(Article) Google Forbids Misuse of "Google" as a Verb

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:50:33 -0500, Karl Groves
<karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote:

"T.J." <no1 (AT) home (DOT) invalid> wrote in
news:e4qdnVnLt-T1L33ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d (AT) bt (DOT) com:


"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:2083223.MgGiKxoiSl (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com...
To google or not to google? It's a legal question

,----[ Quote ]
| Search engine giant Google, known for its mantra "don't be evil",
| has fired off a series of legal letters to media organisations,
| warning them against using its name as a verb.
`----

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1218805.ece

Shouldn't they just blame Webster?


I think it is a condition of trademarks that you have to
defend them, if they are seen to allow people to use it
they can lose the trademark.


'tis true, at least here in the USA, that by not defending the trademark,
you're giving implicit consent to its use by others.

Some here will remember when Viacom shut downloads of Star Trek sites
because otherwise their rights to the franchise would have gone into
the public domain. Instead of the toilet, where they seem to have
boldly gone.

BB
--
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/marilyn-monroe-pictures.htm
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-maintenance.htm
http://www.crystal-liaison.com/artis-orbis/amici-della-luna-glass.html

__/ [ John Bokma ] on Monday 14 August 2006 19:21 \__

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

__/ [ John Bokma ] on Monday 14 August 2006 17:50 \__

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote:

To google or not to google? It's a legal question

,----[ Quote ]
| Search engine giant Google, known for its mantra "don't be evil",
| has fired off a series of legal letters to media organisations,
| warning them against using its name as a verb.
`----

They can google it up their asses for all I care.

Adobe also doesn't like how we photoshop :-D.

I wonder if you saw that in Digg too

No, I was aware of Adobe's verb dislike well before I had heard of digg
:-) There is no way to stop such things, let alone forbid it.

You can try to stop it at a corporate level (or strip it off publications)...
just have a reign of terror! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Do know evil? (sic)

Best wishes,

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux + tax = Mac OS = (Windows - functionality)
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 148 total, 1 running, 144 sleeping, 0 stopped, 3 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

__/ [ Big Bill ] on Monday 14 August 2006 20:29 \__

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:50:33 -0500, Karl Groves
karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> wrote:

"T.J." <no1 (AT) home (DOT) invalid> wrote in
news:e4qdnVnLt-T1L33ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d (AT) bt (DOT) com:


"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:2083223.MgGiKxoiSl (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com...
To google or not to google? It's a legal question

,----[ Quote ]
| Search engine giant Google, known for its mantra "don't be evil",
| has fired off a series of legal letters to media organisations,
| warning them against using its name as a verb.
`----

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1218805.ece

Shouldn't they just blame Webster?

I think it is a condition of trademarks that you have to
defend them, if they are seen to allow people to use it
they can lose the trademark.

Makes you wonder about Krugle (Google for code).

'tis true, at least here in the USA, that by not defending the trademark,
you're giving implicit consent to its use by others.

I guess that obscenities can't get you sued. Trademarks, on the other hand...

Some here will remember when Viacom shut downloads of Star Trek sites
because otherwise their rights to the franchise would have gone into
the public domain. Instead of the toilet, where they seem to have
boldly gone.

Never gone there before. Not boldly anyway.

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

To google or not to google? It's a legal question

Isn't it already too late? After all it is being put into the next
edition dictionary as a transitive verb.

http://itvibe.com/news/4107/

--
Michael Rock
(Google Groups Moderator)
Web Ranking Consultants - http://www.webrankingconsultants.com
Web Development Contractor - http://www.theinternetpresence.com
Chat with me at - http://www.theinternetpresence.com/live-chat.html

__/ [ webseoguy ] on Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:46 \__

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
To google or not to google? It's a legal question

Isn't it already too late? After all it is being put into the next
edition dictionary as a transitive verb.

http://itvibe.com/news/4107/

Maybe it's reversible.... who knows....

__/ [ Roy Schestowitz ] on Wednesday 16 August 2006 00:53 \__

__/ [ webseoguy ] on Tuesday 15 August 2006 14:46 \__


Roy Schestowitz wrote:
To google or not to google? It's a legal question

Isn't it already too late? After all it is being put into the next
edition dictionary as a transitive verb.

http://itvibe.com/news/4107/

Maybe it's reversible.... who knows....

Hey, check /this/ one out...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6105789.html

Apple: iPod means our pod

,----[ Quote ]

Following Google's insistence that media outlets shouldn't be using the
term "Googling," Apple Computer has become similarly protective over the
word "pod."
`----

I can recall that they didn't like the little 'i' being used, but can they
ever get that copyrighted in some form? I have seen some products like an
iLap, which do not come from Apple.

iSueYou! iLlBeBack!

Then there's Adobe and PhotoShop. Their Web site cries over the misuse of the
product name...

Retruning to Google, also see:

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06081504.htm?source=eptyholnk303100&logv isit=y&npu=y
How to Slay a Google

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/15/technology/google/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote
Google's terrible twos

All articles from last night by the way...