Now That Everyone Wants to Be a Geek, Lawyers Have Been Called(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Now That Everyone Wants to Be a Geek, Lawyers Have Been Called
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304453304576391602625560250.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLE_Video_Top
4 comments
Note that it's only cool to call yourself a geek if you're not in any danger of being mistaken for an actual geek.
Hot guy/girl wearing glasses: cool.
Overweight unkempt dude in a sweaty t-shirt: still not cool regardless of whether wearing glasses or not.
Hot guy/girl wearing glasses: cool.
Overweight unkempt dude in a sweaty t-shirt: still not cool regardless of whether wearing glasses or not.
I'm holding out for when the "No True Geek" fallacy becomes a thing.
(If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)
(If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)
Nerd chic is as dead as punk in 1990. Most social movements are commoditized by way of cultural signifiers, and when the cultural impact of those signifiers goes away, so does the soul of the movement.
"Nerd" used to be about the intellectualism of it, the replacement of certain social interactions with an indie academic mindset. Now, "Nerd" is a marketing demographic, replete with physical identifiers: black plastic frames, object fetishism, a certain "look."
P.S. Punk is still alive in Minneapolis and SoCal. It's just not popular, so the people who actually give a shit are active. However, the rejection of populism is cool, and "cool" attracts the populace.
"Nerd" used to be about the intellectualism of it, the replacement of certain social interactions with an indie academic mindset. Now, "Nerd" is a marketing demographic, replete with physical identifiers: black plastic frames, object fetishism, a certain "look."
P.S. Punk is still alive in Minneapolis and SoCal. It's just not popular, so the people who actually give a shit are active. However, the rejection of populism is cool, and "cool" attracts the populace.
It sounds like you are describing a "hipster" more than a "nerd", but maybe the two have become one in the same in some ways.
That said, "true nerds" were never in it for the recognition as a "nerd" or as part of some "movement" they just were. And they will continue to be that way after the general populations has moved on to usurp some other image. They may not be called "nerds" but they won't care what they are called.
That said, "true nerds" were never in it for the recognition as a "nerd" or as part of some "movement" they just were. And they will continue to be that way after the general populations has moved on to usurp some other image. They may not be called "nerds" but they won't care what they are called.
Call a hipster a hipster to their face, they really don't like it. It can't be used as a compliment as "geek" can. They are all too cool for their own subculture (or think they are).
> Someone the other day was commenting on the whole 'everyone wants to be a geek now' thing and wondering what to call true geeks now.
> I told him not to worry and that another word would soon be coined to make fun of the true geeks, as always happens. People just can't resist tormenting people who are different.
> I am a little surprised that it hasn't happened yet... But then, maybe I'm too old and not hip with the new slang.
I've heard/read the word 'neckbeard' used in this context.
> I told him not to worry and that another word would soon be coined to make fun of the true geeks, as always happens. People just can't resist tormenting people who are different.
> I am a little surprised that it hasn't happened yet... But then, maybe I'm too old and not hip with the new slang.
I've heard/read the word 'neckbeard' used in this context.
Hacker.
It's still a term that's viewed negatively by mainstream, so you're unlikely to see "Hacker Squad" signs.
It's still a term that's viewed negatively by mainstream, so you're unlikely to see "Hacker Squad" signs.
Yeah, but it's a term that's used differently by the mainstream than by hackers, so you'd be constantly explaining yourself to avoid misperception. Constantly explaining what you mean is fatally geeky. It's better to use a word people don't know and only explain if they ask.
it's a term that's used differently by the mainstream than by hackers
Exactly like "geek". It used to be an insult.
Exactly like "geek". It used to be an insult.
