Posted on 12/15/2004 2:55:11 PM PST by TChris
Good point! That would have brought a fine point to the real issue, wouldn't it?
This is a sidebar, but Google's technology is unaffected by Meta tags, because its rankings are based on how many other sites contain links to yours, not on a word count from your HTML. There are ways to artificially inflate the rankings, of course, but Meta tags wouldn't do it.
I believe the same argument applies to proprietary personal information. Commercial ventures ought not profit from trading the unique information that is associated with your identity without your express permission and without paying a reasonable royalty for doing so.
I futhermore believe that the "public record" allowance of personal information has been completely perverted and abused by the authorities that are stewards of personal legal information. Before nearly any and every aspect of life was considered the domain of some government beaurocracy, the problem was nowhere near as onerous.
But it is certainly onerous now, and nearly every significant piece of unique, intimate and personal data is treated as "public record," and available to nearly anyone, most of whom have no reasonable interest in the information.
The dissemination of personal information by third parties, including governments, is a problem that must be addressed if the building block of liberty -- privacy -- is to be honored and preserved.
Was just a scam. I happen to know, that kind of fraud is now gone after with a vengenece, and people are going to jail, and they should be. It's costing Americans billions.
Interesting story about Geico. It's basically all the same we've heard, that it's a pretty good company.
Er, a "vengeance" too....
Google does use tags and embedded language to define content. Their ranking may be based on more discreet information, but a link from 'netquote' doesn't in and of itself define Geico as Geico the Auto Insurer.
Well, for one, your grammar is so terrible it is sometimes difficult to even tell what you are saying and second, it is obvious from what can be decerned you in fact do not know what you are talking about.
Good day and Good bye.
A debate as to the extent a company owns and can control the use of there property I.E. there “trade name” by other might have been of some use
Ad Hominem attack of others that disagree with your point of view is useless
As a business owner I personally think this ruling dilutes the value of a business's “trade name” and is both anti business, anti property right and typical leftist thinking
Bottom line a "trade name" is a business's property and that business should have damm near sovereign over it's use particularly when its a not a proper word but a created name. A business should be able to control it's use, with few very limited exception; and so another business can make money off another business property is not one of these limited exception no matter how minor others might think it is.
Yes on it surface this may seem silly but Google is still making money off of Geico property and may (however small) be hurting Geico business... to my thinking it's Geico property so Geico should be able to damm near what it pleased with it
(PS as my bad grammar and spelling I freely admit it... I am severely dyslexic... in business I pay people to proof my correspondence ... this I do for fun)
You started the lowering of the tone. In any event, if you had done a search you would have seen the first thing that appears is Geico's home page. Nothing in the search is affected by the advertising which appears in small print on the side, well outside of the search results. Of course, now many of the things appearing on all search engines are the numerous articles about how they filed a lawsuit and lost, which is certainly not good for business.
(If you are truly dyslexic, my apologies for that earlier remark)
I did? Your first responce to me on this on this thread was Post 29
Why don't you try the search and see what happens. Nothing about the search results is affected, rather than commenting on something you don't appear to know anything about.
I perceived that as somewhat rude, however if my that was not you intent and my impression was incorrect...my apologies
Imagine I walk into a computer store and ask for a Compaq computer, and the salesman shows me compaq along with eMachine, Gateway, and Sony.... Is that infringement on Compaq's copyright?
You made posts well before I posted that.
Google isn't a store. A search engine isn't a salesman. The expectations are different, so I don't think the comparison is valid. If you walk into a Compaq store, and they're selling Dells and Gateways too, in a special, highlighted display, I think Compaq would rightly have a problem with that.
In my mind, when a user specifically enters a trademarked company name into a search engine, they have expressed a specific desire for information on that brand. They have done so at least in part because of the effort and expense of that company in advertising their name. If that user enters the word "computer", like entering your average computer store that sells multiple brands, they would expect to see and be sold multiple brands.
Seriously, let's not worry about this anymore. It is kind of silly we are arguing this harshly about Geico and a search engine. Meet you on another thread sometime and hopefully less confrontational. :-)
Does McDonald's have a case in saying the information booth had no right to hand out that map because the person ONLY asked about McDonald's?
sounds good...taper light
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.