Slashdot Mirror
New Legal Threat To GMail
wellington writes "Google is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service. Independent International Investment Research, a British company that specialises in research and has several leading City investment banks as clients, argues that it launched "G-Mail web based email" in May 2002."
G-Mail..close one. i thought they were gonna say GMail
Google's is called GMail BETA
So they claim that they own the G?
Ha! As much as I'd love to root for the little guy... I don't think they can fight Google... :( Google is getting pretty big lately. I can't help but wonder about some of the rumours that I've heard...
Google should give them 50% of the profits from GMail.
Let's see, a free email service generating $0 profit. 50% of $0 equals $0.
Settled.
I've actually already patented the use of single letters in front of "Mail", so they're both screwing me over.
AMAil
BMail
CMail
DMail
etc.
ALL MINE!
Yeah, I'm Amazon.com. This whole "Dopefish" thing is just an alias.....
Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights to the service are involved, rather than just the name.
All of which is in blatent violation of Dr. Dre's 1994 trademark "Ain't Nothing but a G-Mail"
Steve Ballmer hires a minion to launch the first volley in the Internet War of 2005
"Buy'em out, boys!!!"
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Sounds like they have a legitimate claim here... They did launch a web-based email service called GMail well before Google. The fact that they've been negotiating with Google for the past 15 months would indicate that they also brought their claim to Google early on. I wonder why Google hasn't just paid them to license the name? Wouldn't they rather use some of their excess money reserves than risk a tarnished name?
And they did register that trademark long in advance of Google.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Wow, yet another vague summary, that can definitely be misleading. Having first read the summary, I thought it was about a company claiming to have created the code and/or services of Gmail only to have google steal it. But no, the company is merely sueing for trademark infringement. Way to go slashdot! The word "TRADEMARK" could have been mentioned somewhere in the article, would have cleared it up a tiny bit. But I guess Slashdot gets more pageviews (and ad views) by confusing its readers.
I heard that Google is planning on calling it's personalized homepage GSpot...
They claim to have been in negotiations with Google for 15 months. You must have missed that part of the article.
-h-
If you RTFA, you will see that the company is a small company, and was involved in communication with google over the span of 15 months or so, before jumping right into litigation. That sounds like the right thing to do, IMO, rather than just sue immediately. The company is a small one, and they say they don't have the big money that Google has to bring a law suit just to protect their name.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
yeah, frustrated that Google won't fork over millions. :)
Why doesn't google just cough up another letter and call it "GoMail"? Or if that's taken "GoogMail", etc.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
So, why is it that I never heard of that gmail before google lauch the gmail service? They made a webpage on geocities?
No sig for now.
The summary for this story is another good example of why the phrase 'intellectual property' should be avoided.
The company does not 'claim to own the intellectual property to GMail'. It has a trademark claim. This is completely different and unrelated to any copyright interest, patent held, or trade secret. Lumping them all together as 'intellectual property' which can then be 'infringed' in some vague way just muddies the issue.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
You obviously did not read tfa.
(I did, shame on me)
There have been talks and negociations between this company and Google for over 15 months, they claim.
But they could not settle on an agreement.
...and I stood their crying between those two giant servers that stood enormous, the way you think of Gods as big.
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said.
As much as they may have a case, I always find the "we don't want to, but they are forcing us" argument funny. Not because of the company itself, but because I can imagine some IP lawyers saying, "Yesss! They are being forccced to! Hisss!" as their forked tongues flick from their mouths and they rub thier greedy paws together with reptilian glint in their eyes.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Why doesn't Google just change the name from "Gmail" to "GoogleMail". They already have the domain for googlemail.com, and I think it would be a better branding option anyways.
I have to wonder if one of the plaintiffs clients is Amazon.com and/or Jeff Bezos.
I don't see how these guys are going to get anything other than some $TFU money... if even that. Google has deep enough pockets right now to brush back anyone that steps up to them. Look at how they are going toe-to-toe against Microsoft in the poaching case.
It's silly for them to try and pursue this. It is no less silly, IMHO, than if I were to try and challenge God Almighty by claiming the digital rights to sunshine.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
The article isn't that long. Read it.
... the summary is correct, they're claiming:
"IIR, led by chairman and chief executive Shane Smith, accused the search engine of "failing to respect the intellectual property rights of others" and said it had no alternative but to pursue an expensive legal action that it admitted it could ill afford."
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said."
It's silly, but the summary is correct.
- sigs are for wimps.
I guess you didn't RTFA. The article said they have been talking with Google about this for 15months. From Wikipedia:
Oh the hide of them. They waited less then a month before initiating talks with Google! How dare they wait so long.
Or would you have rathered they began sueing after 6months, and let the talks be damned?
the word "trademark" DID appear, albeit in the last paragraph of the article. definitely vague and misleading, not sure if it was deliberate.
I tend to think the use of the phrase "intellectual property" should be banned anyway. Just say copyright, trademark, or patent. They aren't all the same thing, and pooling them under the "IP" umbrella does not serve to further anyone's understanding.
Google: I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast
IIIR: Heh, you eat pieces of shit for breakfast?
Google: uh, NO!
Is it gmail, Gmail, G-Mail, Gee-Mail, or what? You know, those things really do matter. By the way, I'm sure you'll find Ballmer's hands in on accelerating this somewhere. ;)
These weirdoes claim "intellectual property" for adding a letter to the front of some noun? It's such a sad day for the intellect.
But they never bother spending the $10 to register gmail.com?
'Nobody snuggles with Max Power. You strap yourself in and feel the "G"s!'
I thought of GMail a while back too....Google needs to send me some of its profits from this service.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
What reason did this company have for naming it "gmail?" Where's the "G" in their company?
/. article about how journalists are ignorant fucktards just yesterday?
You can't copyright a letter. Perhaps TFA was in error; it certainly wasn't very clear.
I wish people would stop talking about "IP." Intelectual "property" is not property. If you're talking about a copyright infringement, don't say "my IP rights were violated," say "my copyright was infringed.
I'm talking to those of you who are journalists or think you are. Er, wasn't there a
This sounds like a trademark issue. Did this company register the trademark with Germany or the EU? Yes? Then case closed, rule in the little guy's favor. No? Then case closed, Google wins.
But again, why did they want "gmail" and why does it matter to them? It smells like they're looking for a little publicity. I hope Google crushes them like the cockroach they appear to be.
Google, the internet search engine, is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service.
Is it just me, or is there something particularly novel and innovative about a browser-based e-mail service? Or, is there something particularly stupid about a company laying claims to this idea as its "intellectual property?" None of the concepts are particularly new.
That's how trademarks work. From Wikipedia: They applied for a trademark, they received it. They must now defend it, or otherwise they shouldn't have applied for it in the first place.
Intellectual Property laws: helping encourage innovation of adding a G and a dash to a word.
Google's new online banking service, known as "gmoney BETA", has become another legal battle..
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
A careful review of the full article reveals that the company attempted to resolve this with Google out of the courts over 15 months ago. In the business world it is the responsibility of the newcomer, not the existing business, to conduct a name search when launching a new product or service, so as to avoide disputes like the one described here. Google may have conducted such a search, but may have felt that its service was sufficiently unique so that its use of the name "Gmail" would not cause confusion in the marketplace. The courts generally hold that other businesses can use the same name if 1) the newcomer is not trying to leverage (claim) the reputation or the name of other existing businesses, and 2) the new business is in a different sector than the existing business so there will be no brand confusion. For example, the courts would generally disallow another restaurant from claiming the name "McDonalds", but they probably would allow an antique store named "McDonalds", providing the antique store doesn't try to piggyback on the hamburger chain's image (by using, for example, golden arches in its logo).
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
.. is that people sue you. I do wonder why Google did not try a little harder to settle after their problems with the lawsuit in Germany.
I have been using GMail for 18 months - I hope that they do not have to change the gmail.com domain name - that would be a nuisance.
So why didn't these guys register the relevant domain names and common variants then? Sounds like a pretty obvious step in created a web-based email system to me...!
"Reluctant" legal action my arse; they're just hoping Google will settle out of court.
My Goat also owns Gmail!
//WR
Actually they were G-MailTM while Google use GMailTM. So it is all in a hyphen. But note the TM rather than ®, which makes the case a little harder.
A UK company have registered the trademark GMail before Googles mail service was produced.
This company held discussions with Google as to how much Google should pay them.
Google said it is willing to settle but not for the amount the UK company is asking.
Their is another German company in a similar disupte with which the UK company is thinking of joining with in joint legal action against Google.
Analysts say the UK firm could be asking as much as £35 Million pounds for their trademark.
If a trademark is worthy of a multi million dollar claim, then it should be higher in the search engine listings than the news about the lawsuit.
It just feels wrong otherwise.
liqbase
If these folks had 'gmail' as a legitimate trademark for an actual product or service (not vaporware), why then did they not register the domain names for their alleged trademark? Registering "gmail" in every top-level domain for 10 years would have cost them less than $1000. If they actually had a legitimate business plan to launch a "gmail" service, securing the domains would have been the FIRST thing they would have done. Failing to register the domains, while trademarking a non-existant "service" smells of submarine tactics and demonstrates bad faith. Their failure to secure thier trademark by registering the domains also demonstrates criminal negligence on their part and is grounds for a shareholder lawsuit. Dollars to doughnuts says their business plan was "wait until someone with money grabs the gmail domains and does something with them, then sue them for everything we can get"
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
nor g-mail.com, which is also owned by google. they must be kicking themselves! :D
sig under construction...
"We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights"
Has anyone even heard of these idiots?
YOU PUT A G IN FRONT OF MAIL.
Don't try to act like it's the light bulb, you snaggletoothed limey.
They're claiming violation of their "intellectual property". In this case, complain to the author of the original article, and/or the guy initiating the lawsuit!
Or maybe read the article next time.
- sigs are for wimps.
This lawsuit has been brought to the attention of your lawyers by the letter G, and the numbers 0 and 5.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
and it turned out this also... http://www.izar.com/solutions/support3.shtml any news if they are also against google?
It's the original article and the person suing google saying google is violating their intellectual property, why are people complaining that slashdot reflected that?!?!
- sigs are for wimps.
The company does not 'claim to own the intellectual property to GMail'. It has a trademark claim.
If you thought the summary is confusing, you should read the article and the claims therein. The company is asserting that Google is violationg their intellectual property rights. From TFA:
"We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said.
Simple case of a small company seeing a company with deep pockets and attempting to hold them hostage.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Save us from stupid conflicts and focus on more important things like development and quality.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
They didn't apply and don't need to apply - it is a 'tm' not an (r). So all they must do is show prior usage and voila it should be as simple as that...
Note that Google's Mail service is now accessible at mail.google.com? Pretty much all the g-prefixes have been removed.
So they'll probably settle if necessary and just go on with Google Mail. Big deal.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
"The company does not 'claim to own the intellectual property to GMail'"
...
From the article
Google, the internet search engine, is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service.
IIR, led by chairman and chief executive Shane Smith, accused the search engine of "failing to respect the intellectual property rights of others" and said it had no alternative but to pursue an expensive legal action that it admitted it could ill afford.
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said.
R-T-F-A-!-!-!
- sigs are for wimps.
Wouldn't they have called it IIIR-Mail ?
*DrugCheese rants*
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There is nothing called "Intellectual Property".
Either you say:
Trademark
Copyright
Patent
But "Intellectual Property" is not a term you can use intelligently, only as a way to further the company propaganda-machine. This example clearly shows it is not suitable for intelligent readership. I heard this from RMS last time he visited Norway.
According to whois, Google registered the gmail.com domain on August 13, 1995. They had almost 9 years to dispute ownership of the name before Google's gmail service launched.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115586,0 0.asp
:(
old news
Don't remind me! I once worked in a paper mill. Standing between two "rolls" of paper lying on their side, each 10+ ft in diameter and 50+ feet long was not a plesant experience. If they were to roll over me...*splat*...
... this was a german company, with its product named "G-Mail, und die Post geht richtig ab" (roughly translated "G-Mail, and the mail really gets going"). They also tried to sue people selling GMail invitations on eBay. a legal case is open in Germany, and GMail is obliged by a court order not to give @gmail.com-adresses to german users - those ones get @googlemail.com adresses instead [which also work with gmail, but this is not yet well-documented.])
The fact that the british and the german trademarks are so similar to each other makes me think... does anyone know if there are connections between those companies?
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
I dont understand how they can even begin to try to clam that... If anthing google can clam that the "G" in G-mail is just short for google-mail which i though it was to start. Last i heard you couldn't buy rights to a letter and mail is to common of a word to even try to fight. Stupied people just trying to make it on someone elses paycheck is all there doing.
I am the real gmail. Larry Page and I were roomates in college and he stole the idea from me while I was sleeping! It's called gmail because I was called 'g' when I checked my e-mail all the time...
From now own, I want to be called gmail!
--gmail
Just rename it.. oh say FIREFOX...
Nobody important using that name.. least not anybody who isn't used to being forced to change their name anyway *grin*
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Oh for crying out loud! At least I thought they were bribing the government to give their case credence. But no. That would have made such ridiculous laws a little better.
'mail' is a generic term. G is just a letter, devoid of any meaning beyond a possible abbreviation. In this case, it's a legitimate abbreviation for 'Google'. This reminds me of IBM trying to trademark the number 2 to stop vendors from making PS/2 compatible computers called "PC/2" They lost. Intel tried to trademark the number 386 & 486. They also lost. I'm not a google apologist or anything, but I think the litigants don't have a case
This is an outrage!!! As a GMail user I expected that Google would have done their homework and not used a similar name to a trademark of another company! I am now confused because I can't tell which GMail is which anymore! This is going to cause major customer confusion on both sides of this issue. Boo on Google! They were my heros and now they did this!!! They have poopmouths!! It's poop!! I hate you Mr. Google!!! (NOTE: This is a vague reference to Anchorman: The Ledgend of Ron Burgundy starring Will Farrell. If you haven't seen this masterpiece of absurdity, rent it tonight!) ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
... and the person suing are claiming! Slashdot is just pointing you to that story!
If there's a story about a guy that claims the earth is flat, a good summary is:
"Guy claims earth is flat"
Not, "Guy claims earth is flat even though we all know that's not true, and it's spherical".
c'mon.
- sigs are for wimps.
If you RTFA, you will see that the company is a small company, and was involved in communication with google over the span of 15 months or so, before jumping right into litigation. That sounds like the right thing to do, IMO, rather than just sue immediately. The company is a small one, and they say they don't have the big money that Google has to bring a law suit just to protect their name.
Exactly!!! Even if this companies claims are bogus, they spent 15 months in negotiations and are considering court after they exhuasted this method. Their only concern is if they can fund such a case. They went through the proper channels and they are concerned (rightly so).
People like to defend their favorite (this case Google) and say "well why are they waiting so long" Well, again to reiterate, Google has lost of money and lots of lawyers. Not everyone does this. If I found I had a legitimate claim against Google and could win it 100% I still would not be able to take it to court because I could not afford the lawyers and court fee's.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I could write a program to combine suffix/prefix combos to common words like "mail", "net", "service", "video", "sound", "conference"
Then sue everyone 3 years afterwards?
The fact they never even bought a domain name for the service [or advertised it broadly] suggests they're not seriously impacted by Googles actions because it's their own ineptitude that crippled any chance of making it big.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Why didn't they start this when the original owners registered gmail.com?
This isn't about infringing on their trademark, protecting their rights, etc. This is happening because they decided that they could get a nice settlement out of Google. They're following the RIAA's model and have changed their business model to a litigious one.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
That was my point
- sigs are for wimps.
How do i get avilazar.com through litigation and make a profit? Cause some company that just leads to a search engine wants like $5000 for me to get my name.
:)
I need a cheap easy guide so I can win
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
It's always interesting to turn these stories around and wonder how slashdot would react if the litigant were a beloved cause-celebre and the plaintiff a moustachioed villain.
Like, for instance, if Microsoft released a mail product called "qmail".
Seriously, do you think the same people would be posting "it's just a letter Q!"
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
Oh, that's right. Money. I'm guessing it went like this:
Also, I'm kind of miffed that this keeps getting called an "intellectual property struggle". G'fuh? I remember back in the old days, we used to call them "trademark disputes". I wasn't aware that changing the first letter of a well-known contraction for "electronic mail" was a rigorous intellectual task. If that's your claim to fame, you're an idiot.
--- What
... that Mr Smith is "girding his loins" than any impending law suit :)
Their service is referenced everywhere as G-Mail.
Google has never called their service that anywhere.
How precise are trademarks anyway?