With "geek" it's a matter of emphasis. The prototype is the same, but it's generalized differently. To a lame-o mainstream person, geek just means a frumpy, weird, socially unsuccessful, and possibly smelly person, but to a geek, it's all about pursuing interests in a particular way. Both definitions include a common group of core prototype geeks who look and act a little weird and have an obsessive interest science fiction and/or fantasy. In the lame-o jock douche (pardon me; showing my prejudices) definition, those prototype geeks get lumped in with all the frumpy, weird, socially unsuccessful, and possibly smelly people, which includes many people with intellectual disabilities, whereas by the cool geek definition, they get lumped in with anybody who is passionate about their interests to the point of being regarded as a little weird, which includes many geniuses in diverse fields. The difference can be summed up by asking, is Milhouse a geek ("I'm not a nerd, Bart. Nerds are smart,") or was Einstein a geek? They're different generalizations from the same prototype.
For the mainstream, the prototype hacker is someone who does something nefarious over the internet with no regard for any damage he or she might do. That's not the same prototype we have in mind when we say "hacker." We include those guys with a certain amount of reluctance and distaste. To us, the prototype hacker is somebody like Richard Stallman, the Richard Feynman of Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman or What Do You Care What Other People Think, or the folks who perpetrated the classic MIT hacks (http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/misc/best_of.html). Most people wouldn't even understand why we include those guys unless we explained.
For the mainstream, the prototype hacker is someone who does something nefarious over the internet with no regard for any damage he or she might do. That's not the same prototype we have in mind when we say "hacker." We include those guys with a certain amount of reluctance and distaste. To us, the prototype hacker is somebody like Richard Stallman, the Richard Feynman of Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman or What Do You Care What Other People Think, or the folks who perpetrated the classic MIT hacks (http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/misc/best_of.html). Most people wouldn't even understand why we include those guys unless we explained.
My solution is to simply not clarify, and let people think the worse. Crime is glamorous.
But 'everyone' wants to be a hacker these days too. Read the top left corner of this website. We fought for a decade to redefine the word in the eyes of the public, and yet its quickly become defined as most any person interested in startup culture.
Loads of people want to be hackers, but that doesn't mean it's something Respectible Society would aspire to. Can you see a politican at a "Hacker Pride" event, or talking about how great hackers (not geeks, hackers) are?
The vast majority of people don't think "person interested in startup culture" when they hear the word hacker. In the eyes of the public, a hacker is someone who breaks into websites or writes viruses.
What distinguishes "true geeks" from the pretenders?
I think that if you are really passionate about something specific that makes you a geek, although I might add a qualifier that it generally has to be an intellectual pursuit.
Most importantly, being a "geek" is not about an image, it's a way of looking at the world.
Most importantly, being a "geek" is not about an image, it's a way of looking at the world.
True geeks don't go around telling everyone they're a geek. That's all posers do. Geeks, it's just who they are. It's not a fad, or cool thing used get noticed. Geek is a personality type, you are born with it. It's not something you can buy at the store.
We already have a term for the antithesis: leet (733t or whatever).
Perhaps, as often is the case, we'll end up defining ourselves at least partially in the negative. (Not cool, not leet... whatever.)
"Hacker" seemed to serve partially, for a while, until it became synonymous with every online break-in in the mainstream press.
Perhaps, as often is the case, we'll end up defining ourselves at least partially in the negative. (Not cool, not leet... whatever.)
"Hacker" seemed to serve partially, for a while, until it became synonymous with every online break-in in the mainstream press.
1337!
I think 'hacker' has already reached that level of notoriety. Yet, many of us continue to use it. Because really, other than referencing each other, we never introduce ourselves by these titles. "Hello, my name is ____ and I'm a geek" is a little silly.
On the other end, phrases like "I suppose so, for us hackers anyway" would most likely be addressed to to another hacker. For the community, I think, it's unlikely that outside sentiments will affect the terminology that much.
I think 'hacker' has already reached that level of notoriety. Yet, many of us continue to use it. Because really, other than referencing each other, we never introduce ourselves by these titles. "Hello, my name is ____ and I'm a geek" is a little silly.
On the other end, phrases like "I suppose so, for us hackers anyway" would most likely be addressed to to another hacker. For the community, I think, it's unlikely that outside sentiments will affect the terminology that much.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
7. What constitutes tradenmark infringement?
If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent.
They sued a priest!
7. What constitutes tradenmark infringement?
If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent.
They sued a priest!
They sued a priest driving around in a black Volkswagon Beetle with a God Squad logo that looks exactly like the Geek Squad logo.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but Best Buy did the right and necessary thing to defend their trademark.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but Best Buy did the right and necessary thing to defend their trademark.
I can't tell you how many times I accidentally called the God Squad to fix my computer, thinking it was in fact, the Geek Squad.
Not the point.
The point is that if they allow "God squad" to pass without comment, then they'll have to allow "Hot Dog Squad" as well. And then "Pho Squad" and "Grog Squad" will show up, followed by "Mop Squad" and "Pizza Squad" and "Gutter Cleaning Guy Squad". Pretty soon someone opens up a "Dork Squad" which is actually a Geek Squad competitor, but with the roads clogged with black and white and orange Beetles providing squad-themed services, there'll be enough precedent that it'll be impossible to defend.
That's a somewhat exaggerated scenario, but it's essentially the logic behind these apparently overly sensitive trademark defense cases.
The point is that if they allow "God squad" to pass without comment, then they'll have to allow "Hot Dog Squad" as well. And then "Pho Squad" and "Grog Squad" will show up, followed by "Mop Squad" and "Pizza Squad" and "Gutter Cleaning Guy Squad". Pretty soon someone opens up a "Dork Squad" which is actually a Geek Squad competitor, but with the roads clogged with black and white and orange Beetles providing squad-themed services, there'll be enough precedent that it'll be impossible to defend.
That's a somewhat exaggerated scenario, but it's essentially the logic behind these apparently overly sensitive trademark defense cases.
The priest thing seems more legit to me than the Newegg thing. The priests were deliberately trying to "cash in"[1] on similarity between their brand and the Geek Squad brand, whereas Newegg was just trying to use the positive associations between the work "geek" (which Best Buy doesn't own) and computer buying.
[1] - Personally I think there should be accommodations for the fact that it's non-commercial.
[1] - Personally I think there should be accommodations for the fact that it's non-commercial.
The "God squad" reminds me more of the "Mod squad", both in literal similarity and in the implementation. Maybe it's BestBuy who's on shaky ground here?
Yeah, because as we all know, that priests are all about raking in the Benjamins.
I'm not saying it makes for a good lawsuit or that Best Buy aren't dicks for pursuing it, but "God Squad" in a black-and-white car that's the same model as the Geek Squad car is sort of leaning on the brand at least.
Is it confusing to you, as a consumer?
Checked out the offending work. New Egg's Geek On logo bares absolutely zero resemblance to Best Buy's Geek Squad logo. Best Buy doesn't own everything "geek" and orange. Are Syracuse geeks next?
I was ready to softly defend Best Buy on this one until I saw the logo in question. It's just a poorly made logo that happens to use orange and black (because they're elsewhere on the site). This is clearly a case where the sharks are smelling blood.
Good thing PG used the word "Hacker" instead of "Geek", otherwise HN would have been on the chopping block, too :)
Good thing PG used the word "Hacker" instead of "Geek", otherwise HN would have been on the chopping block, too :)
Apparently anyone wearing a blue polo shirt and khakis is off-limits, too.
Oh noes!
I go by programming geek. Same name for my blog. I'm working on a side project called Answers Geek.
It's only a matter of time I get sued for being a geek I guess.
I go by programming geek. Same name for my blog. I'm working on a side project called Answers Geek.
It's only a matter of time I get sued for being a geek I guess.
I told him not to worry and that another word would soon be coined to make fun of the true geeks, as always happens. People just can't resist tormenting people who are different.
I am a little surprised that it hasn't happened yet... But then, maybe I'm too old and not hip with the new slang.
As for Best Buy suing everyone for using the words Geek or Squad (and every-so-graciously allowing high schoolers to continue calling their teams 'geek squads' (that's sarcasm)) it's obviously ridiculous. I understand protecting your brand, but when you name your brand so generically, you automatically lose a bit of it. Just deal with it.