While I applaud Google for trying to protect their brand, if the general population wants to use it, there is nothing in the world that Google can do about it. Eg, "Hoovering the carpet" etc.
Take it the other way, the term google has entered popular culture and it means (for me anyway) to search for it on the internet. Eg "I was googling for that cat video the other day..."
Could it be that Google has objections because it is being used in a negative manner. I mean, Google has always wants to be a search engine that can locate anything on the internet. Eg "The cat video was ungooglable..."
They didn't object to inclusion of "to google" into Merriam-Webster a couple of years ago. But it was an all-encompassing neologism with a positive bias. The ogooglebar on the other hand carries a negative bias, it describes something that you can't do and it's linked to Google. That's what they don't like.
The reason behind withdrawing the word, and the tone in which it was said was quite illuminating. Basically, Language Council had grown tired and very annoyed by the discussion with the google lawyers and thus opted to skip the whole mess.
The end of the article is important: "Language Council could have ignored Google's requests, but decided to remove the word in order to spark a debate."
Sounds like the Language Council is doing a kind of tactical overreaction to keep Google and other companies from bothering them in the future. They also want people to think more about power over language.
I can't be bothered to look it up, but no doubt Google has a registered trademark for their name in Sweden. Swedish trademark law applies in Sweden, so I'm not sure what role Google being an American company plays in any of this. MySQL AB likely would have raised a similar objection if some American institution were considering using a variant of MySQL to describe a generic database. That wouldn't have made MySQL AB a Swedish company that doesn't understand that Swedish law doesn't apply in other countries; it would have been a multinational company protecting its international trademark.
Seems like fairly straightforward trademark protection. If they allow a definition where Google = Generic Search Engine then it's a slippery slope to being the next biro.
Did Google fire their PR dept or did they just become another company that we love to hate? The past two weeks has been a huge PR disaster for Google.
As for the issue in the article, I have mixed reactions. They din't have a problem when Oxford dictionary made "google" a verb[1]. However, letting your trademark slip is also not the best idea either - Spam [2].
Forget about trademark violations. Sweden is a sovereign state. I think something's very weird when a company can dictate which words people are allowed to use.
Of course, at least in Norway this word is in active use already. It's just not in the dictionary yet (and it's rarely used). But as someone else said, now people will use it just out of spite.
The difference is that the Oxford definition specifically refers to Google's search engine, not a generic "web search", while the definition in TA was generic.
Frankly, considering trademark law, I don't think Google's to blame. And it's not like people can't use the word anyway, there's just less official evidence of erosion.
What sort of person get's up in a morning, faces a day of chasing this sort of stuff, and doesn't blow their own brains out at the sheer inanity of it all?
The deep irony is that the reason is that Google doesn't want themselves to become ungoogleable. Which is the word they pressured the Swedish language council to remove from the standard dictionary. But in Swedish ofc.
Google has been taking action against this genericization since 2003.[1] They also got the German dictionary Duden to change their "to google" Definition to refer to Google only.[2]
> I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the original article.
Don't be, there's a witch-hunt on Google right now. Nothing but the most negative-spin on them will be reported for the next few months until everyone calms down about reader.
Apart from being ridiculous, dictionaries just indicate the common use of terms, that is what they are. They are not a list of 'official' words (unless insanity rules) in any language (even in Spanish, where there is the Academia).
They think language has to be reduced to their rules.
I think they should have spun it as something positive. As in, if you can't find it on google you can't find it anywhere. Therefore something that is ungoogleable, can't be found with any search engine. Anyways, I did submit it mainly for its novelty value.
This is almost certainly to protect their trademark. Google is very concerned about going the way of butterscotch, trampoline, escalator, zipper, etc. and having its name become a generic term for web searches.
[+] [-] rurounijones|13 years ago|reply
They do not want "google" to follow "kleenex" into general usage otherwise bad things happen for Google.
More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark
This is the reason that Google objects to "to google" being used as a verb to mean "to search"
[+] [-] netfeed|13 years ago|reply
Edit: yes, "googla" is in it, it means "to search the net using the search engine Google"
[+] [-] yitchelle|13 years ago|reply
Take it the other way, the term google has entered popular culture and it means (for me anyway) to search for it on the internet. Eg "I was googling for that cat video the other day..."
Could it be that Google has objections because it is being used in a negative manner. I mean, Google has always wants to be a search engine that can locate anything on the internet. Eg "The cat video was ungooglable..."
[+] [-] abcd_f|13 years ago|reply
They didn't object to inclusion of "to google" into Merriam-Webster a couple of years ago. But it was an all-encompassing neologism with a positive bias. The ogooglebar on the other hand carries a negative bias, it describes something that you can't do and it's linked to Google. That's what they don't like.
Silly if you ask me.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] manmal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belorn|13 years ago|reply
The reason behind withdrawing the word, and the tone in which it was said was quite illuminating. Basically, Language Council had grown tired and very annoyed by the discussion with the google lawyers and thus opted to skip the whole mess.
[+] [-] drucken|13 years ago|reply
Or is there something Google could actually have done, like sue this "Language Council" in Sweden itself?
[+] [-] TorKlingberg|13 years ago|reply
Sounds like the Language Council is doing a kind of tactical overreaction to keep Google and other companies from bothering them in the future. They also want people to think more about power over language.
[+] [-] wahlis|13 years ago|reply
It also seems that the lawyers where harassing the staff so much that they didn't want to continue their work.
[+] [-] biot|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JacobAldridge|13 years ago|reply
Is there a Swedish word for storm in a tea cup?
[+] [-] blaabjerg|13 years ago|reply
"Storm i ett vattenglas".
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kzrdude|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonamegiven|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nivla|13 years ago|reply
As for the issue in the article, I have mixed reactions. They din't have a problem when Oxford dictionary made "google" a verb[1]. However, letting your trademark slip is also not the best idea either - Spam [2].
[1] http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2058373/Google-Now-A-Ve...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)#Trademark_iss...
[+] [-] marvin|13 years ago|reply
Of course, at least in Norway this word is in active use already. It's just not in the dictionary yet (and it's rarely used). But as someone else said, now people will use it just out of spite.
[+] [-] icebraining|13 years ago|reply
Frankly, considering trademark law, I don't think Google's to blame. And it's not like people can't use the word anyway, there's just less official evidence of erosion.
[+] [-] pjmlp|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|13 years ago|reply
Also, Oxford tends to capitalise and / or mark as trademarks words such as this.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kaeluka|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wuest|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbbolton|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomelders|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alenart|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfortuny|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martinkallstrom|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lycanthrope|13 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_%28verb%29 [2] http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/newzzEQXM1K6L-12-1.5328... (German language)
[+] [-] davweb|13 years ago|reply
If "Google" as a verb becomes a genericized trademark[1] then they lose a lot of their trademark protection.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
[+] [-] smtddr|13 years ago|reply
Don't be, there's a witch-hunt on Google right now. Nothing but the most negative-spin on them will be reported for the next few months until everyone calms down about reader.
[+] [-] pfortuny|13 years ago|reply
They think language has to be reduced to their rules.
Buy new glasses, google.
[+] [-] subsystem|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benmccann|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gordaco|13 years ago|reply
This, from the article, is a good summary:
> "It's the users of the language who decide if it will remain," she said.
> "So if the word exists, use it if you want. That's something Google can't decide."
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]