http://healyourchurchwebsite.com/2002/07/18/amazon-lite-reduxd/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=amazon-lite-reduxd Teaching, rebuking, correcting & training in righteous web design. Mon, 26 Sep 2011 02:56:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= http://healyourchurchwebsite.com/2002/07/18/amazon-lite-reduxd/comment-page-1/#comment-157 MeanDean Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:55:52 +0000 http://healyourchurchwebsite.com/2002/07/18/amazon-lite-reduxd#comment-157 Ernie - once again a great comment - and of course you're right. I don't like it, but you're right - and it does go a long way to explain why Google did what they did. Ernie – once again a great comment – and of course you’re right. I don’t like it, but you’re right – and it does go a long way to explain why Google did what they did.

]]> http://healyourchurchwebsite.com/2002/07/18/amazon-lite-reduxd/comment-page-1/#comment-156 Ernie the Attorney Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:08:09 +0000 http://healyourchurchwebsite.com/2002/07/18/amazon-lite-reduxd#comment-156 Well, in this case I would have to say I understand, and even agree, with the Google folks. They couldn't allow the Amazonlight thing to occur without either (1) licensing them and then monitoring their use of the Google "look and feel", or (2) suing to have the AmazonLight thing shut down. That's a non-legal explanation, but it has to do with the intricacies of Trademark law. That law can apply to the look & feel of a place, such as a restaurant or the UI of a program or website, or even a popular page on a website. And the law basically says to the Trademark holder: Thou shalt protect and monitor the integrity of goods and/or services sold under that mark (or look & feel). Why? To protect the public. If the public might be confused into believing their is an association between two products or services because of the aforementioned factors then the trademark holder must take corrective action, or it will forfeit use of the mark. Google could have lost the right to something that was indeed valuable to them if they had not taken action. I'm not in favor of over-expansive intellectual property land-grabs, but here I think Google was totally justified. That's just my opinion, but I think <a href="http://trademark.blog.us/blog/" rel="nofollow">Marty Schwimmer</a> would agree with me. Well, in this case I would have to say I understand, and even agree, with the Google folks. They couldn’t allow the Amazonlight thing to occur without either (1) licensing them and then monitoring their use of the Google “look and feel”, or (2) suing to have the AmazonLight thing shut down. That’s a non-legal explanation, but it has to do with the intricacies of Trademark law. That law can apply to the look & feel of a place, such as a restaurant or the UI of a program or website, or even a popular page on a website.
And the law basically says to the Trademark holder: Thou shalt protect and monitor the integrity of goods and/or services sold under that mark (or look & feel). Why? To protect the public. If the public might be confused into believing their is an association between two products or services because of the aforementioned factors then the trademark holder must take corrective action, or it will forfeit use of the mark. Google could have lost the right to something that was indeed valuable to them if they had not taken action. I’m not in favor of over-expansive intellectual property land-grabs, but here I think Google was totally justified. That’s just my opinion, but I think Marty Schwimmer would agree with me.

]]>