×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

285 comments

first second third (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062082)

first second third

sex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062083)

fertile post

Language (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062091)

Step 1: Copywrite the dictionary
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

Re:Language (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062103)

Step 0: Learn to spell copyright

Funny? (1)

JNighthawk (769575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062184)

You don't think the dictionary is copyrighted? There are many different versions by many different companies in many different languages and I bet you each one is copyrighted.

Re:Funny? (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062223)

NBo, the dictionary is NOT copyrighted. Not even the "Webster's" is copyrighted - the term "Webster's Dictionary" no longer has copyright protection, so you can publish a dictionary and call it "Joe Blow's Webster's Dictionary" if you want.

Remember, facts are not copyrightable.

Re:Funny? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062426)

That's because "Webster's Dictionary" would be a trademark.

Every "Webster's" dictionary is copyrighted (mine is copyrighted 1958 by Books, Inc.). Just try copying one. You'll find out. No, you can't copyright a fact, but you can damned well copyright what you wrote about that fact.

KFG

Re:Language (1)

Fallen_Knight (635373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062285)

Thats about it...

seems people can't tell the diffrence between "SciFinder Scholar" and "google Scholar", caus you know SciFinder sounds sooo much like google, they both have a single e in them!!

Re:Language (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062384)

seems people can't tell the diffrence between "SciFinder Scholar" and "google Scholar", caus you know SciFinder sounds sooo much like google, they both have a single e in them!!
Next up:
  • Dell Computer vs Gateway Computer
  • House of Pancakes vs. House of Carpets (their products sound AND taste the same)
  • Tom Cruise vs Tom Hanks
  • Tom Hanks vs Tom Arnold
  • Shannon Doherty vs Midland Doherty
  • Chemical Bank vs the ACS over the use of the word Chemical
  • Ford Motor Co vs General Motors
  • General Motors vs General Foods
  • General Foods vs General Tire
  • General Tire vs Goodyear Tire
  • Goodyear Tire vs BF Goodrich Tire
  • The Goodyear Blimp vs Roseanne Barr
  • McDonalds vs anyone singing "Old McDonald Had a Farm"
  • Ford suing anyone with an "F" in their stock symbol (Ford's stock symbol is "F")
  • SCO suing anyone with a stock symbol with an S, or a C, or an O, or an X (Hence Daimler-Chrysler - DCX)
  • ABC suing NBC - 2 letters the same out of 3
  • NBC suing CBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
  • CBS suing PBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
  • SCO suing CBS - 2 letters the same out of 3
Anyone want to add more?

Re:Language (1, Funny)

Shoeboy (16224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062430)

House of Pancakes vs. House of Carpets (their products sound AND taste the same)

If munching carpet really tasted like a short stack of buttermilk pancakes with maple syrup, I wouldn't be gay. Well not as gay at any rate.

Yours in Christ,
shoeboy

Re:Language (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062546)

Step 1: Copywrite the dictionary
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!


Step 1: Instantly assume any trademark dispute of any kind is completely meritless without looking at the actual issues involved or even reading the article.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

Curious name clash (3, Interesting)

mistersooreams (811324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062095)

The name is fairly obvious for a product such as this, but not that obvious. I'm surprised Google allowed such a clash of names to occur, especially with such related products. I imagine it'll get settled out of court.

Re:Curious name clash (3, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062173)

Not really - the ACS will lose this one. From the article:
But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action—to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace.
What goodwill - the general public never heard of them. Google's product, on the other hand, is aimed at the general public - not the same product in either design or use. So there's no possibility of conmfusion.

Furthermore, the names are not that similar. Looks like the next trend in marketing: Pimp your product by suing

I'm sure SCO has prior art on that, though.

Re:Curious name clash (3, Interesting)

danudwary (201586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062368)

Maybe the general public hasn't heard of SciFinder Scholar, but I and most of my colleagues in the lab use it almost daily. I'd wager most every physics/chemistry/biomed science grad student has used it at one time or another, as long as their institution pays for it (and I've not been to one that doesn't). <sarcasm> Gee, I can't imagine how anybody would confuse Google's science publication search service called Scholar with the ACS's science publication search service called SciFinder Scholar. </sarcasm> That said, we all just call it SciFinder anyway. But it was stupid of Google anyway.

