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!
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.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/android
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'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 ?
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.
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
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!
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.
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]).
Why produce something new youeself when you can extort from those who are?
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
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.
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.