Green Bay Packers and Microsoft Win Domain Name Fight After Family Sought Cash, Tickets and Tablets (geekwire.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Green Bay Packers and Microsoft Win Domain Name Fight After Family Sought Cash, Tickets and Tablets (geekwire.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday September 28, 2018 @02:45AM from the tough-luck dept.

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.

196 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by TFlan91 · 2018-09-28 02:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

They received 0 compensation? Really? Did they get their domain registration fees back at least?
1. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 02:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No. They are not corporations, they're just people. They should be happy they were allowed to continue to live after a stunt like that.
2. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I had something similar happen years back, essentially they throw their $500/hr attorneys at you because an hour or two of billable "cease and desist" orders is nothing to take what they want and its not worth it for you to fight.
  The family should have taken the $5K.
3. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-09-28 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Did they get their domain registration fees back at least?
  They got an offer far in excess of their domain registration fees.
  They got greedy and threw the dice.
  If a cybersquatter can just take a free roll at the big bucks and still get a guaranteed minimum if they lose, economically rational cybersquatters will do exactly that and the overall cybersquatting "tax" will go up.
  Your feelings about that outcome will doubtless vary depending on your feelings about cybersquatting in general.
4. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  were they squatting the domain?
5. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Just chose a different domain simple
  It's not squatting its ownership
6. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  were they squatting the domain?
  Nope. Looks like a real small company website. Too much work for squatters.
  https://web.archive.org/web/20180312153336/https://www.titletowntech.com/services.php
7. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  they got a slimy offer from an anonymous middle man the big, bad corp was hiding behind
8. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by UnknowingFool · 2018-09-28 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
9. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Their demand was outrageous. Rule number 1 of cybersquatting is that you don't make outrageous demands. If someone offers you more than it's worth (like $5,000 if you're not using it for anything), take it!
10. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  "The family should have taken the $5K."
  Maybe, but one thing for sure is that if they had taken the $5K the whole universe and everyone in it would now be on a different course.
11. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-09-28 04:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  They weren't squatters, you moron. They ran a small business called TitleTown Tech Solutions and that was their actual website. This was theft, plain and simple.
12. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-09-28 04:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
  The WIPO panel decision goes into this in great length. TL;DR: GBP Inc. filed a trademark registration for "TitletownTech" the day before they announced the expansion initiative. The domain name was created about a month before that. The timing in combination with the attempted shakedown suggests they registered in response to a leak.
  
  As an initial matter, the Panel finds of no relevance Respondent's reference to other businesses that use "TITLETOWN" in their names, given that it is unclear from the record whether any of these businesses use the TITLETOWN Trademark as a trademark and whether any of these businesses have a license from Complainant to use the TITLETOWN Trademark. Further, even if some of these businesses use the TITLETOWN Trademark as a trademark without a license from Complainant to do so, third-party uses of a trademark are no defense to bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-0834; and Custom Bilt Metals v. Conquest Consulting, WIPO Case No. D2004-0023.
  The Panel is struck by at least two important facts, each of which is an indicator of bad faith: First, the Disputed Domain Name was registered on September 18, 2017, only one month before Complainant announced the TitletownTech technology and innovation center and filed its application to register the TITLETOWNTECH Trademark. Although it is unclear whether Respondent had advance knowledge of this application, the timing is suspicious. See, e.g., Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Technology, Inc. v. Paul James, WIPO Case No. D2014-1847 ("a close time correlation" between the registration date of disputed domain names and a related announcement by a complainant "cannot reasonably be considered to be coincidental or serendipitous); and Bancolombia S.A. v. Elpidia Finance Corporation, WIPO Case No. D2000-0545 ("[a]bsent 'miraculous coincidences', the Panel considers that the Respondent moved fast to register a domain name identical of confusingly similar to the service mark of the Complainant, after the Respondent acquired notice of the fact that the Complainant would be using the trade- and corporate name in which the Complainant had rights").
  Second, Respondent's offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant for USD 750,000 plus, among other things, eight lifetime Green Bay Packers box seats, is clearly "for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name," which is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy – a paragraph that includes no exception for an offer that a respondent, as here, later claims "was not meant as a serious counteroffer." Allowing a respondent to excuse such an offer in this manner would undermine the relevance of this paragraph of the Policy.
  In any event, "[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith." WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Here, the Panel finds that the TITLETOWN Trademark is famous or widely known given Complainant's use of the trademark for more than 50 years and its protection by at least eight federal trademark registrations.
13. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Archtech · 2018-09-28 04:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They got an offer far in excess of their domain registration fees.
  Apparently you don't believe in capitalism or the free market, do you? In a free market, sellers charge what the market will bear. The price asked bears no relationship to what the product cost to make - just ask Apple.
  So if you had bought Apple stock when it was first issued, you would now be content to accept the same price for it, would you?
  Thought not.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
14. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-09-28 04:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  My last post (and the WIPO panel opinion, if you could bother yourself to read it), lays out the timeline. There's not a shred of evidence such a "business" ever existed beyond the shell website parked at the disputed domain name, and they registered it barely a month before the GBP announcement.
  Maybe try swapping the invective for some intellectual curiosity next time.
15. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Archtech · 2018-09-28 04:27 · Score: 2
  
  The timing in combination with the attempted shakedown suggests they registered in response to a leak.
  My God! You mean they engaged in ***insider trading***? How frightful!
  As we know, if any regular person takes advantage of inside information to make money, they are wicked criminals and must be sent to prison. It's only banks and other corporations that routinely make billions out of insider trading.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
16. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-09-28 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  Apparently you don't believe in capitalism or the free market, do you?
  I think the more apt corollary here is "never try to extort someone for more than the cost to have you killed."
17. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  First of all, the registration was in bad faith. This alone should have cost them the domain and all registration, dispute and legal costs. Secondly, they didn't have any claim to that name. The Packers got a trademark, and that beats "no claim at all". IF the family had had any prior claim (it was the name of their famous pet or something like that), I would side with them, but there was no reason for them to have that name. They could have registered a trademark in a different field and that would have changed things if they had received their trademark first, but no to that too.
18. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by sabri · 2018-09-28 04:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The WIPO panel
  
  Except, that if you actually read it, it says:
  
  Douglas M. Isenberg
  Sole Panelist
  
  And interestingly, this same "judge" also "prosecutes" at the same "court": http://world-intellectual-prop...
  
  So yeah, sure this is independent. If I would that family, I'd sue in a regular court. WIPO is a farce.
  
