Let's all get together now and sue for our fortunes! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

billege · 05-17-2004, 07:16 PM

My exasperation with this type of reasoning is at its peak.

Original Text

Quote:

Have your Google people talk to my 'googol' people
Conversations

By Gerald P. Merrell
Sun Staff

May 16, 2004

In the late 1930s, noted mathematician and Columbia University professor Edward Kasner was asked to come up with a name for an extraordinarily large number. While on a walk one day, he asked his 9-year-old nephew, Milton Sirotta, if he had any ideas.

"Googol," the youngster replied.

The concept was announced in 1940, in Kasner's best-selling book, Mathematics and the Imagination. A googol, he wrote, is 10 raised to the 100th power - or the number 1 followed by a hundred zeros. In an obituary in The New York Times in 1955, Kasner was quoted explaining that a googol was "more than the number of raindrops falling on the city in a century, or the number of grains of sand on the Coney Island beach."

Today, though, when most people hear the term, they are likely thinking not of Kasner, but of the popular Internet search engine, Google. And that, for some, is the problem.

Relatives of Kasner are crying foul. They believe Google has gained financially at their expense. That conviction only increased with Google's recent announcement that it will go public, hoping to raise $2.7 billion in sales of its stock. If the stock price reaches $40 per share, the founders of the company and several of its employees will be worth many millions each.

Peri Fleisher of Santa Cruz, Calif., Kasner's great-niece and a compensation specialist for a Silicon Valley firm, spoke with The Sun about her great-uncle and the family's quest for compensation.

# Edward Kasner died in 1955. Did you know him?

I was 4 when he died, so I vaguely remember him. He was one of 12 kids. He never married. He was very close to all his nephews and nieces. My mother was a widow with five kids, and he acted as a surrogate father. He was a pacifist, and very much an intellectual. He received a degree from City College in New York at the age of 19, and a doctorate from Columbia at 21. From all accounts, he was a wonderful person.

# What do you think your great-uncle would think if he knew that googol, while spelled slightly differently, has come to represent the immensely popular search engine?

I'm not sure. Obviously it's only brought attention to the name, it hasn't brought attention to his work, so I'm not quite certain what he'd think. They're not using the concepts, but just capitalizing on the name.

# How long have you felt that Google owed your family something?

It's nothing I dwell on. It came up when they first started. My son, David, inherited the rights to my great-uncle's book, so we have a little bit of an interest.

# Google's Web site does acknowledge that the term googol was coined by Sirotta and the concept developed by your great-uncle. You don't think that's sufficient?

I had heard of Google in 1988 before most people were aware of it. I didn't know if the company was going to take off or not. I wrote them and introduced myself. I just wanted to give them the opportunity; to let them know that he [Kasner] had living relatives. They never responded. I don't know if they were too busy and couldn't get back to me, or if it was done deliberately.

They are playing off that number and not compensating us even a little bit. Ethically, they could have been more giving. If nothing else, they should have given us the opportunity to operate as insiders for the IPO.

# Do you believe the company is morally wrong for using the name?

I don't know if morally wrong is the right term. In terms of business ethics, it would have been wrong had they not acknowledged that's how they chose the name. But I do think it's wrong. I've worked with a lot of young, entrepreneurial types who are very arrogant. We need to explore and protect our rights a little bit.

# But you believe Google has an obligation to compensate you and your family for using the name coined by your great uncle, correct?

Legally, that's an open question we're exploring. But ethically, courteously, yes. I see some hypocrisy there. They have ignored us. Other than changing a couple of letters on the name, they are capitalizing on it. This is a business. These guys are going to make billions of dollars. It's not a cute little thing.

# As you know, Google now plans to make an initial public offering and expects to raise $2.7 billion. Does that fact make you more determined to be compensated?

You don't need to give us anything. Just let us participate as insiders on the IPO. I don't think it's a lot to ask.

# Might you consider legal action?

I don't know if there is anything we can do. A cousin is going to start exploring that. I don't want to come across as threatening. Most of the people in our family are pretty intellectual and no one in our family has been really aggressive. But again, we're not wimps or wallflowers. If we do have a legal right, we're certainly going to exercise that. And now is the time. Google is big and popular now, but who knows what's going to happen when they go public. There are other companies are on their tails. Now is the time to capitalize.

# Do you use Google as a search engine?

I do. I also use Yahoo. After I was interviewed on [National Public Radio's] Talk of the Nation, I Googled myself, but it didn't come up. When I Yahooed myself, it came up immediately. It took longer for Google to post it.

Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun

Listen, I don't know if the fact that the word "googol" was used in a copyrighted book means the word "googol" is itself copyrighted. I just don't know copyright law that well. But I do seem to remember (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) that copyrights only last 50 years, unless renewed.

