Searching \ for '[OT] Google gets a little precious' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=google+gets+little
Search entire site for: 'Google gets a little precious'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Google gets a little precious'
2006\08\15@202708 by Jinx

face picon face
www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10396133

2006\08\15@213153 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Jinx wrote:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10396133
>
>  
Yes, Microchip pulled that on me. I had to change all my "PIC"
references to "PIC (c) MicroChip".
Instead of marching for Microchip, I simply tiptoe through the tulips,
hardly mentioning them at all.

--Bob

2006\08\15@214943 by Tony Smith

picon face
> Jinx wrote:
> >
> www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10396133
> >
> >  
> Yes, Microchip pulled that on me. I had to change all my "PIC"
> references to "PIC (c) MicroChip".
> Instead of marching for Microchip, I simply tiptoe through
> the tulips, hardly mentioning them at all.
>
> --Bob


(c) ?

Not (TM) or (R)?

Weird.

Tony

2006\08\16@060455 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: spam_OUTpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu]
>Sent: 16 August 2006 01:27
>To: pic microcontroller discussion list
>Subject: [OT] Google gets a little precious
>
>
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10396133


Totaly pathetic behaviour, but couldn't expect much less from a large modern business to be honest.  Exactly what trademark infringments are they worried about?

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\08\16@064133 by Steven Howes

picon face
> Exactly what trademark infringments are they worried about?

I dunno.. Lets google it!

2006\08\16@065513 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Exactly what trademark infringments are they worried about?

If a company has a trademark, but it does not take action to prevent
that such trademark grows into common use for a class of products
(instead of for their specific product) they loose the right to that
trademark. Happens very often, IIRC for instance Philips 'TL'.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2006\08\16@070052 by Jinx

face picon face
> Totaly pathetic behaviour, but couldn't expect much less from
> a large modern business to be honest.  Exactly what trademark
> infringments are they worried about?

They have a business, the name of which becomes part of the
world's language. I should be so lucky. You couldn't buy that
sort of publicity

Did Disney sue anybody over the use of "mickey mouse" when
applied to 2nd-rate etc ?

I kind of see a little of Google's point. Maybe a tenuous example -
would Hoover like their vacuum cleaner's now generic name
associated with a "hoover" of another company, possibly of lesser
quality


2006\08\16@070719 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> > Exactly what trademark infringments are they worried about?
>
> If a company has a trademark, but it does not take action to
> prevent that such trademark grows into common use for a class
> of products (instead of for their specific product) they
> loose the right to that trademark. Happens very often, IIRC
> for instance Philips 'TL'.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark :

Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through
common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential
trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that
exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also
be ruled invalid.

For example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin" has been ruled
generic in the United States, so other companies may use that name for
acetylsalicylic acid as well (although it is still a trademark in
Canada). Xerox for copiers and Band-Aid for adhesive bandages are both
trademarks which are at risk of succumbing to genericide, which the
respective trademark owners actively seek to prevent. In order to
prevent marks becoming generic, trademark owners often contact those who
appear to be using the trademark incorrectly, from web page authors to
dictionary editors, and request that they cease the improper usage. The
proper use of a trademark means using the mark as an adjective, not as a
noun or a verb [2] [3] [4], though for certain trademarks, use as nouns
and, less commonly, verbs is common. For example, Adobe sent e-mails to
many web authors using the term "photoshopped" telling them that they
should only use the term "modified by AdobeR PhotoshopR software."
VeriPic likewise sends e-mails to reviewers using the term "VeriPic your
digital photos" telling them that the proper usage of the term is
"protected by the VeriPicR Digital Photo LabR secured photo database
software." Xerox has also purchased print advertisements declaring that
"you cannot 'xerox' a document, but you can copy it on a Xerox Brand
copying machine." Such efforts may or may not be successful in
preventing genericism in the long run, which depends less on the mark
owner's efforts and more on how the public actually perceives and uses
the mark. In fact, legally it is more important that the trademark
holder visibly and actively seems to attempt to prevent its trademark
from becoming generic, regardless of real success.

2006\08\16@070938 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
> Totaly pathetic behaviour, but couldn't expect much less
> from a large modern business to be honest.  
> Exactly what trademark infringments are they worried about?

With trademarks if you don't vigorusly protect them you lose the
trademark protection. See Kleenex and Xerox (especially Xerox)
as examples. Xeroxing became a verb to mean making copies. And
it isn't trademark protected because it's in the common lexicon.

Google (tm?) can run into the same issue. If allowed to become a
common verb, then anyone can use the term googling to mean
internet searches.

So the letter shows that they are protecting their trademark. So
if any unsavory use of the term googling comes across the boards
and they sue the infringers, they can show a past history of
protection.

