Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

team-bhp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

#181

Post by dehrmann »

jzwinck wrote: post #109
simonkafan wrote: post #106

Not the same story but related: Microsoft had to rebrand his online storage SkyDrive to OneDrive once because the television broadcaster "Sky" won a trademark lawsuit in UK. Can anyone tell me how this is possible? Why am I not allowed to use the word "sky" in any product name completely unrelated to TV?

Sky is also an internet service provider. Not as far removed as TV really, and SkyDrive is hardly unrelated to internet service.

I'd say it doesn't seem to be a problem for Box and Dropbox, but it probably is; the two companies are just too similar.

Re: Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

#182

Post by BrandoElFollito »

kwanbix wrote: post #121
ghaff wrote: post #112

I can sue you for more or less anything. And, especially if I'm a big company, I can make you waste a lot of time and money (even if you're also a big company). That's why, as someone who has been involved in a number of product naming decisions, my experience is that lawyers are very conservative in terms of what names they let you use even if, on paper, it seems like you have a good argument that your somewhat over…

That is because in USA you pay your lawyers. In other countries, if you loose, you have to pay the lawyers of the other part.

It would be even better if the costs were a percentage of your income. You have 1B income, well it is going to cost you 5%. You earn 20k? You will pay 1% of this.

Why the difference? Because out of these 20k, you maybe need 15 to live. For a 1B company, the "need to live" is probably much lower. This is similar to how income tax brackets work in Europe.

Re: Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

#183

Post by jackcviers3 »

maxlybbert wrote: post #160
jackcviers3 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using this the next time an objectivist capitalist starts getting angry about how government regulations are all worthless.

The concept of trademarks dates back to master craftsmen putting identifying marks on their work to build up a reputation. Trademark law gives that practice some legal enforcement. I’m sure you can find some anarchist who would oppose any law, but I’m much more familiar with people who want a small government and wouldn’t mind that government enforcing trademark laws. They also generally support truth in advertising…

Yes - but a Randian market isn't under the enforcement of any government.

Re: Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

#185

Post by im3w1l »

mcguire wrote: post #148
megous wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General spirit is to protect company profits. For example, I'm much better served by Sandisk having a tamper-proof verification codes on their uSD cards that I can lookup on their official website and verify the card being genuine. I don't remember the last time I bought non-genuine Sandisk card from random sellers on Aliexpress after they introduced this. Yet I have a bunch of Samsung ones from China (probably fakes…

" For example, I'm much better served by Sandisk having a tamper-proof verification codes on their uSD cards that I can lookup on their official website and verify the card being genuine. " How so? Once you have the uSD card in hand, they have your money.

Easier to kick them off the platform or contact the police with stronger proof maybe. They also can't say they were fooled in turn because they could have verified on website.

Re: Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

#186

Post by sparkie »

akerro wrote: post #24
segfaultbuserr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does simply using the word "Droid" for an Android-related project count as trademark infringement? Can the free software project "F-Droid" [0] (Android App Installer) be sued for trademark infringement? If it is, it's bad news... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid

Facebook sued and won companies that had "book" in their name.

Why didn't Apple/FaceTime sue Facebook for using "Face" in their name? (The FaceTime franchise dates back to 1997, way before Facebook).

Why is "face" generic, but "book" is not?

I recall their being other social media sites with "face" in their name before facebook, but can't remember the names.

I think its clear the IP system favours the party who can throw the most money around.

Re: Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

#187

Post by dnh44 »

joecool1029 wrote: post #177
dnh44 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK lawyers have insurance to cover them in case they lose. This encourages them to take pro-bono cases when there is a decent chance of winning.

>This encourages them to take pro-bono cases It was my understanding that pro-bono is under rate or free services, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the terminology you're looking for is 'contingent', where the client only pays a % fee to attorney if they manage to generate a judgement. In this case, does the UK insurance kick in to pay a fee to lawyer if they lose the case? I'm talking about civil cases here, not cri…

You’re correct regarding the terminology.

A friend of mine had a law firm take their (civil) case on a contingency basis and there was an insurance policy to cover the lawyer’s time in case they lost.

Re: Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

#190

Post by rland »

dnh44 wrote: post #154
ghaff wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through. The issue is that lawsuits are often not obvious. There's almost always a non-trivial risk of losing. Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.

In the UK lawyers have insurance to cover them in case they lose. This encourages them to take pro-bono cases when there is a decent chance of winning.

What an interesting line of work that would be. I wonder how they calculate risk for such a policy.
Post reply on HN