Slashdot Mirror
unix.com Wins Domain Dispute
kyler writes "Apparently unix.com was able to afford the lawyers to fight off X/open from stealing their domain name in the wipo domain dispute.
If the domain unix.com doesn't violate the UNIX trademark, what gives them the right to take unix.net away from me and unix.org away from Michael? This is ludacris" We had the story about unix.org losing their battle so this is a Good Thing.
... or is this just another victory to be appealed away?... anyone know how well this can stand up in the future?
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
There goes my chances of stealing windows.com for my windows washing business.
Although many cases of domain disputes are clear cut, such as the one between etoy and etoys, where one should be allowed to keep their domain, this is quite different.
You'll notice that the unix.com domain was registered by these people in May 2000. Obviously they knew the word "Unix" has been a trademark of the X/Open group for many years.
For them to register unix.com is incredibly misleading to anyone who may expect an offical Unix company website there.
The administrators of unix.org and unix.net have more rights to their domain names as they are not flying under the banner of a "Unix company".
So, it's another stupid domain resolution. They just seem to have it completely backwards!
They chose, `notorious'. That's kinda sweet.
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
When I visit www.unix.net, I get a picture of a pixilated finger, and the words, "Fuck You Open Group."
As "ludacris" as it might seem, I don't believe this is the type of site that WIPO is going to take seriously in a domain arbitration hearing. I don't care how rich you are, you can't lawyer away the middle finger.
This whole notion of trademarks entailing a right to ownership of domains is ludicrous. On a side note, does the date of the trademark in relation to the registration date of the domain have any correlation then?
There's a few existing domains I'd like without trademarked names. What's to stop me from trademarking the name after the fact and petitioning for ownership of the related domain names?
Whenever someone grabs a domain name similar to an OSDN friendly site, we get to hear all about the use of squatting for advertising, or even profiling, but when some company tries to claim a name that, in all reasonableness is rightfully theirs, it's corporate oppression? Nice double standard there.
If the domain unix.com doesn't violate the UNIX trademark, what gives them the right to take unix.net
Because being an opensource advocate means that you give up material possesions like domain names.
This is ludacris
hell no nigga it ain't. This is Ludacris, foo'. Check yo spelling, y`all sucka MCs meant ludicrous.
Ahem...
This is Ludacris and i've never heard him mention unix while rapping... did you mean ludicrous perhaps? ;)
..that they would at least run it through Word spell checker before posting.
even after reading the article I am left confused.
Who do I cheer for? Theres no Microsoft nor RIAA or MPAA to boo. I guess since its all unix I should root(pardon the pun) for them both.
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
i propose the following solution:
unix.com goes to the holders of the trademark, and current owners of it get asterisknix.com, since that's what they really mean/want.
everybody happy?
(ok, asterisknix.com doesn't really exist, but it _could_)
This is a ludacris violayshun of copyrite laws
I guess since its all unix I should root(pardon the pun) for them both.
Which I hope you mean in the american sense and not the australian sense of the word.;-)
Linux.org sues the OSDN over Linux.com
I wouldnt have even posted mine if i had seen that someone had done the exact same basic thing quicker than i did, while I hunt and pecked my link in for the pic.
His is far funnier than mine, it's got that urban flair that compliments the point we both hit upon. I wouldn't have been surprised to end up modded to redundant and him to +4 or 5 funny, but ya never can tell what's gonna happen i guess.
- ... so this is a Good Thing.
Surely we can make up our own minds about that.Remember, everyone -- this is just some guy's opinion and not a fact.
pdf2html?
Let's take ALL the domain names that have been stolen by big businesses who were too stupid to register the disputed doamin names back when the net began to take off for the general public. I say we start in 1994 and reject any and all claims by businesses, like McDonalds, et al. Free the net for parody and free speech. De-commercialize the net and put it back to where it began, a not for profit entity.
> Is it just me or is unix.org now a blank page?
It's just you.
I find that a ton of hashmarks in an html comment is valuable content.
I mean, I can't access Britain's motorway system on a unicycle either, but I'm not complaining.
Notice the dramatic difference here between results of three-judge panels (unix.com) and an individual arbitrator (unix.org). The published statistics show that single-judge arbitrations tend to be dramatically slanted pro-Complainant, with more balanced (but still generally proComplainant) results arising from a three-judge panel.
The Complainant gets to pick the arbitration house -- and will invariably pick the one with the strongest published pro-Complainant statistics. The respondant cannot challenge that choice, but under the rules may opt for the three-judge panel.
The fight is now on for Eunuchs.com. I hope they have money left!
After all the trouble the mobilix folks got into from the owners of "Asterix and Obelix", I think "asterisknex.com" might be even less safe than "unix.com".
since the battle has been one for unix.com, it is likely that you won't need much loyarage to beable to win the battle for unix.org and unix.net since there is pressident on the fact that unix.com does not violate that trademark, i wouldn't doubt if you could win this battle while representing yourself. I mean all you have to do it site the case unix.* vs. UNIX.
From Neo (Admin of Unix.com) on their forums:
A few facts:
* We registered the UNIX.COM domain in 1993 in good faith.
* We only registered UNIX.COM (UNIX.NET and UNIX.ORG were registered by others)
* We have spent well over $25,000.00 on UNIX related legal fees.
* We have spent many more thousands of dollars to maintain this site so that all people can freely discuss UNIX related issues without commericals.
* We have spent a lot of $$$ to promote free speech regarding UNIX and UNIX like operating systems.
* UNIX is a generic term regardless of X/Open's claim.
* X/Open's false claim hurts the world UNIX community because it creates a negative environment and fragments the community with harsh actions that are, in reality, anti-open.
* We do this because we love the UNIX philosophy and the true UNIX community.
This is my gift to you, each and everyone of you.
From the bottom of my heart. - Neo
The unix.com site has a nice looking OS X theme and the apple logo all over it.
Is is me or does this seem to scream at Apple "bring it on!" I kind of wonder if they have been out looking for legal trouble.
Not trolling, just asking.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Anybody remember how Molson was awarded Canadian.biz a while back? They lost on appeal in an Ontario Superior Court.
Story.
Of course, I submitted this as a story back when it happened a few weeks ago, but it wasn't posted...
On a side note, does the date of the trademark in relation to the registration date of the domain have any correlation then?
Read the UDRP, version 19991024, and the resolution rules. An action in bad faith, such as reverse domain name hijacking, will be thrown out.
What's to stop me from trademarking the name after the fact and petitioning for ownership of the related domain names?
You run a risk that such action would be considered reverse hijacking, defined as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name" (Resolution Rules) (emphasis by yerricde).
Ludacris
Will I retire or break 10K?
No no, this is ludacris.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
"We had the story about unix.org losing their battle so this is a Good Thing."
Isn't it great that we have the editors at Slashdot to break things down to simple terms? All I need to do to make up my mind is look and see if it is a "Good Thing" or a "Bad Thing."
I read through the decisions for the unix.com and unix.org cases, and can see some parts of the answer to kyler's question If the domain unix.com doesn't violate the UNIX trademark, what gives them the right to take unix.net away from me and unix.org away from Michael?
The unix.com domain had been in use for some time for a discussion forum where the main topic was unix, they kept their domain registration despite it including the trademark. The unix.org domain had not been actively used for anything, and the information provided about what it had been intended to be used for was seen by the arbitrators as indicating an intent to make money as a result of attracting visitors, with the unix trademark being part of what attracted visitors.
The argument about 'unix' having become generic failed in both cases.
The arbitrators seem to be deciding on the basis of whether or not the domain is actually being used for some legitimate purpose. Mere ownership of the trademark does not seem to be enough for victory. It is good that the holders of unix.com won, but if the report of the unix.org case is accurate as to the facts, then I think that was a reasonable decision.
I also tracked down the decision for the unix.net case http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/200 2/d2002-0296.html, and among the things it says is The Respondent failed to file any evidence that might lead the Panel to the inference that the Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name. Not having seen the site in its original form I can't tell for myself whether or not the arbitrators are right to judge that there was no legitimate interest. They seem to have formed the opinion that the site was really a web designer advertising their services, and using someone else's trademark to attract visitors. Perhaps someone who visited the site in its old form can comment.
