Slashdot Mirror

theodp writes: Last fall, Microsoft and the Green Bay Packers announced a $10 million partnership to build TitletownTech, "an innovation center focused on developing and advancing scalable, technology-enabled ventures," which aims to bring an economic boost to the area near Lambeau Field (Microsoft President Brad Smith hails from the region). Unfortunately for them, they failed to secure their venture's namesake domain name ahead of time. GeekWire reports on the fate of a Wisconsin family that was sitting on the coveted titletowntech.com domain name and offered to give it up in exchange for $750,000 cash, 8 lifetime Packers season tickets, 2 parking passes, and 8 Microsoft Surface Pro tablets (with lifetime MS-Office licenses). The family said the admittedly-ridiculous demand wasn't meant to be taken seriously but was intended to send a message after they received a suspicious $5,000 buyout offer from an anonymous "service" that the Packers engaged to try to recover the fumbled domain. Not amused, Green Bay Packers, Inc. flexed its legal muscle, filing a domain dispute complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred to the team shortly after the USPTO issued a Notice of Allowance to the NFL team for a trademark on TitletownTech, leaving the Wisconsin family with zilch. And so the old titletowntech.com ("TitleTown Tech Solutions") was just a bad memory by the time Microsoft returned to Green Bay last week to give an update on the joint venture, including the news that Microsoft will play a key role in the leadership team at TitletownTech, which will also house its TEALS program employees. [...] And as for the domain name, the NFL franchise with more titles than any other team ultimately did what it has done for years -- win.

Famed Apple leaker Sonny Dickson has shared an early prototype of the original iPhone, with a collection of images and a video that provides a glimpse into one version of the iPhone that Apple created and tested before ending up with the first iteration of the device. Mac Rumors reports: The prototype includes some similar features to the first generation iPhone, like an aluminum chassis, multi-touch compatible screen, 2G connectivity and Wi-Fi, but its entire user interface is taken directly from the click wheel system of Apple's original iPod line. Called "Acorn OS," the prototype software includes an on-screen click wheel on the bottom half of the screen and a menu system on the top half, and the two are bisected by a bar with rewind, menu, play/pause, and fast-forward buttons. On the menu are options such as "Favorites," "SMS," "Music," "Settings," and "Recents," and it's navigated by circling around the click wheel to go up and down, with a center press confirming an action, just like on the iPod. Dickson references Apple's patent for a "multi-functional hand-held device," filed and published in 2006, as proof that such a prototype did exist at one point and could potentially have been an alternate version of the iPhone. In one of the patent's drawings, a click wheel can be seen as a possible input method for the proposed device. The patent's abstract describes a product with "at most only a few physical buttons, keys, or switches so that its display size can be substantially increased."

Lucas123 writes As the battle for mobile dominance continues among three wireless charging standards, with many smartphone and wearable makers having already chosen sides, Apple continues to sit on the sideline. While the new Apple Watch uses a tightly coupled magnetic inductive wireless charging technology, it still requires a cable. The only advantage is that no port is required, allowing the watch case to remain sealed and water resistant. The iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, however, remain without any form of wireless charging, either tightly coupled inductive or more loosely coupled resonant charging. Over the past few years, Apple has filed patents on its own flavor of wireless charging, a "near field" or resonant technology, but no products have as yet come to market. If and when it does select a technology, it will likely be its own proprietary specification, which ensures accessory makers will have to pay royalties to use it.

rjmarvin writes "Samsung looks to have found a way around voice commands for smart glasses by projecting an augmented reality keyboard onto users' hands. Galaxy Glass wearers' thumbs are used as input devices, tapping different areas of their fingers where various keys are virtually mapped. According to the August 2013 patent filing with the WIPO and South Korea's Intellectual Property Office, Samsung states that voice controls are too imprecise a technology, which are too heavily impacted by the noise levels of the surrounding environment."

cervesaebraciator writes "A 'Coffee Branding Workshop,' sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, was held recently in Arusha City, at which the Director General of the Tanzania Coffee Board presented a paper titled 'Supporting the Coffee Sector with added Value Products Through Intellectual Property and Branding.' The paper encouraged the use of intellectual property claims, including trademarks, copyrights, patents, and designs, as sources of income which can be used to support agriculture in Africa. The Director General claimed that '[Intellectual property rights] are the basis for today's knowledge based economy and international competitiveness.' This is no doubt related to a broader effort to advance western style intellectual property in Africa through claims of the benefits it offers agriculture. Promoting western style intellectual property law as a means of third world development is a popular strategy for WIPO, the only branch of the UN to have significant wealth deriving from contributions independent of Member States. On a related note of interest to Slashdotters, there is a history of tension between WIPO advocates and FOSS advocates." I hope they take advantage of the marketing possibilities offered by civet-processed coffee.

cervesaebraciator writes "A 'Coffee Branding Workshop,' sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Organization, was held recently in Arusha City, at which the Director General of the Tanzania Coffee Board presented a paper titled 'Supporting the Coffee Sector with added Value Products Through Intellectual Property and Branding.' The paper encouraged the use of intellectual property claims, including trademarks, copyrights, patents, and designs, as sources of income which can be used to support agriculture in Africa. The Director General claimed that '[Intellectual property rights] are the basis for today's knowledge based economy and international competitiveness.' This is no doubt related to a broader effort to advance western style intellectual property in Africa through claims of the benefits it offers agriculture. Promoting western style intellectual property law as a means of third world development is a popular strategy for WIPO, the only branch of the UN to have significant wealth deriving from contributions independent of Member States. On a related note of interest to Slashdotters, there is a history of tension between WIPO advocates and FOSS advocates." I hope they take advantage of the marketing possibilities offered by civet-processed coffee.

