backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by jarman.. on Aug 24 at 2:33 PM

Google to crack down on the misuse of its trademarked name

DailyTech reported last month that Google was concerned over the use of its trademarked name in reference to general internet search. This concern was expressed after the word "google" popped up in the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Now the company intends to crack down on the misuse of its name.

What has Google upset is people who use phrases like "I'm going to google it" or "I just googled his name on the Internet and found what I was looking for." "We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word 'Google' to describe using Google to search the Internet and using the word 'google' to generally describe searching the Internet. It has some serious trademark issues,” said a representative for Google.

An expert in the field of linguistics is sympathetic to Google's concerns in frustrations over the use of its name. Said Julie Coleman from the University of Leicester, "The prestige associated with a trademark is lost if people use it generically, so I do see Google's point. They also do lots more than just search, so maybe they're reluctant for their brand name to be restricted in this way." She goes on to say that despite Google's protests, they likely won't get very far in stopping the spread of "google" in everyday speech, "Normal people are using it in normal conversation and in writing, and they aren't likely to face legal proceedings."

“Resistance is futile.” There is no way possible that Google can stop the spread of words such as “googling” or “googled” in everyday speech. It’s already deeply rooted into our subconscious just like Kleenex or Band-Aid. Google may be able to get dictionaries to properly note the origins of its trademarked name (as the Oxford English Dictionary already does), but who goes to a dictionary to look up the definition of Google? Mostly likely, they’ll just “google it” instead.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Um Yeah
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 10:19:42 AM , Rating: 3
If Google tries this, they'll just get alot of bad press. If Google is so brand-conscious, they should've stopped the word from being entered into the dictionary.
This is like when the RIAA/MPA tried to ban songs around the campfire because the people singing it didn't purchase a license for it.




RE: Um Yeah
By raypav on 8/17/2006 10:26:18 AM , Rating: 3
Google is loosing it's mind. Some companies would pay milions for their name to be associated with product or service of any kind. Think of advantage that Kleenex, Coke, just to name a few have over other companies.


RE: Um Yeah
By dagamer34 on 8/17/06, Rating: 0
RE: Um Yeah
By bunnyfubbles on 8/17/2006 10:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
I don't get it either. This sounds like a stupid blunder by Google to me.

A. it’s in Google's best interest to have people throw their name around as much as they do - who cares if it infringes squat as long as they're saying "googled" and not "yahooed".

B. this makes them appear to be one of those "I'm better than the common man" companies who think they can get done whatever they want even if it is for a silly/stupid reason. Up until now it seemed as if no move Google made could go wrong. Perhaps I'm just failing to see why it’s good for them to be doing this

C. just as the article said, the attempt it futile. People ask for a "coke" throwing the term around just as someone else would "soda" or "cola" - when in literality it means a specific brand, the person using the term just wants a cola flavored beverage...I bet Pepsi hates it every time a waiter or waitress has to ask, "is Pepsi ok?" Is coke complaining? Can they do anything about it? No.


RE: Um Yeah
By The Boston Dangler on 8/17/2006 8:06:49 PM , Rating: 1
A yep
B Guess what? All big companies are better than the common man. What's Google worth? Now, empty your pockets and count it up. Who won, you or Google?
C yep


RE: Um Yeah
By TheLiberalTruth on 8/18/2006 2:28:05 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The Boston Dangler:

B Guess what? All big companies are better than the common man.


I don't think the worth of the company had anything to do with what he was saying. I'm sure hitler was rather wealthy, and unless you were born with the proverbial silver spoon in your mouth, by your argument, he was a better person than you.

Please, someone's net worth has absolutely no bearing on their worth as a human being.


RE: Um Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 10:49:17 AM , Rating: 3
> "Google is loosing it's mind"

All of you miss the most basic point...a point the source article itself fails to point out. If Google can't prevent people from using its trademark generically, then it loses the trademark. Which means any business can use the word "google" however it wishes...even to the point of putting up their own "Google Search Engine".