Have a look at this picture taken on 20th of August 1991 in Spain. Seems that the company has never heard of the trademark on UNIX either...
-- Mike
In both the unix.org and unix.com cases, the panel said that X/Open had undisputed rights to the UNIX trademark, which covers unix.*. Unix.com refuted the bad faith claim, as it has been a viable, non-commercial web site since 1993. Unix.org, on the other hand, was a brand new site with nothing but links to commercial Unix-related sites.
I disagree that unix.org was registered in bad faith, but the battle lines have been drawn.
Hey! Martha Stewart says "it's a good thing"
So it must be...
yes, the world is completely black and white
thanks for asking
someone finally posts a real joke, and gets modded offtopic.. typical slashdot
Far more useful is to type what you're looking for into Google. Lately, the I'm Feeling Lucky button has just been uncanny.
Why fight over namespace when the real value is in Googlespace?
The respondent makes a pretty good argument that the word "UNIX" has become generic and every computer professional I've ever known has used the word in a very generic fashion. I wonder if a preemptive lawsuit might be filed to have the trademark removed from the word...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Major League Baseball tied the all-star game, are in the midst of a labor dispute between millionairse and billionaires and yesturday they closed a site that was promoting their business for free.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
Yeah, it isn't like you can go around spouting off any old thing on the Internet. We have high standards to be upheld here, people, and we don't want to hear any of that cry-ass First Amendment crap.
P.S. Fsck you, not fuck you.
it's because you couldn't pass the third grade spelling test. You can use the domain registration money you saved and buy a dictionary. Try looking up "ludacris" in it.
Why is it that once things become popular, they invariably start to suck? I could list a lot of examples, but I'm trying to keep this short so I'll just talk about the Internet. Who here likes the Internet in 2002 better than 1992's incarnation? Than 1982's? Pop-ups, pop-unders, spam (granted this has always been around but it seems worse now), companies abusing and buying laws, ICANN, Network Solutions/Verisign, Outlook viruses, Code Red worms, restrictions on speech, the death of USENET. Again the list goes on but I don't want to rant too much. I miss the freewheeling Internet of old. Where can the geeks of today go to hack on a large global network of computers?
(Can we get a Pop-culture grammar filter over here please?)
Do yourself a favour and buy yourself a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary... perhaps one with large print?
[SPEAKING OF dictionaries: someone told me that the 1st Edition of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary was edited by a tenant of an insane asylum. Can anyone confirm/refute this as truth/myth?]
WS
Trout wrote of Eva Braun, "Her only crime was to have allowed a monster to ejaculate in her birth canal. These things happen to the best of women." --Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
I do not get it. Please explain. Thank you. Have A Nice Day.
...idiot I've seen who thinks LUDICROUS is spelled LudiCRIS. This is not some moronic pop rapper, learn your language.
SPELLCHECK!!!!!
Hmmm... I didn't add the signature (below, in italics) until after that message was posted, hence the strange syntax of the end of the message... Does the signature apply itself post-humously to already-posted messages?
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
A couple of things to consider.
:) You don't hire programmers to defend your rights in court :)
(1) If you get into a UDRP dispute, hire a good UDRP lawyer.
(2) I recommend our unix.com attorney, Dr. David Steele (www.cph.com)
(3) Legal disputes are just like complex problems in your OS kernel: You don't hire lawyers to write a kernel driver
(4) UNIX.COM won because the domain was registered in 1993 (in good faith) for good reasons (including the non-commerical technical forum www.unix.com) AND we had excellent legal counsel.
(5) WIPO is not the proper authority to rule on the details of a trademark (generic or not). WIPO rules on WIPO guidelines.
BTW: Thank YOU Slashdot-gurus for all the moral support over the years!!! -Neo
www.unix.com
The principle behind the (bad) decisions is the (somewhat good) notion that the society that shows some favoritism towards economic interests ends up with more of an economy and thus everyone's better off, even though the gravity of the economic interests distorts the local sector of social space-time.
