be treading on thin ice, neither site you mentioned even tries to look anything like Google, much less ripping off their trademarked logo.
The big red "not" in front of the word Google in xgoogle's logo also is a major indicator that they're not affiliated, so they couldn't be confused with a Google owned and operated search engine.
People keep indicating that this is a legal move for Google - of course it is. Anyone can sue for anything in the U.S. My point is that by excercising that right, Google goes off my radar as an organization I trust and support.
In order to legally retain a trademark, you have to defend it. Unlike copyright, where you can be selective about who you go after, trademark holders can lose their trademark by not taking action against infringers.
Furthermore, if Booble were a legitimate parody, posted just to be funny (and maybe selling Booble merchandise to pay for hosting and pocket change) you might have a point. But as has been noted MANY TIMES, Booble is simply capitalizing on the similarity between their website and Google. They are not providing commentary, or even entertainment... they are providing yet another store to sell adult merchandise, but with a logo that has recognition because of another business's good work. What they are making money off of has nothing to do with the parody.
Maybe, instead of going off the deep end about how Google is now evil because they've engaged in litigation, you could explain why Booble is, and should be, a protected work. Instead, you simply sound like a reactionist, who has a button labeled "Lawyers" that has just been pushed.
I think that the publicity brought by the C&D letter will probably increase Booble's bottom line to the point where they'll be able to fight it in court. A court fight would bring substantial media attention, and Booble's traffic would increase a hundred-fold.
Unless Google just gets the registrar to pull the domain name...
IWTKAL, but I think Booble is on pretty solid ground here. This is clearly, clearly a parody site (in fact, it's pretty bad parody if you ask me) and nowhere near functional.
The search is not functional, and doesn't even come up with a "parody" search. But the buying links are fully functional. The site is an adult toys and DVDs site, with a vaguely funny (but not necessarily constitutionally protected) front page.
As much as I hate porn and as much as I like Google, I value freedom more and hope Google loses. Paradoy DESERVES to make money, it's creative.
Nothing wrong with parody making money. But there's something wrong with ripping off a trademark to make money, and claiming it's a parody when it's not.
Think about it... if I wanted to sell adult videos, and created a production company called Pornomount, with a logo that at first looks like the Paramount mountain-stars logo but turns out to be a woman's bush, and otherwise my business has nothing to do with Paramount, is it a parody or just profiteering? If it's protected parody, why isn't someone doing this already?
Is google afraid that people would mistake booble for the real thing?
They're not afraid that people would go to Booble and think they were at Google.
But they have reason to be afraid that people would go to Booble and think that it was created and owned by Google, with similar search capabilities. And that they'd be pissed off with Google either for offering such a naughty service, or for offering a service that sucks.
I like google, but I'm not sure I'd like it if they win this. Is "Booble" likely to be confused with "Google"? Not likely.
Well, given that Google *does* offer services like Froogle with similar names but different function, someone who doesn't have a lot of business savvy or knowledge about the company could certainly come to the conclusion that the site was affiliated with Google.
It's a lot closer than mikerowesoft.com, that's for sure.
Well you go ahead and do a study, I gaurentee that criminals as a group will be of below average intelligence. The reason is simple: When you are smart and have skills, it's easier to get a well paying job.
Actually, you hit on a key point: when you are smart and have skills. It's the smart but uneducated people you need to worry about, because they become the successful criminals (or the best employees at Kinko's, I also found).
Don't confuse brains and education. With a decent education, most people will be honest and useful. Skip the education, however, and your choices are a lot more limited... but the brains may still be there, waiting for an opportunity to exercise.
Yep, that was my neighbor. A few more searches resulted in two open arrest warrents for her in NJ, time spent in prison, and several other convictions of assult and death threats. So the moral of the story is, if you have suspicions, it doesn't hurt to take 1 minute to run a quick google search.
Was it *actually* your neighbor? Or just someone with the same name?
Careful... remember the libel suits coming down because some of Schwarzenegger's staff suggested some media folks type "Rhonda Miller" into the Los Angeles Superior Court website...
Regardless, please do us all a favor and get a proper book of names, and don't give a child a name that is going to raise hackles for their whole life. There are far better ways to express individuality than naming a poor infant LeDeZeppelin.
Have you taken a look at a baby name book lately? They're full of all kinds of crappy names that will turn a reasonable set of DNA into a watchtower-dwelling rifle toter.
The Social Security Administration's web site has a pretty neat feature... for the last 12 years, they've kept statistics on the 1000 most popular baby names each year, for boys and girls. They've got all kinds of features, such as searching on a particular name for its rankings, top five names in each state, and so on.
When my husband and I were mulling over children's names, for the boy's we started at 40 and read down the whole list to get ideas. For girls, we started at 300. (Though we ended up picking a girl's name from another source.)
Names go through fads. Jennifer was the number one girl's name from about 1969 to 1987. And couldn't I tell, when half the girls I went to school with were Jennifer, Jen, Jenny, Jennie... right now, the fad is kinda weird, but we'll get to a point (in about 60 years) when those will all be "old lady" or "old man" names.
Not the brightest fella, is he? Or did his date also ask for 6 points of ID?
That reminds me of a story...
When my mom was a social worker supervisor, this happened to one of her counselors. A client had gotten pregnant, and was being interviewed:
"What's the father's name?" "John." "Do you know his last name?" "No." "Do you know his address?" "No." "Do you know where he works?" "No." "Do you have a phone number for him?" "No."
As the social worker is closing the file with a sigh, the client asks...
"Don't you want his Social Security Number?" "You HAVE his Social Security Number?" "Yeah... my last caseworker told me, never ever sleep with a guy unless you get his Social Security Number..."
While I may sleep a little better knowing a fugative has been brought to justice, I am also worried about how my own personal information may be widely available to those who would use it maliciously.
But, generally speaking, you can control what gets out on the internet about you.
I just did a search on all three of my names (Yes, on my second husband at the tender age of 30). For my original name, there's exactly ONE hit... not surprising since I used my parents' last names hyphenated together, and one of them was uncommon. (It's actually me... some costume work I did on some show sometime to help a friend that someone posted the program, and it's still out there.) For my first husband's surname, the second hit is my GIS homework. Ooooo. I could take it off the web if I wanted to hide that, and could have used an image for my name if I was real paranoid. For my current name, nothing shows up that's actually me.
If your real name shows up all over the internet, you might just use it a bit too freely... or, you're (in)famous, which might be good or bad.
That's not to say there haven't been some really smart crooks, the smartest of which we likely know nothing of, but 99.99% of them are dumb.
There are other reasons too... there was a study many years ago, now used as an example of the term "spurious correlation" in statistics classes, that found that red-haired people were more likely to be criminals. They discovered this by noting that the prison population was disproportionately red-haired compared to the general population.
Turns out, there aren't so many red-haired people out there, so they're simply more likely to get *caught* committing crimes... although, if you want to nitpick, a red-haired person who decides to commit a crime would be smart to dye their hair first.
They were so concerned about cutting through the bureaucratic red tape they forgot the red tape was there for a reason.
People always forget this. Usually, about the time they start going off about how government should work more like private enterprise, so it can be more "efficient." Trouble is, the government is seen by too many people as a set of deep pockets with disinterested shareholders (yeah, that's you and me, folks). So the tape isn't just there because it's pretty (after all, if that were the case, it would be silver, not red), it's there to keep oversight.
Granted, it could use an overhaul now and then, but it needs to be carefully thought out.
You can run pretty much anything you like at my school if you bring it on a USB Flash Drive.. they even give a nice temporary writable folder on the network drive to play in.. your school doesn't have something similar in the labs?
No, our computers are in locked metal boxes and only have USB ports on the back, making USB flash drives nearly useless.:-/
Slashdot Mirror
You're both right.
First of all, many ISP customers don't know what they want. Advertising is most effective on people when they're in this condition. So, you advertise "unlimited," and customers decide they want, no, *need* unlimited access. They are not in a position to know whether or not it's possible to provide it. They simply want to know what their bill is going to be from month to month.
So advertising unlimited service creates a demand for unlimited service. Folks 'round here know that it's not possible to provide "unlimited" bandwidth, but your typical user wouldn't stop to think about that. Therefore, there is a demand for something that is a lie.
