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)
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, Funny)
Yep, here [mexned.nl] is a fine example of it
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:4, Funny)
My wife posts on slashdot now? Damn!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dick wasn't even using it as a trademark, to boot - it wasn't the title of a novel.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A quick perusal of the USPTO database suggests otherwise. A title is a mark, which is used in trade to associate a product with a commercial entity: whether's it's Windows and Microsoft or Rainbow Six and Tom Clancy is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that trademarks must be registered, this was not.
And trademarks only apply to a particular use, a fiction book vs a smart phone are not sufficiently similar to apply.
Re: (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 t
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't bother suing me, I've got nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:4, Informative)
their greed feeds off the greed of the PKD silverspoons.
I think that if you'd bother to read about his life you'll find that PKD kids were not "silver spoons." In his lifetime, Dick won awards but was plagued by financial difficulties. Only one film based on a work of his was ever greenlighted during his lifetime, and he died four months before it was released. The financial success of PKD works is all post-mortem, and is largely the result of his estate successfully licensing his works as his works have become marketable later on.
In other words, the heirs you criticize were not born with silver spoons in their mouths; they were born to a writer who was unknown outside of the science fiction community, who hadn't had mainstream success, and took loans from other writers just to get by. His children did not grow up in wealth, living off a successful, creative father who sent them to boarding school, etc. It is because there have been films since Blade Runner, that the works of PKD have enjoyed success outside of the pages of science fiction magazines.
This doesn't make the PKD heirs' lawsuit right in this case, but you can't put them in the same boat as say the heirs of the Walt and Roy O. Disney, both of whom were ridiculously financially successful within their own lifetime and were able to pass on that fortune to their children, such as the late Roy E. Disney.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Informative)
True, but it's not even the same name. The book refers to the replicants as "Nexus-6" models. This is the "Nexus One" phone.
Would an average person think that the estate of Philip K. Dick endorses the phone based on that? Highly, highly unlikely.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
The "Recycle Bin" was a more "PC" term.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well they shouldn't have needed to based on the movie having "droids". They still would have been smart to do so because Lucas is rather litigious. But, Lucas apparently also abuses trademark law.
A quick look in TESS shows:
Word Mark: DROID
Goods and Services: IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Wireless communications devices, including, mobile phones, cell phones, hand held devices and personal digital assistants, accessories and parts therefor, and related computer software and wireless te
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I think "Google rips off Dick heirs" works even better.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
Longest first post evar?!
You type fast. Very fast. Too fast, perhaps. That makes me suspicious.
Can you look into this Voight-Kampff machine, please, and tell me only the good things about your mother?
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
The flame that burns +1, Funny burns -1, Long.
And you have burned so very, very +1, Funny Bottles.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:4, Funny)
"let me tell you about my mother..."
Re: (Score:2)
So, what about USRobotics then?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
US Robotics named themselves after the Fictional Company (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Robotics [wikipedia.org] , and also the foreword to one of Asimov's books. I think it was 'The Complete Robot')
Re: (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
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.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
Well, you're wrong. I'm never buying or reading the book now. It can't be anywhere near as good as the phone.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 dur
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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.
Devil's advocate:
It could be argued that the Google phone name interferes with the Dick estate's ability to, in future, endorse the "official cellphone of the book/film".
A stretch, yes, but that's how lawyers think.
Re: (Score:2)
Since we're being lawyers I will argue that the book is not titled "Android" and that a "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" model, or brand, of phone would be sufficiently different to the average consumer that no confusion would result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody asks for permission from Karel apek or his estate before calling something a robot
And nobody asks Isaac Asimov's widow if they can use the word "robotics". I agree, this is stupid.
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: (Score:2)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Informative)
If they didn't trademark it, there would be hundreds of Chinese made rip-offs in months. You clearly don't understand how trademarks work.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:4, Funny)
The Chinese will probably translate "Nexus" to mean "connection point" and then mangle that to "post" in the sense of a post in a fence; "one" will then be translated as "first".
So yeah, look for the First Post phone to come out in about six months.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
These aren't the Droids you're looking for.
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (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. "An
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trademark, not copyright. Copyright protects ideas, methods and invention. Trademark protects product names, product appearances and slogans used in advertising said product.
Copyright is established automatically, trademark must be registered for a fee.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is "Nexus-1" trademarked? Does it actually appear in the story? Does it refer to a phone?
