Actually, it prevents me from buying an ad for Hoover vacuum cleaners even if I sell them because it restricts such ads to the trademark owner's site, not those with a legitimate right to place ads for the product.
No, it doesn't. The plaintiff in the story told the reporter that it does, but he was overstating the impact of this decision.
Even so, let's take a somewhat broader perspective and just stick to linking issues. In the "real world" the trademark holder in this particular case refers to as a model it is perfectly legitimate to link directory listing/ads for one product to recommendations for similar competeing products. In fact, it's common practice.
Ever use a dead tree Yellow Pages? My own business has been listed in them. I didn't sue the phone company because they placed a competitor's ad next to my listing where anyone specifically looking for me had to see it. I would have thought any attempt to do so on the basis of trademark rights was daft. And still do.
Ever ask a salesman for one product and have him try to direct you to another? It may be annoying, but it isn't a misuse of the trademark of the product you asked for.
There was no attempt to appropriate the mark or dilution of the mark. Just an attempt to compete.
What's more in the case of Google the requested search item is properly returned and the ads, clearly marked as such and off to the side, may be freely ignored by the searcher.
You are drawing an analogy between two different things.
In the yellow pages I don't look up Ford, I look up "Automobiles." I may see various listings for different companies. The problem with this case is not that ads were placed next to each other, but that ads for one company were listed under the other company's name.
For example, if I looked up "Ford" in the business whitepages and I saw your "Ford" business that turned out to be a Chevy dealership that WOULD in fact be a trademark problem.
Google can live with this; they just need to require AdWords purchasers to certify that they're not infringing a trademark.
I disagree. I think its going to very expensive to have Google making a decision about trademark infringement everytime someone buys an ad, and the results are not going to be fair. Individual cases on infringement should be decided by the courts, and not Google. This company should have sued the people who purchased the ads, and not the search engine.
The result of the decision would be that any time the term "Bourse des Vols" was typed in, only ads for that specific site could be posted with the search results, Dariot said.". That sounds alot like a cross-industry effect to me.
Mr. Dariot is grossly overstating the impact of his win.
I think the biggest problem with this decision is that it leaves Google in the position of having to sort out what is an infringing ad and what is not. If I buy an ad on the "Ford" search results Google will be forced to figure out whether its an ad for a biography on Gerald Ford (legal) or and ad for a Chevrolet dealership (not legal).
This is a very expensive problem for them, and it puts them in the roll of trademark police. We shouldn't deputize private companies like that for the obvious reason that they will enforce the laws to their advantage rather then in the way we think is fair.
While I am sympathetic to the idea that these ads might not be legal, I don't think Google should be responsible for them. The company in question should have filed individual infringement suits against the companies that purchased the ads, charging each of them with trademark infringement individually.
A trademark is an exclusive right to use a name, phrase or logo with regards to a specific market. It is not entirely impossible for two different companies to have the same trademark?
The answer is ANY trademark owner. For example, companies selling Ford automobiles, companies selling biographies of Gerald Ford, and companies such as "Ford Brand Baked Beans" would be able to buy ads on Google's "Ford" search results. However, any company that competes with a company with a trademark on "Ford" would not be allowed to place an ad on said search results. For example, companies selling Chevrolets, or "Big Jimmy's Baked Beans."
As for the Nissan case, domain names are more difficult to handle because only one company can get them. There is a belief in the legal system that a company (say Pepsi) can get so well known that it really isn't possible for someone to run a non-competing business in another market without confusing customers. You can't make Pepsi brand computers because people will assume that you are the same company that makes the cola, and their opinion of your computers might reflect poorly on their opinion of Pepsi's cola products. The details of the Nissan case are complex. Some details from the perspective of the defendant are here:
Trademarks? WHAT trademarks? This is ludicrous. If someone types in Ford, how is Google supposed to know if they're searching for Ford Motors, Gerald Ford, or informating on fording rivers? If I type in Windows, do they have to screen all ads not by Microsoft - even those for window cleaners?
Trademark law only applies in a competitive context. For example, under this decision you couldn't buy an advertisement on Google's "Ford" results page to advertise a Chevrolet dealership. However, you could advertise your biography of Gerald Ford. The use of the word "Ford" in the context of your biography of Gerald Ford has no competitive impact for Ford Motor Company, and therefore there is no trademark concern. Your businesses is in a different market/industry.
Trademark laws have problems, but they're not "crazy."
The government isn't banning the website. They are banning material support for the organization that runs the website. IE you can't donate funds to the organization. This is because they use the funds you donate to murder people. It is probably useful to have information about these sites available to the public, so that you don't get duped into thinking that your donation supports a charity. Let us not forget that Al'Q was often funded unknowingly by American muslims who thought they were feeding poor children.
This isn't quite the same as banning speech. Certainly it can get a little grey, and it could be abused, but its not obviously wrong in and of itself. Are you allowed to run a website which advocates the ideas of one of these terrorist groups? Yes. If you are actually involved in the operations of said terrorist groups are we going to let your free speech rights get in the way of preventing us from arresting you or shutting down your operations? Hell no! There is a difference.
Confused about the US opposing an anti-palestinian group?
Reading Z Magazine will rot your brain just as fast as watching Fox news. Yes the US supports Israel. When this is said, what it means is that the US supports Israel's right to exist. This does not mean that the US agrees with everything that anyone in Israel does, or even everything the Israeli government does. The left argues otherwise because oversimplification of the issue makes it easy for you to jump to the conclusions they advocate. The US has also expressed support for a Palestinian state. The difficulty with this the Israeli/Palestinian issue is not just inbred generations of mutual hate, but also that its proven almost impossible to balance the interests of the two parties. No one has figured out how to give the Palestinians what they want/need without creating a situation that threatens Israel's long term existence. In short, things are always much more complex then you think. I'm over simplifying too.
Well, its a little late and I'm a little new for this post to be seen by many people, but I'll bite anyway.
1. Most of the people on this board seem to be arguing about OSX. Cringely said Macs have ALWAYS been cheaper to support. Like OS7... We're talking about an operating system with almost no process control which requires third party software in order to login remotely.
Cringely, you've never had to manage a large IT operation and you don't know what you are talking about. Its not about how easy it is to use when things are working. Its about how much power you have to investigate things when they aren't working. GUIs do not make this easy. Being able to completely control the system and troubleshoot a problem at 3AM over dialup makes this easy. You can't do that with OS7. You can hardly get a handle on what the machine is doing even if you are local. And this is just the start.
The fact is that there were many corporations that used Apples in the early 90's, and Apple lost most of them, because for various reasons their software (often the networking parts there of) simply was not good enough. To state that Apples have been better all along is to ignore 10 years of practical experience people had really trying to do this.
2. Yep, OSX is a real operating system. You can use it for real problems and you can fix it when it breaks. I own a new mac and I love it. But, lets put this in perspective...
Most companies have a Windows environment. This is because Apple lost what corporate business it did have in the 90's. If they want back in they have ease back in. OSX can't print to windows print servers. It sort of can talk to Windows file servers, but this tends to crash Macs as often as it works properly. Accessing visio diagrams is a pain. They JUST RECENTLY got a reasonable web browser together. They are close, but they are not there yet. It is still not reasonable to drop a MAC into a windows company.
The only other way to do it is to start from scratch. Build everything out of Macs. Maybe drop a couple of linux boxes in for places where Apple doesn't sell server hardware that is low end enough, or high end enough, as the case may be...
Planning on convincing your CEO to run his whole operation on Apples? This is, at this point, a very risky proposition. Good luck.
Are they really going to get this right over the long term? Old habits with respect to networking die hard. The video stuff in ichat works about as well in a firewalled network environment as their brilliant first rendition of networked Quicktime. (I'm being sarcastic.)
They've got a good thing started here, but they are really going to have to demonstrate that they can continue to produce systems that network well and work well over the long term. Interoperatbility is where that starts. They have got to clean up their windows support. They've got to let people ease into their platform and see how they like it.
The idea that this is all some silly conspiracy of the IT cabal is the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
If we're going to boycott music industry organizations that use these tactics, why not also boycott computer industry companies.
Do you REALLY want to give money to an organization that would have your internet access shut down because you have a file on an FTP site which contains the letters "pac" and "man" in the file name?
If you don't want to see these kinds of aggressive tactics you have to show those who engage in them that its not in their best interest to do so.
Members of the ESA:
Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.
Activision, Inc.
Atari
Buena Vista Games
Capcom USA, Inc.
Crave Entertainment
Eidos Interactive
Electronic Arts
id Software
Konami of America, Inc.
LucasArts
Microsoft Corporation
Midway Games, Inc.
Namco Hometek, Inc.
Nintendo of America Inc.
NovaLogic, Inc.
SEGA of America, Inc.
Sony Computer Entertainment America
Square Enix USA, Inc.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
THQ, Inc.
Ubi Soft Entertainment
Vivendi Universal Games
Wild Tangent
Not only could you search the Internet, but you could refine your searches just to other people's thoughts, etc.
MemeStreams already does this. When you find weblogs you like on the site you can organize them into circles. You can then do searches on those circles and the site will tell you what links those people agree are the most relevent for your search. MemeStreams also has a reputation system that automatically determines which weblogs you like the most, and you can search on that group as well.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very expensive problem for them, and it puts them in the roll of trademark police. We shouldn't deputize private companies like that for the obvious reason that they will enforce the laws to their advantage rather then in the way we think is fair.
While I am sympathetic to the idea that these ads might not be legal, I don't think Google should be responsible for them. The company in question should have filed individual infringement suits against the companies that purchased the ads, charging each of them with trademark infringement individually.
I hope this gets overturned.
Your post is correct. Nothing about this decision or any other rule prevents you from advertising products that you actually sell.
