The George Lucas Death Star Tries To Obliterate My Startup

Matt says George Lucas’ lawyers are sending Storm Troopers after him for using the word “droid” in the title of his startup, Addroid. He has precious few days to coordinate his Rebel Alliance defense and sent out a hologram (OK, an email) saying “Help me, Consumerists. You’re my only hope!”

The name of my startup is Addroid. It’s an HTML5 ad serving platform. When trying to come up with a name I thought it should have the word “ad” in it. Also, it’s digital advertising so I thought: computers, robots, androids…wait – Addroid. That’s kinda cool.

This week the law firm representing George Lucas informed me that Addroid will lead to customer confusion. I get that George Lucas owns the word “droid” up and down. But I feel Addroid is simply a made up word. I really thought if I made up a word I’d be cool. The name of the company isn’t Ad Droid (two words). I don’t believe that anyone interested in my B2B ad platform would for a second think that C3P0 and R2D2 are going to come popping out of the browser.

I have a decent amount of money already invested in the domain and branding. I have 10 days to reply. I don’t really know what to do.

No one wants to see Matt get lifted up off the ground and choked to death by an invisible Force power, so please share your advice and spread word of his tale. Does anybody know Han Solo’s AIM handle?


Edit Your Comment

  1. aloria says:

    Did Google have to jump through these hoops when they developed Android?

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      I believe the word “android” predates Star Wars (though whores may now be more appropriate with Lucas’s ever increasing litigious nature).

    • Illusio26 says:

      I’m pretty sure google paid to licenses the word droid from lucasfilm. I remember seeing a disclaimer at the bottom of their tv commercials that droid is owned by lucasfilm.

      • JustLurking says:

        Google doesn’t run those commercials, Verizon did. The phone is made by Motorola and is called the Droid as it features the Android operating system.

        I don’t believe Google had to pay any licensing fees, just the products named Droid.

    • BuddhaLite says:

      Google bought Android

    • coloradogray says:

      Android isn’t a trademark term, however ‘Droid’ is trademarked by Lucas. In the Verizon commercials it states as such in the small print at the bottom of the screen.

    • Mr_Human says:

      Android is generic. ‘Droid, on the other hand, is trademarked. Verizon paid to use it.

    • Gary says:

      Yes they did. That’s why all the Android commercials have a “Droid is the properties of Lucasfilm, Inc.” or some such garbage

    • Gary says:

      Motorola has a statement in small print in their TV coomercials acknowledging that Lucasfilm holds the rights to the word “Droid”.

    • Sword_Chucks says:

      Android did face the threat of being sued by the son of the guy who wrote Blade Runner.

    • Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

      Believe me, Google’s Rebel Alliance would definitely defeat Lucasfilm’s Dark Side. Android, after all, it a common English word. Of course, some lawyers will definitely get rich in doing so, should George Vader strike.

      • Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

        “it” s/b “is” – may the Force strike down on the lack of an “edit comment” button on this website.

    • Sepp_TB says:

      Yes. Watch their commercials or look at their other ads and you’ll see a blip about Droid being a registered trademark of Lucas, used with permission. One of the Android phones (Droid 2) even did a cross promotion between the two ‘Droids’ with an R2-D2 version of the handset.

  2. scratchie says:

    Send a hologram to your IP attorney instead of Consumerist.

  3. ravana says:

    Has he ever heard of this other little company called Motorola that makes a phone called the Droid?

  4. TerpBE says:

    Why not choose a more generic word as part of your company name. Something like Monster Ad.

  5. Dragon Tiger says:

    Surprised this didn’t come up during the trademark search the OP’s lawyer did.

    • dolemite says:

      Not sure why it should. His word is Addroid. Lucas can’t claim the word “Android”, so what’s the difference between Addroid and Android?

      • cvt2010 says:

        Android is an word dating at least back to the early days of science fiction (the mid 1700s, if you believe one site I found), from which GL’s “droid” was derived. Addroid is a new made-up word which contains “droid”. Big difference, in my mind.

        • dolemite says:

          How come the OP can’t derive his word from android? Why must it be derived from “droid? I believe his word is 2 characters off from “Droid”, but only 1 character off from the 1700s version. Only GL get’s to derive something from something?

