Hold on to your positronic caps, readers. It seems our little green
robo-friend may be in for a little bit of legal trouble. Erich Specht has sued Google and seemingly every company that has ever thought about using its mobile OS (like T-Mobile, Vodafone, Intel, Motorola, Samsung, and lots more) for infringing use of the name "Android." He's the owner of the trademark for Android Data Corporation, granted way back in October of 2002. Google came around and filed a trademark application for Android five years later and, wait for it, had that trademark application denied due to confusion with Mr. Specht's. In other words, it looks like Google and its
Open Handset Alliance cronies are on the defensive and, seemingly, not on particularly firm ground. Specht wants damages and a name-change for Google's OS, and as of now we wouldn't be surprised if he got at least one of his wishes.
posted May 1st 2009 8:57AM
Awesome. I am usually against law suits. But its time someone start winning battles against the giant! Down with Google!
They'll settle...
Though I don't know why they were so persistent with "Android". It was an ugly name... but then it's not the sweetest looking OS (that would be webOS).
Either they change the name or they send big bags of cash - aka out of court settlement.
Android is OK but by no means so cool that you really have to go by it. I bet Google could come up with a better name.
the guy's a total douche for sueing. They should change the name.
Carey S. Turner, you should still be against lawsuits. From the last office action from the Trademark Office:
"[Google] argues that no likelihood of confusion exists because the registrant is no longer using the mark as evidenced by their lack of presence currently on the Internet. Furthermore, the applicant has provided documents showing that the registrant’s corporate entity was involuntarily dissolved in May, 2004."
A trademark is not like a patent or copyright; trademarks are only enforceable if the owner uses it (or has a good excuse for not using it). The Specht's look like they recently restarted use of their mark, but is it a bona fide use or to help their lawsuit?
@bioadam,
then why was their trademark application denied?
Have you ever worked with the USPTO? Those people are over worked and under paid...they make mistakes. Trust me, I've filed several trademark apps in my day and not every examiner is created equal.
It sounds to me like the USPTO made a mistake and Google knows it. They went ahead with the use fully expecting this dude would sue...and now they are expecting to win on the merits or pay a small fee. It was a business decision made by Google after they received a bad determination from the USPTO. This strategy is very common...nobody should be surprised by this.
android is a trademark? just like monster? this is lame android is a word for a humanoid robot. it's not like pepsi. you cant copy that, but android? heck, why not make a company robot inc and sue every robotics company?? or internet corp or computer ltd? that guy is an asshole he didnt invent the word android, sure as hell he's not trademarking it
@feraligatr8: That guy has a genuine interest in protecting his business name from trademark infringement. Why should he have to change his business name when he filed it legally and did 6 years before android was even thought of. Think before you speak.
@kangbp.nyc: Dont be bitter because the fellow caught Google with their pants down, he's totally within his right. Google was just trying to see if they could get away with it, knowing full well it wasnt legal. Just because its a word that everyone uses doesnt mean you cant protect it, take Apple for example, im no genius but i dont Steve Jobs created that word.
@SDAlpha1510
oh, so i'm guess u werent also outraged when trump was trying to trademark "you're fired"
you just cant trademark any word in the dictionary and say it's mine. "ipod" is a trademark, "windows" (with the s) is a trademark. coca-cola is a trademark, but not mp3 players, os, or soda. he can protect the name "android data corporation" or variations of that name but not the name android itself. heck if they could apple should go after all the apple producers in the world for commercializing on its trademark and having picture of the fruit on every box
@kangbp.nyc: You obviously don't understand trademarks, they're to protect against competitors. Your Apple example just doesn't work, because they aren't competing against apple producers. Now if I was to create a software company called Apple, don't they deserve protection against me? Oh, and Apple is a registered trademark.
I hope google metaphorically smashes his face in. Why do people always have to sue?
All you "Google should crush him" people need to RTFA!
