Google is being sued for its Android brand. Apparently the Mountain View company overlooked the minor detail that it was never actually awarded the trademark for Android. Maybe because some other dude trademarked "Android" years before Google even tried.
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.
[citation][nom]mcbowler[/nom]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.[/citation]
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.
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
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".
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.
Google should have known better so I don't hold much sympathy
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.
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.