3 ms·
Brand protection actually. They didn't object to inclusion of "to google" into Merriam-Webster a couple of years ago. But it was an all-encompassing neologism
by abcd_f 14y ago
Brand protection actually.
They didn't object to inclusion of "to google" into Merriam-Webster a couple of years ago. But it was an all-encompassing neologism with a positive bias. The ogooglebar on the other hand carries a negative bias, it describes something that you can't do and it's linked to Google. That's what they don't like.
Silly if you ask me.
- rohansingh 14y agoNope, it's definitely trademark law. Here's Merriam-Webster's definition: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web The reason Google is alright with this is because it specifies that "to Google" is to use Google. That prevents the trademark from being diluted. Similarly, Google wanted the council to declare ogooglebar as being unable to be found on Google, rather than just being unable to be found using any generic search engine. This is a very important distinction. I imagine that if Merriam-Webster tried to define "to Google" as to use any generic search engine, Google would have lodged a similar complaint.
- abcd_f 14y agoYep, it looks like you are right. They appear to have C&D'd the broader definition of "to google" on a couple of occasions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_%28verb%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_%28verb%29
- Kiro 14y agoLooks like most other dictionaries don't care: to search the Internet for information about (a person, topic, etc.): *We googled the new applicant to check her background.* to search for (something on the internet) using a search engine http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google?s=t