Sue Googe Uses Google's Font To Run For US Congress (theverge.com) 179
An anonymous reader writes: Sue Googe is running to represent the 4th Congressional District of North Carolina in United States Congress. Since her last name resembles "Google," she has decided to use Google's font to help market her campaign. You can view a picture of Sue Googe standing next to two people holding her campaign signs here. You'll see that "Googe" is written just like "Google," but without the "l." Even the "e" in "Googe" is slanted like the "e" in "Google." "Sue" on the other hand, is not written in the same font as "Googe." It's possible the campaign accidentally selected this font, but upon closer inspection, that seems highly unlikely. It begs the question: Will Google sue Sue Googe? While we wait for Google to comment on the story, you can read all about Sue Googe on her website.
Mike Rowe Soft? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember one guy who used his fortunate name to start a company and wangle some deals from Microsoft?
Sorry dude, Mike Rowe is cleaning sewars with a camera crew.
Re: (Score:1)
My Mike Rowe crow's mic row rows Mike Rowe's mic crows while he cleans the sewers with a camera crew.
Sue Googe's Google gaff goes agoo as Google sues Sue Googe; her campaign goes awry.
Re: (Score:1)
I think I just had a stroke
Re: (Score:1)
Fitting: Microsoft makes sewers.
Next Up... (Score:1, Redundant)
Google Sues Sue Googe.
Re: (Score:3)
RTFA. You're not that clever.
Re: (Score:2)
Yuck (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yuck (Score:4, Insightful)
Google should just blacklist any positive mention of her name across all Google properties, then ignore her.
That's more of a proper response to a publicity stunt like this (which apparently worked).
Re: (Score:1)
But she has to save money for the Google logo lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Sue needs to employ a photographer for her website before she does anything, at least someone who has a basic grasp of colour balance.
What an awful site.
Maybe it's deliberate so she can later claim that using Google's font was an accident of incompetence.
Sue Google (Score:2)
for breach of privacy
Re: (Score:1)
Will Sue Googe follow the critical "don't be evil" slogal Google has abandoned?
Re:Sue Google (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously her version would be "don't be evi".
WORSE than HITLERS! (Score:2)
Wow, surprised we've gone this long on this thread without that obvious joke font joke.
Evi Appe (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese name (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be Googe Sue - Or is Googe her husband's surname?
Re:Chinese name (Score:4, Informative)
Her Chinese name is Jiangxiu Fu (FU Jiangxu; surname fu2, first name jiang1xiu4 (meaning "graceful river") (thanks, Slashdot, for not supporting UTF-8!)). She must have taken the common name Sue when she moved to the United States 18-20 years ago. I found her name on Chinese websites [voachinese.com] (she speaks quick but very clear Mandarin), but it's mentioned here [votesmart.org] too. As for her American surname:
I've tried to find out who her husband is, solely to determine the origin of his surname, but haven't had any luck. There is no Chinese surname of Guge ("goo guh") (that'd be weird anyway; gu3ge2 means bones/skeleton). In Hangul (Korean) the family name would have to be goo-geu (again, no UTF-8...), in the case she married a Korean, but I've never heard of such a family name. We can safely rule out Japanese too. So that leaves American-European. Digging around on houseofnames.com for Googe turns up an etymology of French or British 14th-century origin; alt. spellings include Gouche, Googh, Gooch, and Gooche.
Tennessee and Georgia both have histories of having citizens and politicians with the surname of Googe (see 1940s). So yeah, must have got it from marrying an American, probably of European descent. Point being: it's not a Chinese surname.
Opinion footnote: given that she has absolutely no political history (see above biography link), for a first-time approach at gaining recognition, this is not going to end well for her socially. Legally... well, that's for lawyers to debate. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool thanks for the info. I guess Jiangxu is a bit of a mouthful to American ears... But at least 'Sue' is something of an abbreviation.
Nonetheless, I'd be tempted to vote for a candidate named "graceful river"!
(Gooch is well-known as the name of an English cricket captain).
