Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
from the money-grab dept
Last month, we noted that Philip K. Dick's daughter was quite upset about the fact (at the time, unconfirmed) that Google was going to call its new phone, the Nexus One -- insisting that this was a ripoff of the Nexus-6 robots from Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. It's difficult to see any legal basis whatsoever for the claim, but we wondered if Google might just choose a different name anyway. Instead, it launched with the Nexus One name, and it took little time for the Dick Estate's lawyers to send a cease & desist, claiming that it will sue Google for "trademark infringement." There are a few problems with that, of course. The Dick Estate does not have a trademark on Nexus anything. Nor could it get one since it does not use the term in commerce. Oh, and since the phone is in a totally different business, it likely wouldn't violate the trademark that the Dick Estate couldn't get anyway. So how does Dick's daughter respond?"People don't get it," Isa Dick Hackett said. "It's the principle of it."I'm trying to figure out just what "principle" that might be, because there doesn't seem to be any legal principle. It's hard to argue that there's any moral principle either, since "nexus" is a word that's been around since well before Philip K. Dick used it. In fact, the only matter of principle I can think of is the one where someone demands money for something where they clearly have no right to it and have done nothing to deserve it. Like demanding a big company pay up because it has a product named sorta similar to something your dad wrote decades ago.
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
Question
Bad Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*snort*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isa Dick
Oh, and Metallica had a hit 'One' as well, so expect James and Lars to make a move on Google ripping them off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isa Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isa Dick - Im a frayed it does get worse
It does get worse!
I'd be a bitter old frayed dick if I was named that too. Lashing out about anything my father had named.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isa Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Isa Dick
I "sold-a" Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Isa Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isa Dick
At least sanctuary is a "scarce" good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isa Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isa Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Isa Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isa Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate this situation, because although it looks like the cease and desist certainly won't get far, it also is unlikely that Mrs. Hackett will learn anything from the experience. She will probably stomp away all red-faced and make a bunch of sensational statements to the media about the flagrant theft of her father's work and the awful modern world that has no respect for blah blah blah blah blah... She'll preach, and the congregation will listen, and nothing will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May not be a money grab
It is obvious that the reason that they named the phone was the PKD novel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May not be a money grab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May not be a money grab
"It is obvious that the reason that they named the phone was the PKD novel."
Obvious and irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May not be a money grab
I read the name Nexus One and thought, "Hey cool. This is the first Nexus phone. Hey double cool, Nexus means the center point for a bunch of stuff. So the name is totally meaningful"
What the hell does a phone have to do with an artificial person? Plus, why do people think Google wants their new bit of technology associated with fake people that go all murderous? What's their next model, the Bundy?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: May not be a money grab
Also, the phone relates because it runs on the Android O/S, and the Nexus-6s were "androids". I agree that it's an odd choice given that they were the baddies in the book - but it still seems like it was an intentional reference (at the very least, someone somewhere must have noticed the accidental reference and decided to keep it)
Again, none of that actually matters to the case... the name is absolutely fine whether it was an intentional nod or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: May not be a money grab
". . . Also, the phone relates because it runs on the Android O/S, and the Nexus-6s were "androids". I agree that it's an odd choice given that they were the baddies in the book . . . "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: May not be a money grab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: May not be a money grab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May not be a money grab
I'm sorry, but *what*? A quick read of the above story will clear things up:
See? There is *zero* legal basis for this. Not to mention, Nexus is a real word. Hence, it's a money grab-- she is hoping that Google will toss some money at her to make her go away. I pray they do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May not be a money grab
No, it's an obvious Starcraft reference. Activision will be suing next.
Yes, I'm kidding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May not be a money grab
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: May not be a money grab
If you want to write a story titled "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" you could do so, and you could copyright the story as well, and publish it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May not be a money grab
Even if what you assert is true, which it may not be,
There is no legal or moral reason for Google to pay her for using the same word.
Even though I have a first edition of electric sheep on my bookcase and all three (or is it four?) released versions of Blade Runner the name Nexus One made me think of the 1994 Star Trek movie Generations, In that movie the nexus is a place where your fondest wishes are reality.
To me, that seems more like what the Google marketing people would be going for, that is as opposed to a device that could be a human (except by law), stronger and faster than you and dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not only were her parents cruel, but she really shouldve married someone with a different last name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
not only were her parents cruel, but she really shouldve married someone with a different last name."
ROTFLMAO
Thanks for the laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blizzard -- you're next!
Or how about the reference to that word in Star Trek Generations?
Oh goodness, more flagrant, unauthorized uses of that word!
*sigh* This is like the EDGE Games fiasco all over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
welp
Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll all pass away instead.
This stuff is an embarrassment of our society and any big corporation or establishment with considerable money does it hoping for a payout, it's sickening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money play or good promotion.
So my take on it is that its a money movie, bitch, moan, and complain tell google pays her something to keep quiet.
Or if that doesn't work, point out her fathers works, and see how many people start to pick up PKD novels to read. Especially the younger generations who might now have grown up cutting their teeth on blade runner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's greed pure and simple, and a misguided sense of entitlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is one of those things where right or wrong, Google is going to end up having to pay their laywers, and they won't come out of it looking any better (and could come out looking worse). No matter the legitimacy of the legal claims, it just seems foolish for Google to have even put themselves in this position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And what possible legal ground do you really think she has? The Philip K. Dick estate does not a trademark for "Nexus", "Nexus One", or "Nexus 6." So now my very serious question: how can you claim trademark infringement on a trademark that does not exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do I think the Dick Estate has a leg to stand on? Nope. Is it worth a few dollars not to have to find out? Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paying Complainers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Until next time, when the stakes might be bigger...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no idea what you mean by that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, I'm going to assume you meant "couldn't lead". Second, why is this a "rather obvious" lawsuit? That would imply that it has a chance of winning, which you agreed before that they have no legal leg to stand on. And yet you seem to contend that Google should just give in, why? Why should they give in instead of fight back? Why should the Dick estate be rewarded for filing a lawsuit that we both seem to agree is completely baseless legally? Why should they take an action that would encourage others to file ridiculous lawsuits because if Google will pay up why won't *Company X*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is very close to the same argument that many on this site discuss. It's not whether file sharing is good or bad. It's about businesses accepting reality that digital distribution costs nearly nothing. Therefore, they would be better off using it to their advantage and stop wasting their efforts on things that give them a black eye. Like suing everyone that listens to music or watches a movie in a way that is not pre-authorized.
I know the anti-mike thing is your schtick but you are really making the same arguments now that Mike does.
If you want to argue and fight things on principle then that's fine, just like Google can choice to do here. Whether its a foolish business decision or not might depend much on ones take of the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
They don't own the Trademark on "Nexus One" or "Nexus". Period. It's not a matter of ambiguity or legal interpretation - THEY DO NOT OWN THE TRADEMARK.
Even if they did own the Trademark, it would still be meaningless, because they aren't selling anything in the same market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
But that's not the point. There is no way to, as you put it, infringe on a concept. You can infringe on a trademark, or a copyright, or a patent - but none of those things exist here, except potentially copyright under a poor interpretation of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look who's talking
Let me see, everyone from ages 5-99 is obligated to have read Androids or seen Bladerunner? Get real!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it is a good idea for her make a lot of noise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious
You "dick-joke-geniuses" understand that a "cease and desist order" is not asking for any money? right?
Techdirt is really a tardfest these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious
You understand that they don't own a trademark on Nexus, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious
You "dick-joke-geniuses" understand that a "cease and desist order" is not asking for any money? right?
"""
Of course you are correct. Assuming this lady had a single leg to stand on, she doesn't want Google using that name. It's the principle. She would never take any money from Google to go back into her mouse hole, nope, never. That wouldn't be very principled.
Oh wait, yes she would; this move is, to any rational human, nothing but a money grab. Wake up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious
The fact is that... well.. you can just read the damned article and try to understand it, yourself. She's got no legal standing, and she's no legal right to what Google has done, here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_robots_and_androids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious
Google has become so big that many believe it's fair to bleed it any way possible. Microsoft is probably enjoying the fact that no one pays any attention to it any more because of Google. And the irony is that I do not know of anything Google has ever done to earn a pillage and plunder reputation while Microsoft built itself up using P&P as a standard business model.
Does anyone have an anecdote that shows Google as a less than completely warm and fuzzy corporate behemoth?
If the phone was called the 'Android Data' would Universal Television have the same complaint that it violated a trademark of STTNG?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Re: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Re: WTF?
Wow, brilliant. Let's see the world keep working when companies have to tiptoe around laws that are created in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Re: WTF?
It's not just that Dick never applied for a trademark. It's also that it's highly unlikely he would have been able to get one, and that even if he had this doesn't meet the criteria for trademark infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Re: WTF?
For example, you wouldn't want two companies marketing shoes under the name "Nike", but consumers wouldn't be able to tell which is which.
In this case however, the Dick estate does not sell cell phones or anything named "Nexus *bla*" -- hence, no confusion and no trademark claim.
As to whether there's a copyright violation -- well, it's a stretch to say the combination of two words is somehow a sufficiently unique and creative as to be worthy of protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Re: WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Re: WTF?
This is a C&D notice that you must get rid of all these trademark violations. If you do not, I will have to sue and ask for billions. Willing to negotiate a lower settlement.
...
At least, that is what you indicate is the right to deal with something like that.
...
Well damn. How much do we owe Webster's Dictionary now? I mean... no. Every word I write is another in that book. And possibly others. ... Curse the instant ownership of all combination of words you put down, and any sub combination there of.
...
Would 'System 6' be infringing? Cloud 6? I mean, it IS _____ 6 just like it is Nexus __.
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is trading on someone elses geek status
I am not going to say that Google should have to pay here but I do think they knew exactly what they where doing. If I named a product line Enterprise and the first product in the line 1701, would you still be saying the Gene Roddenberry's estate was full of crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is trading on someone elses geek status
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google is trading on someone elses geek status
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love Bladerunner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to coward
Steal what? As far as I recall, there wasn't even a mention of "Nexus One" in DADOES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: to coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad analogy
i have a new business proposal! add your products as a bonus with hotcakes. Then you'd be rolling in the dough. (pun completely intended)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nexus a normal, common word.
It is used to describe and identify many things and many companies have Nexus in their name and/or have products with Nexus.
I once spent way too much money on legal expenses (>100K) because the name of my company had the word vigilant in it, a competitor used the word deep down in of their white papers a few years prior, the white paper was copyrighted so they claimed copyright on the word. It was thrown out and appealed three times. This wasn't a money grab, it was a attempt by a competitor to drain resources to attempt to stop a legit company.
It is a pure and simple money grab by both her and her lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but for the daughter (who didnt write jack or shit) to try and get a pay day for it because she's living off daddy's work... PISS OFF..
and all you whinny piss ants that say its a tragidy... Piss off as well, welcome to the real world, heres a hammer and a helmet, get back to work if ya want to eat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't think of Bladerunner first....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BlueRay Bladerunner
The Off World planet was a called Nexus 6 where the replicant uprising happened. That is way to obscure to sue. If they had a dude with a gun and called it Deckard's Communicator I think they would have a case or something. They called it the 'Like Tears in in Rain' PDA maybe a small chance in hell.
Maybe the tumbler car phone anything but the most obscure part of the book and movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BlueRay Bladerunner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free advertising is free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE
This shear stupidity of this statement is what creates the ownership structure we are stuck in now. Its stealing if you didn't come up with it.
"You do realize that the bulk of C&Ds just seem to be a warning that 'I'm gonna sue and make lots of money' right? I can see the tardfest comment coming back to bite you, but apparently such things don't bother you in the least. " -Luci
Honey, you are the stupidest person here; if google did C&D, there would be no case against them and no claim for money which by the way is actually the way almost all C&D cases resolve. Read a book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE
Really? Did you even read anything? The Dick estate does not have a trademark on "Nexus", "Nexus One", or "Nexus 6." And the cease & desist claims trademark infringement. So I ask the same question I asked of The Anti-Mike: how how can you claim trademark infringement on a trademark that does not exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE
It is _not_ "stealing if you didn't come up with it." Look it up. "Stealing" is "the act of a person who steals." To "steal" is "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force." There is no theft if no one owns it, because it is not "the property of another or others".
I agree that "shear stupidity" is the reason for the "ownership structure we are stuck in now". In particular, idiots who can't see past their own nose have permitted evil or just self-serving jackasses to hijack human knowledge and creation in service of their own desire to make a buck. Gross.