          • DigTheFunk says:

            Exact same thing I was thinking. How can Lucas even TM “droid” when it’s simply a shortening of an existing, common word. This is why I hate copyrights and trademarks, it becomes ridiculous when people can’t use common knowledge words. I certainly don’t think of George Lucas or Star Wars when I hear “android” or even “droid”.

            • YouDidWhatNow? says:

              Lucas can own “droid” because it wasn’t part of the lexicon before Star Wars. No one said “droid” – they said “android.” They couldn’t own “android” for the same reason you can’t own, say, “yellow.” It would impinge upon normal use of the language.

              As for “Addroid,” I guess I’m not sure. As much as I always want the little guy to win, it seems like Lucas might have some case here. But maybe they don’t, and that’s probably why I’m not a copyright lawyer.

  6. xerotope says:

    You’re going to need a lawyer to draw up a response letter. The letter has to argue that:

    1) “Addroid” is derived from “android”, a generic term in use since at least 1270.

    2) Your use of the mark is not confusing, as you are not engaged in filmmaking, merchandising, etc. The lawyer will probably want to look up their trademark and what industries it covers.

    They have to aggressively pursue other uses of the Trademark, otherwise they may lose it. With any luck, it’ll stop at the response letter.

    • kingofmars says:

      Maybe the OP can settle with Lucas. Monster cables came up with a reasonable offer to monster mini-golf over their use of monster entertainment. The golf course rejected the idea and instead tried to battle it out in the court of Internet opinion. I have a feeling Lucas is doing what you are suggesting: Protecting their trademark, not trying to bankurpt the startup.

      My advice to the OP: Settle. See if you can draft something up with Lucas’s lawyers. If Verizon can’t get out of paying licensing fees to Lucas, you won’t be able to either.

    • IThinkThereforeIAm says:

      I don’t think point #1 would stand on its feet.
      Any competent trademark attorney would argue, that the origin of the word is ad-driod -> a combination of ad (as in advertisement) and droid (as in a robot). And therein Lucas is right.
      (Let’s not argue whether a clearly derived word should be allowed to be trademarked).
      Copyright and trademark laws are pretty broad to my best knowledge, and they usually take into consideration the INTENT of the use (sometimes even similar-sounding items count as infringements).


      • Conformist138 says:

        I see it as a play on words for android, since it’s just a single letter off and keeps a similar sound to the original word. Plus, I don’t see how they can own every instance of the five-letter combo d-r-o-i-d within a compound word.

        Assuming you are 100% correct and lucasfilm does have a case… i think it’s just another example of why copyright laws are out of hand and need updating and revamping.

        • levelone says:

          You mean trademark laws. Copyright law pertains to content and the control of content. Trademark law pertains to words/symbols/signs etc. that a company uses to market or identify itself. A lot of people conflate the two concepts, but they’re not the same.

    • MongoAngryMongoSmash says:

      3). These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

  7. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Sorry, bud, but Lucas has you by the blue pair beneath your shorts. I have to agree it’s confusion. Consider: The Droid phones, with the Android software platform, are titled after Lucas’ copyright which they obtained permission and probably pay him loads of cash to use.

    • pjorg says:

      Wrong. “Android” is a generic term for any human-like robot that has been in general use for at least a century (and possibly much longer). Google adopted it as the name of their mobile OS platform.

      “Droid” is a trademark of Lucasfilm, which refers specifically to androids in the Star Wars films. This term was NOT licensed by Google, nor any particular handset manufacturer, but rather Verizon for marketing several of the phones they offer that are based on Google’s Android platform.

      And it’s not just Motorola, either; HTC also has phones that have “Droid” in their name. If Verizon isn’t selling it, it’s not a Droid.

      Anyway, I would think that Google would have a better case against this guy than Lucasfilm would. “Android” and “Addroid” sound pretty similar, and it sounds like this guy is trying to sell online ad space…which is the game that Google is in. Everything else they do (including Android development) is incidental to that.

  8. Pax says:

    Lucas has trademarked the term “droid”. I personally feel that this trademark, of what amounts to no more than an abbreviation, ludicrous … but noone’s had deep enough pockets (yet) to fight Lucas on that.

    Still, using the name “Addroid” may be defensible, if you can show that it is intended to be a play on the non-trademarked word android. That’s pretty “iffy” though, and you should go in expecting to lose.

    And regardless of how airtight your side of things may be … fighting will be EXPENSIVE. Lucas, and his assorted companies, has very deep pockets, and could afford to drag the case out until you declared bankruptcy.

    • UltimateOutsider says:

      Yes, that’s the thing. Fighting it probably IS possible, but it would be prohibitively expensive to the vast majority of small/medium businesses. A lot of this stuff is just FUD; they try to scare you out of your decision because they don’t want to go to court either. But the money is on Lucas’s side.

    • wootbot says:

      As well as being expensive, it’s going to be time consuming – time that would be better off spent on developing your business. In addition, during that time, you’ll be continuing to build brand equity in a mark you may well lose. And be in no doubt that Lucasfilm will aggressively pursue this because if they don’t it will hamper – and perhaps destroy – their ability to enforce other derivations of their trademark in the future.

      Truly, it’s better to change the name now and move on. Best of luck with your startup, Matt.

  9. Boston Burnsy says:

    When starting a business, it’s always a good plan to do at least 5 minutes research before naming your company. Lucas owns the word “Droid”, and yes it was licensed for the phone (see disclaimers in all ads) as well as any other time the word gets used. He can try fighting and making the argument that it’s a play on the word “android” but why waste what little start-up money he has buy going up against a legal team that can blow his Alderaan out of the sky without even blinking? I would recommend you change the name very quickly and yet continue to get the Interwebs talking about this – there’s no better publicity than free publicity.

  10. Big Mama Pain says:

    Channeling Jobs here…”Just change the name, what’s the big deal?”

  11. wild homes loves you but chooses darkness! says:

    Sorry son, you want to use a copyrighted term– even within another, nonce term you’ve created– you’re probably going to have to pony up the cash.

    The alternative is to take it to the courts, but while you might win, Lucas’ legal team will bury you in debt.

    I’d suggest you cut and run, and choose a new name. Life sucks like this some times.

  12. LACubsFan says:

    Tell him and his lawyers where to stick it.

  13. JustLurking says:

    Matt might get quashed by the almighty lawyers sucking his substantial investment dry, but Lucasfilms needs to show that Addroid infringes on their trademark of Droid.

    Otherwise the estate of Philip K. Dick could be able to sue Lucas since he wrote “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” years before Star Wars came out.

    I don’t know if there is any equivalent of an anti-SLAPP for trademark protection when a big company comes stomping around in their stormtrooper boots.

    But, Matt, a letter does not a lawsuit make. It is sabre rattling at this point.

    • Gulliver says:

      The fact that the estate allowed the term to be used by others means it no longer has a claim on it. You must protect your copyright and trademark for it to have any validity.

      • Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

        Trademarks, yes. Copyrights, no. Let’s say I put a picture on flickr, and denoted all rights reserved (i.e. no GNU/Creative Commons license etc.) Let’s now say, 40 years from now, I discover you used that picture on a billboard. I can definitely sue your ass. Trademarks, however, are more or less “use it or lose it”–if I can’t prove I’m actively using my trademark and someone else is doing so, I’m well going to lose it.

    • craptastico says:

      Philip Dick didn’t trademark the work android. android is a common term and can’t be trademarked. it’d be like if i tried to trademark the word “robot” or “cyborg”

      • JustLurking says:

        Exactly my point. Addroid sounds like android, although the OP’s admission of adding the word “droid” to “ad” probably doesn’t help his case.

        Still, to me, Lucas & Co seem to be overzealous here.

        • JustLurking says:

          Nuts. Where’s the edit button when you need it?

          What I meant to write was that android as a generic term can not generally be trademarked, meaning addroid would probably fly. But the OP’s admission of putting “ad” and “droid” together does him no favors.

    • IThinkThereforeIAm says:

      I am sure they can easily show it – trademark infringement is very broadly defined.
      If we accept that “droid” is trademarked, “addroid” (or ad-droid – which is clearly the origin) does easily fall within protected area.

  14. redskull says:

    I’d rename the company “F*ckLucas.”

    It’s amazing to me that you can’t copyright a generic word like “android,” but you can shorten it and then it’s perfectly copyrightable. I need to start finding words I can shorten and own.

  15. Skellbasher says:

    Set your hyperdrive to max directly to an attorney. Emperor Lucas will not slow down his assault.

    (You’re probably going to have to change your name unless you have enough cash to fight off the Empire’s team of lawyers to reach an actual fair conclusion.)

