Historically, the Star Trek copyrights haven't been enforced very strongly. It's why they allowed so many fan projects to go ahead (and Star Trek has a great fan base). Maybe CBS got new lawyers who aren't familiar with 40 years of de facto policies?
(This isn't a trademark issue where CBS has to defend the trademark or risk losing it. It's a copyright issue; the reason the Tricorder app vanished is that CBS sent a DMCA takedown notice to its creator [Moonblink]).
From what I understand, you can't copyright the name of a fictional device. You can trademark the name, but according to Trademarkia there are no active trademarks on it right now.
but copyright last a long time, Apple couldn't copyright their UI design so I guess this shouldn't be able to be copyrighted either but you never know.
Either CBS is trying to attract Anonymous, or looking to increase pirated downloads of Star Trek-related works. Either way, I think they'll get positive outcomes from this action.
This might be an over-reaching DMCA request by CBS. I don't understand why he doesn't fill in the online form that's in the e-mail to say they're over-reaching. Just because there's a bunch of legalese involved doesn't mean it's not straightforward.
I can't remember where I saw it, but I distinctly remember reading recently that the LCARS interface isn't actually owned by CBS/Paramount/Whomever. It was a comment - on HN, IIRC - by the developer of a LCARS iPad app. I'll see if I can find it.
"Since I don't have legal weasels of my own, or the time to deal with this, that's it for Tricorder."
Why doesn't a fleet of open source lawyers exist? I mean, I know why it doesn't exist, but it seems like there could be a community of lawyers willing to help him out, or, at least, that one could be grown over the next few years.
There is a "fleet of open-source lawyers", but their time is limited. Like the ACLU and other pro-bono legal organizations, the FSF, EFF, and Software Freedom Law Center vet cases for potential impact in order to maximize available resources. Such organizations can't take every case that comes in the door, or they'd spend all their time on the legal minutiae of persons able but too cheap to hire a private lawyer. There has to be significant relevance attached to a case in order for the EFF, SFLC, or FSF to assist.
I guess there is an issue that you can work on your pet software project in your free time, but you can't be working on a law case three hours a week.
Probably part of the reason things like the FSF and EFF came into existence, too.. i.e. if the tricorder app's author had assigned copyrights to the FSF this would not go down so quick I imagine.
They issued the takedown based on the graphical design? Seriously? I could see doing it based on the word "tricorder", or based on audio files, but did the Star Trek tricorder really have an interface like this one?
Nope, actually it looks more like a PADD than any tricorder I remember seeing. But if the images were copied from a CBS property without permission I guess they might have a case anyway.
This is the biggest issue with App Stores, Marketplaces, etc.
This practice is extremely short sighted of Apple, Google and RIM.
This type of thing will only push more developers out of the boxes they are placed in so that they can have full control over the hardware consumers use.
It's funny how we fight this fight over-and-over again even when companies like Google have an air of openness.
This practice is extremely short sighted of Apple, Google and RIM.
What practice? Responding to a properly filed DMCA complaint by taking down the content?
You do realize that doing anything other than what they've done would be against the law, right? The law might suck, but it's not up to Google to decide not to abide by it just because they don't like it, they've got far too much on the line to mess around like that...
"The practice" I'm referring to could have stated with a bit more clarity. Thanks for pointing this out.
I'm talking about the practice of creating a centralized app store.
Providing developers with a way to monetize and market their apps is important. However, creating an environment where one company has complete control over the hardware, operating system and development ecosystem results in issues like these.
The developer in the OP hasn't done anything other than pay homage to the style of Star Trek. However, when issued a DMCA takedown request, the app is blindly removed from circulation with no notice, no appeal process and no options. It's easier for one company with complete control to enforce arbitrary standards that result in the least amount of friction for them.
I think the point is he wants there to be lots of viable unofficial channels of distribution so that there is no central market to send a DMCA to in the first place.
He quotes the Wikipedia article on Tricorder: "The company was permitted to call this device a 'tricorder' because Gene Roddenberry's contract included a clause allowing any company able to create functioning technology to use the name."
First and formost, this is probably a case for "[citation needed]".
Secondly, my understanding is that this would apply to a physical device that actually did scan for medical, landscapes and engineering. Probably the reason behind the Tricorder X Prize. I don't really see this applying to a software application to show you your WiFi strength.
He wasn't sued for the name, he was sued for the LCARs interface. So it's a moot point anyways…
It does a little more than show Wifi signal strength. It wraps up all of the phone's sensors into a package that makes it feel like a multi-sensor package (tricorder).
e.g. the compass is a magnetic field sensor, the inertial sensors of the phone function as gravity sensors, the wifi signal meter and mobile network signal strength is an EM field strength meter, the camera might be a photon sensor, it can download sunspot reports, gps, the microphone is turned into a volume sensor etc.
It feels like the multi-sensor Star Trek device because of how the author wrapped it all up behind LCARS.
Nor the path. Even if he lawyered up and fought back, Google would probably keep the app pulled until some kind of judgement, far in the future. As an iOS app developer, I'm currently facing something like this. Apple has clearly stated that if I cannot resolve the issue with the company that sent the DCMA takedown, they will pull the app. I have no obvious recourse short of a lengthy and costly legal battle.
It's not a trademark issue, it's a DMCA (copyright) issue. You can call it a tricorder if you want, but he can't use their visuals and sound effects without permission I guess.
(This isn't a trademark issue where CBS has to defend the trademark or risk losing it. It's a copyright issue; the reason the Tricorder app vanished is that CBS sent a DMCA takedown notice to its creator [Moonblink]).