09-24-2004, 04:33 AM | #1 |
Is papyrophobic!
Posts: 1,926
Karma: 1009999
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Device: Dell Axim
|
Fagoogle.com - Banned by Google
It seems Google is finally turning into a real corporate company, with all its pros and cons. Have a look how it just banned Fagoogle (the "gay Google").
|
09-26-2004, 02:32 AM | #2 |
Evangelist
Posts: 418
Karma: 281
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Device: Assorted older devices
|
Um, aren't there even some dictionaries that now use "google" as a synonym for an internet search (I think I read something about that a while back - can't remember where, unfortunately...)?
So how can something that's turning into a true word be anyone's intellectual property? |
Advert | |
|
09-26-2004, 04:46 PM | #3 |
Member
Posts: 18
Karma: 46
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Alabama, USA
Device: Dell Axim X30
|
As long as it was already owned. Like Coke was taken to court by Coca-Cola because people were referring to any similar soda as a Coke. And in some areas, like where I live, you say "coke" instead of a "soda" when you ask if someone wants a drink. But you could mean a Sprite even. So, anyway, my point is they won and Coke refers to Coca-Cola only and Cola can be any type of soda. Whether it's used as common language means nothing in a court of law for intellectual property if they already trademarked it.
JJB |
09-26-2004, 06:03 PM | #4 | |
MobileRead Editor
Posts: 447
Karma: 84
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Device: Treo 700p, Zodiac2
|
Quote:
While I think intellectual property and trademark infringement are claimed too often, I have to side with google on this one. Just take a look at fagoogle's website, then google. They are clearly copying google's logo and web page. Just because google is now a well known word that is finding it's way into our vocabulary does not mean that the people behind fagoogle have the right to copy google's trademark. What would your opinion be if someone made a web page called fagyahoo!? Yahoo is a word in the dictionary, and as others have stated, that argument is not a valid defense in this case even though it may be used. What if Alexander received a trademark on Mobileread, then someone else came along and created a web page for mobile content that used Mobileread's layout, style and logo, and named it Mobilereader? No infringement there? I don't think so. Don't be surprised when that page is completely taken down soon. It is a great way to get some free publicity and cry foul, but IMO Google is clearly within their rights to protect their IP in this case. Nice of them to copy MSN's butterfly (ok, so they made it a mirror image and changed the colors slightly) while they were at it, 2 for 2. Last edited by ballistic; 09-26-2004 at 06:34 PM. |
|
09-27-2004, 03:09 AM | #5 | |
Fully Converged
Posts: 18,170
Karma: 14021202
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Switzerland
Device: Too many to count here.
|
Quote:
|
|
Advert | |
|
09-27-2004, 03:33 AM | #6 |
Technology Mercenary
Posts: 617
Karma: 2561
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: East Lyme, CT
Device: Direct Neural Implant
|
As you all probably know, the name "Google" is actually a play on the word googol, which was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of U.S. mathematician Edward Kasner in 1938, to refer to the number represented by 1 followed by a hundred zeros.
Its more of an antonym, than a unique word. They could just call their site "Fagoogol", and be done with it, and Google can't have anything at all to say about it. In fact, you could make a biological corrolary with the shape of a 'zero' and parts of human anatomy, if you really wanted to make a case out of it. But I digress... and its late... and I need sleep anyway. |
09-27-2004, 07:58 AM | #7 |
mechanoholic
Posts: 582
Karma: 1000217
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sarasota, FL
Device: Nook STR/iPhone 4S/EVO 4G
|
Well, surely it wasn't just the name, but also the fact that they completely aped the style of the name and the webpage. That doesn't really fall under fair use since it was a relatively serious site. Not that I'm defending them, but it does make sense. Google's got investors to take care of now. Priorities shift. Especially with the renewed rise of anti-gay voices in the USA.
|
09-29-2004, 02:50 AM | #8 |
Evangelist
Posts: 418
Karma: 281
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Device: Assorted older devices
|
As far as I know designs of websites (general designs) cannot be copyrighted. Of course the logos can, but the basic design is pretty well free game. As long as you don't take their code.
|
09-29-2004, 06:42 AM | #9 |
Technology Mercenary
Posts: 617
Karma: 2561
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: East Lyme, CT
Device: Direct Neural Implant
|
Not true at all... in fact, for many sites, their design is their branding. Look at apple.com and amazon.com for two such examples.
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tell Us Your Favorite Banned Book - It's National Banned Books Week | EatingPie | Lounge | 96 | 10-12-2010 02:19 PM |
Why Macmillan was banned from Amazon | LCF | News | 76 | 02-19-2010 06:58 PM |
Explore banned books with Google Book Search | Alexander Turcic | News | 11 | 09-15-2006 09:48 AM |