My Africa Today

If you liked our report on the bizarre handwritten lawsuit against Google from a guy worried that his social security number was too similar to Google's name, here's another one for you. Once again, special thanks to Eric Goldman for passing this one on. This time, at least, most of the lawsuit is typed (there are some handwritten parts at the end), though, there are numerous typos. The lawsuit is being filed against both Google and Yahoo by a guy who is apparently being detained by Immigration services in Houston. He claims that both Google and Yahoo stole their names from Tanzanian tribes -- and now they should pay up. Specifically, he claims that Google took its name from the Gogo tribe and Yahoo took its name from the Yao tribe. Conveniently, this guy happens to be a descendant of both tribes. He's merely asking for both companies to pay $10,000 each to every member of both tribes, going back three generations. Simple!

While it is true that many companies are using foreign words (Swahili is especially popular) in choosing company and product names (Kijiji, Joomla, Renkoo, Wiki, Tafiti, Jambo, etc.), both Google and Yahoo have pretty well-documented histories of their names, and the names of these Tanzanian tribes clearly have nothing to do with either one. Not that the guy doesn't try: "The court is now been asked to answer a common sense question: Is "Google" much more related, semantically and lexically, with "Gogo" or with "Googol"?" Once again, the chance of this lawsuit getting anywhere is basically nil (even if they had taken their names from the tribes, which they clearly did not), but as Goldman points out to us: "There is, of course, a serious problem here about the courts getting clogged up with lawsuits brought by prisoners/detainees with too much time on their hands and nothing to do but file lawsuits, and companies having to spend money to stomp out these lawsuits." In the meantime, this seems mighty close to life imitating The Onion।

With several private companies launching businesses to provide customers with unprecedented access to their genomes' secrets, legislation protecting people from genetic discrimination is more timely than ever. But Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahama) is single-handedly stalling federal legislation to do just that.

The Senate passed earlier versions of the bill twice before, but they were blocked from coming up for House floor votes. This year, the House passed it by a bipartisan landslide, but Coburn has held up the legislation in the Senate, saying it could place too much strain on businesses.

"We're not really clear on what Coburn wants, because his excuses don't make sense," said the bill's original sponsor, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York). "But if this bill got to a floor vote in the Senate, I think it'd pass almost unanimously."

Coburn spokesman John Hart said his boss supports the intent of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, known as GINA. Coburn voted for a nearly identical bill in 2005, but now says the bill's language exposes employers to too much liability. Supporters of the bill see Coburn's new beef as another in a string of inconsequential objections to the legislation.

23andMe, Navigenics and Decode Genetics have recently launched programs to scan individual's genomes and provide access to the information online. Customers will have to spend a for 23andMe's service.

In the absence of federal legislation, most states provide some degree of protection against discrimination. Many have gone further, explicitly providing genetic-privacy protections. Alaskan law (.pdf), for example, says DNA samples are an individual's private property. Still, companies offering personal genome scans, as well as biotechs offering genetic diagnostic tests, worry that their businesses will not gain traction without a federal law.

Slaughter introduced GINA in the House 12 years ago, but Republican leadership repeatedly blocked a vote, even as it passed the Senate twice. Under this year's new Democratic majority, the House passed GINA, 420-3 (H.R. 493), and it appeared ready to sail through the Senate (S. 358). But Coburn, exercising a prerogative available to all senators, placed it on hold, which requires a supermajority of 60 senators just to bring the bill up for a relatively rare floor debate.

An internal memo obtained Thursday from Coburn's office said the senator's make-or-break objection was the possibility that an employer who provides health insurance for its workers could be sued both as an insurer and as an employer. That means employers could be hit for much higher damages than insurers.

Representative Slaughter said she'd never heard that particular objection from any company in 12 years of campaigning on behalf of GINA. "But it's pretty creative," she said.

Coburn is a physician. He picked up the nickname "Dr. No" from pundit George Will, because of his frequent contrarian positions and use of the hold prerogative. Coburn has consistently opposed bills that enable lawsuits against businesses and his fellow medical doctors.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and trade associations like the National Retail Federation are GINA's main opponents, claiming it would spur frivolous lawsuits.

Michael Eastman, executive director of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the Senator's move to stop the bill.

"Coburn has been willing to put his name out there," he said.