Comments on: Hey Google… SCREW YOU… http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/10/26/hey-google-screw-you/ kthxbai Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:58:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The.Hanyeé http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/10/26/hey-google-screw-you/#comment-13053 The.Hanyeé Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2923#comment-13053 Totally agree with you..Google should not even start wasting their efforts policing the use of their name in the English language..If I say “I googled myself yesterday”, I am supposed to shudder in guilt and lawsuit-driven fear? (For using the word “google”, not for googling myself, hehehe)

Google is a great and admirable company but this post in the blog smirked of arrogance and pompousness.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Stephanie http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/10/26/hey-google-screw-you/#comment-13054 Stephanie Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2923#comment-13054 Oh, give me a break. They ARE a company, with a logo and a brand name. It's only natural that they try to maintain their name as theirs. They are a business, as much as some people don't want to admit it, and it's business as usual to protect their property, including their name. They were nice and tried to be humourous about it, but made sure to make their point. Stop being so arrogant yourself that you criticize them for asserting their name as a corporation.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('13054','Stephanie'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('13054','Stephanie','Oh, give me a break. They ARE a company, with a logo and a brand name. It\'s only natural that they try to maintain their name as theirs. They are a business, as much as some people don\'t want to admit it, and it\'s business as usual to protect their property, including their name. They were nice and tried to be humourous about it, but made sure to make their point. Stop being so arrogant yourself that you criticize them for asserting their name as a corporation.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Oh, give me a break. They ARE a company, with a logo and a brand name. It’s only natural that they try to maintain their name as theirs. They are a business, as much as some people don’t want to admit it, and it’s business as usual to protect their property, including their name. They were nice and tried to be humourous about it, but made sure to make their point. Stop being so arrogant yourself that you criticize them for asserting their name as a corporation.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: gattox http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/10/26/hey-google-screw-you/#comment-13055 gattox Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2923#comment-13055 Hey Stephanie, are you kidding? I don't think that the best way to protect your brand is to tell people (as a teacher to a 6 years old boy) you can say "google something" if you use Google Search Engine, but you cannot if you use another search engine (because their lawyers say "it's bad, bad, bad"). The first reaction to me was to "google something" using Yahoo!. Where is the "Don't be evil Company"? I think they've got too much money in their pockets in a too short timeslot: how will they be within the next 10 years?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('13055','gattox'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('13055','gattox','Hey Stephanie, are you kidding? I don\'t think that the best way to protect your brand is to tell people (as a teacher to a 6 years old boy) you can say \"google something\" if you use Google Search Engine, but you cannot if you use another search engine (because their lawyers say \"it\'s bad, bad, bad\"). The first reaction to me was to \"google something\" using Yahoo!. Where is the \"Don\'t be evil Company\"? I think they\'ve got too much money in their pockets in a too short timeslot: how will they be within the next 10 years?'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Hey Stephanie, are you kidding? I don’t think that the best way to protect your brand is to tell people (as a teacher to a 6 years old boy) you can say “google something” if you use Google Search Engine, but you cannot if you use another search engine (because their lawyers say “it’s bad, bad, bad”). The first reaction to me was to “google something” using Yahoo!. Where is the “Don’t be evil Company”? I think they’ve got too much money in their pockets in a too short timeslot: how will they be within the next 10 years?
Reply – Quote
]]> By: justis http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2006/10/26/hey-google-screw-you/#comment-13056 justis Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/?p=2923#comment-13056 This is interesting, because up until recently, Google was firmly against the use of "google" as a verb -- regardless of context. Now they're cool with it as long as one is actually referring to google.com. This sounds stupid, but it is a fairly common practice. Johnson & Johnson gets annoyed when people use "Band-Aid" to refer to other brands of adhesive bandages, as does Kimberly Clark when facial tissues are referred to generically as "Kleenex". The same applies to "Popsicles", "Q-Tips", "Jell-O", etc.. In fact, it is my understanding that corporations are required to enforce their trademarks, regardless of how stupid it might seem, because if they ignore some violations, other violators can point to these cases in court, and brand exclusivity can be lost. It's lame, but the American trademark system requires idiocy like this. Google isn't the problem, the USPTO is. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('13056','justis'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('13056','justis','This is interesting, because up until recently, Google was firmly against the use of \"google\" as a verb -- regardless of context. Now they\'re cool with it as long as one is actually referring to google.com.\n\nThis sounds stupid, but it is a fairly common practice. Johnson & Johnson gets annoyed when people use \"Band-Aid\" to refer to other brands of adhesive bandages, as does Kimberly Clark when facial tissues are referred to generically as \"Kleenex\". The same applies to \"Popsicles\", \"Q-Tips\", \"Jell-O\", etc.. In fact, it is my understanding that corporations are required to enforce their trademarks, regardless of how stupid it might seem, because if they ignore some violations, other violators can point to these cases in court, and brand exclusivity can be lost.\n\nIt\'s lame, but the American trademark system requires idiocy like this. Google isn\'t the problem, the USPTO is.\n'); return false;">Quote</a></div> This is interesting, because up until recently, Google was firmly against the use of “google” as a verb — regardless of context. Now they’re cool with it as long as one is actually referring to google.com.

This sounds stupid, but it is a fairly common practice. Johnson & Johnson gets annoyed when people use “Band-Aid” to refer to other brands of adhesive bandages, as does Kimberly Clark when facial tissues are referred to generically as “Kleenex”. The same applies to “Popsicles”, “Q-Tips”, “Jell-O”, etc.. In fact, it is my understanding that corporations are required to enforce their trademarks, regardless of how stupid it might seem, because if they ignore some violations, other violators can point to these cases in court, and brand exclusivity can be lost.

It’s lame, but the American trademark system requires idiocy like this. Google isn’t the problem, the USPTO is.

Reply – Quote
]]>