"Android" May Cost Google Millions
- Thread starter The_root_of_all_evil
- Start date
This reminds me of the Russian guy who trademarked (or maybe just tried, I'm not sure) the smiley. i.e. 
or any variants :-( :-D etc.
or any variants :-( :-D etc.
You mean this guy? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.80039] Slightly different case but I know what you mean. He was trying to troll, Specht had the case solved before Google stepped in.sm0kybac0n said:This reminds me of the Russian guy who trademarked (or maybe just tried, I'm not sure) the smiley. i.e.
Aw dammit, and I was almost done putting the finishing touchs on my latest invention, Andriod McAndroid the friendly household Android.
SUE ME FOR THAT, *****.
I'm not sure what I was trying to do there
_>
SUE ME FOR THAT, *****.
I'm not sure what I was trying to do there
_>
I recall a similar case several years ago that Apple got itself involved in for basically the same reason. They wanted to use a name that was _already_ trademarked by another company within the same business. You might recall this one.. the trademarked name was iPhone, which Cisco Systems uses as the name for their Voice over IP Phones.
For the most part people got pissed not at Apple (who had broken the law by not getting permission to use the name, and which they in fact could have gotten) but at Cisco who had actively been using the name since before Apple started to put 'i' in front of everything.
Fact of the matter is, this guy trademarked the name Android Data. Google _knew_ this guy had the name trademarked, and that he wasn't going to give it up. Rather than simply buy the name off of him, they decided to push it and take the name anyways despite being told that they could not have it.
The lawsuit is a rather large one, and yes, it is so it settles out of court because Google can not really afford to settle it in court.. because they are very likely to lose. Because they knowingly broke the law.
Another discussion could be had about how Trademark Law does not work as intended, but in this case Google broke the law, knew they broke the law, and just hoped they would get away with it.
For the most part people got pissed not at Apple (who had broken the law by not getting permission to use the name, and which they in fact could have gotten) but at Cisco who had actively been using the name since before Apple started to put 'i' in front of everything.
Fact of the matter is, this guy trademarked the name Android Data. Google _knew_ this guy had the name trademarked, and that he wasn't going to give it up. Rather than simply buy the name off of him, they decided to push it and take the name anyways despite being told that they could not have it.
The lawsuit is a rather large one, and yes, it is so it settles out of court because Google can not really afford to settle it in court.. because they are very likely to lose. Because they knowingly broke the law.
Another discussion could be had about how Trademark Law does not work as intended, but in this case Google broke the law, knew they broke the law, and just hoped they would get away with it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00001064----000-.html
Best I can tell, needs to have been 5 years, 4 years is not enough. Google appears to be hosed on this one, so I fully expect an out-of-court settlement.
To all of ye who are hating on trademarks, I hope you someday have to run a business with no trademark protection whatsoever. Best of luck.
Best I can tell, needs to have been 5 years, 4 years is not enough. Google appears to be hosed on this one, so I fully expect an out-of-court settlement.
To all of ye who are hating on trademarks, I hope you someday have to run a business with no trademark protection whatsoever. Best of luck.
This is why our patent system is a failure.
That and the fact that a guy somehow managed to put a patent on the stick.
That and the fact that a guy somehow managed to put a patent on the stick.
In a sane world, the man would have been hit with a falling satellite for naming a company "Android Data".
I'd say Google jumped the gun on this one, but in the end they should get this trademark, or at least quash the original trademark.
Given that the intent of trademark (note that it is not copyright) is to prevent an entity from benefiting from or interfering with another entity's name and reputation, Google was likely in the clear. I doubt that Google calling their platform Android was going to negatively affect Android Data, nor would Google be free-riding on Android Data's reputation. It also helps that the company was defunct. The basic rule with trademark is "use it or lose it".
Of course, the law is never that simple. The USPTO granted Android Data the trademark and specifically told Google that it wasn't available to them. The word itself isn't a name so much as a dictionary word for a type of thing. The scope of the trademark is also problematic: any usage of the word Android in a software product is covered. Clearly this is troublesome. What happens when you want to make software for an android (not TM)? Not being able to use the word "android" is going to be difficult. The scope is far too large and the word itself shouldn't even be trademarkable because of its common nature.
In the end, though, Google asked for it. They argued with the USPTO, the USPTO told them, "No," and they went ahead and did it anyway. Even with the suspension of the trademark in place, Google would be forced to give up their use of the trademark if the suspension were ever limited. They couldn't possibly be prepared to do that if they had already made wide-spread use of it.
As for the other companies involved, I'd say the man's lawyer has pulled the old "sue everybody" trick. If Google claims to have a trademark, and you use said trademark with Google's permission, but it turns out Google never had the right, you can't be expect to be held liable for their lie. Sure, these companies will have to cease using the mark immediately, but it's not their fault Google cheated.
Given that the intent of trademark (note that it is not copyright) is to prevent an entity from benefiting from or interfering with another entity's name and reputation, Google was likely in the clear. I doubt that Google calling their platform Android was going to negatively affect Android Data, nor would Google be free-riding on Android Data's reputation. It also helps that the company was defunct. The basic rule with trademark is "use it or lose it".
Of course, the law is never that simple. The USPTO granted Android Data the trademark and specifically told Google that it wasn't available to them. The word itself isn't a name so much as a dictionary word for a type of thing. The scope of the trademark is also problematic: any usage of the word Android in a software product is covered. Clearly this is troublesome. What happens when you want to make software for an android (not TM)? Not being able to use the word "android" is going to be difficult. The scope is far too large and the word itself shouldn't even be trademarkable because of its common nature.
In the end, though, Google asked for it. They argued with the USPTO, the USPTO told them, "No," and they went ahead and did it anyway. Even with the suspension of the trademark in place, Google would be forced to give up their use of the trademark if the suspension were ever limited. They couldn't possibly be prepared to do that if they had already made wide-spread use of it.
As for the other companies involved, I'd say the man's lawyer has pulled the old "sue everybody" trick. If Google claims to have a trademark, and you use said trademark with Google's permission, but it turns out Google never had the right, you can't be expect to be held liable for their lie. Sure, these companies will have to cease using the mark immediately, but it's not their fault Google cheated.
Wow, we seem to be ridiculously violent towards anyone who trademarks something, and then only uses it to sue people.
That doesn't seem to be very strange to me...
I'll get the torches and pitchforks!
But now in actual relation to this, I sort of agree with The_root_of_all_evil a few posts back, this is the patent office, they are pretty stupid when it comes to patent law in the states.
Although if the company had dissolved, shouldn't the copyright have dissolved too? I don't study law, but that seems logical to me.
That doesn't seem to be very strange to me...
I'll get the torches and pitchforks!
But now in actual relation to this, I sort of agree with The_root_of_all_evil a few posts back, this is the patent office, they are pretty stupid when it comes to patent law in the states.
Although if the company had dissolved, shouldn't the copyright have dissolved too? I don't study law, but that seems logical to me.
J.R.R. Tolkien should come back from the dead and sue anyone who's used 'elf', 'dwarf' or 'orc' in their books/shows/games/movies. He would be rich in no time flat!Internet Kraken said:
But I know that this is a different case, Google and the other 47 companies should have checked before they did anything about it. Doesn't change the fact that this Sprecht guy is a complete wanker.
Yeah him. It seems that people will do anything for a bit of moneyThe_root_of_all_evil said:You mean this guy? [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.80039] Slightly different case but I know what you mean. He was trying to troll, Specht had the case solved before Google stepped in.sm0kybac0n said:This reminds me of the Russian guy who trademarked (or maybe just tried, I'm not sure) the smiley. i.e.