Well, how do we get similar respect for something like the "Open Software Economic Interest Group"? Major economic value is being created here. The whole society, worldwide, can gain benefit by granting a favorable environment in which the OSEIG can carry out its wealth-creating function. We are as worthy of political favoritism as any corporate entity. We are not ever going to see a society in which economic interests are not granted major favors - but how, as an emerging economic interest, do we collect the favors that, if these games are to work right, should be ours (those of us too stupid to sell the old IPO stock in time, anyhow)?
If the process works right, we should be able to even acquire domains of potential use to OSEIG's (and thus the greater society's) economic interests, simply by showing that the pie will be richer for all if those domains are in our hands - not because we're 'better,' but because we represent a larger share of and contribution to economic activity. The current underlying 'corrupt' argument for favoring groups with the most economic juice should favor us. Let's demand, not their end, but their proper and logical application.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
This is amazing... The admin from unix.com responds, and someone mods it down?
Please mod parent up!
Meep Meep!
Boy...and here I used to read this site since I thought it was a center for intelligent discussion of all things scientific. Now I know it's just a bunch of 15 year olds who think that the name of a no-talent pop artist is the correct spelling of a word. Thanks for re-affirming my belief in the intelligence of humanity!
KEEP FLAMING, ASSHOLES!
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
This is ludacris
What on earth does a rapper have to do with UNIX domain disputes?
. . . many literate readers of slashdot found the mispelling of "ludacris" ludicrous.
Oh, wait, there aren't any literate readers of slashdot, much less any who use a spell checker.
The quote you used as your sig does NOT appear in Breakfast of Champions, but rather in Timequake. Don't make a mistake like that again! Sheesh!
I've never heard anyone mention UNIX while rapping. I think I'd kinda like that, given the apparent intelligence level in most (but not all) popular music.
Anyone out there got any hardcore geek music? I don't mean MC Hawking, either, but you can check it out for chuckles.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Say it like Tyson:
"Ludacrisp."
You mean immaterial possession, since you can't fondle^H^H^H^H^H^Htouch a domain name.
I'm going to pretend that this post really is "interesting" and not "flamebait": Trademark allows for the development of a business identity. It prevents other people from making money off of your good name. It is generally limited to areas where someone is using a confusingly similar name that would lead customers to believe they are getting the "real thing" but they are not. It does not extend to unrelated business areas where a reasonable customer would not confuse the names, nor does it extend to every use of a word, though corporations often try to make it so. So, for example, I might be able to get away with selling "Olde MacDonald's Scotch Whiskey" without infringing on the trademarks of McDonalds resteraunt chain, nor 3M's Scotch brand products. Mount Olympus Camera Co. would not fly, but Mount Olympus Software, probably would. I might be able to sell "Unix Cheese Puffs" and "Unix Caffiend Cola" if the judge doesn't think I'm trading on X/Open's good name.
My point is that X/Open do not own the word "Unix" they just some rights to exclusive use of it as a name for an operating system, and related things. THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO THE DOMAIN NAME. What we don't want is people squatting on a domain, with no use for it other than to hold it hostage and to sell it to a party that does have use for it. That doesn't mean that a trademark holder is the only party with a legitimate interest in the domain, nor should their claim automatically be more legitimate just because they have a trademark. If I register NBC.* as a site or sites for Nehalem Baseball Club or some such before National Broadcasting Company does, they shouldn't be able to take it away from me.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Who needs domain names? You can very easily 123.12 the 1.11.4 in the 3.2.56 and instantly 88.76.122.5 any 47.3.44.111 without any dificulty what so ever!
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
No, what we need is google-like modding. The lower the grade of responses a posting attracts, the more troll-like the post becomes. I guess if you take this to the logical conclusion, the whole article can become a troll.
-laughs-
Hey cool, someone else with my line of thinking; I never thought that was possible! You, sir, just earned a Friend bonus.
Matthew G P Coe
http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
This decision will be thrown out, because the document lists Network Solutions' address as "Hendon, VA". There is no such city; in fact NSI existed in Herndon, VA.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
No, he posted AC so his score was 0. One person modded him up (+1, Insightful) raising his score to one.
