Google to get sued over Nexus One name?
This article contains unofficial information.
The late Philip K. Dick had written a book called, "Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?" and the book featured Nexus 6 cyborgs. One of Dick's daughters, `Isa Dick Hackett, says that Google is committing a trademark violation. She says, "In my mind, there is a very obvious connection to my father's novel. People don't get it. It's the principle of it. It would be nice to have a dialogue. We are open to it. That's a way to start." Seeing the name Android in the title of the book, and the use of the word Nexus might seem to be more than a coincidence when an Android powered phone is called Nexus One. While no lawsuit has been filled as of now, it looks like the Mountain View based company is willing to take its chances with a judge or jury. At least they didn't name the first Google Phone the Electric Sheep.
HTC Nexus One Specifications | Hands-on
1. biggles posted on 20 Oct 2010, 01:44 0 0
I thought Nexus One was a Bladerunner reference. Edit: Oh, I see. Bladerunner was based loosely on this book.
2. allboutverizon posted on 09 Jan 2010, 08:27 0 0
The term Nexus is too general by definition, and google seperates this by calling their phone "Nexus One", which eliminates the confusion from this guys book. He's just looking for some quick money, I hate bottom feeders. I see no case, google is probably laughing at this. Why do you think google was able to use the term Android, they wern't the first to use the name Android. However because the term is so gernealy used, it allowed them to do so as well. The only reason Moto/Verzion had to ask to use Droid is because that is different than Android and is not a gerneral term. So No money, No case. That's like me making a book, "My moon, my solar system", and a year later google coming out with a phone called "Solar One" and you saying they stole my name. Um hello, Solar is not your name, lol....
4. mobilemike11 posted on 09 Jan 2010, 20:01 0 0
Come on people. At what point is every word known to man tied to legal rights by a person or corporate entity? It's like plaigorism; using more than three sequential words from a source without citing them? I am pretty sure, everything we say and type has been typed or said somewhere else before! This is getting out of hand!