1. Names can't be copyrighted, but they can be trademarked.

2. Google is using their name in the branding. E.g. Apple calls the iPhone just the iPhone, not the "Apple iPhone." On the other hand, Google prepends their name to all of their product names (e.g. "Google Play" "Google Now" "Google Plus" "Google Glass"), with Gmail being the only major exception that I can come up with (off the top of my head).

1. Sorry, my bad. English is not my first language.

2. So, you think it wouldn't go after another company calling it's media webstore Play Store or Supercorp Play? Now, I don't really know about Google, but Facebook has shown that it is possible to attack other companies even for using just a part of your (completely generic) trademarked name.

It's possible to attack other companies for essentially anything. That doesn't mean you'll win.

Yes, but the attack is a lot of times all that's needed. I've known a handful of small companies that were attacked in court for their names on completely unjustifiable trademark grounds. However the cost to defend against even the most frivolous claims can cost tens of thousands of dollars before things really get serious. Not many small businesses/startup are in a position to take on this kind of defense. In the cases of the companies I know of, they capitulated and changed their names to avoid having to undertake the cost of the very winnable defense.

The big corps like Google, Apple, MSFT, etc. will fight it out and not really worry about the legal costs. But for startups/small businesses, this can and probably will be a growing burden moving forward.

Feedburner, YouTube, Orkut, Picasa, Blogger? Good points though.

Those were all acquired, not built by Google.

Orkut was a Google project from Orkut Büyükkökten's 20% time.

I feel stupid for not coming up with prominent examples like YouTube/Blogger, but these are less 'generic' than things like 'Glass,' 'Play,' or 'Plus.'

Last year there was a lot of news about them possibly renaming Picasa as Google Photos and Blogger as Google Blogs, though that clearly never happened.

Copyright is a political construct. Capitalism is an econonmic system. There's no inherent cause and effect between them.

Our politicians thinking in ways that are (IMO) too capitalistic and corporationalistic is the cause of the copyright taking over the freedom of speech.

> There's no inherent cause and effect between them.

Why not ? I think it is fair to believe there is one.

You probably can't get the trademark on a single word like those. Any trademark would likely have to include the word or logo for Google. That said, if Yahoo creates a music/video service called Yahoo Play, you can guarantee there will be a successful lawsuit.

That's what I meant. Play is the best/most obvious word when trying to combine the meanings of "listen" (to music) and "watch" (movies). And now, a single company controls it, and no one else can use it in this manner (e.g. for a media store).

Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows", so it's entirely possible to get one on a single word. T-Mobile claims one on the colour magenta.

At least they didn't call themselves Apple ;)