ACS Sues Google Over Use of 'Scholar' 285
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."
Re:Lindows? (Score:3, Informative)
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'?
Re:Isn't Scholar a generic word? (Score:3, Informative)
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: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 protection on.
As to the contents, you'll find that only the unique parts in your "copyrighted" dictionary are covered by copyright - the actual list of words and their definitions aren't. That's why most dictionaries include "extra material" - so that they can actually put a copyright notice in the book.
*banging head against a wall* (Score:2, Informative)
-truth
Re:Funny? (Score:3, Informative)
All current dictionaries have relied upon other "common sources", including other dictionaries. Again, not copyrightable.
I think you are thinking of the "compilations being copyrightable" area, but this only applies if the compilation is more than just a collection of facts. Dictionaries don't meet this standard. Encyclopedias (at least most of them) do.
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.
Current User of both Scifinder Scholar and Google (Score:1, Informative)