Google Sued Over Android Brand

"...only recently realized Android was a mobile OS and not a cell phone, which is why he's suddenly making such a fuss..."

More like he was waiting until Google had invested enough money into the project to guarantee this guy would get a payoff.

It is Google's own fault for putting themselves in this position. I think the phrase is "counting your chickens before they hatch."

I love it... build a company and fail, but sue and you might succeed.

screwn Google!

Google is really bad about this. They can't use GMail in Europe because it already belonged to a company there. Now they create a OS, already deployed to a bunch of devices, that they KNEW they couldn't trademark the name for. Stupid Google.

However, if the company that registered the trademark dissolved, this guy doesn't really have a good case for $94mil in damages. Someone may still own the trademark, but you can't really argue damage to a company that no longer exists. In the end, the "whiny crybaby" may get a couple mil out of the First National Bank of Google and call it a day.

A software developer that doesn't keep up with modern trends, Android Data Corporation sounds like a winner to me. Wait until Android is actually going to be mass produced and THEN complain... Brilliant. Why are there so many blatant frauds? Anyone want to start a pyramid scheme with me? My opinion.. Android Data Corp doesn't have a chance.

Google continued with Android without owning the copyright to the name. How stupid is that? Makes about the same sense as this scenario;

Bill Gates : "Hey, this is a great little piece of software we have here and I love the name Windows for it. Did we get the copyright on the name? We didn't? Someone else already has it? We lost the appeal? Oh well, that doesn't matter. Go ahead and release a few $100 mil for R&D to get this thing started and hurry up and get it into production. We will worry about the copyright later on. What's the worst that can happen?"

I say whatever misery that Google has to go through with this is their own fault for being the arrogant assholes that they are. I personally think the guy is shooting low. At least half of that $94,000,000 will be wasted on lawyers. He should ask for a cool $250,000,000. F Google.

This is retarded.

The word "android" has been around a long time before 2002, when this douchebag supposedly trademarked the word.

Check out the disambiguation page on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(disambiguation)

Looks like several people are using the word "Android" for profit. Why doesn't he sue them too? or maybe he's just looking to grab some money.

There should be a death penalty for initiating frivolous trademark/copyright lawsuits, this is getting out of hand.

You guys are fools if you think Google has any ground to stand on. They knew the name was patented BEFORE they began working on, were denied not once but twice, but went ahead forward with the name anyways. They might not end up paying the full $94 million but I'm sure they will settle and they WILL pay. There is no way they won't be paying.

Android is a dictionary word, it can be used for whatever advertising, naming, etc anyone wants to use it for. If it's melded with a phrase as in Android Data, that's different. A single word can't be copyrighted unless you are Microsoft

Is he going to sue Star Trek now for using Androids?

another day in the busines world of the great USA.
and you wonder why our economy is so screwed up !!!

If this guy wins over the use of the word "android" then I will start taking out copyrights on as many words in as many languages as I can, then find out which ones I can use for a flurry of ridiculous copyright lawsuits. Do you want to use the word "burrito"? It'll cost you. Is the word "incorporated" in your company name? $25 million, please.

How is it that us simple, ordinary folks can see how ridiculous this is getting, but the "wise, educated, experienced" judges and lawmakers can't?

Hmm, with all the bailouts going around, I think I'll copyright the word "bank".

Hmmm My first name starts with the letter E, I am gonna start a virtaul mail company that I shall call Emial...

Google has all this money why not get more creative with names?
Android sounds kinda stupid if you ask me. Why not anihalator or oogle, hmm I kinda like G-Droid...

And all you reading this better not try and steal my cool names or I will slap you silly bastards into last week...LOL J/K

Android Data Corporation is a company name while Google's Android is a platform or specification. While Specht may be able to prevent Google from registering a similar name as a trademark, I doubt that he can prevent them from using the word "Android". Moreover, for a suit to succeed, Specht would have to establish damages. Given that he wasn't using the name for five years, what damages did he incur?

I'd also like to see the decision that rejected Google's trademark application. Was it really because "Android" was already used, was it because Google was trying to trademark a name (such as Android Platform) that was too close to "Android Data Corp.", or was it because they were trademarking "Android", which would probably not be allowed since it is a common word? If a word comes into common use for something, you have difficulty keepin the trademark (think Kleenex or Xerox). There's a fine line between strong brand identification and losing the rights to a trademark.

This sort of thing is getting too common.

Google should have known better so I don't hold much sympathy
but.......

