I think the problem can be exemplified like this:
Look at Tae Bo. Let's say Tae Bo spends $50 million per month on advertising. They've spent a small fortune building their brand and their trademark. Let's say "tae bo" is searched for 100,000 per month.
Now I come along and make an exercise called "The Wookie." I spend $50 a month paying some kid to flyer cars in parking lots. With my advertising efforts, my product is only searched for 50 times a month.
I get the idea, "Hey! I'll cheat and advertise on 'tae bo'" Part of the issue is now I am capitalizing on the good name of another trademark. Now, I can compete in ads and say "Compare The Wookie to Tae Bo." That's perfectly fair. That's what Coke and Pepsi do. Where it gets muddy is on trademark words because Johnny User wouldn't be searching for "tae bo" if it weren't for Tae Bo's millions of advertising dollars.
I think there's the crux of the argument, and I see both sides.
For me personally, I think for a brand to advertise on another company's trademark shows really bad form. I think it actually cheapens their own brand. If your product is good, you should stand on your own merits, but that's my personal opinion on it.
Legally, who knows how it will shape up. Clearly, it's divided even in the legal system, and it's going to take a while before there's a hard conclusion.
Of course they have the *right* to, but Cnet didn't play "dirty."
Google's response seems a bit too much like the White House's policy of punishing reporters who don't tow the line.
Press be warned: say nothing bad about Google or find yourself blacklisted.
Don't get me wrong, I like Google, but I'm very disappointed by their behavior in this. And I think it suggests they might not be such the neutral party they proclaim to be.
Personally, I saw nothing bad about the article. I didn't even think it reflected negatively on Google except that it discussed an issue and gave an example. Unless Google has something to hide, I don't understand why they got so upset as to resort to such a childish response.
To be honest, this article didn't make me distrust Google. Their response, however, makes me a little wary.
The Bible does condemn people to stoning who wear unnatural fabrics.
Personally, I'd like to enforce that little rule on all the polyester-wearing, bible-thumping, holier-than-though bigots as they come out of their churches.
it may be time the *thinking* populace in this country start playing by the same rules the rabid xtian fundamentalists' like to use.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem can be exemplified like this: Look at Tae Bo. Let's say Tae Bo spends $50 million per month on advertising. They've spent a small fortune building their brand and their trademark. Let's say "tae bo" is searched for 100,000 per month. Now I come along and make an exercise called "The Wookie." I spend $50 a month paying some kid to flyer cars in parking lots. With my advertising efforts, my product is only searched for 50 times a month. I get the idea, "Hey! I'll cheat and advertise on 'tae bo'" Part of the issue is now I am capitalizing on the good name of another trademark. Now, I can compete in ads and say "Compare The Wookie to Tae Bo." That's perfectly fair. That's what Coke and Pepsi do. Where it gets muddy is on trademark words because Johnny User wouldn't be searching for "tae bo" if it weren't for Tae Bo's millions of advertising dollars. I think there's the crux of the argument, and I see both sides. For me personally, I think for a brand to advertise on another company's trademark shows really bad form. I think it actually cheapens their own brand. If your product is good, you should stand on your own merits, but that's my personal opinion on it. Legally, who knows how it will shape up. Clearly, it's divided even in the legal system, and it's going to take a while before there's a hard conclusion.
Of course they have the *right* to, but Cnet didn't play "dirty." Google's response seems a bit too much like the White House's policy of punishing reporters who don't tow the line. Press be warned: say nothing bad about Google or find yourself blacklisted. Don't get me wrong, I like Google, but I'm very disappointed by their behavior in this. And I think it suggests they might not be such the neutral party they proclaim to be. Personally, I saw nothing bad about the article. I didn't even think it reflected negatively on Google except that it discussed an issue and gave an example. Unless Google has something to hide, I don't understand why they got so upset as to resort to such a childish response. To be honest, this article didn't make me distrust Google. Their response, however, makes me a little wary.
The Bible does condemn people to stoning who wear unnatural fabrics. Personally, I'd like to enforce that little rule on all the polyester-wearing, bible-thumping, holier-than-though bigots as they come out of their churches. it may be time the *thinking* populace in this country start playing by the same rules the rabid xtian fundamentalists' like to use.