3 ms·

It might be that the American trademark law covers what goes in a dictionary but Swedish trademark law does not. So no matter what Googles' lawyers think they c

by wahlis 14y ago

It might be that the American trademark law covers what goes in a dictionary but Swedish trademark law does not. So no matter what Googles' lawyers think they can not legally influence the decision. But they can obviously be annoying enough to create influnce.

rohansingh 14y ago
> It might be that the American trademark law covers what goes in a dictionary but Swedish trademark law does not [citation needed]
- adfadf 14y ago
  17 § The publication of dictionaries, handbooks or other similar printed publications is scripture writers, editors or publishers, at the request of the holder of a registered trademark, required to ensure that the brand is not reflected in the document without showing that the mark is protected by registration. The same applies if such publication is made available electronically by the person referred to in Chapter 1. 9 § Freedom of Expression. Anyone who does not comply with a request under the first paragraph is required to contribute to a correction published in the manner and to the extent that is reasonable and to fund this. -- (in swedish) http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Varumarkeslag-20101877_sfs-2010-1877/ http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfat... The way I read it, you are allowed to put a trademarked entry/word in a dictionary, but you need to say that a term is trademarked (basically put a ™ after it) if the owner requests it. It doesn't say anything about forcing it to be defined by the text of the trademark definition, or the trademark owner being able to pull it out of the dictionary.
taneliv 14y ago
I don't know about Swedish law, but out of principle, even stupied IP laws should protect the things they are set to protect, or the laws should be overturned. Given that the Language Council (Språkrådet, right?) is trying to _regulate_ language, I think that trademark protection should be _considered_ in this case. This wouldn't be the case if this was a purely descriptive dictionary. OTOH, looking at the Council's new entries from earlier years http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spr%C3%A5kr%C3%A5dets_nyordslista http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spr%C3%A5kr%C3%A5dets_nyordslis... which have for example "facebooka" and "twittra", so I find Google's objection quite weird.
- adfadf 14y ago
  Språkrådet doesn't regulate the language. The dictionary that they publish is purely describing the general usage. That is, if it is a word that is in common use it should be in the dictionary with the common definition.

by wahlis 14y ago

rohansingh 14y ago

> It might be that the American trademark law covers what goes in a dictionary but Swedish trademark law does not [citation needed]

adfadf 14y ago
17 § The publication of dictionaries, handbooks or other similar printed publications is scripture writers, editors or publishers, at the request of the holder of a registered trademark, required to ensure that the brand is not reflected in the document without showing that the mark is protected by registration. The same applies if such publication is made available electronically by the person referred to in Chapter 1. 9 § Freedom of Expression. Anyone who does not comply with a request under the first paragraph is required to contribute to a correction published in the manner and to the extent that is reasonable and to fund this. -- (in swedish) http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Varumarkeslag-20101877_sfs-2010-1877/ http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfat... The way I read it, you are allowed to put a trademarked entry/word in a dictionary, but you need to say that a term is trademarked (basically put a ™ after it) if the owner requests it. It doesn't say anything about forcing it to be defined by the text of the trademark definition, or the trademark owner being able to pull it out of the dictionary.

taneliv 14y ago

I don't know about Swedish law, but out of principle, even stupied IP laws should protect the things they are set to protect, or the laws should be overturned. Given that the Language Council (Språkrådet, right?) is trying to _regulate_ language, I think that trademark protection should be _considered_ in this case. This wouldn't be the case if this was a purely descriptive dictionary. OTOH, looking at the Council's new entries from earlier years http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spr%C3%A5kr%C3%A5dets_nyordslista http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spr%C3%A5kr%C3%A5dets_nyordslis... which have for example "facebooka" and "twittra", so I find Google's objection quite weird.

adfadf 14y ago
Språkrådet doesn't regulate the language. The dictionary that they publish is purely describing the general usage. That is, if it is a word that is in common use it should be in the dictionary with the common definition.