  --
  I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
19. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Why should they?
  If I buy a piece of land on the coastline it's mine.
  I can use it once a year put a lawn chair on it and watch the fireworks.
  Just picked up some Casino comes in and wants to use my land, doesn't give them the right to do it.
  If the government wants to use eminent domain, they can do that for their own purposes, but I don't think they can do it for corporate purposes.
  A domain is just online real estate.
20. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  A domain is just online real estate.
  Which a business can take if they have a good enough reason and even better lawyers.
21. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by thegarbz · 2018-09-28 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  The devil is often in the details as you say. The timeline smells of cyber squatting. If it didn't they may very well have ended up the new Nissan Computers
22. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-09-28 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I take it the ad hominem is in lieu of any specific disagreements with the facts and opinions laid out in the decision.
23. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by llamalad · 2018-09-28 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, what?
  Help me understand this.
  So if I want a domain name for a business (I do) and that domain is currently owned by a squatter (it is) and that squatter wants $2k for it (he does)...
  I can just register trademark the name and force it to be transferred to me without compensating the troll?
24. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-09-28 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  My last post (and the WIPO panel opinion
  You mean that UN-controlled bullshit agency Obama sold the internet to in an act of supreme treason? Why are you taking what they say seriously?
25. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Aighearach · 2018-09-28 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  I also use an anonymizing service for domain name stuff.
  If you think that is slimy, you should see the ship that domain owners have to go through!
  Heck, I even heard about some sportsball team that had people try to squat on the domain that named their major joint project, after they publicly announced the project name!
  You think I'm slimy, you should see the people I'm hiding from!
26. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Aighearach · 2018-09-28 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
  If I have a Trademark, and you own the domain, and you don't turn it over to me, you're cybersquatting. That is the system in place.
  If you weren't cybersquatting, your use of the domain, by definition, would preempt my trademark application. If in fact I was using the name in trade before you, then I am the one with the claim to the name. That is true if you accidentally had the same name for a non-trade use before I engaged in trade, or if, as in this case, you heard about me doing trade under the name and tried to win a race with me to register it first.
  If other sports teams were using the name "Titletown" in their business communications, they should talk to their lawyers to figure out who used it first. If it was just a phrase that local TV sports anchors sometimes used casually, then no luck. Or if fans uttered it, who cares. Or if a bragging player said it unofficially, who cares?
27. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by psm321 · 2018-09-28 06:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the government wants to use eminent domain, they can do that for their own purposes, but I don't think they can do it for corporate purposes.
  True, according to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believes otherwise.
28. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  yes agree here - you cant steal a domain they should have settled or found a new name really its unfair as they original owner was using it fair and square
  this will really take the price out of premium domains if anyone can file a trademark after the fact and then come for you
  didnt these guys have proof pr prior work or something ?
  this is exactly why bitcoin will beat the banks - big corporations with expensive lawyers cant steal my bitcoin
29. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Aighearach · 2018-09-28 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference though between "insider trading," as happens in the stock market, and an "inside job" which is closer to this case.
30. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Aighearach · 2018-09-28 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  They would not make it to a trial, or even to discovery. They would only make it to a show cause hearing, where the judge would decide to punish their lawyer for filing the case, or just toss it out.
  You have to have cause to sue somebody. If they want to take to take this to a "real" court, they need a real claim that they think they're the trademark holder. They don't have that. All they have is an extortionate demand based on trademarks they cannot and have not disputed.
  This would be a different situation if they were some company who had also actually been using the trademark as a trademark! Without that part, they were on thin ice just plotting the scheme.
31. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  What was the alternative? Because of Bush's abuse of the system there were folks in other countries that were no longer wanting to have their domain names registered with a body that answered to the US.
  Whether Obama sold it or not, there would have been changes, it's just that those changes would likely have been far more disruptive.
32. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  You've never been outside before, have you
33. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by UnknowingFool · 2018-09-28 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Green Bay Packers do not own the trademark "Titletown Tech". They only have "Titletown" and other variations of it but not "Titletown Tech" specifically. If Green Bay is allowed to do that then they are allowed to take Titletown Brewing which is located in Green Bay and as far as I know has no affiliation with the Packers.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
34. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Ad hominem isn't what you think it is.
  A person that is both judge, prosecutor, and the entirety of a "panel" has a conflict of interest and therefore their judgements are void of merit if not power.
35. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-09-28 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's more nuanced than that, of course. Here, GBP Inc. already had a trademark on "TITLETOWN," and the trademark-related analysis was based on that trademark and not the one on "TITLETOWNTECH," which as the opinion notes, hadn't yet been issued. The latter registration was important, though, to establishing proper diligence on GBP's part and lack of good faith of the squatter. Reading through the opinion probably would help clear up a lot of high-level questions like this -- I promise it won't bite.
36. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Aighearach · 2018-09-28 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. But unless you're competent to represent yourself in legal matters, you'll have to hire a lawyer. And you'll have to travel to hearings and such, or the lawyer will. Either way, it will cost you a lot more than $2k.
  But in the end you will win if they asked for more than recovery of their costs.
  That's why, you pay the $2k, but if they make more expensive demands, you hire lawyers and take what is rightfully yours.
37. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Crashmarik · 2018-09-28 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Why should they?
  If I buy a piece of land on the coastline it's mine.
  I can use it once a year put a lawn chair on it and watch the fireworks.
  Just picked up some Casino comes in and wants to use my land, doesn't give them the right to do it.
  If the government wants to use eminent domain, they can do that for their own purposes, but I don't think they can do it for corporate purposes.
  A domain is just online real estate.
  Kelo vs New London disagrees with you
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
38. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  in this case the domain was registered before the project was announced publicly
39. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  If I buy a piece of land on the coastline it's mine.
  It might not be. It depends on what your state and local laws are. The land you buy might come with legally-mandated easements. That is, you do not own the beach itself, and you are required to not block access to the beach.
  
  A domain is just online real estate.
  A domain is an agreement between parties that a name means a number. It is not property.
40. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  And this is why killdozers, Trucks of Peace, and flammenwerfers are a thing.
41. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  My last post (and the WIPO panel opinion, if you could bother yourself to read it), lays out the timeline. There's not a shred of evidence such a "business" ever existed beyond the shell website parked at the disputed domain name, and they registered it barely a month before the GBP announcement.
  That's nice, but you need to prove your earlier assertion that there was a leak and this domain was set up to squat. "Titletown" has been used by area businesses for decades now.
42. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Only a big well-connected corporation can ask for $750K and some Packers tickets for a domain name. If one or more big corporations are on the other end of the deal, plebeians just get steamrollered.
43. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by meerling · 2018-09-28 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  My question I haven't yet found the answer to is this:
  
  Did they register the domain before word of Microsoft &the Green Bay Packers plans leaked?
  
  If so, it's a company using lawyers to steal something they want but aren't entitled to.
  If not, then it's probably a case of cybersquatters getting squashed like they deserve.
44. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Darinbob · 2018-09-28 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Are they really cybersquatters? The story is unclear how long the family owned this. Did they have it before the NFL and Microsoft had plans with that goofy name.
45. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  The Packers actually filled for opposition against Titletown Brewing Co.'s use of that mark.
  captcha: notified
46. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Titletown Brewing hasn't existed since 1996 so good luck with that.
47. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by jpaine619 · 2018-09-28 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  You don't buy a domain name.. At best you lease it.. Miss your payments, just once, and it goes back into the pool.
  I you bought it, you wouldn't have to keep making payments on it.
  When you buy a house, at some point, you send the bank a final check... Then no more payments...
48. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by jpaine619 · 2018-09-28 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  You still own the land in an easement. An easement just gives another party the right to access the land, most often to pass through it..
49. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by jpaine619 · 2018-09-28 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  What "regular" court can overrule the WIPO?
  I'll wait while you try to think of one.....
50. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by jpaine619 · 2018-09-28 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck to the Packer's.. Case law and Federal law make a distinction between companies that have the same/similar trademarks but are not engaged in similar business.
  e.g, Apple Computers and Apple Music (Beatles).
51. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by jpaine619 · 2018-09-28 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  big corporations with expensive lawyers cant steal my bitcoin
  Care to share what you've been smoking? Ask that Silk Road guy how much bitcoin the government was able to get from him.... (Hint: The answer isn't zero).
  I don't know what's more delusional... Your faith in bitcoin or your belief that the government can't take your bitcoins if it decides it wants them.
52. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by NicBenjamin · 2018-09-28 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  According to the decision, which is quoted in the comments, they registered the domain a month before the Packers announced the initiative. No evidence was presented to the 'panel' (which was one guy) that their business ever existed. So according to the arbitrator, technically they had it before the Titletown initiative was launched but it seemed like somebody leaked the initiative to to them and they were cybersquatting.
  Whether this was because Titletown Tech was a family business with no lawyers to show up at the meeting with a bunch of tax documents indicating Dad ha been trying to make a go of his computer business for 15 years...
  That's another question.
53. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by elrous0 · 2018-09-28 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who would voluntarily be a Packers fan deserves to live in misery.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
54. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  > I can use it once a year put a lawn chair on it and watch the fireworks.
  Which would be a massive waste of resources. You're illustrating why absolutely private property is a bullshit idea.
  Fortunately even the Supreme Court disagrees with you. The only regrettable thing is that they don't deal with rent seekers more often.
55. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by El+Cubano · 2018-09-28 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  True, according to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believes otherwise.
  True. But did you happen to look at which justices were in the majority on that decision? "Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer" (from the same Wikipedia article you linked)
  Even better was the executive order President George W. Bush issued the year after the ruling, including this text:
  
