Nexus One Name Irks Philip K. Dick's Estate 506
RevWaldo writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, the estate of Philip K. Dick says the name of Google's new smartphone infringes on the famous character name from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Isa Dick Hackett, a daughter of Mr. Dick, states Google has its 'Android system, and now they are naming a phone "Nexus One." It's not lost on the people who are somewhat familiar with this novel... Our legal team is dealing head-on with this.'"
I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:2, Insightful)
Even Motorola had the wherewithal to kindly ask Lucas before using Droid as a name for their phone because 'droid' is a registered trademark of Lucasfilm Ltd. You would think the least amount of courtesy Google could do is not apply for a trademark out of respect of where they borrowed 'nexus one' from. And if Google's afraid that someone will just use that name to profit off of their device then they should just find another name instead of borrowing from a novel (deflating the argument of "they have no choice, they have to trademark everything they do"). I'm hoping that this is some Google executive not realizing that 'nexus one' is a reference to a Philip K. Dick android but now it looks more like them toeing the line of what they could use and then completely running off with it.
If they were just using the name, I'd consider this a nice homage or nod to the late great Philip K. Dick. But since they're applying for a trademark it's just a dick move.
I think we all know what she really means (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me free money!
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
The same name can be held as a trademark by different entities if the usages don't conflict.
I see no problem here.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still a homage. Not having a trademark on the name of a consumer electronics device is just plain stupid, business-wise. I don't think that sales of the book will be harmed by this, nor do I expect that there will be any confusion over which is which. In a good society with good laws there's no way the Dick estate would be able to get a dime or force any change based on this. Nobody asks for permission from Karel apek or his estate before calling something a robot, even though it's a clear reference, and I don't see why this should be any different.
The case of Droid is very different in that there really was an existing trademark and, though it would likely be legal use the name in another field, it's always (legally) safer to get permission.
Seriously though... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a freaking WORD. It comes from the DICTIONARY.
Too Far (Score:5, Insightful)
This has gone way too far, in two ways. One, we are not talking about a book, we are talking about a WORD. Two, Philip's heirs should not earn ongoing profits from work done by Philip a generation ago. Has their income incentivized them to produce anything noteworthy themselves? I think not; in direct contradiction to the whole point of congress's authority to assign limited monopolies.
Google should do two things. The should fight this in the courts, but much more importantly, they should use their considerable resources and clout to lobby congress to update the legal framework such that it encourages, rather than hinders, innovation in the sciences and the useful arts. Congress, elected by the people, has the last word on this one.
Owning words (Score:1, Insightful)
Get a grip. Back in the bad old barbarian days, before lawyers and corporate assholes roamed the earth, lots of people shared the exact same words. Really, it was quite commonplace to hear people talking, and see them writing, and they shared the exact same language, and it was fine. Nobody got bothered by it. Now I expect we'll all have to invent our own unique words.
Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory comment on copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:3, Insightful)
Dick wasn't even using it as a trademark, to boot - it wasn't the title of a novel.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:4, Insightful)
I see two problems, one is greed and the other is the brain damage the lawyers must have incurred in not recognizing the simple fact you stated.
That, or they know about it and their greed feeds off the greed of the PKD silverspoons.
If not, I'll start googling every cool word combination I've ever used online and start demand royalties. Knowing a bit about authorship, PKD probably shat them out on an assembly line and would put the spoiled brats he left behind over his knee if he found out about this, if for nothing else than their lack of imagination.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
Philip K Dick did not invent the term Android or even Nexus. The name Nexus One may be a nod towards Nexus 6 but they aren't the same and one is for a mobile phone and one is a fictional character.
I don't side with them because for starters its not the creator that's complaining. It's his lecherous kids who are just being greedy. They see the Android platform taking off, they're used to getting money for doing nothing (thanks to daddy) so they think they're owed a piece of Google's business.
This is shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
The people on whom the connection is not lost, would see this as a tribute from Google to Philip K. Dick. It would be sad if this sort of unbridled greed on the part of some discourages companies and people from expressing their admiration for the contributions of others.
I do not have a problem with an author's children trying to assert their legal rights --- but this would've been as wrong if the author himself had talked about suing. There is really no reason, legal or otherwise, for Google to be paying money to the Dick foundation. Trademark laws do not apply here. And, does anyone think the name is going to "help" Nexus / Android sales ? Or that there will be people who will buy the nexus thinking it is a Dick novel ? Is Google really profiting or abusing Dick's IP ? Are book sales going to be affected ?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
do they choose the name 'dick' intentionally (Score:3, Insightful)
for, they sure know how to behave like one as a family.
ah and, fuck trademarks. with this stupid mindset, in 50 years time we will run out of words and phrases to name things. and, given the possibility of infringing on someone's 'rights', we will probably be start refraining from using those words during ordinary talks in daily life.
this has to stop before it gets to that point.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:3, Insightful)
Authors and Publishers (and their estates) prefer their homages to be paid with $$$. Since they aren't Silicon Valley startups publicity doesn't have the same value.