History is filled with countless examples of such trademark dilution. Words like "aspirin", "zipper", "thermos", "yo-yo", "linoleum" were all trademarks that failed to be protected. "Xerox", "Band-Aid", and "Kleenex" are teetering on the edge also.

Worse, Google is *required* to take protective action, or it loses the trademark by default...regardless of whether or not the term passes into public usage. Legally, a company that fails to protect its trademarks loses them by default.


RE: Um Yeah
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 10:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
Who determine's the length of time before officially announcing a word cannot be trademarked because of commonplace public usage?


RE: Um Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 11:02:14 AM , Rating: 1
There's no set period of time. The process is known as "genericide", and it only occurs legally during a trademark dispute case....which is why a pattern of past protection is so important.

For instance, lets say five years from now, Google sues a company for putting up a search engine called "Googleit.com". In the trial, the company points out that people regularly say "google it" to mean Internet searching, and that Google itself does nothing to stop the practice. Google loses by default.

If they show a pattern of protection, however, the the judge has to rule on just how generic the term has become. Trademarks like "bikini" and "dry ice" obviously lost the battle long ago.


RE: Um Yeah
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 11:07:28 AM , Rating: 2
But there's really no way to stop the spoken word without ruining the brand image.


RE: Um Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/06, Rating: 0
RE: Um Yeah
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 11:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
But when these companies first started their legal proceedings, the media proliferation wasn't as great as it is now. Nowadays a company who's going about protecting its IP is picked up by the media and spun in a bad light, it will ruin the company's image as whole or for that specific product/service.


RE: Um Yeah
By rushfan2006 on 8/17/2006 3:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Worse, Google is *required* to take protective action, or it loses the trademark by default...regardless of whether or not the term passes into public usage. Legally, a company that fails to protect its trademarks loses them by default.


Not saying what your post stated is true or false, but if you think for any lenght of time beyond a millisecond of thought that ANY company can prevent their well known brand from being used in daily speech in casual conversation by the general public....well I'd say you are nucking futs!

;)

In other words...ITS IMPOSSIBLE!


RE: Um Yeah
By MrSmurf on 8/17/2006 9:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Guess what fellas... guess what you are giving Google as you type... OMG


RE: Um Yeah
By clubok on 8/21/2006 12:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
A few years ago, The Wall Street Journal was hit with a related situation. A bunch of elementary school children had put together a newsletter called "The Small Street Journal." Now WSJ was in the unenviable position of choosing between failing to defend their trademark, or suing a bunch of kids, and getting some terrible publicity. They took the bad publicity.

Just goes to show how important it is to companies to protect their trademarks.


RE: Um Yeah
By Le Québécois on 8/17/2006 11:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not quite sure it really give them an edge like you all seems to think so.

Granted it's brand recognition that no money can buy. Something to the point that people don't even know what the original word is anymore. Take Kleenex for exemple. Every little children ask for kleenex, not for Tissu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_tissue

But I sure doesn't mean that their parents a buying the Brand kleenex. Most of them probably just buy the cheapest they can find in their super market.

Coke is another good exemple. How many time I go to a fast food restaurant, ask for a coke and end up with Pepsi without even behing ask it ( I hate pepsi taste so this really piss me off each time ).

So granted, brand recognition is a good thing, but past a certain point IT'S just THAT. Even worst, the orinigal namming dissapear and people end up only knowing the brand name, but I doubt companies behind thoses names ( when it's that far rooted in a culture like kleenex ) really end up getting more sales to that point.

If their to the point people call product by their brand name(kleenex) they probably have reached the maximum market share they will ever get and will probably stay or go down a little from there...but never up.


RE: Um Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 11:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
> "Coke is another good exemple. How many time I go to a fast food restaurant, ask for a coke and end up with Pepsi "

Coke already lost trademark right to the "Cola" portion of their name.


RE: Um Yeah
By Lord 666 on 8/17/2006 9:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
The FDA actually mandates that for any drink to be defined as a "cola," it must contain at least 5% standardized caffeine per serving.

Regular Coke has about 35mg while Diet Coke contains 47mg of caffeine.