Re:Curious name clash (4, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062432)

As you point out, people just call it SciFinder. So, if google had called it Google SciFinder, ... maybe. But even then, it's not enough to cause confusion in anyone's mind (at least anyone who's likely to use the product).

The article says "over 1000 institutions", which is nowhere near the majority of institutions world-wide. Not even a significant amount.

And, as I pointed out, it's not aimed at the same market (subscription to a select group vs non-subscription to the general public).

Nor does it limit itself to the subset that the ACS limits itself to. Again, no "trading on the value of the name,. etc"

SciFinder "might" enjoy some protection, since it's not a generic word. "Scholar" does not. No more than General Motors can keep anyone else from using the word "Motor" in their product name.

The ACS is pimping their service with this lawsuit - hope that Google wins with prejudice.

Re:Curious name clash (1)

Gax (196168) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062387)

What goodwill - the general public never heard of them. Google's product, on the other hand, is aimed at the general public - not the same product in either design or use. So there's no possibility of conmfusion.


The general public hasn't heard of them, however Google Scholar isn't marketed towards the public. It's aimed at students, lecturers and other researchers who are well aware of ACS. I doubt they will win, Scholar is too generic.

Google Scholar has caused an uproar in the learning community - many declare it as the death knoll for existing research repositories [sherpa.ac.uk] , while proponents of open access [soton.ac.uk] have gone into damage control mode to ensure the benefits of Google Scholar are not blown out of proportion and ensure these projects are not abandoned.

Re:Curious name clash (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062511)

There's been a lot of concern that people don't have access to research because of the cutbacks in subscriptions to journals, and the high costs entailed in being published.

Given the current state of the world, and the need to use resources efficiently, needless duplication (as opposed to replication to verify results are valid) is a waste we cannot afford.

The ACS, by sticking with the old model, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Self-archiving (as proponents of open access want) is something that Google is encouraging, and, IMO, a good thing. If the ACS is so upset, let them evolve so that they can compete - it's not like they don't have the user base already.

Re:Curious name clash (1)

ReeprFlame (745959) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062359)

I'm not sure it is so much the name but the technology and what it searches for. Take a look at each site, one is more scientific where the other is everything [literature, science, etc]. I do not see the problem here. Anyway, they employ different search technologies I am sure!

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062096)

at last i managed a first post! yoohoo!!

Re:first post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062116)

not by a long shot, cunt.

Scholar = a common word, an not even the full name (2, Insightful)

Adhemar (679794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062105)

Next, Coca-Cola will sue Pepsi Cola over the use of the word Cola.

Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (1)

cuteseal (794590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062121)

True true. Another example -- I can't believe that McDonalds have trademarked the phrase "I'm lovin' it" (plus a dozen over translations of the phrase in other languages)... that is just so wrong.

Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (4, Insightful)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062279)

I can't believe that McDonalds have trademarked the phrase "I'm lovin' it" (plus a dozen over translations of the phrase in other languages)... that is just so wrong.

It sounds stupid and trivial, but remember the frame of reference for trademarks. If I start my own fast food restaurant chain and use "I'm lovin' it" as a slogan, I think it is fair for McDonald's to sue me (and win) for trademark infringement. My use of the slogan would easily cause confusion with customers. Maybe they think my restaurant is sanctioned or supported by McDonald's when it is not.

If I started an amusement park and used that slogan, McDonald's would have a tough time getting me to stop unless I was also infringing other trademarks (e.g. the entrance to the park was a pair of golden arches).

Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (1)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062549)

I see the high level of your point but "Where's the beef?".

Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062280)

What really gets me is Volkswagen's attempt to hog the words "Driver's Wanted", even though the phrase was used way back when a "driver" meant someone who handled horses.

Or Quaker Oats "Do the right thing". Not original in any sense of the word - maybe they can duke it out with Nike "Just do it" (similar-sounding), and Jesus "Do unto others" (similar core idea).

No wonder the least popular people are marketroids and human resources.

Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062350)

What really gets me is Volkswagen's attempt to hog the words "Driver's Wanted"

They can keep it. The rest of us will just not stick in a random apostrophe and will use the more proper phrase "Drivers Wanted".

Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062463)

Damn me and my typos :-)

VW took a sex shop to court over their use of the phrase "Lovers Wanted". Claimed that it was trading on their trademark phrase, which was pure BS. A "slap-suit", nothing more.

Maybe I'll use the phrase "Lovers Wanted" in any porn site I set up - add a whole new twist to the idea of "pimping my site" :-)

Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (1)

Mitsoid (837831) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062324)

almost positive they already had a court case on that

Re:Scholar = a common word, an not even the full n (3, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062452)

Next, Coca-Cola will sue Pepsi Cola over the use of the word Cola.

They can't. They already did, and settled. Previous to that suit Coca-Cola made dozens of competing products either change their name or put them out of business.

KFG

that's pretty good for the ACS (3, Insightful)

kaedemichi255 (834073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062106)

although i highly doubt they will win their side of the dispute, seems like a great publicity stunt for them and their pay-to-use service ;) plus, their service is only a subset of google's service, so really it is just a clash of appropriate titles. can't google just scratch the name "google scholar"?

Re:that's pretty good for the ACS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062141)

I now learn that those of us working in areas
of research other than chemistry are not scholars after all. What a sham.
Thge fact that this would be judged pretty good for the ACS shows to what an extent we are all messed up. It is actually a shame that ACS will come up with such shit.

Madness! (4, Interesting)

hak hak (640274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062112)

This is absolute madness. Since when is the word "scholar" in any way reserved for the ACS? If you use a generic word in your product, don't be complain when others use the same word, otherwise you are just plain naive.

The same could be said of a well-known operating system, of course...

Lindows? (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062213)

Er, "Windows"??? We've been all over this before with Lindows. Google should have known better.

Re:Lindows? (2, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062345)

Er, "Windows"??? We've been all over this before with Lindows. Google should have known better.
Bzzt! Wrong. Microsoft paid $20 million for Lindows to walk away. They are deathly afraid of a judgment that would set a precedent that Windows is a generic term.

Don't take my word for it ... http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/win dows/story/0,10801,94634,00.html [computerworld.com]

Or is this link biased because I got it by googling the following: 'lindows name change microsoft paid'?

Re:Lindows? (1)

Changa_MC (827317) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062480)

Microsoft didn't (couldn't) win a court case over "windows". It came down to money instead. I think google has enough money to fight this one all the way, and I hope they do so.

Re:Madness! (1)

Fallen_Knight (635373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062311)

but sience when have the courts been won over by commen sense? Or large corperations? Or laws make sense?

just what is the plannet, errr.. states becmming?

Re:Madness! (1)

triclipse (702209) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062469)

This term would probably be considered "descriptive" rather than generic. Trademarks are given higher levels of protection in this order:

1. Generic (no protection)
2. Descriptive
3. Suggestive
4. Fanciful
5. Famous (strong protection

Here is a decent breakdown. [himels-computer-law.com]

Not working all that well... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062127)

Your search - "American Chemical Society Assholes" - did not match any documents.

apropraite name (2, Insightful)

ssand (702570) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062131)

Google Scholar gets the message out though, as Google Scholars allows you to find articles. With Scholarships, and scholars, its an apropriate name, and I can't see them winning against Google.

Isn't Scholar a generic word? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062132)

The article indicates the basis of the suit is that Google Scholar infringe upon SciFinder Scholar trademark. Granted that Google Scholar appears to do more or less what SciFinder Scholar do (minus the fee.)

But I doubt anyone would confuse the word Google and SciFinder. If their entire suit hinge on the word Scholar, I think ACS is facing an uphill battle.

Re:Isn't Scholar a generic word? (2, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062372)

Maybe ... but given that courts seem to give idiots, deadbeats and outright criminal cartels a big win at least 30% of the time, they have decent odds of winning (justice notwithstanding.)

The Real Problem (5, Insightful)

kmactane (18359) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062134)

The real problem here is that you can trademark a word in common use, like "scholar". Since the ACS did exactly that, roughly 6 years ago, they have no choice but to go after Google (or else have their own trademark claims painfully diluted, or maybe just nullified).

