ACS Sues Google Over Use of 'Scholar' 285
headisdead writes "John Batelle is noting that 'The American Chemical Society yesterday filed
a complaint against Google, claiming the new
Google Scholar infringes on its own
product, called SciFinder Scholar.' Fairly typical subscription vs. free dispute, but with intellectual property issues thrown in for good measure."
Language (Score:4, Funny)
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Re:Language (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Language (Score:2)
No, that one was omitted, as you can plainly see.
Re:Language (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Language (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Step 1: Instantly assume any trademark dispute of any kind is completely meritless without looking at the actual issues involved or even reading the article.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
RTFA (Score:2)
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Interesting)
If there was a homework&tutoring service "Private Scholar" or a academia singles service "Lonely Scholar" and ACS went after it, if would be stupid and ACS would lose.
Kellogs successfully prevented Chevron from using a tiger as a convenience store food maskot because the cartoon tiger looked a lot like the one on the box of cornflakes. (If the tiger was used to sell gasoline or motoroil it would be OK).
On the free vs. fee-based controversy: unlike Google, Scifinder Scholar abstracts all chemistry and biology journals and chemical formulas there. With many leading journals producing thousands of pages every month each and hundreds of journals indexed, it costs enormous amount of man-time to keep the database up-to date. Maybe modern search technology can make the database building process cheaper. But there is no good way to index the structural formulas. Someone (with degree in chemistry) has to read the article, understand what it means and enter the chemicals, reactions and keywords one at the time.
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Language (Score:4, Interesting)
- The ACS is going to lose big time in terms of paid subscriptions
- The Google service will allow for "Open Access" and self-publishing of peer-reviewed research, again kicking the ACS in the butt
- The ACS does not own the word "Scholar"
- The ACS is scared shitless
- The ACS, instead of trying to compete on merits, or evolve their product, is pretty much admitting that they're behind the tech curve by doing a slap suit
Hey, maybe its time for someone to come out with a product that lets you do research on science fiction. We'll call it "SciFi Scholar". And let the ACS give us free publicity!!!In fact, I suggest that Google come out with a "Google SciFi Scholar" (unless they want to throw some $$$ my way, in which case I'd be more than happy to help out).
No way is the ACS harmed (Score:5, Insightful)
No way. I'm a chemist, a member of ACS, I've used scifinder scholar, and I've used google scholar. They're not the same thing, they shouldn't be confused, and furthermore google scholar doesn't provide fulltext access to ACS journals. So there is no effect upon subscriptions. Nor is there any real competition - the products don't even really serve the same purpose. If anyone should be scared of google scholar, it's ISI, makers of Web of Science/Knowldedge, the worst search of all time.
The ACS is just being childish, and as a member, I'm embarassed.
Re:Language (Score:2)
Actually its not funny... (Score:2)
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Remember, facts are not copyrightable.
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, it doesn't mean the idea is unique, only that the expression is original. So if I sat down and wrote my own dictionary using my own wordings for the definitions, I could certainly claim copyright on it. That's in fact what dictionary companies do... they basically rewrite definitions to publish new editions that are protected by copyright even if the older editions run out of copyright protection. Same thing happens with translations of old Latin and Greek works
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Speaking of which, we've got competing definitions of "Bling Bling" and "Bling" going on around in my neck of the woods.
Re:Funny? (Score:3, Informative)
What currently exists is the ability of ANY publisher to take the term "Webster's", and combine it with their own name, or another term, and THAT term is a trademark, and enjoys trademark protection.
In other words, you can produce a "Y3K Webster's Dictionary", a "Fuck You Webster's Dictionary", or any other combo that no one else currently enjoys trademark pro
Re:Funny? (Score:2, Insightful)
Trademarks don't expire. Ever. They may become unenforcable.
What currently exists is the ability of ANY publisher to take the term "Webster's", and combine it with their own name, or another term, and THAT term is a trademark, and enjoys trademark protection.
Of course. I said nothing contrary to this.