  16. opticnrv says:

    I don’t see how they have sufficient grounds to go to court. After all, it’s one word. They are choosing to break the word apart to claim damages. What if the word addroid was separated differently? If it meant ‘add roid’ and was for a cream that claimed to increase the occurrence of hemorrhoids, would the Lucas people be as interested in claiming damages?

  17. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    Why did this come up only recently? The domain has been owned since 2005, and it looks like that as of July of this year the home page was a generic placeholder page. Is there a chance it’s something like a logo or particular ad campaign that has GL’s knickers in a bunch?

    • craptastico says:

      until Droid came to represent internet software i bet he wouldn’t have had grounds to sue since Android is a common enough word. for example there’s an Android Industries that is an automotive supplier or something like that and they can use the word b/c it’s in a different field and there’s no way there could be confusion that it is Lucas related

  18. Skankingmike says:

    First I Googled Addroid.

    It suggested Android which is not copyrighted.

    Also I assume this is a play on the word android, and if anything Google could send you a similar letter.

    That being said, either lawyer up with a good IP lawyer (you may even find one that is willing to make a name for themselves, but doubtful) and get ready to spend spend spend.

    Or just change your name.

    your call.

    You have a good case against Lucas though, so I wish you luck.

    • scratchie says:

      What is your basis for saying that the original poster has “a good case against Lucas”? You don’t even know the difference between copyright and trademark.

      • bwcbwc says:

        Still, the approach is solid:
        1) get a lawyer to write a response letter claiming non-infringement.
        2) If Lucas pursues the issue further check for a settlement offer/license fee.
        3) If the settlement offer is reasonable, pay it, or negotiate terms if it’s close.
        4) Only then decide whether you want to fight or change the name. Personally, I’d probably change the name. You can start thinking of new names while still doing 1-4.

        Oh and don’t design any new logos while this process completes.

  19. vitajex says:

    This is the same reason I couldn’t call my pre-mixed alcoholic coal-based cocktail “Coke a Colada”.


    • Liam Kinkaid says:

      I think you dodged a bullet there. A coal based beverage, regardless of the amount of alcohol involved, doesn’t really sound too tasty.

  20. ogremustcrush says:

    Eh, its a tricky one for the courts, considering that it is derived from android, a non tradmarked term that happens to contain the term droid, a trademarked term, but in any case I would argue it’s not worth spending money on defending. Addroid is kind of clever I guess, but its not terribly memorable and it is very similar to Android and Droid, causing confusion and downplaying the important part of the name – AD. Ad-Android would be better because it a clearer message, even if it isn’t nearly as clever. Addroid just sounds like someone mispronouncing android.

  21. He says:

    Just change to addroit

  22. bigd738778 says:

    Lucas owns the word “droid” fairly. Any company would have to buy the rights from him to use it just like Google did. I don’t feel sorry for the person since there are plenty of other words he could use,

  23. StevePierce says:

    Sure I have heard of Motorola and Motorola knew better than the steal the name droid. Motorola paid Lucas handsomely for a license to use the name droid. Seems like it is time for Matt to be looking for a new company name.

    • psm321 says:

      I don’t think google did get a license, because they are using the generic term android (i may be wrong on this). it’s verizon that got the license for using his trademarked term droid. i would argue that addroid is a play off the generic android, and not off droid

  24. Rachacha says:

    1) Keep spreading word of this crazy C&D Letter
    2) Change the name of your company to biorbbA and have business cards printed with a mirrored surface on the back with instructions to place the mirror against the computer screen and your logo for the real company name, perhaps include a “Why we include a mirror on our business cards” in the “About” section of your website.
    3) Profit from the viral marketing genious.

    • Rachacha says:

      I forgot one step.
      4) Trademark the word “roid” and send a C&D letter to Lucas for incorporating the word “ROID” in his trademarked word.

  25. humphrmi says:

    OK first, like other said – call a lawyer, not Consumerist.

    Second. Lucas is well known for being reasonable about licensing his IP to the “small guys” if you ask nice. Go ask him. It can’t hurt.

  26. javert says:

    For future reference, many of you need to learn the difference between a copyright and trademark. It is hard to make a legal argument when you are not even using the correct terms.

    As for xerotope’s comment, the similarity of goods and services involved is only one of the five factors a court would look at. Basing your entire argument on this is wrong. You must follow the correct analysis.

  27. cf27 says:

    Change your name — consider “Addoid” or “Adroit” You might win if you really wanted to fight it out, but when you’re just starting a company, the last thing you want to do is get into a fight with somebody who has basically unlimited money.

  28. craptastico says:

    you can only trademark common words in a certain context. that’s why there is an Apple Records and an Apple computer, although there is some overlap now that Apple has gotten involved in music. If I wanted to open the “Apple Diner” I could b/c it has nothing to do with computers or records.

  29. Awesome McAwesomeness says:

    I’d go ahead and change the name unless you have as much money as Lucas does to fight it. I think it can conceivably be argued that addroid (besides sounding a bit like hemorrhoid), is a combo of the words ad and droid. Even if it can’t, Lucas has deeper pockets than you do. In the good old USA, money has always trumped pretty much everything else.

  30. craptastico says:

    am i the only one that feels like my childhood has been retroactively raped by the nonsense George Lucas has done in the last 20 years? i used to love Indy and Star Wars, but now i realize i was just an unwitting pawn in Lucas’s quest to hoard wealth like Scrooge McDuck

  31. haroldx says:

    He could try coming up with a more original name for his startup.

  32. castlecraver says:
    All the advice the OP got from reddit yesterday must not have been very helpful. Or perhaps:

    “I think the silver lining (if any) would be to try and milk this for publicity. Is it the kind of publicity I want? Not so sure.” — OP, in his reddit thread

    ..he eventually decided in favor of the publicity-milking.

  33. AstroPig7 says:

    I thought the name was derived from android rather than droid, so I don’t see the problem. Also, it’s sad that George Lucas has a claim to droid when he didn’t even invent the word. It appeared in a 1952 issue of If, with the same meaning.

  34. drburk says:

    Skip the lawyer and go straight to the local new media. They will smear MR. Lucas into relenting.

  35. kriswone says:

    “The force is strong against you.”

    “Addroid is part of the rebel alliance and a copyright infringer, change it right away!”

    “Why you lousy, no-good, copyright infringer, scruffy nerf-herder.”

    “These aren’t the addroids your looking for.”

    oh, I am laughing it up fuzzball!

  36. SPOON - now with Forkin attitude says:

    I immediately went to the bad ‘roid place. bad, bad ‘roid…

  37. Jack Handy Manny says:

    Quick question…who has more money? You, or George Lucas? George Lucas does? Really? Ok then…you lose. Change your name.

  38. MarkSweat says:

    Not sure what help this would be, but I’d suggest a different company name. AdDroid, while catchy, implies that the company would be focusing on the Android market. Branding is all about making your product memorable and making it stand out. Not sure this name will do either.

  39. scoobydoo says:

    Dear Mr. Lucas,

    This is not the firm you are looking for.



  40. JKxZ says:

    Change the name to GLISA HEMORRHOID ADs.


  41. JKxZ says:

    Change the name to GLISA HEMORRHOID ADs.


  42. JKxZ says:

    Change the name to GLISA HEMORRHOID ADs.


  43. JKxZ says:

    Change the name to GLISA HEMORRHOID ADs.


  44. FilthyHarry says:

    Tell Lucas its not Ad-Droid, its Add-Roid and you’re selling highly illegal steroids… for robots.

  45. ktetch says:

    Ok, Lucasfilm holds the following trademark on “droid”

    Serial Number 77845682
    Filing Date October 9, 2009
    Word Mark DROID
    Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Wireless communications devices, namely, mobile phones, cell phones, hand held personal computers, hand held digital audio players and personal digital assistants; wireless communication device accessories and parts therefor, namely, earphones, headphones, batteries, battery chargers, charging appliances for rechargeable equipment, connection cables, and electronic cables; computer software for wireless telecommunications for use with wireless communication devices; mobile digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone calls, electronic mail, and other digital data, for use as a digital format audio player, and for use as a handheld computer, electronic organizer, electronic notepad, and digital camera; downloadable ring tones and screen savers; cameras, pagers; pre-paid telephone calling cards, magnetically encoded
    IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Pre-paid telephone calling cards, not magnetically encoded

    IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Communication services, namely, transmission of voice, audio, visual images and data by telecommunications networks, wireless communication networks, the Internet, information services networks and data networks; wireless communications services, namely, transmission of graphics to mobile telephones, wireless broadband communication services, and transmission of voice, data, graphics, images, audio and video by means of wireless telecommunications networks

    This last one mightapply.

    However, there are others, like 3droids,

    I would contact the USPTO and talk to them. I’m not up on trademarks, but if you’re in another category, you might be able to register it yourself, and not worry about lucas.

    (this also exemplifies why we need trademark reform, Lucasarts has no business in telecoms, and yet they have trademarks in the area, they’re not protecting any sort of business, which is the main reason for trademarks.

  46. SlappyFrog says:

    Lawyer up. Probably should’ve done that in the first place.

  47. Salty Johnson says:

    “Addroid” sounds like you’re trying to say “Android” with a stuffy nose. Let’s hope he is forced to change it, because a name change is certainly in order.

  48. Santas Little Helper says:

    Open a company in another country or galaxy far far away and tell the emporer to go f*ck himself.

  49. Pavlov's Dog says:

    I would recommend changing the name to something less prone to getting you sued, like Ad2D2 or Darth V-AD-er

  50. DanKelley98 says:

    Hey, these lawyers got to earn their hourly rate….and if they can find ways for George to pay ’em…

  51. cheezfri says:

    Here’s what I don’t get. Lucas doesn’t want Addroid to be confused with anything Star Wars related. How does Motorola paying Lucas a licensing fee avoid such confusion? Does paying a fee mean Droid customers would no longer think, “Gee, this phone must work similarly to R2D2!”

  52. TardCore says:

    What George Lucs doesn’t have enough money?? This reminds me of when Metallica was going batshit crazy over illegal file downloading. Pathetic, all of them.

  53. bender123 says:

    Maybe you can split it to be ADD-roid…the way the hyperactive kids get RIPPED in 30 days.
    No confusion on that one.

  54. ElizabethD says:

    I’m on George’s side. Back off the “droid” name. It is definitively linked to the Star Wars entertainment empire.

    “Master Matt, you disappoint me. Yoda holds you in such high esteem. Surely you can do better!”

    (+1 if you know what character said that.)

  55. ElizabethD says:

    Lucas FTW. Also, “addroid” reminds me of “adenoid” but it also sounds as if the person saying it has a bad cold and really meant to say “android.”

    That is all.


  56. JANSCHOLL says:

    Matt needs to trademark his word now. The lawyers for Lucas need to show harm to his brand. Some will back down simply because the whole law thing scares them. Addroid is a unique never before used word. Its yours Matt if you trademark it now. The more this silliness on Lucas’ part gets out, the better. And honestly, how much of this does George even know at this point. It’s his goon legal staff that have nothing else to do all day.

  57. classic10 says:

    Beautiful logo… but you are clearly using their trademarked word.

  58. zifnab0 says:

    Get a trademark/IP attorney to send a response. Attorneys send out cease-and-desist letters like this all the time for anything that might remotely be similar to one of their client’s trademarked items. Whether you infringe is not clear (personally, and in a not-a-lawyer way, I don’t think you do) is a matter for the courts (and it probably won’t get that far).

    Response should be:
    1) we didn’t copy your mark.
    2) we are in a different service.
    3) even if our mark is similar, there’s no confusion in the marketplace.
    4) if you continue to threaten us, we may sue you for interference with a business relationship.
    5) get bent.

    Then see whether they respond.

  59. pot_roast says:

    Tell them it’s “Add-roid” :)

  60. axiomatic says:

    “That’s no moon. That’s your legal representation bill.”

  61. MacBenah says:

    He might lose this one. According to the OED, the first usage of “droid” was indeed by Lucas.
    1976 G. Lucas Star Wars iv. 56 ‘Droids can’t replace a man, Luke.    1989 ‘G. Naylor’ Red Dwarf 81 Skutters, the small service droids with three-fingered clawed hands, joined to their motorized bases by triple-jointed necks, whizzed between the various computer terminals.    1996 SFX May 96/2 This less-than-cuddly little droid could be your best friend in a time of crisis.    2000 New Scientist 21 Oct. 11/3 A 900-megahertz radio link connects the two-wheeled droid’s webcam via your PC to a Web server. Log on, and you can drive the robot around your home.

  62. dush says:

    Clearly a play on the word android, which Lucas does not own.

  63. Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

    Matt…I find your lack of deference to Mr. Lucas…disturbing.

  64. Plasmafox says:

    Raise your hand if the word “addroid” makes you think of star wars in any way.


    Didn’t think so. OP’s name is a derivitive of “android”, not droid. LucasArts has always been a copyright nazi that sues anyone with a name even remotely similar to one of their trademarked.