May 3rd, 2009
The Android name kerfluffle
The media is absolutely filled with “oh noes” stories concerning Google, and its partners in the Open Handset Alliance, being sued by Erich Specht of Palatine, Ill over its use of the word Android to describe its mobile phones.
I, on the other hand, have gone to the Urban Dictionary and decided to call this a kerfluffle. It fits under all three definitions offered.
Don’t try to fud Specht’s “company,” Android Data, using Google. It does not have a Web site. Which leads some to call Mr. Specht a trademark troll.
Techdirt asks the obvious question. Is Google, or anyone else, really using the Android name to do business? Yes and no.
Yes, Android has a logo, and in phones it has a meaning, but no, none of the manufacturers making “Android” phones has yet used the word in their ads, and Google has no plans to make phones.
Android in this case is a code name, like Microsoft Longhorn (now Windows Vista), that got out of hand and was released into the wild. (That’s why I found an old Longhorn logo from Wikimedia and pasted it at the top of this post.)
Still, Google’s trademark application on the word Android was rejected in February, 2008, with the trademark folks citing Specht’s mark, and after appeals failed the trademark application was suspended last November.
This means Google, and its partners, have had over 6 months to negotiate with Mr. Specht and have not come to an agreement.
So this is just a question of cash, not cachet. Mr. Specht wants $100 million for a name he never really used. Google obviously thinks that is too much, since they’re not really planning on using it.
What figure would be appropriate?
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983. You can follow Dana on Twitter. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to Linux and Open Source via Email alerts or RSS.
| 05/03/09
