
Sweden axes new word after Google intervenes - subsystem
http://www.thelocal.se/46940/20130326/#.UVFX93E2fUg
======
rurounijones
Trademark protection.

They do not want "google" to follow "kleenex" into general usage otherwise bad
things happen for Google.

More info: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark>

This is the reason that Google objects to "to google" being used as a verb to
mean "to search"

~~~
manmal
What's bad about that? Are people not more inclined to buy Kleenex because of
this?

~~~
Kesty
The "bad" about that is that if "to google" became generic for "doing a
websearch" is to stop other search enginge to start saying "Google it with
Bing!".

~~~
philhippus
I would have thought that would be "good" for brands to be so firmly
entrenched into society that the brandname becomes a verb. "Google it with
Bing!" would lead to the thought: "No, I'll use _the real thing_." Imagine the
benefits to Bing if Google were to use "Bing it with Google."

------
belorn
The article is based on a radio interview, found at
([https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406&...](https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406&artikel=5485244)).

The reason behind withdrawing the word, and the _tone_ in which it was said
was quite illuminating. Basically, Language Council had grown tired and very
annoyed by the discussion with the google lawyers and thus opted to skip the
whole mess.

~~~
drucken
But what was the risk? Surely all Google could do was moan loudly thousands of
miles away and there's nothing they could do about it?

Or is there something Google could actually have done, like sue this "Language
Council" in Sweden itself?

------
TorKlingberg
The end of the article is important: "Language Council could have ignored
Google's requests, but decided to remove the word in order to spark a debate."

Sounds like the Language Council is doing a kind of tactical overreaction to
keep Google and other companies from bothering them in the future. They also
want people to think more about power over language.

------
wahlis
This seems to be another case where an American company doesn't understand
that American law does not apply in other countries.

It also seems that the lawyers where harassing the staff so much that they
didn't want to continue their work.

~~~
biot
I can't be bothered to look it up, but no doubt Google has a registered
trademark for their name in Sweden. Swedish trademark law applies in Sweden,
so I'm not sure what role Google being an American company plays in any of
this. MySQL AB likely would have raised a similar objection if some American
institution were considering using a variant of MySQL to describe a generic
database. That wouldn't have made MySQL AB a Swedish company that doesn't
understand that Swedish law doesn't apply in other countries; it would have
been a multinational company protecting its international trademark.

~~~
wahlis
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.

~~~
taneliv
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_nyordslis...](http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spr%C3%A5kr%C3%A5dets_nyordslista)
which have for example "facebooka" and "twittra", so I find Google's objection
quite weird.

~~~
adfadf
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.

------
JacobAldridge
Seems like fairly straightforward trademark protection. If they allow a
definition where Google = Generic Search Engine then it's a slippery slope to
being the next biro.

Is there a Swedish word for storm in a tea cup?

~~~
blaabjerg
Curiously, in Sweden storms never brew in tea cups, only in glasses of water.

"Storm i ett vattenglas".

~~~
anigbrowl
It's all those glaciers, the water's clearer...

~~~
jeltz
The Swedish glaciers are all tiny and not major contributors to our water
supply.

I believe the real reasons are:

1) West winds causing it to rain in the mountains of Norway and western
Sweden.

2) The over 100k lakes created by the ice age.

3) Generally good bedrock and soil for ground water quality. Only common
problem is radon in some parts of Sweden.

~~~
anigbrowl
I wasn't being serious, but thanks for the insight!

------
adventured
This almost seems like a parody of Google's behavior at times the last few
years.

~~~
nonamegiven
When you become your own parody, that's ... success?

------
nivla
Did Google fire their PR dept or did they just become another company that we
love to hate? The past two weeks has been a huge PR disaster for Google.

As for the issue in the article, I have mixed reactions. They din't have a
problem when Oxford dictionary made "google" a verb[1]. However, letting your
trademark slip is also not the best idea either - Spam [2].

[1] [http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2058373/Google-Now-A-
Ve...](http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2058373/Google-Now-A-Verb-In-The-
Oxford-English-Dictionary)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)#Trademark_iss...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_\(electronic\)#Trademark_issues)

~~~
marvin
Forget about trademark violations. Sweden is a _sovereign state_. I think
something's very weird when a company can dictate which words people are
allowed to use.

Of course, at least in Norway this word is in active use already. It's just
not in the dictionary yet (and it's rarely used). But as someone else said,
now people will use it just out of spite.

~~~
yanw
It's not about what you can say - you can say whatever you like - but Sweden
or whomever can't officially bestow a new meaning on a trademarked name. It's
like enshrining in the dictionary that Coca-Cola means "sugary water".

~~~
throwaway125
If the people use a word that happens to be trademarked in a way unrelated or
semi related to the trademark then yes, they can and will do that.

~~~
yanw
[citation needed]

~~~
jeltz
This article should provide an overview.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark>

------
kaeluka
I just heard this on Swedish national radio news. People will now use this out
of spite.

~~~
wuest
I don't speak Swedish and I'm considering using it out of spite.

~~~
dalke
"The Tallahassee 5 day weather prognosis made on Jan. 12, 1980 is ogooglebar,
even with Bing."

------
dbbolton
This reminds me of when McDonald's openly objected to Webster's (accurate)
definition of "McJob" - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob#History>

------
tomelders
What sort of person get's up in a morning, faces a day of chasing this sort of
stuff, and doesn't blow their own brains out at the sheer inanity of it all?

~~~
alenart
They're called 'conservatives'.

------
pfortuny
Is this simply unbelievable or just unbelievable? Man, these guys are really
getting weirder and weirder.

------
martinkallstrom
The deep irony is that the reason is that Google doesn't want themselves to
become ungoogleable. Which is the word they pressured the Swedish language
council to remove from the standard dictionary. But in Swedish ofc.

------
Lycanthrope
Google has been taking action against this genericization since 2003.[1] They
also got the German dictionary Duden to change their "to google" Definition to
refer to Google only.[2]

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_%28verb%29> [2]
[http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/newzzEQXM1K6L-12-1.5328...](http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/newzzEQXM1K6L-12-1.53289)
(German language)

------
davweb
This is almost certainly due to trademark protection. I'm surprised this isn't
mentioned in the original article.

If "Google" as a verb becomes a genericized trademark[1] then they lose a lot
of their trademark protection.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark>

~~~
smtddr
_> I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the original article._

Don't be, there's a witch-hunt on Google right now. Nothing but the most
negative-spin on them will be reported for the next few months until everyone
calms down about reader.

------
pfortuny
Apart from being ridiculous, dictionaries just _indicate the common use of
terms_ , that is what they are. They are not a list of 'official' words
(unless insanity rules) in any language (even in Spanish, where there is the
Academia).

They think language has to be reduced to their rules.

Buy new glasses, google.

------
subsystem
I think they should have spun it as something positive. As in, if you can't
find it on google you can't find it anywhere. Therefore something that is
ungoogleable, can't be found with any search engine. Anyways, I did submit it
mainly for its novelty value.

------
benmccann
This is almost certainly to protect their trademark. Google is very concerned
about going the way of butterscotch, trampoline, escalator, zipper, etc. and
having its name become a generic term for web searches.

~~~
gordaco
The problem is, they already became that. A while ago.

This, from the article, is a good summary:

> "It's the users of the language who decide if it will remain," she said.

> "So if the word exists, use it if you want. That's something Google can't
> decide."

~~~
icebraining
Yeah, but being in an official word list is probably much more detrimental in
an hypothetical trademark lawsuit.

