[.ca] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (ISBN 0375425608)

From Amazon.com:
Webster's annually updated dictionary offers an outstanding blend of new-millennium lingo and the classic words and origins of the English language. For instance, it includes extensive computer terminology, such as bot, cookie, and terabyte, as well as cyberjargon, such as clicks-and-mortar ("adj. pertaining to being a company that does business on the Internet and in traditional stores or offices"). It even has slang listings for my bad! ("slang. my fault! my mistake!") and senior moment ("n. ((often facetious)) a brief lapse in memory or moment of confusion, esp. in an older person"). Inclusions like these appeal especially to generation X and even generation Y ("n. the generation born in the 1980s and 1990s, especially in the United States"). Readers of all generations will appreciate the numerous tutorials, such as "Guide for Writers" and "Avoiding Offensive Language," as well as the latest political and geographical updates. Including the computer lingo and trendy slang is definitely edgy ("adj. daringly innovative; on the cutting edge"). But, when it comes to being a solid reference tool, it's the sophisticated definitions, line drawings, maps, charts, essays, and usage advice that make Webster's dictionary unequivocally candy ("slang. someone or something that is excellent. pleasing or pleasurable"). --Gail Hudson

Your Best Freind:
This has come in very handy on several occasions. It has clear/understandable definitions as well as great examples.

No likelihood of consumer confusion?:
In 1991, Merriam-Webster (M-W), the market leader in college dictionaries, sued Random House (RH) after RH changed the name of its dictionary (from RH College Dictionary) to Random House Webster's College Dictionary. In addition, RH adopted a trade dress similar to Merriam-Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Among the similarities between the two competing works were: 1. Bright red dust jackets 2. The use of the generic word "Webster's" in combination with the descriptive term 3. "College" or "Collegiate" on the cover 4. The name "Webster's" in large white vertical letters on the spines. Concluding RH acted with malice, a six-person jury awarded M-W millions in damages and granted it a permanent injunction preventing RH from distributing its dictionary. Downplaying RH's "bad faith" attempt to capitalize on M-W's trade dress, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court, and vacated the injunction and damages award. Merriam-Webster, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 35 F.3d 65, 70-72 (2d Cir. 1994). In finding there was no likelihood of consumer confusion (the test for trade dress infringement), the appeals court placed special emphasis on the conspicuous use of the publishers' names and logos (including R-H's own distinctive "bull's eye" logo) which served to distinguish the two dictionaries. The court also noted that M-W had not objected to red jacketed college dictionaries published by other houses. In addition, the court found that the relative sophistication of dictionary purchasers cut against finding a likelihood of confusion. All this sure confused me, until I spent way too much time researching dictionaries. Merriam-Webster is the "original" "Webster's" dictionary. If you want "Websters," get the Merriam-Webster Collegiate instead.

Great reference book... however check out a typo..:
We use this book all the time. However on Page 806 - top of page "Matin" Luther King? All the books should be recalled..!!!!!

Another confused consumer but....:
I bought the April 1999 edition after spending an hour or two in the bookstore looking at several dictionaries so that I could find the best one for me. This one won easily. I can't remember whether the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary was among the others, but I do remember being confused at some point in time by the similarities in appearance and name of these dictionaries. So I found the "No likelihood of consumer confusion?" review very helpful as I hadn't bothered to run it down so thoroughly. Thanks! It seems to me that only a legal system trapped in its own ever-diminishing circle could have concluded that there was no attempt by Random House to imitate. The dictionary, however, I have found to be excellent. In the three years or so I've had it I've found one mistake - a typo where "liberal" was used instead of "literal" in the definition of the word 'Pharisee'. I measure that against the innumerable occasions where its concise and elegant definitions have been a great help and source of knowledge. I really can't speak too highly of it, but I'll now just have to go out and compare it in my "relatively sophisticated" way to the Merriam-Webster.

An excellent dictionary for students:
I would recommend this dictionary for students as it has a reasonable size and covers various words that are foreign or weird that do not match conventional spelling rules. It will do as a reference whether you are writing about feisty feists, the seizure of counterfeit sovereigns, the science of glaciers, or seismic effects on gneiss. It covers both spellings and both pronunciations of sheikh, and includes words with similar pronunciations such as cay, key, and quay. It has sufficient coverage to include place names such as Aqaba. It has the usual deficiency of dictionaries in this size range, i.e., it does not include lesser known place names such as Sequim, Kalaloch, and Quilcene.