  ...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.
  Granted, as noted in the Wikipedia article, the federal government does not use eminent domain nearly as much as state and local governments. Still, it is interesting since Bush is frequently accused being a corporatist, for the rich, and having no respect for the constitution.
  Better still was the legislation which was introduced, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, co-sponsored by 30 (yes, 30) Republicans (you know, the party of the rich) and 2 (yes, only 2) Democrats (you know, the party of the little guy). Sadly, it never made it out of committee while the Republicans had the majority and it appears the Democrats had no interest in fixing this when they took the majority.
  It just goes to show. Republicans have their occasional good day and Democrats have their occasional bad day.
56. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by dgatwood · 2018-09-28 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  Second, Respondent's offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant for USD 750,000 plus, among other things, eight lifetime Green Bay Packers box seats, is clearly "for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name," which is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy – a paragraph that includes no exception for an offer that a respondent, as here, later claims "was not meant as a serious counteroffer."
  The policy in question also doesn't seem to cover this situation unless the request came prior to their announcement. After all, if it came after the announcement, then it seems reasonable for them (as Packers fans) to have assumed that the company was a shadow broker for the Packers, in which case given the obvious value of the domain to such a franchise, I would argue that that wasn't an outrageous counter.
  More to the point, by interpreting that regulation in such manner, this will strongly discourage people from making counteroffers, as any counteroffer could potentially be interpreted as acting in bad faith. That is probably not what ICANN had in mind when they wrote that policy. Just saying. I think the UDRP needs to be revised.
  Just to be clear, I'm not saying there wasn't bad faith. The timing is at the very least suspect. But bad faith must be proven, such as proving that the people in question had family or friends who would have known about the Packers' plans. If there isn't any plausible way for them to have found out, then as far as I'm concerned, the Packers just stole someone's domain name.
  Either way, if 20th Century Fox really wanted to win the hearts and minds of every geek everywhere, they could file a claim against the domain, win it back, and give it back to the family in question. That would really shine some much need sunshine on UDRP abuse by big businesses.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
57. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  Your manipulating the actual situation and the WIPO panel is abusing these people. Trademarked names are specific to an industry. I can register the same / similar trademark for use in another business in another industry and its totally legal/legit. My company might have trademarked penguin in the software world, but it doesn't mean someone else can't use a penguin too- in some other area. Like sports. In fact my company does have a penguin and there are numerous other entities using a penguin in there logo both in and outside of our industry.
58. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-09-28 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  What was the alternative? Because of Bush's abuse of the system there were folks in other countries that were no longer wanting to have their domain names registered with a body that answered to the US.
  Who the fuck cares? It's the American internet.
59. Re:Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-09-28 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  The shitcoin pumpers are going to do a 180 in a few years when quantum computer break Shor's algorithm and destroy the entire market just by existing. The post-quantum signature protocols with the security required to construct a cryptocurrency from are too bloated to be of use (think ~30KB per transaction and unable to be condensed to a per-block overhead as it's required for every single sender,) and would take several years (already beyond the cutoff for that given the current rate of quantum computing advancement) to be implemented as a cutover would have to be initiated from each individual wallet-holder prior to the development of such quantum computers. There's literally nobody in shitcoin development at this point who both knows how computer security works and isn't lying.
60. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by drewsup · 2018-09-28 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oh really now ?
  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/0...
61. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by TRRosen · 2018-09-29 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Actually that was not the ruling. The court affirmed that eminent domain can only be used for public purposes. But SCOTUS made it clear in a state matter, the state courts had sole jurisdiction of defining "public purposes". and the state court had already ruled.
62. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by TRRosen · 2018-09-29 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  All of them. WIPO is a private organization no different that any business. Their rulings are just their decision, they have no standing in a court of law.
63. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by jpaine619 · 2018-09-29 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Uh.. No...c'mon.. It's a part of the United Nations... The UN was formed by treaty...
  
  2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
  The Constitution is pretty clear that no judge can interfere with treaties, period..
64. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by jpaine619 · 2018-09-29 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I had to go back and do a double take.. Where the heck do you get that the WIPO is a private organization?
  
  The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 15 specialized agencies of the United Nations (UN).
  WIPO currently has 191 member states, administers 26 international treaties, and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
  WIPO was formally created by the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization, which entered into force on 26 April 1970.
  Not only is the WIPO part of a treaty organization, it was, itself, created by treaty. The Constitution forbids any judge in any state from interfering with it. It declares treaties to be the supreme law of the land.
  
  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
  So, I'll ask again... What regular court do you suggest this family goes to, where they won't be laughed out of the building?
65. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by TRRosen · 2018-09-29 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  WIPO isn't a treaty. its simply organized under one. and all the parties are under US law. Courts can and have reversed WIPO decisions.
66. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by TRRosen · 2018-09-29 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  The court doesn't need to concern itself with WIPO. Both parties are under US jurisdiction. a court can force the packers to return the domain or to compensate the owners.
  A treaty in and of itself does not automatically create domestic law. In fact many "treaties" have no more authority than a gentleman's agreement. The Geneva Convention is a UN treaty and the courts have ruled it does not overrule state law.
  The UN is not a government nor does it operate under any individual governmental authority. it exists solely through the cooperation of its members. While its members may be nations it is not a public organization. It is no different than 6 guys named Bob starting the Bob club.
  The interesting factor here is the Packers ARE a public organization wholly owned by the government making this bizarrely an actual Eminent Domain case making WIPOs ruling a violation of the Fifth Amendment since no compensation was made and its use would seem not to be for public benefit.
  This is a combination of international law, constitutional law, and intellectual property law. That makes it the most muddied, non-black and white, just depends on how loud you yell argument of all time. And it all means nothing because no one is going to fight it.
67. Re: Eminent Domain for Private Businesses by Anonymous Coward · 2018-10-01 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  ...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.
  Did you not notice the massive qualifier in that statement? "Merely". In other words the government can seize property PARTLY, SIGNIFICANTLY, or even MOSTLY for the purposes of advancing the economic interest of private parties, as long as they perform a flimsy pretense at public interest. Practically anything can be argued to be in the public interest. "Uh, yes Your Honor, we want to take this person's property to build a casino/mall/carpark - but think of the jobs we will create!"
  (*) We won't have any actual employees, mind. They will be contractors. Oh, and the taxpayer will have to subsidize their income. But JOBS!
so, then,... by cellocgw · 2018-09-28 02:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Everyone involved is an asshole.
Domain sitters -- assholes.
Absurd compensation request -- assholes.
GBPackers going for a clearly non-football business -- assholes
Microsoft -- say no more.
Federal Trademark Law which allows someone to trademark a phrase already in use by others - assholes.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
1. Re: so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 02:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen.
2. Re:so, then,... by BerneAI · 2018-09-28 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone involved is an asshole.
  Domain sitters -- assholes.
  Absurd compensation request -- assholes.
  GBPackers going for a clearly non-football business -- assholes
  Microsoft -- say no more.
  Federal Trademark Law which allows someone to trademark a phrase already in use by others - assholes.
  agreed.
3. Re: so, then,... by olsmeister · 2018-09-28 03:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Na, they registered the domain 2 weeks before Microsoft tried to, they claim they were thinking about starting a business but my guess is they had some inside information from the Packers organization about what was going on and tried to take advantage. There is no actual 'local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company' that used that domain name.
4. Re: so, then,... by TFlan91 · 2018-09-28 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  ^ This
  It's even linked in the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
5. Re: so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Does it really matter if they were squatters? We all know the domain would have been taken regardless of how it was previously owned.
6. Re:so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Why are the Domain "Sitters" A-holes? If I go out and buy 100 acres of land next to a farmer and don't use the land, that's my business and no one else's. If the farmer wants to expand his farm and doesn't want to pay me, that's theft.
  Apparently you don't understand private property.
7. Re: so, then,... by markdavis · 2018-09-28 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  >"Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen."
  Well, not so much so. Their "site" was just a basic template, and it looks to me like it was registered around the press release time specifically as a domain squat. Doesn't matter how big or small the company was.
  I would love info to the contrary- like it having been their actual trade name for years prior (and with no other trade names), or their physical location being in "Title Town", or the name actually having something to do with their business other than the word "Tech" in it, or registered years earlier...
8. Re: so, then,... by UnknowingFool · 2018-09-28 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't matter. The problem with Green Bay's claim is that they should own the name "Titletown". Many sports teams can claim that name.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
9. Re:so, then,... by FilmedInNoir · 2018-09-28 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forgot the Trolls that will contact the new company asking for services provided by the old company.
  
