MoveOn.Org Lets Sen. Susan Collins be Sen. Susan Collins

MoveOn.org does the right thing. It had been using a dubious Google policy that allows owners of trademarks to ban use of their trademarked name in ads to quash ads from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Collins had been dropping the hated-by-conservatives MoveOn's name as a hook to rally supporters. MoveOn has decided to let Collins say what she wants in her ads. Read all about it at Wired.com.

Comments

J sub D | October 16, 2007, 10:27am | #

Thumbs up to MoveOn.org!

An Ottawa Reader | October 16, 2007, 10:34am | #

So...MoveOn.org have moved on?

de stijl | October 16, 2007, 10:36am | #

J sub D,

Don't you mean MoveOn.org®?

joe | October 16, 2007, 10:56am | #

That was a chintzy move. Good for MoveOn.

Pro Libertate | October 16, 2007, 11:11am | #

What's interesting is that Google allows businesses to bid on trademarks for driving traffic to sites (i.e., by way of the sponsored results). So using other people's trademarks is bad for political commentary, good for money. Google's policy is unnecessary under intellectual property law (mentioning or using trademarks in commentary is totally permissible) and contrary to the principles of free discourse. Obviously, this isn't a First Amendment issue, but is another not-not evil action by Google.

At least MoveOn did the right thing, albeit under considerable pressure.

Mo | October 16, 2007, 11:13am | #

Is it just me or is Google the most stealthy scary company in the world? Does it get a pass because it's not Microsoft?

J sub D | October 16, 2007, 11:17am | #

J sub D,

Don't you mean MoveOn.org®?

Yes. Please don't sue me, I promise I'll never do it again. ;-(

J sub D | October 16, 2007, 11:19am | #

Is it just me or is Google the most stealthy scary company in the world? Does it get a pass because it's not Microsoft?

Last I checked there were 1 or 2 other browsers out there. I'm not exactly worried.

prolefeed | October 16, 2007, 11:20am | #

Is it just me or is Google the most stealthy scary company in the world? Does it get a pass because it's not Microsoft?

Well, when I googled "most stealthy scary company in world", neither Microsoft or Google came up, so they must not be not-not-evil.

;)

ChicagoTom | October 16, 2007, 11:24am | #

Is it just me or is Google the most stealthy scary company in the world? Does it get a pass because it's not Microsoft?

It gets a pass because their motto is "Don't be evil". Therefore, they must be a good corporation -- their motto says so

Pro Libertate | October 16, 2007, 11:29am | #

There's always Ask.com. They're not Google and not Microsoft to boot.

Mo | October 16, 2007, 11:38am | #

Last I checked there were 1 or 2 other browsers out there. I'm not exactly worried.

Google makes browsers now?

Look I'm as free market as the next guy, but being pro free markets doesn't mean turning off your brain. If you care one whit about civil liberties, it's important to keep an eye on companies that have access to that much information on you otherwise they'll sell you down the river like the phone companies.

Pro Libertate | October 16, 2007, 11:46am | #

Search engine domination is tenuous at best. If Google really pissed off a sufficient number of consumers, it could lose that market in a very short amount of time. Plenty of other players could take advantage.

As for the browser market, I'm stickin' with my Firefox browser, though IE 7 seems okay.

Google | October 16, 2007, 11:47am | #

Remember our motto: "Don't be evil"

ChicagoTom | October 16, 2007, 11:56am | #

Search engine domination is tenuous at best. If Google really pissed off a sufficient number of consumers, it could lose that market in a very short amount of time. Plenty of other players could take advantage

I would agree with this. It wasn't that long ago when Yahoo was the big man on campus in the browser world. And I remember when altavista and lycos were even somewhat relevant. Although I think Google losing it's dominance would be harder, but not impossible at this point.

As for the browser market, I'm stickin' with my Firefox browser, though IE 7 seems okay.

I'm a firefox man myself, but I haven't tried IE7. They make you install that Genuine Advantage software on your system to upgrade to it. No thanks.

lunchstealer | October 16, 2007, 11:56am | #

Is it just me or is Google the most stealthy scary company in the world? Does it get a pass because it's not Microsoft?

