Slashdot Mirror
Google to be Sued Over Name?
WK writes "Now that Google's IPO is running, the company is on the verge of being sued by the family of Professor Edward Kasner who invented the word 'Googol' to describe a very big number. The great-niece of Kasner who was 4 years old at the time her uncle died says that although Google has brought attention to the name, it has not brought attention to Kasner's work. Google was not using the concepts, but just capitalizing on the name."
$8.95/mo web hosting
Read: Google history
The first alinea goes...
Google is a play on the word googol, which was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, and was popularized in the book, "Mathematics and the Imagination" by Kasner and James Newman. It refers to the number represented by the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros. Google's use of the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense, seemingly infinite amount of information available on the web.
From that page:
What's a Google?
"Googol" is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The term was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, and was popularized in the book, "Mathematics and the Imagination" by Kasner and James Newman. Google's play on the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense amount of information available on the web.
http://www.google.com/corporate/
:)
See the bottom paragraph
Google have already done this - that link has been there for ages.
According to the original article in the Baltimore Sun, the family hasn't decided to sue yet. They probably know that they don't really have a case. 'sides, all they want is to be insiders for the IPO, atm, not get zillions in punitive damages or trademark-violation damages. Of course, this could all change if they don't get the chance to be insiders for the IPO.
So no, this doesn't really seem like a case of folks suing google 'cause they are violating the common-law trademark rights of the 4-year old who came up with "googol"...yet.
Second:
-Motley fool web site
There's several rulings about names that ARE trademarked "falling" into public domain, and it's basically, you're a victim of your own success. Since the word Googol was used as a mathematical term, and has no doubt been used in numerous papers, discussions, etc., I have little belief that this suit would succeed, since the term has definitely been in the public domain for a long time.
That being said, it would be nice if the Google folks maybe put up some of that IPO money to help kids learn math, or something....
Who's Billy DeBeck, you ask? Why, just the guy who created the comic strip character Barney Google (you know, the guy with the "goo-goo-googly eyes"?!) and King Features Syndicate for distributing the cartoon for the past EIGHTY-FIVE YEARS (which, by the way, doesn't predate Mr. Kastner but which DOES predate the coining of the word "googol" by at least a decade.)
It's this kind of frivolous abuse of the courts that keeps real and legitimate cases that might bring about real reforms and improvements from being effective (or even successful.)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Is the company running out of money? Why do they need to go public?
Supposedly there's an SEC regulation that requires them to go public once they reach a certain profit level. At least, that's their excuse.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
From Toonopedia:
The name "Barney Google" is familiar to anyone who ever watched a TV retrospective of comic strips -- he's the guy with the "goo-goo-googly eyes" in the 1923 Billy Rose song they always play in such retrospectives. Many newspapers use his name in the title of one of their comic strips. And in 1995, he was honored by the U.S. Postal Service in its "Comic Strip Classics" series of commemorative stamps.
I think Billy DeBeck, creator of the strip, has a better claim to prior art than the nephew.
I think the word you are looking for is Neologism
Almost. They need to report their financials once they reach a certain level. It just makes sence that if they have to report anyway to go the whole way.
The SEC regulation does not require them to go public, only to maintain their books openly in the manner of a public company.
Given such a scenario (of being openly accountable), any company would surely consider an IPO route to raise capital from the market vs. only that headache (once again, of being accountable).
When you have over 500 shareholders you have to beging acting as if you were public even if youre not. That combined with the fact their initial investors have been screaming at them to do this for a couple of years kinda pushed them over the edge..
Nonsense. There is an SEC regulation that requires them to file reports as if they were public if they have more than a given number (500?) of shareholders and a given amount or revenue (or income? $10mil?).
Anyway, they hit that point where they have to do the reporting work of a publicly-traded company, which meant that the added work of going public wasn't as onerous.
...and wait until the King Features Syndicate and/or the heirs of Billy Rose start knocking at the door. The comic strip was created by Billy DeBeck in 1919, so I guess maybe they're in the clear until the next copyright-extension law gets passed--although the comic strip still exists, as "Snuffy Smith." The song is later than that and is probably still under copyright. You all know it, right?
Right?
Baaaaaaaarney Google!
With the goo-goo-googley eyes!
Baaaaaaaarney Google!
Had a wife three times his size!
She sued Barney for divorce--
Now he's living with his horse--
Baaaaaaaarney Google!
With the goo-goo-googley eyes!
Well, it WAS a big hit. A long time ago.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Yes, your numbers are correct. It is 500 shareholders or $10 million in assets. The SEC Website contains the corporate reporting guidelines set forth by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Insightful? Huh? Can you provide me with a link that shows that Google derived its name from googol?
Certainly
Finkployd
The SEC oversees all companies that trade "shares" for investment. If I had given Google one million dollars in 2000, in exchange for a certain number of "shares" in the company, then I would become a "shareholder" even if they never IPO'd. I would have a vested interest in Google's future and profit margin, even though I have no employment there.
Once you hit a certain plateau of shareholders (and profits), then you must behave like a public company in order to prevent fraud.
Except in just about every 6th-grade-level math book, which tell the story of how Professor Kasner asked his 9-year-old nephew to come up with a word for a one followed by one hundred zeroes.
Not saying this lawsuit has any grounds, but the origins of "googol" are well known.
dinner: it's what's for beer
The word 'Yahoo' comes from 'Gulliver's Travels'.
I think Swift's estate should be preparing a lawsuit just about now...
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
I know exactly where the respective countries are, because I am from Europe where our geography lessons extend outside the borders of our own country. I've also been to both, skiing in one and diving in the other.
I was just throwing in a dumb&dumber reference that always springs to mind when someone mentions Austria.
The way I understand it they aren't doing it to 'make more money.' The powers that be have (FTC?) authorized Google to go public assuming a certain valuation of the company as a whole, so instead of picking the number of shares and coming up with IPO price, they are determining via Dutch Auction the share price and coming up with the number of shares (and selling those shares to the top guys in the Dutch Auction.)
And yes, it pretty much eliminates insiders, which is the coolest thing I have ever heard of - unless I get to be an insider too, like the googol folks.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
*raises hand* I am. And I'm not alone. Google predates googol, as was discussed in the May 9 Sunday Boston Globe, Feelin' Googly. Jan Freeman traces the life of google from 1380 to the present day. It seems more likely googol sprang from google, than other way round.
The founders of Google admit they were inspired by googol, but as words of the english language, google predates, and most likely inspired, googol. Google should sue!
This is a side-note really, since it doesn't deal with the word googol, but it's at least halfway on-topic...
I was talking to a friend who works at Google, and apparently the general consensus is that the company does not want the name of the company to be verbed like Xerox has. Like:
"Just go google 'litigious bastards' and see what comes up!"
I can see where they're coming from, as once a term makes it into the lexicon like there is a considerable dilution to the name. Xerox fought that for years. I'm not entirely sure the same thing could happen in this case- but I bet a lot of people were saying the same thing at Xerox in the early 80's.
You can sue over anything and everything.
While this is often repeated, it's not completely true. A judge can dismiss your suit with prejudice, and can even charge you with contempt or the crime of barratry, depending on how poorly conceived your suit is. It is therefore a crime to sue over some things.
[