I don't much like what's happening here, but if I were Google, I'd be strongly considering just changing the name of my service. (IANAL, but it really looks like Google will have an uphill battle here.)

Offer 'em some money 'til they go away. (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062229)

You can do anything to any/everybody just as long as the alternatives are made less palatable tham what you offer.

The use of language as a medium of inter personal communication is at the heart of this trade mark crap. Its not going to dissapear until we learn to do without language when creating trademarks.

Re:The Real Problem (2, Insightful)

miu (626917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062360)

You can trademark a term in general use, or generic term, for your product - but if the product itself is naturally described by means of the trademarked term then you may lose certain exclusive rights protected by trademark. That is why MS does not have exclusive rights to "Office" or "Windows", those are natural terms applied to those products. 'Scholar' as a term for a search assistant is probably not generic enough when applied to this product - librarian probably would be though.

If I had to guess I'd say google will either license the name or change it, it'll probably just be easier to change the name at this point though.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

GileadGreene (539584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062538)

'Scholar' as a term for a search assistant is probably not generic enough when applied to this product - librarian probably would be though.

Well, yes, but 'Google Scholar' isn't called that because it's a search assistant. The name derives from the fact that it is intended for use by scholars, and searches across scholarly journals, conferences, and other academic publications.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

myov (177946) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062460)

Didn't this happen to Microsoft? They tried to copyright/trademark "Windows" and were denied because it was a generic word. It didn't stop them from registering "Microsoft Windows" though.

So, couldn't Google get around it by calling it "Google Scholar"?

Re:The Real Problem (1)

Saeger (456549) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062474)

if I were Google, I'd be strongly considering just changing the name of my service.

and if I were Google, I'd put my "don't be evil" motto and my billions of dollars to work by defending my use of a generic word. Microsoft was so afraid of "Windows" being ruled generic that they paid-off Lindows $20mil to go away. Google would be being "evil" (for their shareholders) if they likewise bowed down.

Here's The Real Problem (1)

mizhi (186984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062502)

"
The field of scientific research and related services is, of course, open to all," said Flint Lewis, ACS's secretary and general counsel, in a statement. "But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action--to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace."


No, it's not. Increasingly, high quality journals and research articles are kept hidden away from the general public by restrictive copyrights, exhorbinant fees, and other such crap. Unless you're a grad student or researcher at a company, it's very difficult to get your hands on articles printed in journals that require transfer of the copyright. The scientific knowledge is then closed off and the field is NOT open.

Open to all? Not with this kind of system.

Re:Here's The Real Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062550)

If it's not open it effectively ceases to be _scientific_ knowledge, anyway.

More scientists need to study a bit more philosophy of science, and realise that I"P" and science are fundamentally opposed.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062531)

ACS's product is "SciFinder Scholar". Had Google called their's "Google SciFinder", ACS would have grounds for complaint - this is just a nuisance lawsuit.

I smell (2, Interesting)

bigberk (547360) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062159)

Doesn't this also seem like nothing more than a poor excuse for advertising the Google Scholar beta?

Re:I smell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062227)

aw geez that's one post I should have thought out more carefully... stupid exams fry my brain, me sleep now.

I don't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062243)

No, it doesn't.

WTF? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062172)

"Google Scholar" isn't even a very good name. Hardly worth fighting over.

Google Scholar is a good name... (3, Interesting)

pleumann (219030) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062180)

...but that SciFinder thing sounds more like a search engine for Star Trek episodes.

chemical society scholar? (3, Funny)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062186)

So does this mean that only chemists can call themselves scholars? Damn, I guess I HAVE been wasting my life...

Why do people do this? Who gives a shit.. (0, Troll)

DroopyStonx (683090) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062187)

The only thing they do when companies make a big stink about stupid shit like this is make themselves look bad.

"OOooh you used SCHOLAR, I'm gonna SUE YOU!"

Fuck off.

Just like Microsoft getting pissed at MikeRoweSoft. They really made an ass out of themselves.

We REALLY need to start adding some common sense into IP laws. They don't own the word scholar, they most certainly don't own the word "scholar" in conjunction with a search engine.

