"Let Me Google That For You" Act Goes Before Congress

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
"Let Me Google That For You" Act Goes Before Congress

[http://pv.webbyawards.com/2014/web/general-website/games-related]


Permalink
 

Compatriot Block

New member
Jan 28, 2009
702
0
0
Huh. While this may look like common sense, seeing ideas like this come from Congress makes me feel better. Good job senators. More bills like this and people will start liking you more.

Plus the name is charming. Nice choice.
 

Xan Krieger

Completely insane
Feb 11, 2009
2,918
0
0
Microsoft and Yahoo must be pissed that they didn't use their search engines as the name for it. Glad the government is catching on to modern technology, took them long enough.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
The fact that this is coming from a pair of texas senators makes me suspicious.
 

Johnson McGee

New member
Nov 16, 2009
516
0
0
I'm disappointed because I thought this was a law that forced congressmen to actually be informed about things they vote on.
 

Ferisar

New member
Oct 2, 2010
814
0
0
delroland said:
Queue Google suing for unlicensed use of trademark.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say their jurisdiction in copyright violation doesn't extend to government propositions that aren't using it commercially. :p

OT:
Yeah, as said prior, seems like common sense. I'm sure there used to be some merit of an internal system for information, but it's probably irrelevant now.
 

Yal

We are a rattlesnake
Dec 22, 2010
188
0
0
Worgen said:
The fact that this is coming from a pair of texas senators makes me suspicious.
Andy Chalk said:
That's problematic in the eyes of Texas Senators Tom Coburn and Claire McCaskill

Huh, didn't even notice that when I read the article. Coburn is from Oklahoma, McCaskill is from Missouri.
 

TheIceQueen

New member
Sep 15, 2013
420
0
0
Ferisar said:
delroland said:
Queue Google suing for unlicensed use of trademark.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say their jurisdiction in copyright violation doesn't extend to government propositions that aren't using it commercially. :p

OT:
Yeah, as said prior, seems like common sense. I'm sure there used to be some merit of an internal system for information, but it's probably irrelevant now.
Actually, Google does have quite the cause to be pissed about this. Google, like a certain few companies who become so well-known for providing a certain service, has to worry about their trademark becoming genericized. If everyone starts using the term 'google' to refer to the act of using a search engine, then their trademark weakens and they lose their rights. This is what has happened to aspirin in Australia, France, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Jamaica, Colombia, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Google has already sent cease and desist letters about this in the past and has constantly urged the public to only use the term "Google" in reference to actually using Google, rather than just a search engine. This act, while an endearing name, might only help to further make Google generic.

Edit: Google would most likely want to insist the act be changed to "Let Me Search That For You."
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
GrinningCat said:
Google would most likely want to insist the act be changed to "Let Me Search That For You."
It isn't relevant. It can't weaken the trademark if it isn't being used for commercial purposes. Google is a global brand. It's a part of the culture in every country with internet access. This is actually completely natural.
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
also i'm pretty sure it's specifically referring to google in this context
 

TheIceQueen

New member
Sep 15, 2013
420
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
GrinningCat said:
Google would most likely want to insist the act be changed to "Let Me Search That For You."
It isn't relevant. It can't weaken the trademark if it isn't being used for commercial purposes. Google is a global brand. It's a part of the culture in every country with internet access. This is actually completely natural.
The weakening of a trademark towards becoming a generic word doesn't require someone else commercially using their trademark, otherwise they wouldn't be afraid of people using the term "google" in reference to search engines. [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html] This is why they always insist on using the word "searching" rather than "googling." This is why they've sent cease and desist letters. [http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0302D&L=ads-l&P=R2450] Trademarks are NOT copyrights and have different rules that follow them and Google being a global brand and every day getting inserted more and more into language is something that they're afraid of because sometimes being the world dominate product at something and having languages wrap itself around you is something that you don't want.

