Slashdot Mirror
Nexus One Name Irks Philip K. Dick's Estate
RevWaldo writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, the estate of Philip K. Dick says the name of Google's new smartphone infringes on the famous character name from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Isa Dick Hackett, a daughter of Mr. Dick, states Google has its 'Android system, and now they are naming a phone "Nexus One." It's not lost on the people who are somewhat familiar with this novel... Our legal team is dealing head-on with this.'"
I read about this almost a month ago in the New York Times blogs and must point out one very important detail (to me at least) about this case that was not present in The Wall Street Journal article: Google applied for a trademark on "NEXUS ONE". Now it's not even assigned to an examining attorney yet but come on. You can 'borrow' something from a novel but if you're going to be making money, hand over fist, with it you should probably get permission. And then on top of that you go after the trademark since Dick never did?
Even Motorola had the wherewithal to kindly ask Lucas before using Droid as a name for their phone because 'droid' is a registered trademark of Lucasfilm Ltd. You would think the least amount of courtesy Google could do is not apply for a trademark out of respect of where they borrowed 'nexus one' from. And if Google's afraid that someone will just use that name to profit off of their device then they should just find another name instead of borrowing from a novel (deflating the argument of "they have no choice, they have to trademark everything they do"). I'm hoping that this is some Google executive not realizing that 'nexus one' is a reference to a Philip K. Dick android but now it looks more like them toeing the line of what they could use and then completely running off with it.
If they were just using the name, I'd consider this a nice homage or nod to the late great Philip K. Dick. But since they're applying for a trademark it's just a dick move.
My work here is dung.
Give me free money!
C'mon. I mistrust Google as much as the next gal, but so-called IP law is really getting out of hand. Argh.
It's a freaking WORD. It comes from the DICTIONARY.
This has gone way too far, in two ways. One, we are not talking about a book, we are talking about a WORD. Two, Philip's heirs should not earn ongoing profits from work done by Philip a generation ago. Has their income incentivized them to produce anything noteworthy themselves? I think not; in direct contradiction to the whole point of congress's authority to assign limited monopolies.
Google should do two things. The should fight this in the courts, but much more importantly, they should use their considerable resources and clout to lobby congress to update the legal framework such that it encourages, rather than hinders, innovation in the sciences and the useful arts. Congress, elected by the people, has the last word on this one.
Get a grip. Back in the bad old barbarian days, before lawyers and corporate assholes roamed the earth, lots of people shared the exact same words. Really, it was quite commonplace to hear people talking, and see them writing, and they shared the exact same language, and it was fine. Nobody got bothered by it. Now I expect we'll all have to invent our own unique words.
Starting stupid lawsuits based on thin air, FUCK YEAH!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/android
Her brother is called Hasa
Philip Dick has been dead for more than 20 years, time for his family to stop parasitizing on his success.
The children are dicks. In the vernacular sense of the term.
I hope that if this makes it to trial that the judge slaps them with billions in fines for bringing a frivolous suit.
For even thinking they have a case, they deserve to lose every penny they own. I truly hope someone just shoots them.
Given that he has been dead for 28 years, his works should be in the public domain. Then there would be no dispute.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I'm now copyrighting NEXUS TWO, NEXUS THREE and NEXUS FOUR by using these in my post.
When Google brings out next generations of its phone, I'll sue them and become rich!
You gotta think ahead.
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
Some copyright attorney must be reading /.
As of a few seconds ago there were 30 replies, of which four or five said that the heirs should no longer be profiting from the copyrights, since Philip K. Dick is long dead. All of those posts have been marked "troll".
Would our budding copyright attorney like to explain this? Guess what: "troll" is not a substitute for "disagree".
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The people on whom the connection is not lost, would see this as a tribute from Google to Philip K. Dick. It would be sad if this sort of unbridled greed on the part of some discourages companies and people from expressing their admiration for the contributions of others.
I do not have a problem with an author's children trying to assert their legal rights --- but this would've been as wrong if the author himself had talked about suing. There is really no reason, legal or otherwise, for Google to be paying money to the Dick foundation. Trademark laws do not apply here. And, does anyone think the name is going to "help" Nexus / Android sales ? Or that there will be people who will buy the nexus thinking it is a Dick novel ? Is Google really profiting or abusing Dick's IP ? Are book sales going to be affected ?
I'm going to invent some random thing and call it the "Luke Skywalker", why? because the power supply heat makes it feel LUKEwarm and when you throw it up in the SKY it looks like it is WALKing. I see no trademark or copyright problems with my scheme.
They should be suing the Star Trek franchise as well for using the term Nexus in Generations. They obviously made MILLIONS from that movie...
I think they're going to have a hard time making that case since so few people will make the connection. Dick is not one of those authors whose works are so familiar to the general public that there is likely to be any mental connection between the average person visiting a T-Mobile store and thinking about buying an Android phone and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
for, they sure know how to behave like one as a family.
ah and, fuck trademarks. with this stupid mindset, in 50 years time we will run out of words and phrases to name things. and, given the possibility of infringing on someone's 'rights', we will probably be start refraining from using those words during ordinary talks in daily life.
this has to stop before it gets to that point.
Read radical news here
...Isaac Asimov's bloated corpse is suing over the Japanese robot named Asimo.
Anthony Burgess is resposible for the names Heaven 17, Miloko, Korova (Records) etc... Borrowing names from fiction is a time honoured tradition and until authors begin trademarking their invented names, one the estate can do fuck all about...
I should start a band called "Goggly Gogol" (again from clockwork orange) and release a song called "googling for the dick's nexus" just for shits and giggles!
Without wanting to add too much to the anti-copyright vituperations, has anyone considered how difficult it must truly be for a lawyer sensing a great case such as this one, with hundreds of billable hours (regardless of the outcome) to refrain themselves from telling their clients that serving papers to one of the planet's largest corporate behemoths is the only option, when in reality they pretty much know that they are guaranteed to lose the case but will still manage to milk the estate for plenty of money by going that route, and that this will be the closest they'll ever come to being 'cool with the in crowd' ?
How Darwinian! In that sense,they are taking the role of parasite, which as we all know is necessary for the ecosystem to function properly.
If Google loses they could sue the dictionaries for including their trademark! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/GOOGLE
His parasitic offspring inherited an appropriate surname.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
The name "Dick"... heh heh... that name means "penis".
o hai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Free digital copy of "Blade Runner" with every Nexus One (director's cut, of course). Google gets to demo the phones' video chops and gets the coolness cred, PKD's heirs get a chunk of the royalties. Win-win.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Let's be serious- Google could have called this the Fuzz-Crap 4000 and would still make just as much money off of it. The word "nexus" itself is descriptive of the device itself (look it up), so it is very conceivable that the word could have been used without any intent for it to be a homage to Dick's works. Whether intentional or unintentional- if it is seen as a homage to Dick's works- it would have generated more interest in them and would make the estate more money anyway. All calling the lawyers is going to do is bring about backlash, and that will primarily target the estate, not Google.
At least US Robotics isn't attacking all business models in media industries. Google's attitude of a.) f*** the publishers and b.) f*** the authors is a curious one for an advertising company. They have no good will or benefit of the doubt in a case like this one.
But they do have the benefit of having as their Senior Copyright Counsel one of the leading experts on US copyright law. And he's not exactly an "info wants to be free" flag waver.
Can you elaborate a bit as to why you think Google doesn't care about the publishers and authors? (Wow, now I sound like a bot. OTOH, your post sounds like a flame).
I am the Nexus One. - well duh
I want more life, !@#$%^, I ain't done YET - this is a coded reference to Dick's copyright and parasitical earnings
Prophetic? Pathetic? Oh yes
Free press for Google. Thanks Dick!
Anything is possible given time and money.
If the estate was actually concerned with protecting the uniqueness of their trademarks they would have sued Scalzi for his book "The Android's Dream." While the content is very different, it's actually a novel as opposed to a consumer electronics product. More than that, it's a science fiction novel and I'm sure at least 2 people have honestly confused the two when looking to buy one. In that case though, it would be someone looking for Scalzi's book who accidentaly bought Dick's that would have felt screwed.
