Slashdot Mirror
AOL accused of domain name hijacking
Michael Fischer sent us an interesting
story about AOL using trademark leverage on African-America OnLine Search, which had been registered in Sept of 1998 as aolsearch. AOL wanted to use it as the search location for their web site, although it does not seem to be currently in use. The {former} owner of the domain is accusing of Network Solutions of "an arrogant, indifferent attitude" to the problems surrounding the dispute.
Also...
Isn't this reproduction of results from his query? Did 'Daveo' get proper permissions before posting this? Just to clarify it a bit, that should be written: "You agree that you will not (reproduce, sell, transfer, or modify results) or (use results for a commercial purpose)..." meaning the commercial use is a separate clause from the rest. I think. As long as we're talking about lawsuits and NSI and all...
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
"Veni; Vidi; Vi C++"
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Oh yeah, to put this back on topic...
I believe that AOL will succeed in stealing aolsearch.com. (Actually, thay have already been successful, and I doubt that the origional owner will succeed in getting it back)
Why? Because AOL is a trademark. AOLSearch is a natural and logical extension to that trademark. AOL has been around and has used the AOL brand for years. Any judge in this land will side with AOL. Especially since AOL is an internet company who provides search services. I was recently involved in another domain name despute. A client of mine registered tumbleweedsbar.com. This client owns a bar called Tumbleweeds. There is a company in Kentucky that owns a whole chain of restaurants called Tumbleweeds. Both are valid company names, as there is no Tumbleweeds here in Florida. Tumbleeds of Kentucky succesfully sued for the use of the domain name tumbleweedsbar.com. The judge sided with them because they had established the trademark tumbleweeds and also had bars in their restaurants. The Judge decreed that a natural confusion would result in my clients use of the domain name tumbleweedsbar.com. The law seems to place imphasis on customer perception. This is why Gateway can sue other computer companies who use cows in advertisements, but can't sue the dairy industry. There would be no customer confusion, as the two companies do completely different things. In the case of aolsearch.com, AOL has clearly offered search capabilities to its clients for as long as it has been in business, so customer confusion is highly likely to occur. In fact, I would be willing to bet that many of the hits to the OLD aolsearch.com site where by people trying to find an AOL search engine, not the African-American OnLine Search that they ended up finding. I personally believe that this was a case of deliberate deception on the case of African-American Online. I know that when I first heard the name aolsearch.com I INSTANTLY thought of AOL (American OnLine) not anything else. I believe that this was an attempt just like whitehouse.com to lure unsuspecting people to a site that did not contain the expected content.
I do not agree with the method AOL used to obtain control of the domain name. This case should have gone to court. Network Solutions has placed themselves in a precarious position on this one, and I believe has opened themselves up for suit. I believe AOL has the right to control AOLSearch.com but I do not believe that it is up to NSI to mediate that right, nor to just hand over the domain when requested. NSI should maintain a stance of neutrality, and then abide by whatever the courts decide.
-Count Zero-
I am a former AOL employee, and hence the post as anonymous coward. To complain, mail Keith Jenkins (think he's second in command at AOL) at kjhelp@aol.com I figure a trillion or so hate mails are probably well deserved. Your domain could be next!!
Yup...everyone's an asshole, except me :)
Don't forget Jar Jar STINKS!
There's an article (which isn't available online AFAIK but search the Wall Street Journal archives) which discusses *cultural* (not racial) differences between white and black employees. Basically black employees have different body language, mannerisms, etc., which whites tend to interpret as highly rude. I'm not sure what to say about this except that I don't see why I should be forced to work with people whom I find rude.
Glad to see that this attempt to confuse and deceive users into mistakenly wandering into her site failed due to her own screw-up (giving an incorrect address). Cheers to NSI!
The difference is, it'll cost you more that $70 to buy up that lot. You'll have a much harder time buying up every vacant lot in the country than a DNS squatter would buying up every name that resembles a word in the English language.
--
No matter how hard you work to make something idiotproof, someone will always come along and make a better idiot.
*HEH*
see that little copyright notice at the end of the whois info?
you just set yourself up for a lawsuit.
have a nice day.
This is what I got in the AOL-Browser
for http://www.webmasterfx.com
==============================
Unknown Host
Description: Could not resolve the host "www.webmasterfx.com" in the URL
"http://www.webmasterfx.com/".
