Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google to be Sued Over Name?

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue May 18, 2004 07:56 AM
from the ludicrous-lawsuits-for-everyone dept.
Businesses Google The Internet The Almighty Buck
WK writes "Now that Google's IPO is running, the company is on the verge of being sued by the family of Professor Edward Kasner who invented the word 'Googol' to describe a very big number. The great-niece of Kasner who was 4 years old at the time her uncle died says that although Google has brought attention to the name, it has not brought attention to Kasner's work. Google was not using the concepts, but just capitalizing on the name."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google to be Sued Over Name? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by microbob (29155) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @07:57AM (#9182208)
    Give me a frigging break! Had "google.com" sucked rocks you wouldn't be saying a word.

    Now that google.com is just about to IPO you come crawling out of the wood work.

    Go back home...

    -mb

    • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by savagedome (742194) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:00AM (#9182244)
      I agree completely. If google.com was a fly-by-night dot com, we would not even have known of this family's existence.

      they want to become IPO insiders to put his soul to rest.

      This statement is so repulsive that it would leave a bad taste for the rest of the day.

      • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Mr. Neutron (3115) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @09:14AM (#9183107) Homepage Journal
        I agree completely. If google.com was a fly-by-night dot com, we would not even have known of this family's existence.

        Except in just about every 6th-grade-level math book, which tell the story of how Professor Kasner asked his 9-year-old nephew to come up with a word for a one followed by one hundred zeroes.

        Not saying this lawsuit has any grounds, but the origins of "googol" are well known.

        • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by drakaan (688386) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @10:05AM (#9183686) Homepage Journal
          What really kills me is that Google has acknowledged that their name is a play on the word "googol" since they first appeared. I guess the interested parties never did a google search for Googol [google.com] (which actually brings up a link for http://www.googol.com [googol.com]...not suing *them*, are they?), or looked at the company's history [google.com] page.

          • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Jim Starx (752545) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .xratSJ.> on Tuesday May 18 2004, @10:16AM (#9183811)
            Why can you even sue over this? If it's a mathmatical concept it should be public domain. It's the equivilent of suing someone over using the word dozen. You can't trademark a quantity can you??
            • During lawsuits between Intel and AMD over the 486, the courts ruled that a number cannot be trademarked. That's why Intel's next chip was called the Pentium, not the 586. (Intel also named the later 486 chips "i486".) This is also why Google chose to NOT use the name "googol", because they wouldn't be able to trademark that.

              There's also the issue of scope. A trademark does not usually apply to everything, but to a limited area. If the areas of use are distinct and unlikely to cause confusion, the same name can be used by different companies. That's why Apple Records and Apple Computer were able to coexist (until iPod and iTunes came along -- expect some serious friction coming from these two). A search site and a number are unlikely to be confused.

              Finally there is the issue of asserting ownership. Trademarks can be lost if they are not used or enforced. The usual examples of companies on the verge of losing their trademarks due to non-enforcement are Xerox and Kleenex. The family has allowed (you might even say encouraged) the term googol to be used by the mathematics community for decades. To now assert that the word should be reserved for only "authorized" use is ridiculous.

              • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)

                by Speare (84249) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @11:26AM (#9184628) Homepage

                You can sue over anything and everything.

                While this is often repeated, it's not completely true. A judge can dismiss your suit with prejudice, and can even charge you with contempt or the crime of barratry, depending on how poorly conceived your suit is. It is therefore a crime to sue over some things.

        • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nelsonal (549144) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @10:05AM (#9183691) Journal
          Except that Google's founders will control super voting stock which makes them the ultimate "insiders". Depending on how many shares are offered, they will likely have 90% of the voting rights of the company's total offering. Most of the time, this class of stock is non dilutive, unless the owners agree to let their vote be diluted. So even if they grant 100,000,000 options a year, they keep the same percentage of control over directors, board meetings, and other strategic decisions.

    • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by TheGavster (774657) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:14AM (#9182419) Homepage
      I mean, Google's success *must* have been due to the name. I know that the relevant results and inoffensive advertising mean nothing to me in comparison to the fact that its called Google!

    • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:16AM (#9182447)
      Well I remember as a child running through the Austrian snow one January and shouting Yahooooooooooooo! So I think I'll be finding myself a bod damned lawyer and suing the asses off those Yahoo! guys. Oh, am I gonna be rich!

      Oh yeah, and you bastards from alta (la) vista should be quaking in your boots. I'm in my hummer right now.

      Ahnolt.

      • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by B'Trey (111263) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:18AM (#9182469)
        No one is denying the source of the word. However, coining a word does not mean that you control it, particularly absent a trademark.

        • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Funny)

          by kidgenius (704962) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:51AM (#9182848)
          I don't know....Microsoft has done a pretty good job at trademarking the word "Window",.... :)

          In other news, houses now come w/ "clear glass openings" to see out.

        • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by mcmonkey (96054) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @10:14AM (#9183785) Homepage
          No one is denying the source of the word.

          *raises hand* I am. And I'm not alone. Google predates googol, as was discussed in the May 9 Sunday Boston Globe, Feelin' Googly [boston.com]. Jan Freeman [boston.com] traces the life of google from 1380 to the present day. It seems more likely googol sprang from google, than other way round.

          The founders of Google admit they were inspired by googol, but as words of the english language, google predates, and most likely inspired, googol. Google should sue!

      • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Alpha27 (211269) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @09:13AM (#9183088)
        I truly feel the family has no case here. They truly sound like opportunitists trying to make money out of something they could not. To me, the word 'Googol' is nothing more than a symlink to something else. If I were to come up with 'Moogol' for 10^10, and Moogle.com made money, would I sue? No. Despite the play on words, and the inherient meaning, they used nothing else.

        Should the Amazon rainforest, or Brazil sue Amazon? No.

        Should Half the Planet sue HalfThePlanet.com for their use of the name and reference to those with disabilities? No.

        Should keyboard manfacturers sue Slashdot for using a word that describes two keys on their keyboard '/.' Well maybe, but I still say no.

        As for not bringing attention to Kesner's work, the attention is in the name and meaning, and it's referenced on the corporate page
        http://www.google.com/corporate/index.html

        What more does the family want? Money. Isn't there a timeframe also when the word becomes public domain?

        • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Mattygfunk1 (596840) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:32AM (#9182626) Homepage
          Supposedly there's an SEC regulation that requires them to go public once they reach a certain profit level. At least, that's their excuse.

          Almost. They need to report their financials once they reach a certain level. It just makes sence that if they have to report anyway to go the whole way.

        • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by asdf 101 (703879) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:32AM (#9182631)
          The SEC regulation does not require them to go public, only to maintain their books openly in the manner of a public company.

          Given such a scenario (of being openly accountable), any company would surely consider an IPO route to raise capital from the market vs. only that headache (once again, of being accountable).

        • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by crow (16139) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:35AM (#9182667) Homepage Journal
          Nonsense. There is an SEC regulation that requires them to file reports as if they were public if they have more than a given number (500?) of shareholders and a given amount or revenue (or income? $10mil?).

          Anyway, they hit that point where they have to do the reporting work of a publicly-traded company, which meant that the added work of going public wasn't as onerous.

        • Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by arkanes (521690) <arkanes&gmail,com> on Tuesday May 18 2004, @09:08AM (#9183013) Homepage
          The name is indeed based on the word googol. Google gives credit to the inventors: I quote from the Google coporate information page:
          Google is a play on the word googol, which was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, and was popularized in the book, "Mathematics and the Imagination" by Kasner and James Newman. It refers to the number represented by the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros. Google's use of the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense, seemingly infinite amount of information available on the web.
          I agree that it's a money grab. There's not even any valid trademarks for the term "googol" by itself, the only "live" ones are all part of something else, and none are even remotely related to web searching.
  • Answer : write down a figure, then add a lot of zeros. *rimshot*

    Thank you. I'll be here all week; don't forget to tip your server. Why not try the tuna?

  • In other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @07:59AM (#9182240)
    Some dead Greek guy's relative sues MPAA over use of the word 'Pi' as a movie title.
    Roman mathematician's descendents sue Dr. Evil over the use of the word "Million"
    Parker Brothers sued over the name 'Mr. Green' in the popular "Clue" game by the guy who invented that word.