An anonymous reader writes "As if the current situation with software patents wasn't bad enough, it appears a new phenomenon is emerging: companies are watching the commit logs of open source projects for ideas to patent. In this case, Tandberg filed a patent that was step-by-step identical to an algorithm developed by the x264 project — a mere two months after the original commit. The particular algorithm is a useful performance optimization in a wide variety of video encoders, including Theora."

eldavojohn writes "A lot of Westerners view China as little more than the world's factory manufacturing anything with little regard to patents, copyrights and trademarks. But it seems as far as patents go, China is moving on up. According to the WIPO, the company that applied for the most patents in 2008 was not an American or Japanese company but China's Huawei Technologies. And China has made astonishing ground recently moving up to third place with 203,257 patent applications behind Japan (500,000) and the United States (390,000). It remains to be seen if these patents applications will come to fruition for China but it is evident that they are focusing on a new image as a leader in research and development. The Korean article concentrates on 2008 but you can find 2009 statistics at the WIPO's report on China along with some statistics breaking down applications by industry."

mandelbr0t writes "The Canadian Conservative government is preparing to reintroduce amended copyright legislation on Thursday (we discussed the rumor some weeks ago). Most sources say that the proposed legislation is very similar to Bill C-61, generally dubbed the 'Canadian DMCA.' It still includes definitions of 'technological protections' and criminalizes 'circumvention' of those protections. Bill C-61 died in the summer of 2008, facing massive opposition from the Canadian public. Once again, it's time for Canadians to get politically active; ORC ran a large campaign with the last attempt, and will likely be updated soon with the new proposed legislation." Read below for more of the submitter's thoughts on the coming battle.
As with Bill C-61, the Conservative government has launched a campaign of misinformation to attempt to force the law down our throat. Industry Minister Tony Clement is trying to convince people that "format shifting" is currently illegal. Of course, it is not actually criminal, and enforcement of private infringement, as always, is prevented by the fact that massive invasion of privacy would have to occur. Second, Mr. Clement is claiming that this law is necessary to bring Canada into line with the WIPO Treaty. The above readings discredit WIPO altogether. Furthermore, the two articles that are being referred to are Articles 11 and 12. Note the use of the phrase "effective technological measure" and the absence of any criminality requirement. This legislation is not necessary to provide amended copyright law that is consistent with the WIPO treaty, and will hopefully die an uneventful death, to be buried for eternity.

AtomicJake writes "As the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is known for a very rigid course combating counterfeiting and piracy in general, it comes as a surprise that during a meeting of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement, several presenters have shown nuanced views on the economics of enforcing intellectual property rights. Combating clothing piracy might not be beneficial for the welfare of a developing country. Most surprising is the presentation of WIPO Chief Economist (PDF) Carsten Fink, which says that illegal copies of software may actually be beneficial even for consumers of the original goods. Also the piracy of audio-visual goods creates not only losses but also benefits for e.g. hardware manufacturers. Maybe this is because Mr. Fink wrote the presentation before joining WIPO?"

AtomicJake writes "As the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is known for a very rigid course combating counterfeiting and piracy in general, it comes as a surprise that during a meeting of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement, several presenters have shown nuanced views on the economics of enforcing intellectual property rights. Combating clothing piracy might not be beneficial for the welfare of a developing country. Most surprising is the presentation of WIPO Chief Economist (PDF) Carsten Fink, which says that illegal copies of software may actually be beneficial even for consumers of the original goods. Also the piracy of audio-visual goods creates not only losses but also benefits for e.g. hardware manufacturers. Maybe this is because Mr. Fink wrote the presentation before joining WIPO?"

Xerolooper writes "What would the world be like if everyone could enjoy the same patent system we use in the USA? From the article: 'A senior lawyer at Microsoft is calling for the creation of a global patent system to make it easier and faster for corporations to enforce their intellectual property rights around the world.' They have already attracted opposition from the open-source community and the Pirate Party. According to the article, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will be meeting in Geneva on the 17th and 18th of September."

CWmike writes "When FreeLegoPorn.com began publishing pornographic images created with Lego toys, Lego acted quickly. "The content available on the site consisted of animated mini-figures doing very explicit things. We were not amused," says Peter Kjaer, an attorney for Denmark-based Lego. Lego didn't go to court. Instead it filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, which ruled in its favor. The domain registrar for FreeLegoPorn.com, GoDaddy.com, eventually shut down the site and transferred the domain name to Lego under ICANN rules. But it's not just Lego and Verizon that are suffering. Green energy is a hot topic, so cybersquatters have been targeting wind and solar energy start-ups. And malicious sites can create havoc with a brand's reputation. Cybersquatting activity rose by 18% last year, with a documented 440,584 cybersquatting sites in the fourth quarter of last year alone, according to MarkMonitor's annual Brandjacking Index report. And WIPO cited an 8% jump in dispute filings in 2008, to 2,329 complaints — a new record. Now, ICANN is preparing to open a potentially unlimited number of new top-level domains as early as the first quarter of 2010."

coondoggie writes "The US Department of Homeland Security's Science & Technology Directorate recently awarded almost $420,000 to a Kentucky company to further develop a contactless finger print/biometric system. The goal is a machine that can snap 10 fingerprints in high resolution in less than 10 seconds, without human intervention. This goal is beginning to look feasible. FlashScan3D is working with the University of Kentucky's Center for Visualization and Virtual Environments, and has developed a technique called 'structured light illumination' (WIPO patent description), where a pattern of dots or stripes is projected onto a curved or irregular surface."

Brietech writes "Ever wanted to own your own supercomputer? This guy recreated a 31-processor SIMD supercomputer from the early 1980s called the 'Non-Von 1' in an FPGA. It uses a 'Non-Von Neumann' architecture, and was intended for extremely fast database searches and artificial intelligence applications. Full-scale models were intended to have more than a million processors. It's a cool project for those interested in 'alternative' computer architectures, and yes, full source code (Verilog) is available, along with a python library to program it with." Hope the WIPO patent has expired.

holy_calamity writes "New Scientist reports on a patent application that suggests implanting polymer muscles beneath the skin of people suffering paralysis of the face to give them control of their features. The technique has already been used successfully to reanimate the eyelids of human cadavers. Movement could be returned to other facial features and even paralyzed limbs in the same way, the surgeons at University of California Davis say. The full patent application is also available on the WIPO site."