In the end, it's the old problem of flat-rate vs. metered service. People like flat-rate because they know how much it will cost every month. But under a flat-rate system, the light users subsidize the heavy users, and a few extreme users can break the system. Furthermore, when people are not paying for what they are using, they are more inclined to overuse the system. Metered service is much more economically efficient, but not nearly as marketable.
I will agree that, no, they have not stated that they have maximums. However, they are stating very clearly that you are not guaranteed, well, anything, and your are EXPLICITLY not guaranteed any amount of speed or consistent service.
I don't think you really understand what Comcast is telling these people.
It's not that someone is overusing the service, so Comcast is limiting them, and then they're complaining "But, wait, it's unlimited, waaaaa!" It's that they're overusing the service, and Comcast tells them to stop, so they say "Ok, what does that mean?" and no answer. "How much bandwidth am I using?" No way to find out. "How much bandwidth is acceptable?" No one will say. When Comcast says these users are using about 100 times the average bandwidth, the question is "Ok, so what's the average?" and they won't reveal it. The issue is not that people are demanding a particular level of service that Comcast says is unreasonble, the issue is that Comcast has established a reasonable level of service and won't share that information with the folks that are exceeding it. They are not making it *possible* to deliberately stay within the limits... they only want the customers who will do it by accident, which is disingenuous at best.
Also, the folks who are saying "It's not possible to use that much bandwidth unless you're doing X Y and Z that you're not supposed to" are highly unimaginative. My best friend and her husband are having their first child in April, and his family are in England. If they get a digital video camera, how much data do you think they'll be sending across the Atlantic? When you get into high-quality images and full-motion video, you jump into a different ballpark. Just one 8x10 TIFF image at print-resolution is 16 MB. What if you want to send or receive a whole roll of them? You've burned 400 MB right there. People can send MP3s that are perfectly legal... sharing their own music (that they wrote & performed) with friends and family. You combine a couple or three people with these unusual bandwidth-sucking hobbies or habits into one household, and you *can* exceed the limits while in line with the law. Then on top of that, Comcast won't tell you what the limit is, or how much you've exceeded it by. It makes compliance a bit difficult.
And whose fault is that but Google's for altering their own trademark by creating Froogle.
They didn't. They hold two separate trademarks on Google and Froogle.
That "Google" has become a verb also weakens their case. Not that I agree that all trademarks must be adjectives. Remember the jingle when you were "stuck on Band-Aids"? Now you're "stuck on Band-Aid Brand" to better defend that trademark against infringement.
If a particular trademark becomes common parlance, it does restrict how you can defend it, and what you can defend it against. Band-Aid, Kleenex, and so on have this problem... they were a little *too* successful. But you still can't sell a box of self-adhesive bandages and put the term "Band-Aid" on the box.
On the other hand, while "google" has become a verb, I've only ever heard it used to describe searching for something *on google.com*, rather than a general term for using any search engine. Heck, Yahoo! launched a big marketing campaign to try to do this with their name ("Do you... Yahoo!?"), but weren't terribly successful.
Well, first of all, anyone who doensn't react when the "lawyer button" gets pushed may want to spend some time re-examining goals. The U.S. Legal system is very diseased. I've never been sued, and I've never sued anyone, but any casual observer can see that the process is destroying what little faith people place in the system.
Believe me, I agree that the system is heinously flawed and flagrantly abused. As I think it was Voltaire once said, "Poor people have access to the legal system the way Christians in Ancient Rome had access to the lions."
However, that's no excuse for reacting rabidly because a button was pushed. Sure, react with skepticism when a corporation engages in litigation. Have a tendency to want to hear the "little guy's" story. But do not *assume* that you can automatically tell because of the net worth of one side or the other, or because of who is on which side of the vs., that you know abuse is happening. First look at the facts, and be prepared to discuss them.
Second, Booble isn't stepping on Google's trademark. Yes, Booble has a logo that is obviously similar to Google's in a humorous way, and also obviously different - you may notice the prominent breasts.
I would disagree about whether they are stepping on Google's trademark. The fact that the logo is "similar in a humorous way" is not sufficient to qualify it as parody. And, given Google's history of modified logos for special occasions, if they *were* to start up a service like this, it's very likely they *would* do something like turning the o's into breasts.
