Slashdot Log In
ACS Sues Google Over Use of 'Scholar'
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Dec 11, 2004 04:07 PM
from the because-scholarship-is-all-about-trademarks dept.
from the because-scholarship-is-all-about-trademarks dept.
headisdead writes "John Batelle is noting that 'The American Chemical Society yesterday filed
a complaint against Google, claiming the new
Google Scholar infringes on its own
product, called SciFinder Scholar.' Fairly typical subscription vs. free dispute, but with intellectual property issues thrown in for good measure."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Language (Score:4, Funny)
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Re:Language (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Language (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Language (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Step 1: Instantly assume any trademark dispute of any kind is completely meritless without looking at the actual issues involved or even reading the article.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Re:Language (Score:4, Interesting)
- The ACS is going to lose big time in terms of paid subscriptions
- The Google service will allow for "Open Access" and self-publishing of peer-reviewed research, again kicking the ACS in the butt
- The ACS does not own the word "Scholar"
- The ACS is scared shitless
- The ACS, instead of trying to compete on merits, or evolve their product, is pretty much admitting that they're behind the tech curve by doing a slap suit
Hey, maybe its time for someone to come out with a product that lets you do research on science fiction. We'll call it "SciFi Scholar". And let the ACS give us free publicity!!!In fact, I suggest that Google come out with a "Google SciFi Scholar" (unless they want to throw some $$$ my way, in which case I'd be more than happy to help out).
Parent
No way is the ACS harmed (Score:5, Insightful)
No way. I'm a chemist, a member of ACS, I've used scifinder scholar, and I've used google scholar. They're not the same thing, they shouldn't be confused, and furthermore google scholar doesn't provide fulltext access to ACS journals. So there is no effect upon subscriptions. Nor is there any real competition - the products don't even really serve the same purpose. If anyone should be scared of google scholar, it's ISI, makers of Web of Science/Knowldedge, the worst search of all time.
The ACS is just being childish, and as a member, I'm embarassed.
Parent
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Interesting)
If there was a homework&tutoring service "Private Scholar" or a academia singles service "Lonely Scholar" and ACS went after it, if would be stupid and ACS would lose.
Kellogs successfully prevented Chevron from using a tiger as a convenience store food maskot because the cartoon tiger looked a lot like the one on the box of cornflakes. (If the tiger was used to sell gasoline or motoroil it would be OK).
On the free vs. fee-based controversy: unlike Google, Scifinder Scholar abstracts all chemistry and biology journals and chemical formulas there. With many leading journals producing thousands of pages every month each and hundreds of journals indexed, it costs enormous amount of man-time to keep the database up-to date. Maybe modern search technology can make the database building process cheaper. But there is no good way to index the structural formulas. Someone (with degree in chemistry) has to read the article, understand what it means and enter the chemicals, reactions and keywords one at the time.
Parent
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny? (Score:2)
Remember, facts are not copyrightable.
Re:Funny? (Score:3, Informative)
What currently exists is the ability of ANY publisher to take the term "Webster's", and combine it with their own name, or another term, and THAT term is a trademark, and enjoys trademark protection.
In other words, you can produce a "Y3K Webster's Dictionary", a "Fuck You Webster's Dictionary", or any other combo that no one else currently enjoys trademark pro
Re:Funny? (Score:3, Informative)
As such, the portions of dictionary contents that are not sufficiently unique (contain little or no authorship value) are NOT copyrightable. Changing the font or page size isn't a copyrightable act of authorship.