  --
  Sig. Sig. Sputnik
10. Re:so, then,... by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-09-28 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  They registered the domain 7 years before it was stolen from them and ran a PC repair business by that name from the website.
11. Re: so, then,... by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-09-28 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  TIL 7 years = 2 weeks.
12. Re: so, then,... by Comrade+Ogilvy · 2018-09-28 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  Thanks for the link. Yes, I agree. It sure looks like a template with no real details filled out. I have never seen such a generic looking and uninformative website by an actual business ever.
13. Re: so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Green Bay owns the trademark and regularly defends it's use for the categories it owns.
  Over the years they've been expanding the trademark as they build out the business beyond football.
  They've stopped many teams from using the term.
  I'm sure it is possible to get a license to use the trademark in some cases. They do license the G logo to both Georgia and Grambling for their football teams.
14. Re:so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  I must admit... I just can't add to that... simple clear and elegant!
  Just a bunch of assholes
15. Re: so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  ^ This
  It's even linked in the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  A website does not make a business.
16. Re:so, then,... by Archtech · 2018-09-28 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone involved is an asshole.
  You're too modest - you left out yourself.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
17. Re: so, then,... by Archtech · 2018-09-28 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh, slashdot. Fabrication gets modded +5 Insightful. Factual correction gets nothing. I wonder why all the smart people no longer come back here
  It's because most of the commenters here are regular people - not too smart, prejudiced to the gunwales, and always ready to sound off about things they don't know much about.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
18. Re:so, then,... by Archtech · 2018-09-28 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  Why are the Domain "Sitters" A-holes? If I go out and buy 100 acres of land next to a farmer and don't use the land, that's my business and no one else's. If the farmer wants to expand his farm and doesn't want to pay me, that's theft.
  Apparently you don't understand private property.
  Ah, but he does understand ***business***. Money talks, and enough of it can buy you absolutely anything in the good ol' USA. Senators and Presidents included.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
19. Re: so, then,... by thegarbz · 2018-09-28 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen.
  Of course they were. What kind of an amateur hour cybersquatter doesn't pretend to be a local family-run PC repair business that didn't exist before the announcement and popped up out of nowhere with a fancy domain.
20. Re: so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  Are you a fucking retard?
21. Re:so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Not quite the same. Physical property is quite different from trademarks and intellectual property. I can't start a company called BetterThanMicrosoft. Why? The name is different. I can't start making laptops and labeling them with Apple badges.
22. Re: so, then,... by Anubis+IV · 2018-09-28 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  not too smart, prejudiced to the gunwales, and always ready to sound off about things they don't know much about.
  Oh, so true. But I suppose it's to be expected. After all, millennials are scientifically proven to be lazy with a strong sense of entitlement, so you can't blame them for being exactly how nature made them. Plus, the harm done by the outrageous antics and flagrant bias of the other political party has spread far beyond the bubble where those people cluster together like the vermin they are. Sites like Slashdot sadly aren't immune to their influences.
  </tongue planted very firmly in cheek>
23. Re: so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  The archive.org capture of Feb 11, 2011 shows a godaddy.com parking page.
  The next archive.org capture of Oct 14, 2017 shows a page devoted to the mysterious "TitleTown Tech Solutions". The last capture of Aug 26, 2018 looks to be very similar as does the live page as of this posting.
  The site at no point that was captured contains phone number, street address, specific list of services or products. "About us", or other things one would expect of most businesses. The only forms of contact are on the Contact Us page and consist of two email addresses: info@titletowntech.com and helpdesk@titletowntech.com.
  It's hard to believe this site is representing a "real" business.
24. Re: so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Timing doesn't really matter, they deserved to have to spend a crapload of money buying it for being so foolish as to announce without having secured the name. What would have happened if it was being used legitimately? Or how about if the process decided that they couldn't take it?
  People who start and name a business without securing an appropriate name deserve to have to figure out how to make it work. Ordinary people cannot afford to go through this process in the hopes of getting it overturned.
25. Re: so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  Explain to me why this matters at all what was on the port 80/443 A record pointer. I have several domains that are for ssh/MX/subdomain hosting of random crai don't use 80/443 for anything nor am I hosting anything for http traffic. So am I squatting? I don't think so.
26. Re:so, then,... by Aighearach · 2018-09-28 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  And the guy who calls cyber-squatters "cyber-sitters," too. Don't forget him.
  News flash: They were not hired to take care of the domain while its parents went out for the evening.
27. Re: so, then,... by Aighearach · 2018-09-28 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Trademarks require actually conducting business activities, not just pretending to on the internet.
28. Re:so, then,... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  no, they registered the domain 1 year ago; before that it was just a godaddy landing page:
  https://web.archive.org/web/20110211163408/http://titletowntech.com/
  https://securitytrails.com/domain/titletowntech.com/history/a
29. Re: so, then,... by UnknowingFool · 2018-09-28 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Green Bay doesn't own "Titletown Tech". If they did that would be another discussion.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
30. Re: so, then,... by jpaine619 · 2018-09-28 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Except, they weren't domain squatters... it was a local, family-run PC repair and Small Business IT support company that had their legit domain stolen.
  Why do you keep repeating this lie? It's been stated several times before that ALL they had was a website.. There was no functioning business.
  What is it with you people and reality?
Seriously? by argStyopa · 2018-09-28 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Unfortunately for them, they failed to secure their venture's namesake domain name ahead of time."
Seriously, in 2018, how does this happen? What sort of a dumbshit in 2018 for any business (to say nothing of a tech-specific venture between two NATIONAL corporations) doesn't check if the domain name is available?
Whoever said "hey let's use this name" and didn't check should be fired yesterday.

