Slashdot Log In
Google & Others Sued Over Android Trademark
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat May 02, 2009 04:13 AM
from the grab-that-cash dept.
from the grab-that-cash dept.
suraj.sun tips news that Google and 47 other companies are being sued over use of the "Android" name. Eric Specht of Android Data alleges that Google "stole first and asked questions later." According to The Register, "Google applied for a trademark for Android in October of 2007, but had that application denied in February of 2008. The USPTO's reasoning for the denial was simple: Since both Google and Specht were involved in the development of software and related services, 'consumers are likely to conclude that the goods are related and originate from a single source.'" Reader ruphus13 points out related news that Motorola is planning several Android-based phones for later this year.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This is typical stuff. (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Register a company with a cool sounding name
2) Run your business like usual
3) Watch another company make a huge success using your name and wait a bit.
4) Sue them and profit!
Have you heard about Android Data before google made their move? Thought so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. Being a trademark it's easy enough to search this up.
That you haven't heard about it isn't the problem here. If a small business creates a business with a certain name - then of course they have the right to that name - and the right for protection against larger 'dogs' stealing their company name.
And then there is gmail, which google cannot use in Germany, and which crashes with an older email-product called Gmail in Norway.
And then there's the obvious ... (Score:5, Funny)
... that the name "Android" really sucks for a cell phone.
Let's take an example of how it was done right - the Motorola Razr - "as thin as a razor."
But then again, this is from a company (Google) that couldn't even spell their OWN name right. [wikipedia.org]
Google - accidental misspelling of googol. According to Google's vice president, as quoted on a BBC The Money Programme documentary, January 2006, the founders - noted for their poor spelling - registered Google as a trademark and web address before someone pointed out that it was not correct.
Hey, maybe they should have mis-spelled it as "Andruid" - they could have had a tie-in with the Boston Celtics. Or "Endroid" and hooked up with Preparation H. ("Shitty cell phone service? Use Endroid"). Or A-roid - the "Cell phone on steroids".
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
January 2006, the founders - noted for their poor spelling
Well ... that explains a lot. As it happens, I'm an excellent speller (used to win spelling bees in grade school) and I've been having a hard time figuring out why, after all these years, I don't run a major technology company.
Now I know. Damn.
Re: (Score:2)
"Aim that at me and I'll kill you." -- Jame Retief, "Retief's War"
That has GOT to be one of the best multi-book characters in Sci-Fi. Sure, the stories are a bit pulpy (okay, they're a LOT pulpy, and quite camp), but they're fun "Pulp (sci)-Fiction."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is typical stuff. (Score:5, Interesting)
OTOH, "Google countered in August, claiming that the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years, and that there couldn't be any confusion between the two names." which does seem pretty reasonable. According to the Chilling Effects [chillingeffects.org] website though, the time limit for a trademark is 10 years. Although in the first ten year period you need to lodge an "Affidavit of Use [uspto.gov]" between the fifth and sixth years. Looks like Eric Spech may be receiving some money. Unless a bean counter at Google works out it will cost less to change the name.
Parent
Re:This is typical stuff. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and read down a little further: "the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years".
Furthermore, "Android" by itself shouldn't enjoy trademark protection, since it's a common word. "Google Android", "Android Data", "Android Mobile Phone" might enjoy trademark protection--separately from each other.
Parent
Re:This is typical stuff. (Score:4, Informative)
Apple Corps v. Apple Computer [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and read down a little further: "the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years"
Now read the whole sentence:
Yeesh. You think, maybe, that Google might potentially have a small bias when making that statement?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are hundreds of millions of potential names for a business (and that's assuming you use existing, English words). Not only that, there are lots of exceptions for businesses operating in different areas.
It's not all that hard to come up with an original name. You come up with a creative name, see if you can trademark it, if you can't, you pick another name. It's not incredibly hard even without teams of lawyers. Google applied for a trademark, got it denied because of this existing business yet still p
Re:This is typical stuff. (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever actually been responsible for naming products at a large corporation???
As easy as it may sound, it's one of the single most difficult things to do. Creating a name that has the right feeling and meaning to it, while satisfying all stakeholders AND copyright people is next to impossible. You'll always have n+1 opinions on what name is best, assuming n people are involved in the process.
The only "simple" way is a dictatorship - such as a sole proprietorship in a small company where the owner does this him/herself.
MadCow.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
There are hundreds of millions of potential names for a business (and that's assuming you use existing, English words)
Just a few points:
The OED lists 171,471 words in the English language... somewhat short of 'hundreds of millions' (most trademarks are single words).
