Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
My husband worked for a radio station in about the same time frame and he and his colleagues were given watches from.. Seiko? Casio? Can't remember. They got news and sports updates and were supposed to have some kind of personalized data stream as well. They were big and clunky and never worked right and eventually the watch manufacturer canceled the data streams and that ended any possible reason to wear the watches (besides, they chirped all day as the updates came in, which was seriously annoying).
I had a Nixxo pager at about the same time that gave me news headlines and weather reports, but anything more interesting than that cost extra. And eventually all I got was the Las Vegas weather (we're in Los Angeles) so it wasn't too hard to pull the plug.
I actually have a box of these at home. During that time I worked for a retailer who sold the Modo. When they went belly up they just gave us the left over stock.
It was funny after all these years to see someone writing about it.
I remember this! My friend Victor Chu was the inventor, and his girl was/is a friend of mine. She got me a writing gig for the device. I'd go around the city writing about different venues, restaurants, clubs, etc.. The pay was good. I still have one: its in the back of my closet and it still works. I think the Palm Pilot was the rage then cuz the ipod didn't come out till 2001.
When you name your *Android*-based product after a type of android from a popular work of fiction, you might want to consider paying some kind of licensing fee.
Hell, Apple paid for "Mighty Mouse" and they did it for the sheer fact that they wanted a pithy name.
@MarcusMaximus: You mean like "mighty" (well thats an adjective) and "mouse?" or as I said earlier, "apple?"
Billy is right. She might not have a trademark claim but she might have something. I'd imagine there has been talk about paying "some" kind of fee to the estate but they figured they could worry about that later.
Google was smart no doubt. The name makes perfect sense as it is. I'm sure its some "the first mobile nexus" or some kinda marketing spin but if there is also the homage type meaning attached to it and she wants to be a dick she might have some claim.
It comes down much less to how common the word is then to what the background of the name is and if there can be said to be any consumer confusion.
@tande04: Ok, but there's a big difference between using a set of words(yes, even two) and just using a single word. To use the banner on the side of my screen right now as inspiration: the makers of the movie "9" couldn't sue District 9 for trademark or copyright, because independent everyday words can't be copyrighted by themselves. However, if someone else came out with a movie called "District 9" tomorrow, there'd be a lawsuit immediately.
Besides all that, should Blizzard also be sued because they use the name for one of the buildings in starcraft(Protoss Nexus)?
@MarcusMaximus: No there isn't actually. You can trademark a single word. How many massive companies out there have? Nike, Apple, Tide, etc.
Copyright and trademark are two different things. There was actually a lot of discussion when those two movies came out about exactly what you're talking about. There was also supposed to be a Nine (or N9ne or some other silly spelling I don't remember). One the one hand its just kind of bad marketing on their part. They really should of just cut confusion off at the head and named one of the movies something different. They wouldn't have any kind of trademark claim because its just starting out. If in your example 9 had been a runaway success that spawned all kinds of highly successful related merchandise cementing it in the public consciousness then District 9 came out there might be a claim of trademark infringement if they could show that they were entering the same field and playing on the similarity in the name to deliberately confuse consumers. Might have worked might not have.
Its kinda the same thing here. I imagine she may have some claim. Just not 100% sure what it would be. Nexus-6 probably wasn't trademarked nor was any part of Nexus in conjunction with PKD's novel. I question how well known it is in the public consciousness too. I don't think you're going to have any claim of confusion. At the same time in this case there if google is really doing an "homage" and she's going to get pissy about it they might be in trouble. Gets into an idea of "is PKD endorsing this" which again gets us back to the public saying "who the hell is PKD?"
Your Starcraft example doesn't really work. Like I said its not as much about the word as it is consumer confusion for the word in the same space. Apple can't make every grocery store start calling them "spherical red fruits" but say that Apple Jacks (even with the second word) said "screw it we're out of the cereal biz and we're going to start making computers and PMPs" that wouldn't go far.
