Do Androids Dream of Cell Phones?

The Wall Street Journal reports that an heir to the estate of sci-fi author Phillip K. Dick has alleged that Google’s “Nexus One” phone infringes the author’s intellectual property estate. Mr. Dick is the author of “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, which was the basis of the sci-fi cult classic “Blade Runner“. In that futuristic film-noir classic, Harrison Ford plays a bounty hunter who tracks down androids referred to as Nexus-6 models.

The Google phone is not the only phone that borrows from sci-fi cinema to boost its branding appeal. Motorola’s much celebrated Droid cell phone references the many robotic characters that play a key role in the “Star Wars” films. There are, however, important differences between the two cases. Lucasfilm, owner of the “Star Wars” franchise, registered the trademark Droid in 1985 for use with action figures. They maintain that registration and several others related to Droid. No other parties have registered Droid as a trademark. All that meant Motorola required a trademark license from Lucasfilm.

The estate for Philip Dick would have a much stronger claim against Google had they registered Nexus-6 as a trademark. Instead, other companies have registered the word Nexus for various types of goods and services. The critical question is whether the use of Nexus One for the cell phone market creates a likelihood of confusion with regards to sponsorship or source in relation to the Dick estate.

Another interesting twist arises if Google’s future versions of the phone increase sequentially. At some point, the phone may be branded as Nexus Six. By claiming an intellectual property dispute early on, the Dick’s estate may be pre-empting the controversy.

Google Obtains Design Patent For Its Website

For some time now, I have noticed how Google has obtained several design patents for its website and user interface. See below.

Google Homepage Design Patent
Google Homepage Design Patent

They also recently applied for and obtained a new design patent for the layout of search results. Click here to see it.

A design patent is not your typical patent, and it only secures the aesthetic ornamental aspects of the goods.

Nothing is stopping Google from trademarking its clean, minimalist web interface. In fact, I wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal a while back on how Apple used this very strategy to obtain a shape trademark for its iPod and iPhone.

My most recent search of Google’s nearly 100 live trademarks, however, shows they have yet to learn from Apple’s trademark strategy success.

UPDATE: Please see this newer post to learn about additional ways to secure a website’s design and functionality.

Will Google Shut Down Copycat Site?

A student in my Entrepreneurship class recently made me aware of the site: “Let me Google that for you” .com (LMGTFY).

As the name of LMGTFY implies, the site shows you how to search Google if you follow the simple steps listed on the site. I showed the website in class, and one student immediately thought it was a joke. “That’s not so unique” was one comment. “Why not get rid of the middleman and go straight to Google?” another student asked.

As it turns out, the website is dedicated “to all those people that find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than google it for themselves.” So, if you receive an annoying question, rather than ignore the person or say something nasty, you can send them to LMGTFY and hope they get the message not to bother you again.

The website raises some intellectual property issues, however. I asked the class if they would be willing to invest in this company. The site apparently is trying to raise advertising revenues and claims to have a “steady stream of traffic made up primarily of affluent 30-somethings.” They also claim to have received 1.25 million visitors in February. One student said he would not invest because Google would be able to “shut them down fairly quickly”.

Under what grounds? First, there is the possible trademark issue since the Google trademark and logo are used on the site. Also, the Google website is secured under copyright.

Google’s Book Democracy?

A reader sent me this New York Times  article that explains Google’s book project, which recently had to settle copyright infringement lawsuits filed by authors. With the new Google service we will all have greater access to information, a lot of which is under copyright. However, the full service appears to be limited to subscribers. The loophole is that public libraries will have a terminal that allows visitors to access the database for free.

If you come across any interesting intellectual property controversies, please send them my way.

A librarian’s perspective

Molly Kleinman, the fourth speaker of the lecture series (see posts below),  is a copyright specialist and librarian at the University of Michigan. Her job hinges on allowing people to achieve their research goals, and her job at times can be impeded by copyright laws. 

I asked her if she viewed Google as a threat to libraries. They’re not, to her. They actually make her job easier and serve as just another tool.

She also mentioned how libraries and their special databases are often unrecognized, since Google uses them extensively but never tells you that they are using a library’s database.

A big concern Molly has with copyright is that in the pre-Web era, libraries could buy a phyiscal copy of a book or journal and keep the tangible copy as long as it did not disintegrate. Now, she has seen an increased trend in licensing content. Basically, the libraries are owning less and less physical materials, and hence are owning less physical content. When they license the information, the terms of a license contract dictate the terms of use. These terms often mean no copying, no backing up, no storing in other devices, and no saving on the shelf. This means the library has to keep re-paying the content owner for re-newed access to the information periodically. This has been great for content owners who have shifted their information to digital platforms. But this is bad for the consumer who now no longer owns any tangible product where the data has been stored.

If this keeps happening, used book stores might be out of business some day?