Not to mention the fact that, if you make something yourself, you can
broadcast over a wider band and not have to guess what station to
block. Of course, this is probably against the law. The iTrip itself
may be ok, however, but not if you're in the UK. According to the BBC,
the iTrip is deemed to be illegal in the UK because "using it
is akin to setting up your own pirate radio station." At least
according to that BBC article, there is no restriction on the use of the
iTrip in the USA.
Given the things that are (successfully) sued over in the US, this may not be that outlandish. First of all, "the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods" (cyber.law.harvard.edu). Google is certainly using the name to make money. However, this may fail because, other than the book containing the word "googol," I don't get the impression that the Kasner family is trying to sell anything using this name. However, ever since I started using Google, I haven't been able to remember the correct spelling of googol -- so there is a case to be made for some confusion. Might one not reasonably assume some connection between the company and Kasner?
I don't know if the inclusion of the term in a book counts. According to cyber.law.harvard.edu again, "A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another." So it may not be trademark infringement -- but what about copyright? From the Copyright office, under "What is not protected by copyright?" we find "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans". My assumption would be that the made-up word would could fall through this crack. Probably depends on the quality of the lawyers.
Dictionary.com DOES suggest a connection, saying that "The site's name is apparently derived from 'googol', but note the difference in spelling." wordorigins.org also suggests that Google "is a deliberate variant of the mathematical term...They altered the spelling for trademark purposes" (not that I know how the authors at wordorigins know what Page and Brin were thinking at the time).
So. Money grubbing? Yes. Ridiculous given the things that the US system has granted copyright protection? Maybe not.
Well, IANAL as well, but have some thoughts. It has been the case that deleted files on a hard drive are sought in investigations (a quick search, for example, found an article about Enron files) and are, presumably, admissible in court. An article on Law.com specifically discusses comparison of deleted files with current versions to reveal a change history. If that is the case, then I would assume that the same applies to previous revisions included in a file that still exists, and they would be admissible.
For medium- to large-scale scientific computing, I've found that a mixture of Python and C/C++ gets me the right combination of speed and flexibility. I write the main number-crunching pieces of my code as objects in C/C++, then use SWIG to generate the wrappers necessary to interface my objects with Python. The control structures are all in Python, which is where I really want the flexibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the fact that, if you make something yourself, you can broadcast over a wider band and not have to guess what station to block. Of course, this is probably against the law. The iTrip itself may be ok, however, but not if you're in the UK. According to the BBC, the iTrip is deemed to be illegal in the UK because "using it is akin to setting up your own pirate radio station." At least according to that BBC article, there is no restriction on the use of the iTrip in the USA.
Given the things that are (successfully) sued over in the US, this may not be that outlandish. First of all, "the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods" (cyber.law.harvard.edu). Google is certainly using the name to make money. However, this may fail because, other than the book containing the word "googol," I don't get the impression that the Kasner family is trying to sell anything using this name. However, ever since I started using Google, I haven't been able to remember the correct spelling of googol -- so there is a case to be made for some confusion. Might one not reasonably assume some connection between the company and Kasner?
I don't know if the inclusion of the term in a book counts. According to cyber.law.harvard.edu again, "A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller's products and distinguish them from the products of another." So it may not be trademark infringement -- but what about copyright? From the Copyright office, under "What is not protected by copyright?" we find "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans". My assumption would be that the made-up word would could fall through this crack. Probably depends on the quality of the lawyers.
Dictionary.com DOES suggest a connection, saying that "The site's name is apparently derived from 'googol', but note the difference in spelling." wordorigins.org also suggests that Google "is a deliberate variant of the mathematical term...They altered the spelling for trademark purposes" (not that I know how the authors at wordorigins know what Page and Brin were thinking at the time).
So. Money grubbing? Yes. Ridiculous given the things that the US system has granted copyright protection? Maybe not.
And, of course, the obligatory IANAL.
Well, IANAL as well, but have some thoughts. It has been the case that deleted files on a hard drive are sought in investigations (a quick search, for example, found an article about Enron files) and are, presumably, admissible in court. An article on Law.com specifically discusses comparison of deleted files with current versions to reveal a change history. If that is the case, then I would assume that the same applies to previous revisions included in a file that still exists, and they would be admissible.
For medium- to large-scale scientific computing, I've found that a mixture of Python and C/C++ gets me the right combination of speed and flexibility. I write the main number-crunching pieces of my code as objects in C/C++, then use SWIG to generate the wrappers necessary to interface my objects with Python. The control structures are all in Python, which is where I really want the flexibility.