HEY, THAT'S MY WORD (1)

iamwahoo2 (594922) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062189)

Give it back you word thief!

Re:HEY, THAT'S MY WORD (5, Funny)

SEE (7681) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062309)

I'm sorry, Word Thief® is a registered trademark of the American Plagarists Guild. Unauthorized use is, in an acknowledged irony, forbidden.

If you wish to avoid lawsuits, you may join the Guild. Just send us a photocopied Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America membership form with a check made out to cash. (We couldn't be bothered to come up with our own form, and over 90% of our members have professional access to the NG/CWA form anyway . . . )

Obligatory "this is getting out of hand" post (1)

The I Shing (700142) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062191)

Whenever I see a story like this I feel this unquenchable compulsion to imagine the most absurd extension of the legal quarrel.

So, to that end, I've trademarked the intake of breath that one makes before speaking, and therefore all verbal communication is in violation that contains such a sound.

Lawyers for dummies handbook, page 154 (2, Insightful)

lottameez (816335) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062209)

From the ACS lawyer: ..."But when someone uses a trademark similar to ours, we have no choice but to take action--to protect the goodwill that we have built over the years and to prevent the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace."

Sounds like this lawyer is spouting his basic litigation script and is getting ready to go to trial.

These guys have been doing this stuff for six years and I'm sure almost nobody here has heard of them. I doubt seriously there will be any "confusion" in the marketplace or "loss of goodwill".

Re:Lawyers for dummies handbook, page 154 (1)

Fallen_Knight (635373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062332)

>These guys have been doing this stuff for six years >and I'm sure almost nobody here has heard of them. >I doubt seriously there will be any "confusion" in >the marketplace or "loss of goodwill".

Yep, can't lose what you dont' have!

awesome (0, Flamebait)

sinner0423 (687266) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062214)

Nothing to see here, folks. It's just the name of Google's service that the ACS is complaining about, not the functionality or content.

CAS (a division of the ACS - go figure) sells their SciFinder Scholar product, so they're just protecting their money maker.

Perhaps Google should have searched [google.com] for "scholar" before they decided to name their new progeny? It is the 8th result in the search, after all.

Re:awesome (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062442)

Perhaps Google should have searched for "scholar" before they decided to name their new progeny? It is the 8th result in the search, after all.

You're kidding, right?

Fine. If you are willing to allow this shit to continue and turn a blind eye to corporate extortion, go ahead. Be my guest. But if you are on the business end of one of these disputes, you had better not come crying to the EFF, ACLU, or any other organization that helps people protect their rights and freedoms.

You'd better bend over and take that big corporate cock with a smile.

ACS Journals (3, Interesting)

The Ape With No Name (213531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062216)

A subscription to one of their journals is OUTRAGEOUS. Our library has over 50 grand a year set aside for ACS journals. A chemist friend joked with me saying that some of the titles never even get read while in the periodical room.

Dear Google, (2, Insightful)

modpoints (838575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062224)

Please remove the "mail" part of the product name "Gmail", as it infringes on half of our product's name. Thanks, The Hotmail Staff

Scientific citations are a sticky field (1)

PrvtBurrito (557287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062225)

Scientific citations are big business with players deep in the trenches. Thomsonisi [thomsonisi.com] sells the citation indexes, I believe (and endnote). ACS controls vast citation and manuscript papers. I hope Google is able to open up the field a bit, but it is going to take some court battles, I'm sure.

Re:Scientific citations are a sticky field (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062266)

What in the world are you talking about? ACS isn't suing Google over their service, it's over the use of the word "Scholar".

And as for me, I'd rather not settle for bargain bin research. The research is already cheap considering good research can save billions of dollars down the line.

Re:Scientific citations are a sticky field (1)

PrvtBurrito (557287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062293)

ACS isn't suing Google over their service, it's over the use of the word "Scholar". I am aware of that, but I was (hopefully) providing some insight into why this field can be so quick to sue. Google is stepping into a hornets nest and this just the beginning.