Begs the question (Score:1)
It begs the question:
Nope. [begthequestion.info]
Re:Begs the question (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure one day the more common incorrect usage will become the standard and accepted usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it beg the question of whether trolls bait readers by begging the question just to lure the grammar pedants out of the woodwork...
Come at me, bro. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I counter with http://www.egscomics.com/index... [egscomics.com] which is a much more entertaining read.
"Beg the question" (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:"Beg the question" (Score:5, Informative)
"Beg the question" doesn't mean "beg for the question." It means to avoid answering the question.
No, it doesn't. It means assuming something unproven as basis for a conclusion, or more typically a circular logic, using the conclusion as a premise for drawing the conclusion. Also known as "petitio principii".
A typical example is "God exists, because the bible says so, and the bible comes from God, so it must be true".
It's called "begging the question" because the one who makes the fallacy petitions the opponent to accept the premise that's in question.
Re: (Score:1)
Fuuuuuck Offfffff
Re: (Score:3)
"It's called "begging the question" because the one who makes the fallacy petitions the opponent to accept the premise that's in question."
Where do you people get these etymologies from?
It's called "begging the question" because that's just the translation of the Latin, "petitio principii". The word "beg" has had more than one usage and certainly the word "question" still has more than one usage. So where does this story about it referring to petitioning some opponent even come from? It's unnecessary. "B
Re: (Score:2)
An example of "translatese" for the phrase:
"An appeal of the principles" or an appeal of the premises". Neither of these are real English but just stand as word for word translations of the Latin while preserving word class and case. Hence why a non-literal translation like "begging the question" is far superior: translations don't have to show that you know Latin grammar perfectly, unless you're doing them for an undergraduate course.
Re:"Beg the question" (Score:4, Informative)
"Beg the question" doesn't mean "beg for the question." It means to avoid answering the question.
No, it doesn't. It means assuming something unproven as basis for a conclusion, or more typically a circular logic, using the conclusion as a premise for drawing the conclusion. Also known as "petitio principii".
Actually, "beg the question" doesn't really mean petitio principii anymore, outside of philosophy journals. A post over at Language Log from 2010 [upenn.edu] noted that of the 20 most recent hits for "beg the question" in the New York Times, only ONE was an actual example of "correct" usage: 15 used it to me "raises the question," and 4 were just people bitching about other people using it wrong. A survey of 50 usages in Google News showed 49 uses to mean "raises the question" and 1 hit discussing its usage (not just using it "correctly").
When the vast majority of even educated, edited prose adopts a new meaning for a phrase, it's standard. Deal with it.
It's called "begging the question" because the one who makes the fallacy petitions the opponent to accept the premise that's in question.
Well, that's sort of in the right direction. The link above has detailed etymology -- the problem is that the phrase originally comes from Aristotle, where (in Greek) it would have been understood in context as meaning something like "assuming the conclusion," which is a pretty clear description of the philosophical fallacy. Then it got rendered in medieval Latin as petitio principii, which used two words that had changed meaning since Classical Latin and had connotations that confused things. THEN it was rendered in English about 400 years ago as "beg the question" which was a literal translation of petitio principii, except not really the meanings of that phrase that got across Aristotle's meaning well. THEN both the words "beg" and "question" changed their meaning over the past 400 years to exclude the original connotations that caused that translation from Latin.
To sum up, we're a couple millennia, three languages, and a few major meaning shifts from the original phrase... so it's no wonder the original meaning of the phrase got lost somewhere.
Bottom line: nobody but philosophers and language pedants actually know the original meaning of that phrase anymore. Heck, you can find citations of the phrase meaning "raise the question" in good writers' prose even back in the mid 1800s!! The meaning of "raise the question" is well-established and completely dominates current usage.
Thus, it's time to give up the battle. I used to have my "pet peeves" for usage too, but an English teacher once gave me very sound advice: "When saying the 'correct' thing sounds weird enough or is obscure enough that it distracts from your writing/speaking, it's time to just avoid that 'correct' construction -- because language is about communication, and you're no longer communicating effectively."
