Supreme Court Asked To Nullify the Google Trademark (arstechnica.com) 196
Is the term "google" too generic and therefore unworthy of its trademark protection? That's the question before the US Supreme Court. From a report: What's before the Supreme Court is a trademark lawsuit that Google already defeated in a lower court. The lawsuit claims that Google should no longer be trademarked because the word "google" is synonymous to the public with the term "search the Internet." "There is no single word other than google that conveys the action of searching the Internet using any search engine," according to the petition to the Supreme Court. It's perhaps one of the most consequential trademark case before the justices since they ruled in June that offensive trademarks must be allowed. The Google trademark dispute dates to 2012 when a man named Chris Gillespie registered 763 domain names that combined "google" with other words and phrase, including "googledonaldtrump.com."
bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
to google means to search on google.
I don't know what kind of morons this guy talks to, but I never hear people say google when they mean bing, or yahoo or whatever.
The verb for those is "search".
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
Bing
Is
Not
Google
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't that that great porn search engine, where it will offer raunchier and raunchier suggestions as you keep clicking through them?
I'm asking for a friend...
Re: (Score:3)
Kleenex (Score:2)
Do they still have their Trademark?
Because that's pretty much synonymous with every snotrag now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They won the case, but they had to defend it in court. I think, however, it only got up to the appellate level (i.e., not even circuit court). But it was a hard fight. After then they started marking all their boxes "Kleenex facial tissue", and for all I know supporting Scott's with *their* "Scotties facial tissue".
Re: (Score:2)
Only in the USA I think you will find. For example if you asked for a Kleenex in the UK someone would mostly like attempt to get you a genuine Kleenex tissue rather than some generic brand, as everyone calls them tissues.
Similarly if you ask for Scotch tape, most people in the UK would call it either sticky tape or Sellotape (which means all you America's missed the in joke in Harry Potter with the Spellotape).
I could go on, but in general I think using brand names to refer generically to products is a very
Defective alphabet (Score:2)
Maybe too many people uncertain whether it should be pronounce "Sellotape" or "Kellotape"?
Seriously, why do we even have a redundant letter like "c" in the language? How about we clean things up and replace it with "s" or "k" as appropriate, with "c" only still appearing as the first half of the double letter "ch". Eventually, once everybody is accustomed to the change, we can then drop the redundant "h" and let "c" do that job on its own. Come to think of it, isn't it about time to lose the "u" after "
Re: (Score:2)
A plan for the improvement of spelling in the English language
By Mark Twain
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and iear 4 might fiks th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is bullshit, but the reason is because the verb "google" was derived from the trademarked search engine called Google that was the most popular (and functional) of all search engines back in the early 2000's.
And, I know far too many people who use the blanket verb "google" regardless of the engine they use to do it with.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
I've heard "Just google it on bing. Works a lot better."
I doubt it. I have never heard anyone say that Bing "works a lot better".
Re: (Score:2)
You have never talked with Steve Ballmer or Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not bing it on yahoo?
Re: bullshit (Score:3, Funny)
I prefer to AskJeeves it on AltaVista
Re: bullshit (Score:4, Funny)
DogPile on Lycos. (still sort of works linguistically)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just Archie it instead. And if that fails, Veronica or Jughead instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I rather liked AltaVista. For the first few years I preferred it to Google, until Google got a bit smarter about how it searched. At first Google had problems with excluding search terms, so, e.g., you couldn't search for "stars and not movies".
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I could have sworn that "stars -movies" was already the the standard way to unambiguously express that in most of the best search engines of the day, fledgling Google included. Really pissed me off when they got rid of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. I've had really sporadic results with it for the last few(?) years. Sometimes it works, sometimes the "-" terms seem to just attract more of whatever I'm trying to avoid.
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
to google means to search on google.
Indeed. I have never heard anyone say "Google it with Bing" except as a joke.
Nitpick: TFA claims that the trademark for "aspirin" was lost through generic use. This is wrong. Bayer was forced to abandon the trademark because Germany lost the First World War. Bayer also lost the trademark to "Heroin".
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
Bayer also lost the trademark to "Heroin".
Well that turned out to be short sighted. The war on heroin would be over today if Bayer could go after street dealers for trademark infringement!
Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. I have never heard anyone say "Google it with Bing" except as a joke.
Practically nobody says "can you pass me a kleenex from that box of puffs facial tissues" unless they are making a joke too. They just say 'pass me a kleenex'. But they'll point at the puffs box while asking without awareness or irony.
Likewise people do say 'just google X' all the time as a generic synonym for "search for it on the internet". And they'll open their browser and use the default search without any real awareness that its actually yahoo or bing.
I don't know that its sufficiently generic for loss of trademark. But lets not kid ourselves here, I will say 'google something' yet I use duckduckgo on all the systems at home. The word 'search' doesn't automatically mean 'on the internet' ... if i say 'can you search for my drill' it's not immediately obvious that I want an internet search (e.g. for its specs / support / accessories / current price ), as opposed to finding my actual drill in the garage. And if I say 'google my drill' it means find a product page for my drill on the internet. And I don't care, or even intend for anyone to actually use google to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Practically nobody says "can you pass me a kleenex from that box of puffs facial tissues" unless they are making a joke too. They just say 'pass me a kleenex'. But they'll point at the puffs box while asking without awareness or irony.
I think that's the test, if you ask someone to xerox something and they give you a non-xerox photocopy do you care? No. Same with kleenex. But if you order coke and get anything other than Coca-Cola you're probably talking to your dealer. If you talk to one of those personal assistant thingies and say "google X" I don't think you'd expect to get results from Bing. Sure as a suggestion you might say "google X" to mean "search the Internet for X using Google or whatever search engine you like best" but as a c
Re: (Score:2)
but as a command or request I'd say you expect results from Google and nobody else
I disagree.
If my son says, "Dad, when did the T. Rex go extinct" I might say "google it". And I don't have any expectation that he'll specifically use google to get the answer; and in fact, because his default search engine is duckduckgo, I would expect him to use that.
But I'd never say 'duckduckgo it'. Because that's not a common thing to say...where as 'google it' has become a common thing to say.
Your example was a bit weird because you weren't looking for a final page... you were specifically asking for
Re: (Score:2)
Then why don't you say "look it up"?
Re: (Score:2)
Then why don't you say "look it up"?
Do you also harass people who ask for kleenex? After all they could ask for a 'facial tissue' instead. If they ask for saurkraut to do you ask them why they don't say "pickled cabbage"? If they want flapjacks to you tell them to say "pancakes"? If they want a cup of joe do you insist they say coffee?
Why don't I say "look it up"? Because. That's why. The language is rich and full of options.When I say "google it" people know I've suggested they look 'it' up online. It's well understood. I *could* say it lots
Re: (Score:2)
When I say "google it" people know I've suggested they look 'it' up online. It's well understood. I *could* say it lots of other ways... why should I?
No... When you say "Google it" people only will know that you suggested to ... well.. Google it,
Which by definition [merriam-webster.com] means "to use Google"
When someone asks you for a kleenex, would you hand them a glass of water? NO! Because, you know, words have meanings.
Yes, there may be some ambiguity, but that's why we can use dictionaries and such stuff to make sure everyone means the same.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that no-one else puts "kleenex" on their boxes of tissue paper though. Aside from not wanting to waste money on the inevitable lawsuit, I have a feeling that consumers would start returning their products when they realize what the deception is, costing them money.
Assuming Google lost its trademark on search products, I wonder if other companies would start using the term "google" in relation to their search engines. Seems like a rather shady thing to do, with no non-malicious motivations b
Re: (Score:3)
If you're saying "I'll Google it on duck duck go" that speaks to your ignorance
I've never said -that-. If I'm going to call out duckduckgo by name, then
I have said to my son, "google it" when he asked me a question.