Yes, th ehumor is poor, but there is no concern that any person would confuse the two sites, nor consider Booble to be watering down Google's trademark.
Again, I totally disagree. Google has started up at least one specialized service in a similar manner. To say that someone could not possibly find Booble confusing seems to require an assumption that no one would "expect" a company like Google to start up a site like this. I don't think that's necessarily a reasonable assumption. Plenty of people think that porn is a healthy outlet for pent-up sexual desire, and don't see any reason why a company shouldn't "sully their hands" with it. On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of people who think porn is inherently evil and wrong, and a site like this will create a bad association in their minds with Google's brand *whether or not* they actually think Google started the site.
So, basically, we completely disagree on whether the Booble logo is trademark infringement, and whether it can harm Google's reputation as a company. This is a rational disagreement to have about an issue like this, and this is why courts exist... to resolve these issues. (The fact that the court system is biased in favor of money is a whole 'nother ball of wax, but for the time being, there's no alternative choice.)
And, to get philosophical -- is it really possible to meet people online? Can you really have "met" somebody ... whom you've never met before???!
;-) one of whom was there from England (though he didn't make the trip across the pond just for that... they all just made the road trip down from the Bay Area).
Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: I've never really formed a "friendship" with someone online except in the context of games. First it was when I used to hang out on the Zone (now the MSN Gaming Zone... I was young, and didn't know Microsoft was evil) and I became friends with someone my age and gender in Finland. We finally met up in Denmark when I was on that side of the world, and had a great time hanging out together. She's come to visit a couple times (including for my wedding) though I have yet to go visit her. But I felt like we "knew" each other to a certain extent before we met up, and we did share a hotel room and stuff.
Since then, I've met lots of folks in MMOGs, and there were three of those at my wedding too
I just don't get the point of these "friend networks," at all.
I didn't either. A friend invited me to Friendster because he was feeling inadequate having so few contacts. But then poking around, the "interests" link found me a random person who was also interested in transportation. On impulse I sent him a message, and we wrote back and forth a few times. I now have a broader idea of who out there is interested in transit, the sorts of things they do, and a semi-useful contact in Boston if I'm ever looking for interface designers who understand transit (and hey, given that I'm going into transportation planning, it could definitely happen).
It's a bit less anonymous than randomly searching the web, because you know someone who knows someone who knows them. It seems to work nicely.
If they were, then a google search on "booble" would return a Google link to their actions against them, wouldn't it? Instead, the first hit is www.booble.com.
Granted, the text that it pulls is "... immediately. Leave now. Booble.com is not affiliated with any other search engines. If you are looking for Google.com click here." But then again, Booble could put their name somewhere else on the page if they wanted to avoid that, I bet.
Wait, so a parody is okay...unless it's such a clever parody that it makes you money?
No... a clever parody that makes you money *because it is a clever parody* is ok (see: Weird Al Yankovic, Mel Brooks, Mad Magazine). A parody (which, maybe you think it's clever, but I think it's pretty cheesy) that is simply designed to give your otherwise ordinary adult sales site a familiar face is not necessarily a protected form of speech.
Google only gets to sue if Booble attempts to decieve the public into thinking that they ARE Google, or if they somehow damage the public's perceptions and expectations of Google itself.
I see no reasonable case where the public would be confused into thinking they were using Google when they actually used Booble. I see no reasonable way in which Booble damages the reputation of Google. Google therefore has no grounds to sue.
I disagree. They have a very similar logo, the site looks very similar, and the disclaimer at the bottom is in 6-pt type. Sure someone could get it confused. Me, I wouldn't be likely to think it was initially, and would look for an explanation... but your ordinary Joe Internet Luser might very easily think this was another Google spinoff, like Froogle.
And it could very, very easily damage Google's reputation, since it's a CRUMMY SEARCH ENGINE! It isn't any good at searching. If Google were to create a porn search engine, it would be a lot better, and people would expect it to be better.
What's going to happen to these others? Like xgoogle.com (irc search) etc? Hell they may as well go after www.googirl.com.ar too, pathetic.