Usage expert Brian Garner calls this a "skunked term": a word or phrase whose common meaning is branded by pedants as "wrong" but whose "right" meaning is no longer understood by even educated speakers. The only right thing to do then is choose a different term.
If you mean petitio principii, then use "assume the conclusion" or "circular logic" or whatever MORE DESCRIPTIVE phrase actually makes your point clear. If you mean "raise the question," then say it. All of these pedantic arguments about what "beg the question" REALLY means are just BS now -- they're just a waste of time arguing about a ship that sailed LONG ago.
Re: (Score:2)
"the phrase originally comes from Aristotle, where (in Greek) it would have been understood in context as meaning something like "assuming the conclusion," which is a pretty clear description of the philosophical fallacy"
This is exactly what everyone thinks it means today. So I'm failing to see the point of your rant.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what everyone thinks it means today. So I'm failing to see the point of your rant.
Far, far, FAR from "everyone." Only in philosophy journals, and among certain older lawyers.
If you read the link in my "rant," you'll discover that everyone else in the world (including educated people, editors at the New York Times, etc.) thinks the phrase means something like "raise the question." Do I like the old usage? Sure, I'm a pedant. But I'm also a realist, and if you try using your meaning before a general audience or even an educated audience that isn't mostly logicians, your meaning will
Gasp - linked to a Republican's web site ! (Score:1)
You're going to lose your Librul Media certification.
(Or was that just to avoid a congressional investigation into your biases?)
I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Does her husband sometimes come home, grab her and say "I'm feeling lucky"?
Re: (Score:2)
well, it doesn't always bring you where you want to be.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Sticking with the dropped Ls, probably "I'm feeling ucky"
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't it be "I'm feeing ucky"?
Google should sue for punitive damages (Score:2)
It begs the question (Score:1, Funny)
You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.
IANAL (Score:1)
If consumers think Googe and Google are affiliated then Googe might be in trouble.
Coming headline... (Score:2)
Google to sue Sue Googe over Sue Googe's use of Google's font.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
No they couldn't sue her over the use of the font. Fonts are not copyrightable, which means that the shape of the letters is not copyrightable. If someone makes a nice new font and sells it, there's nothing stopping someone from making a font that looks very similar to it.
The issue I see here is one of trademark (IE the Google wordmark), not font.
Trumps Running Mate? (Score:2)
She is a republican.
follow the pattern (Score:2)
and her political opponent is Hak Facebok
This is news?! (Score:1)
Say her name (Score:1)
So, her name isn't pronounced "Goodge" in one syllable, but "Goo-guh", so it sounds like Google without the L. If not, start calling her that and see how fast they switch fonts.
Okay, I will see myself out... (Score:2)
Poor choice of colors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell is a politician using colors other than red, white, or blue in the US?
And where is her Ford F150, Smith & Wesson, and 24 Oz T-Bone Steak? I hardly recognize this country anymore. God bless Payton Mann'n and the U, S of A.
Tootsie rolls (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pedant alert: it probably should be Typeface (Score:2)
A typeface is a design. a font is a typeface at a specific size.
Think back to movable type. You talk to your designer, "i want this headline in Palatino" or whatever. You get it in your head. Then you get to brass tacks, and have to go to a drawer, and pull out type at a specific size. That's a font.
With TrueType and Postscript and Digital Presses, it's kind of all blended and become cloudy. But I'd wish there was a bit more specificness from actual News Outlets. Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong question (Score:2)
that's not begging the question (Score:2)
Next headline: Sue Googe is Sued by Google (Score:2)
Re:Sure, whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.
It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit. They can afford really good lawyers. Trademark infringement cases have been won on shakier grounds.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.
Intent is a difficult thing to prove. FACT is that Google does not own the font.
Here's another "fact" Google has not yet done anything, this is all "The Verge" (whatever web site that is that is paying Slashdot for stories) and Slashdot whipping up some sulatious story where there really is NO STORY!
Re: (Score:1)
Intent is a difficult thing to prove.