You are also wrong that "if google did C&D, there would be no case against them and no claim for money which by the way is actually the way almost all C&D cases resolve." Every part of this is false. If Google immediately ceased, their conduct prior to cessation would be just as actionable as if they did not. More than one company has faced a lawsuit for conduct even after that conduct ceased, in some cases long after. I agree that there would be no case against Google, but that would also be true if they did not cease: there is no case against Google now. To the degree there _is_ a case, Google's late-coming conduct can only stop the damages, not erase the damages already incurred. That would take a money payment.
The most important and egregious factual mistake is your completely uninformed assertion that cessation of activity "is actually the way almost all C&D cases resolve." Codswallop. In most cases, the person who receives the C&D responds in some way. In many cases, that is with a strongly-worded letter by their lawyer. In many cases, the C&D-sender slinks off into the mud from which they came and sobs rather than incur the expense of litigation.
The reasons for this are complex, but in short: lawyers may be willing to send the first C&D for a small payment, even though they will not take the case on a contingency fee (because the case is meritless). Plaintiffs are willing to pay for the C&D, because who knows what it will shake loose, but cannot or will not pay for their "principled" but meritless case. Thus, there was never any chance of the case being brought - the C&D was an empty and hollow threat.
Of the cases that do not end this way, a substantial number end with a money payment from the party receiving the C&D to the person who sent it. Some of these are settlement payments - the recipient party determines that they actually owe money to the sending party, so they pay it to settle the matter up. Most of them are "nuisance" payments - the recipient party pays a small amount because it is cheaper and less distracting than litigating, even though they believe they could or would win the litigation.
Daughter of Dick may be hoping for a nuisance payment, but I doubt it. I vote that it is not a money grab - Google will likely respond with a very strongly-worded letter, and rip her apart. She will not win money.
I think the C&D is probably to publicize the wrong she feels has been done. She recognizes that she will never win a cent, but she is willing to pay some money to publicly harass Google and gain some public sympathy. If the publicity also helped to sell a few of her dad's books, that probably wouldn't be a bad thing either. In other words, this smells like the last, desperate move of a small, lonely little person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: last, desperate move
http://www.pcworld.com/article/164096/googles_book_search_deal_5_pros_and_5_cons.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE
Oh, he didn't?
Oh, he's stealing!
OH NO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE
Not even close, but keep trying. You don't make any sense either...you bemoan someone's attitude as creating the "ownership structure we are stuck in now" when your notion of what constitutes ownership and theft leaves no room for fair use or the public domain. It also demonstrates a tremendous lack of common sense. As Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Additionally, I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that you're a lawyer, but if so, you should definitely start spelling it correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PKD
Google is a company of MAJOR league proportions. You don't think a battery of lawyers already vetted the naming of the phone? I'm pretty sure they thought, "Hey, if we can get away with it, why not?". For the reasons stated in the article, I'm sure that the boys in legal determined that they COULD get away with it and "Shabam!", the Nexus One - PKD and fam be damned.
I don't support paying money or heck, even renaming the phone. Just don't feign ignorance when it's pretty stinking obvious how their brains were working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PKD
I do agree that pretending Google didn't understand the name's significance is a bit silly, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PKD
I think Google and Electric Shepherd could have both played this whole thing better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PKD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PKD
They'd probably be happy to do the former if she'd do the latter. However, it's obviously another case of "court as cudgel" at this point, and there's no point in ceding ground.
And, really, I can totally see them coming up with that name without realizing the implication viz DADOES, so they might just be feeling put upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: PKD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PKD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: PKD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The word nexus
–noun, plural nex⋅us⋅es, nex⋅us.
1. a means of connection; tie; link.
2. a connected series or group.
3. the core or center, as of a matter or situation.
4. Cell Biology. a specialized area of the cell membrane involved in intercellular communication and adhesion.
n. pl. nexus or nex·us·es
1.
A means of connection; a link or tie: "this nexus between New York's . . . real-estate investors and its . . . politicians" (Wall Street Journal).
2.
A connected series or group.
3.
The core or center: "The real nexus of the money culture [was] Wall Street" (Bill Barol).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The word nexus
But really, that is not the point, and this C&D is still ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of the techie retards on this board have never created anything. Their concept of art and creativity is what they download for free to their hard drives. They are part of that Microsoft-Sony-Tech culture in which if you have the most lawyers, you can take anything. Let them have their "dick jokes" and fanboy defense of multibillion dollar corporations over the family of true artist and visionary.
The notion that PKD needed lawyers to trademark his Proper Names for manufactured products in the world he created is what is the sickest thing here.
Perhaps it should have been the "Darth Vader" phone? But it couldn't have been since the name is really Darth Vader (TM).
How utterly sad and pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How does this advance art? Creativity? Culture?
I am an artist and create things and I think this reflects badly on the works of PKD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have, and I bet most of the 'techie retards' here have as well. We may actually have a deeper understanding of the dangers of free-association as the basis for lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As is mentioned by others this pathetic parasite Dick Hackett hasn't created a goddamn thing as far as we know. She just feels entitled to something she had absolutely nothing to do with.
So quit feigning umbrage over something that is clearly not that big of a deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have a whole company that creates IP (software) and has for two decades now. It's small (15 employees) but real and profitable -- the odds aren't bad you've even used some of our software -- and my income depends on our creative output.
And from what I can tell, a large percentage, if not most, of the regular commenters here also produce IP in one form or another for a living.
This is why I'm so engaged in this subject -- these issues greatly affect me personally as a content creator.
I make no secret of my great distaste of Google, however I will defend people & companies against unfair attacks, even if I don't personally like them. In this case, Google is legally in the right, and I don't see what moral principle they violated by naming their phone as they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would think that most of the people who frequent this site (except for the trolls) are decidedly Anti-Sony, vaguely anti-Microsoft, and definitely against the "He with the most lawyers, wins" way of the world.
So, since you're clearly new around here, welcome to TechDirt. :)
More on point, and has been stated several times before (just in this post, even) Trademark laws are designed *solely* to protect customers. I should not have to worry about buying a bottle of Joe's Soda with a Coca Cola label on it. Further, even if, for whatever reason, the Dick's *had* trademarked the term "Nexus", they would have to be using it in the same market (i.e., phones) for it to apply to this device.
Lastly, I would like an explanation on what possible *harm* or *disservice* this does to the Dick Family that they would like it to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you saying that authors shouldn't have to participate in the trademark system, but they should have a special exemption to wave the word "trademark" around like a wand when they feel cheated, and get results?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and George didnt say a word but ask if he could have one...
Oh and Engineers create things all the time, the difference of what i do (an engineer) and you do (as your self proclaimed artist title) is mine makes the world a better place and i get paid for it.
You slop urine on canvas and whine that no one gives you millions, once again, welcome to the real world, heres a helmet and some pills for the headaches...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The word Dumbshit
Hey dumbshit, could you give us the dictionary definition of the word "Windows" ?How about "Halo"? Those are names I'm considering for my new line of butt plugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The word Dumbshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Purchase the Pllokshsir Phone today. Made by DHDUEO!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PKD: Nexus One Android
Google: Nexus One Android Phone
Whether the family deserves money or not, its ridiculous for the geeks at Google to pretend they never saw a connection there.
> Product names in works of fiction are not copyright-able.
I think you got that backwards. Its not a copyright infringement to use real product names in a fictional book (ie Johnny drank a Coke). The claim was also about Trademarks, not copyrights. Fictional character names and product names can have protection if they help identify the work (being the book).
Would it be legit for Google to try and get a trademark for Tricorder, the Bat Phone, or even more similar to this case: Commander Data? I could just see the quote now, “we were simply using the word in its original sense. Our phone lets you take command of data”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Batphone" is trademark by DC Comics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just that Dick never applied for a trademark. It's also that it's highly unlikely he would have been able to get one, and that even if he had this doesn't meet the criteria for trademark infringement."
Are you completely retarded?
It is just what google is getting 40 years latter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, let us know what "art" you have created so we can steal it and use it to our sell products, through the associations and cache you created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.timleeland.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
William S. Burroughs wasn't even there when I started that particular piece but by the end . . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, let us know what "art" you have created so we can steal it and use it to our sell products, through the associations and cache you created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, let us know what "art" you have created so we can steal it and use it to our sell products, through the associations and cache you created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Science Fiction
"Look, we've invented the Holodeck!"
"You can't call it that -- the term Holodeck is trademarked by the Star Trek franchise."