Especially since this is just about a single letter, it seems silly to me that G-Mail would restrict usage of GMail, gMAIL, etc... Heck, the "G" in both cases doesn't even mean the same.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
IIR, led by chairman and chief executive Shane Smith, accused the search engine of "failing to respect the intellectual property rights of others" and said it had no alternative but to pursue an expensive legal action that it admitted it could ill afford.
Umm... if you can "... ill afford" to pursure legal action, and GMail (Google) obviously has nothing to do with bank/financial research, then you could choose NOT to pursue legal action, and just continue business as usual. That way you won't have to dip into that family trust fund, etc.
People whine to much about these rights. Is Google damaging their business in any way at all? Its a free service... are they stealing customers? Are any of IIRs customers confused with which site to go to?
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
Hmmm, just more proof that trying to give new products meaningful names is a pain. Might as well just make stuff up like Yahoo, or Goo...never mind...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
If the firm that is going after Google has little or no money to pursue this action, where will the money come from to further their product? Is this firm counting on a settlement or a win from a lawsuit to help it grow....dunno. Just my 2 cents. Ham and Eggs. A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.
Google should talk to Sun about "Yellow Pages". I believe it was another pesky British Corp. (Brit Tel?) that caused them to rename "Yellow Pages" to NIS.
I still remember those stickers on the side of the SunOS 4.0.x QIC tapes explaining the name change. That's Solaris 1.x, for you young'ns.
This guy is a bloody idiot.
I'm not even sure that IIIR has the trademark. If you look HERE it seems that a company from Florida called Cencourse filed for the trademark the day that Google broke the news about its new GMail service. Google is actually 4th in line for the GMail name. Everyone who filed applications did so within 4 days of Google launching the news. Google waited a week or so.
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
It looks like a nuisance claim which Google was right to ignore.
First, as has been pointed out elsewhere they didn't even register the domain. No, they didn't register it as gmail.co.uk either. So it would appear that their version of "g-mail" isn't a web application. So no infringement there.
Second, in TFA it keeps referring to g-mail with a hyphen. Has anyone ever seen Google use a hyphen? I haven't.
So its not the same type of product and its not named the same. These folks are just gold diggers and I'll bet the case gets thrown out.
Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com/
Created on..............: 1995-Aug-13.
Expires on..............: 2014-Aug-12.
Record last updated on..: 2005-Jul-25
... Why did this "g-mail" wait so long, indeed.
it is not funny, it is sad truth here in germany
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
IIIR has no website which can be located by Google, Yahoo, or any other search engine that I've used.
All that comes up are some investor reports like OneSource, which reports them as having a whole seven employees.
Trademarks are not automatically international, and the mere presence of the "G" before "Mail" is not a trademark. Trademarks are either specific spellings (with/without hyphens), logos, icons, color combinations, etc.
The lawsuit sounds like basic "trolling for dollars", legal style.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It seems that google feels it has already taken all the action it needs to. Anything else seems to be less a trademark infringement question and more a quest for money.
v ice=mail&t= (...) &gd=1
According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail
The German version of Gmail was first known as Gmail Deutschland. However, the company Giersch Ventures already had the words G-mail trademarked since 2001, and filed a lawsuit against Google for trademark infringement.
On 4 July 2005, Google announced that Gmail Deutschland would be renamed Google Mail and that every German IP would be forwarded to a different server where every new user would be able to obtain an address in the googlemail.com domain. Any German user who now wants a gmail.com address must sign up for an account through a proxy. German users who were already registered were allowed to keep their old gmail.com addresses.
It is possible to obtain an address in the gmail.com domain if you are in Germany, though. By clicking on the URL provided in the invite, you are forward to an address similar to
https://www.google.com/accounts/CreateAccount?ser
By editing the last digit from '1' to '2', you should be able to open a gmail.com account.
In practice, there is little difference between the two, as googlemail.com addresses act as aliases for their gmail.com counterparts. A user interested in having all of his or her mail sent to a gmail.com address only needs to change the reply-to address in the account settings page.
The Giersch Ventures lawsuit also forced Google to change the site's URL from gmail.google.com to mail.google.com, which briefly broke some applications and plugins that relied on it to access Gmail.
They're going against Google because of a similar name? Can they even do that? I mean, the name isn't even the same.
G-Mail =! Gmail
Since a few months they changed the logo on the top left to a "Google Mail" logo, no longer "Gmail". So has a court ruled. See http://mail.google.com/mail/help/images/googlemail .gif
You can see that the domain serving the service is not gmail.com but mail.google.com.
So i think, this UK company has seen the success of this action in Germany and tries to profit in the same way.
Sincerelly, i don't really care how is it named, "Google Mail" makes more sense to me, even if i pronounce it as "geemail".
It's always a struggle for me to give my gmail e-mail address. I have to spell it. People ask if it is g-e-e. etc. I have to explain "G", as in "Google" In French, it's worse, because "G" in English is pronounced like "J" in French. A real hassle. I wish the service was called Google Mail and that the all the gmail adresses would be converted to @google.com. Everybody knows that word. Everybody would understand that...
On the off chance that you're serious in your ignorance, "girding [one's] loins" is a turn of phrase stating that one is preparing for action with the allusion to battle. It's kind of the equivalent of putting on a jock-strap.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I don't know what I would do if Google's free, searchable, large-storage, web-based e-mail service wasn't called GMail! I just don't think I would use it.
That pretty impressive, considering Google wasn't founded until September 1998
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
See http://web.archive.org/web/19991008021142/http://g mail.linuxpower.org/
So the name was already in common use
and not trademark-protected well before
the plaintiff's service launched, I bet.
