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."
Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that google.com is just about to IPO you come crawling out of the wood work.
Go back home...
-mb
Are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
"googol" and "google.com" aren't even spelled the same! Gimme a break.
Wake up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
What's more important? The name, or money? (Score:1, Insightful)
Is googol trademarked? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, nothing to see here, move along.
How the fuck do you invent a word.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
pfft (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this any different... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
This just might be.... (Score:3, Insightful)
How to bring shame to a family name, step 1. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good one!
googol.com (Score:2, Insightful)
Ofcourse! (Score:3, Insightful)
As wel all know, potentially large sums of money can put a deceased loved one to rest. Why doesn't Google solve it creatively? Add a small line of text with a link that states what a googol is, with a tribute to Kasner, his work and his other achievements? The man and his work have been recognized, the family doesn't get a cent and everyone, except those greedy bastards, is happy.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither are Windows and Lindows. Look what happened there.
Terrible (Score:2, Insightful)
"Kasner's work" my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
The nation's gone crazy. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm good and sick of this "lawyerocracy" we have here. I'd love to see a "geekocracy".
Too...many... (Score:2, Insightful)
"In 1955 he died and much later a search engine called Google was born. His relatives claim that Kasner must be spinning in his grave. They believe Google has gained financially at their expense and they want to become IPO insiders to put his soul to rest."
YOU GOTTA BE FRIGGIN' KIDDING ME!! They 'want to become IPO insiders to put his soul to rest???' That has to be the LAMEST reason for a lawsuit in the history of lawsuits! (right next to copyright infringement of a certain OS kernel w/o actually SAYING what it is or spilling hot coffee on one's self and successfully sueing BECAUSE of it...)
I need a drink...
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
This is so stupid.
Re:Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Cha-ching!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Mickey Mouse" is not a word (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
So has the word googol.
Legal silliness (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't wait to see how these folks' lawyers quantify losses at Google's hands, or how Google's registered trademark causes confusion with the customers of the word "googol."
Does anybody know what they would sue under? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there even a realm of law that would cover such a thing?
Not that I would trust the Inqirer to report the facts without mangling them horribly...
Re:"Kasner's work" my ass (Score:2, Insightful)
If I were in google's shoes, I'd probably use some of the money to establish a foundation in memory of Kasner or something. I certainly would not send money to a niece who barely ever knew him and was clearly trying to moralize her overt money grab. And I would be fully cognizant of the fact I was under no legal or ethical obligation to do *anything*. Mathematics stands out as one of the areas in which knowledge is the most free, and any attempt to force it into the death-march of the music, movie, and software industries is morally repulsive.
Public Domain (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where's parker Brothers in all this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't doubt that some mathematician will discover a formula or specific method of doing a calculation, will name it after himself, and then try to patent it to prevent universities and schools from teaching it.
There should be a law that prevents this type of thing. "Googol" represents a number, that's all. What's to copyright? Had Google not existed, these people wouldn't have made a profit anyway. They're flat out using the law in a way it WASN'T meant to be used to steal money away from this company, and that's wrong.
Re:Is googol trademarked? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Googol isn't a trademark, registered or otherwise. It's now a number, one commonly (well not as common as 10) used. Even if it was a trademark, there has been no defence of it for so many years which means they could easily have lost it. You must actively defend a trademark in order to retain rights to it.
Re:Kinda shaky (Score:3, Insightful)
So it would seem that the art isn't just the number, it's also in the technique for interpreting the number - which isn't in the number. (And can't be in the number, because how would you interpret the portion of the number that tells you how to interpret the number?) If you don't have this technique (and know that you need to apply it), the number is just a number, and nothing else.
So unless you can successfully find a way to mechanically generate all possible ways to interpret this data, I'm not sure you'll be all that successful in getting this stuff into the public domain.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:2, Insightful)
What's more glaring, a single character typo or an extra post jammed in the middle of a thread that offers nothing constructive.
Yea, maybe I don't know the difference between owners and owner's. Maybe I wrote owner's on purpose and backspaced the end of the sentence and changed which owner'?s I should have been using. Maybe English is my second language. Maybe I touch type and the occasional homonym comes out wrong because I never look at it. Maybe my editor is on vacation and couldn't spend time reviewing my work for correctness.
Does anyone really read threw there posts for accuracy?
Mod parent and myself down, thanks.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Which means this lawsuit was cooked up by a money grubbing crybaby bitch with total disregard to legacy. If she had some kind of decency in her, she probably could have gotten google to sponsor a scholarship or something else actually appropriate (note: it's likely they already *do*), but instead she jumps to a lawsuit.
Her great uncle is probably rolling in his grave.
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the origins of the mispelling.
"Barney Google and Snuffy Smith [kingfeatures.com]" was first published in 1919. Maybe King Features shuld sue Google first.
Re:I Disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
This family is dishonoring the work of their ancestor by trying to change what was once a gift to the mathematical language into a cash sale.
They already have credit where credit is due. They now also want cash -- where credit is due.
This is another SCO type thing, where some generous intellectual chooses to enhance our quality of life, and someone else comes along and notices they "forgot" to make every dime they could off of it.
If they succeed in this (doubtful) it will cast negative aspersions on their forefather's work and reputation, and run contrary to the natural evolution of language.
And the old man will come back to haunt them and curse their wealth!
Re:Are you serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? Given that the strongest home user chip predating 1984 was the 1MHz 6502, the Motorola 6800 and maybe the blazingly fast 4.7MHz 8086
googly eyes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Baaahhh.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can sue over anything and everything.
Whether or not you'll be successful is another matter.
Re:I Disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Except, of course, that this lawsuit has very little to do with preserving the word 'Googol', and a whole lot to do with trying to ca$h in on Google's upcoming IPO. If it was about preserving the word's original meaning, why would they be trying to extort shares of stock?
Trademarking a number (Score:5, Insightful)
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.