Usually I'd agree with you. It wouldn't be hard to convince a jury in this particular instance, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sulatious?
That's not very cromulent...
Re: (Score:3)
tl,dr; (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except Google does own the font [designforhackers.com]. It's not an off the shelf font. They took Futura and tweaked it to their liking. Googe used Google's version with all the tweaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Google does own the font [designforhackers.com]. It's not an off the shelf font. They took Futura and tweaked it to their liking. Googe used Google's version with all the tweaks.
Except the font is not the displayed letters, in legal terms; that is the typeface which are not copyrightable. Unless Google has a design patent on the typeface (the letters, numbers, etc...) they do not own its appearance. The font is the program that generates the typeface and it is copyrightable. The font name can be trademarked as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Excellent job turning gibberish into cashflow!
Re: (Score:3)
Excellent job turning gibberish into cashflow!
Thank you. That will be $1000.00
Re: (Score:3)
FACT is, no one mentioned copyright, so who owns the font is irrelevant.
This is about trademarks and brand recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The question is, "does Google's trademark extend to political candidates?"
(If the answer is "yes," of course, then the logical follow-up is "which office is Larry Page or Sergey Brin planning on running for?")
Re: (Score:2)
If they put it on a tshirt, do charitable fundraising or provide grants?
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/... [uspto.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
FACT: humans read familiar looking words looking at the first and last letters mostly. When you make the 'e' at the end all slanty that just re-enforces the likelyhood you'll read googe as google. I did the first time, and without the context of why is the a story, I would not have gone back.
She is trying to pass as "Sue Google"
Now I'll be surprised if Google does sue Sue Googe, for two reasons.
1) It will bring more attention and confusion if they get involved in a legal battle not less. The law may or m
Barney Google and Snuffy Smith (Score:2)
She is trying to pass as "Sue Google"
Would Barney Google [wikipedia.org] need to "pass"?
Re:Sure, whatever... (Score:5, Funny)
Of course they'll Sue Googe. It's right in her name.
Re: (Score:2)
That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit.
So will Google sue Sue Googe or will Sue Googe sue Google?
Now try to say that outloud five times.
Re: (Score:2)
that outloud, that outloud, that outloud, that outloud, that outloud.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not nearly enough for Google to win a lawsuit. Just because your brand is hurt -- for example, by every news agency in the world reporting that you've cheated on emissions tests [nytimes.com] -- does not mean that you can sue for trademark infringement.
To infringe a trademark, the accused infringer must be using the trademark
Re: (Score:2)
All snark aside, politics is not commerce.
Not true. Look at Radiance Foundation v. NAACP and Hershey v Hershey. Political activity is a service.
Like in Hershey v Hershey there is no first ammendment case here. Googe is trying to co-opt a brand like Hershey was.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Look at Radiance Foundation v. NAACP and Hershey v Hershey. Political activity is a service.
Ok. Let's look at Radiance [uscourts.gov]:
Re: (Score:2)
the defendant in a trademark infringement . . . case must use
the mark in connection with the goods or services of a competing
producer, not merely to make a comment on the trademark owner's
goods or services
In Googe's case the defendant is using the mark in connection with the defendant's service. This service is Googe's political activity. You have failed to show that political activity is not considered a service.
Radiance's use is protected under the first ammendment. Googe's is not. Clear and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's spelled "amendment." Once is a typo. Twice is an error that requires correction.
2. Radiance's use is protected under the first amendment, why? Radiance's use is not in connection with Radiance's ser
Re: Sure, whatever... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I said that politics is not commerce.
Nader case:
"Even assuming the Nader Ad caused greater contributions to be made to his political campaign, this would not be enough to deem Ralph Nader's Ad 'commercial.' If so, then presumably, as suggested by defendants, all political campaign speech would also be 'commercial speech' since all political candidates collect contributions. Ralph Nader's Political Ad attempts to communicat
Re: (Score:3)
MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004)
Re: (Score:2)
In a country where money is speech, politics is commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.
It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit.