And my son then used 'duckduckgo' to fulfill the request, and get the answer for himself, because that is the default search engine on his laptop.
And he (correctly) knew that when i said 'google it' I meant just meant look it up on the web, and it was not instructions to use a specific brand search engine to do it.
Words have meanings, and you just used them wrong.
If what is wrong becomes widespread enough, then its not wr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nitpick: TFA claims that the trademark for "aspirin" was lost through generic use. This is wrong. Bayer was forced to abandon the trademark because Germany lost the First World War. Bayer also lost the trademark to "Heroin".
Judge Learned Hand, in Bayer v. United Drug Co, actually noted the "genericization" of "aspirin" began before the First World War, so no, you're wrong. Go read the opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC there was a generic-use attempt against Kodak that failed in the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Them: Can you google (product name) to see how much it is?
Me: *types product into search bar and presses enter*
Them: No, I mean google it on Amazon
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that imply adding "site:amazon.com" to your google query? It's still googling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, "asprin" is pretty generic. Various pharmacy and supermarket chains sell their own brand. I don;t think anyone thinks there is any difference between any of them but they all come in their own branded boxes.
acetylsalicylic acid (Score:2)
But outside the USA, generic brands have to use the term "acetylsalicylic acid" because Bayer owns the name ASPIRIN®.
Re: (Score:2)
But outside the USA, generic brands have to use the term "acetylsalicylic acid" because Bayer owns the name ASPIRIN®.
No. Aspirin is considered generic in the UK, and lots of other places.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except occasionally online, whenever I hear someone talking about searching on the internet, they say "google" regardless of whether they're actually using google or not.
Even I do it: I use DuckDuckGo, but when I'm talking about searching for something I'll say I'm "googling" it.
But none of this automatically means that Google should lose the trademark. There are places in the US that call all sodas "coke" even when they're not even colas, but Coke hasn't lost its trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
My thinking is Google has a weak trademark. The guy who registered "googledonaldtrump.com" appears to have a verb in his domain name, not a claim that he's THE Google. I don't think you should be allowed to represent yourself as Google or use the name to brand your own product in their space; using the term to represent an idea, though, is fine.
It's the kind of thing you know when you see, which is why we have legal reasonable persons.
Re: (Score:2)
So people's stupidity should be allowed to harm Google's property?
Re: (Score:3)
You're not going to write "I searched it on the Internet" because it's too long
No, I'll probably just write 'I searched', because the context of 'on the Internet' is implicit from the context.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of "kleenex" must be specifically North America or even just the USA. The remaining 95% of humanity may not use the word this way. I imagine most English speakers would know what you meant and would proceed to pass you the pack of paper handkerchiefs/snot rags/hankies etc.
I would not be so sure that so many would know WTF a "Q-tip" is. Are they the things that fools keep sticking in their ears to the the dismay of doctors and audiologists?
Someone else mentioned "Coke" as a generic term. Again, i
Pepsi because we're not Coke addicts (Score:2)
We don't have Coke. Will Pepsi be OK?
You can't snort Pepsi.
Pretty sure we know the answer. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See Kleenex(TM), Xerox(TM), Band-Aid(TM), etc.
Why so? There are plenty of genericized trademarks, like Thermos, or Dumpster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
But did you know that "Realtor" has not been genericized yet?
Re: (Score:2)
See Kleenex(TM), Xerox(TM), Band-Aid(TM), etc.
Why so? There are plenty of genericized trademarks, like Thermos, or Dumpster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Genericised trademarks still do not allow you to release a similar product with a similar sounding brand name. I.E. you cant market a box of tissues as "Cleaneckses" because it's too similar to "Kleenex".
Google may have become a generic term for search, but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to defend their trademark from anyone attempting to co-opt it.
Besides this, the article mentioned that a less than scrupulous sounding person purchased in excess of 750 domain names featuring the word "google
What is before SCOTUS is an appeal not a case (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Too successful? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't this set a precedent of saying there should be no trademarks at all?
