Google at its Most Arrogant
IT Chapters October 26th, 2006I cannot get over the tone of this post by Google trying to explain how the word Google is trademarked even in the face of prior art. You don’t control the English language so you can take that post and shove it.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:32 am
While I normally don’t get along well with lawyers, I can’t see how “prior art” (a term from patent examination process) is relevant here. Trademarks are not patents, and while numerous search engines existed before Google, none of them was named as such.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Fair point but how can you agree that Google can control this? Google has been used before Google was a company, was the name of a book before Google existed?
I would agree with them if I used their logo, but the word google cannot be controlled in my point of view.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:48 am
If can’t use “google” term anytime I want (beware of the now-I-have-a-lot-of-money Company “lawyers”) I will quit using “Google Search Engine”, move to Yahoo! and then I will “yahoo” anytime I want.
Hey multi-billion-billion-billion-dollars baby, are you loosing your mind?
October 26th, 2006 at 9:26 am
It’s “losing your mind” not “loosing your mind”
October 26th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Well “googol” was used before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol
“Google” is actually a unique trademark invented by the search engine company.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:53 am
And this book?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Google_Book
Published 1913
October 26th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
While they can’t control it in everyday conversation — and would be stupid to try — the point is that they have a highly recognizable brand, and it’s their duty to protect it. Simply mentioning Google in a blog post, a book, or on a television show is likely to increase the value of the content based solely on the global use of the name. You are technically already infringing on a trademark if you make so much as a penny based on the protected work. (Un?)fortunately we don’t have “trademark police” in the U.S., so it is the duty of the holder of said trademark to protect their property. Once an infringement has been identified, then and only then does it get turned over to the courts. So yes, I agree 100% with attempting to protect their brand.
Clearly, those who feel differently have no successful brand of their own.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Hi Mike
Thanks for the insightful comment. However, I still see a link in the use of the work google before Google existed means that everyday use ANYWHERE should be legal. If I say Google (as in the company) then yes they can protect it, but if I say google, then surely that should be fine?
October 26th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
There’s no need to capitalize ‘A’ in arrogant. Also, what you should have written is “its” and not “it’s”. It’s = It + is.
October 26th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
[…] RJB.ZA.Net […]