As for the Nissan case, domain names are more difficult to handle because only one company can get them. There is a belief in the legal system that a company (say Pepsi) can get so well known that it really isn't possible for someone to run a non-competing business in another market without confusing customers. You can't make Pepsi brand computers because people will assume that you are the same company that makes the cola, and their opinion of your computers might reflect poorly on their opinion of Pepsi's cola products. The details of the Nissan case are complex. Some details from the perspective of the defendant are here:
http://www.ncchelp.org/
Trademark laws have problems, but they're not "crazy."
The government isn't banning the website. They are banning material support for the organization that runs the website. IE you can't donate funds to the organization. This is because they use the funds you donate to murder people. It is probably useful to have information about these sites available to the public, so that you don't get duped into thinking that your donation supports a charity. Let us not forget that Al'Q was often funded unknowingly by American muslims who thought they were feeding poor children.
This isn't quite the same as banning speech. Certainly it can get a little grey, and it could be abused, but its not obviously wrong in and of itself. Are you allowed to run a website which advocates the ideas of one of these terrorist groups? Yes. If you are actually involved in the operations of said terrorist groups are we going to let your free speech rights get in the way of preventing us from arresting you or shutting down your operations? Hell no! There is a difference.
Confused about the US opposing an anti-palestinian group?
Reading Z Magazine will rot your brain just as fast as watching Fox news. Yes the US supports Israel. When this is said, what it means is that the US supports Israel's right to exist. This does not mean that the US agrees with everything that anyone in Israel does, or even everything the Israeli government does. The left argues otherwise because oversimplification of the issue makes it easy for you to jump to the conclusions they advocate. The US has also expressed support for a Palestinian state. The difficulty with this the Israeli/Palestinian issue is not just inbred generations of mutual hate, but also that its proven almost impossible to balance the interests of the two parties. No one has figured out how to give the Palestinians what they want/need without creating a situation that threatens Israel's long term existence. In short, things are always much more complex then you think. I'm over simplifying too.
1. Most of the people on this board seem to be arguing about OSX. Cringely said Macs have ALWAYS been cheaper to support. Like OS7... We're talking about an operating system with almost no process control which requires third party software in order to login remotely.
Cringely, you've never had to manage a large IT operation and you don't know what you are talking about. Its not about how easy it is to use when things are working. Its about how much power you have to investigate things when they aren't working. GUIs do not make this easy. Being able to completely control the system and troubleshoot a problem at 3AM over dialup makes this easy. You can't do that with OS7. You can hardly get a handle on what the machine is doing even if you are local. And this is just the start.
The fact is that there were many corporations that used Apples in the early 90's, and Apple lost most of them, because for various reasons their software (often the networking parts there of) simply was not good enough. To state that Apples have been better all along is to ignore 10 years of practical experience people had really trying to do this.
2. Yep, OSX is a real operating system. You can use it for real problems and you can fix it when it breaks. I own a new mac and I love it. But, lets put this in perspective...
Most companies have a Windows environment. This is because Apple lost what corporate business it did have in the 90's. If they want back in they have ease back in. OSX can't print to windows print servers. It sort of can talk to Windows file servers, but this tends to crash Macs as often as it works properly. Accessing visio diagrams is a pain. They JUST RECENTLY got a reasonable web browser together. They are close, but they are not there yet. It is still not reasonable to drop a MAC into a windows company.
The only other way to do it is to start from scratch. Build everything out of Macs. Maybe drop a couple of linux boxes in for places where Apple doesn't sell server hardware that is low end enough, or high end enough, as the case may be...
Planning on convincing your CEO to run his whole operation on Apples? This is, at this point, a very risky proposition. Good luck.
Are they really going to get this right over the long term? Old habits with respect to networking die hard. The video stuff in ichat works about as well in a firewalled network environment as their brilliant first rendition of networked Quicktime. (I'm being sarcastic.)
They've got a good thing started here, but they are really going to have to demonstrate that they can continue to produce systems that network well and work well over the long term. Interoperatbility is where that starts. They have got to clean up their windows support. They've got to let people ease into their platform and see how they like it.
The idea that this is all some silly conspiracy of the IT cabal is the dumbest thing I've heard all week.
Do you REALLY want to give money to an organization that would have your internet access shut down because you have a file on an FTP site which contains the letters "pac" and "man" in the file name?
If you don't want to see these kinds of aggressive tactics you have to show those who engage in them that its not in their best interest to do so.
Members of the ESA:
Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.
Activision, Inc.
Atari
Buena Vista Games
Capcom USA, Inc.
Crave Entertainment
Eidos Interactive
Electronic Arts
id Software
Konami of America, Inc.
LucasArts
Microsoft Corporation
Midway Games, Inc.
Namco Hometek, Inc.
Nintendo of America Inc.
NovaLogic, Inc.
SEGA of America, Inc.
Sony Computer Entertainment America
Square Enix USA, Inc.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
THQ, Inc.
Ubi Soft Entertainment
Vivendi Universal Games
Wild Tangent
MemeStreams already does this. When you find weblogs you like on the site you can organize them into circles. You can then do searches on those circles and the site will tell you what links those people agree are the most relevent for your search. MemeStreams also has a reputation system that automatically determines which weblogs you like the most, and you can search on that group as well.