Google & Others Sued Over Android Trademark

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google & Others Sued Over Android Trademark

Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 1, 2009 @09:13PM 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.

156 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is typical stuff. by Albert+Sandberg · 2009-05-01 21:16 · 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.
1. Re:This is typical stuff. by wisty · 2009-05-01 21:21 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  5) ???
2. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 21:31 · 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.
3. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 21:34 · Score: 0
  
  Are you saying it's forbidden to have cool names for your company? Is it a sin not to be as successful as Google? Is it wrong to get angry when a big company steals your name? Is it that far-fetched that this might cause confusion and hurt your company? Thought so.
4. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 21:40 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  6) PROFIT!!!
5. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 21:41 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Should have just called them Popplers... or Zitlers.
6. Re:This is typical stuff. by Merls+the+Sneaky · 2009-05-01 21:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Tastesicles.
7. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 21:56 · Score: 0
  
  Watch another company make a huge success using your name
  Yeah...don't you think that's a bit of a problem? Or are you suggesting Android Data used a time machine in order to "submarine name" Google?
8. Re:This is typical stuff. by Maelwryth · 2009-05-01 21:57 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not quite. From TFA, "Android Data, for which he was granted a trademark in October of 2002 by the US Patent and Trademark Office". It looks like Android Data have been trademarked for a number of years. It is strange that Google didn't buy the trademark in October 2007 after their application ran out, or that they didn't change it to Android OS to differentiate their product from Android Data.
  
  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 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" 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.
  
  --
  I reserve the write to mangle english.
9. Re:This is typical stuff. by abigsmurf · 2009-05-01 21:59 · Score: 2, 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 pressed on with calling it Android.
  If you operate in the same industry as another, much larger company who uses the same name out of you. It will likely drive you out of business. People will get the two brands confused and every piece of advertising that promotes their brand, devalues you. Word of mouth because worthless too as the confusion means that positive feedback will likely drive people to the more visible company.
  This is a cast iron case of trademark infringement. Google are probably hoping they can settle out of court and get the name for a fairly cheap price as a result.
10. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 22:01 · Score: 0
  
  That should be:
  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
  5) ???
  6) Profit!
11. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 22:18 · Score: 0
  
  That should be:
  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
  5) ???
  6) Profit!
  Oh, sorry, two people beat me to it. I suck :-(
12. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 22:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Google are probably hoping they can settle out of court and get the name for a fairly cheap price as a result.
  Oh they will. The owner would have to be stupid to try to hold onto it against a bigger company. Not when he can make a small fortune selling it and retire. Its not overly clever anyways. What do you get when you search for "Android -google"? Nothing related to his product. What about "Android Data -google"? Star Trek.
13. Re:This is typical stuff. by runlevelfour · 2009-05-01 22:29 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Exactly. I had thought the original intent of laws like this was to protect an established company and/or product from shady unknown imitators who have contributed nothing and not the other way around. Pretty sure this will go nowhere in court, but these kind of shenanigans seem to be more common as time goes by. As OP stated, none of us had even heard of Android Data, and even if I had I sure as hell wouldn't confuse them with a phone OS developed by google.
14. Re:This is typical stuff. by indytx · 2009-05-01 22:34 · Score: 2, 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 "Kill them all, and let God sort them out"? Personally, I'm getting really tired of news stories about Google taking things that belong to someone else. Of course, repackaging other people's content is Google's M.O.
  
  --
  Make love, not reality television.
15. Re:This is typical stuff. by mlscdi · 2009-05-01 22:43 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Have you heard about Android Data before google made their move? Thought so.
  I'd heard of an Android called Data ...is that the same thing?
16. Re:This is typical stuff. by digitalchinky · 2009-05-01 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
17. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If you don't know what to do after profit, you've got some sort of a problem.
18. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:35 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  ...and you did that search on a site run by whom?
19. Re:This is typical stuff. by speedtux · 2009-05-01 23:51 · Score: 4, 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.
20. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  Someone is jealous!! Aahaaha!
  So, working at Microsoft makes you sad? Huh?
21. Re:This is typical stuff. by ivucica · 2009-05-02 00:09 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Apple Corps v. Apple Computer
22. Re:This is typical stuff. by A12m0v · 2009-05-02 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mega_Man_characters_(Legends_series)
  
  --
  GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
23. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 01:10 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  A word being common will not prevent the word from being used as a trademark.
  The issue is whether the word is a generic description or representation of the product being sold.
  So if I sold robots, I could not use "android" as a trademark for my robots. However, if I sold mobile phones, "android" is likely a valid trademark.
24. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Trademark protection has nothing to do with how common a word is. You're confusing the term "generic" with how commonplace a word is. Calling a computer mouse "Mouse" is generic or, at best, merely descriptive. Calling a hand-held mobile device "Mouse" would not be.
  Android, applied to an actual android, would likely not enjoy trademark protection. Android, applied to a mobile device ... that's different. You don't look at your Blackberry or iPhone and think, "this is an android," do you? Therefore, the uniqueness of applying that label to such a device gives it the unique association needed for trademark protection.
  Remember, trademarks are about helping consumers tell products and services apart.
25. Re:This is typical stuff. by Darkness404 · 2009-05-02 01:13 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  Um, just Google "Android Data" you will find sites wondering where exactly Android Data is, because there seems to be no company website, etc. So no, in this case I don't think Android Data is close in the least to being confused with Android the cell platform.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
26. Re:This is typical stuff. by MadCow42 · 2009-05-02 01:49 · Score: 3, 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.
  
  --
  I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
27. Re:This is typical stuff. by anegg · 2009-05-02 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  So if you have a car sitting in your driveway, which you haven't driven in several years, and which it looks like you might never drive, its ok if I take it, renovate it, and then drive it around? Or would you perhaps have a right to contest my taking of your car, even though I'm getting much better use out of it than you would have? Next thing you know we will have big companies getting the government to use "eminent domain" to take trademarks away from other companies because the big company will make more money and pay more taxes if they have the name...
28. Re:This is typical stuff. by e4g4 · 2009-05-02 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  A very good point - check this out:
  
  Google Search for "android data -google"
  Yahoo Search for "android data -google"
  
  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.
  
