Slashdot Log In
Verbing Weirds Google
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Feb 25, 2003 04:43 PM
from the stupid-lawyer-tricks dept.
from the stupid-lawyer-tricks dept.
MoNickels writes "Back in January, the American Dialect Society voted the neologism "to google" as the most useful word of 2002. Now bring on the lawyers! Google's have sent a cease-and-desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of the famous Word Spy site, demanding he remove google as a verb from his lexicon, or else. Frank Abate, an American editor for the Oxford English Dictionary, points out, however, that you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb." Update: 02/26 03:19 GMT by T : MoNickels writes with an update: "Frank Abate is not
an editor of the OED, but he is a former editor of the New Oxford
American Dictionary, both published by Oxford University Press." Thanks for the amendment!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
never work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:never work (Score:5, Informative)
Google's intent here is clearly to protect their trademark -- they don't really have a choice. If they aquiesce and agree that "to google" is a generic word and not a brand reference, you can bet that Inktomi and Overture-those-fraudulent-bastards-it's-a-classif
Cheers
-b
Parent
Re:never work (Score:5, Funny)
Have you seen their recent TV ad, with the guy at the dinner table who turns to the camera, puts on the funniest shit-eating grin you can imagine, and screams "MORE SPAM!!!!" Then a truck carrying Spam(TM) crashes through the wall into the dining room.
Kind of like spam mail crashing into your inbox, interrupting whatever you were currently in the middle of doing... It's a brilliant ad.
Parent
Spam: My Review (Score:5, Funny)
First, Spam comes in a neat can. It's curved and low-to-the-ground. I like that. It's very appealing to purchase something and actually like the way it's packaged. I consider this a successful purchase.
Next, the can opens easily. Again: this is a good thing. The little pull-tab is nice.
Now, I expected lots of Spam juice to come dripping out when I yanked off the top, but I was pleased to see that no Spam juice flew forth.
Even better, the spam actually *filled* the can. It's not like a bag of potato chips. Open the bag and you're lucky to see fifteen chips.
Spam is most definitely "old-school" when it comes to packaging: they have a product, have a nice can, and fill the can with the product. Thumbs up, boys.
There are recipes on the side of the can. Better still, the recipes are fairly easy to make. I opted for the "fried Spam". The recipe indicated that I should scramble some eggs. I did this, toasted some Butternut Texas toast (thick slices of bread, in case you're not sure what 'Texas Toast' is), and then got my tried-and-true non-stick frying pan (lots of teflon for those of us who, like myself, have no idea what 'seasoning a skillet' means and so buy into the non-stick hype.)
Out of the can, Spam is a little on the pinkish side. It definitely needed some "color" (as they say) before it was completely palatable. I'm sure raw Spam would taste no different than cooked Spam, but I wasn't sure about the level of processing Spam underwent, so -- in the interested of safety -- I fried thin slices until they were dark brown and slightly burnt at the edges.
I slid the Spam onto the plate (thanks to teflon), slid the eggs onto the plate, and pulled the two pieces of Texas toast from the toaster. I slathered some *real butter* on the toast, cut it in triangles like they do at all fine restaurants, and went to sit in my favorite chair. I had to leave the food for a moment and go back into the kitchen because I forgot my Red Bull. But when I went back to the plate, the Spam was still warm, the eggs were perfect, and the butter had melted into my toast.
The fried Spam -- pork shoulder and ham -- was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't like Jimmie Dean sausage flavored with maple syrup. And it certainly wasn't like Pigs-in-blankets (pancakes wrapped around sausage) but it was damn good. It was a little bland. But it had texture -- a lot of it -- and felt good when I chewed.
The sweet, medicinal Red Bull sorta cast a pall on the otherwise good meal, but Red Bull at breakfast is a necessity for me, so I didn't have much choice.
Parent
Re:Spam: My Review (Score:5, Funny)
The key is still on my keychain, probably the only thing (besides my imagination and various birthmarks) that I've ever kept for so long.
Parent
You want to know why? (Score:5, Informative)
you want to know why the spam fills the can, and there is no "juice" that falls out when you open it?
because they cook it in the can.
the ingredients go in, they seal it, then they cook it.
mmm mmm good. D:
Parent
Re:never work (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy to Apple does not hold water. No one will mistake an 'apple -- see fruit' for an 'Apple --computer/business'. You have correctly pointed this out.
