

![]() |
| ![]() | |||||||
|
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #21 (permalink) |
| Platinum Lifetime Member Name: Katherine Last Online: Today 07:08 PM iTrader: (0) Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 129
DNF$: 662 Location: Metro Atlanta A
Country: | Re: Google lawyers C&D It's not a conspiracy, it's advertising. It's a whole science unto itself! Go take some advertising and marketing classes at your local college, or read some advanced books on advertising--you'll understand what I'm talking about then. Actually, here, read this article... http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/sublimi.htm Oh, here's another article you might want to read. Pay particular attention to the segment about 'repertoire buyers'... http://www.ogilvy.com/viewpoint/pdf/v7_hallberg.pdf Last edited by HelloThere; 03-19-2004 at 04:45 PM.. |
| | |
| Sponsored Ads |
| | #22 (permalink) |
| Platinum Lifetime Member Last Online: 06-27-2009 03:38 PM iTrader: (2) Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 756
DNF$: 1,232 Location: Madison, WI | Re: Google lawyers C&D OK "HelloThere," first up, trying to convince me that you aren't crazy and then telling me to go read a web page put up bu the luntatic fringe doesn't help your case any. The site is littered with conspiracy theories, and it certainly is not something anyone should be pointing to as a solid reference about any topic. The specific page you sent me to is about subliminal advertising, which science has shown time and time again to be complete nonsense. Dr. Bryan Wilson Key, mentioned as an expert on the site you link to, is a considered a kook by real scientists. I've seen him speak in person, and I have to agree that he's a few tacos short of a combo platter. That page you link to even admits that experts say subliminal advertising is nonsense, but that the experts shouldn't be believed because some nutjob writing under an alias thinks brainswashing is real. Second up, even if it were true, it's completely freakin' irrelevant to the Booble case. To even suggest that a tiny little sleazy company marketing porn and ripping off the trademark of a huge search engine company helps that search engine company in any way is pure nonsense. Booble wouldn't send new business Google's way because anyone who found Booble would already be familiar with Google. Add in the most important part, that this other company is not only ripping off their trademarks but also using it for porn, and you have some serious negative associations there. Simply put, you are so living in a dream world that it's not even funny. If you want to continue to embarass yourself, fine, yammer on some more about corporate brainwashing or whatever.
__________________ Dan Norder Werewolves.com, Inklings.com, OtherWoman.com and more |
| | |
| | #23 (permalink) |
| Platinum Lifetime Member Name: Katherine Last Online: Today 07:08 PM iTrader: (0) Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 129
DNF$: 662 Location: Metro Atlanta A
Country: | Re: Google lawyers C&D Me thinks thou protesteth too much. Why are you so overly-sensitive? Obviously, I've struck some underlying nerve with you. And, clearly, you have a need to be right on this issue, and no experience in the real advertising world, so I'll just leave it at that. I'm not going to waste any more energy on this thread. You can believe what you will, and we'll agree to disagree. In any case, you've missed my point entirely. But it doesn't matter what we think. Google and Booble will do what they're going to do, and won't give a hoot about what we think. Last edited by HelloThere; 03-21-2004 at 11:37 AM.. |
| | |
| | #24 (permalink) |
| DNF Addict Name: Dean Callaway Last Online: 11-03-2009 06:21 AM iTrader: (22) Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,777
DNF$: 0 Location: www.dean.co.uk
Country: | Re: Google lawyers C&D I think this is a very imforative post but my personal opinion about it is that they deserve to lose the domain. The obvious points that i feel they should lose it for are: The Logo is an Obvious spin off of the Google Logo. The general look of the site is so much like Google. The I'm Feeling Lucky button is a Trade Mark that Google own as far as i know. I could be wrong but one of the Free Gifts at the Google Xmas Party last year in London was a T-Shirt that said, "I'm Feeling Lucky(tm)" I think that if they had not tried to have earn from a spin off then maybe they could argue this..... Only my 2 cents worth.
__________________ Only 3 links allowed in signature |
| | |
| | #25 (permalink) | |
| Platinum Lifetime Member Last Online: 06-27-2009 03:38 PM iTrader: (2) Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 756
DNF$: 1,232 Location: Madison, WI | Re: Google lawyers C&D Quote:
I can deal with the fact that some people just aren't going to be very educated or think logically about certain topics, but I don't just sit by when those same people arrogantly proclaim that they know more than anyone else on the issue. Booble is an obvious and extreme case of trademark violation, and subliminal advertising is not only nonsense but irrelevant to determining whether Booble should be allowed to continue. Hell, you'd be laughed out of any courtroom or classroom in which you tried to make your arguments, so it's no wonder you are laughed out of this board.
__________________ Dan Norder Werewolves.com, Inklings.com, OtherWoman.com and more | |
| | |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |