5 ms·

Not that particular phrase. But they did say "g is for google", etc. which is our stuff again.

by sdgr 11y ago

stephengillie 11y ago
You might wish to consult Sue Grafton...
- sdgr 11y ago
  Thank you for that quip. Different domain, differnt concept. As I said in my opening paragraph, "Yes, there are many companies with alphabet in their names, but I have not found a single one that has assumed that name because of their products!" Unless you could find another company within the software/IT domain?
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    Just in applying Occam's Razor, it's more likely Google got the idea from a world-famous author who used that exact naming convention as her book titles, than being tangentially inspired by your less-known group. Speaking of tangents, did you create this account merely to make this post? Your account is 16 minutes older than this thread is.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      Or better yet - they got it from Picture Dictionaries. A is for Ant, B is for Bear...
    - sdgr 11y ago
      You are trying harder than Occam would have liked. Who in the history of copycats has admitted to the act? The history is full of just the opposite cases though: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_19 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_19 Yes. And your account has no posts but plenty of comments.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 11y ago
> But they did say "g is for google", etc. which is our stuff again. If by your stuff you mean "something enormously common in our culture that long predates CampaignRunner", then, yeah, "<letter> is for <thing starting with letter>" is "your stuff". Heck, even companies using it specifically to promote things they do is much older than CampaignRunner; consider, e.g., the Shredded Wheat Company's 1920s alphabet cards. (And that's just an example, the promotional technique is older [0].) Probably nearly as old as the technique of using a spurious claim that some entity that's getting more attention than you stole something from you as technique to get people to at least momentarily pay attention to you... [0] http://www.hagley.org/librarynews/alphabet-advertising-alphabet-books http://www.hagley.org/librarynews/alphabet-advertising-alpha...
- sdgr 11y ago
  Wow! You assume a lot! I posted this just because I want attention? You sure it couldn't have been something else? Not that I am pursuing this angle, but just so you know: are you at least familiar with copyright or patent or anything like that? There is nothing new under the sun after all! So, the core idea is that the new thing be something non-obvious, applied to a new, unrelated domain. So, tell me how many software companies have used this analogy? Don't tell us irrelevant stuff from last century. If you want to make a point, this would be the way to back it up.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > You assume a lot! I posted this just because I want attention? I point to a similarly old promotional technique to the one you pretend is your invention that Google must have stolen. I didn't say you were using that promotional technique, though it wouldn't be an unreasonable inference from the completely unwarranted and unsupported claim of copying. > So, tell me how many software companies have used this analogy? Who cares? You and Google have both used variations on a practice which is much older than either of you, a well-known reference in American (and possibly other) culture, and a common practice in business promotion across multiple industries. Even if you are the only other software company [0] to have done it before, what difference does that make -- the fact that it is so culturally pervasive means that you need a lot more than "they did it after we did, and are very loosely in a similar industry" to make the claim "they copied from us" even remotely justified. [0] leaving aside the perennial argument that Google isn't in the software industry, they're in the advertising industry -- based on which we should really be asking which other advertising company has done this before if we were focusing on the somewhat ludicrous same-industry comparison that you have, without justification, asserted is mandatory.
GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
Turns out that 'c' is for 'cookie', which will always be good enough for me.

Not that particular phrase. But they did say "g is for google", etc. which is our stuff again.

by sdgr 11y ago

Not that particular phrase. But they did say "g is for google", etc. which is our stuff again.

stephengillie 11y ago

You might wish to consult Sue Grafton...

sdgr 11y ago
Thank you for that quip. Different domain, differnt concept. As I said in my opening paragraph, "Yes, there are many companies with alphabet in their names, but I have not found a single one that has assumed that name because of their products!" Unless you could find another company within the software/IT domain?
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Just in applying Occam's Razor, it's more likely Google got the idea from a world-famous author who used that exact naming convention as her book titles, than being tangentially inspired by your less-known group. Speaking of tangents, did you create this account merely to make this post? Your account is 16 minutes older than this thread is.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Or better yet - they got it from Picture Dictionaries. A is for Ant, B is for Bear...
  - sdgr 11y ago
    You are trying harder than Occam would have liked. Who in the history of copycats has admitted to the act? The history is full of just the opposite cases though: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_19 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_19 Yes. And your account has no posts but plenty of comments.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 11y ago

> But they did say "g is for google", etc. which is our stuff again. If by your stuff you mean "something enormously common in our culture that long predates CampaignRunner", then, yeah, "<letter> is for <thing starting with letter>" is "your stuff". Heck, even companies using it specifically to promote things they do is much older than CampaignRunner; consider, e.g., the Shredded Wheat Company's 1920s alphabet cards. (And that's just an example, the promotional technique is older [0].) Probably nearly as old as the technique of using a spurious claim that some entity that's getting more attention than you stole something from you as technique to get people to at least momentarily pay attention to you... [0] http://www.hagley.org/librarynews/alphabet-advertising-alphabet-books http://www.hagley.org/librarynews/alphabet-advertising-alpha...

sdgr 11y ago
Wow! You assume a lot! I posted this just because I want attention? You sure it couldn't have been something else? Not that I am pursuing this angle, but just so you know: are you at least familiar with copyright or patent or anything like that? There is nothing new under the sun after all! So, the core idea is that the new thing be something non-obvious, applied to a new, unrelated domain. So, tell me how many software companies have used this analogy? Don't tell us irrelevant stuff from last century. If you want to make a point, this would be the way to back it up.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > You assume a lot! I posted this just because I want attention? I point to a similarly old promotional technique to the one you pretend is your invention that Google must have stolen. I didn't say you were using that promotional technique, though it wouldn't be an unreasonable inference from the completely unwarranted and unsupported claim of copying. > So, tell me how many software companies have used this analogy? Who cares? You and Google have both used variations on a practice which is much older than either of you, a well-known reference in American (and possibly other) culture, and a common practice in business promotion across multiple industries. Even if you are the only other software company [0] to have done it before, what difference does that make -- the fact that it is so culturally pervasive means that you need a lot more than "they did it after we did, and are very loosely in a similar industry" to make the claim "they copied from us" even remotely justified. [0] leaving aside the perennial argument that Google isn't in the software industry, they're in the advertising industry -- based on which we should really be asking which other advertising company has done this before if we were focusing on the somewhat ludicrous same-industry comparison that you have, without justification, asserted is mandatory.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago

Turns out that 'c' is for 'cookie', which will always be good enough for me.