All current dictionaries have relie
Re:Language (Score:5, Funny)
- Dell Computer vs Gateway Computer
- House of Pancakes vs. House of Carpets (their products sound AND taste the same)
- Tom Cruise vs Tom Hanks
- Tom Hanks vs Tom Arnold
- Shannon Doherty vs Midland Doherty
- Chemical Bank vs the ACS over the use of the word Chemical
- Ford Motor Co vs General Motors
- General Motors vs General Foods
- General Foods vs General Tire
- General Tire vs Goodyear Tire
- Goodyear Tire vs BF Goodrich Tire
- The Goodyear Blimp vs Roseanne Barr
- McDonalds vs anyone singing "Old McDonald Had a Farm"
- Ford suing anyone with an "F" in their stock symbol (Ford's stock symbol is "F")
- SCO suing anyone with a stock symbol with an S, or a C, or an O, or an X (Hence Daimler-Chrysler - DCX)
- ABC suing NBC - 2 letters the same out of 3
- NBC suing CBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
- CBS suing PBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
- SCO suing CBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
Anyone want to add more?Parent
Re:Language (Score:3, Funny)
... to anyone who bought a Focus, Ford IS the F-word.
Ford: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn/index.php?name=Forums& file=viewtopic&t=10277 [arrse.co.uk]
Curious name clash (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Curious name clash (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, the names are not that similar. Looks like the next trend in marketing: Pimp your product by suing
I'm sure SCO has prior art on that, though.
Parent
Re:Curious name clash (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Curious name clash (Score:5, Interesting)
The article says "over 1000 institutions", which is nowhere near the majority of institutions world-wide. Not even a significant amount.
And, as I pointed out, it's not aimed at the same market (subscription to a select group vs non-subscription to the general public).
Nor does it limit itself to the subset that the ACS limits itself to. Again, no "trading on the value of the name,. etc"
SciFinder "might" enjoy some protection, since it's not a generic word. "Scholar" does not. No more than General Motors can keep anyone else from using the word "Motor" in their product name.
The ACS is pimping their service with this lawsuit - hope that Google wins with prejudice.
Parent
Re:Curious name clash (Score:3, Insightful)
How widely known a trademark is has absolutely zero bearing on it's enforcability. Google has a legal responsibility to vet the name
Scholar = a common word, an not even the full name (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (Score:3, Informative)
They can't. They already did, and settled. Previous to that suit Coca-Cola made dozens of competing products either change their name or put them out of business.
KFG
Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe that McDonalds have trademarked the phrase "I'm lovin' it" (plus a dozen over translations of the phrase in other languages)... that is just so wrong.
It sounds stupid and trivial, but remember the frame of reference for trademarks. If I start my own fast food restaurant chain and use "I'm lovin' it" as a slogan, I think it is fair for McDonald's to sue me (and win) for trademark infringement. My use of the slogan would easily cause confusion with customers. Maybe they think my restaurant is sanctioned or supported by McDonald's when it is not.
If I started an amusement park and used that slogan, McDonald's would have a tough time getting me to stop unless I was also infringing other trademarks (e.g. the entrance to the park was a pair of golden arches).
Parent
Re:*banging head against a wall* (Score:3, Interesting)
And still misguided. There ARE limitations to what you can claim a trademark in. Someone CAN open an amusement park using "I'm loving it" and not infringe McDonald's BECAUSE they are marketing different consumer goods. That's the existing law today. Yeesh. But what McDonald's would sue under is Trademark dilution, a completely different cause of action. However, they would probably lose because "Mc" is a famou
that's pretty good for the ACS (Score:3, Insightful)
Madness! (Score:5, Interesting)
The same could be said of a well-known operating system, of course...
Re:Madness! (Score:2, Insightful)
Lindows? (Score:2)
Re:Lindows? (Score:3, Informative)
Bzzt! Wrong. Microsoft paid $20 million for Lindows to walk away. They are deathly afraid of a judgment that would set a precedent that Windows is a generic term.
Don't take my word for it ... http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/win dows/story/0,10801,94634,00.html [computerworld.com]
Or is this link biased because I got it by googling the following: 'lindows name change microsoft paid'?
This is Awesome! (Score:3, Funny)
Change it to... (Score:3, Funny)
apropraite name (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't Scholar a generic word? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I doubt anyone would confuse the word Google and SciFinder. If their entire suit hinge on the word Scholar, I think ACS is facing an uphill battle.
Re:Isn't Scholar a generic word? (Score:3, Informative)
The Real Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem here is that you can trademark a word in common use, like "scholar". Since the ACS did exactly that, roughly 6 years ago, they have no choice but to go after Google (or else have their own trademark claims painfully diluted, or maybe just nullified).
I don't much like what's happening here, but if I were Google, I'd be strongly considering just changing the name of my service. (IANAL, but it really looks like Google will have an uphill battle here.)
Re:The Real Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
If I had to guess I'd
I smell (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Scholar is a good name... (Score:3, Interesting)
chemical society scholar? (Score:4, Funny)
HEY, THAT'S MY WORD (Score:2)
Re:HEY, THAT'S MY WORD (Score:5, Funny)
If you wish to avoid lawsuits, you may join the Guild. Just send us a photocopied Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America membership form with a check made out to cash. (We couldn't be bothered to come up with our own form, and over 90% of our members have professional access to the NG/CWA form anyway . . . )
Parent
Obligatory "this is getting out of hand" post (Score:2)
So, to that end, I've trademarked the intake of breath that one makes before speaking, and therefore all verbal communication is in violation that contains such a sound.
Lawyers for dummies handbook, page 154 (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like this lawyer is spouting his basic litigation script and is getting ready to go to trial.
These guys have been doing this stuff for six years and I'm sure almost nobody here has heard of them. I doubt seriously there will be any "confusion" in the marketplace o
ACS Journals (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear Google, (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientific citations are a sticky field (Score:2)
Open Letter to ACS (Score:3, Interesting)
Shame on you and your lawsuit against Google!
I know your type -- you've found a nice little money-maker with SciFinder, and you don't want to lose it, even at the expense of stifling the free and unencumbered flow of scientific information.
I think you should know, you'll anger many of your intended 'grassroots' with this move, which is, in my opinion, unethical.
I'm a chemist, and I sincerely hope that the ACS either mends its ways, or is squarely put in its place by Google and tide of changing times!
Sincerely,
David Hart
Jesus H. Christ! (Score:3, Funny)
This letter is an instruction to cease and desist immediately in the following activities: 1st, your use of the word society. We at the Language Nazi Society have copyrighted the use of the term "Society" and will not tolerate the dillution of our trademarks by your use of this term. 2nd, your use of the term Chemical. As we have trademarked the entire dictionary, any other words you use can only be interpreted as an infringement on our rights. 3rd, the practice of writing letters as this also infringes on our dictionary tradmarks...
SciFinder (Score:5, Informative)
SciFinder is terrible. The UI is non-consistent with the standard windows suite, cf to google's wonderful UI. SciFinder is also ugly as a dog (a pug at that).
It's slow as a dog, cf to google's speed.
Tell it to save to results and all you get is unprintable ascii characters.
Performing a search is painful task with poor boolean support.
On the whole scifinder is poor product that I hope is supersceded with google's scholar.
--
A Commentary on 'The Hare and the Tortise' In reality the hare would have beaten the pants off the tortise in a race, rarely does slow and steady win the race. Instead it is the fast hare capable of the leaps and bounds of modern thinking that will win the race. This fable is told to encourage fat stupid children.
Google is for-profit (Score:3, Insightful)
However, in this particular case, I think the dispute is silly just because of the names: "SciFinder Scholar" and "Google Scholar" are not confusingly similar.
ACS misses the big picture (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem with any of these is that you can find abstracts, but generally have to pay $25 dollars for the PDF. What bugs me about that is much of the research is publically funded, why should the general public have to pay for the paper when we funded the research?
Re:What's the big deal? ... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I resent, being in business myself, is every idiot that tries to make money on a legal technicality versus working to creat something that a customer actually cares about. Patent and copyright legal fights raise the cost of goods and hu