It is best not to use a known word as your trademark. It will be stronger and easier to defend if you make up a new word.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a few points:
The OED lists 171,471 words in the English language...
That number, I assume, is from AskOxford. It is incorrect. That's how many entries are in volume 1, excluding archaic words and combination word-forms. The full count is more than six hundred thousand, plus their own estimate of another half-million uncatalogued technical words.
The Global Language Monitor has been in the news recently claiming 999,456 words in the English language, although it isn't clear how picky they are.
Encyclopedia Americana (1999 ed.) claims 750,000 words.
"About a million" is a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in the most generous estimate, tho', we're nowhere near the GP's claim of hundreds of millions.
Although a few minutes' thought makes me reconsider, since there's no problem with a single trademark including multiple words. There are quite a few permutations available.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Search for "android data -google" [google.com]
Yahoo Search for "android data -google" [yahoo.com]
In both cases, the first result is the wikipedia entry for Data from Star Trek - but in google's case - the company's website (www.ericspecht.com) does not even appear on the first page - on yahoo - it's the second result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Register a company with a cool sounding name . . . .
Have you heard about Android Data before google made their move? Thought so.
It doesn't matter whether anyone had heard of his company before. The bottom line is he, apparently, had registered his trademark and his registered trademark was still valid with the USPTO. I really don't see what the argument from Google is other than something along the lines of "Our use of the cool sounding name will be cooler." Just to make sure it's clear, Google knew that this guy had an active trademark, and Google used the registered trademark anyway. What. Idiots.
Is this the IP version of "Ki
Re:This is typical stuff. (Score:5, Funny)
Have you heard about Android Data before google made their move? Thought so.
I'd heard of an Android called Data [wikipedia.org]...is that the same thing?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You could also ask if people have ever heard of Google's Android. If it wasn't for slashdot, I'd be none the wiser to either entity. If I was the decision maker here, I'd give it to Android Data, they registered first, and it's not like they've sat around on their rear end for 5 or more years waiting for Android on cell phones to get real huge either.
Re:This is typical stuff. (Score:5, Funny)
Tastesicles.
Parent
Re:This is typical stuff. (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't know what to do after profit, you've got some sort of a problem.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Just to make clear what isnt in the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So that simply makes the problem much easier. The holder of the trademark will successfully sue for damages, now those damages absolutely can not relate to the value that google has added to that name of the other 47 companies it can only relate the the value of the name prior to it's use by google.
So a shut down company with no turnover has no real legitimate value in the trademark. However they can of course fight to keep their name and get the benefit (no real cost) of all that free advertising and pe
Also from TFA, though: (Score:2)
Also from TFA, though:
Google applied for a trademark for Android in October of 2007, but had that application denied in February of 2008.
I might have more sympathy if the boot were on the other foot, but if you're gonna use a generic name like Android on a high profile product then maybe, just maybe, you should, e.g. run a search on the USPTO database first...
Re: (Score:2)
Where was Google's legal department? (Score:4, Interesting)
After the whole Gmail problem, it seems like Google would have been a little more on the ball with regards to the naming of future products. The article says that the trademark hasn't been used in years and that the company in question has even been dissolved.
Still, the trademark was granted and Google's strategy seems to have been to think happy thoughts while the USPTO decided the case. Couldn't they have just dealt with Specht before this turned towards lawsuit territory?
It sure would have cost less to deal with it early on...
Android is much older than that... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think he'll have much luck pressing a case against anyone using 'Android', just those using 'Android Data' for the same reason that 'Bovine Ventures' won't succeed in suing 'Bovine Growth Hormone'.
If you don't know, it's because Android is just a single word that's been in the modern language for a couple of generations now. Apparently there are laws against somebody absconding with single words of our language and claiming sole ownership of them. Of course the courts are slow and stupid, so anyone fighting this will have to pay lots of lawyers lots of money before getting this crushed, but at least Google has that cash.
By the way, those same rules or laws are the same reason why Google can't rub their hands together and laugh maniacally while preparing lawsuits against thousands of authors of science fiction, not to mention a fair stack of movies as well.
Re:Android is much older than that... (Score:5, Informative)
I have got to say that was the first time I have ever heard of St. Albertus Magnus [wikipedia.org]. Turns out he was one of Thomas Aquinas's [wikipedia.org] teachers and was one of the first Europeans to isolate Arsenic.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1, Having both female and male characteristics; hermaphroditic.
2. Being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine, as in dress, appearance, or behavior.
Anything displaying such characteristics would be termed android. (See also human, humanoid; paranoia, paranoid;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-oid [wikipedia.org]
Re:Android is much older than that... (Score:5, Informative)
No, "andros" specifically means "male."