"But ... that's exactly what it is. There's no better term to describe it."
"Sorry, pick something else."
"Ok, how about Holodick?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously lady, you're already rich beyond anything you could have possibly achieved during your lifetime and probably not even close to half as creative or intelligent as your father was. To say the least about understanding what he taught generations to believe in.
Now don't get me wrong, I see the correlation, and anyone who has half a brain can. But does she have such a lack of a life she's decided to pursue something that at best when they named the device is more of an homage than an infringement?
Go jump off a cliff, you're disappointing your father.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
42
2)The lawyer's fees are offset by the increase in publicity. Prior to the lawsuit, I didn't see the connection between Nexus One and PKD, but now I do, and that connection is probably going to increase my subconscious desire for an Android phone now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search term Nexus Android http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Nexus+Android&gwp=13
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?:
Deckard, the protagonist, is faced with retiring six escaped Nexus-6 model
androids, the latest and most advanced model. Because of this task, ...
www.answers.com/topic/ do-androids-dream-of-electric-sheep
Exclusive: first Google Phone / Nexus One photos, Android 2.1 on ...
Dec 14, 2009 ... Well here you have it folks, honest-to-goodness pics of the Google Phone... AKA,
the Nexus One. As you can see by the photos, the design.
www.engadget.com/2009/12/14/ exclusive-first-google-phone-nexus-one-photos-android-2-1-on/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn't a homage to take something without permission, especially when someone asks you to stop. If PKD and his estate (Isolde now owns the copyrights) were as greedy as say George Lucas and wanted to commodify her father's work with trademarks, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. I think the only people without a life are the ones disparaging this woman who is trying to protect her father's legacy.
You need to ask yourselves, who created the the term and who is really trying to make money of it here. Siding with a multibillion dollar corporation when the association is pretty clear says more about you guys than her. As do the comments about her name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But he and they weren't. They made a choice to avoid seeking trademark protection of words like "Nexus-6" and "Android". They almost certainly would have been unsuccessful if they made the other choice, but in any event they were better people than that and deliberately chose not to invoke the power of government to protect the assumed association between certain words and PKD's work. Good choice.
Now Isolde is telling Google that it does not have the right to use product name because of the assumed association between certain words and PKD's work, and that she intends to invoke the power of government to protect them. Retroactively. This is a fabulously bad choice on so very many levels. First, as you correctly note, this eviscerates the good decisions of her father. Second, even if PKD _should_ have sought protection many years ago, his decision not to has led the marketplace to believe that these words were available. To come back now, after the fact, and claim the trademark protection that was never properly obtained is not "principled," it is sick. Was PKD really so duplicitous in life? I did not know the man, but it does not appear to be an honor of his memory or writing for his Estate to act this way after he has passed.
Words exist. They are part of language, and should be available for everyone to use to create and innovate. It is the natural evolution of language for each author's contribution to create associations between words and concepts - it is how language becomes rich. That is the real measure of an artist's contribution to language. Without the artiface of copyright and trademark, PKD would still have made the contribution he made and it does not (and should not) matter if anyone ever recognizes it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mr. Dick didn't create the term Nexus One, or android for that matter. He just used terms previously created in a story. And now no one can ever use those words again? Fat chance.
The only reason Lucas was able to trademark his Star Wars characters is because they were used to make physical commodities. If Dick Hackett had come out with a line of Nexus-6 android toys, she might have a case. But since she didn't (becuase who the hell would have bought them) she's SOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please explain to me what the problem is. Seriously, I don't see it at all. Google's name choice does not dilute PKD's work or memory. It does not harm the income stream that his daughter gets. It does not cause any confusion in the marketplace. It doesn't even come close to implying an endorsement.
So, where's the harm? Where's the wrong?
I'm completely baffled by this, and PKD's daughter comes off looking terrible because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The day she releases all of her father's works to the public domain is the day I'll believe that she's not trying to make money off of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dude, abusing the liquify filter in photoshop is not art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: http://www.timleeland.blogspot.com/
Your "art" does indeed suck. But I like how you wrote : "The words are mine. Get your own words" at the end.
Maybe you should listen to yourself and think about that for a minute.
..or would that just be taking a pompous hypocritical idiot too seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: http://www.timleeland.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: http://www.timleeland.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, you could even use Google to find out what C&D is and how most often it is resolved. But it looks like Google is too busy using you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it will never hold juridically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, there once was a man from Nantucket...
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Much
The digs at Dick-Hackett's name name suggest some of you are stuck in a Freudian-loop of your own child-level sexuality.
The anger directed at Google is misguided because, really, why should you care so much.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too Much
If you don't find it even the tiniest bit funny, then you have no sense of humor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too Much
If it's just jokes, I'm laughing with you. If you're using it in your argument to make her look silly, it makes you come off as a bully.
Really tho, why WOULD someone do that to their kid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NEXUS ONE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love how you claim to be all anti lawyers win, in one sentence and jump into bullshit leagalese in the very next sentence. Well done.
the real zing!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, I am not against *all* laws, I am against laws that are poorly thought out, poorly implemented, unnecessary, or twisted/misused.
There is no law, to my (limited) knowledge that allows a party to have complete control over all uses of a single word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the Nexus-6 a commercial product?
Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the Nexus-6 a commercial product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Culture
But then again, she didn't have the intelligence to write anything anyone would want to read, so let's make some more money off daddy.
You get to an age, where you can no longer live from mum and dad's pocket and you need to make your own mark on the world. That age for normal people is about 18-20. Does she not feel guilty that she is still living out of daddy's pocket?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Culture
To diss her for (albeit misguidedly) trying to protect her father's work is kinda twisted. I think it's the lack of appreciation the fact that her father has influenced the general culture that makes her look ugly in this regard.
I would hope that when I die, any works that I may have created would profit my children and that they would, in return, work to protect it.
She should maybe take a clue from Arthur C. Clarke. You don't see his progeny suing the creators of the Waldo. He concieved the idea and even thought up the name, but I have no knowledge of fruitless lawsuits being thrown around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Culture
Do we really? I would strive to pass good morals and strong work ethic to my children in the hope that they could achieve more than me. All you are doing by allowing your children to profit from your creative works is breeding lazy, entitled and greedy douchebags, who squander and waste all the money and goodwill that may have been passed on without contributing anything in return.
I would like to see my children have some moral fibre and I would like to see them work hard at improving themselves and the world they live in.
But then again, I am no artist, I am an engineer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Culture
Some people pass what they earned to their children not because they're trying to raise spoiled brats, but simply because they love them.
All that said, I don't think she's doing any of this because she's going broke and needs the money. PKD's estate and family makes so much money off of movie adaptations (with more to come!) that beyond managing his works and likeness, they probably don't have to do a lot of "real" work. If they had chosen to blow this whole thing off, they'd still have plenty, I'm sure. I think she genuinely feels there's a principle involved. Considering that her father was poor as a pauper for most of his life (even AFTER he was being called a "literary genius"), I'm sure her views on the exploitation of him are more extreme than yours or mine.
I don't necessarily agree with her position but I wouldn't begrudge her or offer criticisms for trying to protect her father's work. When all is said and done, even though her C&D and any potential lawsuit are bound to fail, she'll know that she worked to protect her father's work.
And really, what else would we ask of our children when we're gone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Culture
You can do whatever you want with your hard earned. However, creative works are not "hard earned". Creative works are not money and cannot be treated in the same way. The creator of works has a right to a monopoly on their works, after they die it is time to pass the works onto the public domain to enrich our culture and to allow anyone to enjoy them or use it as a basis of their own works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Culture
And their progeny's progeny and so forth? Seems fair. Aren't inventions more important than cultural artifacts?
Isn't rocket fuel greater than Shakespeare?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nexus One != PKD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nexus One != PKD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a better name
Imagine the fun you'd have playing with your Big Dick, you could even let your family and friends hold your Big Dick. Imagine walking through your work with your Big Dick in hand, while others sit and wish they too had a Big Dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic, no?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-U S:official&q=Isa+Dick+Hackett&start=20&sa=N
Finds this:
home (www)
Electric Shepherd Productions LLC was founded by Laura Leslie and Isa Dick Hackett, daughters of the late Science Fiction author Philip K Dick. ...
www.electricshepherdproductions.com/
From the bottom of the above url:
Sign in Terms Report Abuse Print page | Powered by Google Sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is an even clearer "infringement" of Dick's work, or is it more of an homage, so it's ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]