Or you can only trademark a product if you have competition and you provide less than 50% of that product to consumers, because as soon as you become the provider of more than 50% to the markets, your trademark has become the most commonly used name for the product.
It all sounds like a ridiculous joke, except somebody obviously has the time and funding to put into trying to degrade the value of Google's trademark. Who is providing
I prefer to use... (Score:5, Funny)
The privacy-preserving search engine, DuckDuckGoogle.
this seems a little circular (Score:3)
Google - by itself, as a word - implies nothing about internet search.
Ostensibly, it's a number ( in fact it's a homonym of googol, coined to mean 10^100).
If the summary is correct, essentially they're arguing that Google's market success means they lose their trademark ala generification like kleenex, xerox, etc. But it doesn't make any sense at all to assert "There is no single word other than google that conveys the action of searching the Internet using any search engine" without intrinsically crediting the entity Google with the credit for it meaning that.
It seems like a pretty arbitrary taking to simply de-list their owned trademark by government fiat, PARTICULARLY when it's not like they're abusing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ostensibly, it's a number ( in fact it's a homonym of googol, coined to mean 10^100)
Actually it's a mispelling of the word "googol" (http://graphics.stanford.edu/~dk/google_name_origin.html).
Re: (Score:2)
Even though it is a derivative of googol, mention of the name Google will often get the Barney Google theme stuck in my head.
Something to the effect of, o/~ Barney Google, with the goo goo googly eyes o/~
I'll have to do a DuckDuckGo search if I want to make sure I got it correct; if I can be arsed to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if you try to kleenex the google search screen, make sure you haven't used it to wipe your nose first, cos yuck.
Dan Parisi Defense (Score:4, Interesting)
We used to love Dan Pirisi here on slashdot. The guy made a habit out of registering things he didn't like with "Sucks" at the end of it.
http://www.salon.com/2001/06/2... [salon.com]
His case was hard fought and he won with the defense of registering a domain name with "sucks" in it is a criticism of the companies being featured. Good story from the early days of slashdot/the internet.
Coke, Dumpster, Escalator, Kerosene (Score:3)
So should Coca-cola Company lose their trademark because a bunch of Georgians erroneously call all soft drinks "coke" ?
Sure, sometimes trademarks become genericized [wikipedia.org]. And sometimes the trademark is lost, and other times the courts decide that the trademarks are still valid. Usually the newer the trademark the less likely it is to be lost, probably because modern courts are corporation-friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
While we're actually on the same side, I disagree with your logic:
Coke isn't trademarked. Cola isn't trademarked. COCA-COLA is.
So your argument isn't directly applicable to the discussion without some additional link from "part of a word" == "whole word." Nobody is arguing Microsoft owns "micro" or "soft." Then again, Microsoft HAS argued Lindows infringed on the Windows trademark.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You only had to take a look at a can of "Diet Coke" or the wikipedia link I originally included to realize what you are saying is completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
While we're actually on the same side, I disagree with your logic:
Coke isn't trademarked. Cola isn't trademarked. COCA-COLA is.
So your argument isn't directly applicable to the discussion without some additional link from "part of a word" == "whole word." Nobody is arguing Microsoft owns "micro" or "soft." Then again, Microsoft HAS argued Lindows infringed on the Windows trademark.
Sigh, being pedantic only makes you look silly. We all knew what he meant.
He was trying to say that just because a trademark becomes generic does not make it indefensible. Sure Coke (or Coca-Cola(TM) or whatever, annoying Grammar nazi's; and pendants pleases me mightily) can't stop their trademark being used in film, media or general conversation because it's generic, but if someone tried to produce a carbonated beverage called Coke (not Coca-Cola(TM)) or even Coak, then sure as hell they can sue them in
Re: (Score:2)
So should Coca-cola Company lose their trademark because a bunch of Georgians erroneously call all soft drinks "coke" ?
Hey! We do the same thing in Florida.