Re:Seriously though... (Score:4, Insightful)
No but Apple is a trademark in the computer hardware arena. "Nexus-6" is a fictional android in one book and movie,
I have a strong suspicion that the developers would have little to no idea that Nexus (centerpoint) One (first) was anything but how they felt about a phone. I think the PKD estate is groping for money and this suit, if it materializes, will be laughed out of court.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I know why "You're a Dick" is such an insult.
In the first place, these people shouldn't even be able to hold copyright (maybe... are these Dicks American?). The constitution says congress can grant a limited time monopoly to authors and inventors. NOT their heirs.
In the second place, you can't copyright a name. I should write a story with characters from all the books of dead authors whose greedy estates want copyright on them, and let these Dicks sue me.
I'm... I can't think of the proper adjective. "Annoyed" is close. If Dick were alive then yes, out of courtesy Google should have asked him if it was ok, but not had a legal obligation to. His heirs? What a bunch of Dicks. Let them write some books. Copyright is supposed to promote the useful arts. How is a dead Dick supposed to write any more books?
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:4, Insightful)
Conversely... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Estate (Score:3, Insightful)
What? I don't get paid for the work my father did. Why should I? He did the work, not me. I get paid for the work that I am enabled to do by the education he was fortunate enough to be able to provide me.
Re:Estate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's in a name... (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect this may be about generating publicity for the novel. Sort of a 'reverse Streisand effect' - draw attention to what you want to promote by threatening legal action. Yes, it risks backlash, but it also generates a lot more media coverage than 'positive publicity' would. I mean, do you think /. would have posted a story called "Dick estate says honored to be recognized by Google"? Slashdot *might* have, but I bet *this* story (about a threatened lawsuit) gets to CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, NYT, Wa. Post, etc, and I'm sure that even *if* the other news outlets gave any coverage to a 'positive publicity' story at all, it would be buried in a very minor blurb or headline scroller at the bottom of the TV newscast, where it wouldn't have gotten much attention from hardly anyone.
Because of this story, a lot more people will know that Google named their phone after a character in that novel, and some of them may get curious and decide to buy a copy (or at least inquire at their public library, who might need to buy additional copies to deal with a sudden increase in people trying to check out that novel [or to replace lost or stolen copies]).
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:4, Insightful)
Trademark law is intended to protect consumers against confusion about, or misrepresentation of, the origin or endorsement of a product or service. Except for fanciful marks, trademark law tends to separate fields of endeavor, so that (for example) an arbitrary or suggestive trademark for film media does not clash with the same word used as an arbitrary or suggestive trademark for tax preparation services.
PKD's estate has a long row to hoe in arguing that consumers might confuse Dick's name for a kind of humanoid robot with Google's name for a kind of mobile phone. This is especially true because those who are familiar with the former are more likely to be well-informed about the provenance of, and who has (or hasn't) endorsed, the latter.
Re:Estate (Score:3, Insightful)
By continuing to operate the family is still providing new services. Collecting royalties from a book written half a century ago creates nothing new at all and is nothing more than rent seeking behavior.
American IP law was originally designed to allow for a limited amount of rent seeking as an incentive for authors and inventors to create new writings and inventions. Allowing heirs to sit on this "property" indefinitely does not surve this purpose.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
But a novels and phones are entirely different product categories. Therefore, no confusion is possible, and the novel and the phone can co-exist even if both are trademarks.
Furthermore, Nexus One and Nexus-6 are distinct. You don't get the trademark for one just because you have the trademark for the other.
I'm with Google on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Dick's estate doesn't have a trademark on "Nexus One". So it doesn't matter if people "get them confused". The estate has copy rights over the books. Google would not be able to reproduce that book with out the estate's permission. But in this case, Google isn't reproducing their book, they aren't copying the protected material. So there is no infringement.
Unless you are arguing that every proper noun ever used in any copy right protected creation is also protected against trademarks.
-Rick
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:3, Insightful)
Fabulous, except that outside of the "creative industry" fields (music, literature, and movies), you stop "working" when you die and no longer reap new income. Are you stating that unless you produce the types of creative works I list above, your estate cannot benefit after your death? (Say, from financial investments you made during your lifetime.)
I'm not stating that copyright terms should end with the author's life, but I have a very hard time seeing any cogent argument for allowing this one field of endeavor to enriching the heirs of producers when no other field gets similar benefits, even ones equally "creative" like scientific discovery.
Re:Seriously though... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, I think intent is obvious. They clearly intend to say the work of PKD is cool and they like it. But doing that does not require the permission of his heirs under any legal system I am aware of nor any moral framework I would accept.
Indirectly referencing the famous works of others isn't something you need their permission for.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
However registered trademarks trump unregistered trademarks every time.
Plus there is no common market here, so there is no infringement. It's certainly not copyright infringement either.
What the hell ever happened to plain old flattery? Why does everything have to be an insult and a grievance? It's an obvious homage to Dick's work, why not accept it as such?
People are way too money hungry and lawsuit-happy these days, it's pathetic.