    This post brought to you by the number 3(TM), the letter P(TM) and the color yellow(TM).

  • than if I named my company "One Hundred Billion?" (raises pinky finger to corner of mouth)

    Can you get a copyright/trademark on a number?

    • You can't trademark a number (Score:5, Interesting)

      by doodlelogic (773522) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:11AM (#9182381)
      Intel found this out to their cost when clone 486 chips came out. On attempting to sue Cyrix et al, they were unable to prevent them from using the number names. Hence the move to the (trademarked) brand name "Pentium".

  • Dictionarying "Google": (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Custard (587661) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:01AM (#9182258) Homepage Journal
    Dictionarying [dictionary.com] "Google [reference.com]":

    The World-Wide Web search engine that indexes the greatest number of web pages - over two billion by December 2001 and provides a free service that searches this index in less than a second.


    The site's name is apparently derived from "googol", but note the difference in spelling.

    The "Google" spelling is also used in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, in which one of Deep Thought's designers asks, "And are you not," said Fook, leaning anxiously foward, "a greater analyst than the Googleplex Star Thinker in the Seventh Galaxy of Light and Ingenuity which can calculate the trajectory of every single dust particle throughout a five-week Dangrabad Beta sand blizzard?"
  • So instead of having her father's name attached to a hugely successful web search engine she'd rather have it attached to some lawsuit that is going to make her family look like a bunch of assholes once the media gets wind of it.

    Good one!

  • A bit greedy are we? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Penguinisto (415985) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:02AM (#9182272) Journal
    Bah! It appears to be just another relative trying to cash in on someone else's work, like the decendants of the guy who copyrighted the "happy birthday" song awhile back.

    Besides, no one has seen fit to defend the implied trademark (though registered? I'm thinking "not), so I doubt that the lawsuit gets anywhere... I suspect a couple of relatives saw Google's IPO numbers and decided to try at cashing in.

    /P

  • Gringo (Score:5, Funny)

    by turgid (580780) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:05AM (#9182304) Journal
    Maybe google should change its name to gringo? You could go to www.heygringo.com to ask a question.

    I am a gringo! [funwavs.com]

  • The nation's gone crazy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JessLeah (625838) * on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:06AM (#9182317)
    At what point are people -- rational people-- going to get together and form a coalition to bring about a bloodless coup, lift the Democrats and Republicans from office, wipe clean the slate of stupid laws and ridiculous political/legal traditions, form a new American government starting from the foundation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and finally make it so that bullshit like this is the exception rather than the norm? Good God, the nation's gone absolutely ape-shit. When's the revolution, and how can it be brought about without further bloodshed? Ridiculous lawsuits like this are just a symptom of how detached from reality the US has gotten.

    I'm good and sick of this "lawyerocracy" we have here. I'd love to see a "geekocracy".

    • Geekocracy (Score:5, Funny)

      by Chemisor (97276) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @09:18AM (#9183153) Journal
      > I'm good and sick of this "lawyerocracy" we have here. I'd love to see a "geekocracy".

      Surely, we must first point out the incalculable advantages of having a geekocracy. Our entire lives will be changed! Think of what will be different:

      • Everyone will have 10gbps broadband.
      • Knowledge of programming would be a prerequisite to high school graduation.
      • Taxes will be submitted online in handcoded XML format.
      • The legal system will be refactored to eliminate bloat, duplicate codes, and bugs, establishing the new SLS (Standard Legal System) worldwide.
      • It would be a fedral crime to stuff a geek into a locker (punishable by a year of sex deprivation)
      • Everyone would convert to the metric system.
      • The calendar would be revised to eliminate all those pesky 12 and 60 factors.
      • Everyone would start counting at 0.
      • Normal working hours will be shifted to 4pm-4am.
      • All products will be covered by GPL and would be available free of charge. If anyone wants to make money they would offer installation support, customization, or news services.
      • Pizza will become the new national food.
      • There would be endless debates on whether garbage collection is a good thing.
      • All wars will result in complete assimilation. No civilization can resist our hordes of fusion tanks and leviathans.
      • Killing monsters will become the national pastime.
      • The ruling elite would have to be periodically reelected due to their inability to reproduce. This ensures that the government stays democratic.
      • Natalie Portman will become the national symbol of hope. She will host the annual celebration of the national hot grits day.
      • It will be a basic human right to disassemble stuff.
      • Shorts and teeshirts will become formal attire.
      • Linus Torvalds will be the president of the world.