  --
  The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
29. Re:This is typical stuff. by e4g4 · 2009-05-02 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Oops - the android data site is erichspecht.com
  
  --
  The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
30. Re:This is typical stuff. by mspohr · 2009-05-02 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
31. Re:This is typical stuff. by FatdogHaiku · 2009-05-02 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Google applied for a trademark for Android in October of 2007, but had that application denied in February of 2008.
  Regardless of if I have heard of Android Data, Google knew about them because of the denied trademark. Google also knew the USPTO said its decision was final. So, like all the big players they just kept trying to find a way to break the rules or break the opposition. In our system that often involves some campaign contributions leading to some phone calls being made... business as usual.
  Google deserves to take it in the shorts on this one, but I doubt that they will.
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
32. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 04:00 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Trademark is not granted on a Name only -- you need to submit a Name and Use
  Android Data -- Software
  Android - OS/API
  are to similar in Name and Use to the USPTO and rightly so
  Android Rubber - fetish gear
  Android - OS/API
  and not similar in Name and Use to the USPTO and there would be no trademark issue.
  Google lawyers and business types screwed up -- end of story.
33. Re:This is typical stuff. by brianosaurus · 2009-05-02 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Bad analogy. Google didn't take or renovate anything from Sprecht. He still has all the Android Data stuff that ever was (even though none of us seem to be able to find it). The situation in your analogy is definitely not OK, but it isn't really applicable to this.
  The Google situation is more like this: You have a broken down car in your driveway that you call "Android Data". Google builds a spaceship at their headquarters, launches it with several partners, then names it "Android". You see pictures of the gleaming ship rocketing through space, then go out to your driveway and see your busted old pile of junk, and decide to sue Google for $94 million.
  Google's Android has nothing to do with Sprecht's Android Data. One is a mobile platform, and the other is... uh... maybe an ISP? I doubt there is any confusion about the marks.
  Even if the trademark is legit, $94 million is a huge amount of money. I'm curious to see how they came up with that figure? Did Android Data do anywhere near that amount of business before they closed shop 4 years ago?
  
  --
  blog
34. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.erichspecht.com
  Found via Yahoo - read into that if you want.
35. Re:This is typical stuff. by Quothz · 2009-05-02 04:38 · Score: 2, 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 good number to work with. None of these numbers include alternate spellings, which (here I'm guessing) probably number in the thousands, but they do include words that are not so useful as trademarks, like pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Even in the most generous estimate, tho', we're nowhere near the GP's claim of hundreds of millions.
36. Re:This is typical stuff. by Quothz · 2009-05-02 04:43 · Score: 2, 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:
  
  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.
  Yeesh. You think, maybe, that Google might potentially have a small bias when making that statement?
37. Re:This is typical stuff. by Quothz · 2009-05-02 04:45 · Score: 2, 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.
38. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you remember? ??? was found recently to be "Ask for a bailout"
39. Re:This is typical stuff. by afabbro · 2009-05-02 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Gmail...Android...these really aren't great names anyway. You'd think a company the size of Google could come up with better names.
  Deciding to name a product "Gmail" or "Android" is like deciding to name your company "Alliance Siding," "Northwest Construction," or "Best Plumbing" and then trying to get it trademarked in all states.
  
  --
  Advice: on VPS providers
40. Re:This is typical stuff. by nstlgc · 2009-05-02 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up. Google has to stop acting like a big bully. If this was Microsoft we'd have killed them with fire before the 4th comment on this article.
  
  --
  I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
41. Re:This is typical stuff. by oldhack · 2009-05-02 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  "If you don't know what to do after profit, you've got some sort of a problem."
  Yep, the problem of figuring out what to do after profit.
  
  --
  Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
42. Re:This is typical stuff. by TheoMurpse · 2009-05-02 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC correctly from a US trademark law class a couple years ago, words like "android" are precluded from trademark protection only if they literally describe the thing.
  You couldn't use "android" as a trademark for a line of androids you've released, for example. Well, you could use it as a trademark, but you couldn't get trademark protection.
  Because remember that a "trademark" is merely a mark you use in trade.
43. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  A lawsuit Apple corps should have won win iTunes was released.
44. Re:This is typical stuff. by mysidia · 2009-05-02 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  The word Android is a generic word, it is a dictionary word for a robot, that should not be subject to trademark. Google Android should be trademarked name, because it contains Google's name and identifies the specific product.
  Android is also a descriptive term for Google's product which is a piece of technology, a 'robot', an electronic gadget that happens to performs tasks for you automatically.
45. Re:This is typical stuff. by OrangeTide · 2009-05-02 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  "Have you heard about Android Data before google made their move? Thought so."
  Doesn't matter, Google certainly heard the name before once their application was rejected. Maybe they should have done something like picked a different name?
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
46. Re:This is typical stuff. by mysidia · 2009-05-02 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  A basic principal of trademark law is that only names you have exclusively used can be protected.
  And that you have to use and defend the mark.
  If you stop using the trademarked name, the trademark ceases to exist.
  If you know another company is using the mark, and you don't take immediate action to stop that, you lose your exclusive right.
  Trademarks are not property like your car and your driveway are.
  If you tried to leave your car on the side of the highway for a year, it would eventually be impounded, and ownership would transfer to the state after a few months.
47. Re:This is typical stuff. by Scannerman · 2009-05-02 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Having been around for a few years I was aware of the Androids Dungeon Inc., although not of the Android Data product. Its not as unknown as people imply.
  The Two companies are in the same class (although really this is out of date - Computing and related technologies have now become such a major part of the economy that more classes are needed.)
  But that doesn't matter. Their trademark is 'Android' data, they can't claim use of the word Android alone any more than they can the word data.
  or any name using the letters A, N, D, R, O, I or T...
48. Re:This is typical stuff. by Scannerman · 2009-05-02 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  And before anyone else misunderstands - yes I'm aware he borrowed the name from the Simpsons. This guy knows how to play the game, but that fact alone makes his posturing even more bogus.
49. Re:This is typical stuff. by Scannerman · 2009-05-02 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Never understood how Apple got anywhere with that one. The whole basis of the agreement was Apple Corps wouldn't sell computers and Apple wouldn't sell music.
  But we all know that the trademark system is almost as broken as patents and copyright.
50. Re:This is typical stuff. by ViciousJello · 2009-05-02 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  "As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business." Ooo... Steve danced neatly around THAT provision.
  