As to the contents, you'll find that only the unique parts in your "copyrighted" dictionary are covered by
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Which is small consolation if you're stuck in the desert and the small town that you hoped to get food, gas, and water from turns out to be a "watermark" device.
What would be fun would be to set up a town where one of these phantom towns exists, and then claim ownership to it. Write your own land deeds, etc. When people bitch, saying the town doesn't exist and you're just stealing t
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Mapquest shows "Map of Fortine, MT by MapQuest, and a BLANK MAP. Someone STOLE Fortine, Montana.
Clicked on the "Fortine offers" after selecting "lawyers" (want to stay at least semi-on-topic) and end up with the first result being from Ontario, Canada.
So now we know what happened to Fortine, Montana - it became part of the United States of Canada. http://www.enduringvision.com/new_map.jpg [enduringvision.com]
Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...
word definitions are facts, and, as such, no more copyrightable th
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Ok, I'll take your word for that.
However, trademarks and coprights are very different beasts, and just because one has expired , that doesn't mean the other has too.
I bring this up because in your previous post, you seemed to show some confusion between the two by saying this --
Re:Funny? (Score:3, Informative)
As such, the portions of dictionary contents that are not sufficiently unique (contain little or no authorship value) are NOT copyrightable. Changing the font or page size isn't a copyrightable act of authorship.
All current dictionaries have relie
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
But dictionaries are much more than that. Defintions change over the years, for example. If you take two dictionaries by two different people, the definitions of a given word will be expressed differently, and may actually be slightly different.
Defintions of words are *not* merely immutable facts.
A list of the words in a dictionary probably isn't copyrightable. But the dictionary itself (and the definitions inside) certain
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Claiming copyright and actually having a copyrightable right are two different things, as SCO is finding out.
Re:Language (Score:5, Funny)
- Dell Computer vs Gateway Computer
- House of Pancakes vs. House of Carpets (their products sound AND taste the same)
- Tom Cruise vs Tom Hanks
- Tom Hanks vs Tom Arnold
- Shannon Doherty vs Midland Doherty
- Chemical Bank vs the ACS over the use of the word Chemical
- Ford Motor Co vs General Motors
- General Motors vs General Foods
- General Foods vs General Tire
- General Tire vs Goodyear Tire
- Goodyear Tire vs BF Goodrich Tire
- The Goodyear Blimp vs Roseanne Barr
- McDonalds vs anyone singing "Old McDonald Had a Farm"
- Ford suing anyone with an "F" in their stock symbol (Ford's stock symbol is "F")
- SCO suing anyone with a stock symbol with an S, or a C, or an O, or an X (Hence Daimler-Chrysler - DCX)
- ABC suing NBC - 2 letters the same out of 3
- NBC suing CBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
- CBS suing PBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
- SCO suing CBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
Anyone want to add more?Re:Language (Score:3, Funny)
... to anyone who bought a Focus, Ford IS the F-word.
Ford: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn/index.php?name=Forums& file=viewtopic&t=10277 [arrse.co.uk]
Re:Language (Score:2)
Written by Groucho Marx, with references to genetics, lawyers who are idiots, etc ... you'd think he was posting on /.
Favourite quote:
Makes it quite clear that "confusion" is a necessary element, and is funny at the same time.
Re:Language (Score:2)
Curious name clash (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Curious name clash (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, the names are not that similar. Looks like the next trend in marketing: Pimp your product by suing
I'm sure SCO has prior art on that, though.
Re:Curious name clash (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Curious name clash (Score:5, Interesting)
The article says "over 1000 institutions", which is nowhere near the majority of institutions world-wide. Not even a significant amount.
And, as I pointed out, it's not aimed at the same market (subscription to a select group vs non-subscription to the general public).
Nor does it limit itself to the subset that the ACS limits itself to. Again, no "trading on the value of the name,. etc"
SciFinder "might" enjoy some protection, since it's not a generic word. "Scholar" does not. No more than General Motors can keep anyone else from using the word "Motor" in their product name.
The ACS is pimping their service with this lawsuit - hope that Google wins with prejudice.
Re:Curious name clash (Score:3, Insightful)
How widely known a trademark is has absolutely zero bearing on it's enforcability. Google has a legal responsibility to vet the name
Re:Curious name clash (Score:2)
Think about it - if you made a programming language called Rich0's Java, you'd probably get sued. On the other hand, if I made one called Rich0 2 Enterprise Edition it would probably be fine.
Re:Curious name clash (Score:2)
Given the current state of the world, and the need to use resources efficiently, needless duplication (as opposed to replication to verify results are valid) is a waste we cannot afford.
The ACS, by sticking with the old model, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Self-archiving (as proponents of open access want) is someth
Scholar = a common word, an not even the full name (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (Score:3, Informative)
They can't. They already did, and settled. Previous to that suit Coca-Cola made dozens of competing products either change their name or put them out of business.
KFG
Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe that McDonalds have trademarked the phrase "I'm lovin' it" (plus a dozen over translations of the phrase in other languages)... that is just so wrong.
It sounds stupid and trivial, but remember the frame of reference for trademarks. If I start my own fast food restaurant chain and use "I'm lovin' it" as a slogan, I think it is fair for McDonald's to sue me (and win) for trademark infringement. My use of the slogan would easily cause confusion with customers. Maybe they think my restaurant is sanctioned or supported by McDonald's when it is not.
If I started an amusement park and used that slogan, McDonald's would have a tough time getting me to stop unless I was also infringing other trademarks (e.g. the entrance to the park was a pair of golden arches).
*banging head against a wall* (Score:2, Informative)
-truth
Re:*banging head against a wall* (Score:2)
Re:*banging head against a wall* (Score:2)
What does the umbrella of law that both fall under have to do with confusion?
Intellectual Property
1)copyright
2)patent
3)trademark
shou ld be no less confusing than
Torts
1)negligence
2)intentional torts (e.g., battery)
No one confuses battery and product liability do they?
-truth
Re:*banging head against a wall* (Score:2)
Re:*banging head against a wall* (Score:3, Interesting)
And still misguided. There ARE limitations to what you can claim a trademark in. Someone CAN open an amusement park using "I'm loving it" and not infringe McDonald's BECAUSE they are marketing different consumer goods. That's the existing law today. Yeesh. But what McDonald's would sue under is Trademark dilution, a completely different cause of action. However, they would probably lose because "Mc" is a famou
Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (Score:2)
ARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!
People! This is a trademark, not a copyright! The two are different! (And patents are different too.) The three are often confused, but all three are different, with different rules and laws applying to each one. Stop confusing them!
(And iron
Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (Score:2)
However, there are some lawyers who will look at a case and if they think they can win easily, take it to help the little guy and themseves because they'll get the attorney's fees from the big company.
Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (Score:2)
Or Quaker Oats "Do the right thing". Not original in any sense of the word - maybe they can duke it out with Nike "Just do it" (similar-sounding), and Jesus "Do unto others" (similar core idea).
No wonder the least popular people are marketroids and human resources.
Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (Score:2)
VW took a sex shop to court over their use of the phrase "Lovers Wanted". Claimed that it was trading on their trademark phrase, which was pure BS. A "slap-suit", nothing more.
Maybe I'll use the phrase "Lovers Wanted" in any porn site I set up - add a whole new twist to the idea of "pimping my site" :-)
that's pretty good for the ACS (Score:3, Insightful)
Madness! (Score:5, Interesting)
The same could be said of a well-known operating system, of course...
Re:Madness! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Madness! (Score:2)
Lindows? (Score:2)
Re:Lindows? (Score:3, Informative)
Bzzt! Wrong. Microsoft paid $20 million for Lindows to walk away. They are deathly afraid of a judgment that would set a precedent that Windows is a generic term.
Don't take my word for it ... http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/win dows/story/0,10801,94634,00.html [computerworld.com]
Or is this link biased because I got it by googling the following: 'lindows name change microsoft paid'?
This is Awesome! (Score:3, Funny)
Change it to... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Change it to... (Score:2)
apropraite name (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't Scholar a generic word? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I doubt anyone would confuse the word Google and SciFinder. If their entire suit hinge on the word Scholar, I think ACS is facing an uphill battle.
