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.
Aspirin was/is a brand name in Canada. Kerosene was a brand name at one time the the U.S.
If Google were smart, it would start a campaign along the lines of, "When you 'google' something, be sure you really Google (tm) it. Accept no substitutes!" ... that sort of thing. Such would underscore their point (that not EVery internet search is truly a Google search) without making them seem petty.
The number I suspect you're thinking of that sounds like "google" is actually spelled "googol" = (IIRC)
the digit "1" followed by 100 zeroes.
Some folks really don't know when
they've got it good. Amazing.
Sorry, it's way too late for this. I even read this phrase in a book the other day. And it wasn't a brand new book either, had to be a year or two old, since it was "now in paperback". According to the cover it had been a NY Times #1 best seller(fiction). They should be proud of inventing a new word and let it go at that.
Think I'll go google google!
what Ultra-maroons!
(No, seriously. I want to know)
"Want a coke?"
"Yeah."
"What kind?"
"Doctor Pepper."
(That's Texas talk.)
They must of had a lawyer help them with the spelling.
I am going to wipe the tears from my eyes with a Kleenex after I Xerox this document. Oops! I spilled my Coke.
Need a Band Aid for that wound?
Ooops.
Fedex this....
This horse is out of the barn and five miles down the road by now.
Yes, but there are also a lot more companies making copiers now than in the 70s, so was it really a good thing for Xerox that its name is no longer synonymous with "photocopy"? The very best copier I ever used was a Kodak.
google google google google google google google google
If you publish anything for profit, probably.
It's great advertising for them so I don't understand this complaint at all. It's stupid.
If you don't enforce a trademark, you eventually lose it. It comes to be considered a generic term. That's in the law for good reason -- so that, say, Bayer can't let everyone use the word "aspirin" and then decades later snap the trap shut.
As far as the other examples mentioned in the thread, pick up a copy of Writer's Digest or another magazine aimed at writers -- you'll see ads for Xerox, Rollerblade, Band-Aid, Kleenex, Jeep and other brands commonly used generically, reminding writers that those are brand names, and they are not to be used in lowercase or as verbs.
The author of "Praying for Sheetrock" was forced to put a trademark statement on the cover of later editions (and maybe pay some money, I'm not sure) because Sheetrock is a brand name owned by U.S. Gypsum (the generic term is drywall).
They must of had a lawyer help them with the spelling.
Almost certainly. "Googol," as a common word, would be more difficult to trademark; Google, a made up word, is easy to document as original. That's why light beer is spelled l-i-t-e; Miller thought they could trademark the variant spelling, but they lost that battle in court.
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.