However, this is not a good analogy because the word 'google' *means* to search for something online. Precisely what the company/trademark is all about!
So if another internet search engine uses the new word 'google' in marketing or in general usage then it is not a trademark infringement because 'google' is now a general word and they would be using it correctly.
Parent
Re:never work (Score:5, Informative)
When Apple first formed as such, they were involved in a trademark dispute with the British recording label Apple (the Beatles label, BTW). They settled because Apple Computer would be in a different business. (For more, search on 'Apple+sosumi'.) Furthermore, it has also been resolved that 'Apple' can not be used as a trademark when selling the actual fruit.
Google does NOT mean to search for something online. Check here [reference.com] or your closest paper dictionary. In the vernacular it has come to mean search in much the same way xerox has come to mean copy documents, kleenex has come to mean tissue, and scotch tape has come to mean transparent tape.
Ergo, if another internet search engine uses the term 'google' it would be as much as fault as a copier company advertising with the word 'xerox'. The fact that 'Word Spy' has noted that it is now in common use to mean search is irrelavent.
Parent
Re:never work (Score:5, Funny)
Be honest. You originally wrote "google for" and then you erased it and wrote "search on," didn't you?
;-)
Parent
Re:Search engines are specific (Score:5, Interesting)
yesterday. I think it's coming to mean much more
than just searching online. More like, searching
every possible location. A comprehensive search.
Parent
Spam vs spam, and Google vs google (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:never work (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, it will probably still be used, like "Xerox" for making copies, but it is not in Google's best interests to encourage it.
Parent
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, IMO (and others already voiced) is incorrect. To google, or googling specifically implies using google.com to search...not just any search engine. I don't know how the definition was listed beforehand, but the current definition includes
which is closer to the truth.
The C&D letter then points out that
which is perfectly reasonable, considering that it was their name and search engine that is being used as part of popular slang.
And then, they even give wordspy.com an easy out:
which seems reasonable to me, once again. Why not honor the search engine that has become a daily part of life for millions of users? It does no harm to the usage or definition of the verb, and is actually more accurate.
All in all, I wouldn't even call this a C&D letter. More like a, "Hey! Show us some respect" letter.
Parent
Re:never work - But it must (Score:5, Funny)
Huh. I always thought Spandex was the brand and Lycra was the fabric...
Turns out that you are right, though. Lycra is the trademark. To confirm that you were correct, I googled for the answer.
Parent
bill watterson (Score:5, Funny)
Lets make Google a pejorative instead. (Score:5, Funny)
I need to take a google.
Seems to work.He's a total google.
What a google.
Re:Lets make Google a pejorative instead. (Score:5, Funny)
I need to take a google.
He's a total google.
What a google.
Well, right now I'm about to stop slashdotting and take a massive lawyer.
Parent
Re:Lets make Google a pejorative instead. (Score:5, Funny)
microsoft. v.
1. To write bad quality code.
"I was too hungover to write quality code, so I microsofted all day instead"
2. to crash without warning
"My car was playing up; it microsofted twice on the way in"
Parent
Who cares about google... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on Timothy, we know what you're thinking
Re:Who cares about google... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
We've seen this before. (Score:5, Funny)
Trademarks and loss of trademarks (Score:5, Insightful)
Many products have lost their trademark through changes in the language. Aspirin used to be a trademark. Everyone else had to sell "headache powder" or something similar. Now, aspirin is a generic term. Something similar is happening now with Kleenex, Post-It Notes, and White Out.
The question you should ask yourself is: Is it right for there to be a website that calls itself "Google: by Microsoft"? Because if Google looses its trademark, there's nothing to stop Microsoft from producing its own google. Just like there is now Bayer aspirin, St. Joseph's children's aspirin, etc.
So if Microsoft's google is ok, then Google is wrong. But if you don't want Microsoft to have the ability to rebrand MSN Search as Microsoft's Google, then Google needs to do this.
Re:Trademarks and loss of trademarks (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently you didn't read the linked article [linguistlist.org] (it's okay - not the first time on Slashdot, and won't be the last).
