I say just give all his employees a Nexus One and call it a day!…(oops Google has trademark problem there too!) :-(

I thought “Android” was a dumb name, anyway, from day one.
Don’t give the greedy moron anything, and just change your name.

First of all, the quoted material in the article says “Specht” repeatedly, yet the author keeps saying “Sprecht.” That drives me nuts.

Second, what if this was you? You’re telling me that if you owned a business for years and then someone else started using the name, that you wouldn’t be upset? What if I just started using “Google” as my business name? You can be sure they would be on me pretty quickly.

What we are missing is that to “allow” Google to step on Mr. Sprecht’s trademark is endorsing theft merely because Google has already used it and released it under an OSS license.

So, Mr. Sprecht should just allow Google to take his asset since Google already gave it away? If Google took money from your bank and gave it away, should you just endorse their generosity on your behalf, or recognize the theft for what it is?

Google stole intellectual property and relicensed it.

The entire purpose of OSS is to set terms for the free use of contributions, specifically where the copyright owner permits such release.

Google violated established and documented rights, and an individual operating a commercial business with an intention to protect his business assets is looked at as the bad guy.

What about when the Free Software Foundation sues commercial vendors who accidentally release GPL licensed content under their own license? Why is it different when FSF does it?

In the end, what we defend is freedom, liberty – not theft. Google stole someone’s intellectual property. They knew it belonged to someone else, but used their force to “take” what is not theirs.

Why did Mr. Sprecht not respond sooner? It is complicated to convince a law firm to sue Google. They knowingly took his business asset, and now they will use a large budget to defend it.

It is a shame that Google does not step forward, apologize for taking someone’s property, and attempting to justify it. The difficulty here is that it is not Mr. Sprecht stealing from Google, where his disadvantage is size, so he clearly would be taking a risk to do so. Google stole the name because they knew that they could resolve this using legal and financial influence, thereby justifying the theft of intellectual property.

We should all realize that this is NOT how a community acts. OSS is all about defining work contributed by the copyright owner for use and redistribution, without liability, with access to source and so on. The license does not say that the FOSS community can extort code, documentation, trademarked assets from private commercial companies and release them to the world.

FOSS is a business, backed by large enterprises for financial benefit. To allow the theft of property from a commercial vendor for the benefit of an OSS project is really saying that the larger vendor should be allowed to operate under different rules than the smaller vendors which clearly don’t have the financial capability to compete that way.

May sound extreme, but people like him are costing us all huge amounts in money and lives in superfluous court cases.

that’s called a felony, which can cause a denial of service attack, punishable by imprisonment. not to mention, it is harassment and cyberstalking.

1f you wish to do so
inquiry@android-data.com

flood their mail system.

oh ya, here’s the website

http://www.erichspecht.com/index.html

You can pour sugar on shit, but it’s still shit. Google will give him enough money to feed his dumb ass family for the next 500 years and HOPEFULLY in the end we get to keep Android.