Where did you learn math?
For the past couple of months I been checking www.objective-c.org it seems to have been taken over by some co. I have no idea about what happened to it.
I was planning to learn Objective-C, but I have no idea where their web site has been displaced to.
Anyone know what happend to the objective-c site?
Here is the google cache of the objective-c site before 'Arrow Ritcher' got it (who ever they are). I hope google dont ever update their cache, til I find where their site has gone to.
Unix is a trdemarked name, and therefore, the owner of the trademark should get the domain name, based on precedent of similar rulings.
Vote for Pedro
thats not mike tyson, thats your goddamn president
Actually, I think there is a bug in the program Slashdot is using. Last week I moderated several posts +1 Insightful, +1 Informative, +1 Interesting. After I hit the moderate button they were moderated, +1 Funny, +1 Redundant, +1 Troll (or something equally silly).
Shrug.....
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
when people make such a big deal out of slang spelling it makes me laugh... ludacris is one odd mtv-type individual... so it works either way. sorry if you all are behind on the mtv times we're in... If you're that anal, then i feel sorry for you.
I have no problems with Ludacris as a singer. I haven't heard much of his material, but if it any ways resembles what D'Angelo can do, than he can't be that bad. /. for intelligent discussion about scientific things by people who are relatively mature.
What bothers me is when people use slang spellings when they don't know any better. Even usage of "u" for "you" and "ppl" for "people" bothers me. It made sense back in BBSing days when you really only had about a 60-character limit for message-board doors, but when there isn't a limit, it just looks juvenile. Like SlySpy007, I come to
Matthew G P Coe
http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
I teach American History at a junior high school, and the past two school years have brought a new misspelling to the students' (already embarassing) dictionary. Even though Honest Abe's last name is clearly spelled out in the text, and I've made a point to spell it out both on the board /and/ on handouts, the kids are still missing it. I wonder how long it'll be until they start trying to correct /my/ spelling of "Lincoln?"
/did/ hit them with a -1 for that one. The worst they'd butcher the name in the past was to leave the second "l" out of Lincoln.
I've got an exam question regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, and the answer is of course Abraham Lincoln. Last year more than 3/4 of the students spelled his last name "Linkin." Really drives me nuts; and while I don't normally take off points for spelling, I
Ya can't beat pop culture, I guess. I should start a band called Lincoln Abe and get these kids' spelling back on track...
Everyone knows that UNIX is really just a is really just a Fire Extinguisher, and certainly not a web page or much less a legal trademakr. Extinguisher, and certainly not a web page or much less a legal trademakr.
I don't know what the unix.com owners want to do with the domain (probably selling it for lots of $$ to AT&T?), but in trying to be 'not related to unix' they behave pretty lame, like stealing the webdesign from zope.org. Have a look
Foolishly, perhaps, I followed your link to unix.net. I'm in a school computer lab, using IE 5.5. Some very nasty shit followed. Redirected to a page that spawned endless copies of the goatse.cx picture (I'd never seen it; I'm so glad that I was finally exposed to this thing that I've been avoiding all this time) and deposited a "Winbomb" virus in my diskspace.
Then, I tried it over telnet with an HTTP/1.0 GET and got nothing nasty. Used Opera, same shit (even with images, redirects and popups turned off: not well enough off, apparently). So I telneted an HTTP/1.1 GET, identifying the browser as MSIE 5.5, then I got a chain of redirects to the nastiness.
Thanks, unix.net, for ruining my lunch.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Actually, it was the OED itself. During its creation (which spanned quite a few decades, iirc) a request was sent out for contributions of supporting quotations, and by far the most prolific contributor was a US surgeon (Dr William Minor) confined to a British asylum for a bout of 'temporary insanity' during which he murdered a total stranger in London. The editors of the OED didn't know, for several years, that this was the case, until one of them arranged to visit the good doctor, and found upon arrival that things were not quite what they had believed... The book, "The Professor and the Madman" was actually quite an interesting read. j
No, not any more, obviously