Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Neverending Sex.com Story

Posted by michael on from the wheels-of-justice dept.

fwc writes "This has to be the story which will never end. Back in 1996, Steven Cohen "stole" sex.com from its original owner (Gary Kremen) by forging a letter to Network Solutions asking for the domain to be transferred to him. Subsequently Kremen sued to get the domain name returned. Through what seemed to be a neverending parade of lawsuits and judgements (Documented on slashdot here, here, here and here, and also in several other places), Kremen finally got his domain back and Cohen was ordered to pay $65 million in damages. In the latest twist, Cohen is asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the verdict of the lower courts by claiming that he owned the sex.com trademark prior to Kremen registering the domain. This should prove interesting since it looks like the filing at the USPTO occured two years after the domain was originally registered."

13 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Who cares? by geschild · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given the amount of comments thusfar, nobody?

    --
    Karma? What's that again?
  2. What a waste of court time! by rkz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All this suing countersuing and appealing just makes lawers richers and everyone else more pissed off! Network solutions should have been able to handle this on their own and stopped this whole mess.

    --
    There is no god
    1. Re:What a waste of court time! by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are right. The morons that switched a domain name because of a letter received instead of calling and checking should have switched it back immediately.

      But asking morons to be smart is not itself a sign of intelligence.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  3. This IS the never ending story by the-dude-man · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My god...this just never ends, he stole the domain...i dont know what ever possesed him to think he would get away with it...he got canned (big suprised) and hit with a lawsuit (wich he deserved) I hope the judge rules that he has to pay....and they both have to shut up about the whole thing. This has been going on far to long now

  4. Re:Why want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Portal. advertising banners. nice little earner

  5. Re:Why want? by hughk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I hope you are only blocking the word, not the string.

    In the UK, there are the counties of Essex, Middlesex and Sussex. There is also the region of Wessex. There are a number of organisations that have *sex in their domain name, including, I would guess, the police force.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  6. dot com bubble burst? by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i thought the dot com bubble already burst? didn't we figure out that a specific generic name does not = lots of visitors? are these guys arguing over who owns it for their ego's sake? what a waste of time.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  7. Any relation? by whoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any relation to the Steve Cohen that is suing George Bush, Tommy Franks, etc for war crimes in Iraq? Or just someone else who is similarly sue-happy?

  8. just remember by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That there is no such thing as "bad" publicity, esp. in the adult industry...this is nothing more than a bunch of white noise to generate free advertisement for the guy.

    Wise up, /.!

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  9. Re:How silly is his patent? by los+furtive · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...it's pretty damning of the USPTO if it did award a trademark for to someone for a domain name that belonged to a third party.

    Although he obtained the domain name by illegitimate means, at the time it didn't belong to a third party as far as the books were concerned, so how was the USPTO to know?

    --

    I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

  10. yes by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why yes, yes it is still breaking the law. Besides the fact that he applied for the trademark 2 years after the original registration of the domain, forging a signature is a serious offense. I say throw the bastard in the slammer for a few months.

    I wish /. had a full-time lawyer to read over this stuff and offer her opinion, that would be cool.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  11. Re:Why want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you obviously don't understand the online porn industry all that well

    this is easily one of the best domain names you could possible have...simply owning this name with a page that does nothing but redirects would make you a million bucks or more a year

    put about 10 hours of effort into the site a week and you're talking multiple millions

    put your full effort into it and develop a company around it and you're talking many, many millions

    all because you started with a great domain name...remember, 99% of the people online don't read slashdot and aren't a geek like you...they want sex, they type sex.com...it's that simple

  12. Supreme court won't hear the case by JoeBuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A case only goes to the Supreme Court if four justices agree to hear the case. Why should they?