RE: Um Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 8/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: Um Yeah
By Lord 666 on 8/18/2006 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 3
The purpose of my post was to illustrate that at one time the FDA required any product to be labeled a "cola" (non trademarked) product to contain a standardized minimum of stimulant. While it is correct FDA GRAS for cola type beverages is .02%, that would equate to 7.1 based on a 355ml can.

I still stand on the caffeine content of cola beverages of Pepsi and Coke;

http://www.pepsi.com/pepsi_brands/ingredient_facts...

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/mail/goodanswer...



RE: Um Yeah
By Lord 666 on 8/18/2006 1:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
For anyone else, the listings by Coke and Pepsi are listed based on 8oz serving sizes. Serving size for a can is 12oz.

(amount of caffeine listed)/8 = per 1oz serving

1oz serving * 12 = caffeine content in one 12oz or 355ml can


RE: Um Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 8/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: Um Yeah
By INeedCache on 8/17/2006 12:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should try saying "I'd like a Coke, not a Pepsi. Do you have Coke?" I personally can't stand Coke, so I ask for a Pepsi and specify that I don't want a Coke. It's that simple. As far as Google, too bad, that's the price of success. Let's be real here, how many people are really "googling" using a different search engine? By far Google has the big market share. This is different than Kleenex and Band-Aid, because there is no price differential, if you have internet access you can use any search engine for free. Besides, I doubt whether there is any doubt when one says "google it" people will not think of Google, unlike Kleenex vs. facial tissue.


RE: Um Yeah
By masteraleph on 8/17/2006 1:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
A better example, then, might be the fact that a significant portion of the country calls sweet-carbonated beverages (Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, whatever) "Coke". In general, "soda" is used in the Northeast and California, "pop" in the Midwest and Northwest, and "coke" in the South (there is some variation, but that's the overall distribution). Now, is the fact that a number of people, primarily in the south, use "coke" indicative of a trademark violation if they are in fact talking about pepsi products?


RE: Um Yeah
By Le Québécois on 8/17/2006 4:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe you should try saying "I'd like a Coke, not a Pepsi. Do you have Coke?"


After a couple of years of trial and error now I ask specifically for Coke...But still, I was just trying to make a point.


RE: Um Yeah
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 9:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Don't restaurants usually only serve one or the other, and so no matter what you ask for you get what they have? I haven't been to many places that serve both. Except perhaps if they have a bar...


RE: Um Yeah
By TomZ on 8/18/2006 12:19:19 AM , Rating: 1
In my experience, almost all restaurants and bars have either Coke products or Pepsi products.


RE: Um Yeah
By jonnyboy88 on 8/17/2006 3:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
Also keep in mind that when you refer to "kleenex" or "band-aid" that they might in fact not be. I think that's what their trying to avoid.


RE: Um Yeah
By 05SilverGT on 8/17/2006 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
"This is like when the RIAA/MPA tried to ban songs around the campfire because the people singing it didn't purchase a license for it."

I love it! The sad thing is this probably could be true. God for sake what would the RIAA do if I starting singing a song stuck in my head I didn't own. lol


RE: Um Yeah
By EarthsDM on 8/17/2006 10:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
It is true. The RIAA sued Girl Scouts of America and WON. Partly because the lyrics were printed out on paper and distributed to campers, but COME ON!
In the same sense that using 'Google' as a word dilutes it, I think calling those at the RIAA 'people' dilutes the word and the concept of humanity in general.
Side note: they also sued Boy Scouts of America.


RE: Um Yeah
By FITCamaro on 8/17/2006 1:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
Now that is just utterly pathetic.


RE: Um Yeah
By stmok on 8/17/2006 10:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
Well, RIAA and MPAA have absolutely no idea what to really do with P2P. So they're trying anything they can. Most often the people they sue are folks that have very little or no knowledge of computers, and are used for parading around as a warning to others. (To scare people)...One other organisation does that, we call them the mafia.

The problem is, NONE of their scare tactics and draconian legal threats are working. In fact, P2P populations have INCREASED. (Looks like the world is giving them "the finger").