Verb usage is specifically exempted from US trademark law. So while it is true that Google would have to sue to prevent dilution of its trademark in the case of other "Google sites" or "Google services", when it comes to "googling" (esp. as in the current case, that is, dictionary, word, and usage tracking) they have no legal leg to stand on.
Google on, friends.
-renard
Parent
RTF Cease & Desist.... (Score:5, Insightful)
We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the trademark status of Google.
The story makes this out to be a whole lot worse than it is. It doesn't seem like they're being unreasonable. They're likely not going to go on an all out attack, they just want the trademark status accounted for.
Re:RTF Cease & Desist.... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, the phrase in the definition that Google's lawyers are taking issue with is "such as": "google: v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information." That's what the letter means when it says: "This definition implies that "google" is a verb synonymous with "search.""
The implication is that I would say, "Hey, I googled X" when I had in fact used some other search engine. AFAIK, this is not a common use. In part because of the widespread popularity of Google, the search engine, when people use "google" as a verb, they always mean Google (at least in my experience). If someone starts using "google" as a verb to simply mean "an Internet search engine" then Google will, naturally, show a legal interest. As the letter says: "We want to make sure that when people use "Google," they are referring to the services our company provides and not to Internet searching in general."
If the definition read "google: v. To use the Internet search engine google.com to...", then I doubt McFedries would have received the letter.
Parent
Its not a Cease and Desist! (Score:5, Informative)
This is just a "request" from a lawyer:
"....We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of
"google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the
trademark status of Google."
Lawyers do this all time. You have the option of saying "No".
It is NOT a Cease and Desist letter.
thanks Timothy for more FUD.
Verbs (Score:5, Funny)
"
Bill: Boy, we sure Microsofted that company, eh Steve?
Steve: You bet Bill, good work!
So change the description (Score:5, Insightful)
Googling (Score:5, Insightful)
It reminds me of how "Coke" has become a generic word for soda pop in some parts of the South. If you order a "Coke" in some sourthern establishments, the redneck bartender will ask you "what kind of Coke do y'all want? Orange? Pepsi? Root Beer?"
For a while, Pepsi was selling really cheap to restaurants (to get more customers accoustomed to the taste). If you went into a restaraunt and ordered a "Coke," you would often get Pepsi... until recently. These days, if you order a "Coke" and they only have Pepsi products, your server will have been trained to ask "is Pepsi okay," because Coke occastionally sends reps out to look for restaurants who are substituting Pepsi for Coke orders without telling customers, and suing the asses off anybody they catch doing it.
Trademark laws are not set up to favor the nice guys. The law is pretty much, "be a bastard about your trademarks, or they become part of the language and it will be okay for your competition to use them."
Re:Googling (Score:5, Funny)
For that, they used a Brand-Aid(tm)
*thwack*... Ow! What was that for!?
Parent
used as verb in _Pattern_Recognition_ (Score:5, Informative)
Nicest C-and-D letter I've seen (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems like a perfectly reasonable and polite request. The folks at Google are now on record as trying to protect their trademark, and they were pleasant about it to boot. Note also that they provided a reasonable alternative to deleting the entry altogether. Presumably something along the lines of:
would be sufficient for all involved. This sounds like much to do about nothing.Use as a verb is step towards generic (Score:5, Interesting)
They actually sent a cease and desist because use as a verb is clear signs that a trademark is becoming (or has become) generic. See TMEP 1209.01(c) [uspto.gov]. As such, another party can use that as a defense if Google tries to claim trademark infringement. So I'm not surprised they sent the cease & desist and would have done the same thing.
Anybody recall the Xerox ad of a few years ago... "There are two R's in XEROX(r) "? The whole purpose of that ad was to get people to realize that a) XEROX is a trademark and b) to stop using it as a verb (i.e., "I xeroxed this article for my friend") which causes it to lose its trademark status.
Trademarks, though a form of intellectual property, are more about consumer protection than about restricting people from using certain words.
-A
WTF, dating? ? ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just no. Google has nothing to do with looking for a potention girlfriend or boyfriend or friendly friend. Not even an adequate definition. To google is NOT to use "a" search engine, it is to use Google. I don't call it "googling" unless I use GOOGLE!
