

Now That Everyone Wants to Be a Geek, Lawyers Have Been Called - io
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304453304576391602625560250.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Top

======
wccrawford
Someone the other day was commenting on the whole 'everyone wants to be a geek
now' thing and wondering what to call true geeks now.

I told him not to worry and that another word would soon be coined to make fun
of the true geeks, as always happens. People just can't resist tormenting
people who are different.

I am a little surprised that it hasn't happened yet... But then, maybe I'm too
old and not hip with the new slang.

As for Best Buy suing everyone for using the words Geek or Squad (and every-
so-graciously allowing high schoolers to continue calling their teams 'geek
squads' (that's sarcasm)) it's obviously ridiculous. I understand protecting
your brand, but when you name your brand so generically, you automatically
lose a bit of it. Just deal with it.

~~~
rmc
Hacker.

It's still a term that's viewed negatively by mainstream, so you're unlikely
to see "Hacker Squad" signs.

~~~
dkarl
Yeah, but it's a term that's used differently by the mainstream than by
hackers, so you'd be constantly explaining yourself to avoid misperception.
Constantly explaining what you mean is fatally geeky. It's better to use a
word people don't know and only explain if they ask.

~~~
rmc
_it's a term that's used differently by the mainstream than by hackers_

Exactly like "geek". It used to be an insult.

~~~
dkarl
With "geek" it's a matter of emphasis. The prototype is the same, but it's
generalized differently. To a lame-o mainstream person, geek just means a
frumpy, weird, socially unsuccessful, and possibly smelly person, but to a
geek, it's all about pursuing interests in a particular way. Both definitions
include a common group of core prototype geeks who look and act a little weird
and have an obsessive interest science fiction and/or fantasy. In the lame-o
jock douche (pardon me; showing my prejudices) definition, those prototype
geeks get lumped in with all the frumpy, weird, socially unsuccessful, and
possibly smelly people, which includes many people with intellectual
disabilities, whereas by the cool geek definition, they get lumped in with
anybody who is passionate about their interests to the point of being regarded
as a little weird, which includes many geniuses in diverse fields. The
difference can be summed up by asking, is Milhouse a geek ("I'm not a nerd,
Bart. Nerds are smart,") or was Einstein a geek? They're different
generalizations from the same prototype.

For the mainstream, the prototype hacker is someone who does something
nefarious over the internet with no regard for any damage he or she might do.
That's not the same prototype we have in mind when we say "hacker." We include
those guys with a certain amount of reluctance and distaste. To us, the
prototype hacker is somebody like Richard Stallman, the Richard Feynman of
_Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman_ or _What Do You Care What Other People
Think_ , or the folks who perpetrated the classic MIT hacks
(<http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/misc/best_of.html>). Most people wouldn't even
understand why we include those guys unless we explained.

------
chopsueyar
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm>

_7\. What constitutes tradenmark infringement?_

 _If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue
subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125. The
standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a
trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it
is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to
the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are
likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors,
including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3)
the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the
similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by
the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent._

They sued a priest!

~~~
ZachPruckowski
The priest thing seems more legit to me than the Newegg thing. The priests
were deliberately trying to "cash in"[1] on similarity between their brand and
the Geek Squad brand, whereas Newegg was just trying to use the positive
associations between the work "geek" (which Best Buy doesn't own) and computer
buying.

[1] - Personally I think there should be accommodations for the fact that it's
non-commercial.

~~~
nhangen
Yeah, because as we all know, that priests are all about raking in the
Benjamins.

~~~
ZachPruckowski
I'm not saying it makes for a good lawsuit or that Best Buy aren't dicks for
pursuing it, but "God Squad" in a black-and-white car that's the same model as
the Geek Squad car is sort of leaning on the brand at least.

~~~
chopsueyar
Is it confusing to you, as a consumer?

------
jinushaun
Checked out the offending work. New Egg's Geek On logo bares absolutely zero
resemblance to Best Buy's Geek Squad logo. Best Buy doesn't own everything
"geek" and orange. Are Syracuse geeks next?

~~~
aridiculous
I was ready to softly defend Best Buy on this one until I saw the logo in
question. It's just a poorly made logo that happens to use orange and black
(because they're elsewhere on the site). This is clearly a case where the
sharks are smelling blood.

Good thing PG used the word "Hacker" instead of "Geek", otherwise HN would
have been on the chopping block, too :)

------
programminggeek
Oh noes!

I go by programming geek. Same name for my blog. I'm working on a side project
called Answers Geek.

It's only a matter of time I get sued for being a geek I guess.