Re:Scientific citations are a sticky field (1)

headisdead (789492) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062331)

Good point well made. And Google Scholar isn't the only 'free' option trying to make it's mark. getCITED [getcited.org] [or see my summary/criticisms [ifanything.org] ], for example, is a collaborative project along similar lines struggling (imho) to get off the ground.

Slashdotters might also not forget that, for all Google Scholar's techie coolness and wide range, the services it links to--mainly e-journal sites in my usage--are not free; so it's not all free vs. unfree.

And this also means that just cos people like the ACS might suffer, academic publishing itself won't.

ACS is a big business itself, albiet non-profit (1)

Jonathan (5011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062333)

Several months ago there was a mini-scientific scandal when it was discovered that the former director of the American Chemical Society had been making $750,000/year and had a private chauffeur and limo, paid of course from ACS funds, which a large part derive from journal subscription fees and fees for things like like their 'scholar' service. If free services Google can take over the citation business from ACS and ISI, and the Public Library of Science can take over journal publishing, then I won't weep too much when these "professional societies" curl up and die, or at least shrink to more useful proportions.

News Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062254)

Google sues SciFinder for using the term Search in their web pages.

omg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062259)

teh google has stoleded my wordz0rz!11

we need something better than scifinder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062260)

As a daily user of scifinder, i must say that it sucks. It's search results are not only incomplete, they are MISLEADING. The only good thing about it is it's user interface, and that does not matter much to a researcher for whom this product is aimed for.

We need something better than scifinder. something that is as accurate as beilstein but as easy to use as scifinder.

my $ 0.02.

Oh, come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062268)

We use SciFinder. We use SciFinder Scholar. I don't know one person who would confuse SciFinder Scholar wtih Google Scholar. I think the ACS is full of it.

Name Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062306)

Why doesn't Google just change the name of the service and get it all over with?

How about Google Sch0l4r?

Open Letter to ACS (3, Interesting)

dhart (1261) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062308)

Dear ACS,

Shame on you and your lawsuit against Google!

I know your type -- you've found a nice little money-maker with SciFinder, and you don't want to lose it, even at the expense of stifling the free and unencumbered flow of scientific information.

I think you should know, you'll anger many of your intended 'grassroots' with this move, which is, in my opinion, unethical.

I'm a chemist, and I sincerely hope that the ACS either mends its ways, or is squarely put in its place by Google and tide of changing times!

Sincerely,

David Hart

Re:Open Letter to ACS (1)

trentdk (836815) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062335)

I absolutely agree with the above poster. Suing Google over this is just impeding scientific progress. I am a growing chemist, and Google is a must resource. I've been actively awaiting the maturation of Google Scholar.

What's the big deal? ... (1)

drphil (320469) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062312)

Google can just change the name with little pain and avoid legal fees. While the word scholar is generic, the ACS has trademarked it within a suite of products to search scientific literature. "Google Scholar" has the same function and might be confused as an ACS product - at least by an idiot lawyer. Certainly if you have a product that does something other than search scientific literature you can call it "Blowup Betty Scholar" - or whatever - and the ACS won't bother you.

But what's the big deal with Google changing the name to something else? Using the term Scholar certianly won't make or break the service for Google.

BTW, this definitely is not a pay vs. free issue as it states in the description - ACS says that Google can have it's literature search service - it just shouldn't call it Google Scholar.

Note that Google will need to do much better than the current beta product they're testing. Currently it's worthless without sophisticated booleans to smartly narrow the searches - or is there a way to do this that I didn't see when I played around with it?

Re:What's the big deal? ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062379)

I have to disagree with your last point. While of course one can always polish an interface, the current product from Google is amazing in comparison with the competing for profit sites. (which have been around for a long time) The clickable access to full pdf's (with suitably authenticated IP) as well as the links to cited references saves tremendous amounts of time.

Re:What's the big deal? ... (1)

chialea (8009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062530)

What they /really/ need is to also give you a correct reference in the popular formats. Heck, I'd pay for bibtex on short notice, and I'd be happy to contribute back the citations I type up.

Lea

Re:What's the big deal? ... (3, Interesting)

lottameez (816335) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062450)

It's a big deal because you presume that ACS "owns" the term "scholar" when applied to a literature search service. ACS's term, I believe, is actually "SciScholar" and it's a desktop (vs web-based tool). IMO, that is plenty of difference to invalidate legal action.

