ACS Sues Google Over Use of 'Scholar'

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."

Curious name clash

[mistersooreams]

The name is fairly obvious for a product such as this, but not that obvious. I'm surprised Google allowed such a clash of names to occur, especially with such related products. I imagine it'll get settled out of court.

Madness!

[hak hak]

This is absolute madness. Since when is the word "scholar" in any way reserved for the ACS? If you use a generic word in your product, don't be complain when others use the same word, otherwise you are just plain naive.

The same could be said of a well-known operating system, of course...

I smell

[bigberk]

Doesn't this also seem like nothing more than a poor excuse for advertising the Google Scholar beta?

Google Scholar is a good name...

[pleumann]

...but that SciFinder thing sounds more like a search engine for Star Trek episodes.

ACS Journals

[The Ape With No Name]

A subscription to one of their journals is OUTRAGEOUS. Our library has over 50 grand a year set aside for ACS journals. A chemist friend joked with me saying that some of the titles never even get read while in the periodical room.

Open Letter to ACS

[dhart]

Dear ACS,

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

Re:Curious name clash

[danudwary]

Maybe the general public hasn't heard of SciFinder Scholar, but I and most of my colleagues in the lab use it almost daily. I'd wager most every physics/chemistry/biomed science grad student has used it at one time or another, as long as their institution pays for it (and I've not been to one that doesn't). <sarcasm> Gee, I can't imagine how anybody would confuse Google's science publication search service called Scholar with the ACS's science publication search service called SciFinder Scholar. </sarcasm> That said, we all just call it SciFinder anyway. But it was stupid of Google anyway.

Re:Curious name clash

[tomhudson]

As you point out, people just call it SciFinder. So, if google had called it Google SciFinder, ... maybe. But even then, it's not enough to cause confusion in anyone's mind (at least anyone who's likely to use the product).

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.

Re:What's the big deal? ...

[lottameez]

It's a big deal because you presume that ACS "owns" the term "scholar" when applied to a literature search service. ACS's term, I believe, is actually "SciScholar" and it's a desktop (vs web-based tool). IMO, that is plenty of difference to invalidate legal action.

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 hurt consumers (as well as legitimate, honest businesses).

Re:Language

[tomhudson]

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.

Anyone who took the trouble to read the article, the ACS's page (which I quoted in part because I did read the article) and Google's faq (just go to their Google Scholar page and click on the link) would see quite quickly the following:

1. The ACS is going to lose big time in terms of paid subscriptions
2. The Google service will allow for "Open Access" and self-publishing of peer-reviewed research, again kicking the ACS in the butt
3. The ACS does not own the word "Scholar"
4. The ACS is scared shitless
5. 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).

Re:RTFA

[Muhammar]

ACS will win because it has trademark for the name which is a name for a scientific search engine.

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.

Re:*banging head against a wall*

[TheHonestTruth]

So substitute the word "copyright" for "trademark" in my post, and the argument is still the same.

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 famous mark that everyone associates with McDonald's whereas "I'm lovin' it" has not gained nearly the fame the "Mc" family of marks has.

For the record, there are duration limitations to trademarks too so that if McDonalds isn't using a trademark in commerce when it comes time to renew the mark, they will lose the mark and anyone may use it on anything, including fast food.

Now, as for your war of attrition complaint, well that comes down to economics. McDonalds can afford the best lawyers and can afford to wear competition down. If we level the playing field, well then we just go to socialized law, at which point the lawyer you would get could be some knucklehead who got his JD from a 5th tier school while McDonalds gets a Harvard grad just because they can pay off whoever is assinging counsel that day. Money talks and always will.

-truth