  • Where's parker Brothers in all this? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amichalo (132545) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:07AM (#9182327)
    You don't see Parket Brothers suing Microsoft of the word "Monopoly".

    But seriously, our society is WAY WAY WAY too litigious and opportunistic for anyone's good. On what grounds based in reality does the family of the man who invented the word "Googol" have to the Internet search engine company?

    Google even has it's own dictionary entry - two actually, V and N

  • Original article has more information... (Score:5, Informative)

    by macshune (628296) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:08AM (#9182340) Journal
    According to the original article in the Baltimore Sun [baltimoresun.com], the family hasn't decided to sue yet. They probably know that they don't really have a case. 'sides, all they want is to be insiders for the IPO, atm, not get zillions in punitive damages or trademark-violation damages. Of course, this could all change if they don't get the chance to be insiders for the IPO.

    So no, this doesn't really seem like a case of folks suing google 'cause they are violating the common-law trademark rights of the 4-year old who came up with "googol"...yet.

  • Kleenex is the answer... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jonny Royale (62364) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:10AM (#9182373) Homepage Journal
    First question: Is the word Googol trademarked?

    Second:
    Years ago, Coca-Cola lost the second half of its name to the public domain, when a judge ruled that "Cola" had become a generic term for referring to soft drinks. Similarly, "Aspirin" started as a brand name and wound up as the generic name for the drug. This is why the makers of "Kleenex" brand facial tissues bother with the "brand facial tissues" part, because there MUST be a viable generic term for a defendable brand name to exist.

    -Motley fool web site

    There's several rulings about names that ARE trademarked "falling" into public domain, and it's basically, you're a victim of your own success. Since the word Googol was used as a mathematical term, and has no doubt been used in numerous papers, discussions, etc., I have little belief that this suit would succeed, since the term has definitely been in the public domain for a long time.

    That being said, it would be nice if the Google folks maybe put up some of that IPO money to help kids learn math, or something....

  • That's asinine... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anita Coney (648748) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:15AM (#9182433)
    The standard for trademark is confusion in the marketplace. I.e., will consumers be confused about the similarities in the names. E.g., I could legally open an automobile repair facility called McDonalds because consumers would not confuse crappy food with having your car repaired.

    From what I gather, Kasner's family has absolutely no business from which consumers could get confused. They're essentially trying to trademark a word merely because a former family member came up with it. That's not the law. Not only will this case get kicked out, the family will be sanctioned for bringing it.

    • Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anti Frozt (655515) <chris...buffett@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:03AM (#9182278)

      Neither are Windows and Lindows. Look what happened there.

      • Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cowscows (103644) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:10AM (#9182362) Journal
        Windows is a trademarked name for a limited and specific set of commercial software, developed through the work of thousands of engineers/programmers, at a costs way into the millions of dollars.

        Googol is a word that some kid made up to describe a big number that existed a priori. Even if you could sell a googol of something(that'd be a whole hell of a lot), you can't sell a googol itself.

      • Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Casualposter (572489) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:10AM (#9182375) Journal
        I suppose that Groklaw is going down for using "grok," a term coined by R A Heinlein?

        This is so stupid.

      • Prior Art: Barney Google (Score:5, Informative)

        by dexter riley (556126) on Tuesday May 18 2004, @08:17AM (#9182457)
        From Toonopedia [toonopedia.com]:

        The name "Barney Google" is familiar to anyone who ever watched a TV retrospective of comic strips -- he's the guy with the "goo-goo-googly eyes" in the 1923 Billy Rose song they always play in such retrospectives. Many newspapers use his name in the title of one of their comic strips. And in 1995, he was honored by the U.S. Postal Service in its "Comic Strip Classics" series of commemorative stamps.

        I think Billy DeBeck, creator of the strip, has a better claim to prior art than the nephew.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.