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."

26 of 800 comments (clear)

  1. Baaahhh.... by microbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Give me a frigging break! Had "google.com" sucked rocks you wouldn't be saying a word.

    Now that google.com is just about to IPO you come crawling out of the wood work.

    Go back home...

    -mb

    1. Re:Baaahhh.... by savagedome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree completely. If google.com was a fly-by-night dot com, we would not even have known of this family's existence.

      they want to become IPO insiders to put his soul to rest.

      This statement is so repulsive that it would leave a bad taste for the rest of the day.

    2. Re:Baaahhh.... by B'Trey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one is denying the source of the word. However, coining a word does not mean that you control it, particularly absent a trademark.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    3. Re:Baaahhh.... by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds to me like another MikeRoweSoft.com - except the other way around. Or something.

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    4. Re:Baaahhh.... by nelsonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that Google's founders will control super voting stock which makes them the ultimate "insiders". Depending on how many shares are offered, they will likely have 90% of the voting rights of the company's total offering. Most of the time, this class of stock is non dilutive, unless the owners agree to let their vote be diluted. So even if they grant 100,000,000 options a year, they keep the same percentage of control over directors, board meetings, and other strategic decisions.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    5. Re:Baaahhh.... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why can you even sue over this? If it's a mathmatical concept it should be public domain. It's the equivilent of suing someone over using the word dozen. You can't trademark a quantity can you??

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    6. Re:Baaahhh.... by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not saying this lawsuit has any grounds, but the origins of "googol" are well known.

      Maybe the origins of the mispelling.

      "Barney Google and Snuffy Smith" was first published in 1919. Maybe King Features shuld sue Google first.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    7. Re:Baaahhh.... by sfjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why can you even sue over this?

      You can sue over anything and everything.
      Whether or not you'll be successful is another matter.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  2. Are you serious? by Kulaid982 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    "googol" and "google.com" aren't even spelled the same! Gimme a break.

    --

    Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
    1. Re:Are you serious? by Anti+Frozt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neither are Windows and Lindows. Look what happened there.

      --
      In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
    2. Re:Are you serious? by MoronGames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but Windows and Lindows are both operating systems. Google is a search engine, googol is a number.

      --
      hey!
    3. Re:Are you serious? by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Windows is a trademarked name for a limited and specific set of commercial software, developed through the work of thousands of engineers/programmers, at a costs way into the millions of dollars.

      Googol is a word that some kid made up to describe a big number that existed a priori. Even if you could sell a googol of something(that'd be a whole hell of a lot), you can't sell a googol itself.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    4. Re:Are you serious? by Casualposter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suppose that Groklaw is going down for using "grok," a term coined by R A Heinlein?

      This is so stupid.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    5. Re:Are you serious? by dar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I grok what you are saying, however the term has passed into the normal English language (even if it's usage is not that common)

      So has the word googol.

      --
      My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
  3. Wake up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is everyone asleep - this lady is just greedy!

  4. Silly by mfh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry but this is fucking retarded. Why would anyone think it would be okay to sue a company named Google for using a possible variant of the un-trademarked word Googol to describe a business that creates a data searching system? If there is a connection, why doesn't dictionary.com show one in the google definition? I could see perhaps a case if Google was called Googol, but this appears to be nothing more than a cash grab by a family of broke twits. Besides, the guy didn't invent the word! His 9 year old nephew did! From that link: The american mathematician Edward Kasner once asked his nine-year-old nephew to invent a name for a very large number, ten to the power of one hundred; and the boy called it a googol.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Silly by DrNibbler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Minor Nit... I'd say "pay hommage" instead of "admit" as they've done nothing wrong.

      --
      Sean.OutaHere()
  5. Is googol trademarked? by ComaVN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No?

    Ok, nothing to see here, move along.

    How the fuck do you invent a word.

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    1. Re:Is googol trademarked? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you misunderstood. To use a neologism is to femplesnip. Femplesnip is also a neologism.

  6. How is this any different... by Anti+Frozt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    than if I named my company "One Hundred Billion?" (raises pinky finger to corner of mouth)

    Can you get a copyright/trademark on a number?

    --
    In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
  7. How to bring shame to a family name, step 1. by DavidLeblond · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So instead of having her father's name attached to a hugely successful web search engine she'd rather have it attached to some lawsuit that is going to make her family look like a bunch of assholes once the media gets wind of it.

    Good one!

  8. Ofcourse! by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In 1955 he died and much later a search engine called Google was born. His relatives claim that Kasner must be spinning in his grave. They believe Google has gained financially at their expense and they want to become IPO insiders to put his soul to rest.

    As wel all know, potentially large sums of money can put a deceased loved one to rest. Why doesn't Google solve it creatively? Add a small line of text with a link that states what a googol is, with a tribute to Kasner, his work and his other achievements? The man and his work have been recognized, the family doesn't get a cent and everyone, except those greedy bastards, is happy.

  9. The nation's gone crazy. by JessLeah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At what point are people -- rational people-- going to get together and form a coalition to bring about a bloodless coup, lift the Democrats and Republicans from office, wipe clean the slate of stupid laws and ridiculous political/legal traditions, form a new American government starting from the foundation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and finally make it so that bullshit like this is the exception rather than the norm? Good God, the nation's gone absolutely ape-shit. When's the revolution, and how can it be brought about without further bloodshed? Ridiculous lawsuits like this are just a symptom of how detached from reality the US has gotten.

    I'm good and sick of this "lawyerocracy" we have here. I'd love to see a "geekocracy".

  10. Legal silliness by kitzilla · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They believe Google has gained financially at their expense ...

    I can't wait to see how these folks' lawyers quantify losses at Google's hands, or how Google's registered trademark causes confusion with the customers of the word "googol."

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  11. Does anybody know what they would sue under? by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not trademark law. The family never trademarked the term "Googol." It's not copyright law, or else a whole lot of mathematics textbooks are in trouble. For once it's not Patent law.

    Is there even a realm of law that would cover such a thing?

    Not that I would trust the Inqirer to report the facts without mangling them horribly...

  12. Trademarking a number by booch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During lawsuits between Intel and AMD over the 486, the courts ruled that a number cannot be trademarked. That's why Intel's next chip was called the Pentium, not the 586. (Intel also named the later 486 chips "i486".) This is also why Google chose to NOT use the name "googol", because they wouldn't be able to trademark that.

    There's also the issue of scope. A trademark does not usually apply to everything, but to a limited area. If the areas of use are distinct and unlikely to cause confusion, the same name can be used by different companies. That's why Apple Records and Apple Computer were able to coexist (until iPod and iTunes came along -- expect some serious friction coming from these two). A search site and a number are unlikely to be confused.

    Finally there is the issue of asserting ownership. Trademarks can be lost if they are not used or enforced. The usual examples of companies on the verge of losing their trademarks due to non-enforcement are Xerox and Kleenex. The family has allowed (you might even say encouraged) the term googol to be used by the mathematics community for decades. To now assert that the word should be reserved for only "authorized" use is ridiculous.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.