What the hell is wrong with these people?!?! Dating . . . any search engine . . . these people have never GOOGLED!
Google doesn't have a choice (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that if Google doesn't actively protect their mark and it becomes a word on it's own, then in effect the word "Google" just describes "Google" because it is a word with it's own meaning, refering to a type of search engine. Then they lose the ability to renew their trademark and prevent others from using it.
So then I would be able to create www.googleit.com or www.gogoogle.com. That wouldn't be very good for their business.
Did anyone _read_ the letter? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't read it, basically they're asking him to either remove it OR mention that "google" is a trademark of Google Technology. Yeesh. All he has to do is add one sentence to the definition, but instead it's "Waaah, I got a cease and desist letter, I don't know what to do, panic, panic, panic". He says he doesn't want to remove it, but he doesn't know what he should do. How about doing what they said, and mentioning the trademark?
Certainly, mentioning the trademark would even improve the definition. When I tell someone, "Go Google for information on this", I mean go to www.google.com. If they come back to me and say "It wasn't on yahoo's search engine", I'll say "That's because you didn't do what I told you to do." Yeesh. It's a trademark, and all they're asking is that you acknowledge it as such. Just do it. You're not giving up any rights of your own.
If you're really concerned about stupid trademark cease-and-desist stuff, there are bigger battles to fight, like the PCI thing, or MS's trademark of the word "windows".
Updated definition - check site (Score:5, Informative)
(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)
So he did what Google asked: noted that it was a trademark. The site's still up. The definition's still valid. Presumably the Google lawyers are happy. I don't feel my civil or lexical rights have been trounced upon.
As has often been said...move along folks, nothin' to see here.
Re:Isn't google a number? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Isn't google a number? (Score:5, Funny)
you're not implying that there are other search engines out there, are you?
Parent
Re:finally (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, it really sucks that it had to happen - I wonder if Google has to actually sue this guy in order to satisfy the defense clause for trademarks... I would hope not.
Parent
Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:5, Informative)
"Google" might be a trademark, but "google" isn't. A good example is "Ford" - the motor company, versus "ford" - a shallow place in a body of water that can be crossed (forded) easily :-)
Parent
Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:5, Informative)
It contained clear directions for the guy how he could resolve the matter:
"We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the trademark status of Google." (emphasize mine).
They sent him the letter, but they gave him free legal advice at how to avoid any problems, and following this advise can't hurt him in any way and does't cost anything.
Parent
Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose I set up Supergoogle, a web search site. Google wants to go to court and get an injunction to stop me from using that name. To do that, they will need to submit an affidavit from an officer of the company that explains, among other things, how Google has tried to protect its trademark. A typical paragraph of that affidavit could be a short explanation of how Google once sent a letter to a person whose web site implied that Google wasn't a trademark. A copy of the letter would be attached to the affidavit as one of many such exhibits.
The primary purpose of sending the letter on this occasion was to prepare for that possibility.
Parent
Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:5, Informative)
Google isn't being unreasonable here. Look up 'kleenex' at dictionary.com and you get (trademark) added to it. Check it out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kleenex [reference.com]
I haven't skimmed the comments yet, but those of you who have your pitchforks raised can lower them.
Parent
Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, it is similar to Xerox being used when photocopy was meant. I'm not sure if "making a xerox" is used so much nowadays thanks to the proliferation of photocopy machines but it certainly was common.
Having said that my old copy of bookshelf has TM next to the term. Same for Xerox.
Parent
Re:finally (Score:5, Informative)
ie:
a "coke" instead of a carbonated beverage
a "thermos" rather than a... err a thermal flask?
a "kleenex" instead of a paper tissue
On the otherhand... according to this [netpreneur.org] the quickest way to lose your copyright is to have your brand perceived as a generic term.
By the way, I found the above article by googli^U^U^U using the search engine Google [google.com]®.
Parent
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what? (Score:5, Informative)
Naturally, the submitter above chose to ignore that and focus on the "please remove" part of the letter.
Parent
Re:Editorial (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The English Language has nouns as well! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, no - the noun is googol.
"Google" comes from a pun on googol and a contraction of "Go ogle".
-T
Parent