Does Google Need Permission From Philip K. Dick's Estate For The Nexus One?
from the seems-a-bit-ridiculous dept
There's been plenty of buzz over the past few days about Google's alleged plans to offer a phone of its own design (built by HTC, potentially sold both directly and by T-Mobile, if not others), which has been dubbed the "Nexus One." I didn't write anything about it, because there didn't seem much to write about at this point. I'm always happy to see more competition in the market, though, and if the phone is really good, that's obviously a good thing. But one thing did catch my eye. The NY Times is noting that the name "Nexus One" appears to be a play on how Philip K. Dick named the replicants in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which was subsequently turned into the still popular movie Blade Runner. In both stories, the replicants are "Nexus-6" devices, being the sixth generation of that type of robots. It's a fun little homage by Google and an obvious play on the fact that its operating system is called Android.And yet... the estate of Philip K. Dick is not pleased. The article notes (surprisingly) that Motorola paid George Lucas for the rights to use "Droid" for its Android phone, but no one spoke to the Dick estate, who now claim they are "shocked and dismayed." Really? Shocked? Isa Dick Hackett, Philip's daughter is claiming:
"We were never consulted, no requests were made, and we didn't grant any sort of permissions."Perhaps that's because Google doesn't need permission from you to do such a thing. Of course, since Google hasn't made any official announcement on this, there's still a good chance they could change the name, just to avoid having to deal with an angry and misguided family member who doesn't like the idea of anyone paying tribute to her father without first paying up. You have to imagine there must be some other science fiction author out there who would be thrilled to have Google promoting his or her work, rather than whining about getting permission (i.e., "payment") for the use of a name.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nexus one, philip k. dick
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So unless the Dick Estate has some trademark claim to the Nexus-X names, which I sincerely doubt, they shouldn't have any leg to stand on in claiming they need to be asked permission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if it is Dick's estate, it's up to them to decide whether or not they want that "free promotion." It sounds like they are saying, "Don't do me any 'favors,' pal." It's not like folks are going to go dash out and buy Dick's writings based on a phone joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most people wouldn't pick up on this reference and those who do will smile and enjoy it. It is very unlikely that Google would make any additional money as a result of this name.
In short I wish people would take such an homage in the spirit that it is intended and not assume that someone is simply trying to get something for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair....
Don't be surprised if Google rolls over and licenses the term, or uses a different name for the phone when it ships.
What needs to change is the law on copyright, trademarks, and fair use. But as long as we are in the current legal muddle, an organization that makes its money off royalties and license fees is going to do its job when the opportunities present themselves. Otherwise, they are not doing their job. The PKD Estate is doing its job, even if many of us would like that job to go the way of the Dodo.
I doubt anything will be done during Obama's term on IP reform. And if he gets re-elected, not for another four years past that. Not if the Bidden/Hollywood meetings of all the "effected shareholders" are any indication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair....
Even if there's a case here, which is questionable, that doesn't mean this isn't also an abuse or misuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To be fair....
As far has the chance that Google might lose if this went to trial, I couldn't say. It isn't my field. But given that copyright extends to the concepts and world construction (i.e. I can't write a story that simply uses the characters from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"), I think the PKD Estate may have a case. Google is building up a theme here that might be viewed as intentional, using the terms "Android" and "Nexus". It isn't a story, but it might be argued the naming is derivative of PKD's story.
And I may have overstated myself by saying the real problem is our currently muddled law on the matter. Still, if the boundaries of derivative works were clearly defined, and fair use was clearly defined, then at least the outcome of these situations would be more predictable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To be fair....
I would counter with "How is it a problem to rape and pillage poor farmers if your company is an army that's authorized to do so?". Now of course that's quite absurd, and an unfair comparison by any measure, but the point I mean to make is just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea, even if you've signed up with a company that does that.
When did personal responsibility get thrown out the door? Just because it's legal, or because someone else might do it if you don't, doesn't mean you should or it's "a good thing".
There's business reasons not too, and I would argue there are moral reasons not too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair....
No, they actually don't have a case at all unless they have actually registered "Nexus" as a trademark of the PKD Estate (as Lucas did with the term "Droid). Without that registration there is absolutely no case here. My prediction is that either Google will go ahead and use the name without paying and any lawsuit will not make it far, or they will change the name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair....
Assuming that you're right -- so?
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is moral, just, or right. Legality and morality have very little to do with each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Botaday
http://www.botaday.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is running this madhouse
Also, I have no idea why Motorola licensed Droid from Lucas. I don't think he invented the term. I actually think that was a publicity stunt, which seemed to work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is running this madhouse
I also don't think I could *make up* the name Is a Dick Hack-ett with a straight face. Poor gal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps they were going by the actual definition of the word: a means of connection between members of a group or things in a series; link; bond (via thefreedictionary.com).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd.
You know, the definition of Nexus.
I can feel for Isa, though. I'm sure she was just minding her own business one idle Tuesday morning, drinking coffee, when her cell rings. She looks down at the caller ID and sees that it's her lawyer. As the lawyer relates that Google has the audacity to brand their phone 'Nexus', a look of horror slowly forms on Isa's face. "Has the world gone mad?" she says to no one in particular, not even noticing the mug of coffee she dropped shattering on the floor. "They might as well have shit on father's grave," she thinks to herself while suppressing the urge to throw up, already tasting bile, "Someone has to put a stop to this!"
Okay. Maybe not. I don't think anyone was "shocked and dismayed" upon hearing the news. In fact, hearing the news probably coincided with a "Cha-ching" noise and her eyes transforming into dollar signs. Completely ridiculous, all of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright breach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright breach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright breach?
Of course, this also means that someone else needs to be using the mark in the same way for it to be considered trademark infringement. You could probably start "Shell Beverages" or "Coca Gas", but not "Shell Gas" or "Coca Beverages" - of course, those lines (which I'm simplifying a fair bit here) are not always so clearly drawn, which is why there is a potential dispute in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright breach?
"Shell" oil was a better example - you can trademark "Shell Oil", because shell is an arbitrary name, but if you had a company that made seashells, you couldn't trademark calling them "Shells".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright breach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright breach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't these people even bother to check a dictionary?
Meaning of the word 'nexus' according to freedictionaryonline.com
nex·us (nkss)
n. pl. nexus or nex·us·es
1. A means of connection
2. A connected series or group.
3. The core or center
So google are making a phone and calling it after word that means 'a means of connection' or a 'connected series or group'. Isn't that exactly what a mobile phne is? Really struggling to see how this has got anything to do with Philip K Dick's descendants
These pretzels are making me thirsty...... (cue lawsuit from the makers of Seinfeld for quoting them without permission.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mind You! It could very well be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isa Dick Hackett
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happy Christmas and a Happy New Year to both sides
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google and the Nexus One
[ link to this | view in chronology ]