  --
  There was a SIGNATURE here, but it's gone now.
51. Re:This is typical stuff. by Supergibbs · 2009-05-02 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  didn't linksys try this with the iPhone?
  
  --
  First post! (just in case I am...)
52. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  first time I read that
  "tasteticles"
  I was like "ewwww"
53. Re:This is typical stuff. by ivucica · 2009-05-02 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, in 1991 they settled with Apple Computer agreeing not to ship physical media with music. See this section and this section.
  The whole thing with Apple Corps is simply silly. It's nothing more than "Let's prove something!" Who has ever heard about Apple Corps, a 'company' that'll remain a footnote in history as "the company that wrestled with Apple, Inc. to use the Apple trademark". Nothing more. I never heard of them until they renewed their suit in 2003.
  Even in early 1980s Apple Computer was more famous than Apple Corps. Trademark law simply needs a reform; preventing a company from entering another business is silly. What should Apple Computer do, change the name so they can sell music? MacCorp would sound neat, but Apple is Apple. I think we can agree who is less famous and who should change the name. Trademarks serve well with companies of equal size and with directly overlapping businesses, and obviously not so well with tiny companies fighting large companies...
  *sigh*
54. Re:This is typical stuff. by Hognoxious · 2009-05-03 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  The OED lists 171,471 words in the English language
  Bullshit. I know more than that.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
55. Re:This is typical stuff. by PybusJ · 2009-05-03 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you shouldn't use Google to search for evidence for the exposure of Google's competitor. Did you try Yahoo?
  
  </conspiracy>
56. Re:This is typical stuff. by Scannerman · 2009-05-03 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Who has ever heard about Apple Corps, a 'company' that'll remain a footnote in history as "the company that wrestled with Apple, Inc. to use the Apple trademark". Nothing more. I never heard of them until they renewed their suit in 2003.
  Even in early 1980s Apple Computer was more famous than Apple Corps.
  I think we can agree who is less famous and who should change the name. Trademarks serve well with companies of equal size and with directly overlapping businesses, and obviously not so well with tiny companies fighting large companies...
  *sigh*
  FYI
  Apple Corp = Beatles
  we remember that
  Beatles > God
  You assert that
  Apple > Beatles > God
  and of course Apple (plucky little niches company, always ethical)
  Is much smaller than (can't remember enough HTML to make that symbolic)
  Microsoft (Evil Big bad monopolist, need to bring them in, this is Slashdot)
  So Therefore
  Microsoft >> > > God
  at last a mathematical explanation of Bill Gate's ego
57. Re:This is typical stuff. by ivucica · 2009-05-03 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  I assert no such things :)
  Apple Corps is owned by Beatles, but it's not equal to Beatles... And even if it were, the brand "Apple Corps" is not nearly as worthy and well-known as "Apple Computers". Brand "Beatles" is just a bit more well-known than "Apple Computers". Otherwise, I must say I don't make much of the remaining of your posting. Can you send me some of that pot you were smoking while writing that? :) :) :)
58. Re:This is typical stuff. by shentino · 2009-05-04 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  I guess now we have trademark trolls.
  RIAA is a copyright troll.
  Microsoft is a patent troll.
  Android Data is a trademark troll.
  Holy cow, the holy trinity of IP trolls has arrived!
Just to make clear what isnt in the summary by wjh31 · 2009-05-01 21:27 · Score: 5, Informative

from TFA: "the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years"
1. Re:Just to make clear what isnt in the summary by rtb61 · 2009-05-01 23:23 · Score: 2, 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 perhaps even sell it to a competitor.
  Now for the more interesting part, as google was aware of the trademark issues and did not inform it's customers, those 47 other companies being sued can in fact loose up purpose, sue google for that loss and any other potential losses incurred.
  So the initial civil suit could only represent a relatively minor dollar value compared to the final class action suit by the 47 other companies against google which could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. Plainly google management was stupid and this reflects real immaturity at the higher levels and, it really comes off as a hand full of google executives believing their own marketing hype.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
2. Re:Just to make clear what isnt in the summary by djtachyon · 2009-05-02 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Next, he will be coming after those of us who have taken advantage of the Google Android branding rights.
  
  --
  "What's the use of a good quotation if you can't change it?" - Doctor Who
Where was Google's legal department? by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · 2009-05-01 21:31 · Score: 3, 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...

--
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
1. Re:Where was Google's legal department? by arekusu_ou · 2009-05-02 01:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Google is arrogant as hell, and just spout the message of do no evil. All major corporations are.
2. Re:Where was Google's legal department? by earlymon · 2009-05-02 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for your breath of sanity in this otherwise insane topic.
  
  Couldn't they have just dealt with Specht before this turned towards lawsuit territory?
  Absolutely correct, and not just my humble opinion.
  I was in charge of trademarking our company's trademarks (software products). Trademark law is very interesting - and so simple that any software guy with a decent trademark attorney can learn the ropes, pronto.
  Strictly with regard to trademarks, in the USA, you perfect your rights - in other countries, you obtain your rights.
  When there's a potential problem - or actual problem, as reported by the trademark office in question - you have your attorney contact the other party for resolution.
  In Europe, we had someone with a similarly-named product (not to us, but the spelling was close, both companies using acronyms). Their product was nothing to do with ours (let's fictionally say it was a washing machine, so as not to disclose specifics inappropriately) - so we signed an agreement with them to never market a similar product provided that they not produce commercial software, and neither side to cross the line in the name spelling, submitted it to the governing body and all was well.
  In the USA, your marks are yours by right the day that you begin using them - provided that you don't infringe on others. Going through the USPTO ensures that you've done a search to ensure that you're not infringing.
  In the USA, we have laws that apply to this case, specifically - dilution and sales & licensing. Google couldn't use the mark as "close but no cigar" - that would have diluted Android Data's strength. That Android Data wasn't active didn't mean that it couldn't be again. And, FWIW, TFA states that the owner insists that the company and use of the mark is active. And by law, Google couldn't buy the copyright alone - another path suggested by TFA- it would have had to have bought some portion of the owner's business to go along with the trademark.
  But, it could have licensed the trademark. Or, it could have bitten the bullet and chosen another.
  They were either idiots or evil to not contact Specht first.
  That they did neither is making everyone rant that the
  
  --
  Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Android is much older than that... by meerling · 2009-05-01 22:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

IANAL

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.
1. Re:Android is much older than that... by Maelwryth · 2009-05-01 22:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And more than just a couple of generations. To quote Wikipedia, "The term was first mentioned by St. Albertus Magnus in 1270 and was popularized by the French writer Villiers in his 1886 novel L'Ève future, although the term "android" appears in US patents as early as 1863 in reference to miniature humanlike toy automations."
  
  I have got to say that was the first time I have ever heard of St. Albertus Magnus. Turns out he was one of Thomas Aquinas's teachers and was one of the first Europeans to isolate Arsenic.
  
  --
  I reserve the write to mangle english.
2. Re:Android is much older than that... by smoker2 · 2009-05-01 23:15 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  The root of android is androgynous, meaning
  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
3. Re:Android is much older than that... by Cathbard · 2009-05-01 23:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows. IIRC the judge said with a degree of incredulity "You are trying to claim ownership of the word windows - and anything that sounds similar?" Being able to copyright a single word that is in common usage would be pretty silly. Would make it a bit hard to talk to each other huh?
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  
  --
  "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
4. Re:Android is much older than that... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  No, the root of "androgynous" is "andros", meaning "man" (both as in "male" and "human", one might add).
  "androgynous" is derived from both "andros" and "gyne" (woman).
5. Re:Android is much older than that... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:47 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us with any shred of reason which may exist behind your statement?
6. Re:Android is much older than that... by mordenkhai · 2009-05-01 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  I agree completely, you cannot trademark single words in common use. I am sure someday the courts will go ahead and take care of the few tiny companies who think they have such trademarks. I mean the courts are slow and it isn't like they could be aware of any companies with such trademarks.... In a completely unrelated topic I think there was an announcement today by Apple®....
7. Re:Android is much older than that... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:54 · Score: 0
  
  No, "andros" specifically means "male."
  "Anthropos" means "human."
8. Re:Android is much older than that... by roguetrick · 2009-05-01 23:57 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Trademark and Copyright are VERY different ideas.
  
  --
  -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
9. Re:Android is much older than that... by itsdapead · 2009-05-02 00:02 · Score: 2, 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 Malus pumila tree under the name "apple". Nor, back in the old days when one sold music and the other made beige boxes that went "beep" did Apple Corp. ever have much of a case against Apple Computer (not that that stopped the lawyers).
  Of course, no one thought that a computer which could just about squeeze out a tinny version of "Daisy Daisy" (that made a Stylophone sound like a Stradivarius) would evolve into a major music distribution platform. I just hope that, a few years from now, my mobile phone looks like Summer Glau!*
  * Including Multitouch(tm) features... er... I'll be in my bunk!
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
10. Re:Android is much older than that... by ScrewMaster · 2009-05-02 00:28 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
11. Re:Android is much older than that... by itsdapead · 2009-05-02 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  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" on sale...
  
  Being able to copyright a single word that is in common usage would be pretty silly.
  This isn't about copyright - it is about trade marks. Completely different purpose, completely different set of rules.
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
12. Re:Android is much older than that... by Cathbard · 2009-05-02 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Very true but the case I was referring to was a trademark issue too. Using the word copyright in my post was just a slip of the brain. If they trademarked Android Data and then claim nobody else can use the word android it takes one into pretty crazy waters. Some Trademarks have the word "the" in them too.
  In the windows/lindows case it was clear that claiming all derivatives of a common word like window was never going to fly in court and of course lindows were happy to settle out of court because the name lindows wasn't as important as a huge cash injection. It will be interesting to see if this results in a similar outcome as the Lindows case.
  
  --
  "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
13. Re:Android is much older than that... by Cathbard · 2009-05-02 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think that is totally true. The judge iirc was surprised that they wanted to claim all derivatives of a common word like window rather than it's usage in the computing world. If the case had have been pursued it would have been extremely interesting.
  Yes, I didn't mean to say copyright, that was a slip up on my part.
  
  --
  "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
14. Re:Android is much older than that... by neural.disruption · 2009-05-02 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  The root of android is androgynous, meaning 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
  
  Plain Wrong.
  
  Android comes from the ancient greek Andros that means man and from a derivative form of Eidos that means idea depending on the context.
  So android means something that has the idea of man(remember Plato?) or at least visually related to it.
  
  Because of this we have the term Gynoid used usually by some SF feminist circles.
  
  Androgynous comes from Andros and Gyne' that mean man and woman respectively and is totally unrelated to Android.
  
  Get your facts right.
15. Re:Android is much older than that... by ColdWetDog · 2009-05-02 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's Saturday. Not time for etymology nazis.
  
  Go outside, both of you....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
16. Re:Android is much older than that... by Quothz · 2009-05-02 05:01 · Score: 2, 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. This is the first time I've heard of an "etymology nazi", tho', since etymology is neither a political stance, a set of rules, or anything at all to do with a klutz. It makes me wonder if "nazi" is gradually taking on a fluid meaning with a negative connotation in the way "gay" has done over the last decade. Soon, we might hear kids saying "This movie is so gay. The director is a drama nazi."
  (I am outside.)
  *This ignores usage from c. 1903 which was similar to the later usage, but probably did not contribute to it being coined again.
17. Re:Android is much older than that... by ColdWetDog · 2009-05-02 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  So, your post is a Nazi Nazi?
  
  My head asplode....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
18. Re:Android is much older than that... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 05:16 · Score: 0
  
  Check out Albertus Magnus college in New Haven, Connecticut.
  http://www.albertus.edu/ A liberal arts college just down the street from Jale.
19. Re:Android is much older than that... by Ecuador · 2009-05-02 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  See: here, but to sum up:
  There is no "andros". There is a modern Greek word "andras" for man, but the origin of android is the ancient Greek form alpha, nu, eta, rho, pronounced "aneer", which can also mean "human", essentially making android the same as anthropoid, with the former being used in sci-fi and the latter in biology etc.
  Now, androgynoid is indeed rather interesting as something that would specifically refer to a hermaphrodite anthropoid (applicable to a shemale-pleasurebot for example). You can also have a specifically female form which would be a "gynecoid" or "gynaikoid" depending on how you would convert the Greek gamma, ypsilon, nu, alpha, iota, kappa prefix.
  And once more, could you people stop saying there is a Greek word "Andros" that means man? There is an island in the Aegean called Andros and there is a modern greek word "andras" whose genitive case (meaning "of a man") in the obsolete "katharevousa" form is "andros" (but with the accent on the o), but that is not what you refer to.
  
  --
  Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
20. Re:Android is much older than that... by ScrewMaster · 2009-05-02 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  And once more, could you people stop saying there is a Greek word "Andros" that means man?
  
  Well, actually I didn't.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
21. Re:Android is much older than that... by Ecuador · 2009-05-02 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  That particular comment obviously did not refer to you, but all your post ancestors. Hence the plural ;)
  
  --
  Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
22. Re:Android is much older than that... by TheoMurpse · 2009-05-02 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  The word "apple" has been in the English language since time immemorial, but that didn't stop both Apple Corp. and Apple Computer.
  The reason "bovine" might be more difficult to use as an exclusive trademark is because it pretty much literally describes the thing it's protecting. This is an example of a descriptive mark being denied trademark exclusivity.
  On the other hand, "android" here would be classified as either an arbitrary or suggestive mark, both of which can receive trademark exclusivity through the USPTO.
23. Re:Android is much older than that... by TheoMurpse · 2009-05-02 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  That is not true.
  
  android
  "automaton resembling a human being," 1727, from Mod.L. androides, from Gk. andro- "human" + eides "form, shape." Listed as "rare" in OED (1879), popularized from c.1951 by science fiction writers.
24. Re:Android is much older than that... by TheoMurpse · 2009-05-02 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Would make it a bit hard to talk to each other huh?
  Trademarks govern how entities can advertise and use marks in trade. It has 100% nothing to do with how you talk to people in regular conversation.
  
  Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows. IIRC the judge said with a degree of incredulity "You are trying to claim ownership of the word windows - and anything that sounds similar?"
  No. Microsoft likely settled because the word "window(s)" was already used before trademarking it to describe the entities in a GUI. Thus, had it gone to court, it's possible "Windows" would have been found to be a generic mark and thus the trademark protection would have been wiped out.
  Any judge's incredulity would have sprung forth from that, not from some Microsoft attempt to "own" the word. For one thing, I'm fairly confident the trademark "Windows" is limited in scope to software. I can call my window company "Windows" all I want. Hell, I could call my shoe company "Windows" and not infringe upon Microsoft's trademark.
  And as for your implied assertion that trademarking a single word is "silly," apple, apples, appleseed, bar, bear, etc. Need I go on?
  Granted, those specific ones I've linked to tend to also require some sort of stylized text or logo requirement to find infringement, but my point still stands. One-word marks are given trademark exclusivity all the time.
25. Re:Android is much older than that... by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-05-02 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  The root of android is androgynous
  It's not. The root of "android" is "andro", meaning "male", "masculine". And the word "androgynous" consists of two roots, the first one of course "andro", and the second one being "gyno", meaning "female", "feminine" (hence "gynecology"). So "androgynous" is really "male/female", which of course essentially matches your definition of it.
26. Re:Android is much older than that... by roguetrick · 2009-05-02 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  I don't particularly agree with the outcome of Windows/Lindows case myself, but thats beyond why I did the one line reply. The whole discussion was mixing the two terms up. You just came out and said it so I had to throw out my line.
  
  --
  -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
27. Re:Android is much older than that... by Hognoxious · 2009-05-03 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Sounds like he was a bit of a twat, to be honest.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
28. Re:Android is much older than that... by quickbrownfox · 2009-05-03 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Right. That's why trademarks are never granted for single words like target or Amazon. Because there are laws against it.
  
  --
  Repo man's always intense.
"Android Data" might still be valid by moon3 · 2009-05-01 22:25 · Score: 3, Informative

The company might be dead on paper, but the trademark is marked 'Live' at USPTO. Both Android trademarks have been filled under same service category, that really means 'collision' from the Office point of view.

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
1. Re:"Android Data" might still be valid by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, thought that Paramount Pictures owned the trademark, copyright, and any applicable patents to the Android Data since 1987 at the latest.
  Or maybe they don't get the patent until after they have a working model in 2338... I'm not quite sure how that works.
2. Re:"Android Data" might still be valid by tverbeek · 2009-05-01 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  There are a few different questions in play here.
  
  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 registered, it's in the same field of business as Google, and it hasn't lay fallow for very long. "Android Data" and "Android" are similar enough to be confusing.
  
  But a related question is whether it should be, and the answer to that is: probably not. If the trademark never got a foothold in the marketplace (i.e. no one knows it), and there's no apparent intent to use on the horizon (i.e. the company is defunct), another company should be able to pick it up and use it.
  
  --
  http://alternatives.rzero.com/
3. Re:"Android Data" might still be valid by russotto · 2009-05-02 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  The company might be dead on paper, but the trademark is marked 'Live' at USPTO. Both Android trademarks have been filled under same service category, that really means 'collision' from the Office point of view.
  
  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-commerce software and a mobile phone operating system.
Cyberdyne Systems by Spazmania · 2009-05-01 22:39 · Score: 4, 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.

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
1. Re:Cyberdyne Systems by ScrewMaster · 2009-05-02 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by wesw02 · 2009-05-01 22:51 · Score: 5, Informative

I recently took a college class that discussed various issues of software patents and software trademarks. Based on what I learned in my class it seems really unlikely that "Android Data" will win the lawsuit. Not only does Google have virtually unlimited resources, but the term "Android" is a generic one. It is important to note that when trademarking software a trademark is applied to a type of product. What I mean by that is Ford Motors has a trade mark on the term "Mercury" for their car. However this does not prevent the Rhode Island newspaper from using the name. (Someone please feel free to electorate on what I have said :) )
1. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by someone1234 · 2009-05-01 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
2. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  "Android" is not generic for anything other than androids or vaguely man-shaped robot things. It is not a generic name for software or mobile phones. Generic means that it is used to refer to a general class of objects rather than a particular brand or object.
  So although it is a generic name for a particular element, "Mercury" can be used as a non-generic name for things that aren't that element such as cars and newspapers. If one chemical supplier tried to sue another for using the word Mercury, whether in their catalog or as part of their name it would be much more relevant to consider whether it was generic.
  A trademark can also become generic - Hoover is sometimes used as a generic word for vacuum-clean and Port-a-Potty is sometimes used as a generic word for portable site toilet, although legally these are both reserved trademarks referring to the products of specific manufacturers. However I doubt Android could be said to have become a generic word for smart phone. (Google as a generic word for Internet searching would be a much more interesting question).
3. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by wesw02 · 2009-05-02 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
4. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by ScrewMaster · 2009-05-02 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
5. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Two of your examples are suspect. I bought some generic kleenex the other day after I went to library to xerox some books for my report.
  Oh yeah, and then I took a huge microsoft and then googled myself some. The kleenex came in handy in both cases.
6. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Not so much. "Apple" is a generic term as well, but both Apple Music had a trademark on it. Apple Computer was allowed to use the name because they operate in different industries: It's difficult to confuse a record label with a personal computer.
  Same for "Mercury". It's pretty difficult to confuse a car model with a newspaper.
  Now, take, for example Microsoft Windows (Windows is a generic term, after all), v. Lindows. Both dealt with operating systems, and one is a blatant play on the other's trademark, it's easy to confuse the two - hence, the name of the latter being changed to Linspire.
  In the case of "Android" both operate in software - The trademark being unused, and the company being dissolved doesn't change much. The trademark is still in effect, and the trademark _MUST_ be enforced.
  Google doesn't really have a leg to stand on here, a) their trademark application was rejected, and b) it isn't hard to run a search (you'd think a search company would thing to run a search, no?) to see weather a trademark on your name exists, and c) they can't argue that they're in a different industry here.
7. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by MMC+Monster · 2009-05-02 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Android Data is a maker of cell phone operating systems?
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
8. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, rose-tinted glasses...
  Android is primarily a cell phone operating system. I.e. this similar to naming an operating system called "Pentium."
  That said, it sounds like Android Data is not nearly as successful, and so I'd think both sides could be grown-up and come to mutually agreeable terms outside of the court system. But those are my rose-tinted glasses--the lawyers wouldn't win that way.
9. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously you did what every good student does, you slept through class. Otherwise youd know that the important question is whether customers are likely to confuse the two brands or not. If you are looking for a car, it's highly unlikely that you are irritated by a newspaper that has the same name. However, if you have an OS called Android, and there's an IT company called Android Data, it's easy to draw conclusions.
  Since the USPTO apparently already ruled against Google in the basis of a trademark collision, this seems to indicate pretty clearly who's right here. Google once again just plays the big bully card like they did in previous trademark cases.
10. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by TheoMurpse · 2009-05-02 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Well in that case, it was a pretty damn careless use of the word. I mean, since you took a trademark course, you should've been aware that "generic" is a term of art within trademark law. The classifications of trademark distinctiveness are fanciful, arbitrary, descriptive, suggestive, and generic. Worst case scenario for the small guy in this case? "Android" is found to be suggestive. And I think the courts would find it "descriptive," personally.
  Now, I wouldn't be bitching so much at your mistake if you hadn't prefaced your entire argument with "I recently took a tradmark class [so I know what I'm talking about]."
11. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by TheoMurpse · 2009-05-02 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Switch my use of arbitrary and suggestive everywhere in that post.
12. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  Now, take, for example Microsoft Windows (Windows is a generic term, after all), v. Lindows. Both dealt with operating systems, and one is a blatant play on the other's trademark, it's easy to confuse the two - hence, the name of the latter being changed to Linspire.
  That's a terrible example, given that Linspire won the case against them.
  
  As early as 2002, a court rejected Microsoft's claims, stating that Microsoft had used the term "windows" to describe graphical user interfaces before the product, Windows, was ever released, and that the windowing technique had already been implemented by Xerox and Apple many years before[4]. Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims[5]. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
  Lindows only changed the name as a result of a massive cash settlement from Microsoft after MSFT feared losing their trademark.
13. Re:Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by dkf · 2009-05-03 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  (Someone please feel free to electorate on what I have said :) )
  Really? Oh, OK. If you insist. Try the following (and yes, I know this isn't a secret ballot; I don't care)...
  I vote that you used the word "electorate" to mean "elaborate", and that you'd have been better sticking to plain old "expand".
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:15 · Score: 0

The cheapest and easiest solution is to use the term "Google Android". The problem is collision in the same area, but often in the legal system the answer isn't court, but to change something in fact that makes the issue moot in law. It wouldn't change what people call it, it wouldn't change much at all except that there wouldn't be an issue going forward.
I went through a trademark dispute on a single word about 11 years ago over a single word domain name. A company was saying they owned the " " trademark. (e.g. say Hurricane Electric said they owned the trademark to hurricane.com - it wasn't that, but the same idea). We spent over $100,000 defending ourselves and won, and got some attorney's fees. They lasted only until around 2000 when the bubble burst.
That domain is still around and in use with information on it.
1. Re:Solution by ScrewMaster · 2009-05-02 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  I tend to agree. A lot of people I know already refer to the G1 as the "Google Phone" or "Google Android Phone" ... if they just made that change pre-emptively it would render a lawsuit moot, I would think. Unless, of course, this Specht individual claims business losses or some such ... I suppose Google could still be liable for any damage done to date. I dunno, I'm a lot of things but lawyer isn't one of them.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Also from TFA, though: by itsdapead · 2009-05-01 23:33 · Score: 1

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...

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
1. Re:Also from TFA, though: by ibbey · 2009-05-02 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect that they did. It actually seems to me that Mr. Specht's case may be pretty weak. The article doesn't specify what sort of software Android Data made, but trademarks only apply in cases where confusion is likely. Google may have presumed since the trademark hadn't been used and since, according to Google at least, "there couldn't be any confusion between the two names", they would be granted the trademark. Admittedly that's not a very sound way to make a business decision, but it's certainly not the first time this has happened to a major company... Remember Cisco suing Apple over it's iPhone trademark?
  The real situation here is pretty simple... Intentionally or not, Google has invested many millions of dollars in developing Android and the Android brand. Mr. Specht has a relatively weak claim on the trademark, so Google will offer him a choice: A few million to sell the trademark, or they will tie him up or years, running up his legal bills until he can't afford to fight anymore.
  Not saying it's a good way to do business, but it's almost certainly what will happen.
And then there's the obvious ... by tomhudson · 2009-05-01 23:36 · Score: 4, 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.

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".
1. Re:And then there's the obvious ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  Andruid
  Aside: the Irish for "The Druid" is "An Draoi", not "An Druid", which to any irish speaker looks like a strange confusion of english and irish. Technically the english may have retained an archaic "d" ending and modern irish (and scots gaelic) lost it, but anyway.
2. Re:And then there's the obvious ... by ScrewMaster · 2009-05-02 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
3. Re:And then there's the obvious ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  that the name "Android" really sucks for a cell phone.
  
  But it isn't a cell phone. The name may also suck for an OS but nobody picking up a shiny new phone is likely to be worried about the name of the OS - the phone will have its own name for them to salivate over, if that's what they're into.
4. Re:And then there's the obvious ... by tomhudson · 2009-05-02 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  If you see the stories, it's all about "Android" cell phones. Google, and now their partners, went out of their way to raise the public profile of the operating system. eg: "Motorola to introduce Android cell phones."
5. Re:And then there's the obvious ... by tomhudson · 2009-05-02 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  "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."
6. Re:And then there's the obvious ... by ScrewMaster · 2009-05-02 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  "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."
  Couldn't agree more. I've read them all (a couple more than once) and have them all still in a box somewhere. Don't have enough shelf space to hold them my whole science fiction collection, unfortunately. Besides, Mr. Magnan warned me that the five-eyed little sticky-fingers will steal them when I'm not looking (that was my best 407A attempt-at-humor.)
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
7. Re:And then there's the obvious ... by sketerpot · 2009-05-02 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  For anybody who's wondering what the hell you guys are talking about, Retief is the protagonist of a series of satirical science fiction books and short stories, some of which you can read here for free. Very fun stuff.
8. Re:And then there's the obvious ... by OrangeTide · 2009-05-02 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Motorola Razr is as painful as a razor.
  Google Hemorrhoid?
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Worst use of Android ever by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-01 23:53 · Score: 0

Yours sincerely,
Albert Josephson,
The Android's Dungeon,
Springfield
What surprises me by snaz555 · 2009-05-02 00:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

...is that the estate of Gene Roddenberry hasn't gotten involved yet.
Do no evil.... by surkum · 2009-05-02 00:57 · Score: 1

as long as you don't need it, or it won't get to sldt, oopss!

--
here ends what some neis
trademarks are defend it or lose it. by DragonTHC · 2009-05-02 01:10 · Score: 1

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.

--
They're using their grammar skills there.
1. Re:trademarks are defend it or lose it. by teg · 2009-05-02 02:47 · Score: 2, 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.
Why dont google just use GMOBILE? by bestwin · 2009-05-02 03:07 · Score: 1

Why dont they just use GMOBILE it 10 times better name and they already have Gmail
1. Re:Why dont google just use GMOBILE? by DamienNightbane · 2009-05-02 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because then they would be sued by T-mobile.
Setting the record straight. by Ecuador · 2009-05-02 06:00 · Score: 1

As someone with decent knowledge of ancient Greek I should set the record straight, since the other corrections are not entirely correct themselves. Firstly, you cannot trace the root of android to a compound word. Androgynous is indeed both male and female, however only the first word of the compound is present in "android", so for people who know greek your post came out as very silly.
So, the correct root is (sorry no utf8 on /.) alpha, nu, eta, rho, pronounced "aneer" which means man. From that root you get the prefix "andro-". When I say the root means man, I mean it in almost every sense. So, while the most common usage of the word was man as opposed to woman or wife, it could also be used as man as opposed to, say, god (and man as opposed to child, but I digress). So it could be used as "human".
The suffix is of course from the greek "eidos", meaning a species or a category sharing a specific form etc. This noun is derived from the verb "eido" (epsilon iota delta omega), whose prefix in most tenses becomes "id-" (iota delta), hence the latin derived prefix that got in the word android. I guess that pretty much covers it.

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
anoymous coward by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 06:53 · Score: 0

Android, the name, sucks. Gmobile or gphone, or GMedia
come on -- make it simple
IRONIC COMMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD! by earlymon · 2009-05-02 07:40 · Score: 1

Google is in lawsuit city with the registered trademark owner of Android Data, and.....

Um, just Google "Android Data" you will find sites wondering where exactly Android Data is, because there seems to be no company website, etc.
As the AC above pointed out - it's the first hit here: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=android+data&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
Coincidence or nefarious, or truth is simply stranger than fiction .... any which way, I salute the irony in this thread of life's rich tapestry!

--
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
1. Re:IRONIC COMMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD! by chrisv · 2009-05-02 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. It's sure the first result on Yahoo. Of course, the last update prior to yesterday that I can find has approximately nothing to do with this "Android Data" thing.
  A bit more research, and you'll find: The site was last updated yesterday. The content that was there at it's last indexing on Google and MSN is the same as what is currently up at www.pushpuppets.net. As well, android-data.com (the actual domain for the "product") was registered on 2009/04/20; it's been around for a grand total of 12 days. The site that was there before, according to archive.org: it's a parking page for someone else operating a business by the name of "Android Data Services", though checking androiddata.com on archive.org gets you the same site: defunct since 2006, with it's last update being 2003/01/23. Searching for android-data.com gets you no site whatsoever, on Google, Yahoo, or MSN.
  This reads to me as though truth is more idiotic than fiction. Nefarious is more likely the case: everything I've been able to tell suggests that the name and product have been dead for at least 3 years, if not more likely 6 years. Looks more like a case of "I might be able to sue Google for lots of money" than anything. The likelihood of actually winning any lawsuit there, suing over a product that nobody has ever heard of, on a trademark that nobody has ever heard of (until today)... um, right. Maybe if he were actually developing & promoting that product, then he'd have something to say.
  
