Slashdot Mirror
More Domain Disputes Labeled 'Reverse-Hijacking'
merodach writes: "This article on technews.com actually has a rare piece of good news in it - two corporations whose attempts to take domains from others were rebuked as attempts at "reverse hijacking." We can only hope that maybe the arbitrators are finally beginning to see the light." Read the story and be amazed at the audacity of these companies.
So was there any kind of problem like this related to 1-800 phone numbers? were you able to buy and sell them, or were they only available from the phone companies on a 'lucky' basis. If I had 1800-go-pepsi , could pepsi make me give them that phone number? I'm sure the case could be different cuz you could spell other things, or the numbers could have appealed to you, or just been randomly drawn. But it's crazy that companies think they should be making millions on everything computer related just cuz Microsoft and other large computer and internet companies do.Sucks. Makes me wish computers were only for geeks like they used to be.
Don't Tread on Me
The key misunderstanding in all such issues is that people view domain names as a form of property. This is patently untrue. It is impossible to form a logical perspective on this case if you regard something as abstract as a domain name as if it was a subject to ownership.
Domain names are an abstraction. Essentially, they are no more than a number stored in a database or databases, none of which is owned by the domain's so-called owner. The numbers aren't owned, since we know you can't own a number. The databases are the property of whoever maintains them. Thus the principle objects of the dispute are not even the property of the disputants.
A domain name has no corporeal representation. You cannot touch it, nor can you point to it or isolate it by any means. It has no permanent existance. It must be regularly renewed. Claiming that you can own a domain name is like claiming that you can own some electricity. At best it is an illusion provoked by ignorance.
The closest a domain name gets to ownership is the contract between the "owner" and the registrar. This, however, is not a domain name. It is a contract, and covered under contract law, not IP law. The registrar has the right to terminate the contract if they see fit, provided they comply with the breach of contract conditions. If the registrar is offered a sufficiently high fee to terminate a domain name agreement in favour of a new client, they have the right to do that. If the law of supply and demand is to operate properly in the net, they have a duty to break their contract in favour of the highest bidder.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
First off, I don't know what everyone else is talking about, I had no trouble at all getting to the article in question.
Anyway, I for one am glad to see this kind of ruling. Companies should not just expect to have a domain name handed over to them because they think they have rights to it.
Unfortunately, strong-arm techniques such as pending litigation or going to the registrar (lets not forget when Network Solutions gave away ownership of personal domains a few years back to companies who demanded them) often win out, especially against personal/small business sites who wouldn't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to defend themselves.
Both of these cases were clearly a show of insolence by these companies, and for once, karma bit them in the arse.
[Nestle] complained that Pro Fiducia Treuhand, a financial and management consulting firm with some 40 employees, had no legitimate claim on the Maggi.com domain and that it had registered and used the address in bad faith because, after five years, the company had not made use of the domain for a Web site.
Lawyers for Aspen Grove argued that, "by continuing to use the domain name without offering any or little content or any legitimate business use, (Clark) has confused (Aspen Grove's) prospective clients and business partners and has diluted the value of (its) trademark and reputation."
That stuff worries me. I personally have two domains that don't have any hosts, just MX records for personal email. I fully expect someday some company to come along and somehow claim trademark infringement from a non-existent web site.
So does that mean I should go ahead and put up a web site with infringing material so they can sue me easier?
This is like saying if you get mail at McDonald's Avenue, you are a trademark infringer, and doubly so because you aren't running a hamburger stand!
Kudos to the opposing lawyers and WIPO (that acronym always makes me chuckle when I say it out loud) for blasting that stupid notion. But I still fear that someday I'll have to deal with this bullshit even though my domains were first registered 7 years ago, just because some idiot wants the domain and can't deal with the fact that he doesn't have it.
There should be some sort of fines involved here. These companies will keep trying this garbage unless they're punished in some way.
Just because I AM paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me.
Not to wholeheartedly defend NamePlanet, since they own a few domains that I'd like to get my hands on, but I don't think you can really call offering people free email addresses cybersquatting. They are using the domains to conduct business, and I'm sure they have more than a couple of users who are happy that they don't have to spend their own money to have their own name as their email address.
But even rarer was the severity of the spanking received by Nestle at the hands of three arbitrators assigned by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).(emphasis mine)
The article states that Nestle was "spanked" hard by the WIPO arbitrators, but the only negative consequence mentioned was a tongue lashing, equivalent to, "Bad Nestle! No cookie for you!"
Is that what constitutes a severe retribution from the WIPO board?
ShoutingMan.com
You are certainly naive.
Which some might say is still better than being rude.
Why do you think breach of contract clauses exist?
To spell out penalties, the only purpose of which is to discourage people from breaching contracts.
Perhaps if you had actually read Adam Smith's work you would know that he addresses this in both The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
As it turns out, I have read The Wealth of Nations. I don't recall anything about domain name registrations, or about breaking contracts whenever it would be profitable to do so (perhaps you could provide a citation?). I do recall a great deal about freely making advantageous agreements, and it is pretty clear from game theory that anyone who makes a habit of breaking agreements will be at a disadvantage when it comes to making them, so I doubt he would have endorsed your view.
Breach of contract is as integral to commerce and the free market as banking.
The existence of penalties for breach of contract is as important as the existence of penalties for interfering with the free market, or for robbing banks. But I don't agree that commerce depends on people breaking contracts, monoplizing markets, or robbing banks.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Note that termination of a contract by either party, if under the terms of the contract, is not breach.
Wow. The gap between us is very wide. I can't even respond to your "points" here; they just fall apart when I try to pick them up. (Being eaten alive by rats can't be "a terrible thing" because all terrible things are felonies? How do you tell "self-deceiving libertarians" from libertarians that are deceived by others? Do you mean that atheist libertarians think contracts are worthless?)
But what boggles me most is that, leaving aside the various reasons someone might want to honour their contracts (e.g., self respect), you don't even seem to realize that it's often demonstrably a good strategy. How can you even function in society?
-- MarkusQ
Anything with a .com is for commercial purposes. Anything without a .com is for everyone else.
Non-.coms leave the .coms alone and the .coms won't fuck with the others. Problem solved?