MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

31 October 2006

What do you think? 1. Google is still bitching because people use "Google" as a verb. Evidently elevator and zipper and other words, not just Kleenex (and Biro in the U.K./Eire) were once trademarked brandnames. I understand Google's point, but if I had a product I think I'd be happy the more times people said its name. Does "genericizing" a trademark really hurt it? [Paging Dabitch?]
2. The vet confirmed that fleas are practically epidemic in OH this year and, yes, I have to flea-bomb the house I live in. Should I worry about toxicity? Argh. I suppose I should even open closet doors and let the bomb-spray hit my clothes. *&%*!
Example: "I googled him on Yahoo and he seems pretty interesting."
Our lawyers say: Bad. Very, very bad. You can only "Google" on the Google search engine. If you absolutely must use one of our competitors, please...

*groans*
posted by shane 31 October | 12:10
From what I understand, if a company is not aggressive in protecting its trademarks in all cases, no matter how trivial, it loses the ability to protect them in any case, no matter how egregious.
posted by occhiblu 31 October | 12:14
...if a company is not aggressive in protecting its trademarks in all cases, no matter how trivial, it loses the ability to protect them in any case, no matter how egregious.

Ah! I get it. The lawyers have to make a good show of it or lose Google's trademark?

But they're not actually claiming Google's verb usage hurts the brand..?
posted by shane 31 October | 12:19
Yes. At least, in my non-lawyerly understanding. Everyone knows the grandstanding is stupid, but the law requires that they do it.

But in some sense it *is* hurting the brand, in that if it becomes an everyday generic word for "search engine," Google will lose the right to challenge any use of its trademark (I think).
posted by occhiblu 31 October | 12:23
Thanks for the explanation. I feel silly now.
posted by shane 31 October | 12:24
Heh. I only know because I've read so many similar discussions about companies being ridiculous about their trademarks. Don't feel silly.
posted by occhiblu 31 October | 12:29
They do have to defend against everything, but they don't lose the trademark just because it does become a verb. For an example, Hormel still has "Spam" as a trademark even though it has become a term used to describe junk e-mail, and they don't care that much unless someone includes the word into a product "SpamBuster 3000 Extreme" or what have you.
posted by King of Prontopia 31 October | 12:50
Oh wah fucking wah says I. Frisbee my kleenex.

And sorry about the fleas, Shane.
posted by Specklet 31 October | 12:50
Do they lose trademark if they don't fight the genericization, though?

"Frisbee my kleenex" is my new favorite phrase.
posted by occhiblu 31 October | 13:01
I've always hated Google as a verb. Partly this is because I've been using search engines much longer than there's been a Google, and partly now also because in my current neighborhood, Google is unmistakably tangible, specifically a big place where you try to wangle lunch invitations as often as possible.

Plus I think it sounds stupid.
posted by tangerine 31 October | 13:15
I think Google is making utter fools of themselves for not letting this go.
posted by fenriq 31 October | 13:18
1) how about you frisbee my kleenex to my zipper and google it, you great rotating wankers? (not you shane, the trademark asshats)

2) yes. it sucks. I'm sorry. for the record I grew up in a 130-year-old farmhouse in Warren County (near Lebanon) and we had flea epidemics on a regular basis - which might stem from the fact that my mom is a) ermm... not the world's best housekeeper to put it mildly and b) tends to have many indoor cats at any given moment. fleas, for the record are the Worst. Thing. Ever. bedbugs are bad but at least they don't hassle you day AND night. and no there's absolutely nothing you can do to get rid of them besides spot all the cats (prolly more than once, actually) and bomb the house. repeatedly. keep it out of your food and the kitty food and you should be golden. I dealt with this on a semiannual basis from the time I was six or seven and I haven't grown any third eyeballs or developed any weird syndromes from it. ymmv, of course.

sorry to hear about the flea problem. only thing that could conceivably be worse is bedbugs (and we had those in Baltimore, ugh) and at least those don't crawl on you 24 hours a day like the fleas can and will.
posted by lonefrontranger 31 October | 13:57
A good problem to have IMHO. (not the bugs)
posted by danf 31 October | 16:02
dunno if i'd characterize the google blog posting as "bitching", per se. essentially all they are saying is if you absolutely must go to burger king, please do not refer to the whoppers and chicken fingers as big macs and mcnuggets. it's a perfectly valid point imho.

see also: genericide
posted by Wedge 31 October | 21:22
A Hallowe'en trip to the graveyard ... || Government's abstinence-only message now targeted at adults, too.

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN