Comments on: Dear Google: http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/ Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:51:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Don (semantically complete) Molaro http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/comment-page-1/#comment-165 Don (semantically complete) Molaro Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:30:04 +0000 https://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/#comment-165 I suggest that we call getting cranky at a multi-billion dollar company: “Pamming”. File for the trademark today. Google is a brand; they are not a search company. There I said it. Moreover, it seems, (obvious to me), that Google has failed in it’s mission statement: “Do no evil.” They are rapidly becoming a predatory monster company that is more interested in building wealth, which by the way is what companies are supposed to do, rather than making the world a better place. Which is fine but they should be honest about it especially to themselves. I for one think we should cover the trees in front of their headquarters in toilet paper & run away. That will teach them, happy “Pamming” ™ I suggest that we call getting cranky at a multi-billion dollar company: “Pamming”. File for the trademark today.

Google is a brand; they are not a search company. There I said it.

Moreover, it seems, (obvious to me), that Google has failed in it’s mission statement: “Do no evil.” They are rapidly becoming a predatory monster company that is more interested in building wealth, which by the way is what companies are supposed to do, rather than making the world a better place. Which is fine but they should be honest about it especially to themselves.

I for one think we should cover the trees in front of their headquarters in toilet paper & run away.

That will teach them, happy “Pamming” ™

]]> By: Paul http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/comment-page-1/#comment-164 Paul Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:19:27 +0000 https://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/#comment-164 Surely it's a coincidence that Google is starting to protect their brand only *after" the term has achieved ubiquity in common parlance. I for one vow to stop using 'googling' as a synonym for 'searching', and start using it as a synonym for 'siloing' paul Surely it’s a coincidence that Google is starting to protect their brand only *after” the term has achieved ubiquity in common parlance.

I for one vow to stop using ‘googling’ as a synonym for ’searching’, and start using it as a synonym for ’siloing’

paul

]]> By: Pamela http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/comment-page-1/#comment-162 Pamela Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:56:43 +0000 https://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/#comment-162 Dave, I do understand the trademark issues at stake. But they are in a bit of a stew here no matter what. If token enforcement is enough to keep their heads above water on the legal front, I suppose that's what they have to do. Doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about it though. There is a PR cost to choosing to enforce something like this. That was my message. Dave, I do understand the trademark issues at stake.

But they are in a bit of a stew here no matter what. If token enforcement is enough to keep their heads above water on the legal front, I suppose that’s what they have to do.

Doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy about it though. There is a PR cost to choosing to enforce something like this. That was my message.

]]> By: Dave Kearns http://eternallyoptimistic.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/comment-page-1/#comment-163 Dave Kearns Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:39:56 +0000 https://eternaloptimist.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/dear-google/#comment-163 Google litigates this because US trademark law demands it - not thru some personal choice. Well, the personal choice to retain "Google" as a trademark. The best example is the German company A.G.Bayer who didn't defend their trademark on the term "Aspirin" which passed into the language as a generic word for any compound of acetylsalicylic acid. So please, think twice before condemning the company for trying to protect their property in the only way defined by law. -dave Google litigates this because US trademark law demands it – not thru some personal choice. Well, the personal choice to retain “Google” as a trademark. The best example is the German company A.G.Bayer who didn’t defend their trademark on the term “Aspirin” which passed into the language as a generic word for any compound of acetylsalicylic acid. So please, think twice before condemning the company for trying to protect their property in the only way defined by law.

-dave

]]>