However, in Google's case, I think they're just insane. Many small businesses around the world would pay $$$$ to have their brand as recognised as Coke or Pepsi, etc. Why are they so flipped out of this???


RE: Um Yeah
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 10:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
Well maybe the RIAA would be more successful if they left a horse's head at someone's house instead of a subpeona.


RE: Um Yeah
By FNG on 8/17/2006 11:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
To be honest, when I say I am going to "google" something, I mean it. I look it up on Google. I have never heard "hey, google that on Yahoo! for me".

So in the effort of protecting their trademark, go get 'em. But I don't forsee google suing Girl Scouts or anything as that would violate their motto of "Do no evil". Unless pimping delicious, fattening cookies is evil. In which case Google would be justified.


RE: Um Yeah
By snyper256 on 8/17/2006 2:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
EXACTLY. Nobody should be saying "I'mma GOOGLE this!" and not use Google. You can't get more nonsensical than that.


RE: Um Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 4:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
> "EXACTLY. Nobody should be saying "I'mma GOOGLE this!" and not use Google. You can't get more nonsensical than that."

You mean like saying "I'm going to buy a bikini", then buying a non-Bikini brand bathing suit? Or saying "I need new linoleum for my floor" and then buying a non-Linoleum brand vinyl floor covering?

"Google" as a verb is a new term, thus we remember its antecedents. If the company doesn't fight genericization, however, in a couple of decades most people won't remember the original meaning of the word, and will happily "google" for information on any of a hundred different search engines.


RE: Um Yeah
By theslug on 8/17/2006 6:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Those analogies are completely different. No one should be saying "google" as a verb unless they mean the search engine Google. And I don't think people do this anyway. If I wanted something on yahoo for instance, I'll say that I'll "yahoo it".


RE: Um Yeah
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 6:55:58 PM , Rating: 1
> "Those analogies are completely different"

I don't know why you think so. They are all terms which began as brand names and, due to public usage, began to genericize.

when you use the verb "zip", do you even realize the origin of this was once a trademarked term? I doubt one in 100 people do.. And, should Google be unsuccessful in protecting their trademark, in the future no one will know the origin of "google it" either.


RE: Um Yeah
By MrDiSante on 8/17/2006 4:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually... I've heard people say Google it on Wikipedia and something tells me that they didn't go to google.com and type in *searchterm* site:wikipedia.org


RE: Um Yeah
By CSMR on 8/17/2006 6:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's probably a plan to lose this battle and get even more press.


Who Uses "google" like this?
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 11:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's the incorrect usage of the newly defined word, for one thing, since "google," at least for now, means to use the actual website google.com to run a search.

When I say "I'm going to google it" I certainly mean I am going to Google.com to search for whatever "it" is.

It doesn't even make sense to say "I am going to google Charlize Theron" and then go to imdb.com and look up Charlize Theron.




RE: Who Uses "google" like this?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/17/2006 11:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't HAVE to make sense. It's just the way the term is being used. Heck, I remember watching an episode of Law and Order: SVU a few years back and even they were talking about how they had "googled" someone's name.


RE: Who Uses "google" like this?
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 11:10:34 AM , Rating: 2
if that's the case then what Google really needs to do is come up with a catchy word to describe searching on the internet in general, or to refer to using the internet.

I, for one, have no such word to offer.


RE: Who Uses "google" like this?
By TomZ on 8/17/2006 11:29:52 AM , Rating: 1
How about "search"? I'm going to search the Internet for some stuff. Sounds okay to me - better than, I'm going to google for some stuff.


By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 11:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
While you can use the proper term for the action, most people are drones to the mainstream trend set by the stupid teeny-bopper media outlets.


RE: Who Uses "google" like this?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 11:25:13 AM , Rating: 1
Most of the words in the English language don't make sense, at least in their original usage.

Myself, I'm waiting to see what conjugations of the verb "google" eventually form. Maybe:

- I google.
- He gaggles.
- We giggle.



By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 11:37:23 AM , Rating: 2
isn't giggle a word already?


RE: Who Uses "google" like this?
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 11:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
how about goggle or goggles.


beer goggles.


RE: Who Uses "google" like this?
By thecoolnessrune on 8/17/2006 11:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
I think it is the most rediculous thing when I hear people say they are going to go "google some information". Sounds too close to brand allegiance. Google right now is the best search engine available. When it ceases to be, I'll leave it. How rediculous would it be if Yahoo search came up and people were still saying "google it"? People need to use some of their dieing brain matter and actually take time to form a coherent sentence. Searching the internet does not mean your using google. In fact, I happen to use Wikipedia much more then I use google.


RE: Who Uses "google" like this?
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 11:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
oh no, not wikipedia again...

just kidding :)


RE: Who Uses "google" like this?
By plonk420 on 8/17/2006 3:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
oh no, not wikipedia again...


yeah, wikipedia is harder to pull off verb-izing... "i'm going to wiki it" sounds more like you're going to make the article... :P


That's hot!
By therealnickdanger on 8/17/2006 11:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, to even have any sort of press about this issue is stupid. It's just like people that "photoshop" pictures in MS Paint. Once it enters the lexicon, there is nothing you can do.




RE: That's hot!
By Loser on 8/17/2006 12:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, maybe adobe should be concerned too :)


RE: That's hot!
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 12:25:26 PM , Rating: 1
Adobe is. They regularly do just what Google is doing here...send warnings to anyone who publishes the word "photoshop" as a generic verb.


RE: That's hot!
By plowak on 8/17/2006 1:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
Least we forget, google is prior art,in mathematics a google has been for some time 10^100 (since the 50's?)


RE: That's hot!
By plowak on 8/17/2006 1:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
Oops...I answer my own question:
"The googol was invented by the American mathematician Edward Kasner (1878-1955) in 1938. According to the story, Kasner asked his nephew Milton Sirotta, who was then 8 years old, what name he would give to a really large number, and "googol" was Milton's response."
Credit to: "Ask Dr Math" http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57575.htm...


RE: That's hot!
By Gondorff on 8/17/2006 1:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Least we forget, google is prior art,in mathematics a google has been for some time 10^100 (since the 50's?)


Actually, it hasn't. You are thinking of a Googol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol

Although if I remember correctly, I think I read that the creators of Google did mean for it to be Googol, but misspelled it. :-P


RE: That's hot!
By plowak on 8/17/2006 1:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
W E L L! - at least I'm in good company. (((wink)))


Too late!
By Araxen on 8/17/2006 10:19:08 AM , Rating: 4
It's too late. Google is going to fight one of the few wars it can't win.




RE: Too late!
By Spyvie on 8/17/2006 10:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think they have zero chance of controlling how people use language. The internet is relatively new in our culture and we need new words to describe the experience. Googled is easier to say than “internet searched”

Just go with the flow man


RE: Too late!
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/06, Rating: 0
RE: Too late!
By Souka on 8/18/2006 1:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
This is lame as Applie going after other products with "POD" in it....




Stupid BS
By shabodah on 8/17/2006 10:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sick and tired of this crap. It is not the same thing to say something as it is to publish something. If they want to fight about it being "published" on wikipedia, that's fine, but there's no way they should even have a right to press charges against people using it in conversation. Where does this stop? Heck, I'm gonna trademark "the" and then you'll all be screwed....




RE: Stupid BS
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 10:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Im going to trademark "I" so everyone either talks in the third person or like JarJar. "Me-sa no think so"

YAY!!!!!!!!!


RE: Stupid BS
By tchavana on 8/17/2006 11:09:10 AM , Rating: 2
I think that is bogus if you consider that companies like Kleenex, Coke have their name used everyday in our language without referring to the company itself with no harm done. The point is you cannot control the development of slang, this is a cultural phenomenon and cannot be controlled by any organization. Furthermore the company should take pride in being significant enough to make a permanent mark on the english language.


RE: Stupid BS
By ChronoReverse on 8/17/2006 11:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that unlike a COPYRIGHT, a TRADEMARK is lost if you don't protect it.