All those are (I'd expect) no. I doubt Dick (or his estate) trademarked Nexus, and I don't think that Nexus-1 was ever mentioned in the book (though some might guess as to its existence because of Nexus-6 in the book. but even that's not guaranteed -- were there really 6099 other models before the Binford 6100?). And in the book, it refers to replicants, not to telephones.
"But wait, the telephone here runs an operating
Re:I Actually Side with Dick's Estate (Score:5, Funny)
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.
The clue is in the part of your own post starting "because" - even then, its debatable as to whether that trademark would apply to anything other than plush R2D2 toys.
Google applied for a trademark on "NEXUS ONE" [uspto.gov].
Yup - "Nexus 1". Not "Nexus 6". Its a dictionary word and a number. I Googled for "Nexus" and get the Tyne and Wear public transportation system, a Christian music school, a dating agency, a production company and a sponsored link to Amazon leading to a whole bunch of rather pornographic looking novels. No Dick (at least of the Philip K variety).
Now, if Google had jumped straight to "Nexus 6", launched an ad campaign featuring Rutger Hauer, and offered a free lead codpiece or a $100 mail-in rebate on a genuine goat, there might have been a case.
(Push your eyeballs out through your ears? There's an App for that!)
Where do you suppose it should stop? Should Red Hat need Paramount's permission for "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" - or Nokia for the "Nokia Communicator"? Is "Heroes" ripping off Neal Stevenson by having a character punnily named "Hiro"?
I think we all know what she really means (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me free money!
Seriously though... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a freaking WORD. It comes from the DICTIONARY.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So is "apple", would you name your new phone like that?
Trademarks is all about registering common words for business purposes. And it makes some sense (at least much more than patents or copyright).
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: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
No, but I might name a brand of beach towels Apple, or ski boots, and what exactly would Apple Inc. or Apple Corps Ltd (remember them?) do about it?
There, fixed that for you. To clarify, and I'll type this really slowly to make it easy for you to understand: a novel is not a phone.
Well actually.... (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Though some copyright holders could argue, and not without some merit, that it falls under similar care for your descendants as...everybody does. Even if it's usually by the method of "good" home & education (which in turn assures good living standards for your grandkids, and so on)
It is generic word (Score:4, Informative)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/android [reference.com]
Estate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obligatory comment on copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I wonder if Isa is good in bed. Because whenever I'm reading Dick, I'll feel like I'm effing her from now on.
In this post I now copyright... (Score:5, Funny)
When Google brings out next generations of its phone, I'll sue them and become rich!
You gotta think ahead.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Everybody knows that the Nexus series will only take off with nexus-6 which will be virtually indistinguishable from an iPhone and contain DRM!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm now copyrighting NEXUS TWO, NEXUS THREE and NEXUS FOUR by using these in my post.
You idiot. Google of course sticks to the One True Versioning Scheme: the Naked Gun [wikipedia.org] versioning scheme. The next version will be the:
Google Nexus 2 1/2
Google Nexus 33 1/3
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".
Playing Devil's Advocate... (Score:4, Informative)
Taking it a step further, since those posts aren't on topic in the first place, trying to bring them up in a forum where you know many people already have a strong interest and emotional association with the current state of copyright, such a comment elicits attention, distracting from the original discussion. That's trolling, although almost certainly unintentional.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Coastguard.
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
Is Google really profiting or abusing Dick's IP
Insert howls of juvenile laughter here.
This topic is awesome.
Another infringing greedy corporation? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (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).
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're going to have a hard time making that case since so few people will make the connection. Dick is not one of those authors whose works are so familiar to the general public that there is likely to be any mental connection between the average person visiting a T-Mobile store and thinking about buying an Android phone and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
I might agree with you if they'd named their new phone the Ubik or something like that...
But they chose a reference that the average person just might get - seeing as Blade Runner is a fairly well-known movie.
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.
In related news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:In related news... (Score:4, Funny)
Asimov left a widow. And when the fifth generation of Asimo (Asimo V) comes out, will she have a case?
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.
Conversely... (Score:2, Insightful)
How about this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck the estate (Score:5, Interesting)
Hooray for Rent Seeking! (Score:3)
Why produce something new youeself when you can extort from those who are?
Planned Obselenscence (Score:5, Funny)
You won't even be allowed to possess the sixth version of this Nexus phone on the planet Earth. It will only be for use in the off-world colonies.
Special Verizon squads have orders to destroy, upon detection, any Nexus Six phone. This is called "retirement," and is not covered under warranty.
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]).