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "McDonalds has applied for patent WO2006068865, which carries the title 'METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING A SANDWICH.' John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, can eat his heart out (unless that's been patented, too). Undoubtedly, some people are contemplating whether there's anything novel in this patent that is somehow obscured by its generic title. Feel free to examine their flowchart for yourself and see exactly how novel their sandwich 'subroutines' are. The good news is that, given that it only mentions generic sandwich making 'tool(s),' rather than any specific machine, it might not survive after the In Re Bilski decision, which was meant to put a stop to absurdities such as this. But until McDonalds's application is rejected or invalidated, make sure you don't use their flowchart when making sandwiches. After all, if you 'apply appropriate condiments to appropriate compartment,' you might infringe upon their IP."

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "McDonalds has applied for patent WO2006068865, which carries the title 'METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING A SANDWICH.' John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, can eat his heart out (unless that's been patented, too). Undoubtedly, some people are contemplating whether there's anything novel in this patent that is somehow obscured by its generic title. Feel free to examine their flowchart for yourself and see exactly how novel their sandwich 'subroutines' are. The good news is that, given that it only mentions generic sandwich making 'tool(s),' rather than any specific machine, it might not survive after the In Re Bilski decision, which was meant to put a stop to absurdities such as this. But until McDonalds's application is rejected or invalidated, make sure you don't use their flowchart when making sandwiches. After all, if you 'apply appropriate condiments to appropriate compartment,' you might infringe upon their IP."

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Not content with current statutory damages, the RIAA is pushing for higher damages for infringement, damages that would total $1.5 million for copying a CD with ten songs. It's all part of debate over the proposed PRO-IP Act. William Patry, a lawyer who wrote the seminal seven-volume reference on US copyright law, called it the most 'outrageously gluttonous IP bill ever introduced in the US.'"

ianare writes "According to a report by the UN's intellectual property agency, the number of requests for patents in China grew by 33% in 2005 compared with the previous year. That gives it the world's third highest number behind Japan and the United States, the agency said. China's leaders have been urging companies to become more creative, and put more of their money into developing new technology. 'Made by China' rather than simply 'Made in China' will mean that the country's economic miracle stands a far better chance of lasting longer."

Dotnaught writes "New Scientist reports that Nestec, a Nestle subsidiary, has applied for a patent on a fermented coffee beverage. In other words, coffee beer -- it foams like beer and packs the caffeine of coffee, with "fruity and/or floral notes due to the fermentation of the coffee aroma."

Christian Engstrom writes "The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is hosting an online discussion about 'Intellectual Property in the Information Society' from June 1 to 15, 2005. The conclusions of the Online Forum will form part of WIPO's contribution to the WSIS Tunis Summit. There are 10 different themes for discussion, including 'Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?' and 'Enforcement of IP Rights'. If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them."

Christian Engstrom writes "The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is hosting an online discussion about 'Intellectual Property in the Information Society' from June 1 to 15, 2005. The conclusions of the Online Forum will form part of WIPO's contribution to the WSIS Tunis Summit. There are 10 different themes for discussion, including 'Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?' and 'Enforcement of IP Rights'. If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them."

Christian Engstrom writes "The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is hosting an online discussion about 'Intellectual Property in the Information Society' from June 1 to 15, 2005. The conclusions of the Online Forum will form part of WIPO's contribution to the WSIS Tunis Summit. There are 10 different themes for discussion, including 'Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?' and 'Enforcement of IP Rights'. If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them."

Christian Engstrom writes "The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is hosting an online discussion about 'Intellectual Property in the Information Society' from June 1 to 15, 2005. The conclusions of the Online Forum will form part of WIPO's contribution to the WSIS Tunis Summit. There are 10 different themes for discussion, including 'Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?' and 'Enforcement of IP Rights'. If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them."

Rolan writes "The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has announced that they will not allow most Public Interest Groups into two upcoming meetings on Intellectual Property. The EFF has a Press Release."

wikinerd writes "FSFE, the European branch of Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation announced that it was granted observer status in WIPO, the international organisation which influences nationwide copyright laws."

rocjoe71 writes "It appears the Government of Canada might be ratifying the WIPO copyright treaty, which will surely bring an end to our P2P downloading heydays. Among the measures that could be enforced by ratifying WIPO would force ISPs to comply with a 'notice and takedown' system against subscribers who violate copyright laws... As we speak RIAA lawyers are amassing on the Canada-U.S. border, ready for an all-out invasion."

mouthbeef writes "The Broadcast Treaty is a proposal from a WIPO Subcommittee that's supposedly about stopping 'signal theft.' But along the way, this proposal has turned into a huge, convoluted hairball that threatens to make the PC illegal, trash the public domain, break copyleft and put a Broadcast Flag on the Internet. The treaty negotiation process is unbelievably convoluted and hard-to-follow, and they've just wrapped up the latest round in Geneva. But for the first time, a really large group of "civil society" orgs were accredited to attend. Me and another EFF staffer and the Coordinator of the Union for the Public Domain created a heavily editorialized impressionistic transcript of the meeting (EFF mirror, UPD mirror), trying to untie the knots in the negotiation. This is the first time that a really exhaustive peek inside a WIPO treaty negotiation has ever been published -- get it while it's legal!"

The Importance of writes "If you liked the broadcast flag, you're going to love WIPO's proposed 'broadcast flag' treaty (PDF link). The draft treaty will give copyright-like rights to broadcasters, cablecasters and, if the US gets its way, webcasters. As a broadcaster, you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it. The treaty also includes DMCA-like protections, in case you try to circumvent the broadcast flag. The treaty is going to be discussed in Geneva, June 7-9. The draft is discussed over on Corante.com and late last year on the DMCA activists list."

The Importance of writes "If you liked the broadcast flag, you're going to love WIPO's proposed 'broadcast flag' treaty (PDF link). The draft treaty will give copyright-like rights to broadcasters, cablecasters and, if the US gets its way, webcasters. As a broadcaster, you wouldn't have to own the copyright in what you broadcast, but you could still stop people from recording your broadcast, reproducing it or distributing it. The treaty also includes DMCA-like protections, in case you try to circumvent the broadcast flag. The treaty is going to be discussed in Geneva, June 7-9. The draft is discussed over on Corante.com and late last year on the DMCA activists list."

The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, an expedited process for allowing corporations to steal domain names, continues to be abused as arbitrators stretch the definitions of "cyber-squatting" to any length in order to find for the corporate complainants. Lunenburg writes "Unix.Org, a site that was apparently used for noncommercial discussion of Unix(tm) operating systems, has been ruled a "cybersquatter" by a WIPO panel and given to the X/Open group. In spite of not actually matching any cybersquatting criteria, a WIPO panelist felt that by providing links to commercial sites, Unix.ORG was acting in "bad faith" and thus should be given over to the Open group." And WEFUNK writes "Exploiting an obvious technical error to help build their case, Molson Inc. has been awarded the seemingly generic canadian.biz domain from the original owner who "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory" and is now appealing to the courts." John Gilmore has a bit of commentary.

mrbrown1602 writes "According to a NewsBytes article, a Florida man named Peter Frampton had his domain, PeterFrampton.com, taken away thru the quasi-juduicial process established by ICANN for domain name disputes because he shares his name with a washed up rock star from the 70s. A copy of the WIPO decision can be found here."

Greyfox writes: "Here's one that slipped through the cracks. The WIPO (You know, that unelected, unaccountable organization that lives in the Corporate back pockets) has ratified a anti-music piracy treaty which will go into effect on May 20. It apparently has anti-circumvention measures similar to the DMCA and will carry the force of law in the USA and other member countries." We had a more informative story about these two treaties a few months ago. The only new information is that the Phonograms and Performances Treaty now has enough signatures to go into effect in May.

Sarcasmo writes: "A WIPO Panel has decided in favor of Vivendi Universal in the dispute over VivendiUniversalSucks.com. The arguments made on Vivendi's behalf are strange, to say the least." It's so unjust as to be farcical. When the domain name holder makes a sarcastic comment that he wasn't making any money off the domain (in contrast to the lawyer who was billing a few hundred dollars per hour to handle the dispute), the esteemed Panel takes that as evidence that he wants to sell the domain (which in itself was already a flimsy plank to call "bad faith"). Kangaroo court is too kind a description. ICANN is currently asking for input on the domain dispute resolution process, so if you've been a victim of the UDRP, now would be a good time to speak up.

Silver A writes: "In a recent action, the WIPO has ruled that aollnews.com is "confusingly similar" to aolnews.com, and ordered the domain transfered to AOL; however, even without a response from the holder of the domain, the WIPO ruled in regards to "fucknetscape.com" that: 'The Panel regards it as inconceivable that anyone looking at this Domain Name will believe that it has anything to do with a company of such high repute as the Complainant. It is manifestly, on its face, a name, which can have nothing whatever to do with the Complainant. It is a name, which, by its very nature, declares that it is hostile to Netscape. ... The Panel simply does not understand why on earth the Complainant would ever wish to register this Domain Name.' So, finally some sanity from the WIPO regarding protest sites." Well, you must remember that these arbitration firms have a stable of arbitrators; even though the system is palpably biased toward large firms (see earlier stories), at least some of the arbitrators have to approach these cases more reasonably.

Jim Madison writes: "Today, the Department of Commerce's United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is soliciting public comment in a Federal Register notice on the databases it uses to find prior art relevant to its examination of software-implemented business method patents. We've discussed this topic ad naseum, so here's an opportunity to make sure that policy-makers understand our perspective. Maybe slashdot mgmt. could even forward the top rated comments to them directly!"

And an unnamed reader points out that tomorrow is the due date for comments on the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, which "has some crazy suggestions such as reserving domains using pharmaceutical names and bolstering the claims of commercial entities against 'cybersquatters.'"

Jim Madison writes: "Today, the Department of Commerce's United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it is soliciting public comment in a Federal Register notice on the databases it uses to find prior art relevant to its examination of software-implemented business method patents. We've discussed this topic ad naseum, so here's an opportunity to make sure that policy-makers understand our perspective. Maybe slashdot mgmt. could even forward the top rated comments to them directly!"

And an unnamed reader points out that tomorrow is the due date for comments on the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, which "has some crazy suggestions such as reserving domains using pharmaceutical names and bolstering the claims of commercial entities against 'cybersquatters.'"

Scott Robinson writes: "WIPO has released their Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process. More importantly, they have requested for comments on this report. Read, respond, be a good netizen." Michael mentioned the report's release in this story as well. Unfortunately, WIPO doesn't make it available as either html or plain text; your options are Word and pdf -- but it's worth downloading, to see how WIPO justifies its role in determining (among other things) which common words, pharmaceutical identifiers and geographically-linked terms the ordinary domain registrant is allowed to use. The comment period ends June 8th.

Scott Robinson writes: "WIPO has released their Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process. More importantly, they have requested for comments on this report. Read, respond, be a good netizen." Michael mentioned the report's release in this story as well. Unfortunately, WIPO doesn't make it available as either html or plain text; your options are Word and pdf -- but it's worth downloading, to see how WIPO justifies its role in determining (among other things) which common words, pharmaceutical identifiers and geographically-linked terms the ordinary domain registrant is allowed to use. The comment period ends June 8th.

slashdoter writes: "Last year Kenneth J. Harvey defended his domain name Wallmartcanadasucks.com ( note the two ll's ) from Wal-mart. so what does he do now? What every red blooded canadian geek would, demand all of Wal-mart's domains with Wallmart ( two ll's ) in them. This would be really cool if he wins." This may be an opportune time to mention WIPO's new report on the domain name system, which recommends an assortment of new protections for trademarks in the domain name system. I haven't read it all yet, but the recommendations include taking domains away from the current holders and reassigning them, blocking new registrations of various classes of words, etc.

