May 4, 2009 by Tap
So the big news right now is the complaint filed by one Erich Specht against Google, the Open Handset Alliance and just about anybody who's dared to use the term Android, or so it seems. This does come as a bit of a surprise considering Google's previous history with trademarked terms/domains. I'm referring of course to the infamous Gmail dispute in Europe which they lost. You would have thought that they'd have learnt from that mistake when it came to the term Android but according to Specht, Google "stole first and asked questions later." But was that really the case? Here's some interesting information for you to consider.
Yes, Specht trademarked the term 'Android Data' in 2002 in reference to his company which produced/produces "a suite of software that enables the remote administration of ecommerce content." But that seems to be all he did. The company itself was dissolved in 2004 and the associated domain name, androiddata.com, lapsed and appeared to become a parked link page back in early 2006 (according to WayBack Machine).
Now this is where it starts to get a bit muddy. The OHA first announced Android in 2007, but this was before Google had actually had their trademark application for Android approved. As it turns out their application was denied in early 2008 but by then it was already too late – the term Android had already been established in reference to the new open platform. Despite this it looked like they'd actually gotten away with it until last month when, at the last possible moment, Specht decided to put up a fight. Suddenly, his company re-appeared with a new website, www.android-data.com, registered just days before he submitted his complaint.
Interestingly, the current website seems little changed to the one that disappeared back in 2006 apart from the addition of a product roadmap which starts 'now' and moves forward – no history there. This may just be Google's saving grace. For all intents and purposes, it looks like Specht resurrected a dormant company and product suite simply to initiate a money-making claim and I guess that will be Google's argument. The big question is, will Google be willing to let this go to court or will they just pay up to make this all go away, making Specht a very happy and wealthy man?