It's just business.

BAJ

2006\08\16@071505 by Tony Smith

picon face

> > Exactly what trademark infringments are they worried about?
>
> I dunno.. Lets google it!


You mean Google (TM)(R)(C) it!

Regards,
Google Legal
Don't be evil (TM)(R)(C)

2006\08\16@072219 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Google (tm?) can run into the same issue. If allowed to
>become a common verb, then anyone can use the term
>googling to mean internet searches.

Maybe we could make a front end called "Search" that uses Google .........

2006\08\16@072613 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

But surely it's *already* in common use as a search engine "verb"?  A bit late for this kind of foot stamping IMO.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\08\16@074242 by Jinx

face picon face
> But surely it's *already* in common use as a search
> engine "verb"?  A bit late for this kind of foot stamping
> IMO

Could be. Never heard anyone say "Alta Vista it" or "Dogpile
it". Google may have to accept being victims of their own
success

2006\08\16@091300 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face
I had to laugh at their appropriate and inappropriate uses of the word
Google. From memory, they were something like:

Appropriate: I did a Google search on the guy I met at the party.

Inappropriate: I googled the hottie.

Harold



--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2006\08\16@102056 by Jinx

face picon face
> Appropriate: I did a Google search on the guy I met at the party.
>
> Inappropriate: I googled the hottie.

Quite so. I resent being objectified as a "hottie". It's true, but I
still resent it

2006\08\16@104138 by Steven Howes

picon face
> > Appropriate: I did a Google search on the guy I met at the party.

The 'Google search'? sounds kinky

2006\08\16@105701 by Randy Glenn

picon face
If it's true, you might want to invest in some air conditioning for
temperature reduction.

Or a large quantitiy of ice cold beer, which will take care of any
kind of hottie problem.

On 8/16/06, Jinx <EraseMEjoecolquittspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> wrote:
> > Appropriate: I did a Google search on the guy I met at the party.
> >
> > Inappropriate: I googled the hottie.
>
> Quite so. I resent being objectified as a "hottie". It's true, but I
> still resent it
>
> -

2006\08\16@105759 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > > Appropriate: I did a Google search on the guy I met at the party.
>
> The 'Google search'? sounds kinky


Time for a [DATE] tag?

Tony

2006\08\16@110440 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
They've been sending these out to media outlets for over three years
now.  This isn't anything new.  I can only guess why the newspapers
and reporters are making articles about it again.

Either way, it's more free publicity for Google, and as long as they
_appear_ to be defending their tm's, r's, and c's then it probably
doesn't matter how the media and public use them.

It'll be news when Google actually tries to sue someone for violations
of their trademark, as opposed to merely demonstrating proper usage
with an implicit threat.

-Adam

On 8/15/06, Jinx <joecolquittspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz> wrote:
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10396133
>
> -

2006\08\16@111252 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Did Disney sue anybody over the use of "mickey mouse" when
> applied to 2nd-rate etc ?

"Mickey Mouse" means almost the exact opposite in NZ to what it does
in some other countries. We had a ?US? HP salesman describing his own
product as Mickey Mouse.


       Russell

2006\08\16@125928 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face

>> Did Disney sue anybody over the use of "mickey mouse" when
>> applied to 2nd-rate etc ?
>
> "Mickey Mouse" means almost the exact opposite in NZ to what it does
> in some other countries. We had a ?US? HP salesman describing his own
> product as Mickey Mouse.
>

I knew a guy who used to be on the city council here. He owned a print
shop and often said his business was Mickey Mouse, but then pointed out
tha Mickey Mouse made millions.

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2006\08\17@170110 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 11:04 +0100, Michael Rigby-Jones wrote:
> >
> >www.nzherald.co.nz/section/6/story.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10396133
>
>
> Totaly pathetic behaviour, but couldn't expect much less from a large modern business to be honest.  Exactly what trademark infringments are they worried about?

It's not pathetic at all.

In many jurisdictions there are rules about "keeping" a trademark. One
of the main rules is that if your trademark is misused, and you don't
fight to correct the misuse, your trademark can basically become public
domain.

Basically, if you don't fight to keep your trademark yours, you loose
it.

Google doesn't really have a choice. If they loose their trademark on
"google" they loose ALL control over it, anyone can start using it
pretty much any way they want.

So, despite it seeming a little silly, they have to fight misuse of it,
as seemingly pointless as it might be.

TTYL

2006\08\18@035253 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>So, despite it seeming a little silly, they have to fight
>misuse of it, as seemingly pointless as it might be.

Such fighting may also be used to justify keeping the google site
registration if anyone ever tried to contest ownership ...

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...