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.'"
Give me free money!
The same name can be held as a trademark by different entities if the usages don't conflict.
I see no problem here.
It's still a homage. Not having a trademark on the name of a consumer electronics device is just plain stupid, business-wise. I don't think that sales of the book will be harmed by this, nor do I expect that there will be any confusion over which is which. In a good society with good laws there's no way the Dick estate would be able to get a dime or force any change based on this. Nobody asks for permission from Karel apek or his estate before calling something a robot, even though it's a clear reference, and I don't see why this should be any different.
The case of Droid is very different in that there really was an existing trademark and, though it would likely be legal use the name in another field, it's always (legally) safer to get permission.
I want my Cowboyneal
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.
Philip Dick has been dead for more than 20 years, time for his family to stop parasitizing on his success.
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 don't see the problem. There is no trademark by the Dick estate. There is no copyright or trademark infringement by Google even if Nexus One had been trademarked. And it cheeses off little people such as yourself and the parasites feeding off of the Dick estate. There's no downside.
It depends on what they registered the trademark for. You don't register a trademark and then it's good for everything. You have to select usages and the more you pick the more it costs.
Philip K Dick did not invent the term Android or even Nexus. The name Nexus One may be a nod towards Nexus 6 but they aren't the same and one is for a mobile phone and one is a fictional character.
I don't side with them because for starters its not the creator that's complaining. It's his lecherous kids who are just being greedy. They see the Android platform taking off, they're used to getting money for doing nothing (thanks to daddy) so they think they're owed a piece of Google's business.
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 not sure the estate has shot itself in the foot. If people didn't already know the book they wouldn't have known the reference, so it wouldn't have renewed interest in the book. Now they are much more likely to become aware of the book, and the extra publicity is likely to far outweigh any boycott. If (as seems likely to me, but IANAL) the estate has no legal ground, who cares? This wasn't necessarily about winning the case.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I suspect this may be about generating publicity for the novel. Sort of a 'reverse Streisand effect' - draw attention to what you want to promote by threatening legal action. Yes, it risks backlash, but it also generates a lot more media coverage than 'positive publicity' would. I mean, do you think /. would have posted a story called "Dick estate says honored to be recognized by Google"? Slashdot *might* have, but I bet *this* story (about a threatened lawsuit) gets to CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, NYT, Wa. Post, etc, and I'm sure that even *if* the other news outlets gave any coverage to a 'positive publicity' story at all, it would be buried in a very minor blurb or headline scroller at the bottom of the TV newscast, where it wouldn't have gotten much attention from hardly anyone.
Because of this story, a lot more people will know that Google named their phone after a character in that novel, and some of them may get curious and decide to buy a copy (or at least inquire at their public library, who might need to buy additional copies to deal with a sudden increase in people trying to check out that novel [or to replace lost or stolen copies]).
But a novels and phones are entirely different product categories. Therefore, no confusion is possible, and the novel and the phone can co-exist even if both are trademarks.
Furthermore, Nexus One and Nexus-6 are distinct. You don't get the trademark for one just because you have the trademark for the other.
However registered trademarks trump unregistered trademarks every time.
Plus there is no common market here, so there is no infringement. It's certainly not copyright infringement either.
What the hell ever happened to plain old flattery? Why does everything have to be an insult and a grievance? It's an obvious homage to Dick's work, why not accept it as such?
People are way too money hungry and lawsuit-happy these days, it's pathetic.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller