News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on EU hits Google with second antitrust charge. Parent comment

Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by wnevets on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @03:50PM (#11537225)
maybe I'm dumb but I'm missing the part where Android is a proprietary trademark.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by cdibona on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @05:06PM (#11537760)
The term Android is not trademarked. Even the bugdroid is released under a cc-attrib license. Funnily, the term 'droid' is trademarked and licensed by lucasfilm/disney mostly.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by scholia on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @10:39PM (#11539277)
> The term Android is not trademarked.

Google quote: "Android™ should have a trademark symbol the first time it appears in a creative."

Brand Guidelines http://developer.android.com/distribute/tools/promote/brand....

Yes, I do know who you are -- in fact, we have met -- but Google should not be using Android™ if it's not trademarked ;-)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by cdibona on Sunday April 24, 2016 @12:17AM (#11558530)
I agree, obviously. Lemme look into it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by cdibona on Sunday April 24, 2016 @12:29AM (#11558552)
Oh, derp, I was thinking of something else. That makes a lot more sense (that We'd trademark)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by scholia on Monday April 25, 2016 @06:00PM (#11567720)
;-) No probs. Thanks for checking.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EU hits Google with second antitrust charge by wnevets on Wednesday April 20, 2016 @05:45PM (#11537980)
I remember that being a thing when the droid phone was first launched.
[ Parent | on HN ]