Hacker News Reader

Comment by not2b | Hacker News Reader

Apple had the legal right, sure, but they should have just respected Sagan's desire for them not to use his name without being dicks about it.

They used his name without permission for a codename, he asked them to stop, so the changed the name to "Butt-Head Astronomer", in a way that everyone involved with the project knew it was a reference to him. I pictured a bunch of people with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds when I saw that.

View on HN

> They used his name without permission for a codename, he asked them to stop

There's some additional context that makes me more sympathetic to Sagan here too. The "Carl Sagan"/"BHA" machine (Power Macintosh 7100) was introduced alongside two other machines whose codenames reference fraudulent/unproven science:

- The 6100 is "Piltdown Man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_6100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

- The 8100 is "Cold Fusion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_8100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

To further muddle it, though, those were very much a set of good/better/best machines! (Or arguably "bleh/good/best" re: that 6100.)

At the time, I saaw Cold Fusion as an aspirational codename for the best of the first-gen PowerPC boxes.

Sagan's inclusion is still weird, though, as the others are things, not people.

If I remember correctly, it might have had something to do with Carl Sagan's catchphrase "billons and billions". The machine had "billions and billions" of something (bytes, MIPs?)

>he asked them to stop

According to the article, he did not ask, he had his attorneys send a letter demanding they stop using his name, which isn't quite the same. That's something you do after you did ask politely and were rejected and lost hope you can resolve such an issue amicably.

I am not saying the people working for Apple were right, or that their reaction was right, but Sagan does not look good to me either in his initial reaction.

>> That's something you do after you did ask politely

Not necessarily. With famous people you won't get a polite note or phonecall. Your first and only contact will probably be their lawyer/agent who will stamp out a standard threatening letter. The actual flesh-and-blood person might not even know that the letter is being sent as the attorney/agent has power to initiate actions. Same too for huge corporations. Open up "Mickey Mouse Land" and your first contact from Disney will be a very scary demand letter delivered by a man in a very nice suit.

> Apple had the legal right, sure, but they should have just respected Sagan's desire for them not to use his name without being dicks about it.

To me, it sounds like Carl Sagan is being a dick. It was an internal name, so who cares. It's kind of an honor. I don't really understand the cringe-inducing sainthood that the online tech/nerd community bestowed upon Carl Sagan over the past 30 years. I don't even think he did that much original research.

I mean - it's his name. Who gives a flying fuck what apple was doing with it - clearly he learned they were using it, so it wasn't all that "internal" was it?

Dick move from a butt-head fruit.

MacWeek published an article about the code name, along with the code names "Piltdown Man" and "Cold Fusion" for two other Power Macs. That's how he found out. So, two well-known scientific hoaxes and him. Sounds like they were implicitly calling him a hoax as well, though I think they were just hoping to make "billions and billions", and putting those three names together was something MacWeek, not Apple, did.

Sure, Sagan probably shouldn't have sued a second time, it just triggers the Streisand Effect. But it's understandable why he was pissed off.

https://www.engadget.com/2014-02-26-when-carl-sagan-sued-app...

You should be able to choose to decline the “honor” of a company naming something after you, regardless of who you are.

This is a ridiculous take in the context of the suit. It's internal, it wasn't used in any promotional/public material. Someone leaked it to him (most likely broke an NDA). Besides, I'm sure he's not the only "Carl Sagan" around, anyway.

MacWeek published the code name.

It was obviously named for him and if it was actually internal only it wouldn’t have been known.

I think of it like trying to protect a trademark, it’s fair to try to protect somebody from using your name, especially when the usage doesn’t have anything to do with fair use.

A code name that you publicize with somebody’s name is using them as an unwilling participant in promoting your products.

> It was obviously named for him and if it was actually internal only it wouldn’t have been known.

Plenty of state secrets get leaked regularly, but you draw the line at funny internal product names?

That makes it seem like it's ok to give your employees counterfeit iphones, as long as they stay internal

If nothing else it's respect for the science communicator side of Sagan, who 'obviously' would get increasing praise with the STEM-advocates over the past decades.

That aside, wanting your name struck from a project, internal or not, is reasonable if someone has something against the business practices of a company. That's about the only, to me, valid reason for requesting the cessation. Doubling down with butt-head astronomer instead is pretty dickish, though.

It was used in a MacWeek article which is why Sagan learned about it. So they used it as part of the marketing, it was not just an internal name.

Whether you are a fan of Sagan or not, I thing every person should have the right to chose if they want endorse a product or not.

This was back in the days when very few people knew or cared about Apple code names.

So what if they used his name? It was just “Carl Sagan” not “Carl Sagan Sucks”.

If a parent named their kid “Carl Sagan” should another Carl be able to demand the parents change a child’s name? Completely ridiculous case and I’m glad the judge saw through the nonsense.

Yes. If someone more famous than you appears with the same name, you can be told to stop using that name. At least online. (I dont cite to cnn often, but they were the first reasonable result when i googled around for the story.)

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/01/25/kate.middleton.fa...

2011. "London -- Several Facebook users have had their profiles deleted from the social networking site because they share their name with a soon-to-be princess.

Kate Middleton, 33, from Melbourne, Australia, had her account shut down last week, after Facebook suspected her of pretending to be the fiancée of Britain's Prince William."

That is Facebook’s action, which is depriving people of services just because they share a name.

But it’s not the court of law and I think we can all agree that Facebook’s actions are depressingly dystopian.

I don’t understand how one private company having a specific username policy means anything. They could tell people to stop using a username for any reason they want to.

That is completely different from being compelled by law to not use a name.

Until a court tells you that you have to abide the policies of the online platforms. Not being allowed to use facebook can have realworld implications. Actors dont use stagenames just because they sound better. They are often to avoid these sorts of legal issues. (Like the three different "Brian Cox" presenters on the BBC. Luckily they rarely cause confusion as they are very different people.)

maybe you lack imagination, that's not the only optic one can picture, it could be that they did it in a tongue in cheek way rather than a challenging way, and didn't really care that much.

Pretending to be upset about it doesn't really come across as very emotionally mature either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com