I really do not see the problem with the actions of Google's tm counsel in this case. First, the C&D was fairly mild. It was sent to WordSpy, a well-respected and often-referenced site whose definitions are relied upon by many. WordSpy can (and apparently has) changed its listing to provide tm attribution to Google while retaining the explanation of the colloquial use "to google." So again, what's the problem?

Please remember that, in addition to traditional tm infringement, which relies upon a standard of likelihood of confusion, the US also has a federal anti-dilution statute. Dilution only applies to famous marks, which Google probably qualifies as by this time.

Cory, if you are going to rant against "the man," at least acknowledge that you have axes to grind. All IP law is *not* evil (except certain parts of the DMCA, of course <g>).