I've already lost all confidence in Google, they're just another ecompany who's lost their way.
While xgoogle is a search engine, and therefore may be treading on thin ice, neither site you mentioned even tries to look anything like Google, much less ripping off their trademarked logo.
The big red "not" in front of the word Google in xgoogle's logo also is a major indicator that they're not affiliated, so they couldn't be confused with a Google owned and operated search engine.
People keep indicating that this is a legal move for Google - of course it is. Anyone can sue for anything in the U.S. My point is that by excercising that right, Google goes off my radar as an organization I trust and support.
In order to legally retain a trademark, you have to defend it. Unlike copyright, where you can be selective about who you go after, trademark holders can lose their trademark by not taking action against infringers.
Furthermore, if Booble were a legitimate parody, posted just to be funny (and maybe selling Booble merchandise to pay for hosting and pocket change) you might have a point. But as has been noted MANY TIMES, Booble is simply capitalizing on the similarity between their website and Google. They are not providing commentary, or even entertainment... they are providing yet another store to sell adult merchandise, but with a logo that has recognition because of another business's good work. What they are making money off of has nothing to do with the parody.
Maybe, instead of going off the deep end about how Google is now evil because they've engaged in litigation, you could explain why Booble is, and should be, a protected work. Instead, you simply sound like a reactionist, who has a button labeled "Lawyers" that has just been pushed.
I think that the publicity brought by the C&D letter will probably increase Booble's bottom line to the point where they'll be able to fight it in court. A court fight would bring substantial media attention, and Booble's traffic would increase a hundred-fold.
Unless Google just gets the registrar to pull the domain name...
IWTKAL, but I think Booble is on pretty solid ground here. This is clearly, clearly a parody site (in fact, it's pretty bad parody if you ask me) and nowhere near functional.
The search is not functional, and doesn't even come up with a "parody" search. But the buying links are fully functional. The site is an adult toys and DVDs site, with a vaguely funny (but not necessarily constitutionally protected) front page.
As much as I hate porn and as much as I like Google, I value freedom more and hope Google loses. Paradoy DESERVES to make money, it's creative.
Nothing wrong with parody making money. But there's something wrong with ripping off a trademark to make money, and claiming it's a parody when it's not.
Think about it... if I wanted to sell adult videos, and created a production company called Pornomount, with a logo that at first looks like the Paramount mountain-stars logo but turns out to be a woman's bush, and otherwise my business has nothing to do with Paramount, is it a parody or just profiteering? If it's protected parody, why isn't someone doing this already?
Is google afraid that people would mistake booble for the real thing?
They're not afraid that people would go to Booble and think they were at Google.
But they have reason to be afraid that people would go to Booble and think that it was created and owned by Google, with similar search capabilities. And that they'd be pissed off with Google either for offering such a naughty service, or for offering a service that sucks.
I like google, but I'm not sure I'd like it if they win this. Is "Booble" likely to be confused with "Google"? Not likely.
Well, given that Google *does* offer services like Froogle with similar names but different function, someone who doesn't have a lot of business savvy or knowledge about the company could certainly come to the conclusion that the site was affiliated with Google.
It's a lot closer than mikerowesoft.com, that's for sure.
Well you go ahead and do a study, I gaurentee that criminals as a group will be of below average intelligence. The reason is simple: When you are smart and have skills, it's easier to get a well paying job.
Actually, you hit on a key point: when you are smart and have skills. It's the smart but uneducated people you need to worry about, because they become the successful criminals (or the best employees at Kinko's, I also found).
Don't confuse brains and education. With a decent education, most people will be honest and useful. Skip the education, however, and your choices are a lot more limited... but the brains may still be there, waiting for an opportunity to exercise.
Yep, that was my neighbor. A few more searches resulted in two open arrest warrents for her in NJ, time spent in prison, and several other convictions of assult and death threats. So the moral of the story is, if you have suspicions, it doesn't hurt to take 1 minute to run a quick google search.
Was it *actually* your neighbor? Or just someone with the same name?
Careful... remember the libel suits coming down because some of Schwarzenegger's staff suggested some media folks type "Rhonda Miller" into the Los Angeles Superior Court website...
