Byte by Bite

Google, it seems, doesn't want you 'googling'

by Marv Dealy

A stuffy person at Google—possibly a lawyer—has written to a bunch of media outfits going on about how the word Google can be used. For example, you’re supposed to say “I went to Google and looked for stuff” as opposed to “I Googled for stuff” which implies a search anywhere on the Internet as opposed to a search specifically at Google.

It reminds me of letters I sent out years ago on behalf of Whamo, owner of the frisbee, or as Whamo insists, the Frisbee®. Many companies invent words and try to get them trademarked, restricting their use by competitors.

The word kleenex by now describes any tissue used to wipe one’s nose—a custom I’m told by an Australian acquaintance is uniquely American. Had Kimberly Clark, owner of the Kleenex® trademark, vigorously pursued misuses of its word by members of the media, perhaps only their products would today be called Kleenex, but no—once the public grabs a phrase it can become both a noun and a verb and take on new meanings, as is the case with Google.

Back to Whamo—in an attempt to protect their word (Frisbee®) they employed a clipping service to scour the media for misuses and when found the offending article would be clipped out of the magazine or newspaper (this was pre-Internet by a decade, boys and girls) and sent along to Whamo’s office where they were accumulated and from time to time sent along to my office.

Using then state-of-the-art dedicated word processing equipment, we printed out a seemingly one-off personalized letter to the offenders on Whamo’s stationary, instructing them to cease and desist and offering the correct ways to use the word or acceptable alternatives.

The letters appeared to be signed by an attorney for the company. Of course, we know the signature was preprinted and then run through the word processor with a boilerplate letter that inserted the variables describing the dastardly misuse.

We sent out literally hundreds and hundreds of these letters for Whamo over time, which leads me to wonder exactly how many misuses of the word Gogle it takes to get one of the “don’t use it that way” letters from them.

Googgle and Whamo’s battles aren’t unique; Xerox tried for years to get the public to refer to only their equipment as a Xerox machine, not a photocopier.

What other words might seep into the common vernacular, losing their uniqueness to the “inventors” and “owners” of that word? Maybe we should get on over to Mr. Internet and Gogle that question. And now, Mr. Google, can we get our letter please?

DSL comes to 928

According to reports, the Frontier phone bunch has started taking reservations for DSL service from their customers. That said, it should be noted I’m told that the time between an announcement and actual quality service may vary widely.

Don’t you think that figuring out right now what to do for fast Internet would be a lot easier if the big guy on the block would give some clue to its plans for expanding the offering of DSL?

Well, it doesn’t work that way. According to what I call the Jabba the Hutt rule, the big guy on this particular block—AT&T—says it can’t reveal its plans for expanding DSL service in our locale because to do so would be to have the effect of overshadowing by its shear size and diminishing competition among companies scrambling over themselves to provide cheap, reliable DSL service where there isn’t any now.

Hah. Do you see any company out there on the horizon, riding our way with extra DSL strapped to the saddle? I don’t think so.

Maybe that Jabba the Hutt rule makes sense in a megapolis, but we need an exception or two because we represent such an itty bitty market share that no one cares to step forward and make the investment necessary.

Would it be so hard for the folks in charge to say that in the case of certain communities—small, rural and remote come to mind—that it’d be OK for AT&T to announce its plans in advance of their actual rollout, giving the rest of the folks the choice to go for satellite, or sell the house and move across the street, or whatever they need to do.

Is it really necessary for AT&T to hide behind the Jabba rule or does that sound like a corporate ploy to avoid spending money in areas where they won’t make it back in a week? Join the trickle of folks who email me at the address below, or visit the blog at www.Talk-Here-Now.blogspot.com.