They have a point
By adholmes on 8/17/2006 10:45:51 AM , Rating: 2
If "google" becomes an everyday word, Google could lose its exclusive rights to do business under that name. Because everyday words (like "the", lol) can't be trademarked. Companies in general, take this type of usage seriously.




RE: They have a point
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 10:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
They may have a point but it'll be easier for them to censor their website than censor people's speech.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/17/2006 10:50:18 AM , Rating: 2
Too popular for their own good!


RE: They have a point
By masher2 (blog) on 8/17/2006 10:54:58 AM , Rating: 2
While correct on your other points, I have to point out that everday words can be trademarked, just not in their everyday usage. For instance, you can trademark the everyday word "Apple", when used to describe a computer or a record company. But you cannot trademark it in relation to a company that sells apples, as its using the word in its dictionary sense.






50/50
By Nik00117 on 8/17/2006 11:41:15 AM , Rating: 2
I partly agree that google does need to be concerned because of protection to trademark. But heh this wont' stop me from saying "Google it" as many have stated say this in your mind

Google it
What site do you think of?
Yahoo?
Google?
Askjeeves
MSN?

I think of google, when I say google it, and implying to google it on the google website.

Google if oyu read this "Do no evil"




RE: 50/50
By epsilonparadox on 8/17/2006 11:45:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think of Webcrawler, Lycos or Altavista


RE: 50/50
By R Nilla on 8/17/2006 12:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think of HotBot.


RE: 50/50
By Vertigo101 on 8/18/2006 12:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
Man, I used to love HotBot back in the mid 90's.


Correction:
By Dfere on 8/17/2006 10:18:35 AM , Rating: 1
"Mostly likely, they’re just “google it” instead."
Either "they will" or "they are going to"




RE: Correction:
By jmunjr on 8/17/2006 9:21:06 PM , Rating: 3
The best chance they have of changing this is to change their name. Perhaps they could be called suck.com.. When someone tells you do to a search on line they'll say, "Suck it!"


RE: Correction:
By mogwai403 on 8/18/06, Rating: 0
RE: Correction:
By jarman on 8/24/2006 2:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The best chance they have of changing this is to change their name. Perhaps they could be called suck.com.. When someone tells you do to a search on line they'll say, "Suck it!"


ROFL. I needed that!


I don't get the problem...
By Vysion on 8/18/2006 1:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

google
One entry found for google.

Main Entry: goo·gle
Pronunciation: 'gü-g&l
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): goo·gled; goo·gling /-g(&-) li[ng]/
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Google, trademark for a search engine
: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web


The trademark is Google with a capital 'G' and the verb is google with a lower case 'g'. And the definition even states:
quote:
to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the World Wide Web


It is just like what someone else wrote above about Apple and apple being different...

I don't see a problem, so why complain about it...?




RE: I don't get the problem...
By imagoner on 8/18/2006 9:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
So, if I used apple at the begining of a sentenance that I would be infriging on tradmarks? Humm guess I need to to make sure word (or i guess Word) does not change this for me automagicaly.


RE: I don't get the problem...
By clubok on 8/21/2006 12:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
If you used "Apple" when referring to computers in general, that would be a trademark problem. "I'm going to type this up on my Apple," when you actually own a Dell, would be an issue.

Of course, this doesn't happen currently, because unlike Kleenex and Xerox, Apple hasn't been successful enough for people even to think of misusing their trademark this way.


heh
By MonkeyPaw on 8/17/2006 10:53:17 AM , Rating: 3
I think I will print this article out and Xerox it.




RE: heh
By theprodigalrebel on 8/17/2006 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 1
I will read it after I finish playing Halo on my playstation.


texas
By grimdeath on 8/17/2006 1:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
Im from texas as well, i will confirm this remark :P but then again texas isnt known for speaking "proper" english anyhow.