Bunch of god damn parasites. PKD is DEAD. In my view that leaves his work should be public domain. Is that the law? No, the law presently favours the leeches, the parasites, the lawyers. I'm no big fan of Google as a company, but I say "go for it, Google". Fuck these people. PKD is dead. None of the people involved had anything to do with his writing or work or creativity. They are leeches existing at the pig trough of Imaginary Property rights. In a more just society they would be burned as devils.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Money talks, for lawyers anyhows. In the world of music there have been gazillions of artists and record labels calling themselves 'Nexus [n]' (where n can be 1, 6 or 21). Some of these have been homage to PKD and the lawyers should have gone for them ages ago, that is if they cared about preserving the 'Nexus' brand, but they don't. I say boycott PKD and get a Google phone.
even then, its debatable as to whether [Lucasfilm's "DROID"] trademark would apply to anything other than plush R2D2 toys.
It depends on how good of a dilution case Lucasfilm could make.
I like PKD stories, but this is all BS. I hope they spend a lot of money and loose big. Now when Google markets the Nexus 6 model Android (cell phone), I'm on board with the suit. Until then they should stfu
I thought I was buying a character from a book, but when I opened the box, it had a phone in it! Damn Google and their cheap counterfeit knockoffs.
I mean, sure, from the pictures I admit that before I bought it, it looked like it might be a phone, but it also looked like it could be PKD's professional output too. I mean, Google and PKD operate in essentially the same market, selling the same sort of goods and services, so how the hell is someone supposed to know this isn't a PKD product? I really thought I was buying a character, and and so disappointed to end up with a phone that is almost nothing like what I read about in the book. It's so confusing.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
First of all, since when do the estate sell something or protect something called "Nexus One", "Android" or something at all with a name that resembles those two?
Someone getting inspired by a book are not supposed to pay for the inspiration other than having bought the damn book. This is just some assholes trying to get money.
Android is an old latin word of andro- "human" + eides "form, shape. Nexus translates to connection or center and is also a latin word. It wouldnt even been a problem if Mr. Dick had invented the names himself but its just old words that happens to be in his books like "him", "her", "greedy" or "obnoxious".
HTTP/1.1 400
Nexus-6 is in the dictionary?
nexus six
License the name to another company for use in another product - say, a sex toy. Something Google really doesn't want to be associated with.
Sure, maybe the estate doesn't either, but it'll bother Google a whole lot more.
If they sell billions and billions of them, maybe they could change the name to "Sagan"... Oh, wait a minute...
"The Tannhauser Gate", for all things Android! Please park near the C beams, just off the shoulder of Orion!
Why produce something new youeself when you can extort from those who are?
But they chose a reference that the average person just might get - seeing as Blade Runner is a fairly well-known movie.
The companies U.S. Robotics (modem maker) and iRobot (Roomba vacuum maker) deliberately named themselves after Asimov's Robot series, but did they get in trouble?
IANAL, but it seems like the Dick estate has no case.
If Google had named the phone Nexus-6... maybe... but probably not.
Naming the phone Nexus-One may be a slight nod to DADOES, but not a blatant one.
Most people, if they look up the word "nexus" are going to learn that it means a connection between things. Given that we are talking about a smartphone that connects people to the world... I think Google is in the clear.
This strikes me as a clear case of a Dick trying to get some free money through a frivolous lawsuit...
This family don't own and have never owned the words "Nexus One" - both valid words from the dictionary, and not trademarked in the context of a phone.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Isa is a Dick, Hackett, Head-on, Sheep... all appearing... in the same paragraph... too... painful... Please... stop...
Mr. Krotch Hertz
google has never made claimed homage to mr. dick. the word nexus does have a meaning beyond an imaginary android product line,
claiming that "nexus" even refers to mr. dick's book seems weak to me. it's been a long time since i read the book, but i don't recall it referring specifically to anything called a "nexus one". it refers to the "nexus line" of androids, and specifically the "nexus 6" model.
http://refx.com/ While their Nexus 1 was referred to as simply Nexus (or Nexus 1.x) Their Nexus 2 is Nexus^2. Maybe Google just needs to cube it. Great synth, btw
You mean his offspring Isa Dick?
You can 'borrow' something from a novel but if you're going to be making money, hand over fist, with it you should probably get permission
No, you should not and you need not. Trademark law exists to protect consumers against fake products, it does not exist to make companies or novelists money. That's why trademarks are specific to a product category. Even though Google's phone is called the "Nexus One", I can sell apples under the name "Nexus One" and I don't have to ask Google for permission.
Dick doesn't own the name "Nexus". In fact, it is questionable whether Dick's estate has any trademark rights to the "Nexus" name at all, since they are obviously not offering a product for sale under that name. But even if they do, there is no conflict with Google.
Dick's estate is greedy and trying to cash in on Google's product. It's disgusting.
You have to admire Philip's foresight in naming his daughter.
Google should rename the "Nexus One" to "Dickhead One". Let's see whether Dick's estate wants to claim ownership of that name :-)
Dick's estate doesn't have a trademark on "Nexus One". So it doesn't matter if people "get them confused". The estate has copy rights over the books. Google would not be able to reproduce that book with out the estate's permission. But in this case, Google isn't reproducing their book, they aren't copying the protected material. So there is no infringement.
Unless you are arguing that every proper noun ever used in any copy right protected creation is also protected against trademarks.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Dont act like Dicks!
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I believe this is the only time that a heterosexual man like myself can safely say, "yes, I like Dick."
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is a wretched book. Nobody but the hardest-core SF geek would give a shit about it today if David Peoples and Ridley Scott hadn't turned it into a movie that was 100x better. So just who is riding who's coattails?
It's not as if only PKD's brilliant, visionary mind could have come up with putting a number after the word "nexus" to make a cool-sounding name.
Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
Nexus was in common usage before Mr. Dick wrote DADOES...Here's what the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says:
Main Entry: nexus
Pronunciation: \nek-ss\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural nexuses \-s-sz\ or nexus \-ss, -süs\
Etymology: Latin, from nectere to bind
Date: 1663
1 : connection, link; also : a causal link
2 : a connected group or series
3 : center, focus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nexus
I think that any of the three definitions can fit a cell phone.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
It's reference to the Nexus One being a convergence between "phone and web":
From dictionary.com:
Nexus - 6 dictionary results
nexus[nek-suhs] Show IPA
-noun, plural nexuses, nexus.
1. a means of connection; tie; link.
2. a connected series or group
"Mr. Sue Happy" knows better than to try and steal credit for any IP from Gene Roddenberry. Starfleet's legal kung fu is far too powerful for a former television critic (LA Free Press) to tangle with.
Everyone knows that modern cell phone design was based on the Star Trek communicators from the original series. Motorola explicitly acknowledged this when they introduced their Star-Tac phone (the first "flip - open" cell phone) in the late 80s-early 90s.
If you did not know this, you know what to do with your geek card.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
You mean like:
Apple the computer / electronics / software company v Apple the music label (The Beatles)
...I don't think Google's business strategy for this device was to cash in on the swarms of Philip K. Dick fans to make or break this item's success. If anything it is a homage but I don't think they're it is to make a significant sales impact because "Oh oh oh a new phone with vague allusions to a novel I like has been released so I better get that phone".
See, I thought the thing with Trademarks were that they aren't enforceable over different broad industries? Or have I got American Trademark law completely wrong? If Apple can't sue a grocery store for trademark breaches because it is in a different broad industry, then why should this lawsuit ever be ruled in Dick's favor since the two words, trademarked or not, are un-related (one being a fictional character reference in a book, another being an IT product).
Could someone clear this confusion up for me?
Actually, there's a good question in that. A lot of popular science fiction characters or meme's have pretty much become part of culture, and are referred to elsewhere in said culture.
Star Trek and Star Wars are pretty common ones. Lots of movies make reference to them. In particular I remember Stargate SG-1 where Jack (after travelling to the past) uses a false alias of "Captain James T Kirk" and then later corrects "No, I lied, my real name is Luke Skywalker." There are fairly humorous moments in SG-Atlantis when McKay compares Sheppard to Kirk.
In terms of spoofs, I've seen plenty of movies, video games, and even music which play or Trek/SW memes, as well as plenty of things that aren't outright spoofs but are still fairly obvious. In the past these were often seen as a "tip of the hat", or paying kudos to something that was part of the culture. Heck, even "3D Realms" had one "Doomed Space Marine" as a hidden artifact in "Duke Nukum"
So where does the line get drawn? I've read the Do Androids Dream, seen BladeRunner, and still didn't catch the reference between the phone and the book. Now that it's been mentioned I can see that there may be some relation, but it seems to me like much more of a "hat tip" rather than an attempt to capitalize on Dick.
Is greed going to mean that you can't even make a remark or a comment in complimentary reference to some fictional material?
I was wondering about this.
Does anyone else think its particularly interesting that Google picked a theming for Android (eg. Android, Nexus, etc.) from a dystopian state-run future?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I'll let the author know that he should sue Amazon.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Does the estate have to defend their trademark/name against all threats? Or can they just pick and choose what they defend it against? They're suing Google, but why didn't they sue Cisco? Cisco had a Nexus product (actually quite a few of them) for a few years now:
Nexus 7000
Nexus 5000
Nexus 2000
Nexus 1000
Hell, the government even has Nexus Cards which are are WHTI-compliant documents for land and sea travel, as well as air travel when traveling to and from airports using the NEXUS program, and provide expedited travel via land, air or sea to approved members between the U.S. and Canada border.
Right, because when coming up with a name for its futuristic, intelligent smartphone, they thought it would be a good idea to evoke HOMICIDAL ROBOTS.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
The idea was that memory is not to be trusted in the world of Blade Runner.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Are they going to sue Nexxus because their shampoo conflicts?
Cisco because their Nexus switches conflict?
Nexus Telecom?
Nexus Internation Broadcasting Assocation?
Vivendi Universal for publishing a game called Nexus?
UCSB for daring to name their student newspaper "Nexus?"
University of Waikato for precisely the same?
Nexus Magazine?
It's JUST A DAMNED WORD and DICK did not invent it. Besides, Dick is dead, so screw the Dick children for being so damned greedy about their beloved Dick. Dick.
Those posts are *certainly* (-1, Offtopic), given that the copyright status is irrelevant to determining a trademark dispute. Even if others should be able to sell Dick's works, that doesn't mean the original rightsholder would stop, and therefore a potential trademark dispute would be just as relevant (the merits of such a dispute aside).
Taking it a step further, since those posts aren't on topic in the first place, trying to bring them up in a forum where you know many people already have a strong interest and emotional association with the current state of copyright, such a comment elicits attention, distracting from the original discussion. That's trolling, although almost certainly unintentional.
Thanks to the Dick family, I now have the idea to make the screen saver for my new phone be electric sheep.
it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. I suspect that it was a calculated risk by Google to use the name they wanted.
You know, sometimes when an obvious money grab comes to court, I wish the judge could hear a quick summary from both sides and then say, "Whatever...", bang his gavel, and dismiss it outright. This is one of those times.
It's sad that Philip K. Dick's children would tarnish his good name by bringing forward this obviously frivolous lawsuit.
Let's all remember the man by reading his books, but forget his children by checking them out from this online library instead of buying them: http://www.kickasstorrents.com/philip-k-dick-collection-47-ebooks-t2589210.html
or else!
You won't even be allowed to possess the sixth version of this Nexus phone on the planet Earth. It will only be for use in the off-world colonies.
Special Verizon squads have orders to destroy, upon detection, any Nexus Six phone. This is called "retirement," and is not covered under warranty.
> This has gone way too far...
It hasn't gone anywhere. It's just lawyers bloviating: there is no evidence that they have any case nor that they are doing anything but bluffing. I suspect that they just hoping that Google will pay them off to avoid embarrassment. It also has nothing to do with copyright. Their claim (feeble as it is) is based on common-law trademark.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
So an arguably justifiable lawsuit is brought about by someone whose name is "Isa Dick"?
Anyone surprised?
Isa Dick Hackett, a daughter of Mr. Dick, states Google has its 'Android system, and now they are naming a phone "Nexus One."
Umm, what rights exactly does the PKD estate have over the term android? Does Isa think Phillip coined the term? Or came up with it's current usage (William Gibson, I believe)?
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.
-http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=science
It seems similar to someone writing a novel about "computers" 30 years ago, with a computer named "Deep Thought", just to have a real company shamelessly create a real "computer" also named "Deep Thought". I mean, that would just be terrible and ruin the value of the original work...
I love the humor of Phillip K. Dick, I mean, come on, he even named his daughter Isa Dick.
"Commerce is our goal here at Google ..."
(1) the term android, "automaton resembling a human being," was first used in 1727, and was then popularized in the 1950s by science fiction writers. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was published by (the truly visionary) author Philip K. Dick in 1968.
(2) the word "nexus," was first shown to be used in the 1600s and was subsequently used by Philip K Dick in his book (and subsequent movie, "Blade Runner") but was not used by the estate for any product or service.
(3) this is an homage to the visionary author; while the Estate needs to ensure that they protect their IP interests, this current issue is not one requiring protection.
(4) Google does have to file for a registered trademark however because they are selling a product / service that requires trademark protection (very different from the copyright protection afforded Philip K Dick's works).
The bottom line (my opinion) is that Philip K Dick's estate should say "thank you for the homage" and move on; Google should formally acknowledge the homage and move on as well; nobody is likely to affect change through the court system on this.
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
This is really stupid. If anything, it might renew interest in a relatively obscure (for younger people) book. Now, it will just result in backlash as people will refuse to buy anything from Dick now.
Please don't refrain from reading PKD's works because his estate are greedy morons. PKD was a remarkable author, one of the best in his field in the 20th century, and maybe not just in his field. There is a tremendous amount of depth in his novels, as well as a steady stream of brilllliant ideas (which explains why so many movies have been made from them).
If you must punish the estate, borrow his books or buy them used. They are really worth reading.
That's how I looked at it....
Additionally, something doesn't sit quite right with me when a dead person's "estate" files these claims, either. I mean, yes, legally-speaking, they're entitled - but I'm not always confident that other family members are really fully-qualified to speak for the dead person in question. Would Philip K. Dick himself have been upset or annoyed that the new phone from Google referenced his novel? Who knows? But his family has a vested interest in pretending he would have been, since they stand to profit financially from it.
I honestly didnt make the connection till now. There would be a valid point if it was named the Nexus-6 but not Nexus One.
... Google didn't incorporate the four year life into the phone's design.
Have gnu, will travel.
Actually, Sosumi is just one of the alert sounds, not the startup chime. Here's the true story behind the sound's funny name: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/24/early_apple_sound_de.html
-- thinkyhead software and media
They can also sue Blizzard for using Nexus in Starcraft.
Digilent, Inc. sued over their "Nexys2" FPGA trainer.
She needs to figure out that her surname doesn't have to dictate her personality or behavior.
Cell phone makers are using robotic names, and even imagery, for yet another brick with a display. It's getting late for that. Robotics is moving along rapidly now, and there are humanoid "androids" and worker "droids" in small-scale production.
These aren't one-off prototypes. The Kokoro Actroid Der2 is being used by Sanrio, the company behind Hello Kitty and other cuteness. Willow Robotics' mobile utility robot is just now going into small scale production. A few years from now, robotic names for mere cell phones will sound stupid.
(A previous dumb step in that direction was "MicroPhone", a misnamed Macintosh modem program distributed before the Mac had much audio capability.)
They've had to license "Droid" from LucasFilms. Seriously - it's noted in the fine print of every Droid ad I've seen.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
So if there's no MENTION in his work of Nexus 1 relating to REPLICANTS (not Androids... he doesn't use that term either, IIRC)
The title of the book is "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"...
Replicants came from the film version.
...but that's not the point. Giving authors and their estates that sort of control over every name or term used in a book would only stifle creativity and create a world with no usable cultural heritage.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
IANAL, but trademarks were introduced to prevent use of another company's (popular) branding to promote an unrelated entity. For example, if I named my sandwich shop "sub way" (rather than subway), it would be reasonable to say that consumers would be misled into believing that I had some affiliation with Subway, and at the least would be using the name they have popularized for my own purposes.
Trademarks do not necessarily have to be registered, but they do have to be defended in order to remain valid (and they are the only form on intellectual property for which this is the case). Even if it could be argued that Nexus-6 was legally a trademark (in the US it would have had to have been used in commerce), the PKD estate's failure to defend the mark from dilution every time someone names something a "nexus" (a hotel in Seattle, NEXUS cards, a corporation) essentially removes any rights to the mark they may have had.
Either way, I don't think that Google's name recognition is elevated by a reference which the general public would find obscure. Convince me that Google's market is restricted to PKD readers, and maybe I'll change my mind on that part. But, IANAL.
As for copyright, I don't think that this would hold any water whatsoever. From the USCO: "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans" are not viable for copyright protection.
Seems like most of the comments are on Google's side, but this is a legal matter, not a "this is stupid and they're dumb" matter.
Actually, I put the word combination 'nexus one' in the public domain. A while ago, I wrote every two word combination made from popular two words.
http://www.roberthovden.com/millionmonkeys
Google presumably copied my work which is in the public domain.
That's what I get for editing poorly...... (I'm a big PKD fan.... but not necessarily a fan of his kids after this... heh.) The book took an entirely different approach and was entertaining as sci-fi novels go... most people who read the book after seeing the movie were understandably lost... what with Mercerism and the numerous Rachels floating about... heh.)
I forget where it was mentioned, but Ridley Scott (probably in the commentary) told us why he didn't use Android.... for the life of me, I can't remember why...
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
This is sheer stupidity on the side of the PKD estate. If they would just shut up, they might be contacted by Google for some neat comarketing thing. But noooo.
Perhaps the Nexus One is inspired not by PKD but by the science of nexialism from General Semantics as explained by A. E. Van Vogt.
link 1 link 2
Here's a question. The Electric Sheep Screensaver is a distributed fractal movie calculation engine which is pretty cool and the name comes from PKD's title "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (the alternate title of Bladerunner IIRC). So if they tried to make money at it would the esteemed, stupid estate try to sue them too? If a literary work produces strong memes that become part of mainstream culture, which seems to be one of the goals of a writer in general, then is it ethical for the writer to try to control how people use that meme?
My impression (without reading TFA) is the estate wants a judicial finding that Google is trying to associate their product with a work of PKD's and reap some extra cash through that association. The association might be true but the reference is so obscure, and Google makes no attempt to mention PKD. The word used of itself is still in the realm of mainstream language and there are many other science fiction (and other) usages of "android" and "nexus". The estate hears everything through a filter of being a PKD expert but it is not conclusive that Google was taking advantage of them.
Next question: If the branding person at Google admits the android and nexus names were homages to PKD, then is the estate justified in suing? This is the main legal question. Unless Google tries to leverage it by use of additional imagery or text from PKD works, such that the use of the name is not an homage but a hook into the creative asset of the estate, I think not. But I'm not a lawyer. I think Google could get away with it if they stop picking PKD words to use as product names in the future.
As for the screensaver, I have no idea what the answer is. It's free but what about T-shirts? (the ones they sell don't say "electric sheep").
Actually it is neat that they call individual fractals "sheep" too. At this point I think we are talking about the culture taking possession of a meme and the original author is no longer involved with it. (i.e. you could make a t-shirt that says "Get Sheep" on it, I'd expect).
they dont own the word android or the word nexus.
i don't care if P. K. Dick did write some excellent SF stories, his estate are just another bunch scumbags trying to own the language.
copyright over a story - or any other work - does NOT give rights to anything and everything even vaguely related to that work.
My full editorial on the choice of name at:
http://oceanpark.com/blog/2010/01/the-google-phone/
I don't understand where this droid rage comes from.
Uh, Walt Disney happens to be dead too (or at least frozen)
Shouldn't Mickey Mouse be PD as well...?
...thinks "troll" mods are for posts they disagree with. If someone can clearly explain to me how I was trolling Wonko, I'll happily apologize, but I don't see a single thing in that post that's anything other than an opposing viewpoint to what he said.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
His family should be honored that a company as big as google decided to make a reference to one of their father/grandfather's books in the name of their flagship product. I mean this is ridiculous that the copyright machine representing the family would be trying to do this.
So what, now every time someone makes references to a character in a novel they can be sued.
Thirty Seconds to Mars has a song called Stranger In a Strange Land and I haven't seen the Heinlein foundation get upset over them using a trademarked (its the book's actual title) phrase.
Cmon, what these Sci-Fi writers really wanted was to make a lasting impression on the world and the foundations representing their estates should be more interested in that rather than just trying to make money on every little reference made.
His daughter Isa Dick!