  --
  Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
2. Re:IRONIC COMMENT OF THE YEAR AWARD! by earlymon · 2009-05-02 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Uh..... ok.
  I was referring, as was the AC I'd mentioned, to http://www.erichspecht.com/ - whose name I'm sure you'll recognize from TFA, which you did read. It does correspond, other than with the listed copyright, to http://web.archive.org/web/20050310015150/http://www.androiddata.com/
  And, FWIW, that particular domain has been with GoDaddy since 2003, and the androiddata.com archive is showing a copyright of 2002.. Odd that you conjecture that such a site has had no business for six years.
  And yes, if you stop and study the law more closely than you have the archives, you'll find that domain squatting is a completely separate case from trademarks.
  You do understand that this isn't a domain squatting case? If generous, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt that you're trying to establish that the guy doesn't have a business.
  Of course, you did read in TFA that Specht is very definitely stating that contrary to opinion, he is actively developing and marketing product under that name, as he has done for years?
  Another FWIW - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1219633&cid=27800209 - mine from another part of this topic.
  And, the obligatory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark as you are somewhat unclear - he not only can sue under these conditions, he is very, very likely to win.
  Whether you find him scum or not is your own opinion.
  But, given that he is ready to show in a court of law that his products are current, he has done exactly as you specify:
  
  Maybe if he were actually developing & promoting that product, then he'd have something to say.
  If you're bucking for 2nd place in the IRONY Awards, you'll certainly get some votes - although, you'd qualify more highly in other categories.
  TFA - sometimes, it's your friend.
  
  --
  Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Google Should buy the rights to "Android" by mirdamad · 2009-05-02 08:57 · Score: 1

In my opinion, Google should avoid turning this into some sort of legal fiasco. Android Data may have not used the mark for at least three years, but that does not change the fact that they are the registered owners of the mark. I think Google could save themselves a lot of time and money buy offering to buy the mark from Android Data to avoid taking this to Court. Android Data is obviously just after money as they are not presently using the mark. This would make both sides happy - Google would get the rights to use Android and Android Data would receive money. In terms of similarities of the mark, the USPTO was right to deny Google the rights to the Android mark. Both companies are in the software industry, and both marks have the marks Android in them. This would cause confusion in the market place about the rightful owner of "Android". Interning at an intellectual property law firm has showed me that there have been much more ridiculous and less overlapping reasons to deny a trademark by the USPTO.
1. Re:Google Should buy the rights to "Android" by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-03 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Android Data may have not used the mark for at least three years, but that does not change the fact that they are the registered owners of the mark.
  You sure about that? Trademarks lapse if they aren't in use and/or vigorously defended.
HGooDroid by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-02 09:51 · Score: 0

contact me for rights to the name.
You Americans with the new American dream by JAlexoi · 2009-05-02 10:27 · Score: 1

Why are you wondering that your economy is going down the drains, when someone that does not produce anything valuable has an ability to sue for damages that he/she did not have.
Sue and get rich, that is the new American dream.
1. Re:You Americans with the new American dream by A12m0v · 2009-05-02 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  I don't like the fact that you are using facts. Your facts have no place in our American Dream.
  
  --
  GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
ubuntu cola? by reiisi · 2009-05-02 20:04 · Score: 1

Well, ubuntu as a word does have a separate existence from the OS.
(It's mentioned on the ubuntu (OS) web site, and you'll go somewhere other than Canonical's web site if you try to go to http://www.ubuntu.org.

--
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Google bought the company Android by Gricey · 2009-05-02 23:30 · Score: 1

At least, they'd recently bought them when I saw their office in 2005. So the guys complaining that Google aggressively pursued the name, well, it was already there, and was probably some kind of assertion exercise that opened up the can of worms.

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-03 01:50 · Score: 0

google has a this kind of conflict with Korean government about the way of user register.
No, Sprecht seems to have a good case by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-03 04:34 · Score: 0

I recently took a college class that discussed various issues of software patents and software trademarks. Based on what I learned in my class it seems really unlikely that "Android Data" will win the lawsuit. Not only does Google have virtually unlimited resources, but the term "Android" is a generic one.

"Generic" terms _can_ be trademarked. (OTOH, a trademarked word can lose its protected status if it _becomes_ generic.) The actual issue here involves "merely descriptive" terms. For example, no one can obtain a trademark for "The Bowling Alley" for a bowling alley. But, if you apply for "The Bowling Alley" for a dance club, that'll work (assuming that no one else is already using that name or has filed a registration before you did). As for "Android", even if no one else had a prior claim to the name, you'd be unlikely to get a registered trademark for "Android" for a human-like robot product because "Android" is merely descriptive of a human-like robot.
No, the guy seems to have good case by Anonymous Coward · 2009-05-03 04:47 · Score: 0

I recently took a college class that discussed various issues of software patents and software trademarks. Based on what I learned in my class it seems
really unlikely that "Android Data" will win the lawsuit. Not only does Google have virtually unlimited resources, but the term "Android" is a generic one.
"Generic" terms _can_ be trademarked. (OTOH, a trademarked word can lose its protected status if it _becomes_ generic.) The actual issue here involves
"merely descriptive" terms. For example, no one can obtain a trademark for "The Bowling Alley" for a bowling alley. But, if you apply for "The Bowling Alley" for
a dance club, that'll work (assuming that no one else is already using that name or has filed a registration before you did). As for "Android", even if no one else
had a prior claim to the name, you'd be unlikely to get a registered trademark for "Android" for a human-like robot product because "Android" is merely
descriptive of a human-like robot.