Posted on 08/16/2006 3:11:01 PM PDT by holymoly
Google has said it intends to crack down on the use of its name as a generic verb, in phrases such as "to google someone."
The Internet search giant said such phrases were potentially damaging to its brand.
"We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word 'Google' to describe using Google to search the Internet and using the word 'google' to generally describe searching the Internet. It has some serious trademark issues," a representative for the search company said.
Julie Coleman, an authority on linguistics from the University of Leicester, said she could understand Google's concerns.
"The prestige associated with a trademark is lost if people use it generically, so I do see Google's point. They also do lots more than just search, so maybe they're reluctant for their brand name to be restricted in this way," Coleman said.
But Coleman added that once new words enter into common usage, it is impossible to stop their use.
"Google can't possibly stop the spread of the verb," Coleman said. "Normal people are using it in normal conversation and in writing, and they aren't likely to face legal proceedings."
What Google could do, said Coleman, is "force dictionaries to mention its origin in a trademarked brand name, which is what the Oxford English Dictionary already does."
Even if Google's attempts to stop this misuse of its trademark turn out to be in vain, many argue it shouldn't even be trying.
Members of the blogging community have suggested it is a sign that Google is losing its once-cool facade and that the search giant is taking itself too seriously.
One blogger also suggested Google has missed the obvious compliment in all this, which is that the use is evidence the company now owns the search industry.
"This should be the ultimate compliment, and I cannot believe Google sees it differently," blogger and computing graduate Frank Gruber wrote.
Steve Rubel, another blogger, branded it "one of the worst PR moves in history".
Morgan McLintic, a PR executive based in the heart of Silicon Valley, said Google should certainly learn when to love its addition to the English language.
"'Googling' is already common parlance for searching on the Internet," McLintic wrote. "And there is only one place you go to 'google,' so this is a good thing for Google with a capital 'G'. The media's use of the verb is simply a reflection of everyday use."
Google's move reflects the concerns of other businesses, such as Xerox, which has complained that its brand has become a generic term for photocopying respectively. Apple Computer is also taking action to defend "iPod."
AOL is another technology company that has fought the tendency of brands to become generic. It has contacting media outlets in the past over the use of "instant messenger" to describe any IM application, claiming that to be its brand.
Google me tender, google me true
cuz someday I'll google you too
Oh puh-leeeeze!
When I'm hungry, my stomach makes a google.
Or better, when I have explosive diarrhea, my large intestine makes a google.
And (Lord hep 'em!) American and British scholars like "Google":
" The American Dialect Society chose Google as a nomination for the "most useful word of 2002." The verb 'Google' was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) on June 15, 2006,[1] and to the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July, 2006,[2] The OED notes the question, "Has anyone Googled?" in the Usenet Newgroup alt.fan.british-accent on Oct. 10, 1999."
Lol. That's one I'd forgotten about.
I'll bet many people don't know that the words "crap" and "crapper" come from a brand of flush toilet.
Two different numbers. A googol is 10^100. A googolplex is 10^100^100.
Google's boo-hooing has fogged up the windows. Where's the windex?
Two different numbers. A googol is 10^100. A googolplex is 10^100^100.
As long as people aren't deliberately associating the slang term "spam" with canned meat or otherwise abusing their trademark, they're OK with it.
I'm sure Hormel would have chosen to avoid the controversy. They had no say in whether the word stuck. Neither does Google.
F'in morons.... Like it hurt kleenex, scotch tape, frigidaire, napalm, velcro or walkman....
You are getting a little past my expertise, but I think that if a company is otherwise zealous about protecting a trademark, the fact that it passes into the common lexicon as well won't kill the trademark protection. For instance, "fedex" has become a verb in the legal/business world for "I'll send it by express delivery." I would not assume from the use of that word that I will get the package via FedEx, as opposed to UPS or DHL. But if the writer says "FedEx" I know I had better make sure he has whatever particulars are required for an actual FedEx delivery.
xerox had the same concerns.
In case anyone forgot, xerox ALMOST had the chance of being the verb for photocopy.
Now xerox makes donuts or something....
The Recording Industry Association of America represents -- wait for it -- the people who own rights in recorded music. If you're singing it, the RIAA doesn't enter into the picture.
The folks who police the songwriters' rights are either ASCAP or BMI. And they don't give a rat's a-- what you sing in the shower, unless you happen to be showering in a public place with an audience.
Exhibition licenses are a very big deal -- that's why few bars just hook up an MP3 player instead of having a jukebox. Get a jukebox, and the company that provides it handles all the licensing issues. Spin CDs on your own, and you have to handle the logging and payments, and that's way more hassle than it's worth.
What amazes me about this thread is the complete ignorance of intellectual property law, and the tendency to dismiss it as silly or poorly thought out. I'm not a lawyer, but I've done a little reading. It doesn't take a lot to grasp the basics.
Suppose I'm the guy who wrote "Louie Louie." Every cover band in every college town in America can count on that song to bring the house down. Bar owners can clean up on the cheap beer and trendy shooters they sell to the frat boy crowd. So is it reasonable that everyone makes money off my song but me?
Trademarks are a little less obvious, but they are an equally -- or perhaps more -- valuable asset for the companies that have the really strong ones. If RC Cola could advertise itself as "The South's favorite brand of coke," or Kodak could advertise "the top-selling brand of xerox machines," or if you saw ads saying "google it on Yahoo!", those companies would effectively cease to exist. They would lose the brand identity they spent years and billions to build.
Google isn't being silly. They're being prudent, and frankly I'm surprised that they didn't crack down on the use of their name as a verb long ago. There seems to be a consensus on this thread that Google should be thrilled to have its name lapse into the public domain -- as if what they want is to be famous, rather than be able to control the use of the name and make money off it.
In practical terms, this means nothing to private citizens, just like I don't fear repercussions if I ask someone to grab me a coke, hand me a kleenex, xerox a letter, or give me a lift in his jeep. So let's drop that level of hysteria. If you're in the business of publishing -- whether it's in an old-line media outlet or a big-scale, for-profit blog -- you ought to be up to speed on those issues, and if you're not, you need to get new counsel or get into a new business.
Here is an old song...from an old Edison record.
Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-gley eyes.
Barney Google has a wife three times his size.
She sued Barney for divorce, now he's sleeping with his horse!
Barney Google, with the goo-goo-googley eyes.
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.