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Seriously? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2018-09-28 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  What if, in spite of NDAs, the name mysteriously gets registered two weeks earlier?
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
2. Re:Seriously? by PPH · 2018-09-28 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Registered by whom? Someone who signed the NDA or provably had a business/personal relationship with them? Stand by to get your ass sued off.
  If it was a lucky guess (or the first applicant was good at covering their tracks), that's the breaks.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:Seriously? by PPH · 2018-09-28 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, in 2018, how does this happen?
  Because Microsoft.
  I seem to recall an incident back in the last century where they forgot to make a registration payment for microsoft.com. Name resolution failed, but within a few hours one of their admins noticed the mistake, called the registry and put the $35 dollar fee (or whatever it was back then) on his personal credit card to reactivate the name.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re: Seriously? by UnknowingFool · 2018-09-28 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Worse than that was it wasn't the first incident that MS didn't renew their registration on time. I remember another story where a 3rd party developer saw it had lapsed and registered it but promptly gave it back to MS.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
5. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  A domain name is hardly expensive. If you want to use a name, you buy it and THEN propose it. If the proposal goes south, the wages paid to those involved with selecting the name and actually making the purchase is most likely smaller than the cost of the domain itself.
6. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Two weeks? You mean seven years?
7. Re:Seriously? by thegarbz · 2018-09-28 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, in 2018, how does this happen?
  Easy. Decisions like this are not made in isolation. Contracts like this aren't a simple 30 second job + signature. There were likely a large number of people (especially legal people) involved in this project with a todo list that felled entire forests in order to get printed on paper.
  Things get missed all the time. The more people involved, the bigger the players, the more likely it is something gets missed.
Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I actually RTFA (I know, I know), and it makes clear that the family agreed to the initial $5k purchase price, only to renege upon finding out that the purchasers have deep pockets. They're not the little guys doing business in good faith; they're trying to take advantage of happening to register a domain two weeks before MSFT/GBPC. Thatâ(TM)s not worth $750k.
They deserve nothing. Probably got the name from overhearing something at a coffee/cheese shop, too.
1. Re:Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmm... someone is against free market!
  First, if the initial offer of $5k was accepted, this would be a contract... done and done. So, something was amiss to make it not a contract (e.g. unenforceable).
  As for your "deserve nothing" comment... you probably should rethink that. They owned that domain, the big fellas didn't. Period. Your logic means someone can come take whatever from whoever as long as they are bigger. I'm not sure I'm down with that.
2. Re: Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:47 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  They don't deserve $750k for the equivalent of driving straight into a parking spot while someone else was backing in. Same as the Bell/Gray debacle with the telephone patent. Fortunately, in this case, the car backing up was an unrelenting big rig and the assholes lost this time.
  If you think otherwise, you're probably a disgrace to mankind and might want to consider going back to preschool for some morality lessons.
3. Re:Shakedown by squiggleslash · 2018-09-28 03:51 · Score: 2
  
  Probably got the name from overhearing something at a coffee/cheese shop, too.
  
  No, it's the domain they'd been using for years for their own business.
  I'm also entirely happy with the notion that they held out because the purchasers had deep pockets. I think that's entirely reasonable when you're talking about what's essentially a luxury item - get a domain name that matches your preferred branding. The proposed buyers could easily have backed out, said the proposed price was too high, and picked a different name. There was literally NOTHING about that domain name and branding that meant they had to use it or that it would have created massive barriers to what they wanted to do to choose a different one.
  This is legally sanctioned thievery.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
4. Re:Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  No. It isn't. This is why we have laws and regulation. IDIOT.
5. Re: Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit. They bought the domain last year. They have no business that was using the name. Quit making shit up.
6. Re:Shakedown by Hognoxious · 2018-09-28 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  Your logic means someone can come take whatever from whoever as long as they are bigger. I'm not sure I'm down with that.
  Why do you hate America?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
7. Re:Shakedown by lactose99 · 2018-09-28 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  They bought the domain TWO WEEKS before the announcement, and there was no "business", just a shill website they put up to appear that way.
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
8. Re:Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Martin Shkreli, is that you? I didn't know they had Internet in prison.
9. Re:Shakedown by thegarbz · 2018-09-28 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Your logic means someone can come take whatever from whoever as long as they are bigger.
  No, his logic is that that being quick and greedy is not a defense against trademark claims. The devil is in the details. If you want a legitimate claim at a trademark name then you need to show that you legitimately do something with it. Like Nissan Computers.
10. Re:Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  No, they owned the domain *SEVEN YEARS* before it was expropriated.
  In any case it matters not, they were the rightful owners, it was expropriated in legal thievery.
11. Re:Shakedown by Areyoukiddingme · 2018-09-28 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  No, they owned the domain *SEVEN YEARS* before it was expropriated.
  Liar.
12. Re:Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Are you familiar with the concept of fraud?
  Fraud is when you trick someone into selling you something at an under-valued price knowing full well it's worth more. Fraud is exactly what the $5000 initial offer was.
13. Re:Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  They're not the little guys doing business in good faith; they're trying to take advantage of happening to register a domain two weeks before MSFT/GBPC.
  
  Amazing how supply and demand only works when it benefits big businesses. An individual taking advantage of a profitable situation isn't "doing business in good faith" and "deserve[s] nothing." Why is no one calling out that 5k through a third party as acting in bad faith? The value of any commodity is what a seller and buyer are willing to agree upon. The seller did not agree that the domain was worth 5k and had it stolen by an unelected government body.
  The point of capitalism is to take as much as you can for as little as you can. Why is this moral when a sports franchise does it, taking everything and giving nothing while being tax exempt, but not when an individual does?
14. Re:Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  Negotiating a $5k price through deceptive means is fraud. They should have come back with a better offer when they were caught attempting to defraud the people who owned the domain name.
  They asked for all that money because that's how negotiations work, you ask for more than what you think the other party is going to go for so that there are things you can give up.
15. Re: Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  And they never would have gotten $750k because that's not how negotiations work. You ask for more than what you expect the other party is going to be able to offer knowing that the result will be somewhere in the middle. Depending upon how aggressively you're negotiating you can start closer or further away and take smaller or larger steps towards the other party.
  The parties in question could easily have afforded to pay that money. Instead they used an abusive process to snag the domain name.
16. Re: Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Get your facts straight, they registered the domain 1 year ago; before that it was just a godaddy landing page:
  https://web.archive.org/web/20110211163408/http://titletowntech.com/
  https://securitytrails.com/domain/titletowntech.com/history/a
17. Re:Shakedown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  Do you think that domain squatting should be a legitimate business?
Looks like squatters by drew_kime · 2018-09-28 02:58 · Score: 4, Informative

According to the Wayback link, they put up a really basic template site last fall. When I say "basic template" I mean they didn't even update the button text from "Call to action". They saw the press release and jumped on it to try to get a payout. They should have taken the $5k and called it a win.

--
Nope, no sig
1. Re:Looks like squatters by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't matter what their reasons for staking the domain. They registered it, they owned it. They're entitled to leave it sitting as "page not found" if they so desire.
  But make no mistake, it was taken from them by corporate entities without so much as lifting a finger. That could happen to ANY domain, whether it's a speculative claim or your family name website that you've held for the last 15 years.
  Packers engaged an anonymous "service" to make a $5000 offer for a domain that was clearly worth more than that. It's the very definition of fraud.
2. Re:Looks like squatters by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  ... how very american ... and very sad ...
3. Re:Looks like squatters by vakuona · 2018-09-28 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's not fraud. That is just sensible business practice.Where does it say that every time you want to buy something, you first have to advertise how much money you have in the bank?
4. Re:Looks like squatters by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-09-28 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  The domain wasn’t worth more than $5000, they only thought it was because the Packers intended to use it.
  
  And no, this won’t happen to any domain. It happens if you are obviously engaging in cybersquatting.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
5. Re:Looks like squatters by lactose99 · 2018-09-28 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  They registered it, they owned it.
  You have no idea how domains work do you? You don't "own" anything when you register a domain, just like you don't "own" IP addresses when you register through ARIN.
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
6. Re:Looks like squatters by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  You need to look up the definition of fraud. They don't need to advertise how much money they have in the bank. They need to fairly identify who they are and let the buyer beware if the price appears low. Using an anonymous entity to low ball the price is the very definition of fraud.
  If Grandma doesn't know she's dealing with a mulit-billion dollar development company, how is she expected to sell her little house for a fair value?
7. Re:Looks like squatters by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  You have no idea how registration works do you?
  When you agree to rent an apartment, the landlord can't just shove you out into the street the first time someone comes with along with an offer to pay more rent. You've entered into an agreement, for better or worse, and both parties are obliged to agree by it until the terms are up.
8. Re:Looks like squatters by vakuona · 2018-10-05 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  No it isn't fraud. Buying through intermediaries happens all the time. If Grandma thinks the price is too low, she should not sell, or sell to someone else.
  When I go into a supermarket to buy something, I don't expect to be charged more if I am wealthier than average.
  If you are selling something and think it is worth more than you have been offered, then you hold out until the buyer matches your valuation.
Microsoft Greenbay by BerneAI · 2018-09-28 03:00 · Score: 0

looks more like bullying, bet if they offered a couple of parking passes and a couple of surface pros they would have had a deal..but they just had to call in the lawyers...that makes them AHs not that they weren't to begin with but really...hope the lawyers charged them time and a half...the 750k would have been cheaper.
Not ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:01 · Score: 0

Big corps need to do their homework before choosing names and with the cashflow of those two it would be only fair. Have seen domains been deemed not used even if owner had used for email for years and years these domain seizers have it too easy and a 5K offer is an insult
ipso facto by PopeRatzo · 2018-09-28 03:05 · Score: 1

Microsoft and the Green Bay Packers announced a $10 million partnership
That's the last straw. It's not quite as bad as if they'd gone with New England, but it's plenty bad.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:ipso facto by lactose99 · 2018-09-28 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  I hope the Pats try something like this, just so I can register the name first and earn the right to punch Tom Brady in his fat punchable face, I'll take that over $5k any day.
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Greenbay isn't Titletown by dwillden · 2018-09-28 03:07 · Score: 2, Informative

That would be Pittsburgh! 6 Super bowls. Conference championships aren't titles.

--
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
1. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  you are aware that there was a NFL before the Super Bowl existed, you insensitive clod
2. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Try New York, where the Yankees have 27 world championships.
3. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:20 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Green Bay has 13 NFL titles. Pittsburgh has 6. There were titles before the Super Bowl ya know.
4. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Nidi62 · 2018-09-28 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  That would be Pittsburgh! 6 Super bowls.
  
  Can't claim "titletown" when you can't even beat Cleveland.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
5. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  The best team that dirty money can buy year in, year out
6. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  Try New York, where the Yankees bought 27 world championships. FTFY
7. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Boohoo...it's not fair that Kia can't make Bugatti-quality cars.
8. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Other MLB teams aren't for-profit enterprises and don't pay their employees? News to me...
9. Re:Greenbay isn't Titletown by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Most other teams don't have anywhere near as much money as the Yankees do. Whether or not it's fair, it's not much fun watching a sport where a handful of teams win a disproportionate number of titles because they've got more money than the other teams and can afford to hire the best players for every position.
  This is one of the reasons why you see some sportsball leagues moving towards measures like luxury taxes and salary caps so that there's less of a likelihood of having a couple dozen teams that are basically never going to win, no matter how hard the players work.
how come they did not keep it? by Ubi_NL · 2018-09-28 03:20 · Score: 1

If I look at the website, it seems that they used the domain for a legitimate business before MS registered their company. Doesnt sound like a domain squatter to me, but then why are they forced to give the domain to MS? Is that legal in the US?

--

If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
1. Re:how come they did not keep it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  Is that legal in the US?
  We don't actually have a legal system in the US. What you've seen on Law and Order is just the product of the Hollywood writers guild.
  We actually have corporations assigned to rule over each of the many States, which in turn belong to a corporate joint venture they call the United States.
2. Re:how come they did not keep it? by markdavis · 2018-09-28 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  >"If I look at the website, it seems that they used the domain for a legitimate business before MS registered their company"
  They could be a legitimate business, but that doesn't make it not a domain squatting situation. Their "site" was just a basic template, and it looks to me like it was registered around the press release time specifically as a domain squat. Doesn't matter how big or small the company was.
  Here are some things that would REALLY make it not a domain squat- having been their actual trade name for years prior (and with no other trade names), or their physical location being in "Title Town", or the name actually having something to do with their business or product other than the word "Tech" in it, or registered years earlier. I kinda doubt any of those were in play, but I don't know (just speculating).
FCFS by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:21 · Score: 0

There was a time when domain names were first come first serve. You registered first, it was yours.
That was a way more hilarious way to do it. Can we get that back?
Greedy Indeed by Kludge · 2018-09-28 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

They got an offer far in excess of their domain registration fees.
They got greedy and threw the dice.
Greedy indeed! They asked for 8 lifetime Packers season tickets! They may as well have asked for Bill Gate's liver.
1. Re:Greedy Indeed by SlaveToTheGrind · 2018-09-28 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  They asked for 8 lifetime Packers season tickets!
  I think you may have forgotten to mention the $750k in cash, among other things.
2. Re:Greedy Indeed by jbengt · 2018-09-28 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you realize how valuable a lifetime season ticket to the Packers home games is.
And by BenBoy · 2018-09-28 03:22 · Score: 1

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.
And as for the domain name, the entitled wealthy with more dollars than any small business ultimately did what it has done for years -- take what they wanted without compensation. Honestly, the chutzpah, asking for a price that the rich entities didn't wish to pay ... I, too, am outraged at the small businessman.
How to lose a domain by comrade1 · 2018-09-28 03:26 · Score: 1

If you offer the domain for sale then you will lose the domain in arbitration. However, if the family first went to a lawyer to contact the NFL lawyer to negotiate then the family would have been fine. I went through this with Sony years ago for a domain I had been using for a few years for a game that Sony later registered a trademark for. They tried to buy it anonymously which I ignored. They then sent me a threatening letter. I got a lawyer and the lawyer negotiated a sale to Sony. I could have kept the domain if I wanted with minimal outlay to my lawyer, but I could not use it for commerce after Sony registered their trademark. I could have challenged the trademark but my lawyer said it could cost up to $250K to challenge it and I wouldn't be guaranteed of winning. But if I wanted I could keep the domain and continue using it but I could never use it for commerce. So, I decided to give it up to Sony for some ok money.
1. Re:How to lose a domain by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2018-09-28 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  I could not use it for commerce after Sony registered their trademark
  If you had been using it in business, you could have continued to use it. And if your business was clearly in a different space, you probably could as well. (E.g. Sonic the Hedgehog vs. Sonic the fast-food chain or Apple Music vs. Apple Computer).
  That said, IANAL. But I do know that while potentially expensive, trademark law tends to make sense.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
so, then,...Stealing. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 03:38 · Score: 0

Stealing! Like the phone company taking the number they originally gave you and giving it to someone else? Or the state giving the license plate number they originally gave you to someone else? That kind of stealing?
1. Re:so, then,...Stealing. by Archtech · 2018-09-28 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Stealing! Like the phone company taking the number they originally gave you and giving it to someone else? Or the state giving the license plate number they originally gave you to someone else? That kind of stealing?
  Actually not. But then you were just joking, weren't you? As the examples you give have absolutely no relationship to what actually happened.
  