Just ask the trademarks that lost their rights because of this: Aspirin, Heroin, Zipper, Escalator, Thermos, Yo-Yo.

Google goes to great lengths to try and stop this from happening and they're right to want to not let it happen. For an example that might hit closer to home, Nintendo extensively marketed the term "game console" so that neologism wouldn't erode their trademark. Again, genericisation doesn't have to and doesn't primarily come from commericial purposes and in fact comes almost exclusively from having the exact market dominance on a population that Google has. This is not copyright; this is trademark.
 

Webb Myers

New member
May 17, 2010
76
0
0
Where are those Senators from again? http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=senator+coburn+mccaskill

Seriously though, as someone who uses NTIS, it is helpful to have a single central repository for all federal reports. Most federal agencies have never heard of search engine optimization so just searching with the "site:.gov" operator doesn't usually cut it. Yes, they charge money for the service, but it's cheap compared to most commercial databases.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
GrinningCat said:
The weakening of a trademark towards becoming a generic word doesn't require someone else commercially using their trademark, otherwise they wouldn't be afraid of people using the term "google" in reference to search engines. [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html] This is why they always insist on using the word "searching" rather than "googling." This is why they've sent cease and desist letters. [http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0302D&L=ads-l&P=R2450] Trademarks are NOT copyrights and have different rules that follow them and Google being a global brand and every day getting inserted more and more into language is something that they're afraid of because sometimes being the world dominate product at something and having languages wrap itself around you is something that you don't want.

[snip]
That's hilarious. This is a straight quote from that first link of yours, from the Google blog:

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 feel free to "search" on Yahoo or any other search engine.
Now I don't know the author of that blog post personally, so he could be a great guy, but I have never had a stronger urge to flip someone off in my life. The global monopoly that is Google, an entity that practically controls the flow of information throughout the entire world, and they're getting pissy because people are using their name wrong. This is the world we live in. Brilliant.
 

chimeracreator

New member
Jun 15, 2009
300
0
0
Lunncal said:
Now I don't know the author of that blog post personally, so he could be a great guy, but I have never had a stronger urge to flip someone off in my life. The global monopoly that is Google, an entity that practically controls the flow of information throughout the entire world, and they're getting pissy because people are using their name wrong. This is the world we live in. Brilliant.
Yes, because if a Trademark becomes generic then the individual or company that holds it loses the rights to it. So if Google became sufficiently generic Microsoft could rename Bing "Google 2.0" and Google wouldn't be able to stop them.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Yal said:
Huh, didn't even notice that when I read the article. Coburn is from Oklahoma, McCaskill is from Missouri.
Yes, thanks to everyone who pointed that out, neither Senator is from Texas and reviewing the source material and the bill, I have no idea how I got the idea that they were. Furthermore, I am well aware of the irony and it is killing me.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Lunncal said:
Now I don't know the author of that blog post personally, so he could be a great guy, but I have never had a stronger urge to flip someone off in my life. The global monopoly that is Google, an entity that practically controls the flow of information throughout the entire world, and they're getting pissy because people are using their name wrong. This is the world we live in. Brilliant.
They are afraid of history releating itself. Do you know elevators? sure you do. do you know that the actual word is lift? elevator is a brand of lifts that got so popular everyone was using them and people just said "ill use an elevator" when they meant to say "ill use a lift". reminds you of something? the exact situation google is in. the result was that elevator became a generic word and the company lost trademark. This is one of the rare cases when its actually possible to loose trademark (not suing others using it, however, is not going to make you loose one despite what idiots at King.com says).
 

Steve the Pocket

New member
Mar 30, 2009
1,649
0
0
I dunno; the idea of a central repository of double-checked and verified technical information, as opposed to relying on whatever site happens to come up first on a Web search, sounds like the better option. If the system behind it is laughably inefficient, they should certainly make an effort to fix that, but shutting it down entirely because "we can just google it and blindly trust whatever comes up" may be going too far.