You don't think that GMail and G-Mail are confusingly similar?
Especially given that there's still no consensus as to whether to refer to electronic mail as "email" or "e-mail"...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
There is an informative Times Q&A piece at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075- 1776999,00.html which says that the trademark GMail (or similar) has not been awarded in either the EC or the US, although both parties in this dispute have applications in.
6 54
If you really really want to know a lot more, Search Engine Watch has some information and links to heavyweight PDFs at http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050912-140
there is a special place in hell for stupid lawyers and insurance agents
Fight the war, fuck the norm!
If I were Google ("Do no evil"), I'd propose a whopping 47¾% royalty.
I noticed about 6 months ago, gmail.google.com started redirecting to mail.google.com as well as the address of the actual service changing from:
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/
to
http://mail.google.com/mail
If Google had known about this pending suit, perhaps they are planning to rename the service and the generic mail names provide an easy transition to that.
There's another instance of Gmail, too! Ghirardelli Chocolate has a Gmail service! As of two weeks ago, they were still calling it G-MAIL, and their use of the term goes back several years. I don't know if they've ever registered the trademark.
Best Buy can have you arrested
For christ's sake. Just change the name to GoogleMail and tell them to get the fuck out. No one heard of the little Brit's G-Mail service until just now, so they haven't been harmed.
In the business world it is the responsibility of the newcomer, not the existing business, to conduct a name search when launching a new product or service, so as to avoide disputes like the one described here.
Come on, you can't expect a simple web company like Google to know about searching.
I guess it would have to do with the fact that they're seperate nations that have legal systems of their own. In other words a copyrighted term in Germany is not protected in the UK. Europe is not a country.
If only they'd googled gmail before they named the mail service.
Have you noticed that Google finally merged Gmail and Orkut and started a login migration program? Orkut
Since a couple of days ago, instead of signing in with your Orkut user/pass you should do it with your Gmail's.
Actually instead of going to http://www.orkut.com/login.aspx from now on you are redirected to http://www.orkut.com/Glogin.aspx
Google is heavily investing on the name and If this legal issue would force Google get rid of the name Gmail, I beleive it would be a real blow to them.
Checking the UK trade mark database, it looks like the company making this claim does not have a trade mark registration for "G-Mail".
Without a registered trade mark (not "trademark" in the UK) the claimant would need to rely on "passing off", which would involve them showing (i) they have built up a reputation in the name; (ii) Google's use of the name constitutes a misrepresentation leading to confusion in the marketplace; and (iii) this has caused the claimant damage.
This isn't easy to prove, especially if you're a small company with few resources. You certainly have very little hope of a quick result using summary judgment, so you're looking at months of very expensive litigation leading up to a trial. In the meantime your company's gone bust because all your time and energy has been expended on the legal action rather than on running your business. A responsible IP litigation lawyer would be advising this company to be cautious, I suspect.
One more: gmail was an email client written by Ed Miller (GMAIL@SLACTWGM.bitnet) in 1988; see http://www.listserv.dfn.de/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind8804&L =jnet-l&T=0&F=&S=&P=60
You say the own the IPR to the G-Mail webbased email. IPR suggests patents and the like, do you mean the own the trademark? I'd read the article, but I'm too lazy. Besides I have to go check my GoogleMail.
If the company worked with Google for 15 months, maybe they've heard inside rumors of Google possibly launching their mail service registered the trademark then waited for Google to take the bait. The wait for 1.5 years to make sure Gmail is a recognised brand and then sue Google for as much as possible.
Ok, let's start with the obvious here:
Independent International Investment Research, a British company that specialises in research and has several leading City investment banks as clients
lol, what a name. I am part of the International Association of American Researchers and Innovators and we specialize in research and innovation. We're an international association, and we have many American researchers and innovators that are researching and innovating all the time. So everybody better pay up!
Moving on
IIR said this morning that, after about 15 months of "correspondence and negotiations" with Google in an effort to have the "superiority" of its claim over the trade mark to G-Mail recognised, discussions are now at an end with no agreement having been reached.
Then they say:
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said.
Well, what is it? Are they suing Google for use of the technology behind GMail (a la intellectual property) or are they suing Google for use of the name GMail (a la trademark)? I smell BS here. They just figured out they had a similar name in the past and want to milk some money out of Google. Besides, the name is actually Google Mail, isn't it? GMail is just an abbreviation commonly used, although I guess it might be trademarked as well.
And then they go on to talk about settlements for the fair value of the name GMail, as if the former GMail service from IIR was actually worth anything. Um, yes, that'll be $100 million dollars please. Gimme a break.
From the sounds of the article, IIR's GMail is all but dead. They keep talking about it like the idea was
I'm not siding with Google because I think they are wonderful, nice, and my friend. I'm just siding with them initially because this claim looks completely basless.
I figured the real thread to gmail would come from General Motors. Givin their dismal profits the past few years it is valid to call them an ailing company. I figured they were GM-Ail
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
OMG that is scary! Run! They've got gene splicers!
Gmail from G&R has existed for many years (and is
actually a real mail client) I wonder if there are talking to Google!
Of course, we could still use the letter, but we would have to always refer to it as the "letter formerly known as M."
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
So IIIR claims that it created webmail back in 2002. Very funny. We were using Netscape webmail from 1997 to 2004. Netscape should claim prior art.
signature pending slashdot approval
I always wondered why they didn't call it GoogleMail to begin with. It's like they where asking for trouble.
Considering Google's 'behaviour' here involves not just rolling over every time somebody plays the intellectual property card, while I certainly understand the plaintiff's frustration, this is a company I can do business with. Good luck, guys.
This sig no verb.