They get a very similar pass to the one that Apple gets. It's all about - A making a product that people want and - B garnering goodwill by conspicuous acts of either excellence or generosity while keeping ones acts of evil minimized by either obscure legal issues against companies (Google's trademark hawkishness doesn't effect your regular computer-geek joe) or just following it up with more excellence (Apple getting past killing off the PowerPC licensing deal by putting out the iMac and making thier Darwin core to OSX open source).

lunchstealer | October 16, 2007, 12:00pm | #

ProGlib

Hell, AltaVista's still out there. I have no idea how they fund themselves, but they're out there, and not just for Babelfish.

Pro Libertate | October 16, 2007, 12:07pm | #

Google's motto is an anagram for "Bend, Love It". Don't know what that means--perhaps someone from Google could explain.

ChicagoTom,

I just heard that MS is dropping the validation requirement for IE 7. MS must crave that browser marketshare more it worries about XP/Vista pirates.

lunchstealer,

Altavista used to be my favorite--they had very robust Boolean capabilities as well as proximity searches well before any other player in the market. As for Apple, let's just say that any evil coming out of Redmond is nothing compared to what we would've gotten if Apple had ever dominated the PC/OS market. Apple is like Scientology for computers. . .and mp3 players.

Eric S. | October 16, 2007, 12:12pm | #

I just googled Google's motto. It really is "Don't Be Evil."

R C Dean | October 16, 2007, 1:05pm | #

I just googled Google's motto. It really is "Don't Be Evil."

Isn't that setting the bar pretty effing low? As long as we're not evil, we're meeting/exceeding expectations? Man, I'd love to get me some of that action at my annual review.

Except, actually, I think as in-house counsel they keep me around in case they need someone to lay down some evil.

Pro Libertate | October 16, 2007, 1:23pm | #

R C,

You're at Google? Is Evil one of your areas of responsibility?

Brandybuck | October 16, 2007, 1:41pm | #

Does it get a pass because it's not Microsoft?

No, it gets a pass because it's using Linux. If Google used Windows, it would be Evil™. If it used Solaris or FreeBSD, it would be viewed with extreme suspicion. But because it uses Linux, it can do no wrong.

Dave Woycechowsky | October 16, 2007, 2:17pm | #

You're at Google? Is Evil one of your areas of responsibility?

I think he was implying that he is at a company that doesn't mind a bit of evil now and then. He is pretty pro-war, so I am guessing it is some kind of munitionsmaker.

Mo | October 16, 2007, 2:45pm | #

If MS pulled half the closed system stuff that Apple did, they'd be slapped by so many anti-trust suits the SS gap would be solved.

Apple is like Scientology for computers. . .and mp3 players.

That's the funniest thing I've read today.

Maybe the lawyers at Google are supposed to be the Diet Coke of Evil, just one calorie, not evil enough.

R C Dean | October 16, 2007, 6:10pm | #

You're at Google?

Sadly, no.

Is Evil one of your areas of responsibility?

I really couldn't comment on that.

He is pretty pro-war, so I am guessing it is some kind of munitionsmaker.

Hospital, actually. Non-profit charitable organization, gives away millions in care to the poor every year.

Pro Libertate | October 16, 2007, 6:13pm | #

R C Dean,

I figured you weren't at Google, given your location, but I've seen "virtual" in-house counsel before. I fear that Dave may be fatally disappointed that you aren't involved in nuclear weapons manufacture or something along those lines.

So, any Google counsel available for comment?

Dave Woycechowsky | October 16, 2007, 6:32pm | #

I fear that Dave may be fatally disappointed that you aren't involved in nuclear weapons manufacture or something along those lines.

No. It makes me marginally more interested in what RCD has to say. I find people more credible when not speaking in ways you would predict based on their economic bias.

gives away millions in care to the poor every year

thank goodness for emtala.

The Libertarian Guy | October 17, 2007, 1:03am | #

I call it MooOn.borg, as it has hivelike qualities much akin to the Star Trek bad guys. But without the charm.