Google is protesting against being verbed, they are warning media organizations about using "google" as a general term for a web search. Quoth Google:
"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 describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues."
LOL. That'll be really easy to sort out. I can just see the legal writ: "We believe, judging by the CNN anchor person's facial expression, that when he said "Googling", he was thinking about Alta Vista really. We can't allow this."
Of course their concern is legit though. Read more on TidBITS.
Dear Eolake,
ReplyDeleteI find it funny that Google is getting upset about this. In the USA, we commonly use a major brand name to describe all things of that brand, such as "Do you have a Kllenex?" instead of "Do you have a facial tissue?" This is done out of what I will admit is American laziness of language usage, and I myself am guilty, yet... We don't go around saying "Do you have a Scott's?" Why? Because Scott's facial tissues are an inferior product.
By relegating the word Google to the same level of popular familiarity as Kleenex, we're actually admitting that Google is the creme de la creme of web searches, and that it's the best possible option when one needs to search the web.
Actually, I prefer to use Yahoo myself. I don't "yahoo" something, I just say "I did a web search on...". But I don't live in the USA. I think europeans don't "google" subjects either.
ReplyDeleteThat being said (and maybe even SAD), I think it is us, the third-party customers, who should resent the social pressure of the verb "googling". Most brand names take a while to enter the common language. Of course, everything related to the internet goes much faster...
It is not funny that Google is getting upset about this--and Kleenex--well they ARE upset that people ask, "Do you have a Kleenex?" when they actually mean, "Do you have a facial tissue?" The last I heard, several years ago, Kleenex was offering a reward to anyone who heard their name mentioned generically, in either TV or in the movies, and who reports it to Kleenex so they could prosecute. Why should they have any concerns? Well have you ever heard of the Aspirin Company? NO? That is because many years ago, shortly after they invented the pill called Aspirin, they stupidly named their pill after its manufacturer--and then everybody began asking, "Do you have an Aspirin?" This generic method of speaking caused the Federal Government to make a case against the Aspirin Company, and they were shut down because they could no longer have their name as a trademark name, since it was being used generically. Neither Kleenex NOR Google wants that to happen to them!
ReplyDeleteThere is a company called Fuchs Copy Systems. I have wondered what life would be like if they had gotten a jump on Xerox.
ReplyDeleteInstead of saying "Xerox this" people would say "Fuch it."
"This generic method of speaking caused the Federal Government to make a case against the Aspirin Company"
ReplyDeleteSounds so utterly stupid it can only be true. (Nobody would dare making this up!) I wonder if it could happen to Jerry Springer, in the wake of the expression "a Jerry Springer family"?...
Summum jus, summa injusta : pushing the law to its extreme goes against the very spirit of the law. A brand name becoming a generic word is the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to prevent : the overtaking of a public domain word as a brand name by a private company. Aspirin Company could have retaliated by suing the US government and all of its people for theft of their brand name! How many drug pills are referred to only by their name? "I'll take a Xanax, a Viagra, etc.", all those famous names I keep seeing in the titles of the spam I get. ;-)
"Spam", there goes another one! Quick, grab it!
I wonder, am I an outlaw if I say that my father drives a Mercedes?... Fortunately, the Germans are less litteral to the point of stupidity. "Catch-22" is an American expression, after all.
Oops! There I go taking risks again. Soon it might just be my Watergate. Or, as the French say, my Waterloo. (After the famous battle lost by Napoleon.) Waterloo is also the name of the battle's site, in Belgium (well, d'uh!). A Trafalgar is also french for catastrophic defeat, a bit like Little Big Horn. "Poubelle" (= trash bin) is the name of the city official who imposed them in France. America, Columbia, are named after people's names. And what about receiving a Nobel? The list is endless, and probably has its own Wikipedia article... or article series. Only in America would this be a problem for the one bearing the name!
A French couple named the Renauds were recently denied naming their baby daughter Meggan, because of the Renault Megane car. But only for the child's future well-being at school! Why are the girl names "Ruby", "Esmeralda", "Pearl"... authorised, I wonder? Or names like Tom Cruise and Christian Slater? Have they no legal right to have a company bearing their names, like Mr Bill... Gates?
Another dangerous verbal habit of mine : when I want to refer to a certain erotic practice in a light, pleasant way, I say "giving a Lewinsy". I hope Monica doesn't get revenge by assaulting my virtue! She's really not my type...
Are the chemical element names "Polonium", "Curium", "Einsteinium", "Francium"... making it illegal for countries or people to have the same name? Or the other way round? And am I still allowed to say I "opened some can of worms" there? More precisely Gummi worms, if you really want to know... (PLEASE, don't ask me where you can by these in cans!!! Just... don't!)
Anonymous,
get in touch with the real world, buddy. "Fuch this" is already a generic expression. Just in another, albeit much wider domain... (Namely, Hollywood R-rated movies!)
I think the spy who sold the US atomic secrets to the Soviets was named Klaus Fuchs. No kidding!!! Whoever was dumb enough to trust a guy with such a name with national security secrets??? Probably some nut with a screw loose!
By the way, I wonder... Is it legal for Yahoo!® to have taken on the name of a fictional species invented by Jonathan Swift in his Gulliver novels? Agreed, it's much easier to pronounce than "Houyhnhnm".
Speaking of names, Anonymous... you really do post a lot of comments on this blog, don't you? Be careful that yours doesn't become a generic name some day. ;-)
P.S.: I'm not sure I'm allowed to call myself Pascal, since it is a pressure unit amounting to a force of one Newton per square meter. But isn't Newton also... Ah, Xerox it, I'm getting a headache!
Now I need to take an acetylsalicylic acid. And that's a generic name, trust me, I'm a doctor! Aw, Hades, I can't take it any more. (Boo-hoo!) Somebody give me a Sanita.
(Sanita? A popular Lebanese facial tissue and toilet paper manufacturer.) :-P
Eolake,
ReplyDeleteGoogle's concern is very valid. If I make the statement "I enjoy SPAM" what do I actually mean? Do I mean I enjoy getting bogus, wasteful and stupid email or the processed meat product by Hormel, which is a pretty good product, that has been around for more than 60 years and was a staple of WWII soldiers and others during the war? Google wants to prevent the same lose of identity that happended to the SPAM brand name.
Isn't SPAM (i.e. unwanted e-mail) an acronym?
ReplyDelete"Stinky Putrid Annoying Mail"?
ReplyDelete"Some Pest Advertizing by Mail"?
"So Pesky, Aaargh! Mommy!"?
"Stocks, Porno, Advice to refinance & Medications"?
Send Please Adam to Me, I'm out of ideas... ;-)
Eolake,
ReplyDeleteCould it be said that you "TidBITed" for the name of Google?
Shaky ground again! :-)