Use of "googling" on zoe.nu

As an outsider, I would strongly suggest that this discussion end 
immediately, and that the authors of Zoe and of the page in question 
consult an intellectual property attorney regarding Ms. Hagan's 
request. Childish responses by list members who have no concerns over 
liability in the event that Google's request is within its legal rights 
(concerning which question I am not qualified to judge, not being an 
attorney) will not serve the interests of the authors of Zoe. Slashdot 
is not the controlling legal authority on the implications of trademark 
law.

The complexities of trademark law are not for the uninitiated. Let's 
take the trademark dispute over the word "Windows." The issue with that 
trademark dispute does not concern the pre-existence of the word 
"window" to refer to a hole in a wall that one looks through, but 
whether the term was used in its specific computing context for 
non-Microsoft products before it was trademarked by Microsoft.

Reference has been made to the use of "xerox" as a verb. The reason 
that the use of "xerox" as a generic term is not actionable is, if I 
recall correctly (remember that I am not a lawyer and this does not 
constitute legal advice), because Xerox did not, in the eyes of a court 
ruling on the issue, make enough of an effort to protect their 
trademark. If that recollection is accurate, it is entirely possible 
that Ms. Hagan's request is intended to meet such a requirement of 
defending a trademark.

While the argument put forth that trademark law can't prevent someone 
from quoting a review article on a product may be valid, there may be 
other factors that would disqualify the particular quotation in the 
context and manner in which it is presented. I don't know, and unless 
you are an experienced trademark attorney, *you don't know either*. 
Even an attorney can be wrong on such issues (while, by definition, a 
judge is only wrong on legal matters if he is overruled by a higher 
court).

So, what may *seem* to you to be a perfectly legitimate objection to 
Ms. Hagan's request may not be in the eyes of the law. Unless you are 
an attorney who specializes in trademark law, you do not know all 
different ways in which so-called "common sense" interpretation of 
one's actions may in fact have unintended repercussions that would run 
afoul even of the spirit of trademark law.

Unless you wish to offer to indemnify the authors of Zoe against any 
possible judgment against them in the event that Google does take legal 
action, I would suggest staying out of this argument.

Please do not respond to me on this subject; if you do, I'll add you to 
my kill file.



On Jun 16, 2004, at 12:01 AM, [email protected] 
wrote:

> From: "Mark Crocker" <[email protected]>
> Date: June 15, 2004 11:05:52 AM EDT
> To: "Rose Hagan" <[email protected]>, "Timothy Cahill" 
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: "David Krane" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Zoe-General] RE: Use of "googling" on zoe.nu
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:37:09 -0700, Timothy Cahill wrote:
>
>> On Monday 14 June 2004 16:22, Rose Hagan wrote:
>>> Dear Z,
>
>>> Please note that we cannot accept your use of the phrase "Googling 
>>> your
>>> email"
>
>> Please note that we ( in the royal sense ) cannot accept your use of 
>> the
>> phrase "trademark infringement". We understand that you did not 
>> invent the
>> term "Google".
>
> Actually, I think they DID invent the term Google.  It is based on the 
> word googol, sometimes mispelled as gugol.  Googol represents the 
> number 10^100.  The company Google, then used a sound-alike term 
> intended to generate an association in the minds of their customers 
> that they have A LOT of content.  This is a common practice, but as 
> the recent legal case of Microsoft vs. Lindows, and earlier cases 
> involving Apple show, basing a corporate trademark on an existing, 
> widely used, word is on shakey ground when it comes to asserting 
> trademark on that term.
>
>> that you did not ask for nor receive permission from the
>> estate of the inventor of the term to use it as a trademark, and 
>> therefor
>> your claim to ownership of the word Google is immoral and brings 
>> shame upon
>> your search engine and its management.
>
> I think that since the words, googol and googolplex, were originally 
> used in a scientific publication ('Mathematics and the Imagination' by 
> Edward Kasner & James R. Newman) and was proposed for general use to 
> describe these very large numbers, that there can be no claim to the 
> copyright on these words.  Furthermore, they got the word googol from 
> Kasner's, then nine year old, nephew Milton Sirotta, so, there 
> shouldn't be any need to get permission from the Kasner estate.
>
> see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol
>       http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html
>       http://info.linspire.com/lindows/
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer
Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA
REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND