Re:Intellectual Property
by
Frater+219
·
· Score: 3
The whois data *is* intellectual property. Specifically, it is the property of the registrants. My employer owns the information regarding its registration; this is why we are allowed to edit or destroy it.
If NSI owned our whois entry, then they could sue us if we changed our contact addresses to false or nonexistent ones, because we would thereby be damaging their property. However, since the entry is in fact ours, we are allowed to.
Furthermore, if NSI owned that information, then we would have to agree to surrender our registry information to their ownership. Obviously we didn't do that.
That's not a customer list; it's a database of other people's information. It was so before NSI maintained it, and it will remain so after they no longer maintain it.
The DOJ is starting to worry me. First they target microsoft (don't get me wrong - I think they needed to too), then Intel (well, maybe..), now Network Solutions.
I'm starting to suspect the government is stepping on it's own toes here. It creates a monopoly power in the domain area, and then launches probes when it becomes a monopoly. Well.. Duh. Whacha expect?
Not that these cases don't have merit - most of them do.. but the technology sector should be able to solve the problem on it's *own*. Let IANA and company boot Network Solutions -> They'll do a faster, and more efficient job of dispatching any would-be domain monopoly faster than the DOJ can. And as a bonus - IANA will take feedback from the community. Thus far, the DOJ has shown little inclination to listen to *our* suggestions for dealing with Microsoft.
--
Re:Anti-trust comes in groups.
by
Signal+11
·
· Score: 3
This, as far as I can tell, is the second big wave of anti-trust action by the government. The first was when industrialization happened faster than the government could act. The result? An oil monopoly. A steel monopoly. A meat monopoly. Etc. When growth goes that fast, some lucky people will end up with monopolies. This is not fair.
I'd like to add that NSI's monopoly may well dissolve without any government intervention. Here again, the IANA is working diligently to create a competitive market here. NSI will be unable to maintain a monopoly. They will be forced to become competitive.
I'm concerned that this sets a dangerous precident - anti-trust law was meant to be used as a weapon of LAST resort. The market should be left alone, unless the problem is incurable -and- causing problems to the consumer.
It is simply foolhardy for Janet Reno and company to waste more of MY taxpayer money on something that may well be over before their case gets off the ground.
--
Anti-trust comes in groups.
by
Fizgig
·
· Score: 3
This, as far as I can tell, is the second big wave of anti-trust action by the government. The first was when industrialization happened faster than the government could act. The result? An oil monopoly. A steel monopoly. A meat monopoly. Etc. When growth goes that fast, some lucky people will end up with monopolies. This is not fair.
Here we see again growth far too rapid for government regulation to prevent monopolies from forming. Again, we see the monopolies have formed (NSI with the help of the government, no less!) Anti-trust laws help the government because it can't have perfect foresight. Free market ecomonies work pretty well usually. But when monopolies come into the picture, someone has to clean it up.
I guess the other ripple of anti-trust stuff would be the breakup of CAB (airline deregulation) and AT&T, but that was much smaller.
NSI's defense seems to be that the WHOIS data is 'intellectual property'.
>NSI argues that it has an exclusive right to the database because >the company's original agreement with the National Science >Foundation specified that it would own any "intellectual >property" created by the address-registration business. "It's very >clear that we have the rights to this data,"
I guess my concept of intellectual property is flawed. I always think of it as an idea or invention or some other unique creation. Ok, their process, code, etc for accumulating this data and the way it is stored and communicated seem like obvious intellectual property, but this just seems like this is public information that they want to hold hostage?
My basis for this line of thinking comes from my own experience at work. We run a data processing service bureau, with some in-house applications that our clients use to run their business. Our system is proprietary and we guard our 'intellectual property' jealously. But, the data belongs to the client, who created it. We won't disclose interals of how we collect, store and distribute the data, but we have no ownership of the data and we are obligated to allow the customer access in any way they want (granted, we may charge a fee to deliver it in a way which is not already supported).
So, it appears to me that the public who is NSI's collective customer 'owns' the information in WHOIS. Do they have a legitimate legal claim of intellectual property?
Re:Doesn't this mean something?
by
jason_aw
·
· Score: 3
No, it certainly should *not* be handled by the US government... it should be kept as far away from them as possible.
For one thing, remember that America isn't the whole world. I think occasionaly some of you need reminding of that:-)
But the more we allow governments in general to handle internet infrastructure the more they are going to try to restrict it... and that would be disastrous.
Of course, nothing will stop them placing their restrictions, but surely we should do all we can to keep their hands off our internet?
You've only got to look at some of the European guidlines being introduced to show that we should do our best to keep politicians as far away as we can possibly manage.
Slashdot Mirror
The whois data *is* intellectual property. Specifically, it is the property of the registrants. My employer owns the information regarding its registration; this is why we are allowed to edit or destroy it.
If NSI owned our whois entry, then they could sue us if we changed our contact addresses to false or nonexistent ones, because we would thereby be damaging their property. However, since the entry is in fact ours, we are allowed to.
Furthermore, if NSI owned that information, then we would have to agree to surrender our registry information to their ownership. Obviously we didn't do that.
That's not a customer list; it's a database of other people's information. It was so before NSI maintained it, and it will remain so after they no longer maintain it.
The DOJ is starting to worry me. First they target microsoft (don't get me wrong - I think they needed to too), then Intel (well, maybe..), now Network Solutions.
I'm starting to suspect the government is stepping on it's own toes here. It creates a monopoly power in the domain area, and then launches probes when it becomes a monopoly. Well.. Duh. Whacha expect?
Not that these cases don't have merit - most of them do.. but the technology sector should be able to solve the problem on it's *own*. Let IANA and company boot Network Solutions -> They'll do a faster, and more efficient job of dispatching any would-be domain monopoly faster than the DOJ can. And as a bonus - IANA will take feedback from the community. Thus far, the DOJ has shown little inclination to listen to *our* suggestions for dealing with Microsoft.
--
This, as far as I can tell, is the second big wave of anti-trust action by the government. The first was when industrialization happened faster than the government could act. The result? An oil monopoly. A steel monopoly. A meat monopoly. Etc. When growth goes that fast, some lucky people will end up with monopolies. This is not fair.
I'd like to add that NSI's monopoly may well dissolve without any government intervention. Here again, the IANA is working diligently to create a competitive market here. NSI will be unable to maintain a monopoly. They will be forced to become competitive.
I'm concerned that this sets a dangerous precident - anti-trust law was meant to be used as a weapon of LAST resort. The market should be left alone, unless the problem is incurable -and- causing problems to the consumer.
It is simply foolhardy for Janet Reno and company to waste more of MY taxpayer money on something that may well be over before their case gets off the ground.
--
This, as far as I can tell, is the second big wave of anti-trust action by the government. The first was when industrialization happened faster than the government could act. The result? An oil monopoly. A steel monopoly. A meat monopoly. Etc. When growth goes that fast, some lucky people will end up with monopolies. This is not fair.
Here we see again growth far too rapid for government regulation to prevent monopolies from forming. Again, we see the monopolies have formed (NSI with the help of the government, no less!) Anti-trust laws help the government because it can't have perfect foresight. Free market ecomonies work pretty well usually. But when monopolies come into the picture, someone has to clean it up.
I guess the other ripple of anti-trust stuff would be the breakup of CAB (airline deregulation) and AT&T, but that was much smaller.
NSI's defense seems to be that the WHOIS data is 'intellectual property'.
>NSI argues that it has an exclusive right to the database because
>the company's original agreement with the National Science
>Foundation specified that it would own any "intellectual
>property" created by the address-registration business. "It's very
>clear that we have the rights to this data,"
I guess my concept of intellectual property is flawed. I always think of it as an idea or invention or some other unique creation. Ok, their process, code, etc for accumulating this data and the way it is stored and communicated seem like obvious intellectual property, but this just seems like this is public information that they want to hold hostage?
My basis for this line of thinking comes from my own experience at work. We run a data processing service bureau, with some in-house applications that our clients use to run their business. Our system is proprietary and we guard our 'intellectual property' jealously. But, the data belongs to the client, who created it. We won't disclose interals of how we collect, store and distribute the data, but we have no ownership of the data and we are obligated to allow the customer access in any way they want (granted, we may charge a fee to deliver it in a way which is not already supported).
So, it appears to me that the public who is NSI's collective customer 'owns' the information in WHOIS. Do they have a legitimate legal claim of intellectual property?
No, it certainly should *not* be handled by
:-)
the US government... it should be kept as
far away from them as possible.
For one thing, remember that America isn't
the whole world. I think occasionaly some
of you need reminding of that
But the more we allow governments in general
to handle internet infrastructure the more they
are going to try to restrict it... and that
would be disastrous.
Of course, nothing will stop them placing
their restrictions, but surely we should
do all we can to keep their hands off our
internet?
You've only got to look at some of the
European guidlines being introduced to
show that we should do our best to keep
politicians as far away as we can
possibly manage.