If you remember our Guiness Beer Really Sucks story, you'll recall that WIPO's rule has been "no sucks domains." There's a three-part test and if you pass any of the parts you're in the clear, but one of the silly gotchas about test number three is that Xsucks.com has repeatedly been ruled "identical or confusingly similar" to trademarkX. This makes no sense, of course. But the strange thing is that WIPO on Monday reversed itself. In one of the rare decisions awarded to the domain holder, the arbitration panel said that the owner of LockheedMartinSucks.com could keep his domain, because it was not confusingly similar to LockheedMartin.com. Um. What?

I have a problem with the whole notion of taking domains away to begin with. The only tune that corporate, capitalist American can sing is "the free market" -- except when it comes to the free market in domain names.

Real estate speculation? Great, it optimizes efficiency. Currency market speculation? Balances resources internationally and assures prosperity. But domain name speculation? You filthy cybersquatter!

Personally I could see this being useful in 1995, when companies were just waking up to the internet, but I think it's run its course. Any company in 2001 that hasn't registered its corporate name, and all its major products' names before making them public, is stupid and deserves to pay large sums of money to savvy entrepreneurs. In 2001, we're just seeing natural selection running its course. Bailing out stupidity is corporate welfare.

Anyway, the big picture is that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in adjudicating the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Protocol (UDRP), is trying to find a way to apply trademark law to the internet. The rules put in place ensured that there was to be no free market on "LockheedMartin.com" -- the company that owns the trademark on "LOCKHEED MARTIN" gets it, and others are only allowed to have it if they are doing something appropriate with it (not using it in "bad faith," to be precise).

WIPO makes its decisions based on the UDRP, but has a wide latitude in interpreting it. This is one of its problems, of course. The UDRP has a handful of fuzzy two-word clauses like "bad faith" and "legitimate interests"; WIPO's panelists can interpret them almost any way they want. Consistency is a prerequisite of justice, and randomly-administered justice is no justice at all.

But Monday, the two fuzzy words were "confusingly similar," namely, whether LockheedMartinSucks.com is confusingly similar to LockheedMartin.com. The decisions came down, and they may be the most startling display of WIPO's arbitrary arbitration.

As the decision states, Lockheed-Martin "relie[d] primarily on previous ICANN decisions that have found domain names that combine a trademark with the word 'sucks' to be confusingly similar to the trademark."

Lockheed probably thought it was on safe ground by doing so. The list of domains taken away for that reason was long: guinness-sucks.com, guinness-really-sucks.com, etc., wal-martsucks.com, cabelassucks.com, directlinesucks.com, dixonssucks.com, freeservesucks.com, natwestsucks.com, standardcharteredsucks.com, and wal-martcanadasucks.com, etc.

But Monday's decision, for once, told the truth:

"The disputed domain names are neither identical nor confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks, since no one would reasonably believe that Complainant operates a website that appends the word 'sucks' to its name and then uses it to criticize corporate America."

What took Captain Obvious so long to arrive?

The decision also notes that in the WalmartCanadaSucks.com decision, the only other case where the trademark-holder was told to take a hike, the sole panelist "expressed skepticism" about the confusing similarity of sucks, "but stopped just short of advocating a per se privilege exempting all 'sucks' domain names."

Likewise here; they make it clear that "no one could reasonably believe" sucks is confusing. And more interestingly -- they do not bother even to consider the other two parts of the three-part test. As soon as they decided that LockheedSucks was not Lockheed, that was it, the case was over.

But, unfortunately, I don't see any language that encourages future panelists to reach the same decision. This is an international body and they don't have to follow the almost-uniquely-American tradition of following precedent and being, you know, predictable. The next ten sucks sites might be taken away, for all anyone can tell. Or they might not. Sucks-sters will just have to hope they get the right panelist.

There were some good lines in this decision, by the way, that tell me that the panelists know what's what. "A website that functions for the exercise of free speech by its nature can not operate with bad faith intent." I like that. Kudos to panelists Foster and Sorkin.

And shame on panelist Wagoner, who was the dissenting voice.

Wagoner was embarrassingly honest in his outrage that the UDRP was being followed, for once. The implication of the majority decision, he complained, is that "the lack of 'confusing similarity' would prevent a finding that the Policy had been violated."

Well, yes: that's exactly how the Policy demands that WIPO rule. When your personal beliefs about what the UDRP should say, Mr. Wagoner, differ from what it actually does say, we'd hope you can figure out which to follow.

And among his reasons why "sucks" should be swallowed up by corporate America is that consumer eyeballs belong to corporate America. If you the consumer do a search for Lockheed, happen to notice that someone is criticizing it at a sucks domain, and then of your own free will and volition decide you want to click and see what the criticism is all about, your reckless websurfing has made you party to a filching of Lockheed's intellectual property:

"...it is likely (given the relative ease by which websites can be entered) that such users will choose to visit the sites, if only to satisfy their curiosity. Respondent will have accomplished his objective of diverting potential customers of Complainant to his websites by the use of domain names that are similar to Complainant's trademark."

The other two panelists smacked down that insipid argument explicitly, too, by the way, saying that once the searcher sees the sucks and nonsucks alternatives, he or she will exhibit a discernment and intelligence measurably higher than the average garden slug.

Someone needs to ask WIPO: what the hell is going on?

Trademark law (in the United States at least) exists for the citizen's protection, not the corporation's. The laws against dilution of trademarks exist so that you and I will not be confused. When the law, or in this case the arbitration rules, start to protect corporations' trademark interests over ours, something has gone wrong.

And domain names are the real estate of the internet. Obviously a sucks domain name is parody, and will not be confused with its target -- obviously. People who would criticize corporations have enough problems to worry about already with libel suits they can't afford to defend (win or lose). The last thing they need is a governing body that can take away their website on absurd charges of trademark violation.

And the second-to-last thing they need is a governing body that can't make up its damn mind.

