You Don't Own What You've Bought: Google Nest Edition

from the the-end-of-ownership dept

Well, here we go again. One of the common themes here over the past few years is how in the digitization of everything, the very meaning of "ownership" and "property" has changed -- and not necessarily in good ways. The latest example: last week Google more or less announced the end of its "Works with Nest" program, as it migrates Nest from a separate entity into the Google mothership, and trying to move other "internet-of-things" devices into the Google Assistant ecosystem instead. As the Verge notes, this will upset a bunch of systems that used to work one way, and no longer will going forward.

The Works with Nest program has been around since 2014, and many device makers integrated their products with it. That now means thousands of devices and services are in limbo with no guarantee all of them will be ported into the Works with Google Assistant program, either because their developers don’t have the resources to rewrite their integrations or because Google won’t offer the same amount and types of data to third parties anymore.

Today, companies like Lutron, SimpliSafe, and others make use of Nest’s home / away states to control things like lighting, smart blinds, home security systems, and more. Some of these larger companies are hopeful that they’ll be able to bring all of their existing features over when they shift fully to the Google Assistant program later this year, but they can’t give their customers any real guarantee that things won’t change significantly.

A notice emailed to Lutron customers after Google’s announcement said that the ability to automate lighting functions based on the Nest’s home and away status, person alerts from Nest cameras, or smoke or carbon monoxide detection from a Nest Protect will be affected by the change. It will also remove the ability to control the Nest thermostat from within the Lutron smartphone app.

The Verge also put together a list of "popular Works with Nest integrations that will break" once Google makes this shift:

• Amazon Alexa will not be able to adjust the Nest Thermostat or display Nest Cam feeds
• Logitech Harmony remotes won’t be able to change Nest alarm and home / away modes
• Philips Hue lights will not be able to change color when Nest Protect detects smoke or carbon monoxide, nor will they be able to change state when Nest Cam detects movement
• Lutron lights will not turn on when the Nest thermostat or Nest Cam detects people
• August Home will not be able to set the Nest Thermostat to home or away when locks are opened or closed
• SimpliSafe will not be able to directly set the Nest Thermostat to home or away
• Wemo switches will not be able to change state when Nest is set to home or away

The article goes into a lot more detail as well. There are good reasons for this move -- Google itself says it will better protect user data and privacy, which would be a good thing (especially given the privacy shitshow that the IOT space has been over the years). But, it's also a reminder that ownership has become a lot more nebulous when you're relying on third party service providers to make the stuff that you bought actually work.

Filed Under: google assistant, google nest, iot, ownership
Companies: google

Google Trademark Bullies Obviously Non-Commercial Parody Site

from the no-need-to-do-this dept

We've been disappointed in the past to see Google descend into the land of trademark bullies, and had hoped that the company had learned its lesson. Unfortunately, it appears that the company still will dip into trademark bullying when it really should know better. The latest came in response to some pranksters setting up a (quite amusing) parody site called Google-Nest.org, playing on the fact that Google recently purchased Nest, the makers of internet connected thermostats and smoke detectors. The site was clearly mocking Google's expansion into... well... everything, with fake product announcements for things like Google Trust, Google Hug and Google Bee (your personal drone). The whole thing was clearly parody, and while it was clearly making a statement about how integrated Google has become into many people's lives, you would have hoped that Google's trademark lawyers would have a sense of humor and let it go.

They did not.

If you go to the link above, you now see a message from Peng! Collective, who put the site together for the Republica event in Berlin, saying that they didn't want to get involved in a big legal battle. Of course, the internet never forgets, and there are plenty of archives of the original. The whole thing is incredibly questionable on Google's part. Not only is the work clearly parody, but it's non-commercial. And trademark only applies to commercial uses.

The EFF has stepped in and sent a letter to Google on behalf of Peng! Collective questioning why Google decided to be a trademark bully over this, and reminding Google (and us) of the neat practice that Linden Lab pioneered years ago -- a proceed-and-permit letter instead of a cease-desist-letter on trademark issues.

The site is a pure political commentary. Indeed, its launch has long since been recognized as such by a variety of news organizations. U.S. authorities consistently support the basic notion that trademark law does not reach, much less prohibit, this kind of speech regarding a matter of substantial public concern. Simply put, "The Lanham Act regulates only economic, not ideological or political, competition . . . Competition in the marketplace of ideas is precisely what the First Amendment is designed to protect." ...

First, use of the Google name and logo on the site is fully protected by the nominative fair use doctrine.... Indeed, courts have noted that nominative fair uses are particularly likely to be found in parodies....

Second, given the content of the site, and the ample publicity the spoof has generated, all of which recognized as satirical and parodical commentary, it is difficult to imagine that any Internet user would be confused.

Third, the site is sheltered by the First Amendment.... Again, there is nothing on the site that would lead consumers to purchase goods or services based on a mistaken affiliation.

Finally, my client's action is entirely noncommercial and, therefore, statutorily exempt from the Lanham Act.

There's even more in the letter, including the fact that since this all happened in Germany anyway, the Lanham Act (which governs trademark law in the US) doesn't even apply.

Either way it's disappointing to see Google go down this path. Yes, as trademark lawyers love to point out, unlike with other forms of intellectual property, there is more of a requirement that you actively protect your marks under trademark law, but (contrary to what some believe) this does not mean that you have to go after everyone using your mark, especially when it's clearly not infringing for all of the uses listed above.

As in nearly every case of trademark bullying, the end result just makes the bully look silly and legalistic, where they could have come out much more reasonable and accommodating. Hopefully, this time, Google learns its lesson on these kinds of things. Sure, the Google-Nest site was mocking Google, but big companies need to learn to not just have a sense of humor about these things, but to recognize that this is part of the public discussion and debate about their role in the world. Google could have jumped into that discussion or avoided it all together. But, it chose one of the worst options: to go with a threat.

Filed Under: cease and desist, germany, google nest, peng! collective, proceed and permit, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: eff, google