El Cubano: (walks into a restaurant and gets a table)
Waiter/waitress: What can I get you to drink?
El Cubano: Coke, please.
Waiter/waitress: What kind of coke would you like?
El Cubano: Ginger ale, please.
Waiter/waitress: OK, I'll be right back with that.
Here is what it is like in New York:
El Cubano: (walks into a restaurant and gets a table)
Waiter/waitress: What can I get you to drink?
El Cubano: Coke, please.
Waiter/waitress: OK, I'll be right back with that.
El C
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but...
El Cubano: (walks into a restaurant and gets a table)
Waiter/waitress: What can I get you to drink?
El Cubano: Coke, please.
Waiter/waitress: OK, I'll be right back with that.
El Cubano: (thinks to self, but he/she didn't ask what kind of coke I wanted)
Bickerdyke: Wondering why El Cubano didn't tell the waitress right away what he wanted to drink.
So if, even if, anywhere in the world "Coke" would be generic for any soft drink - NO ONE would just order a "Soft Drink" in the same way you can't just order "juice" or "ice cream" or "something to eat" "A beer" is the only exception, as that would usually give you the (one) beer they have on tap.
Alphabet (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing they changed their name to Alphabet. They'll never have any problems with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Appeal to a lost cause (Score:2)
Supreme Court has been asked nothing... this is an appeal from a lost lawsuit to higher court. And it'll probably not be taken, let alone pass.
Either way, it's Google's win. If they win, they keep the trademark and the term doesn't become generic. If it becomes generic though, it only works as marketing material for them with the term being cemented as searching for content on the Internet.
Short answer no. Long answer N with 10^100 o's. (Score:2)
As a web service, the trademark also enjoys near perfect inherent trademark in protection. Imagne it being otherwise: You go to Sears "to buy something on Amazon." It would be simple idiocy to think this.
If you go to google.com, you get either get Google or you are having a bad problem and you will not go to internet today.
Please! (Score:2)
Google the new Frigidair?
Doesn't Matter... Yet (Score:2)
The Supreme Court hasn't granted cert, so the case might not even be heard. This is along the lines of "any idiot can file a lawsuit".
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, then it will be interesting. In agreeing to hear the case, there is a presumption---no matter how slight---that they may overturn the appellate ruling.
Until the Supreme Court grants/denies cert, this is just background noise.
Best Buy (Score:2)
Couldn't disagree more (Score:2)
"Google" should not have trademark protection when it is used to refer to the NUMBER. Otherwise, when referring to an internet search, it absolutely is a trademark. And I say this as someone generally opposed to our corporate overlords. This argument is weak, and simply encouraging the further dilution of language.
I don't know (Score:2)
Not that I've ever used the verb "Google" for any other search engine, but:
How many of you Hoover or Lux your floor with an actual Hoover or Electrolux vacuum cleaner?
Generic Trademarks - (Score:2)
This Gillespie guy is wasting money like crazy. The Court is likely to decline hearing his case, and that is to his benefit. He's just throwing good money after bad in a doomed quest to do the absurd.
Not that there aren't other reasons he should not be allowed to register domains with th
Re: (Score:2)
And that's correct usage among all the cases I've seen.
No one says, "I'm going to google that with SIRI".
No one says, "I'm going to google that with Bing"
When they say they are going to google something, they mean they are going to use google to search the internet.
Partially, this is because there is a particular quality to google results which other search engines lack.
Re: (Score:2)
Finding idiots doesn't make a trademark invalid.
It does if you find enough of them. Common usage doesn't mean usage by domain experts.
Re:Google means search with google (Score:5, Interesting)
You obviously haven't been around non-tech people in a while.
I've heard "google that on Bing" "I use yahoo to google."; for a non-trivial number of people, "to google" justt means "to search online".
Just like "hand me a kleenex" "i need a band-aid". The terms are still trademarked, but the public chooses to use it generically for anything similiar.