Is it the web-based e-mail service itself? Is it the "idea" behind giving web-mail users vast amounts of folder space? If they're stating that using the gmail brand is a violation of their intellectual property then does that mean they hold a trademark on the name?
This is beyond ridiculous; if they owned "gmail" then why didn't they own the domain name?
I'm sick of losers claiming the world stole their idea when they accomplished nothing with it.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
I had to stop reading after:
"Independent International Investment Research, a British company that specialises in research"..... after that.. it just wasn't worth reading anymore.
<end/>
When MS bought Mosaic and rebadged as IE, they offered a cut of the revenue. However, IE, though supported by the profits from Windows, was free. Therefore, the payment was zero.
Same here.
Because then google wouldn't have snagged it and made it as huge as it is now. And then they wouldn't have gotten this chance to win the lotto. It's not like google was developing this in secret for the last two years. It's not like they just switched the name a few weeks back when they pulled the "BETA" tag off.
It's just a more profitable form of DNS speculating. And whether the investors win or loose, the lawyers always come out ahead. Funny, that.
Its not really a web service of any kind just emailing a screenshot.
No one outside of the London financial circle would have ever heard of it. and in-fact probably only their customers.
The company never really promoted the term (or service) at all until immediately after Gmails appearance. (the next month the term appeared on the front of there homepage)(wayback-machine)
They obviously knew the term was generic and vague as the term was almost always listed with the companys name "Pronet g-mail"
You can only sue for YOUR damages ie lost business cost to reestablish your name etc. these guys are trying to get what they think its worth to google not what it was worth to them. They want around $50,000,000.
I really believe that Google offered them more than fair compensation for something that did not effect them adversely in the first place. This is just a case of greed (well they are a finanacial services company aren't they)
... and said it had no alternative but to pursue an expensive legal action that it admitted it could ill afford.
Translation:
Does anyone with a beef against Google want to donate to our worthy cause? Anyone?
According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, the "GMAIL" mark has been assigned to Google, who applied for the mark on April 2nd, 2004. The Trustees of the "Smith Trust", Shane Smith and Karen Griffith, applied for the same "GMAIL" trademark on April 3rd, 2004, one day after Google Inc. The "Smith Trust" has not been assigned the trademark by the US PTO, and the latest rejection of their application was June 11th, 2005.
s no=78395746e ntry=78395931
Perhaps someone else can post the equivalent info from the UK?
See Google's GMAIL trademark assignment:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&
and the Smith Trust's application status: (rejected)
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
just claim that their service isn't called "gee-mail" and say that it is instead pronounced "guh-mail". That's the way it looks from the logo anyways.
And besides, the Gmail logo clearly says that it's by google. So the full name is Gmail by Google and not just Gmail.
I think they've got squat.
I am going to repost all the +5 modded comments
from here onto this topic.
Humorless bastards, all of you. Weren't you pestered by the thousands of requests for "real" Gmail invitations?
So the german company claims to own "Google"? How stupid can this get? Google is owned by Google, not by some German company.
G-Mail is short for Google-Mail, therefore nothing wrong with it, right?
Occasional sightings of Pisces swimeatus continue to this day.
...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
goomail
because it is kinda of a sticky interface
even if it has been ajaxed!
Wrong. whois only tells us that gmail.com was first registered (created) on August 13, 1995 and that Google is the current owner. It does not say that Google was the entity that registered it in 1995.
It will create a unique string of characters. So your application patented name wil be:
b7cdd06a367c3478a905d3bb2ed771a4e4df1e0d9a172e240
Don't worry about naming ever again! Call Now!
When Apple released Mac OS9, they were sued by a company with an embeded OS called OS9. The judge found that because they were not in competeing markets, there was little chance of either companies customers having trouble telling the two apart.
What is the intellectual property angle here? In TFA, Mr. Smith refers Google as "failing to respect his intellectual property rights." But the real issue is a trademark dispute. Isn't there a difference between ip and trademark disputes?
IANAL, etc, but it sounds like this isn't going to go well for "Independent International Investment Research". I understand that Smith has some obligation to protect his trademark, but I'll bet their market doesn't care and wouldn't confuse the two services. G-Mail just doesn't have any public profile at all.
This sig kills fascists.
I have a "GMail" email module in some old (~1990) 16 bit Apple II BBS software. I ran it for years. I've got prior art on both of them. I think I'll sue. They can avoid being sued if they both require their users to wear those sproingy spring head thingies with bobbles that bounce around above their heads like Martian antennae, because that requirement would be a significant difference from mine. If they'll just add this requirement to theirs, we can settle out of court. I'm sure they'll see the reasonable nature of my settlement offer.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
$ host -a gmail.co.uk ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 55781 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;gmail.co.uk. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
Trying "gmail.co.uk"
gmail.co.uk. 172800 IN NS ns0.geneticsnet.co.uk.
gmail.co.uk. 172800 IN NS ns1.geneticsnet.co.uk.
gmail.co.uk. 172800 IN NS ns1.geneticsnet.co.uk.
gmail.co.uk. 172800 IN NS ns0.geneticsnet.co.uk.
ns0.geneticsnet.co.uk. 172800 IN A 81.31.106.200
ns1.geneticsnet.co.uk. 172800 IN A 81.31.106.201
This has been the same since gmail was announced. Google didn't even bother to check if gmail was available in all TLD's.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
You missed the jist of the grandparent's remark. The grandparent poster realizes what you said but was pointing out how "intellectual property" ("IP") is overbroad. This case is actually, according to the grandparent, limited only to trademark law.
This is part of the reason why discussing anything in terms of "intellectual property" is a bad idea. People don't really understand what they're talking about and the term is also used as a way to speak overbroadly. If we are to mount an effective critique of these disparate laws, as is called for so frequently in the instances that reach /. readers, we cannot afford to lose sight of the many elements which separate the diverse laws referred to by "intellectual property". Lawyers and courts know the difference between, say, copyright and patent infringement. As these cases increasingly involve ordinary people, not just businesses, it behooves people to learn how these laws work so they can defend their interests.
Digital Citizen
Google could just trade under the "Google Mail" name, and advertise the mail.google.com addresses, but since they own gmail.com and are using it the gmail.com addresses could still continue to work, and jut forward to a comparable mail.google.com addresses. There would not have to be any distruption of service to the user, but the name would change.
Unless g-mail can win the gmail.com name, that is another story. Right now they are just threatening to sue for trademark infringement.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
gmail.com, g-mail.com and gmail.co.uk are all owned by Google. g-mail.co.uk is owned by the Guardian, but they don't seem to be conducting any business under that domain. Google even owns gmale.com.
So, altogether, the claim that anybody has trademark rights to the name for an E-mail service seems weak, at least in the US and the UK, since such a service would really need at least the domain they claim to have a trademark on.
I'll wager that 15 months of communication was along the lines of "we'd sue, but we'll take a cash settlement instead..."
I mean, SCO communicated prior to suing, too, but that doesn't mean they were acting in good faith.
Um, not quite. Because, actually, Google holds the trademark on "GMail" in the UK, as well as in the US. IIR does not. They set up their service in 2002, but didn't get around to registering the trademark until the day after Google registered it in the US, and six months after Google registered it in the UK.
They totally missed the boat, and now they're paying the price.
To IIR: Good luck getting something as hugely popular as GMail to change its name so you're non-existant service can keep its name, to which you don't legally have rights.
Main Entry: 1gird /'g&r-d&d/; or girt /'g&rt/; girding : to encircle or bind with a flexible band (as a belt) b : to make fast (as a sword by a belt or clothing with a cord) c : SURROUND : to invest with the sword of knighthood : to prepare (oneself) for action : to prepare for action : to prepare for action : muster up one's resources
Pronunciation: 'g&rd
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): girded
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gyrdan; akin to Old English geard yard -- more at YARD
transitive senses
1 a
2 : PROVIDE, EQUIP ; especially
3
intransitive senses
- gird one's loins
Sounds like girding one's loins would indeed be like a jock-strap rather than a cup. Although, I believe Sumo wrestler loincloths provide some protection by pushing the testicles up and out of the way. (Although, even though it's alluded to in a Bond movie, they do not have the rumored ability to actually retract them back into the body.)
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
If you're a small company with little money to spare for legal representation, that's just about the only thing you can do/say; rather than just being left up crap creek without a paddle, and letting google use the name that you rightfully had first (assuming that is the case, of course).
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Not everyones legal system works like that. Here in the UK (where this small company is based) we have loser pays. Stops all pointless lawsuits dead; if google took me on and threw £10 million on lawyers, IIRC I am allowed to spend the same and claim it back from them. Assuming I win, if not I'm screwed!!
"According to USPTO records, Google's March 31 news inspired a bit of a land rush, with four other companies filing applications to set their claims in stone.
"The application process is first come, first served," said Sharon Marsh, a USPTO administrator. "Applications are processed as they're received, and the person second in line will get a refusal of registration from our examiner."
Google is fourth in line. First is Cencourse, a Miami, Fla., company that provides multimedia services, with an application filed March 31,2004, the same day Google's news broke. Next up is Precision Research, a Santa Barbara, Calif., company that consults on the design of high-tech equipment, with an application dated April 2. Following them is the British firm Independent International Investment Research (IIIR), formerly known as The Market Age, which operates Pronet Analytics, a stock research service; IIIR applied on April 3. Google didn't file its application until April 7, but at least it beat the Gospel Music Association's April 8 paperwork."
Obviously after google's announcement of gmail everyone and their mom tried to trademark "gmail" and they're squatting on the name.
Don't they have to justify having a trademark, or can I trademark the name "crystal coke" and when Coca-Cola comes out with a clear coke I can take them to court?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Not everyones legal system works like that. Here in the UK (where this small company is based) we have loser pays. Stops all pointless lawsuits dead; if google took me on and threw £10 million on lawyers, IIRC I am allowed to spend the same and claim it back from them. Assuming I win, if not I'm screwed!!
Does that "loser" pays policy work even if the loser is a defendent? I can understand if the loser is the plaintiff, but a defendent?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Letter G copyright you!
Why do people keep doing these silly things? Do they hope to reduce google's share price by a minor fraction, then buy cheap and sell the next day as it bounces back? Or maybe seeking publicity? They seem to know something that I don't.
Ok, they didn't have the trade mark registered, they didn't have the domain name registered, and now they want 25 mil - 35 mil? What's to stop anyone from saying they had this idea 10 years ago about
No Sigs!
But the Gmail address has been in use since 96... http://web.archive.org/web/19961225230437/http://g mail.com/g mail.com/
which then was bought Net Concept http://web.archive.org/web/20020531002509/http://
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
I guess Google is turning into another microsoft!
I'm just pointing out that communication pre-lawsuit shouldn't by default be construed as being in good faith. There are other possible motives.
That is an extreme example, but it does show how it's not quite as simple as "loser pays" suggests.
That site was registered on aug 2002, by none of the involved partys(google/iir). Why has that website not come into question by IIR? or by google?
This is just BS, all they want is money.
A brief overview of the dispute that's been running for over 20 years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/361 0523.stm
Villagers: She's a witch! Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
Bedevere: Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Villagers: Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
Bedevere: And what do you burn apart from witches?