Even assuming the word's (original, and first) use in the book gives it the equivalent of a copyright, 1940 was 64 years ago, so no legal recourse there.
BUT! I say the word wasn't even made up by him, but the 9 year old kid (9 year olds can't hold copyrights in any case). He stole it from her, put it in a book, and now the family wants to steal again.

Second point: "googol" IS different than "google." Succesful lawsuits against trademark or copyright infringment happen all the time. People don't always get away with the old "McDowels" trick. (wasn't Coming to America a great movie?)
In this case, "googol" was not a trademark, it was a mathmatical concept.

I hate to break it to the family, but Google didn't become successful because everyone using AltaVista (at the time it was top 'o the search engine heap) suddenly said "hey, have you heard of "Google?" It's that new search engine named after a REALLY BIG number. Let's go try it! If it's named after a REALLY BIG number, but spelled wrong, it must be good."

Google became popular because it worked, not because of its relation to a big number. Nor did Google try and tie its reputation to a guy who pawned off the task of making a name for a big number on a 9 year old. HE was the "noted" mathmatician, let him make up the damn name. What's a degree for if a 9 year old can do your job for you?

No. Sorry. They liked the word, changed it, and brought more exposure to an obscure mathmatician's work than ever would have come otherwise. They should be happy with that.

In fact, since "Google" has been made part of the common lexicon now, I dare the family to sue everyone that's using a non-copyrighted word, that's also now in common use.

Rip off artists abound, as if we needed further proof.

edit: I edited this, like, 9 times for grammer. I hope that's good enough.

Fremen · 05-17-2004, 08:19 PM

Even though Google first caught my attention because of its unusual name, I use it all the time now because it works well, and because it's so user friendly.
Also, the bright primary colors catch my feeble attention span and gives it something to latch on to.

I don't think Professor Kasners' family would be able to win a lawsuit if it came down to it.
Maybe Google will throw 'em a bone. I don't believe they're ethically responsible to do so, though.

Quote:

Originally posted by billege
edit: I edited this, like, 9 times for grammer. I hope that's good enough.

Nope.

sexymama · 05-17-2004, 08:22 PM

What do you suggest we sue over? I could use a 1/2 million or so!

billege · 05-17-2004, 09:29 PM

Grammatical purposes, mayhap. Besides, that's a spelling error, and I didn't mention spelling.

sexymama,
You could sue me for purporting to have a sense of anger over reasoning like this. I really don't get angry over this kind of crap. It's too common. I'd just settle for a chance to talk with these people we read about. To say, "are you really serious? Have you really convinced yourself this is just, reasonable, right?

But I don't get angry, these ideas are just worth a bit of dismay and a sigh.

But if we stop sighing at these things, they win.

Macheath · 05-17-2004, 09:41 PM

Next they'll be suing The Simpsons for the Googolplex Theater. (googolplex - ten raised to the googolth power).

WarWagon · 05-17-2004, 09:47 PM

I had once planned out my entire financial future in a single day. I was going to hide behind trees and mailboxes, and then ride my bike into the back of peoples' cars as they were backing out of their driveways. If I'm even more broke than I am right now one day, I may just give it a shot. To save some cash, maybe I'll change over and get a law degre?

basmoq · 05-19-2004, 07:42 PM

they will lose, it's simple enough

05-17-2004, 08:22 PM	#3 (permalink)
sexymama My own person -- his by choice Location: Lebell's arms	What do you suggest we sue over? I could use a 1/2 million or so! __________________ If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

05-17-2004, 09:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	Grammatical purposes, mayhap. Besides, that's a spelling error, and I didn't mention spelling. sexymama, You could sue me for purporting to have a sense of anger over reasoning like this. I really don't get angry over this kind of crap. It's too common. I'd just settle for a chance to talk with these people we read about. To say, "are you really serious? Have you really convinced yourself this is just, reasonable, right? But I don't get angry, these ideas are just worth a bit of dismay and a sigh. But if we stop sighing at these things, they win. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

05-19-2004, 07:42 PM	#7 (permalink)
basmoq It's a girly girl! Location: OH, USA	they will lose, it's simple enough __________________ "There's someone out there for everyone - even if you need a pickaxe, a compass, and night goggles to find them."

05-17-2004, 09:41 PM	#5 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	Next they'll be suing The Simpsons for the Googolplex Theater. (googolplex - ten raised to the googolth power).

05-17-2004, 09:47 PM	#6 (permalink)
WarWagon Loser	I had once planned out my entire financial future in a single day. I was going to hide behind trees and mailboxes, and then ride my bike into the back of peoples' cars as they were backing out of their driveways. If I'm even more broke than I am right now one day, I may just give it a shot. To save some cash, maybe I'll change over and get a law degre?