Hate to ask the obvious question. But, I wonder it anything turned upon on search services when "Adroid" was keyed in?

Has everyone forgotten a great science-fiction writer called Isaac Asimov ?

Probably nothing relevant considering that the correct spelling is "Android" - (jeez...)

Surely "see something you like the look of, develop a clone in-house, then deal with any legal issues later" is the American IT business's MO. I seem to recall Microsoft and Apple doing that...

Some people / companies might be able to be bought by offering them a few million to sell them the name, but if too many name disputes result in a suing, then some people/companies might be tempted to refuse the offer, persuade a judge to slap a court order on the big company, then sue them for using the name in the hope of getting significantly more than the initial offer...

Nobody is patenting a word. Instead they are registering a trademark. Different concept.

Kind of like the use of "Windows" by Microsoft, "Tide" for washing powder, "Odyssey" as the name of a car, and many other consumer products with words-as-names.

'Android' was my nickname in school in the early 80s. Who do I sue?

You mean like Windows, Apple, Canon, Flash, Mars, Milky Way. Or... y'know almost every bloody trademark ever.

And as "research" pointed out by The Reg showed earlier this week, these 'words' have massive imaginary worth in the eyes of magicians and pseudo-accountants. The power of a brand is an essential part of marketing a company.

The wonderful thing about law is that even if you're the little guy, with an unsuccessful business you are offered the same protection against someone stealing your trademark as the large company. That's not greed. That's protecting what limited worth your company might have.

This would result in the whole concept of trademark being thrown out. People get confused regardless, even with simple math problems let alone similar or identical words. Market more precisely.

Some might think getting confused with Google is amazingly valuable free publicity and an even more valuable boost to his product from association with Google.

...of course the absence of any product to sell off the back of that spurious association and the inevitable attention of a Google deathstar legal team if there was a product do spoil the opportunity a little ;)

Google should not pay to settle --

Besides, Android is not that great a name for branding -

my advice - call it Gphone or GMobile

Don't know how it works in the US, but as far as I know trademarks aren't about protecting a name, but protecting the use of a name to represent the same business as the trademark holder.

Hence Apple Corp Ltd and Apple Inc shouldn't infringe on each others trademarks, so long as they don't represent each other's business (Apple Corp trying to sell computers, or Apple Inc trying to sell Beatles records, for example).

So an OS called Android is no trademark infringement on Android Data which I assume has nothing to do with operating systems. As said also the trademark holder has to use the trademark otherwise their case is null and void.

As for whether Roddenberry trademarked Data, the Android... ;)

Why Android? Make the name more relevant to the business at hand. how about Cellroid? The way those little plastic boxes are hyped like the latest celluloid blockbusters, it would be the perfect name.

Google screwed up. They should sue their trademark lawyer, who shouldn't have let them get close to trying to use the name. The original owner has got lucky because of the lawyer's blunder - there really isn't any excuse.

Really. If the point is to advance the arts & sciences and protect the rights of "the little guys" who contribute to them, then it's not being advance in this or in most other cases.

A trademark on a common (albeit derived from science fiction) noun is idotic. It has always been stupid. Even "Android Data" is a stretch, given that the entire television-watching planet knows of an android named "Data". Maybe the PTO should have considered that before they gave the guy his certificate back when they did. Doesn't anyone over there *read*?

Just like the recent fights over hypertext (first conceptualized in the 1930's), what we're dealing with here is a patent system, and a society, with the memory of a nine year-old. And not a very smart one at that.

But then, what can you expect when bank executives and football players get multi-million dollar contracts while cancer researchers have to scramble around to stay above the poverty line?

They bought Android the phone dev company.

Therefore it would be wrong to say that Google actually stole the name.

IIRC, Microsoft were not allowed "Windows" on its own as a trademark, the actual trademark is "Microsoft Windows". The word windows on its own is too generic and was used in the same context before MS got into that game.

I see the usual confusion above regarding patents and trademarks, probably someone has copyrights mixed up as well. This one is a trademark dispute. You can have more than one company with the same trademark, so long as they are not in the same line of business, or if they are they are easily distinguished in some other way like geography, hence Apple records and Apple Computers got along fine until the computers started getting music playing capabilities. (cutting a long story very short.) You can use a generic word, it does not give you exclusive rights to it, only in the context of referring to your product or service. Although it is quite a good idea to modify the spelling to distinguish yourself, as you may notice is done quite often. Contrary to what some company lawyers seem to think, it is perfectly legitimate to use a trademark to identify a product in order to review it in an unfavourable way. So whether I love it or hate it, I can use the term Microsoft Windows to make it clear to you what I am talking about.

The patent troll guy (and that's precisely what he is) seems to have trademarked "Android Data" not "Android".. does this mean that any component of trademarks is also restricted? Gillette have "The Best a Man Can Get".. no more using "Best" for any shaving gear anyone else?? Ridiculous...

After reading the comments here, one thing is painfully obvious -- many of The Reg's readers are complete idiots with no grasp on that of which they speak.

1. Erich Specht is the registered holder of the "Android Data" trademark. TM serial number 78011167. Filed: June 4, 2000. Registration date: October 22, 2002. TM first used in commerce: January 1, 1999. G & S: Computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network.

2. Google decided to use the name "Android" for their computer software.

3. Google attempted to register the trademark "Android" in October 2007, five years after Android Data registered their trademark. Google knew (or should have known by doing a simple search) that the trademark was already registered.

4. Two people/companies cannot register the same trademark in the same goods & service category. That is why Google's registration was denied.

5. In order to keep your trademark, you MUST defend it. It's not like patents where you can decide whether or not to defend your IP. With trademarks, if you fail to defend your trademark, it will be revoked. For that reason, Android Data is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to sue EVERYONE violating their trademark.

Is this a stroke of good luck for Android Data? Probably. But is he a "troll" or "scum" as many people here are saying? Absolutely not. He registered his trademark long before Google even thought about mobile phones, back when Google was still in its infancy.

As for those idiots saying you shouldn't be able to use common words as trademarks -- that's precisely why trademarks are registered for specific goods and services. It DOES make sense, and it DOES eliminate confusion. That is, unless you think having two similar products using the same exact name wouldn't be confusing. For example, two companies each developing software applications, and each one calling their app "GNU" or "Windows" or "Java" or "Eclipse", etc. Just by saying the name, nobody would know which one you were talking about. THAT is the reason for trademarks. Now, if you had a software application called "Windows" and a line of contact lenses called "Windows", there would be no such confusion, which is why the same word/mark can be used in different goods/services categories.

Oh, and if you want to look for ridiculous things, look at trademark serial number 78710784 where Google tried to get a trademark on "SARBANES OXLEY" for G&S "Broadcasting services, namely, software-based sarbanes oxley act compliance solutions". In other words, Google didn't want any other software developers to be able to use the name of the law the software was created for. But you're right, Google are, and will always be, "the good guys".