Regardless, please do us all a favor and get a proper book of names, and don't give a child a name that is going to raise hackles for their whole life.
There are far better ways to express individuality than naming a poor infant LeDeZeppelin.
Have you taken a look at a baby name book lately? They're full of all kinds of crappy names that will turn a reasonable set of DNA into a watchtower-dwelling rifle toter.
The Social Security Administration's web site has a pretty neat feature... for the last 12 years, they've kept statistics on the 1000 most popular baby names each year, for boys and girls. They've got all kinds of features, such as searching on a particular name for its rankings, top five names in each state, and so on.
When my husband and I were mulling over children's names, for the boy's we started at 40 and read down the whole list to get ideas. For girls, we started at 300. (Though we ended up picking a girl's name from another source.)
Names go through fads. Jennifer was the number one girl's name from about 1969 to 1987. And couldn't I tell, when half the girls I went to school with were Jennifer, Jen, Jenny, Jennie... right now, the fad is kinda weird, but we'll get to a point (in about 60 years) when those will all be "old lady" or "old man" names.
...and finds that I hang out on Slashdot most of the time, and also on techie forums and mailing lists. Poof! There goes all my chances.
That's what you get for hitting on chicks with "Hi! I'm called Xpilot..."
Not the brightest fella, is he? Or did his date also ask for 6 points of ID?
That reminds me of a story...
When my mom was a social worker supervisor, this happened to one of her counselors. A client had gotten pregnant, and was being interviewed:
"What's the father's name?"
"John."
"Do you know his last name?"
"No."
"Do you know his address?"
"No."
"Do you know where he works?"
"No."
"Do you have a phone number for him?"
"No."
As the social worker is closing the file with a sigh, the client asks...
"Don't you want his Social Security Number?"
"You HAVE his Social Security Number?"
"Yeah... my last caseworker told me, never ever sleep with a guy unless you get his Social Security Number..."
While I may sleep a little better knowing a fugative has been brought to justice, I am also worried about how my own personal information may be widely available to those who would use it maliciously.
But, generally speaking, you can control what gets out on the internet about you.
I just did a search on all three of my names (Yes, on my second husband at the tender age of 30). For my original name, there's exactly ONE hit... not surprising since I used my parents' last names hyphenated together, and one of them was uncommon. (It's actually me... some costume work I did on some show sometime to help a friend that someone posted the program, and it's still out there.) For my first husband's surname, the second hit is my GIS homework. Ooooo. I could take it off the web if I wanted to hide that, and could have used an image for my name if I was real paranoid. For my current name, nothing shows up that's actually me.
If your real name shows up all over the internet, you might just use it a bit too freely... or, you're (in)famous, which might be good or bad.
That's not to say there haven't been some really smart crooks, the smartest of which we likely know nothing of, but 99.99% of them are dumb.
There are other reasons too... there was a study many years ago, now used as an example of the term "spurious correlation" in statistics classes, that found that red-haired people were more likely to be criminals. They discovered this by noting that the prison population was disproportionately red-haired compared to the general population.
Turns out, there aren't so many red-haired people out there, so they're simply more likely to get *caught* committing crimes... although, if you want to nitpick, a red-haired person who decides to commit a crime would be smart to dye their hair first.
If your potential date discovers you sell penis enlargement items on the internet for a living, will that help or hurt your chances?
That depends... does she sell breast enlargement items too?
They were so concerned about cutting through the bureaucratic red tape they forgot the red tape was there for a reason.
People always forget this. Usually, about the time they start going off about how government should work more like private enterprise, so it can be more "efficient." Trouble is, the government is seen by too many people as a set of deep pockets with disinterested shareholders (yeah, that's you and me, folks). So the tape isn't just there because it's pretty (after all, if that were the case, it would be silver, not red), it's there to keep oversight.
Granted, it could use an overhaul now and then, but it needs to be carefully thought out.
You can run pretty much anything you like at my school if you bring it on a USB Flash Drive.. they even give a nice temporary writable folder on the network drive to play in.. your school doesn't have something similar in the labs?
:-/
No, our computers are in locked metal boxes and only have USB ports on the back, making USB flash drives nearly useless.