If you remember our Guiness Beer Really Sucks story, you'll recall that WIPO's rule has been "no sucks domains." There's a three-part test and if you pass any of the parts you're in the clear, but one of the silly gotchas about test number three is that Xsucks.com has repeatedly been ruled "identical or confusingly similar" to trademarkX. This makes no sense, of course. But the strange thing is that WIPO on Monday reversed itself. In one of the rare decisions awarded to the domain holder, the arbitration panel said that the owner of LockheedMartinSucks.com could keep his domain, because it was not confusingly similar to LockheedMartin.com. Um. What?

I have a problem with the whole notion of taking domains away to begin with. The only tune that corporate, capitalist American can sing is "the free market" -- except when it comes to the free market in domain names.

Real estate speculation? Great, it optimizes efficiency. Currency market speculation? Balances resources internationally and assures prosperity. But domain name speculation? You filthy cybersquatter!

Personally I could see this being useful in 1995, when companies were just waking up to the internet, but I think it's run its course. Any company in 2001 that hasn't registered its corporate name, and all its major products' names before making them public, is stupid and deserves to pay large sums of money to savvy entrepreneurs. In 2001, we're just seeing natural selection running its course. Bailing out stupidity is corporate welfare.

Anyway, the big picture is that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in adjudicating the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Protocol (UDRP), is trying to find a way to apply trademark law to the internet. The rules put in place ensured that there was to be no free market on "LockheedMartin.com" -- the company that owns the trademark on "LOCKHEED MARTIN" gets it, and others are only allowed to have it if they are doing something appropriate with it (not using it in "bad faith," to be precise).

WIPO makes its decisions based on the UDRP, but has a wide latitude in interpreting it. This is one of its problems, of course. The UDRP has a handful of fuzzy two-word clauses like "bad faith" and "legitimate interests"; WIPO's panelists can interpret them almost any way they want. Consistency is a prerequisite of justice, and randomly-administered justice is no justice at all.

But Monday, the two fuzzy words were "confusingly similar," namely, whether LockheedMartinSucks.com is confusingly similar to LockheedMartin.com. The decisions came down, and they may be the most startling display of WIPO's arbitrary arbitration.

As the decision states, Lockheed-Martin "relie[d] primarily on previous ICANN decisions that have found domain names that combine a trademark with the word 'sucks' to be confusingly similar to the trademark."

Lockheed probably thought it was on safe ground by doing so. The list of domains taken away for that reason was long: guinness-sucks.com, guinness-really-sucks.com, etc., wal-martsucks.com, cabelassucks.com, directlinesucks.com, dixonssucks.com, freeservesucks.com, natwestsucks.com, standardcharteredsucks.com, and wal-martcanadasucks.com, etc.

But Monday's decision, for once, told the truth:

"The disputed domain names are neither identical nor confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks, since no one would reasonably believe that Complainant operates a website that appends the word 'sucks' to its name and then uses it to criticize corporate America."

What took Captain Obvious so long to arrive?

The decision also notes that in the WalmartCanadaSucks.com decision, the only other case where the trademark-holder was told to take a hike, the sole panelist "expressed skepticism" about the confusing similarity of sucks, "but stopped just short of advocating a per se privilege exempting all 'sucks' domain names."

Likewise here; they make it clear that "no one could reasonably believe" sucks is confusing. And more interestingly -- they do not bother even to consider the other two parts of the three-part test. As soon as they decided that LockheedSucks was not Lockheed, that was it, the case was over.

But, unfortunately, I don't see any language that encourages future panelists to reach the same decision. This is an international body and they don't have to follow the almost-uniquely-American tradition of following precedent and being, you know, predictable. The next ten sucks sites might be taken away, for all anyone can tell. Or they might not. Sucks-sters will just have to hope they get the right panelist.

There were some good lines in this decision, by the way, that tell me that the panelists know what's what. "A website that functions for the exercise of free speech by its nature can not operate with bad faith intent." I like that. Kudos to panelists Foster and Sorkin.

And shame on panelist Wagoner, who was the dissenting voice.

Wagoner was embarrassingly honest in his outrage that the UDRP was being followed, for once. The implication of the majority decision, he complained, is that "the lack of 'confusing similarity' would prevent a finding that the Policy had been violated."

Well, yes: that's exactly how the Policy demands that WIPO rule. When your personal beliefs about what the UDRP should say, Mr. Wagoner, differ from what it actually does say, we'd hope you can figure out which to follow.

And among his reasons why "sucks" should be swallowed up by corporate America is that consumer eyeballs belong to corporate America. If you the consumer do a search for Lockheed, happen to notice that someone is criticizing it at a sucks domain, and then of your own free will and volition decide you want to click and see what the criticism is all about, your reckless websurfing has made you party to a filching of Lockheed's intellectual property:

"...it is likely (given the relative ease by which websites can be entered) that such users will choose to visit the sites, if only to satisfy their curiosity. Respondent will have accomplished his objective of diverting potential customers of Complainant to his websites by the use of domain names that are similar to Complainant's trademark."

The other two panelists smacked down that insipid argument explicitly, too, by the way, saying that once the searcher sees the sucks and nonsucks alternatives, he or she will exhibit a discernment and intelligence measurably higher than the average garden slug.

Someone needs to ask WIPO: what the hell is going on?

Trademark law (in the United States at least) exists for the citizen's protection, not the corporation's. The laws against dilution of trademarks exist so that you and I will not be confused. When the law, or in this case the arbitration rules, start to protect corporations' trademark interests over ours, something has gone wrong.

And domain names are the real estate of the internet. Obviously a sucks domain name is parody, and will not be confused with its target -- obviously. People who would criticize corporations have enough problems to worry about already with libel suits they can't afford to defend (win or lose). The last thing they need is a governing body that can take away their website on absurd charges of trademark violation.

And the second-to-last thing they need is a governing body that can't make up its damn mind.

If you remember our Guiness Beer Really Sucks story, you'll recall that WIPO's rule has been "no sucks domains." There's a three-part test and if you pass any of the parts you're in the clear, but one of the silly gotchas about test number three is that Xsucks.com has repeatedly been ruled "identical or confusingly similar" to trademarkX. This makes no sense, of course. But the strange thing is that WIPO on Monday reversed itself. In one of the rare decisions awarded to the domain holder, the arbitration panel said that the owner of LockheedMartinSucks.com could keep his domain, because it was not confusingly similar to LockheedMartin.com. Um. What?