RE: texas
By MonkeyPaw on 8/17/2006 2:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, lots of nucular scientists walking to the libary. ;) Of course here in the Midwest, there are some people that say "warsh" instead of "wash." I've actually gotten into arguements with people I know, and they say "'Wash' just doesn't sound right." lol

By the way, what happens when you type "google" into the IE's address bar? I get an MSN search result. lol


Stupid
By Shoal07 on 8/18/2006 10:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
Having your brand as an everyday part of vocabulary must be the best free marketing that a company can get. Where exactly do they think this will cost/lose them money (the pinnacle of proveing trademark/copyright issues).




RE: Stupid
By masher2 (blog) on 8/18/2006 11:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
> "must be the best free marketing that a company can get..."

Except when the trademark becomes so diluted that anyone can put up their own "google" search engine, without fear of infringing upon the trademark.

The issue has been extensively covered in this thread. The action Google is taking is right and proper...and indeed required, if they wish to retain their trademark.


was expecting something else
By 1pwn on 8/19/2006 11:50:02 AM , Rating: 2
along teh lines of, Google retiring its search engine for other ventures. oh well LOL :D




RE: was expecting something else
By Clienthes on 8/24/2006 6:02:04 AM , Rating: 2
All they really have to do to protect their patent is to show a history of defending it, right? So all they have to do is occasionally make a show of complaining when someone miss-uses it, and problem solved. As long as the media doesn't make a big deal of it, neither does Google, and no one gets hurt. Then years down the road, they can still be taking advantage of the free marketing and not have sound-alike-named companies popping up. So just ignore this article and move on, and count on Google to do the bare minimum it has to in order to protect their trademark. They don't want bad press, they want a CYA paper trail.


Infringement
By bvDrAx on 8/17/2006 11:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem is that if Google becomes a common place word/verb then they can't enforce its trademarked status of that word anymore.

At least that is what I remember from my CS Ethics/Legal class a few years ago.




It just rolls of the tounge!
By UsernameX on 8/17/2006 11:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
Man I love saying google. Personally I don't know why they have such an issue because every time I tell someone to, "Google it" or "I was googling the other day", etc, etc, I think of Google. When you tell someone you were googling I'm sure they think of Google directly too.

They should be proud! Not upset.




Who cares?
By judasmachine on 8/17/2006 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Here in Texas every soda pop is referred to as a Coke. No one seems to mind, well except for me who always corrects people cause I want a Dr. Pepper. Maybe I just don't understand the problem...




Now for iPOD
By cenobite9 on 8/17/2006 2:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
Time to figure a generic use of the name iPOD to get under Apple's skin...




GooglePod
By ktlewis02 on 8/17/2006 3:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
Teehee




By Staples on 8/17/2006 4:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
It has taken this long for Google to figure out that "google" has become an accepted verb in the English language? They are about 5 years too late.




define:google
By qrhetoric on 8/17/2006 5:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
For a good laugh!




They don't get it.
By mindless1 on 8/19/2006 1:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
There seems to be a bit of confusion going around that when someone writes "google"it, to search for something, that they are referring to a generic searching process.

I don't. I refer to googling it (and spelling Nazis take note, I don't give a **** if you have a problem with my use of a lower-case G) as actually USING GOOGLE. I don't mean googling it as go to yahoo or somewhere else, if I did then I'd use the more generic "search" term instead, or I'd write yahoo search it, since "yahoo" alone is not so synonymous with searching, IF I was suggesting to use a different search service. Writing "google" is merely a more descriptive adjective than search, when you are referring to their service.

So Google, take a pill and get over being famous. Go ahead and sue if someone else tries to call their search service "google" or any bastardization of the term, but remember that Kleenex has survived for many a year without their product being any better than other cheaper tissues, because of the name recognition. It is a positive thing and you should hope every baby's first "goo-goo" was just an attempt to say "google".




The Ever-expanding Google
By Rollomite on 8/17/2006 3:41:43 PM , Rating: 1
The only way I can make sense of this situation is this. Google is trying to branch out beyond simply being a search engine. I think their fear is that by being locked into a phrase like this, people will ignore or simply dissmiss their efforts as a company outside of the search engine. I feel that they don't want to be limited by this phrase. Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculous that they're complaining in the first place, this is just something that occurred to me as a possibility.




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki