The name “Android” is at the very core of Google’s mobile initiative. It’s even successfully gotten people to move away from calling the devices “Google Phones” or “GPhones,” something which seemed impossible prior to the unveiling. But Google may be in serious trouble of losing that name — or at least having to pay a hell of a lot of money to keep it.
Erich Specht, a man who runs a small Midwestern data company, applied for and was granted a trademark on the Android name in 2002, according to Forbes. Google? Well, it tried to trademark the name in 2007, shortly before its massive Android PR blitz — but it was rejected a few months later. Still, Google pushed forward with trying to gain legal rights over the name, but its appeals were again and again rejected, and its trademark application was apparently suspended last November.
So what does that mean? Well, Specht is seeking $94 million from Google (and all the other members of the Open Handset Alliance) for infringing on the Android name. He’ll be in court next week, and Google will have 60 days to respond to him. Given Google’s rejections by the Patent and Trademark Office, this things seems to reek of a high-priced settlement, in which Google gets to keep using the name while paying Specht something substantially less than the $94 million. But, it’s not quite that cut and dry.
You see, Specht actually owns the trademark on the name “Android Data” rather than just “Android.” But in the filing, it apparently describes “data” as merely a descriptive word, something which Specht’s lawyer is obviously playing up. In the past, Google tried to play the card Specht didn’t really care about the name and dissolved the company at one point, but that didn’t work. Still, if it can prove that people will clearly know the difference between the Android mobile software and Specht’s small company, Google may have a shot to get the case thrown out.
Something else to think about: Maybe Google is actually lucky that there aren’t as many Android phones on the market right now as it may have liked. It could save them a pretty penny if it does come to a settlement.
But regardless, just as it’s trying to ramp up the Android platform with dozens of new devices on the way, and a new 1.5 Android software update just out the door, Google cannot be happy about having to deal with this right now. And actually, this is all a bit like deja vu. If you recall in 2007, right after it unveiled the iPhone, Apple was greeted with a lawsuit from Cisco, which owned the rights to the name. The two sides quickly settled — but those were two big companies, not one big company and a little guy.
Remember Google, don’t be evil.
googowned
A deal with Google would have been more profitable. He might get tough internet love, too. And he’s definitely going to get a lot of email from fanbois and people who oppose the three Intentionally Perverted Rights of corporate sinners –
Copyright, Trademark, and Patents
(misuse of law makes for sin, not the law.)
And what about Droid Software? Or just Droid?
What about when the real Droids from the engineering giants come around?
He’s going to sue them? Now if someone’s trademarked “Droid” right away, and if this guy wins the suit, he sets the precedent for small people to create big trouble over nothing just like patent trolls do.
The heavy machine companies aren’t going to be as mild as Google probably is.
And the risk of public humiliation if he loses the case based on his “Data”.
FAIL. LOSE-LOSE.
instead of succimbing to speculators, google should rename android to “Marvin, the paranoid android”. i never liked ‘android’ anyways
Succimbing – you should trademark that, before google gets it
Haha Paranoid Android, great song
I’d say, no: Google should not be paranoid.
Google cannot be happy about having to deal with this right now. << LOL
And what’s the field the other Android plays? Data of what? Or what’s their businnes? I guess this is clear way to tell the diference.
Google should have came up with something that is unique instead of going with something such as android in the first place.
Google failed in its due diligence to check for possible trademark infringement prior to announcing Android. Now they’re trying to (legally) strong arm the little man.
Granted, the little man is about to become a rich, little man. It’s the principle though. Once you IPO, feel-good, warm fuzzy mantras take a back seat. It’s the nature of the game.
Word.
Due diligence only if same trademark.
“Android Data” != “Android”
Can Naveen Jain of Intellius sue Intel?
Can Apple sue Powerset? (PowerPC)
Can IBM sue about 10 companies for using “DB” from DB2? Or the other way?
“Inside” cannot be used by anyone in their trademark or business slogan because of “Intel Inside”?
What crap!
thanks to share this information with us
That’s ridiculous.
In any case, I don’t think Google should be allowed to trademark the “Android” name, as the word itself implies a mobile computing/robotics entity, and the Google Android is just that, or could become that.
the word literally means ’something that looks like a man’ – has nothing to do with computers
The definition I get is:
“an automaton in the form of a human being.”
The above definitely implies robotics and therefore computing.
I wasn’t aware of the Trademark history (i.e. that there was an issue) until now. And I don’t mean to sound snarky, but this just seems phenomenally stupid on Google’s part. Unless I’m missing something key, which is admittedly likely….
“Still, it if can prove…”
“if it,” not “it if.”
Do proofread.
Good article, though. Google will win in the end, which is a shame. I remember that Grotto’s killed off a local family restaurant (also named Grotto’s) around me because of name infringement; the funny thing was that the local Grotto’s has been around for literally centuries. Poor guys. This will probably work much the same.
Google always wins. They have the best legal team money can buy, and the smartest too. They are the best company in the world. no recession. keep buying stocks http://iamned.com/blog/
Android is a terrible domain for mobile. Let it go.
Googl’s mobile branding looks like a yardsale.
G1, Android, Mylocation, googl-latitude. is this what they call organizing the worlds mobile information?.
They need to be paranoid about startups like mine.
KillerLocator.com – easy prey
Much as I hate the locator spammer bastards, they have a point here.
Android sucks as a consumer brand, and eventually G-phones will have to find a few non-nerd customers to make the effort profitable.
Meanwhile, Google is a generally respected brand. Who, other than expense account-padding marketing folks, cares if Android is lost to some scifi-loving mid-westerner who happens to know a good litigator or two?
SpamLocator.com – locate bullshite spammer BOT.
Lol out loud my ass off
Nothing more ridiculous than locator.com giving advice on branding.
Locator = dumbest shit ever = deadpool of eternal nature
I believe that you want to use the term “trademark” in the sentence below. This is not a patent application unless I missed something.
“But in the patent filing, it apparently describes…”
Good luck Marvin the paranoid android.
How can research into the name itself not turn up patents or trademarks? Big G Legal surely must have passed this application as a go and if it did it must have been in the realms of “Android” isn`t but “Android Data” is so carry on good fellows.
Either way i am sure Google will overcome and Specht will be suitably reinbursed?
the innovator becomes the litigator, ironic in an Alanis Morrisette way
Caution, that chick has been known to flash a monster box.
complete bollocks. if someone sues for a name infringement they should only get what the name is worth to THEIR company. basically if i patented “Apple” and then waited till later there was an Apple company and then sued them for name infringement, i would only get what the name apple is worth to my company, which is absolutely nothing cause i never did anything with the name.
you get my drift?
I disagree apple and other words used in the English language everyday should not have a trademark at all.
Yes they should.
You clearly don’t understand what Trademarks are for. Brand identity is necessary to limit confusion and protect a company’s trade. If words couldn’t be trademarked for particular industries, we’d have nothing but entirely new jumbles of text or numbers to identify brands & products, which would be annoying.
Android is a PERFECT name. Google knew what they were doing. It’s worth it to pay out some cash for a lawsuit and get to keep the name. The name “Android” represents powerful computing, invokes an entity that serves its master, and is playful (as in their little robot/android dude).
no no no. i’m talking about principle, not specifics
trademarking is necessary for building a brand. if anyone could make an “apple” computer, than anyone can make a “wal-mart” or “target”. there’s no designation as to what constitutes a regular everyday word.
so what my method solves is the ambiguity that exists on who holds what trademarks. basically if you’ve never heard of this company it’s probably okay to build your brand around it, because if you go big and they sue, they’ve never been heard of and you settle for cheap.
if they’re already BIG then you would have heard of them. no one’s going to go out and start a new wal-mart or target cause very little research and you’ll see it’s taken.
the method merely protects against obscurity and basically malicious lawsuits later on that are basically just bullshit “get some, girlfriend” pith
It would be nice if Google trademark the name.
I think it’s a blessing in disguise. The name Android severely limits its market to people who can speak Klingon (geeks). If you want broad market appeal to women and the rest of the world, get rid of that stupid name.
Good luck to android data.
David vs goliath!
we and our platform are fighting against t -mobile currently
As they use similar colours.
Android sounds childish, unsophisticated as a brand — use a new name — Gphone
I came across this latest update on http://www.sear...l-maybe-ant.php
As a Local Search practitioner, I’m a big fan of Google Maps and the brilliant technology behind it. I interact with Maps daily and am always excited when they roll out some new tool or application that makes their index of information about local businesses more thorough or useful. But seeing Google Maps’ newest offering, Street View, didn’t make me feel excited. It made me feel…ticked.
“If I can’t roam around the Googleplex with a camera taking 360 degree photos of anything I want, what gives Google the right to photograph my whole yard, my house, my windows and doors?” my thoughts went along heatedly. “They expect people to respect their privacy at the Plex. What about the privacy of American citizens?”
So, I blogged about it on my blog and heard from quite a lot of people I’ve never heard from before who felt I was being that unforgivable thing…emotional. Actually, I really valued their comments as a gauge of public sentiment and an initiation to the arguments that have only just begun regarding whether trespass has to involve walking onto private land, or whether, in the modern age, we have the ability to commit illegal trespass with our gadgets. The courts will have to decide this as the lawsuits mount up.
Barring the cases that are cropping up in which Google’s Street View drivers went down private driveways and through people’s gates in order to photograph homes, it’s my understanding of current U.S. laws that it’s not illegal to drive down a street taking photos. It’s not even illegal to take photographs of people without their knowledge or consent (think about the media’s relationship with celebrities).
What Is That Word I’m Thinking Of?
So, if Street View isn’t illegal, what is it that is causing such public outcry against this detailed documentation of homes, land and people? I think the word I’ve been looking for is antisocial.
Good social behavior is what prevents many people from swearing in public, spitting on sidewalks or evangelizing religions to unwilling subjects. None of these activities are illegal – they’re antisocial. Good social behavior is the glue of ‘niceness’ that holds society together and makes daily life a little easier for all of us. Antisocial behavior causes discomfort and embarrassment in others, and it’s why ‘nice’ people try to avoid it. Taking photographs of people and their private property without permission is simply very bad manners. As silly as it sounds, Google is being boorish.
My friend, Pierre Farr, exhibited much better manners when he had the opportunity to speak with a Google Street View driver a couple of weeks ago.
‘So I watched as the car reached the end, did a U-turn and drove back out again. However, as it got close to me, the car pulled up into an empty parking spot and the driver came out. He shouted at me saying “I know you want to take pictures but I don’t want to be in them.” I obliged.’
Pierre kindly respected the driver’s (rather ironic) wish not to be photographed, but Google is failing to act with like consideration for the public. Illegal or not, Street View is offending many of Google’s neighbors, and as heavily invested as Google is in Local Search now, stepping on local people’s toes isn’t what I’d call a winning move.
What You Can Do
If Street View’s documentation of your private home or person is striking you as a social blunder on their part, there are some steps you can take in an effort to inform them of their faux pas.
1) Find your home address in Google Maps
2) Click the Street View option
3) Click the Report Inappropriate Image option
This will bring up a form you can fill out, explaining your objections and requesting that the objectionable image be removed from their index.
One of my friends at Google, a gentlemen whom I really respect, graciously pointed me to this video detailing the request for removal process.
And that’s the thing about Google that keeps me rooting for them, even when I get ticked. They’ve got such pleasant people working for them. They invent such fantastic, amazing applications. They set standards and raise bars.
But they are only human, after all, and we all make mistakes. I see the form they’ve provided as a way to let Google know if you think they’ve been boorish. Remember – their business is dependent on your approval as a member of the public. New technology is going to necessitate the creation of new definitions, new laws and new rules of etiquette. Let’s keep the dialog going.
Interesting!
They’re not going to give up the name Android. They’re also not going to give this guy $94M. I personally think the “his company went involuntarily insolvent 5 years ago and now he’s suing?” argument is a fairly strong one in court at this point in time. Also, even assuming he was still using the name, “damages” to a tiny local company is not even close to what he’s asking.
IANAL, but the guy doesn’t really have that strong of a legal footing from my point of view, honestly, so while they probably will settle, it will be for a pittance.
I would agree with the last statement in this article, “Remember Google, don’t be evil” but the guy is asking for 94 million. What would ask for if he wasn’t dealing with Google. I say, Yes Google please drain his company dry.
I can’t stand Google but I do hope they crush this guy, He hasn’t even got a website ffs.
I feel Google should change the name. I never though Android was such a great name. They should use the name “gMobile”, if it’s available
I guess this is clear way to tell the diference.
My friend, Pierre Farr, exhibited much better manners when he had the opportunity to speak with a Google Street View driver a couple of weeks ago.