What I resent, being in business myself, is every idiot that tries to make money on a legal technicality versus working to creat something that a customer actually cares about. Patent and copyright legal fights raise the cost of goods and hurt consumers (as well as legitimate, honest businesses).

The Way I See it (1)

Pugflop (797868) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062315)

Since I own the words "a" and "the", you all owe me an asanine amount of money. Woohoo, now I don't have to write my finals! :-)

Alliterative alternative (1)

syrinje (781614) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062366)

Probably simpler for Google to change the name of its service to "Google Geek". A good way to avoid a prolonged legal confrontation and potential settlement costs.

And the oh! so desirable side-effect of going a long way towards mainstreaming geekdom - maybe more slashdot readers will get lucky then.

Get in touch with your inner geek.

Aren't those different trademakrs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062391)

"The ACS complaint contends that Google's use of the word scholar infringes on ACS's SciFinder Scholar and Scholar trademarks and constitutes unfair competition."

ACS has SciFinder Scholar AND Scholar trademarks.

Google's trademark is Google Scholar.

Aren't those different trademarks? Can they actually argue that the source of Scholar and Google Scholar service be confused? Is there a full text of ACS' complaint available?

Very interesting indeed.

Avara - 1996 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062406)

Looks like a souped up Avara game to me.

Link: http://www.ambrosiasw.com/games/avara/

Scholar, better than PubMed (1)

rowanxmas (569908) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062407)

As a scientist, I think that this is a really cool. I have been wondering how long it would take Google to come out witih something like this. The current searching provided by the NCBI via PubMed is woefully inadequate. Scholar not only finds the relevant papers, it also tells you how many citations each has, which is very important when deciding the impact of a paper.

However, Scholar does highlight the problem with much of the Scientific literature. If you do a search, and find a paper of interest, you will be directed to that journals website, where you will need to pay for access. Big universities pay several million dollars annually for the right to have onlince subscriptions. Which is really dumb, since the content comes from those Universites in the first place! So, check out Public Library of Science [plos.org] if you want a free alternitave

What is the next thing Google should do here? Index the data, so if I want to find the picture of a gel that supports some theory, I can. That would be really nifty.

Media stunt (1)

eneville (745111) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062428)

ACS are doing this purely for the publicity.

Everyone has heard of Google, we use the word Google every day.. If someone were to say ACS won a law suit against Google, you'd think ACS must be pretty big in order to have a valid claim against Google. OTOH you may think ACS are pretty small for Google not to have heard of them.

The Tort of Passing Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062510)

Sounds like they're claiming the tort of "passing off". This requires:

(a) Some goodwill/reputation in the plaintiff's product
(b) Some sort of misrepresentation on the part of defendant that could deceive customers
(c) That because of this misrepresentation the goodwill/reputation of plaintiff's product will be harmed

For example, there's a Canadian case refereed to as "Andres Wines" where French wine producers went after Canadian wine producers for the use of the term "Canadian Champagne". Based on this case, assuming that there is some goodwill in the ACS name, it helps them that they filed this claim not that long after Google started their service. Part of the reason why the French wine producers lost is because they did not take action early on and "Canadian Champagne" developed a reputation of its own (for better or for worse).

Mind you, I only have 4 months of law school to back these guesses up. And since we haven't dealt with trademarks as such yet, there could be a whole piece of the puzzle that I'm missing. Which reminds me. I should go back to studying for those December exams!

Re:The Tort of Passing Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11062523)

Stupid me. That should read "referred" not "refereed".

Jesus H. Christ! (2, Funny)

raider_red (156642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11062551)

Dear American Chemical Society:

This letter is an instruction to cease and desist immediately in the following activities: 1st, your use of the word society. We at the Language Nazi Society have copyrighted the use of the term "Society" and will not tolerate the dillution of our trademarks by your use of this term. 2nd, your use of the term Chemical. As we have trademarked the entire dictionary, any other words you use can only be interpreted as an infringement on our rights. 3rd, the practice of writing letters as this also infringes on our dictionary tradmarks...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...