3 ms·

I mean these things are bound to happen. He does not have a trademark. This is not free advertising. Imagine someone bought his book thinking its for google's

I mean these things are bound to happen. He does not have a trademark. This is not free advertising. Imagine someone bought his book thinking its for google's "go" language. That is not a happy customer, that is an upset one who wants a refund. It would only be right for google to reach out and at least start a discussion. If they don't sounds like they are just in the mindset of "we're google, we do what we want" (which is kinda of not too far from the truth)

riffraff 11y ago
this happened in 2009
supermatt 11y ago
Sure he has a trademark. Its just not registered. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark
- nkozyra 11y ago
  Not my area of expertise, but I'd think "Go" would be very difficult to trademark given it's a generic term.
  - johnnyfaehell 11y ago
    It's not very generic for a name. Remember "That's hot" got trademarked successfully.
    - cozuya 11y ago
      Lets face it, golang has a lot of problems with generics..
      - nkozyra 11y ago
        Wow, I didn't even see it coming.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    The point of trademark is to prevent confusion - people not sure who they're doing business with, and maybe unethical businesses playing on the confusion. Therefore trademark only applies within an area of trade. Remember Apple: Apple Computer didn't violate the trademark of Apple Music (but then there were issues when Apple Computer entered the music business). But within an area of business, you could trademark a generic word like "Go". (Disclaimer: IANAL, so I could be wrong.)
mindcrime 11y ago
He does not have a trademark. That's debatable. AFAIK, trademarks are established automatically, by usage, regardless of whether or not they are registered with the USPTO (this is all assuming US jurisdiction). But I think the law reads something along the lines of "use in trade" or something like that, so I guess one could argue whether or not making a programming language available for free download constitutes "trade" or not. IANAL, but my feeling is that the Go guy would have had a decent case, had he felt like litigating over the whole thing. Of course it made sense for him to not litigate, given the cost in time and money and what not. But still, I think Google were wrong here, but legally and morally.

riffraff 11y ago

this happened in 2009

supermatt 11y ago

Sure he has a trademark. Its just not registered. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark

nkozyra 11y ago
Not my area of expertise, but I'd think "Go" would be very difficult to trademark given it's a generic term.
- johnnyfaehell 11y ago
  It's not very generic for a name. Remember "That's hot" got trademarked successfully.
  - cozuya 11y ago
    Lets face it, golang has a lot of problems with generics..
    - nkozyra 11y ago
      Wow, I didn't even see it coming.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  The point of trademark is to prevent confusion - people not sure who they're doing business with, and maybe unethical businesses playing on the confusion. Therefore trademark only applies within an area of trade. Remember Apple: Apple Computer didn't violate the trademark of Apple Music (but then there were issues when Apple Computer entered the music business). But within an area of business, you could trademark a generic word like "Go". (Disclaimer: IANAL, so I could be wrong.)

mindcrime 11y ago

He does not have a trademark. That's debatable. AFAIK, trademarks are established automatically, by usage, regardless of whether or not they are registered with the USPTO (this is all assuming US jurisdiction). But I think the law reads something along the lines of "use in trade" or something like that, so I guess one could argue whether or not making a programming language available for free download constitutes "trade" or not. IANAL, but my feeling is that the Go guy would have had a decent case, had he felt like litigating over the whole thing. Of course it made sense for him to not litigate, given the cost in time and money and what not. But still, I think Google were wrong here, but legally and morally.