@tande04: I guess I can see your point with that, although it'd all depend on whether the PKD estate has a trademark on the word. I was under the impression they'd be suing for copyright, which would be completely ridiculous, but then reading the article again, it doesn't specify. Seems odd that they'd have a trademark on the term "Nexus"(before Droid is brought up, that actually makes sense since it's not exactly a common word. I wasn't born yet when Star Wars came out but I'd say there's a fair chance the word didn't exist before then), but if they do this trademark Google applied for will probably be denied and the whole thing will likely be swept under the carpet anyway. I just don't see this going far enough that the PKD will either be able to or need to file a lawsuit.
The issue is terms of use. I think the Nike example earlier highlights this. It's creating a false connection with products. If there was a new spacecraft by NASA called the Enterprise, they'd probably get into a lot of trouble. Sure, enterprise is used in a lot of different ways, but linking it with space travel when the most widely use of it is from Star Trek could create many problems.
And Isa was probably spoken because she's probably the executor of the estate or at least the spokesperson.
@chargernj: And bad example because , as mentioned, there was a spaceship called Enterprise.
On the flip side if Roddenberry wasn't pleased for some reason they wouldn't have done it.
Still the overall point is valid. It doesn't matter that enterprise is a word in the dictionary with a long nautical heritage. If someone else released a product called Enterprise that was clearly trying to cash in on the ST connection there would undoubtedly be a suit. As there should be really. People get upset about it for some reason but there is a reason that these protections are in place.
@tande04: Do you really think that this is "obviously" trying to cash in on a tenuous connection to an obscure, if beloved, movie from 30 years ago? Seriously?
Yes, there is a reason that these protections are in place, which is why it's all the worse when they are abused. Copyrights and trademarks were meant to be used as a shield, not a hammer.
@tande04: Silly me, I assumed you were using the Star Trek thing as an allegory for the topic of the thread, and not simply meandering off topic for no good reason. It certainly read that way, at least...
@tande04: How so? It certainly seemed like you were using a more well-known example to compare to the example we're talking about here, and arguing that the same solution in that case should apply to this case. Now it just seems like you're trying to backpedal without admitting you were wrong.
@HeartBurnKid: Agent of R.O.A.C.H.: Nope not backpeddling.
Read the rest of the comments. Not once have I said "she obviously deservers to get paid." I'm not even 100% sure where you got the "obviously" you put in quotes in this thread from.
I'm not admitting I'm wrong because well, I'm not wrong. What we were talking about was that a word being in the dictionary has nothing to do with the fact that it can or can't be trademarked. In this particular thread it was talking about Enterprise. The relevance to the general topic being that all the people saying "you can't trademark Nexus", are flat out wrong.
You decided that my parallel was making a much larger comment about the whole thing so you added in "obviously" and "cash in" which again I never said.
So to save you the time I'll retell the same thing I've been saying in the comments since this got started. I think you're right in that the book is a little too obscure for her to say that there is going to be widespread consumer confusion over it. The fact that Nexus-6 or anything similar from the book isn't actually a trademark makes any trademark claim difficult for her. At the same time I have started to think that she might have some claim that it implies at the least an endorsement. Here you could use the the Enterprise/Rodenberry example. It was an endorsement on one level and he was perfectly pleased with it. She might not be.
As a bit of an aside (since apparently I have to label them now). Its completely blowing it out of the water to say that she is rushing to cash in on this. Not once has she said she is going to sue. All that really happened was the paper was writing an article about the supposed google phone/Do Androids dream connection and asked what she thought about it. There I will say that she has every right to be upset about it and look at options. Its probably a by product of how all the nexus one rumors started up in the first place. Maybe google was going to talk to her maybe not.
12/21/09
I had a Nixxo pager at about the same time that gave me news headlines and weather reports, but anything more interesting than that cost extra. And eventually all I got was the Las Vegas weather (we're in Los Angeles) so it wasn't too hard to pull the plug.
12/21/09
It was funny after all these years to see someone writing about it.
12/21/09
...or would that be the opposite?
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/21/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
My futuredog's name is Nexus, I demand paychecks!
12/16/09
12/16/09
NEWS FLASH: Nexus is a common English word. You don't own it.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Hell, Apple paid for "Mighty Mouse" and they did it for the sheer fact that they wanted a pithy name.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Billy is right. She might not have a trademark claim but she might have something. I'd imagine there has been talk about paying "some" kind of fee to the estate but they figured they could worry about that later.