Re:Isn't Scholar a generic word? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't Scholar a generic word? (Score:2)
I disagree. Google, like Microsoft, has been known to buy up companies and incorporate them into their core online service. A person who wanted to use the ACS Scholar service might see the Google service, and think, "great, I was going to pay for it but now Google bought it and is offering it for free". Now that probably won't happen too much, but it's
Re:Isn't Scholar a generic word? (Score:2)
The Real Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem here is that you can trademark a word in common use, like "scholar". Since the ACS did exactly that, roughly 6 years ago, they have no choice but to go after Google (or else have their own trademark claims painfully diluted, or maybe just nullified).
I don't much like what's happening here, but if I were Google, I'd be strongly considering just changing the name of my service. (IANAL, but it really looks like Google will have an uphill battle here.)
Offer 'em some money 'til they go away. (Score:2)
The use of language as a medium of inter personal communication is at the heart of this trade mark crap. Its not going to dissapear until we learn to do without language when creating trademarks.
Re:The Real Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had to guess I'd
Re:The Real Problem (Score:2)
Well, yes, but 'Google Scholar' isn't called that because it's a search assistant. The name derives from the fact that it is intended for use by scholars, and searches across scholarly journals, conferences, and other academic publications.
Re:The Real Problem (Score:2)
Re:The Real Problem (Score:2)
There's no requirement for the term to be descriptive of the function of the product for it to be in generic use. "Business Class" seating on airplanes describes larger-than-coach-but-smaller-than-1st-class seats and it draws its name from the specific customer it's aimed at: businessmen. Google Scholar likewise draws its name from its intended user: scholars.
Re:The Real Problem (Score:2)
So, couldn't Google get around it by calling it "Google Scholar"?
Re:The Real Problem (Score:2)
and if I were Google, I'd put my "don't be evil" motto and my billions of dollars to work by defending my use of a generic word. Microsoft was so afraid of "Windows" being ruled generic that they paid-off Lindows $20mil to go away. Google would be being "evil" (for their shareholders) if they likewise bowed down.
Here's The Real Problem (Score:2)
No, it's not. Increasingly, high quality journals and research articles are kept hidden away from the general public by restrictive copyrights,
Re:The Real Problem (Score:2)
I smell (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Scholar is a good name... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google Scholar is a good name... (Score:2)
This is the first time I've seen Google Scholar. After a few minutes playing around, it seems the search engine gives the author's name much higher precidence in returning results than anything else. Thus, I had to search for "warp drive" [google.com] before I could make the keywords match an article's title or content.
(And believe you me, I never expected there to be so much serious research on warp theory out there. I need to try "holodeck" next.)
chemical society scholar? (Score:4, Funny)
HEY, THAT'S MY WORD (Score:2)
Re:HEY, THAT'S MY WORD (Score:5, Funny)
If you wish to avoid lawsuits, you may join the Guild. Just send us a photocopied Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America membership form with a check made out to cash. (We couldn't be bothered to come up with our own form, and over 90% of our members have professional access to the NG/CWA form anyway . . . )
Obligatory "this is getting out of hand" post (Score:2)
So, to that end, I've trademarked the intake of breath that one makes before speaking, and therefore all verbal communication is in violation that contains such a sound.
Re:Obligatory "this is getting out of hand" post (Score:2)
Lawyers for dummies handbook, page 154 (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like this lawyer is spouting his basic litigation script and is getting ready to go to trial.
These guys have been doing this stuff for six years and I'm sure almost nobody here has heard of them. I doubt seriously there will be any "confusion" in the marketplace o
ACS Journals (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear Google, (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientific citations are a sticky field (Score:2)
ACS is a big business itself, albiet non-profit (Score:2)
Re:Scientific citations are a sticky field (Score:2)
Open Letter to ACS (Score:3, Interesting)
Shame on you and your lawsuit against Google!
I know your type -- you've found a nice little money-maker with SciFinder, and you don't want to lose it, even at the expense of stifling the free and unencumbered flow of scientific information.