I have a problem with the whole notion of taking domains away to begin with. The only tune that corporate, capitalist American can sing is "the free market" -- except when it comes to the free market in domain names.

Real estate speculation? Great, it optimizes efficiency. Currency market speculation? Balances resources internationally and assures prosperity. But domain name speculation? You filthy cybersquatter!

Personally I could see this being useful in 1995, when companies were just waking up to the internet, but I think it's run its course. Any company in 2001 that hasn't registered its corporate name, and all its major products' names before making them public, is stupid and deserves to pay large sums of money to savvy entrepreneurs. In 2001, we're just seeing natural selection running its course. Bailing out stupidity is corporate welfare.

Anyway, the big picture is that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in adjudicating the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Protocol (UDRP), is trying to find a way to apply trademark law to the internet. The rules put in place ensured that there was to be no free market on "LockheedMartin.com" -- the company that owns the trademark on "LOCKHEED MARTIN" gets it, and others are only allowed to have it if they are doing something appropriate with it (not using it in "bad faith," to be precise).

WIPO makes its decisions based on the UDRP, but has a wide latitude in interpreting it. This is one of its problems, of course. The UDRP has a handful of fuzzy two-word clauses like "bad faith" and "legitimate interests"; WIPO's panelists can interpret them almost any way they want. Consistency is a prerequisite of justice, and randomly-administered justice is no justice at all.

But Monday, the two fuzzy words were "confusingly similar," namely, whether LockheedMartinSucks.com is confusingly similar to LockheedMartin.com. The decisions came down, and they may be the most startling display of WIPO's arbitrary arbitration.

As the decision states, Lockheed-Martin "relie[d] primarily on previous ICANN decisions that have found domain names that combine a trademark with the word 'sucks' to be confusingly similar to the trademark."

Lockheed probably thought it was on safe ground by doing so. The list of domains taken away for that reason was long: guinness-sucks.com, guinness-really-sucks.com, etc., wal-martsucks.com, cabelassucks.com, directlinesucks.com, dixonssucks.com, freeservesucks.com, natwestsucks.com, standardcharteredsucks.com, and wal-martcanadasucks.com, etc.

But Monday's decision, for once, told the truth:

"The disputed domain names are neither identical nor confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks, since no one would reasonably believe that Complainant operates a website that appends the word 'sucks' to its name and then uses it to criticize corporate America."

What took Captain Obvious so long to arrive?

The decision also notes that in the WalmartCanadaSucks.com decision, the only other case where the trademark-holder was told to take a hike, the sole panelist "expressed skepticism" about the confusing similarity of sucks, "but stopped just short of advocating a per se privilege exempting all 'sucks' domain names."

Likewise here; they make it clear that "no one could reasonably believe" sucks is confusing. And more interestingly -- they do not bother even to consider the other two parts of the three-part test. As soon as they decided that LockheedSucks was not Lockheed, that was it, the case was over.

But, unfortunately, I don't see any language that encourages future panelists to reach the same decision. This is an international body and they don't have to follow the almost-uniquely-American tradition of following precedent and being, you know, predictable. The next ten sucks sites might be taken away, for all anyone can tell. Or they might not. Sucks-sters will just have to hope they get the right panelist.

There were some good lines in this decision, by the way, that tell me that the panelists know what's what. "A website that functions for the exercise of free speech by its nature can not operate with bad faith intent." I like that. Kudos to panelists Foster and Sorkin.

And shame on panelist Wagoner, who was the dissenting voice.

Wagoner was embarrassingly honest in his outrage that the UDRP was being followed, for once. The implication of the majority decision, he complained, is that "the lack of 'confusing similarity' would prevent a finding that the Policy had been violated."

Well, yes: that's exactly how the Policy demands that WIPO rule. When your personal beliefs about what the UDRP should say, Mr. Wagoner, differ from what it actually does say, we'd hope you can figure out which to follow.

And among his reasons why "sucks" should be swallowed up by corporate America is that consumer eyeballs belong to corporate America. If you the consumer do a search for Lockheed, happen to notice that someone is criticizing it at a sucks domain, and then of your own free will and volition decide you want to click and see what the criticism is all about, your reckless websurfing has made you party to a filching of Lockheed's intellectual property:

"...it is likely (given the relative ease by which websites can be entered) that such users will choose to visit the sites, if only to satisfy their curiosity. Respondent will have accomplished his objective of diverting potential customers of Complainant to his websites by the use of domain names that are similar to Complainant's trademark."

The other two panelists smacked down that insipid argument explicitly, too, by the way, saying that once the searcher sees the sucks and nonsucks alternatives, he or she will exhibit a discernment and intelligence measurably higher than the average garden slug.

Someone needs to ask WIPO: what the hell is going on?

Trademark law (in the United States at least) exists for the citizen's protection, not the corporation's. The laws against dilution of trademarks exist so that you and I will not be confused. When the law, or in this case the arbitration rules, start to protect corporations' trademark interests over ours, something has gone wrong.

And domain names are the real estate of the internet. Obviously a sucks domain name is parody, and will not be confused with its target -- obviously. People who would criticize corporations have enough problems to worry about already with libel suits they can't afford to defend (win or lose). The last thing they need is a governing body that can take away their website on absurd charges of trademark violation.

And the second-to-last thing they need is a governing body that can't make up its damn mind.

yooden writes: "Milton Mueller shows in his study that the domain name dispute resolution system applied today has a tendency to reward providers who deliver name transfers (ie. WIPO). While the idea is not new, the study is." Since ICANN is meeting today, in a session with 10 totally unelected directors and 9 elected by business representatives and 0 elected by general internet users, to decide which new TLDs will be implemented and how (to split up the loot), it seems somehow appropriate to review their record of fair and impartial domain name handling over the past few years. Mueller analyzes disputes statistically and comes up with a few smoking guns.

