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.'"
Fascinating moderation (Score:3, Interesting)
Some copyright attorney must be reading /.
As of a few seconds ago there were 30 replies, of which four or five said that the heirs should no longer be profiting from the copyrights, since Philip K. Dick is long dead. All of those posts have been marked "troll".
Would our budding copyright attorney like to explain this? Guess what: "troll" is not a substitute for "disagree".
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:2, Interesting)
At least US Robotics isn't attacking all business models in media industries. Google's attitude of a.) f*** the publishers and b.) f*** the authors is a curious one for an advertising company. They have no good will or benefit of the doubt in a case like this one.
In related news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Is-a-Dick (Score:1, Interesting)
Anthony Burgess is resposible for the names Heaven 17, Miloko, Korova (Records) etc... Borrowing names from fiction is a time honoured tradition and until authors begin trademarking their invented names, one the estate can do fuck all about...
I should start a band called "Goggly Gogol" (again from clockwork orange) and release a song called "googling for the dick's nexus" just for shits and giggles!
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:3, Interesting)
Corporate Darwinism (Score:5, Interesting)
How Darwinian! In that sense,they are taking the role of parasite, which as we all know is necessary for the ecosystem to function properly.
How about this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seriously though... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Until you factor in that they also got their Android, which in combination is definitely suspiciously like they are deliberately naming things based on the book.
Each in isolation are fairly innocent. But together, they indicate intent.
Re:Seriously though... (Score:1, Interesting)
To clarify, and I'll type this really slowly to make it easy for you to understand: a novel is not a phone.
Neither is a fictional technology in a movie (Droid).
I have a bigger beef with Lucas' ownership of what is clearly an abbreviation of a word, and just because he calls something a droid in a film shouldn't give him onwership of the name of a phone.
PKD's works have been made into movie more than any other Sci-Fi writer in history and he was paid pretty poorly for the privilage (look it up I think he might have made a total of about $30k on all 11 or 12 that were done).
That said, his kids are parasites.
Fuck the estate (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the word "robot" may well have been first coined in a play written by Karl Capeck in 1927, in Russums Universal Robots (or R.U.R.)- even though Russum's robots would be more along the lines of the "androids" in Dick's story.
Nobody, not even Dick, asked around to see if they needed permission from Capek for that stuff.
Mainly because they didn't NEED it.
Heh... It's even more entertaining what they're doing here...
A TESS search, while not 100% conclusive, shows 41 differing uses of the word "Android" as a trademark or part thereof, with the first usage, though dead, going back to 1959, registered in 1962 as a branding of a medicine from the Brown Pharmaceutical Company- from the TESS database entry on it:
Google seems to be the only registrant for "Nexus One"- but all THAT really is would be a combining of two common words to represent a branding of a phone. From Dictionary.com:
Simply put, there's really little to nothing for the Dick Estate to "protect" here- and I question the wisdom of the same to allow a batch of lawyers make themselves look the fool at their expense.
Re:Fascinating moderation (Score:2, Interesting)
The meta meta mods, of course!
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:1, Interesting)
Sony Ericsson "Nexus" Android UX launched, 18th Nov 2009: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/29661/sony-ericsson-nexus-more-devices [pocket-lint.com]
Sony Ericsson abandons "Nexus" name, 7th Jan 2010: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/30635/sony-ericsson-abandons-nexus-name# [pocket-lint.com]
Although likely not for legal reasons as much as marketable.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:3, Interesting)
Then there's also the tech company Cyberdyne, which was named after the company in Terminator. I don't see anyone complaining about that.
The words "android" and "nexus" are so ingrained in pop culture (well, for sci-fi stuff anyways) that you don't have to have ever read anything by PKD or even know he exists and you'll know the words if you're a nerd / geek. The PKD estate doesn't have an actual case and it's just another sad tale of kids, grandchildren, and great grandchildren wanting to sue anyone and everyone to collect money for work that their ancestors did instead of getting a damn job for themselves.
Re:Another infringing greedy corporation? (Score:3, Interesting)
They should be suing the Star Trek franchise as well for using the term Nexus in Generations.
They'd have to stand in line behind the estate of E.E. "Doc" Smith who, on that basis, should be owed something for "tractor beam" (and probably other space-opera jargon).
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:3, Interesting)
Following this logic, my understanding would be that since a book has universal reach, anything in it can be defended without a proper trade mark file in the US. Or am I eating my foot here?
You'd be eating your foot there, the trademark for a book would be its title, not anything in its content.
The best the author can claim here is copyright infringement, which is obviously not the case.
Seriously, what ever happened to good old fashioned flattery? One of the most well known tech companies in the world is using your character names to sell its product, I mean come on! That's awesome!
It's not like the guy was going to market a cell phone or mobile operating system any time soon. That happens to be all the Google trademarks apply to.