"Anthropos" means "human."
The suffix -oid means "like, or similar to". Ergo, an an android is like, or similar to, a man. That opens the possibility of having an anthropoid, which is like, or similar to, a human. Of course, we could then postulate an androgynoid, which would be like, or similar to, a she-male. Or maybe a hermaphrodite.
But that's a different story.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not time for etymology nazis.
Y'know, the word "nazi" was originally* an abbreviation for Nationalsozialist, which means "National Socialist" (from the political party name). It was coined as an insult to the political party and was used in southern Germany to refer to a clumsy fool. It came into English by exiles and refugees from Germany. The actual National Socialist party avoided the word.
It's interesting that, in modern usage, it's managed to take on the meaning of a person who insists upon strict, pedantic application of rules.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trademark and Copyright are VERY different ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows.
The fly in the ointment there is not so much that "windows" is used to refer to holes in the walls of houses, but that it also has an established (pre-MS) meaning in the context of computer displays.
MS Windows is so called because it provides a window-based GUI - and "Lindows" could make the same claim.
If Microsoft released a new OS called "Wubuntu", "Wed Hat" or "MS Macintosh" then you wouldn't expect them to get away with it, despite those being words in "common usage".
OTOH, I've seen "Ubuntu cola" o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you don't know, it's because Android is just a single word that's been in the modern language for a couple of generations now.
Let's correct that:
because android is just a single word that's been in the modern language for a couple of generations now.
Spot the difference? Neither party is using the word "android" to describe a fictitious type of humanoid robot - they both want to use it as a trading name for their businesses, neither of which involves the manufacture of robotic overlords. This shouldn't even be a problem if one made furniture and the other made chocolate bars - but unfortunately they're both in the data services industry.
In the same way, neither Apple Inc. or Apple Corp. can prevent grocers selling the fruit of the M
"Android Data" might still be valid (Score:3, Informative)
Copy&paste from register reveals same or similar business.
Word Mark
ANDROID DATA
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S:
Computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19990101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990101
Word Mark
ANDROID
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S:
mobile phones; operating system software; software for use in developing, executing, and running other software on mobile devices, computers, computer networks, and global communication networks; computer software development tools; computer software for use in transmitting and receiving data over computer networks and global communication networks; computer software for managing communications and data exchange among and between mobile devices and desktop computers; computer middleware, namely, software that mediates between the operating system of a mobile device and the application software of a mobile device; computer application software for mobile phones
Re: (Score:2)
One is whether the "Android Data" trademark could be valid in the first place: it is. Even though "android" is an ordinary English word, that doesn't mean it can't be used as a trademark. What it means is that it's a legally weak trademark, and unlike an invented name, it isn't a slam-dunk in court if someone tries to appropriate it.
Another question is whether the trademark is currently valid, and Google infringing on it: technically yes. It was duly re
Re: (Score:2)
The trademark is live on paper but dead in reality. I don't think the former owner of "Android Data" has a case; with trademarks, actual use in commerce is more important than the formality of registration.
That leaves aside whether there's actually serious possibility of confusion between e-commerc
Cyberdyne Systems (Score:5, Informative)
There are a number of real businesses named "Cyberdyne Systems." Good luck to any of them trying to enforce a trademark on the name.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a number of real businesses named "Cyberdyne Systems." Good luck to any of them trying to enforce a trademark on the name.
No kidding. Let alone the fact that anything with "cyber" in it just sounds stupid.
Unlikely victory for Eric Specht (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Car and newspaper are not of the same class.
The problem is both Google and its challenger work in the same field!
Contrary to your analysis, i think Google will have to pay or abandon Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Generic was probably a poor choice of words. What I meant by generic is it is a not a name that they made up, it is part of the English language and in the dictionary.
So, in other words, if they'd taken then route of Kleenex, Kodak or Xerox and researched their name in dozens or hundreds of languages around the world to make sure that it doesn't have any meaning in any of them, it would not be generic.
What surprises me (Score:3, Interesting)
...is that the estate of Gene Roddenberry hasn't gotten involved yet.
trademarks are defend it or lose it. (Score:2)
I suspect google will win this one.
The android data company is just looking for free publicity. I doubt they can afford to fight the legal battle against google.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The android data company is just looking for free publicity. I doubt they can afford to fight the legal battle against google.
They're not looking for free publicity - they've been dissolved for many years. They just think that there's a chance they could do a Dire Straits.
Re: (Score:2)