Google was denied the Android trademark specifically BECAUSE it might be confused with "Android Data". They went ahead with the name anyways. If the guy has the lawyerin' chops, I'd say take them to court, but at the very least this will probably end up as a hefty settlement in his favour. More power to him.
Also, for those saying "has he been living under a rock all this time?" get your heads out of your collective asses. I know plenty of people who have heard of the "Google" phone, but have no idea the OS is called Android. In fact, I'm guessing at least 90% of the population doesn't know the name of the Google phone OS.
it's the US....
In this case it appears that he is suing to defend his trademark. And I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that he MUST defend his trademark or risk losing it.
If the facts are as they are represented here, Google should have come up with another name. Like "Servo" or something.
Youre probably, right I just dont like the suing culture. I hope hes doing it because he has to
I agree, the guy is a douche. You can't sue for trademark infringement when the company name you trademarked hasn't been operating in years. Not to mention this smells too much like looking for free money.
It's all fun and games until Brent Spiner sues Erich Specht.
Or descendants of Albertus Magnus, who came up with the term in 1270s...
This, also, was my first thought. TNG aired way before 2002, and that is only one example of prior usage (without trademark protection) of a term that almost certainly goes back way further in the science fiction literature.
Further research shows that the term originated in literature in L'Ève future in 1886, but was in patents (not patentED, but appeared in patents) as early as 1863. Yes folks, DURING THE CIVIL WAR "android" was considered a commonplace enough term to use as a descriptor in approved patents. Not just crappy discarded ones, but approved ones, and this was back when patent approval actually meant something. But this guy thinks he has some right to the word. Trademark != Patent, but because of the history of the term this word should be considered untrademarkable (though IANAL).
I hope Google smashes this poser into pulp so hard that it gives others pause when considering other such idiotic ideas.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/01/google-and-dozens-of-android-purveyors-slapped-with-trademark-la/comments/18614462/
was my reply - don't know why it didn't get stuck to yours.
Let's call it Borg and be done with it.
From another site: "Specht is seeking $94 million from Google (and all the other members of the Open Handset Alliance) for infringing on the Android name"
Pocket change to Google, but they were still pretty dumb to keep using the name after it was first rejected. Either they were too cocky with their appeals or they just don't care about the odd hundred million or so.
I remember Apple doing the same thing with the iPhone, which was a trademark or copywright of Linksys/Cisco.
The difference being that Apple and Cisco worked out their differences without a lawsuit. Also, it's a little different because iPhone is Phone with an i slapped on the front, something Apple has been doing since 1997. I don't think a lawsuit over the iPhone mark would have been as clear cut as this one seems to be.
I am confused about this 94 million dollars. I don't know the law too well. Using rational thinking, the person suing should only be able to sue for money he is losing. Google using the word 'Android' isn't taking anything away from his business is it? He doesn't even have the trademark for 'Android', only "Android Data". If a word is in the webster dictionary, it shouldn't be allowed to be trademarked.
There's a difference between the use of names, android is a normal pre-existing word, so to trademark it you need to specify a field, if you name a company android and protect that it's protected from other companies using that name for their company, however an OS's name is not a company, so you can still call the OS android without infringing.
On that basis they would lose any suit and would lose the money they paid the lawyers too
Good job, apply for a bailout now fellows.
@Josh
It's to prevent confusion in the marketplace.
Like...if a new software company sprang up that made an office suite, and they decided to call themselves Microsoftware.
Or a new company comes out with an MP3 player, and calls themselves Apple Computer Products, Inc.
Overall, still kind of silly, since there is very little chance the two would be confiused, and there is also the fact that Android is a somewhat ambigious term....but so is apple, and the colors brown and magenta :-)
Engadget keeps eating my posts, so sorry if this appears multiple (four?) times now...
Having a trademark has nothing to do with it being a company name or a product name. A trademark is an indicator of source. If I buy a Coke, I know where it came from, i.e., the Coca-Cola company. If I buy Kleenex tissues, I know where they came from Kimberely-Clark, etc.
Specht is saying '"Android" in the computer world indicates this product, Google's Android OS, came from me - and it doesn't. People might be confused by this'
How common a word is has nothing to do with whether it can be trademarked UNLESS you are trying to trademark it for something it describes. I can't get a trademark on Copier brand photocopiers. Xerox could get a trademark on Xerox brand copiers because "Xerox" didn't make people think of copiers generally when they applied. Same with "Apple Computers" - no one associated "Apple" with "computers."
The one case where you lose trademark rights is when something becomes a generic version of the word. For example, Xerox fought long and hard to preserve its rights by telling everyone "don't call it a Xerox" because if a word does generically describe the item or service, you lose protection since it is no longer an indicator of source. If you say "I'm going to Tivo something" and you aren't using a Tivo to do it, that's bad from a protection standpoint.
I agree with Josh, "NO trademarking of dictionary words."
I searched for "Android Data Corporation" without luck. The company probably grosses
@p-diddy
Let's see what the judge says, or the lawyers convince eachother of if there's a settlement.
I think they CAN use android as long as they don't spin off a company named android, but such cases really go with what the final ruling is, and not what you or I think is logical according to the rules.
And I guess google's lawyers are of my thinking, and this company's lawyers of yours, so all we can do is wait and see.
I've been right before on these kinds of things though :) and before the ruling was called an idiot when I stated my expectations, but who knows what'll happens here.
Oh and yes of course it matters if it's a common word or a made up word, anybody can see that.
I have a feeling there will be a settling out of court leaving Google with - relatively speaking - a few pennies less, and Eric Specht smiling from ear to ear as he gives Google the permission to use his trademark as much as it wants.
I think it's equally likely they just change the name to Google OS or something. How cool is Android? Cool, but not $94M cool.
I'm curious to know how much it would cost for Google to actually change the name, like with all the marketing and products already out there
Yet another instance of a large and powerful company ignoring something that is a standard business practice - paying attention to infringement of patents and trademarks.
Applying for, and receiving, IP rights and 'protection' is pretty even across the board - individuals, small businesses, large businesses - all have equal opportunity. I'm not sure how useful that is if protection of said IP is simply a matter of money - he who has more wins. Hmmm, that has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?
How's the word "Android" can be patented by someone? This is the Bullsh*t!
It is the same thing as one firm that wants patent "=)".
Robot, Android and etc. must be used by everyone!
Clearly a case of settle out of court for an undisclosed sum. The Android brand is far too under way for a name change at this point... will never happen, although I would applaud this guy for sticking to his guns and making them do it, which he could do. But really.. for a quiet one-hundred-million dollar payday I think he could be convinced to walk away from the suit, and his company altogether.
I can't care.
of course you can't - it has nothing to do with Microsoft.
...or Apple
Couldn't be the sheer frivolousness of this case.
your face is frivolous
Just off the prick and the world not only becomes easier but quitier.
I agree, they SHOULD metaphorically off the prick at Google who said "Screw the ruling, let's use Android anyways"
WHERE THE HELL IS MY CUPCAKE???????
It's running on the HTC Vogue. :)
It never ends does it? People only look out for themselves these days. Has Eric Specht been living under a rock? Did he just now find out that Google's open-source OS is called Android? Of course not. He sees this as an opportunity to make a quick buck. Maybe he should think about a merger with Monster Cable.
p.s. I say Google changes the name to Androyd.
You did read the part about them applying for it and being denied, right? It's their fault. Period. Also you have no idea if, or how many communications this guy made to Google about this.
If this is what it seems - a big company trying to just take a trademark from a small company, then I hope Google ends up paying this guy a lot of money. Sets a good precedent.
SyFy might take objection to that. I'm sure they've already tried to patent changing "i" to "y".