Re:Google means search with google (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if there is a way for Google to find people using the word "google" in a generic sense. Some kind of ability to look at millions of use cases and citations, some kind of artificial intelligence to infer the context... Wondering who Google would turn to find information.
Re: (Score:2)
But these companies have an army of lawyers who would send cease and desist letters to newspapers and other organizations when they use brandnames generically. Xerox used to be very aggressive about it.
They have to. At least over here it's not general, widespread generic use that can make you loose your brand, but you have to proof that you took appropriate action to defend your brand.
I wonder if there is a way for Google to find people using the word "google" in a generic sense.
At least they tried.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.heise.de/newsticke... [heise.de]
http://www.literaturcafe.de/go... [literaturcafe.de]
And if you want, you may look up the official definition of "to google"
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure there isn't a lmgtfy that....Never mind.
http://lmgtfy.com/?s=b&q=let+m... [lmgtfy.com]
You can set lmgtfy to use search engines other than google.
That's disturbing.
Re: (Score:3)
I just looked for lmbtfy.com [lmbtfy.com] for "let me bing that for you." The site exists, but it searches Google by default! So apparently, you can Bing something using Google. So Bing should lose their trademark too.
Re: (Score:2)
Bing using google? What madness!
Actually letmegooglethatforyou.com, lmgtfy.com and lmbtfy.com are all run by the same entity (notice the logo) surprisingly letmebingthatforyou.com is not.
Re: (Score:2)
When they say they are going to google something, they mean they are going to use google to search the internet.
Except when they don't.
I have seen people say they were googling something when they were using Bing or Siri.
Re: (Score:2)
The eclipse is in 2024.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. Sorry for the latency. The Internet is kind of slow here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
REGISTRANT CONTACT
Organization:Google Inc.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT
Organization:Google Inc.
TECHNICAL CONTACT
Organization:Google Inc.
I'm pretty sure your link confirms that their name is Google, and not Googol
Re: (Score:2)
The only machine that I know of that goes Bing is the most expensive one in the WHOOOOOLE hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, search up should also imply you checked through the library and any reasonable place to find records. The "up" suffix usually means "to completion". But a lot of people now seem to expect to find everything on the internet, and that would make "search up" reasonable for "to search (all) the internet". And "climb up the tree" doesn't mean you climb higher than the branches will support you, so it would be reasonable to use "search up" to mean "do sufficient search". If you've misplaced your key
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point.
It also bothers me a bit when people say they're "searching the internet" and then use Google (or other such search engines) where they aren't so much "searching the internet" as they as "searching the web".
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks have been lost in the past because they have came to describe a product rather than its source. I think Frizbee is one of those: everyone knows what a frizbee is, even if it isn't made by the Frizbee Corp.
It's spelled, "Frisbee", and yes, it's a registered trademark of the Wham-O Toy Company. If a competitor advertised their own flying disc as a "frisbee", Wham-O would undoubtedly take legal action. Wham-O also owns the trademark for Hula Hoop.
One of the things companies do to prevent the loss of trademarks through genericization is to place messages in trade magazines targeted toward journalists, reminding them to include the trademark symbol when writing about trademarked items. That's enough to prevent lo
Re: (Score:2)
It's spelled, "Frisbee", and yes, it's a registered trademark of the Wham-O Toy Company. If a competitor advertised their own flying disc as a "frisbee", Wham-O would undoubtedly take legal action. Wham-O also owns the trademark for Hula Hoop.
Interesting, as both could be depicted in a simplified way by a plain circle.
So they are the actual "Hudsucker Industries"!
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, as both could be depicted in a simplified way by a plain circle.
The Hula Hoop, sure. But the Frisbee is not a "plain circle"; in cross-section it's an airfoil, and it generates lift when traveling horizontally. Very clever in its simplicity.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01... [imdb.com]
How would the drawing in this movie have been any different if it was about a Frisbee?
Re: (Score:2)
It is a public domain company and should be broken up and raided at will.
Whats its like, being a complete crackpot?
Re: (Score:2)