New Legal Threat To GMail 526
wellington writes "Google is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service. Independent International Investment Research, a British company that specialises in research and has several leading City investment banks as clients, argues that it launched "G-Mail web based email" in May 2002."
Intellectual property rights to GMail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds legitimate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fair's fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
and what about the ads ?
free != zero-profit.
Vague Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Two letters (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said.
As much as they may have a case, I always find the "we don't want to, but they are forcing us" argument funny. Not because of the company itself, but because I can imagine some IP lawyers saying, "Yesss! They are being forccced to! Hisss!" as their forked tongues flick from their mouths and they rub thier greedy paws together with reptilian glint in their eyes.
Re:A case of too little too late? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Two letters (Score:3, Insightful)
gmail.com (Score:5, Insightful)
See how STUPID this is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me, or is there something particularly novel and innovative about a browser-based e-mail service? Or, is there something particularly stupid about a company laying claims to this idea as its "intellectual property?" None of the concepts are particularly new.
Sounds like bull (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Two letters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vague Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's all intellectual property. We have to use the word property, it's very important. Otherwise, how can we legitimately claim 'piracy' and 'stealing' if it's not property?
Personally, I think the editors should put their money where their mouth is and summararily reject any story that uses the words 'intellectual property' in the article blurb.
Re:From TFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the problems with owning a trademark is that you must defend it or lose it. Unlike copyright, trademarks can be invalidated in court if they become diluted through other people using it. If these guys want to continue to have rights to the GMail trademark, they are forced to litigate.
GMail = Google Mail (Score:4, Insightful)
So they'll probably settle if necessary and just go on with Google Mail. Big deal.
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but had it been the other way around, you know very well that Google would not have been "good" and just looked the other way.
Use it or lose it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then sue everyone 3 years afterwards?
The fact they never even bought a domain name for the service [or advertised it broadly] suggests they're not seriously impacted by Googles actions because it's their own ineptitude that crippled any chance of making it big.
Tom
I doubt that was their intention (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that's right. Money. I'm guessing it went like this:
Also, I'm kind of miffed that this keeps getting called an "intellectual property struggle". G'fuh? I remember back in the old days, we used to call them "trademark disputes". I wasn't aware that changing the first letter of a well-known contraction for "electronic mail" was a rigorous intellectual task. If that's your claim to fame, you're an idiot.
Re:Fight Google? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes they can. They just need the right law firm. Google has a lot of money and everybody wants a piece of it. The IP hoarders deserve to be constantly at each other's throats, IMO. If you live by the sword, you will perish by the sword. Well, you will at least get hurt. Didn't Oracle have to pay 100 million US dollars or so to settle an IP-related suit just recently? Companies are like kids fighting over who the toys belong to. When will they wake up and grow up? It is obvious that the IP laws are stupid. So isn't something done about it? Answer: Greed.
I say let them rip out one another's throats. Problem is, the lawyers benefit immensely from this crap. And as long as lawyers are making both the laws and a shitload of money, we (the public) will continue to pay the price. In the meantime, the rich gets richer and the poor gets shafted. Sorry for being so cynical.
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:3, Insightful)
Get real, trademark law protects your trademark from all other marks which are mistakenly similar, not just identical.
Because they can't be found (Score:5, Insightful)
IIIR has no website which can be located by Google, Yahoo, or any other search engine that I've used.
All that comes up are some investor reports like OneSource [onesourceexpress.com], which reports them as having a whole seven employees.
Trademarks are not automatically international, and the mere presence of the "G" before "Mail" is not a trademark. Trademarks are either specific spellings (with/without hyphens), logos, icons, color combinations, etc.
The lawsuit sounds like basic "trolling for dollars", legal style.
E-Mail vs. Email (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially given that there's still no consensus [alt-usage-english.org] as to whether to refer to electronic mail as "email" or "e-mail"...
Re:mods: funny?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Repeat after me: There's no such thing as "IP" (Score:3, Insightful)
Trademarks, copyrights, and patents are the sorts of things designated by the general classification of intellectual property--but intellectual property doesn't exist!
When people talk about intellectual property, they are talking about trademarks, copyrights, patents, or the ideas or information covered by same (books, inventions, company and product names and logos). Inasmuch as a piece of intellectual property does not exist, neither does any idea or piece of information. Nonetheless, ideas and information remain useful and valuable, even in themselves. So, even though intellectual property is not real (i.e. physical) property, its value remains real. Thus, it remains useful to be able to protect and assign ownership to the value so derived.
As for the term being usable in an intelligent fashion, well, RMS is hardly final arbiter of intelligence, language, or reality. It seems likely that he rejects the idea of ownership of such things. He's certainly got the right, but it doesn't make him correct.
Re:Fight Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
The IP in question is a trademark (awful journalism banging on about 'owning the intellectual property rights to the GMail service'). I take it you think Linus is an IP hoarder too, because Linux is trademarked.
This seems like a perfectly straightforward trademark dispute to me. No glaring flaws in this area of intellectual property law that I can see. This kind of dispute does not deserve to be lumped in with the ridiculous patents and copyright excesses we've seen.
Ill afford? (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation:
Does anyone with a beef against Google want to donate to our worthy cause? Anyone?
Re:Intellectual property rights to GMail? (Score:3, Insightful)
You maybe would want to say Intellectual Property if you are talking about trademarks, patents and/or copyright in, say, an article or a paper. But claiming you have intellectual property when you claim rights to a trademark is misleading. It's like claiming someone did "considerable economic damage" to you when they owe you 5 bucks.
Not at all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless g-mail can win the gmail.com name, that is another story. Right now they are just threatening to sue for trademark infringement.