Interesting conversation going down right now between some Twitterati; the reson it is interesting is not the subject but the fact that people with no clue are making very dangerous and loud statements that media could easily pick up on. Used to be people were careful not to run their mouths too much but...

Disclaimer is that I have only a basic basic grounding in legal stuff - but a LOT more, it seems, than these guys
First off the fuss seems to be over "Streetview Holodeck", a demo product from Google. @graywolf and @MichelleRobbins are houding @MattCutts over it on the premise it is a trademark (Michelle made a strange assumption CBS would have the trademark). First off lets disregard copyright - you cannot copyright a single word and so long as Holodeck is nothing like the Start Trek Holodeck in design / look then it is perfectly fine in that regard.

Now to trademarks. There are in fact 3 relevant trademarks on file. The closest is for projecting holograms onto circular surfaces (or some such technology). They might have an outside chance of litigation but it is unlikely.

Now onto "first to use". Sadly under US law it is fairly hard to hold up an unfiled trademark (especially if there are other unrelated trademarks already registered). Take the current "Holodeck" TM. That was filed in 1993 but only granted in 2000 (admittedly partly due to legal wranglings from the US army and USC). In this case were Google to "file" Streetview Holodeck tomorrow there is very very little CBS could do to stop them.

The major issue is that the word is probably "common use" in science fiction. All sorts of Sci-fi books and films refer to Holodecks and Holo-transporting; once a term enters "common usage within the context" you lose even more rights to trademark it.

Now onto the moral argument. If CBS held the trademark to Holodeck then, yes, Google are being (frankly) dicks to try and use it. Were Holodeck not a common Sci-fi term then, yes, they are on shaky legal and moral ground. But unfortunately things dont work like that - it is a common term with no real reason NOT to use it in the context Google have.

Summary: nothing anyone can do about it.

My thinking: do people *really* care that much...... :wink:

But the important conclusuion is these Twitterites sound like they know what their talking about - when really it's mostly (from the Tweets I see flying about) just Google hate to sieze on. That worries me: how long before a large media organisation siezes on Twits from these "experts" and makes it into a story (Tech Crunch are probably slavering at this one already, kidding ofc.. :))  - not on this story (because it is obviously false) but on something else borderline. Not only does that open them up to seriosu legal problems it also leaves the Twitter user who started it all open to litigation.

Please, guys, do your research before you make bold claims :)