  --
  I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
2. Re:so, then,...Stealing. by Aighearach · 2018-09-28 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Stealing! Like the phone company taking the number they originally gave you and giving it to someone else? Or the state giving the license plate number they originally gave you to someone else? That kind of stealing?
  Right, if I fill out the forms for a vanity license plate, but I use trademarked terms, then I might end up losing the plate. And whatever I paid the State to give it to me.
  You don't have a right to pretend your car is work vehicle from Brandybrand(TM).
  Phone numbers are trickier; if there is no evidence of bad faith, and you're only using it as a number, then you can keep it. But if it spells out a trademark, and your practice is to tell people to dial that trademark to get ahold of you, you're probably going to lose the number.
  Also, if you don't pay property taxes, they eventually take your property. If you want to call that "stealing," then this is the same. But be advised, you'll be unable to have fruitful discussions with people who understand how the rules work if you choose to use different words than everybody else.
3. Re:so, then,...Stealing. by mlyle · 2018-09-28 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  > Right, if I fill out the forms for a vanity license plate, but I use trademarked terms, then I might end up losing the plate. And whatever I paid the State to give it to me.
  What about if you register a domain, use it in commerce, and someone else registers an overlapping trademark years later and takes the domain from you, like happened here?
4. Re:so, then,...Stealing. by NicBenjamin · 2018-09-28 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  There's no evidence they used it for years. Geekwire says it was a "website and planned business called TitleTown Tech Solutions about a month before the Packers’ announcement."
  If you actually use it for years, like the Nissan Computer guy you have a much better case.
5. Re:so, then,...Stealing. by TRRosen · 2018-09-29 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually not. But then you were just joking, weren't you? As the examples you give have absolutely no relationship to what actually happened.
  Actually it's exactly the same. A domain name is a telephone number. If you have a number and the phone company gives it to someone else you can sue for damages.
My live.net experience by jtara · 2018-09-28 03:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

I have some experience with this.
I was the original registrant of live.net. Original registration cost: $0. It was registered by email. (I later had to start paying $35/year to maintain the registration.) Sadly, live.com had been taken a few months prior, but live.net would do, and I wrote a convincing argument for the use of the .net. (At the time, .net domains had to justify some use related to "network infrastructure".)
At the time, I was operating the San Diego Baycam as a hobby. It was hosted at a local ISP gratis and was just using a subdomain of the ISP. It ran on a spare Spark 5 that they had.
At some point, I was contacted by a nice guy named Howard. Howard had backed some early satellite broadcasting venture that didn't make it. Howard had lots of ideas, which tended to be a just bit too early for the times or technology. He now had an idea to create a network of outdoor cams world wide. We talked, we met, we shook hands.
I registered live.net under a gentleman's agreement on behalf of a business to-be-formed with Howard, and moved the Baycam to live.net. The gentleman's agreement was vague. We would do some exploration, and set up a company at some time in the future with some kind of equity split. In the mean time, I would continue to develop the feeder and server software I'd written for the Baycam. (I thought it pretty clever at the time - the server used a circular shared memory buffer, so that multiple viewers were just pulling frames from the buffer. The "video" was motion JPEG using now-obsolete "server push". But no thoughts of how it might scale beyond one server, LOL.)
I registered the domain myself, since the business hadn't been formed. Of course, this is where a LOT of domain registrations go bad! Become a ticking time-bomb, actually. My advice to anyone who needs to register a domain has always been: 1. Don't let anybody register a domain for you - do it yourself. 2. Registrar, DNS, and hosting have to be with separate companies.
The business-to-be never happened. Howard went on to do other things (vegas.com). The Baycam hummed along.
One day, I got an offer out of the blue to buy the domain live.net for $28,000. No idea where they got that figure from - you'd think a buyer would start lower than that... The buyer had a bunch of ski-related travel sites, all registered under disparate domain names. He said he wanted to integrate his ski cams and ski sites under a single domain. It seemed odd to me, because the name live.net had nothing to do with skiing, but whatever....
So, I contacted Howard and asked if he was interested in selling the domain, and splitting the profit. (I'm a nice guy, he's a nice guy...)
We did, escrowing it through escrow.com flawlessly. escrow.com disbursed equal checks to myself and Howard. So, so far, I'm a nice guy, Howard's a nice guy, escrow.com are nice guys.
The buyer put up his ski sites and ski cams, and as part of our agreement, I continued to operate the San Diego Baycam on a subdomain.
Fast forward a year, and I was checking the site. My browser was redirected to Microsoft. I sent off a panicked email to the buyer that his domain had somehow been "hijacked", and the hijacker was forwarding to Microsoft! The domain registration had been changed, and it had private registration.
The buyer emailed me back, no there was no hijacking! He's sold the domain to Microsoft. For how much, I know not.
Shortly thereafter, Microsoft announced their Live rebranding...
Had the buyer known a year in advance of the Live rebranding? I've often wondered. It was a year, and they actually had a network of ski sites and ski cams. It wasn't the best name for a network of ski sites and ski cams. I imagine he did not know. live.com was the primary domain for the rebranding, live.net was presumably "protective" to catch mis-types of TLD. The big question mark has always been the generosity of the unsolicited offer. (This was long enough ago that $28,000 was a lot for
1. Re:My live.net experience by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Does Microsoft still let you use your sub-domain?
2. Re:My live.net experience by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  People should try not being an asshat sometimes, and maybe then everybody is happy.
  More insightful words have never been posted to Slashdot.
3. Re:My live.net experience by sootman · 2018-09-28 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  > live.com was the primary domain for the rebranding, live.net
  > was presumably "protective" to catch mis-types of TLD.
  $28k is a lot in that case, since no one in the history of the WWW has ever mis-typed '.net' when they meant '.com'. :-)
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
4. Re:My live.net experience by jtara · 2018-09-28 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  >$28k is a lot in that case, since no one in the history of the WWW has ever mis-typed '.net' when they meant '.com'. :-)
  Actually, I was wrong, it was $36K. I split it 50/50 with Howard, so I got $18K, the 8 stuck in my mind...
  Presumably, Microsoft paid more than $36K a year later.
  It's certainly POSSIBLE that the buyer knew there were plans in the works. I was and still am baffled why they paid $36K to put ski cams on a domain that doesn't suggest ski cams. ;)
  Still, I think fair for all. I can't imagine the buyer made a huge windfall given that it's just a secondary protective domain for Microsoft.
5. Re:My live.net experience by jtara · 2018-09-28 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  >Does Microsoft still let you use your sub-domain?
  No, and they never did.
  To be clear, I sold the domain to a third party (for $36K, now that I recall, not $28K - I split the $36K 50/50 with my handshake partner), and then a year later they sold it to Microsoft for an undisclosed sum.
  I hadn't thought to ask Microsoft to let me continue to use the subdomain! I just went ahead and registered sandiegobaycam.org. Microsoft bought live.net from the party I sold it to, I didn't feel I had any right to it. While the ski sites guy had it, it was a good mutual agreement that helped draw users. The site was rated very highly "above the fold" for "San Diego" for a number of years - typically just below the San Diego Zoo.
  Fun fact: the camera "went dead" right after 9/11. I figured it wasn't a good idea at the time to try to revive or replace it. Howard had paid for a nice Panasonic PTZ camera and dome, and viewers could manipulate the camera to look around San Diego Bay, including aircraft carriers, North Island Naval Air Station, Lindbergh Field, etc. etc. I didn't want to buy a new camera, Howard was out of the deal, I just let it ride.
  It was fun to have the camera while it lasted. I got "fan mail" from employees at the Naval Oceanic Systems Center, who couldn't see outside from their cubicles. And always appreciation from Navy families who could watch the carriers when they came in and out of the bay.
  Subsequently, I've moved, and no longer have that expansive view of San Diego Bay. :(
6. Re:My live.net experience by jtara · 2018-09-28 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmmm... false memories, the Wayback Machine says I'm wrong, and the cam continued to operate through mid-2004 when the domain was sold and then after for I think a couple years.
  WTF war did we have around that time? Scheduling that Alzheimer's screening....
  Anyway, the camera "went dead" right after we got into some major conflict... The timing was close enough, I just said to myself "maybe not a good idea to give the world a PTZ view of San Diego Bay right now..."
  ( But, then, I've heard rumors about a Russian spy who lived on Pt. Loma that the sailors would wave to anyway... Probably had something to do with this: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/... )
  Wayback only has the static views that were served if you weren't using Netscape browser. :(
Wait, what? by Doc+Right · 2018-09-28 03:56 · Score: 0

