Google to be Sued Over Name? 800
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."
Dictionarying "Google": (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are you serious? (Score:4, Informative)
Read: Google history [google.com]
The first alinea goes...
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.
Re:Silly (Score:4, Informative)
From that page:
What's a Google?
"Googol" is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The term 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. Google's play on the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense amount of information available on the web.
Re:Ofcourse! (Score:3, Informative)
See the bottom paragraph
Re:Ofcourse! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ofcourse! (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry, but Google isn't benefitting from anything illegal or immoral here. It is only a made up word. It isn't trademarked, copyright is dubious considering it is merely a single word, and the definition must be public domain if it is a standard term for 10^100.
Original article has more information... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Second:
-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....
Re:Peanuts (Score:2, Informative)
Next to be sued: Billy DeBeck (Score:4, Informative)
It's this kind of frivolous abuse of the courts that keeps real and legitimate cases that might bring about real reforms and improvements from being effective (or even successful.)
Re:Silly (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sorry, but if this thing gets to a court room, US legal system loses it's last remnants of dignity.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Daniel
Prior Art: Barney Google (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Is googol trademarked? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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:4, Informative)
When you have over 500 shareholders you have to beging acting as if you were public even if youre not. That combined with the fact their initial investors have been screaming at them to do this for a couple of years kinda pushed them over the edge..
Re:Silly (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know if the inclusion of the term in a book counts. According to cyber.law.harvard.edu [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 [copyright.gov], 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 [reference.com] DOES suggest a connection, saying that "The site's name is apparently derived from 'googol', but note the difference in spelling." wordorigins.org [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.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Barney Google (Score:4, Informative)
Right?
Baaaaaaaarney Google!
With the goo-goo-googley eyes!
Baaaaaaaarney Google!
Had a wife three times his size!
She sued Barney for divorce--
Now he's living with his horse--
Baaaaaaaarney Google!
With the goo-goo-googley eyes!
Well, it WAS a big hit. A long time ago.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
Please read the article. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:1, Informative)
And the argument against Microsoft is not that they trademarked a word but that they trademarked something that was supposedly already in common use. There are thousands of companies that have trademarks on common words (like Apple, Sun, Oracle, etc.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:4, Informative)
Once you hit a certain plateau of shareholders (and profits), then you must behave like a public company in order to prevent fraud.
Re:"Mickey Mouse" is not a word (Score:3, Informative)
No, not quite. Companies have successfully made copyright claims, in addition to, or instead of, trademark claims, over characters and plots. Furthermore, many of those characters existed long before anybody thought to trademark them. And that still leaves open the question of whether trademarking them should even be allowed.
This is nothing more than a bullshit land grab by theives. Period. They are trying to steal from Google and I wonder what snake put them up to it if they hadn't come up with it themselves...absolute crap.
Ah, well, here we have the makings of a quality discussion: almost no content, but extensive use of emotive words like "stealing", "crap", "bullshit", etc.
And you are so blinded by your emotional outburst and your admiration of Google that you don't even realize that I'm not even attacking Google or defending these people. I'm just making a simple point: these kinds of claims are probably not entirely out of the question under current practice. There is "nothing more" to it, other than that I would wish that current practice would change.
What is a Google? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.google.com/corporate/inde
What's a Google?
"Googol" is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The term 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. Google's play on the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense amount of information available on the web.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
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:Try again (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
I think Swift's estate should be preparing a lawsuit just about now...
Re:Silly (Score:3, Informative)
Steve
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:3, Informative)
I was just throwing in a dumb&dumber reference that always springs to mind when someone mentions Austria.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:4, Informative)
And yes, it pretty much eliminates insiders, which is the coolest thing I have ever heard of - unless I get to be an insider too, like the googol folks.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
*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!
Google doesn't want to be "verbed" (Score:4, Informative)
I was talking to a friend who works at Google, and apparently the general consensus is that the company does not want the name of the company to be verbed like Xerox has. Like:
"Just go google 'litigious bastards' and see what comes up!"
I can see where they're coming from, as once a term makes it into the lexicon like there is a considerable dilution to the name. Xerox fought that for years. I'm not entirely sure the same thing could happen in this case- but I bet a lot of people were saying the same thing at Xerox in the early 80's.
Re:Try again (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:2, Informative)
There is a nice qoute by Eddington saying: I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons. Nothing wrong with his self-confidence
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
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:Trademarking a number (Score:2, Informative)
Under trademark law a company cannot selectively sue people for using their trademark without permission. If Kleenex let Puffs call their tissues Kleenexes instead of tissues but then sued another company for the same thing they would lose. The company must also be careful to only refer to their trademark as an adjective and not a noun. Kleenex brand tissues, Xerox brand copiers.
Either way the point is moot. The family does not hold a trademark on Googol for any use (but other people do).
Re:Google doesn't want to be "verbed" (Score:3, Informative)
Although it is difficult, a trademark owner can prevent "genericide" by policing its marks and through a concerted public relations program of correcting public misuses of its trademark (i.e., writing letters advising newspaper editors, etc. that they are misusing a trademark.)
Xerox is the only well known mark I can think off that was declared generic at one point but was sucessfully "rehabilitated"by its owner through a lot of effort. It is no longer considered generic and if you try to use it in a generic sense you will surely hear from its owner.
I think Google is well on its way to becoming generic and it is up to its owners to do something about it.
Re:Offtopic: references please. (Score:3, Informative)
Still, that would not necessarily stop me from opening a repair shop called McDonalds, e.g., in Michigan we have a dairy and a painting company each with the name McDonald. But you're right in that it would certainly stop me from opening a repair shop called "McCarFix."