Google was smart no doubt. The name makes perfect sense as it is. I'm sure its some "the first mobile nexus" or some kinda marketing spin but if there is also the homage type meaning attached to it and she wants to be a dick she might have some claim.
It comes down much less to how common the word is then to what the background of the name is and if there can be said to be any consumer confusion.
12/16/09
Besides all that, should Blizzard also be sued because they use the name for one of the buildings in starcraft(Protoss Nexus)?
12/16/09
Copyright and trademark are two different things. There was actually a lot of discussion when those two movies came out about exactly what you're talking about. There was also supposed to be a Nine (or N9ne or some other silly spelling I don't remember). One the one hand its just kind of bad marketing on their part. They really should of just cut confusion off at the head and named one of the movies something different. They wouldn't have any kind of trademark claim because its just starting out. If in your example 9 had been a runaway success that spawned all kinds of highly successful related merchandise cementing it in the public consciousness then District 9 came out there might be a claim of trademark infringement if they could show that they were entering the same field and playing on the similarity in the name to deliberately confuse consumers. Might have worked might not have.
Its kinda the same thing here. I imagine she may have some claim. Just not 100% sure what it would be. Nexus-6 probably wasn't trademarked nor was any part of Nexus in conjunction with PKD's novel. I question how well known it is in the public consciousness too. I don't think you're going to have any claim of confusion. At the same time in this case there if google is really doing an "homage" and she's going to get pissy about it they might be in trouble. Gets into an idea of "is PKD endorsing this" which again gets us back to the public saying "who the hell is PKD?"
Your Starcraft example doesn't really work. Like I said its not as much about the word as it is consumer confusion for the word in the same space. Apple can't make every grocery store start calling them "spherical red fruits" but say that Apple Jacks (even with the second word) said "screw it we're out of the cereal biz and we're going to start making computers and PMPs" that wouldn't go far.
12/16/09
12/16/09
And Isa was probably spoken because she's probably the executor of the estate or at least the spokesperson.
12/16/09
It pisses me off how everybody wants to sue over everything these days.
12/16/09
12/16/09
On the flip side if Roddenberry wasn't pleased for some reason they wouldn't have done it.
Still the overall point is valid. It doesn't matter that enterprise is a word in the dictionary with a long nautical heritage. If someone else released a product called Enterprise that was clearly trying to cash in on the ST connection there would undoubtedly be a suit. As there should be really. People get upset about it for some reason but there is a reason that these protections are in place.
12/16/09
Yes, there is a reason that these protections are in place, which is why it's all the worse when they are abused. Copyrights and trademarks were meant to be used as a shield, not a hammer.
12/16/09
Oh you're talking about the whole Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream thing, which I don't think I've actually mentioned once in this discussion.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
Read the rest of the comments. Not once have I said "she obviously deservers to get paid." I'm not even 100% sure where you got the "obviously" you put in quotes in this thread from.
I'm not admitting I'm wrong because well, I'm not wrong. What we were talking about was that a word being in the dictionary has nothing to do with the fact that it can or can't be trademarked. In this particular thread it was talking about Enterprise. The relevance to the general topic being that all the people saying "you can't trademark Nexus", are flat out wrong.
You decided that my parallel was making a much larger comment about the whole thing so you added in "obviously" and "cash in" which again I never said.
So to save you the time I'll retell the same thing I've been saying in the comments since this got started. I think you're right in that the book is a little too obscure for her to say that there is going to be widespread consumer confusion over it. The fact that Nexus-6 or anything similar from the book isn't actually a trademark makes any trademark claim difficult for her. At the same time I have started to think that she might have some claim that it implies at the least an endorsement. Here you could use the the Enterprise/Rodenberry example. It was an endorsement on one level and he was perfectly pleased with it. She might not be.
As a bit of an aside (since apparently I have to label them now). Its completely blowing it out of the water to say that she is rushing to cash in on this. Not once has she said she is going to sue. All that really happened was the paper was writing an article about the supposed google phone/Do Androids dream connection and asked what she thought about it. There I will say that she has every right to be upset about it and look at options. Its probably a by product of how all the nexus one rumors started up in the first place. Maybe google was going to talk to her maybe not.