I'm working on a story about WIPO and how it takes domains away from their owners. But today's example is egregious enough that I'm just going ahead and telling you about it now. Some guy who was annoyed with Guinness beer registered a slew of domain names like guinness-really-sucks.com. Guinness paid WIPO their $2000 and took them all away. Why? Because "guinness-really-sucks" is "identical or confusingly similar to" their trademark on the word "Guinness." Excuse me?

Originally, the domain name system was first-come-first-served, and that worked pretty well. But corporations got trademark powers extended by having them formally built into the domain name arbitration process. Now, trademarks are a minefield.

And the mines are getting more powerful. If you're wondering how anyone but a blithering idiot could possibly confuse "Guinness Really Sucks" with Guinness itself, you're not alone.

The precedent here is the case of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. vs. "Walsucks." In that case, there were two things that led WIPO to determine that there was a likelihood of confusion. First, "the strength of the WALMART trademark."

And second -- interestingly -- the "intent in selecting the domain names."

Proving trademark strength is simple, a corporation just trots out its list of how many millions of dollars it's spent on ad campaigns, and how many devoted customers it has.

And in this case, proving the owner's intent was easy too. He made the mistake of getting mad at Guinness (ironically, about a previous domain case) and being foolish enough to say so. He posted on an old website:

I tell you, I was so upset when I got this STUPID ASS LETTER from the GOOFBALL JACKASS LAWYERS at guinness beer, that I went to register the domain name, GUINNESSSUCKS.COM, but guess what, that domain name is already owned by someone. Guess who. That's right. Guinness beer owns it themselves. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks they suck. THEY THINK THEY SUCK THEMSELVES!! ... So anyway I did go and register a few names about guinness beer and pillsbury. Tell me what you think....Coming Soon to a website near you!!

You may be saying, so what? Who cares whether he was angry or not? Doesn't he have a right to protest a corporation regardless of his emotional state?

You might think so, but you'd be wrong. His thoughtcrime is a big part of why these domains were taken away. The argument that Guiness put before WIPO was that "the Respondent admitted ... that he registered the [domain names] because he was angered."

Therefore, said Guinness, "the registration of the [domain names] was done in bad faith" -- which is the main thing needed to take a domain away from someone -- "and not for a legitimate purpose, rather Respondent's intent is to harass the Complainant."

I wish I could tell you that WIPO told Guinness to shove this attitude where the sun doesn't shine, and that even ordinary citizens have the right to say that some precious corporation sucks.

They didn't, of course. In their decision, they reference the owner's anger and then simply say that they "accept that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent registered said domain names with the intention of harassing the Complainant."

To them, anger means bad faith and no legitimate purpose, which are the key phrases that WIPO needs to assert before they take a domain away.

There are some kinds of speech corporations don't want to allow on this little thing we call the internet. In the new domain name system, it's not a "legitimate purpose" to say that a company sucks. Especially if you are one of those angry people who doesn't understand how great Guinness beer is. Sorry. Go find another domain, loser.

WIPO went on to point out was that there may be some non-English-speaking readers who may not be familiar with the word "sucks." These people might be confused as to whether they were looking at the Guinness homepage or not. Therefore the test of trademark confusion was met. I am not kidding.

Although Guinness "has not submitted any evidence of such confusion," they don't even need to: "it is unrealistic to require such evidence."

Here's the list of really confusing domains. Someone tell me how these URLs could be mistaken for the Guinness beer website:

guinness-really-sucks.com
guinness-really-really-sucks.com
guinness-beer-really-sucks.com
guinness-beer-really-really-sucks.com
guinness-sucks.com
guinnessreallysucks.com
guinnessreallyreallysucks.com
guinnessbeerreallysucks.com
guinnessbeerreallyreallysucks.com
guinness-beer-sucks.com
guinnessbeersucks.com

It gets worse. I might search on Guinness and turn up a "-sucks" website, and then I might actually be curious and click on it, thereby depriving the real Guinness of my eyeballs. Again, I am not kidding. This is actually part of the reason the domains were taken away from their owner.

I'll write some more about this later, maybe next month. If you know anyone who feels like their domain name was unfairly taken away, please have them contact me.

ethereal writes "According to Brian Livingston's column on C|Net, WIPO is considering some new rules which would make it easier for plaintiffs to get domain names which are '"geographical terms," individuals' personal names and "tradenames"'. The story also discusses how WIPO now gets the lion's share of the domain name disputes because they rule for the plaintiff the most often (surprise surprise) and have even transferred domains away from defendants who were acting in good faith (read: cybersquatting). WIPO is accepting comments on these new rules until Aug. 15."

Anonymous Coward writes: "The U.S. Patent and Trademark office is seeking public comments (pdf form) on the Draft Patent Law Treaty. They say the treaty is intended to "simplify the formal requirements associated with patent applications." Here's your chance to weigh in alongside Tim O'Reilly, Jeff Bezos, RMS, et. al." WIPO will be meeting from May 11 to June 2 of this year in Geneva, and all public comments are due by April 21. The pdf linked to above lists fax, snail-mail and e-mail addresses to which you can direct your comments on their efforts to streamline patent applications and patents, "and the subsequent changes to United States law and practice." Non-U.S. residents, remember your voice is important here, too!

FunkBox writes "Apparently, The World Wrestling Federation (WWF) has won the first international arbitration in a ``cybersquatting'' dispute over the rights to an Internet address. Check out the story here." Or just read the decision. ICANN strikes the first blow under its new expedited uniform dispute resolution rules, that everyone - everyone - is now subject to.

Michael Froomkin writes "I am the public interests representative on a World Intellectual Property Group (WIPO) experts group panel advising on rules to sort out conflicts between domain names and trademarks. I have come to believe that WIPO's Interim Report, RFC 3, unfairly stacks the deck for large, corporate, trademark holders, and against small firms, consumers, and non-trademark holders. Please see A Critique of WIPO's RFC 3 for full details. It's long, and it is not pretty. "