Trademark protection.<p>They do not want "google" to follow "kleenex" into general usage otherwise bad things happen for Google.<p>More info: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark</a><p>This is the reason that Google objects to "to google" being used as a verb to mean "to search"
The article is based on a radio interview, found at (<a href="https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406&artikel=5485244" rel="nofollow">https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=406&...</a>).<p>The reason behind withdrawing the word, and the <i>tone</i> 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.
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."<p>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.
This seems to be another case where an American company doesn't understand that American law does not apply in other countries.<p>It also seems that the lawyers where harassing the staff so much that they didn't want to continue their work.
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.<p>Is there a Swedish word for storm in a tea cup?
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.<p>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].<p>[1] <a href="http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2058373/Google-Now-A-Verb-In-The-Oxford-English-Dictionary" rel="nofollow">http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2058373/Google-Now-A-Ve...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)#Trademark_issues" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)#Trademark_iss...</a>
This reminds me of when McDonald's openly objected to Webster's (accurate) definition of "McJob" - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob#History" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob#History</a>
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?
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.
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]<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_%28verb%29" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_%28verb%29</a>
[2] <a href="http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/newzzEQXM1K6L-12-1.53289" rel="nofollow">http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/newzzEQXM1K6L-12-1.5328...</a> (German language)
This is almost certainly due to trademark protection. I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the original article.<p>If "Google" as a verb becomes a genericized trademark[1] then they lose a lot of their trademark protection.<p>[1]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark</a>
Apart from being ridiculous, dictionaries just <i>indicate the common use of terms</i>, 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).<p>They think language has to be reduced to their rules.<p>Buy new glasses, google.
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.
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.