Honestly it feels like she did it on purpose, because she wants the publicity and sympathy a lawsuit by a huge company would bring.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark (or a substantially similar mark) on competing or related goods and services .
Unless Google's business is running for Congress I don't see how they would have a case for a lawsuit. Trademark has very limited scope compared to copyright and patent. You don't just trademark something and get exclusive rights to it for everything.
Trademark dilution (Score:2)
Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark (or a substantially similar mark) on competing or related goods and services .
"Infringement" is not the only cause of action for unauthorized use of a trademark. Another is "dilution", which involves use of a famous trademark by another without authorization in a way that diminishes the mark's uniqueness [wikipedia.org], even in an unrelated field of use. Try selling "Coca-Cola" brand spark plugs, for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
I forget the legal term, but she's clearly trying to conflate her running and Google in the minds of voters, or at the very least, to claim that they're endorsing her.
False color something , maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
It probably depends on if she is a Democrat or a Republican.
Hard to tell from her website, her positions are a blend of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. (3rd party site: Republican)
She is running against a Democrat, but it is North Carolina, she does not have to downplay being a Rep, like if she were running in New York.
America’s lethargic economy is due to out-of-control spending, corporate welfare, a burdensome tax code, undeclared and expensive wars, an unsustainable trade deficit, and policies tha
Re: (Score:3)
Trademark law would be useless if you could just drop a little bit of a trademark and call it your own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You could try to prove parody, but it's going to cost you a lot in legal fees if they try to sue. It's not an easy defense.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as trademark law goes, the way I see it is that Google is not a political candidate and Googe is not a technology company, so they don't conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can. I once got a 'Blackborry' phone from China. I loved it (until it got some weird and rare form of screen cancer), but I'm pretty sure it did infringe the trademark of some Canadian company...
Re: (Score:2)
Google OWNS that font? It's not even the same font Google now uses. It's a "sans serif" font that is a little more "stylized" than Helvetica, but the "Google Font"? Sure, OK, whatever.
It's the exact same font that I see when I go to google.com but more importantly, it is more than just the font. The 'e' is really what makes it a copy of the google logo. That is not a part of the standard font. I think it's actually a brilliant plan and having the first name Sue makes it that much funnier. It gets her name out there and chances are that step one is going to be a cease/desist so the only cost that she'll be out is any material that she has printed but not distributed yet.
Re: (Score:1)
Prior art is a Patent law concept. Patents are different to Trademarks and Copyright.
Typeface designs can be patented (Score:2)
Prior art is a Patent law concept.
And in the United States, a type designer secures exclusive rights in his new typeface by applying for a design patent.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be fucking blind. The font Google uses for their logo is not the same as any other font.
Thatnk you for yout thoughtful comment.
Clearly you are not a designer or a font guy, so I will allow your completely asinin comment.
Fact is, Google might have "tweaked" the font, but they did not originate the basice font.
Simply a fact.
Fonts are an art form, and there are many variations. Very few including Google's font are "original".
Re: (Score:2)
You must be fucking blind. The font Google uses for their logo is not the same as any other font.
Thatnk you for yout thoughtful comment.
Clearly you are not a designer or a font guy, so I will allow your completely asinin comment.
Fact is, Google might have "tweaked" the font, but they did not originate the basice font.
Simply a fact.
Fonts are an art form, and there are many variations. Very few including Google's font are "original".
Googles Font is original, an original work does not have to be based off non original works, or no works at all. Google may have just tweaked the font, but as far as anyone can tell that tweak is original. It has trademark protection, because it is original... Under your definition of original nothing would be original, and therefore nothing would be protected, because everything is currently based on something else.
Re: (Score:2)
So, even if you are 100% right on the origin of the font, that in no way supports your implied conclusion that Google has no grounds.
Re: (Score:2)
hope she books a cruise on Boaty McBoatface to generate stories that really fuck your clock
Re: (Score:2)
Actually she's a Republican... Which explains her cavalier attitude towards intellectual property when she's the one doing the infringing.