Villagers: More witches!
Villagers: Wood!
Bedevere: So, why do witches burn?
Villager: 'Cause they're made of wood?
Bedevere: Good! So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
Villagers: Build a bridge out of her.
Bedevere: Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Villagers: Oh, yeah.
Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Villagers: No, it floats! Throw her into the pond!
Bedevere: What also floats in water?
Villagers: Bread! Apples! Uh, very small rocks! Cider! Cherries! Churches! Lead!
Arthur: A duck!
Bedevere: Exactly. So, logically...
Villagers: If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood.
Bedevere: And therefore?
Villagers: A witch!
Seriously! A couple of years ago I distinctly remember getting myself an account on GMail... which was the free e-mail service that came with garfield.com
When someone told me that Google is about to release it's own mail service called GMail I didn't believe him!
Seriously... anyone with the same mileage?
Nandz.
> Steve Ballmer hires a minion to launch the first volley in the Internet War of 2005
In AD 2005 war was beginning.
Google: What happen?
Techie: Somebody set up us the stupid lawsuit.
Google: Main screen turn on.
Google: It's you!
Ballamer: How are you gentlemen.
Ballamer: All your IP are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.
Google: What you say?
Ballamer: HA HA HA HA (does monkey dance)
Google: Move 'lawyer'.
Google: For great justice.
Funny I Got Some Letter Because I Used L-inux
I just realized what bothers me about the term "intellectual property".
It's unnecessarily pretentious. And sort of misses the point.
How about "mental property"?
I've just started receiving spam from a GMail account. There is no *obvious* place to report this (shown on the GMail website)... (although the Terms and Conditions do talk about 'acceptable use'). Could they be opening themselves up to more legal action here?
Use of the word 'property' implies that the products of our intellects - ideas - can be owned in the same way as a chair or a house. The term 'intellectual property' was coined to imply some kind of parity between the rights offered to patent, copyright and trademark holders and those offered to the owners of property. Ditto use of 'theft' instead of 'misapropriation' to refer to copyright infringement. Ideas are not property and they should never become property.
The idea behind intellectual property is that it takes labor to come up with ideas. Copyright allows those who work on creating ideas to make sure that their paid for their labor, just like those who make physical objects like chairs or houses. Were it not for copyright, it would be impossible to make money from actually creating, say, software. Yes, companies like Red Hat are free software companies, but they do not make their money by actually making software. They make money through subscriptions which involve bonuses like support. In other words, other than donations, FOSS makes essentially no money by simply being available in the market.
Look at a carpenter who builds a chair. Does he care whether you get a chair for free or not? No, he cares about getting the money he deserves for building it. Does a musician have a problem with more people hearing his music? No, he has a problem with people not paying him for the work he put into creating it. And if you think that the prices the musician or programmer are charging are too high, you have an easy solution: don't buy their music or software.
I agree that software patents are silly, because it's easy for different people to come up with the same algorithm, putting in the same amount of work. However, there is nothing ethically wrong with copyright. RMS, Linus and others can still write a Unix clone without violating copyright, because they're putting in actual work. I love FOSS as much as anyone, but IP is a perfectly valid system because it's the only effective way of representing the labor involved in idea creation in a market.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
There is nothing called "Intellectual Property".
... but if you want to throw out a system that's been around for hundreds of years, you need to justify it with more than "Look, it's got a scratch!" and "RMS said so!"
Either you say: Trademark Copyright Patent
Actually, intellectual property includes all three. There is something called "intellectual property;" it's ownership of ideas.
But "Intellectual Property" is not a term you can use intelligently, only as a way to further the company propaganda-machine. This example clearly shows it is not suitable for intelligent readership. I heard this from RMS last time he visited Norway.
I'm not meaning to troll, but I get the impression that you think that just because you heard this claim from RMS that it becomes self-evidently true. We all know that RMS thinks IP doesn't exist. If you want to argue he's right, tell us why you think so, not "he said it."
You can call it a "company propaganda-machine" idea, but you do nothing to tell us why it's invalid. But I will say that intellectual property is a term you can use intelligently. IP is a way of representing the labor involved in the creation of ideas. There are obviously silly disputes that arise in this system (this story is one of them) and various other silliness (like software patents), but to say that this discredits all intellectual property is an overreaction, to say the least.
It's great to debate this
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
The problem is not so much the phrase as how it's used. "Intellectual property" is a word like "car", it can be split up in patents, copyright, trademarks and others, just like cars can be Fords, Toyotas, BMWs...
Talking about IP rights when one means only trademarks just makes people confused, because they have no idea which you are talking about. Just like if a newspaper article would report someone suing Cars Inc, without saying that they are actually suing Ford. Even news reporters are smart enough to not do that when it comes to cars, but use the specific word when they mean a specific one, and the generic term only when appropriate.
With IP however, lawyers, CEOs (especially people with names such as Bill and Steve) and reporters deliberately use "IP" when they only mean trademarks, or when they only mean copyright, to deliberately cause fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Remember the Freecraft case? The developers got a cease and desist letters from the lawyers behind Blizzard, citing IP violations. People were literally guessing as to what they thought Freecraft was violating. Was it a trademark on the word "craft"? A patent on real time strategy games? Copyright on the art shown in the screenshots of Freecraft running with an original Warcraft CD? Or were they claiming copyright on code that the Freecraft developers wrote? I'm not even sure anyone found out, because they didn't have the money to go to court to find out what the heck Blizzard wanted them to cease doing. (If they did find out in the end, please let me know)
No way RMS would waste his time there talking to a biscuit like you
*That's* useful info around here...
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]