Again here is someone sitting on an infringement too long, waiting for maximum damages. If they cared at all about protecting their identity or trademark this would have been filed the day this came out.

Can you really argue that he hadn't heard about Android until now?

And just what did "Android Data" do and how/for what did they use the Android trademark?

If they didn't have a product that competed in the same market (Mobile device operating system) as Google's Android, or at least some type of operating system, then they have no valid claim. Trademarks and servicemarks are not like patents, they only apply within a defined marketplace. Outside of that marketplace, there may be other companies using the same trademark or servicemark.

You can't copyright a dictionary word, MS tried something like that with "Windows" and lost. They did trademark "Microsoft Windows".

One clarification, if your trademarked name becomes so prevalent that it's basically a household word or it's become so thoroughly associated with your product, company, or brand, (e.g. Coca-Cola), then you may have a trademark that you can assert across any market. Since few if any of us have ever heard of the defunct "Android Data", that clearly does not apply in this case.

This guy will loose. Look at the OS-9 trademark debacle. There's a little company called Microware that has had an operating system called OS-9 for years before Apple came out with their OS9. When Microware sued Apple, the Judge ruled that nobody had ever heard of Microware's OS-9, so too fucking bad.

There's lots of companies with similar names where I live, nobody gets sued because they have added names. I don't think this lawsuit is going to go anywhere. Google Android != Android Data Corporation. I guess it is just some sue happy person again. We have those too.

google shmoogle

is the company dissolved? it's pretty black and white based on that. But google, come one, letting something like this sneak up on you?

$95 million...

Is your company damages even worth 1/100 that?

People, stop suing Apple/Microsoft/Google.
Especially you, Texans.
Get off this bandwagon of suing at any reason for insane amounts. Get lost. Have Mac/M$/Google been sued enough lately?

I hope google pays up. There has to be hope left for the IP system.

It's not Texans, it's people "venue shopping" and seeing a friendly district court in East Texas.

Some of the posters here should learn to distinguish between trademarks, patents and copyrights. Having a trademark on a name does not indicate that you have "copyright" on the word (so to speak) and that nobody from then on can use the word without your sayso. A trademark exists to avoid consumer confusion and to protect the consumer (e.g. when you buy the Coca-Cola brand you know you are purchasing the softdrink you know and love and not some cheap knockoff some guy brewed in his toilet). This guy is obviously not trying to protect his brand because he doesn't really have a product that will confuse with Google's Android O.S.

He's attempting to grab a few million in settlement from Google because he know's it will be cheaper for them to settle than to follow the matter through in court. The whole thing makes my stomach turn, greed has become the cornerstone of our society.

Apple didn't have the iPhone brand either but that didn't stop them. They just launched the phone and worried about having the brand later. I can't remember how they took it from Cisco but it seems they did it.
You probably have to pay something in these cases and settle before it goes to trial. I'm sure google can give this company some cash to go and buy themselves some lollipop.

"Alright, so that last part makes us want to sucker punch his lawyer for making him sound like a whiny crybaby".

I'm sorry, but could you please stick to actual journalism? You're here to report without opinion, do it right. If you want to 'ad-lib' and insert little snide comments here and there, label it as an editorial or leave here and join a blog. Tom's isn't supposed to be written is blog style, yet you and many of the newer staff are doing a nice job crapping all over proper journalism.

Google does kind of come across as the bully - they were denied copyright - why didn't they just offer the original owner (who sounds like he was a little broke) a buyout or equivalent. It is surely cheaper than fighting a lawsuit. They could have offered him a cool million. They didn't for the usual reasons - greed, stupidity, laziness. They'll settle with him for sure but i don't get people mad about lawsuits. Sounds like a dream come true to me, get a million dollars from Google because you thought of something first. Right to intellectual property including trade names is a cornerstone of capitalism. If the lawsuit has no merit, it'll get thrown out. If it has merit, why shouldn't Google be punished?

Personally, I think giant lawsuits like this shouldn't go into the hands of a single individual though. Let's say he got the whole $90 something million. Give him 1% and the rest to a charity or something.

Rambus operates under many names.

ummmmm what wrong with the word Android?
Its not a coined word.

Its mostly used in SCi-FI.


This is like someone trade marking the word 'window'

We all know that future robots will probably be androids.
I mean we already refer to the idea of them to that name.



Can't Goodge just change the name from Android to Android OS to avoid the jerk who is pissing his pants over the name Android?