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.
Did someone google this article? ;)
Why build fences around flower gardens?
Open-source software is a pretty cool concept. Instead of hiring dozens of programmers, you can tap into millions working in their spare time. I find myself using more and more open source stuff, because with a little digging you can find someone who's customized it to be pretty close to exactly what you need, where commercial software aims to be all things to everyone.
Even commercial software has adopted some elements of open source, in the form of published standards that let anyone create plug-ins. Of the half-dozen applications I'm running right now, my mail app, IM client and Web browser all have third-party plug-ins installed.
And I misspoke earlier. Linux isn't public-domain; it's copyrighted, but distributed under the loosest possible set of terms, the GNU Public License. You can modify it all you want, but if you're going to build your work on something you got for free, you also have to agree to make your work available to others for free.
OK, lets Yahoo then. I am sure Yahoo would have no problem with that.
Have a bowl of Jell-O Brand Instant Gelatin too.
Interesting. It's certainly the norm in Georgia. http://www.popvssoda.com/ is a fascinating project to track the preferred local terms.
In North Carolina, the beverage of choice is as likely as not to be Cheerwine, a local delicacy I've only seen once outside of that state; I found it at a Wal-Mart in Hinesville, Georgia, near Fort Stewart. My best guess is that there were enough soldiers who'd served in NC that the demand justified importing it.
How is that out of hand? If I pay a graphic artist to design a logo, and then spend a fortune on advertising to plant that logo in the public consciousness, is it fair for you to take it for free and use it to sell your product?
Great Googly Moogly!
There's always room ...
If they gave a license, there's no lawsuit. If they didn't, Lionel shouldn't have assumed. Lionel helped make the Santa Fe a legend; they did the same for the California Zephyr, which was the hottest thing going in its day.
Model railroading has declined in popularity, and there isn't that much money or publicity in it any more; at the same time, passenger rail travel has dwindled to the point that it needs taxpayer subsidies to stay alive, and kids (or, more often, nostalgic Baby Boomers) with model trains aren't likely to book a lot of container tonnage. The equation has changed.
Maybe it's great free publicity. I might think that it's a great play for Union Pacific to have its logo plastered all over HO-scale trains, and you might agree. But in the end it doesn't matter what you or I think, because the trademark doesn't belong to us. It's UP's property, and they're not obliged to use it in ways we like.
If you "google" the word failure, the first thing it pulls up is George W. Bush.
I sent them a complaint.
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.