I think you should know, you'll anger many of your intended 'grassroots' with this move, which is, in my opinion, unethical.
I'm a chemist, and I sincerely hope that the ACS either mends its ways, or is squarely put in its place by Google and tide of changing times!
Sincerely,
David Hart
Alliterative alternative (Score:2)
And the oh! so desirable side-effect of going a long way towards mainstreaming geekdom - maybe more slashdot readers will get lucky then.
Get in touch with your inner geek.
Re:Alliterative alternative (Score:2)
Slashdot sues Google over the term "geek"
Scholar, better than PubMed (Score:2)
However, Scholar does highlight the problem with much of the Scientific literature. If you do a search, and find a paper of inter
Re:Scholar, better than PubMed (Score:2)
Excellent stuff. On a quick test, it's complete enough to bring up some rather obscure papers from the 60s in several different fields.
Rhodes Scholars (Score:2)
Jesus H. Christ! (Score:3, Funny)
This letter is an instruction to cease and desist immediately in the following activities: 1st, your use of the word society. We at the Language Nazi Society have copyrighted the use of the term "Society" and will not tolerate the dillution of our trademarks by your use of this term. 2nd, your use of the term Chemical. As we have trademarked the entire dictionary, any other words you use can only be interpreted as an infringement on our rights. 3rd, the practice of writing letters as this also infringes on our dictionary tradmarks...
Trademark words (Score:2)
I thought you couldn't trademark common words (e.g. "Windows"). Microsoft needed many attempts and lots of money, and it's still basically "Microsoft Windows", "Microsoft Word", and let's not mention "Excel", which they didn't seem to trademark at all until it was a little late.
So how do these people claim to own "Scholar"?
Let's search for something interesting (Score:2)
Something scientific and peer-reviewed.
Something solid and respected.
Something true and verified.
Something, dare I say it: Scholarly
How about: "ufo unidentified"
SciFinder (Score:5, Informative)
SciFinder is terrible. The UI is non-consistent with the standard windows suite, cf to google's wonderful UI. SciFinder is also ugly as a dog (a pug at that).
It's slow as a dog, cf to google's speed.
Tell it to save to results and all you get is unprintable ascii characters.
Performing a search is painful task with poor boolean support.
On the whole scifinder is poor product that I hope is supersceded with google's scholar.
--
A Commentary on 'The Hare and the Tortise' In reality the hare would have beaten the pants off the tortise in a race, rarely does slow and steady win the race. Instead it is the fast hare capable of the leaps and bounds of modern thinking that will win the race. This fable is told to encourage fat stupid children.
Google is for-profit (Score:3, Insightful)
However, in this particular case, I think the dispute is silly just because of the names: "SciFinder Scholar" and "Google Scholar" are not confusingly similar.
ACS misses the big picture (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem with any of these is that you can find abstracts, but generally have to pay $25 dollars for the PDF. What bugs me about that is much of the research is publically funded, why should the general public have to pay for the paper when we funded the research?
ACS advertising plan (Score:2, Insightful)
2) Fire staff of magazine due to slow advertising sales.
3) Give prefered treatment to companies that advertise in the employment issue.
4) Pay the president upwards of 600k.
5) Sue Google.
6) post on slashdot...whoops
The sad thing is that this association is supposted to support chemists. The stupidity of this move is mind blowing.
Re:awesome (Score:2)
You're kidding, right?
Fine. If you are willing to allow this shit to continue and turn a blind eye to corporate extortion, go ahead. Be my guest. But if you are on the business end of one of these disputes, you had better not come crying to the EFF, ACLU, or any other organization that helps people protect their rights and freedoms.
You'd better bend over and tak
Re:What's the big deal? ... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I resent, being in business myself, is every idiot that tries to make money on a legal technicality versus working to creat something that a customer actually cares about. Patent and copyright legal fights raise the cost of goods and hu
Re:Media stunt (Score:2)
Yes, those goddamn chemists, always having to be in the limelight.
It would be nice if the people posting here actually figured out what ACS meant before breaking out the tired scripts about "blah blah they just want publicity blah blah marketing".