Excuse me? So if two big corporations come along and want to steal your domain, they can just take it? Uh, NO! That's a 4th amendment violation. Time to lawyer up!
WIPOut by thunderclees · 2018-09-28 03:56 · Score: 1

I hate domain trolls but its nice to see the oligarchy taking care of its own.
A large connected and money interest always beats out the little guy.
this is a merkin "thinking" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:13 · Score: 0

hahaha silly merkin.
Never offer to sell by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:18 · Score: 0

When someone contacts you, just say you are using the domain, sorry, but that you are the owner and they are welcome to contact you for future information on the domain.
Offering to sell leaves you without rights to sell. Yes, that sounds dumb but that's how it works. Let the other party come back with more offers until they don't suck.
$0?!!! That is just wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:24 · Score: 0

The right answer would be to disallow the family from ever selling the domain to anyone else. They get to keep their property and GBP gets to make reasonable offers. $5000 is NOT reasonable. $80K+ would be, IMHO. That's probably what the legal battle cost them in lawyers.
But then France stole france.com and got away with that after a businessman had it since 1994 and earned a living from it helping both travellers and France. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
WIPO by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:37 · Score: 0

Should not exist. Burn it to the ground.
Re: AmerIndians Called. Land back please! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 04:39 · Score: 0

The White man is just SQUATTING on land stolen from the American Indians. Time ALL WHITES LEFT AMERICA. Right?
Squatting bitch.
Request for service by Johnberg · 2018-09-28 04:40 · Score: 1

I'll let you all know how well Titletown Tech responds to my request for help keeping my "forward facing servers fast and clean." I also let them know their 'contact' button doesn't work.
Just a template, no business, the panel ruled by raymorris · 2018-09-28 04:42 · Score: 1

The ruling was that there was NO evidence of any actual business or any intent to have a business. They spent 20 minutes filling in an online template to make that slightly less obvious.
I haven't investigated the evidence personally, but that's what the hearing officer said after hearing the evidence and arguments.
Deja vu by Alworx · 2018-09-28 06:59 · Score: 1

This already happened before. Do not mock the corporations with "insane" demands...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Cleveland Browns by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 07:27 · Score: 0

The court should have also made them take 8 lifetime Cleveland Browns tickets to send a message. Then again that definitely would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
Kelo disagrees... by syn3rg · 2018-09-28 08:18 · Score: 1

...and should be overturned.

--
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
Then there's peta.org by Mike+Van+Pelt · 2018-09-28 08:27 · Score: 1

Way back in the paleolithic era of the World Wide Web, some wiseacre registered peta.org. People Eating Tasty Animals. The site was a compendium of links to meat companies, leather goods, animal testing laboratories ... basicially, if it ticked PeTA off, he'd have a link to it.
Grumbling from those quarters for years. But they didn't have any web presence, other than news articles about their antics.
Then, at some point "that" PeTA filed a complaint and stole the domain that had existed for several years. It's still owned by the crazies. For a while, the guy who did the original page had it up as a link off of his main page...Hey, it's still there, mtd.com/tasty. I thought I'd looked a while back and it was gone, but it's still there as of now.
Re: AmerIndians Called. Land back please! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 08:50 · Score: 0

Squatting bitch, this is sitting bull. Please do not make white man angry.
This is corporate bully by sentiblue · 2018-09-28 10:26 · Score: 1

I think fighting the domain owner and strip them of what they own is such bullshit!!! Besides the cash, the fact that they want season tickets and MS tablets is because they are fans of both MS and the football team.. what they ask may seem like lots of money to individuals but to MS and the team is breakfast change. Why did they spend way more than that in legal fees to rob something from someone who legitimately owns it?
Re:Finally! Rape is (still) Legal by Jerry · 2018-09-28 10:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic

You misinterpreted the results. The real meaning of the committee's vote is to confirm that accusation is still NOT the same as guilt. You wouldn't want to be accused of doing something you didn't do and get kangarooed by the media, would you? Consider what happened to 10 Duke Lacrosse players who were accused of rape by a stripper. They were ejected from the team, expelled from the college and labeled as "sexual predators" before they had even a single day in court. Read about it:
https://thefederalist.com/2016...
and how much it hurts 10 years later, even though the three players were exonerated by an honest DA, not the scumbag DA who withheld exculpatory evidence to win a conviction and further his political career.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"The media’s coverage of the case inflamed race, gender and class divisions locally and nationally. But upon further investigation by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, Mangum’s allegations were deemed false. Cooper exonerated the students, saying in April 2007, “We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred.”
So, considering how unfair equating accusation with guilt is, wouldn't we all be better off if we let the judicial system work without putting a wrench into the gears? In Kavanaugh's case, he been the subject of SIX previous FBI investigations in the past yet some people believe that a SEVENTH would somehow, someway, uncover what six previous teams did not find. Only if one believes the FBI is totally incompetent, biased, or is part of the "Deep State".
But, did you notice the report released today that Dr Ford is NOT a licensed psychologist and in calling herself a psychologist has violated California law?
"Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.
After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”
The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.
Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.
According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford’s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a “psychologist” but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive.
Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California in 1996 it

--
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Re:Finally! Rape is (still) Legal by Jerry · 2018-09-28 10:51 · Score: 1

Typo: 3 Duke Lacrosse players.

--
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Definite squatters. by ChoGGi · 2018-09-28 11:48 · Score: 1

It's supposed to be a "local" business website, but the contact us page has no phone number...
They still registered it before any official announcement from the Packers or MS, so I'd say it's theirs to sell.
I mean it's what 35 bucks to register a domain, and you wait a month or so beforehand to register the domain? If you have 5K to offer I think you could've registered a few maybes earlier on in the process.
McDonald's & Bowie by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:24 · Score: 0

In the early days of the internet, 1992-3 or something, people an businesses had no idea it would go a beyond a quirky little things geeks did. Domain names were long strings of numbers, or characters? I remember I had an idea to have your website address be in plane language, like McDonald's or Bowie. I should have patented that. Sigh.
When the internet changed to allow domain names like McDonalds.com or Bowie.com, a Mr. McDonald took the name McDonalds.com, and a David Bowie fan got bowie.com
McDonalds, the pusher of fake food, had no interest in it. Meanwhile, McDonalds.com became a site for the owner's extended family, and anyone else named McDonalds. It was not cybersquatting; it was being used. Then, after a some months or maybe a few years, McDonald's Inc. filed to have the name reasigned to them. They got it, publicly attempted to shame Mr. McDonald for not being happy, and for even thinking he had any right to ever use it.
In commerce, does this gives large companies got there first an unfair advantage?
Meanwhile, David Bowie got interested in the internet early on. Finding that someone owned bowies.com, someone from Bowie's camp contacted the owner. The owner, a Bowie, was thrilled that they had finally contacted him. An amicable transfer of the domain to Mr. Bowie was arranged. I don't know if any money was exchanged.
Not that both of the above stories are according to my memory, which may have been affected by listening to Bowie and eating at McDonald's.
What had happened since then is that all sorts of words, simple words, have now become names of products and businesses, and this is messing the culture and society. How many times do you google something, say python, and instead of getting reptilian results you get 47 pages of Python?
I'm pissed at this Schiit.