What is Digg?43 Comments
- fredgsanford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14If a company doesn't send these letters, then it can be argued in court that they are giving up their trademark. So Google HAS to send out these letters. If you read the letter, it's obvious that Google has a tongue-in-cheek attitude about whether you use Google as a noun - they don't really care, and they're probably flattered.
- vitriolage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13They have to at least act like they are protecting their trademark or else they'll lose it. You people are making it seem like its the end of the world.
- sancho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Legal letters are not lawsuits. This is more akin to cease and desist notices, and it's REQUIRED of a trademark owner if they want to keep their trademark. Do you want Microsoft to be able to call their MSN search Google just because a bunch of news outlets started diluting the trademark?
- hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Exactly. I own something, I want control over how everyone uses it. I take the help of the law. How is this related to the RIAA or theior image. If I sue someone for misappropriating my family name, or for some other reason, am I being evil?
- rubored, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Grrrrr.
Lawsuits are a form of *****.
Please, dear god, Google, don't ruin your "Don't be Evil" image by starting this RIAA-style *****.
And don't even think about doing an AOL and releasing search logs/results.
+Digg! - stevius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7it's just like xerox and kleenex... they have to protect their trademark or lose it.
- nblsavage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Because the have to be seen protecting their copyright or it may share the fate of Xerox or Kleenex and become too generic to defend.
- diggless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5they have to do this or they lose the copyright on the name.
the way the law is setup if you learn of this type of use and you dont pursue it you are forfeiting your hold on the copyright or trademark.
they arent necessarily doing this because they want to but because they have to. - hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That would be "gogol", not "google".
- hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Talk about knee jerk reactions. DO you even know what you are talking about?
- awhiteflame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's *not* free advertising when it's a general sense verb.
How is "I'm going to go play music on my ipod thing" free advertising for Apple if they're just referring to any-old mp3 player.
"I need to google stuff for my project on Yahoo."
It's like when people say, "I need to xerox this". It's not free advertising -- and the person doesn't necessarily mean 'copy this document with a Xerox photocopier', it just means, photocopy. - aywwts4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If they let this go away unchecked it could become genericized, Yahoo could have their search bar say "Google it!" because its a normal, non defended word. Yes they unfortunately have to be pricks about it, but its how the trademark law is setup.
- xeeton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just because 'googling' is added to someones vernacular as a word for searching, doesn't mean that they are using Google to do the googling.
Consider this: I always buy Puff's brand kleenexes and I xerox things with my Canon copier. - tomvendetta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://tomtothevendetta.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-google-in-dictionary-is-bad-idea.html
Read this post if you are wondering why they would want to stop it. - Skafloc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Ridiculous, do they actually think they can stop this??
- kingchad1989, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they don't, then the word Google falls into the public domain. That means that when you go to any search page, instead of 'searching' there, the website creators could call it 'googling' there. Case in point, Aspirin. People can buy numerous brands of Aspirin. Aspirin used to be trademarked by Bayer until they advertised Aspirin as the product instead of the trademark. Once they did that, Aspirin became public domain. Had Aspirin not become a noun and stayed a trademark we would be buying [insert company here] brand acetylsalicylic acid. Weird huh? I support Google's letters. Personally I don't want to be able to 'google' at www.dogpile.com
- hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@barb
Dude are you a hippy or something? China has different laws and if Google wants to work there, it has to follow them. And actually, MSN and Yahoo have a worse track record in these matters than Google.
I don't recall Google handing over user data to the govt. here as opposed to MSN and Yahoo. Those companies did not even try to check the validity of the demands.
Have an agenda - much? - ionblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3this doesn't go against their "don't be evil" mantra, they're just protecting their trademark so they don't loose it. Some of you guys are overreacting
- Anjow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they don't do this then their trademark will become genericised like others such as aspirin, bikini, margarine etc.
In a way, they are becoming victims of their own success. - Qeveren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they don't take steps to protect their trademark, then they lose the trademark. Then you'll see Microsoft and Yahoo advertising that you can 'google the web with our search engine!' And I'm totally sure Google wants that to happen... yeah.
- diggless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3when precisely did God give you this right? It seems that I should have the same right, but i don't recall god ever giving it to me.
- britkev1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The price of becoming the top search engine. They should consider it a benefit!
- TomP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google has become a common word in my daily life I use it when someone says something and i don't know what it means or want to know more I say oh "i'll google that tonight"
- kingchad1989, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, and guess what. Kleenex and Xerox are going to fall into public domain within the next year or so.
- Darc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When's the last time anyone other than you "yahooed" anything? It doesn't have its own word.
- gkoberger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I just googled this, and it seems to be true.. wait.. is that an appropriate use of the word "Google?"
- tmurf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1or this one http://battellemedia.com/archives/002795.php
- Darc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1While the Merriam-Webster dictionary did include Google, Inc. in citing the definition for the verb "google," the Oxford-English dictionary did not limit it to internet searching with Google, Inc. Technically, this could potentially have to be 'decided' upon by the powers that be.
- NikZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Err, here's the list (my bad) which elaborates further on Anjow's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks - ojstone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google the story before you report it as false... its true dumbass.
- steger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Rollerblade company and Xerox, Hoover have done the same thing. When your copyrighted product name becomes common place, it looses its value. It can become a genericized trademark.
Examples of some are: aspirin, zipper, escalator, trampoline. - NikZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Genericized Trademark:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
I didn't even know genericized was a word until I started researching trademark laws for a project. Here's an interesting list of actual trademarks that have become genericized over time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
Many of these, we never even stop to consider that they were once a trademark, somebody's invention. - Pieman88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think it is
As long as google doesnt start lawsuits it is still not evil. The article really didnt make clear in the beginning that the letters were jokes though.
Google is a big company now. They can still not be evil, but they can be stupid either.
Google is still less evil then yahoo, and much less eviler (if thats a word) then AOL - Skafloc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder if "just ***** google it!" is correct use of the word...
- 5h1th34d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Fake story and reported as such.
- JK1150, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I think everyone realizes that the closer Google gets to Microsoft, the more like Microsoft they will become.
- tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Whatever happened to free advertising? Dumbasses. Where do they think that #1 or #2 ranking every year in brand name comes from?
- GoldenDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1heh, this doesn't seem like something google would do O_O
can someone check the validity of this? - shanak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Why would they even want to stop this? How ridiculous.
- dmoney22, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7***** Google, they can't limit my vocabulary, that's my God given right to have the ability to talk.
- hazlett, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1The word google was around for many years before the search engine was ever even thought about, now, that being said, dmoney, you can use "google"as you please in your conversations but not in print, it is a registered trade name.....
- babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0
Don't ruin your "Don't be evil" image.
I think the China censorship has already ruined that. Google cooperates w/ the communist government and censors results, but will not all the US govt. to look at child porn search statistics.
Along with the rampant click fraud which earns Google millions of dollars, I think you can safely say "Google IS evil".
A company that censors results and earns money fraudently is evil.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is