Traffic Server version 1.1.7
==============================
Greetings!
The fact you would make moronic comments like this one and the previous one causes us to seriously question your statement of having a brain. Perhaps if you spent more time demonstrating you were thinking with your big head instead of your little one, that fact would be more clearly demonstrated. My apologies if all the big words confuse you.
--Green Skinned Martian.
The point is that Congress is trying to criminalize otherwise legitimate transactions. The basis for laws should be "provable harm". Who is harmed by me registering bigcorp.com, as long as I am not actually trying to fraudulently pass myself off as _being_ BigCorp? No one. A domain name is not a corporation, and owning a domain with the same name as a corporation is not automatically an infringement on their trademark. The Metropolitan Opera, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Metropolitan Auto Repair, and Metropolitan Catering can all exist without the existence of any of them being considered an infringement on the trademark of any other; we've long accepted that multiple entities can have the same name. Likewise with web sites.
:-)
The possession of a domain name therefore not being automatically an infringement on an existing trademark, the ownership of a domain name representing an existing trademark is legitimate. If the ownership of the name is legitimate, the sale and transfer thereof must also be legitimate.
IANAL, but if I were, this would be what I'd argue.
So of course NSI is going to fold easily to AOL, esp. back in 1998.
First, NSI had a monopoly then. What were people going to do, boycott?
Second, AOL is a mucking huge company. So if I'm some small company, and NSI screws me, I could sue them, but they probably could afford dragging it out much longer than I could afford.
However, AOL has a zip code full of lawyers who only purpose is to be thrown at people whom they don't like. NSI could weather the smaller companies lawsuit, no problem, but would be hurt badly from AOL's lawsuit.
Lastly, AOL needs to protect the AOL trademark. AOLSearch has potential to dilute the trademark.
It sucks. NSI sucks. AOL sucks. However, in the end, neither NSI nor AOL had a choice in the matter.
Is cybersquatting really that evil? I've always thought of the domain name business as something similar to real estate. If I know a company wants to put a mall in the vacant lot across the street, it's a good idea for me to buy that lot before they do.
I could see exceptions in cases where the name infringes on a trademark. In the real world, though, most of us who want to register a domain spend a long time trying to find names that aren't already taken. So AOL's "first" choice was taken -- boo hoo. Do what the rest of us who can't afford legal departments do -- pay up or pick a different name.
I don't think that cybersquatting is a real _classy_ thing to do, but I'm uncomfortable with legislation against it. IMHO, lawyers and politicians have a history of Bad Ideas when it comes to technology. How clear will those laws be? Who wants to be dragged into court to defend their site because an advertising agency decided they should have your domain name?
Finally, I don't think a cybersquatting law would matter in this case. The domain was actually in use. There does not appear to be any intent to infringe on the aol trademark. Does just using the letters 'a', 'o', and 'l' make you a trademark violator?
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Why is it that I am not surprised by this? For quite some time I've seen Steve Case as a "Billy G. Wannabe". This is yet even more ammunition for my irritability and the fact that he 1) Bought Netscape, and 2) Teamed up with Sun should just help prove why Linus' creation has become so popular.
Something's going to have to give here folks, this is beginning to get out of hand.
Of course AOL have used the name AOLsearch as the name for their internal web search engine for quite some time - at least two years. With that as prior usage, one does wonder who was doing some cybersquatting....
S.
Since expressing ones feelings or opinions
is not allowed in modern society (likely to lose yr job, get arrested, etc) I would like
to get an anonymous e-mail account so I can
do things like e-mail the folks at AOL.
Is there any way to do this?
The Metropolitan Opera, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Metropolitan Auto Repair, and Metropolitan Catering can all exist without the existence of any of them being considered an infringement on the trademark of any other;
The big difference here is that the four Metropolitan companies you mention are all engaged in different businesses. Trademark laws take in to account the customer's perception of a name, and also the activities of the entity using the name. Metropolitan Auto Repair could sue me (successfully) if I started a company in the same customer space called Metropolitan Car Service. The law makes it clear that if customer confusion would result, then the origional owner of the trademark can stop the use of a confusing derivation of the trademark. Important aspects are the "same customer space" ie: I can open up Metropolitan Car Service here in Florida (assuming there is not already a company similarly named here) but I could not do so in the same state as Metropolitan Auto Repair. Since the Internet crosses such geographic boundaries, and is essentially a SINGLE customer space, the laws will side with the oldest trademark holder who is ingaged in a similar business where customer confusion would result from the new usage of the trademark derivative.
-Count Zero-
There is no excuse for AOL to be using its leverage against a private citizen. It is atrocious to think that Network Solutions has been behaving like a monopoly when its license from the NSF strictly forbids such behaviour. But this has always been so, hasn't it?
I wonder if the commerce department and the NSF should revoke both NSI's license as the Domain Host and AOL's upcoming status as a Domain host Provider.
Call it racism, sexism, money politics, or whatever; it still is wrong.
Besides it does not matter that she used aolsearch.com as a site name. It was registered to her first, AOL has stolen it without consent. I suggest you write your Senator or Congressman.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
> if you weren't white you might understand.
I happen to be white, and even I understand enough to be at least mildly offended by this dork
---
DNA just wants to be free...
"... why should they get first pick of all the toys, even after the other kids have claimed them? "
it's called trademark law.
and it's also how america works. the first lawsuit i can remember like this was the guy who registered mcdonalds.com and tried to sell it to the real mcdonalds. it's like ticket scalping in principle, and several states do have laws again ticket scalping (and i think all should). i hope we can all agree that if i had a company named 'ReallyBigToys', and had registered that as a trademark, and had registered 'reallybigtoys.com', and someone registered 'BUYreallybigtoys.com' or anything similar, that would clearly violate the system.
i'm not saying the system is good. i'm not saying it's evil.
in fact, i'm not saying anything at all, except aolsearch.com is clearly protected under copyright law, as sure as i can't label my home-bottled brews 'Budweiser' and try to sell them.
but i will say this: aol had much more proper channels to go through to resolve this. hijacking just because you can is absolutely ridiculous, and as many people on this thread have stated, NSI should not be the deciding body. if the woman from the original aolsearch.com had paid her dues signifying the binding contract, NSI should be facing some kind of penalty for breaking that contract.
i am sam i am.
burn the computers. go back to the abacus.
One has to wonder if this is racially motivated or just greed... Could be either, there is plenty of both for all.
Hi Cybele!
I'm the Executive Director of Mail Abuse Prevention System LLC, and I know from this experience that Network Solutions has *never* revoked or transferred a domain registration for lacking "valid" contact information. As a matter of fact, I have reported invalid contact information to NSI on several occasions, as have others. NSI has not only refused to take action in such cases, they have stated that they have *no* intention of dealing with this issue. In other words, NSI adopted this "policy" only in order to justify the transfer of the aolsearch.com domain to AOL.
I sincerely hope you will file a lawsuit against NSI over this incident. If you decide to do so please let me know and I will help gather information to show that (1) NSI has consistently refused to take action against those who have submitted invalid contact information, (2) NSI adopted this "new" policy only recently, and (3) NSI enforces its "policy" *very* selectively. My email address is nick@vix.com. Good luck! Nick
You miss the point... to the unknowing world at large, every website (and that is all a domain name is to them) starts with http://www. and ends with .com - I had the hardest time explaining to a relatively techno savvy lawyer friend why they didn't make better use of namespace by having prefixes other than http for website URI's
.....)
;-)
The already proposed new TLD's (.shop etc.) may as well not be created either.
As far as corporate bullies having over the little guy, isn't this supposed to be the land of the free, where anyone can aspire to be president (so long as they are over 30, a natural born citizen, oh and white, rich, male, straight, married, christian, right wing,
Democracy? ROFL. Relax guys. In Scotland we invented democracy for the little guy (well, country) and declarations of independence 370 years before you did, and we still have some rights of the upper classes enshrined in law
Isn't this they've behaved in EVERY domain name dispute?
I don't see why this is such a problem, AOL should be able to come up with something more original than "AOLSEARCH" don't they still have webcrawler anyway...who knows
I guess nobody will be happy until IPv6 is widely available and network solutions looses their monopoly on domain registration.
I think by a little snooping you could find out that it was somebody trying to make money... From looking at the poor quality (way to long to look at the home page with a 56K modem)of the site (how many went to the site?) then looking at the OLDEST file on the site (1.html dated 11/17/98) doesn't hold up to the claims... Sept hummmm...
Granted, I think if she registered for it first and had a legitimate interest in it (rather than domain name squatting), she should keep it.
Still, this never should have happened.
--
--
Jason Eric Pierce
Hindsight is 20/20...
Wah!
If the article is accurate, there is nothing the original webmaster can do. AOL is a huge business and can get what it wants done legally or not. I think that even though the author may have been first, she will not get that domain back.
I would say that this is fuel for the "NSI is evil" fire but how often do we see the little guy get crushed by big business? Look at the alleged practices by Microsoft and Intel.
I hope this can be resolved, after all the webmaster did not authorize the transfer. However I am skeptical that the system will actually work in this case.
-Clump
?) then looking at the OLDEST file on the site (1.html dated 11/17/98) doesn't hold up to the claims... Sept hummmm...>>>>>> AOLSearch was created 6/22/98, work commenced in Spet. 98 and th esite was deleted and transfered to Amercia Online 5/13/99......
Shit... Whatever happened to free trade? Oh, I forgot...America.
--- "If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?"
"if you weren't white you might understand."
:(
That's amazing! You can actually tell someone's skin tint through the internet? How do you do that? It is a special plug-in? A new feature in Mozilla? Can I just telnet to the "skin color" port? What port is that? Maybe there's a slashdot option I missed....
...Nope, I can't find the "include poster's skin color" option anywhere
Please tell me how you know the original comment came from a white person. If you have this technology, maybe you should find some capital to market it. I'm sure target marketing companies would pay a fortune for it.
If I may caution you, please try to avoid being reactionary. This was one article describing what happened and there are many sides. For one, the article was only telling the story from the "victim's" point of view. Plus, it is counterproductive to assume that it is racially motivated without any evidence.
For all I know, this could be racially motivated. I know no more than others on this topic. However, it would seem more logical that this is a case of "big business" bullying the "little guy". Until we know all sides of the story, lets please not start anything racial.
-Clump
While it's upsetting to see a large company rolling over the little guy (or woman) I do think her actions are a little suspicious. At the end of 1998, AOL was definitely well known, and I'm sure every on the planet had received at least 5 AOL disks/CD's from whereever. If I heard of a site called 'aolsearch'--just the name mind you-- I would definitely think it had something to do with America Online. Conversely, if someone told me about a site called African-American OnLine Search with out giving me a url, I know one of the first sites I'd try to look up is 'aaolsearch', and one I probably wouldn't try is 'aolsearch'. It doesn't matter if you are minority or majority...you shouldn't try to come close to infringing trademarks. I think she was trying to take advantage of aol name recognition, personally.
Anyone stupid enough to register an domain name which is so similar to a big company deserves the grief.
.sig, "You shall cooperate with Microsoft for the good of Microsoft and for your own survival". I guess it depends on how much do you want to survive...
Well, yes and no. If you take the stance that the world works this way and there is nothing you can do about it, then yes, it's much better not to annoy big corporations and powerful entities in general. Such a position generally makes life easier, more comfortable and, most of the time, allows you to achieve more. The downside is that once in a while the big corporation/government/etc. will come and say "Bend over and spread your legs, now that's a good boy!" and that can be mighty unpleasant and sometimes even fatal.
You can take the other stance as well and say that in principle there is no difference between a AOL and a mom-and-pop operation running out of a spare bedroom -- they both have the same rights, don't they? So if the big bad corporation want some priviledge, you slap it back and keep slapping until one of you (hint: in 99% of the cases it's not the big corp) keels over. The plus side is that you conscience is very happy and once in a while you'll change the world for the better. The minus side is that it's easy to dedicate your life to fighting a faceless bureaucratic monster with no results and your life or large chunks of it ends up being spend for nothing.
As has been pointed out in some Usenet
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Remember back in the day, when companies only registered one domain name, and built 'subdomains' based from them? foo.division1.company.com, bar.division2.company.com.. Now, it's more like www.division1company.com..
These days, namespace pollution is rampant...
Perhaps this is an instance in which the massive readership of Slashdot could do some good. I don't think that there is any chance that AOL is going to relinquish this domain any time soon, however perhaps a flood of emails asking informing AOL executives of the situation and asking that:
A) AOL provide for the costs of registering a new domain for the African-Americans online search engine (perhaps aaolsearch.com) and
B) AOL put up a web page on the now void aolsearch.com domain which links to the african americans online search page for some agreeable amount of time (I would suggest a year)
I believe that if we send enough rationally worded emails that these two goals really are achievable. To a large company like AOL public image is really important and if they get 500 emails saying that this move has tarnished their public image they might just do something.
*** ONE FINAL NOTE ***
Flamers please don't participate. The rational statements of hundreds of voices can be easily discounted if a person recieves 5 emails telling them to eat sh*t etc. etc. It's time to give our community a positive image again, not vent our pent up adolescent aggression.
Of course AOL is doing this to save the price of PAYING for the domain, which they should be forced to do. Problem is they can keep Emanuelle in court a lot longer than she can afford to stay there.
A friend of mine had his domain taken away by Internic. Internic (now Network Solutions) stated they will obey a court order, even from another country (in that case France), and transfer the site without consent from the current owner. Then the former owner has to fight it out in court. So all AOL has to do is muck up some argument and get any judge to rule for them, which can't be too hard.
My advice to Emanuelle - try to get a good lawyer to take her case on contingency and make AOL pay a few million for the domain. Then put up her site under aaolsearch.com
I seriously doubt that race is the issue here. The bottom line of the incident is that the webmaster had the domain first, whether it was a case of cybersquatting or not, and NSI gave it away without her permission. The latter is the case, and it is no more or less right because of the color of a person's skin.
-Clump
Maybe she should get her domain name reserved in a radical African country and then let them use any AOL complaints as propaganda fodder (White Imperialist AOL Attacks Black Woman...)
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
If you want to be anonymous, try going to hotmail, yahoo mail, deja or one of the other "free mail" web sites and set up a new account. Give them FALSE INFORMATION. In many states it's not illegal to give false information if there is no fraudulent intent.
After all if they're forced to disclose account info they'll come looking for the person whom you made up. Granted logs of IP addresses can be tracked back to you, but there's always www.anonymizer.com ot get around that.
LK
If anything the free market is responsible for such a Bill. To think that you can have massive private entities, with all their power, and not have them influence other institutions such as Government is as unrealistic as Mao thinking he could propel China into the modern world by having everyone smelt steel in their back yard. This bill is obviously geared towards sheilding large corporations from those who would interfer with profit margines. Us cannon fodder. This is of course nothing new in the world, classic classical liberalism if you will, it just seems people can only keep track of a couple years at a time.
Since apparently the standard in trademark disputes is consumer confusion, I propose this poll:
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I don't see how anyone could call this a case of Racism. Would AOL had done the same if the woman had been white? YES!!!
I don't understand why people have to blame EVERYTHING on Racism! And just in case, I am also a minority...
I personally see this as a simple legal case. The lady sues for breach of contract, and gets the domain back plus a nice monetary compensation. Even if she is accused of squatting, she hasn't been declared guilty, thus I don't see how she can't loose.
Then if AOL wants its domain, then it can sue for cybersquatting or settle or whatever it wants. Although I feel that legally, they don't have a chance to win.
Felix
------ Warning! You are too close!
Never assume (racist) malice when simple corporate greed will suffice. How does this case differ from a case where the small site was not owned by minorities? Or is there some actual basis for the racist assumption?
Geeky modern art T-shirts
What does the Internet have to do with anything? Are you saying that it's ok for all those companies to have the same name in the phone book, but not to have the domains www.metropolitanauto.com, www.metropolitaninsurance.com, www.metropolitanopera.com, and www.metropolitancatering.com registered because they would cause confusion online? I think that is ridiculous. How is that different from www.aol.com and www.aolsearch.com?
This person registered the domain and can do with it as she pleases. She did not want to sell it, so it can't be considered cybersquatting. AOL should just pick another domain like everyone else has to do. I seriously doubt anyone can confuse the site with AOL's site. Who goes to AOL's site other than AOL users anyway? They don't even have to enter the url. I don't see the problem here.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I couldn't agree with you more.
She has the right to create her site, but you got to be really clueless to call it AOLsearch and NOT expect it to coincide with people looking for AOL searching. AOL will win. She got the domain by accident since the people who granted it were clueless..
I wonder if she was clueless or looking to pocket money from it... guess we will never know.
commonsense:
AAsearch - alcoholics anonymous search?
AAAsearch - Automobile Associat...
AFLsearch - American football league..
get the point? The names sound too close...
Why not call it AFROLsearch?
That would be more clearer (African American online search engine), and would benefit more users...Its got a good lingo to it as well and easy to remember.
It is all in appearances. It does not matter what the original intentions were. It will appear that a big white corporation is pushing around a black woman. I also assume it's greed and not racial malice. But it does sound quite bad no?
Are you saying that it's ok for all those companies to have the same name in the phone book,
but not to have the domains www.metropolitanauto.com, www.metropolitaninsurance.com, www.metropolitanopera.com, and www.metropolitancatering.com registered because they would cause confusion online?
No, that is not what I am saying. Those domain names do not infringe on trademarks. They are not confusing as they all relate to different markets. If I were to register metropolitanoperas.com or some other derivation thereof, I could expect to be sued by the legitimate owner of the Metropolitan Opera for the use of a confusing derivative of his properly trademarked material.
-Count Zero-
AOL should have to pay the registration fee that was lost ($70 for 2 years) to HER instead of Internic. Stealing a domain name is not right. If someone registered your trademarked name.. then fine, if you want it then pay them the amount they lost and would need to register a NEW name. I don't know how Internic handles these but it'd be criminal if someone paid $70 then someone like AOL came along and stole the name from them and didn't pay Internic anything for the name. So in essence... pay the person you're stealing the name from and you do not pay Internic since the domain was already paid for by the person you're stealing it from.
If you look in the Wired News archives, there are some fascinating stories about the guy who originally had sex.com in 1994. Then some con man managed to persuade NSI that HE owned it. The lawsuit has been dragging on for a couple of years now, I think.
There is a difference between registering something as blatant as Burger King and registering an acronym that America OnLine uses as a substitute for their name. Her organization happens to have the word OnLine in it as well which is not surprising these days. Hence we have the O and the L. Now from the first part of the organization's name, we could either use the A or a double-A. I think that either way, AOL was going to be ticked off. From the name of her organization, I could come up with two.. well four different options.
www.aolsearch.com
www.aaolsearch.com
www.aols.com
www.aaols.com
The first three are quite likely to annoy America OnLine. The last one is just not very appealing. She could have simply used the last one, but I don't see why she should have to. An acronym is an acronym. The letters will be the same, but the meaning is different. Is there any way someone visiting her site would confuse it with America OnLine's site? I doubt it. So where is the consumer confusion? I think AOL was out of line, plain and simple. You shouldn't be able to take someone's domain just because they use the same acronym as you.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I think the behavior of AOL and NSI is incredible arrogant, unseen! They totally contradict past behavior.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
And aolsearch doesn't fit that? I think aolsearch is at very least at the level at which AOL could start litigation.
It doesn't matter is AOL wins litigation against NSI or the other company. It just matters that they throw enough lawyers and keep it going long enough to kill the business.
I'm serious, have you noticed that latley, AOL's sleezy tactics have sunken below even the level of Microsoft. I personally think that AOL is worse then Microsoft. I mean, has anybody seen those leaked insider documents. They make Micorsoft's ambishons for world domination petty. I'm not defending Microsoft, but personally I think in the scheme of things, AOL must go before Microsoft.
I'm serious, have you noticed that latley, AOL's sleezy tactics have sunken below even the level of Microsoft. I personally think that AOL is worse then Microsoft. I mean, has anybody seen those leaked insider documents. They make Micorsoft's ambitions for world domination petty. I'm not defending Microsoft, but personally I think in the scheme of things, AOL must go before Microsoft.
Assuming she is not some web virtuoso her site was more then just a fluf site. It took a resonalbe amount of effort. Besides what's up with the (regex)*aol* bullshit. Under that thinking registering ww.inteligence.* or www.youngms.*! It's BS. And its at least wrong and at worst racism...
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
"SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick
and i was right too.
Well, this doesn't square with my experience, which is that they aren't as a group any better or worse to work with than any other group (i.e. it depends on the person).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's not uncommon for a cybersquatter to create an acronym out of a brand name and create a bogus site full of fluff which seems to legitamize the acronym.
I also notice aaolsearch.com is still available. That would have seemed the most logical name for this site in the first place. Why didn't they take it?
Please read this whole thing before moderating it down as racist drivel, for its based on real-life experience rather then "programmed" attitudes.
Ill tell you how it differs! I have worked with at least a dozen african-american females from professional level down to service level. All except one displayed a remarkably unprofessional and antagonistic attitude to any other non-black co-workers.
The most predominant attitude was that if they were having a bad day, they made every attempt to make sure you would have a bad day too. From talking on the phone, to answering emails, to face to face interaction it was unbeleivable.
About 1/3 were college educated and every single one of them would never admit they were wrong. If they performed badly, they accused you of keeping the black race down and that you were a racist.
You had to accept or tolerate anything that they did or say, and that was all there was to it.
Many, many times stuff got pulled that management would never consider acceptable or let go (e.g. cussing out a customer!)unless race had been an issue. Never did any of these women get fired for fear of legal action based on race.
ANYWAY: I can easily see that perhaps this issue was not one of race but rather a professional attitude. You get on the phone and start screaming or cussing, that for sure won't get you anywhere. Civil and professional attitudes have alot to do with it, in addition to going through proper channels. I also do not doubt that the domain name was selected *purposly* because it matched AOL acronym. Furthermore, just because a person is running a business with a stolen trademark name should not make them immune from cybersquatting rules.
Network Solutions policy is to sit on old domains for 2 years before they are recirulated. In other words, if I registered deathtobillandhisminions.com (which I can't because it is 2 characters too long), and I decided not to renew my contract, Billy Boy couldn't take it over until after the 2 year wait period was over. Very interesting......
Me
Oh my god... you mean, Network Solutions is _arrogant_ and _indifferent_? *gasp!* What a horrible thought, that a massive government-sponsored juggernaut could behave in a fashion that showed complete disdain for others.
Network Solutions is _always_ indifferent. The most personable person over there is the mailer-daemon.
I think this is just AOL trying to insure that nobody looks like them. Greed and Racism can't hold a candle to Stupidity and Chance.
Of course, I don't know why anybody would want to look like AOL.
And you have to admit, that is pretty damn clever of this entrepreneur to do, and shows that some people in AOL need to be replaced with a more intelligent chimpanzee.
To say it quite frankly, network solutions is a large group of individuals, who gain unfairly large amounts of money and use that money not to improve their services but to buy crack for them to smoke. I work for a web hosting provider so I've seen plenty of domain names get hijacked. I myself have my own domain name, instead of taking "overnight" to register, it took me more then a week. When I sent an e-mail to network solutions all I got was a standardized e-mail messages. Here's a tip -- if you just started off your life and have no capitable -- thereofore no way to pay if sued, go forge a Microsoft letterhead, and fax to Internic with a domain name transfer form and transfer it to your computer. Then watch as even Microsoft will have trouble getting the domain back. Now imagine if Microsoft wanted _YOUR_ domain, you won't be able to sue back for it -- may not be able to transfer it back and it's GONE. I'm looking forward to Network solutions splitting up.
Why should "Anyone stupid enough to register an domain name which is so similar to a big company [deserve] the grief ?"
It's a free country.
The fact that the company has NOT registered a given domain name means that they have NOT claimed it. If some else registers some domain name a company later decides it theirs, why should the registrant be punished? The company was to stupid to lay claim to it. Or, they didn't want it till after the other person got there first. So AOL cries and whines "But I WANNIT, Mommy NSI!". Just because they're a big corporation, why should they get first pick of all the toys, even after the other kids have claimed them?
Just rm /etc/resolv.conf and go back to numeric IP's only, since apparently corporate america can't play nice on our network.
But what about the name www.metropolitan.com? Which of the several Metropolitan
like you said, it's just as valid as in real-estate.
It's just that now, the big companies, who are used to being spoiled little brats who can whine to their lawyers and get whatever they want, see all these similar domain names, and them as well.
Just because they are a "big" corporation, they
feel that they should have precedence over
someone who honestly GOT THERE FIRST!
(damn I'm angry)
If you want ".org" to be meaningful, then lobby people to make it meaningful. Require anyone who intends to register a .org name for a non-profit organization to prove that they're a non-profit organization. Otherwise the only real difference between .com and .org is that they're made up of different letters.
Please do not confuse trademark and copyright law. They are two different things.
I think enough said.
Have NONE of these corporations every thought
of a subdomain?
Like, oh, I dunno... http://search.aol.com
Hmmm... where does THAT go?
Click on it. They aren't even using it!
They didn't NEED it for ANYTHING,
they just were greedy.
According to a whois query, aolsearch.com is indeed now registered to America Online, Inc.
Looks like maybe both AOL and NSI need a bit of a slap, and I for one hope they get it.
Stopping "cybersquatting" is one thing, but effectively stealing a domain name that is in use for a legitiamte site just isn't on.
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Does anyone remember the Lawsuit that Toys R Us brought on them?
Things are really getting out of hand here!
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
The previous story was about Netscape revamping their search engine to use Google technology. Why does AOL also need a new "Inktomi powered" search engine? They own Netscape...
Microsoft should sue AOL since AOL has seemingly stolen intellectual rights on how to do business from Microsoft.
--
--
The Internet is the Suppository of All Knowledge. You get it in the end.
They are not confusing as they all relate to different markets.
Oh, I see... so you're saying that she's in the same market as AOL? She's an ISP then? I don't see how anyone could confuse "African-American Online Search" with "America Online". Just because they happen to have a lot of letters in common and can be represented by the same acronym doesn't make it an infringement. Do you seriously believe that someone could mistake her website for the AOL website? I don't.
When I shoot in the dark looking for a website, I find all sorts of sites that I wasn't looking for. Does that mean they are all infringing on each other? No. Just because they have names that could logically be associated with the company I'm looking for doesn't mean they are infringing any more than she is by using her domain.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is just one reason why we shuold encourage the freedom of anonymity. I have a feeling that those people who say that you must "stand behind your words" have never held an unpopular idea in their lives and/or their jobs involve crushing dissent. 'tis a shame.
So if I registered bigredapples.com Apple would sue me. What about microdicksthataresoft.com (not too long either)? Would Bill try to rape me in court? What about SlashYourTsAndDotYourIs.com? Would /. sue me for copyright infringement? They'd all be laughed out of court if they tried that shit. It would have to literally invade one of their copyrighted product name, very, very strongly.
Me
AAOL, AAOLsearch, etc...
I first think of Alcholics Anonymous,
not African-American.
(personally, I can barely stand
PC terms like that...
I prefer to divide people not into races
but into personality types:
nice, a**hole, bigot.
You would be AMAZED at how colorblind
these divisions are...)
I don't think it is racial. I believe there is a lot of racism in America, but I don't think this is a racial thing.
Great idea! That way the big name registrants would subsidize the rest of us. But you should add some way to avoid having one company create several little companies for the express purpose of holding domain names for their use (or would the cost of legal overhead preclude such a move? I don't know.)
I'm sorry you have had unfortunate incidents with African American coworkers. I also sympathize if management did not hold them accountable.
BUT I don't agree with your automatic assumption that THIS particular woman has a similar attitude.
You seem to take a pretty hostile attitude towards
this woman. You seem to imply that (1)She acted unprofessionally and screamed at NSI (2) She intentionally stole AOL's trade name with a cynical intent. This may or may not true, but basing your assumption on race is really unjustified.
Just my 0.02$
...that she might have done this on purpose just to get some attention to her cause. blah. It looks that way. Think about it, microsoftsearch? or linuxsearch (and say linux stands for the 'Linguistic Institute of Nocutrnal Undertakers on Xemacs'.
faked domain switching is EASY. I had to do it for my own domain, that the reg email address was long gone, just had to fake where it was coming from.. and presto!!!! Insto-chango... Took me about 5 emails, 4 faxs to NSI to try faking the email address. It was alarmingly easy to tell you the truth. NSI sucks...
This is Cybele Roberts Emanuelle, AOLSearch's original creator... ......
Thanks to all of you for writing great, intelligent posts about this lunacy....
To clarify some things:
AOLSearch.com is the name for African-American Online Search because #1: African-American is a hyphenated word..Not words, word....One word...#2: AAOLSearch.com seems like it'd be for Alcoholics Anonymous Online Search. #3: AAOLSearch.com would be a tongue tripper....My oldest domain site WebmasterFX is not easy to understand when spoken and I've learned the hard way not to confuse people with the domain names I create now...
Next order of business,
Regarding trademark infringement, there are 16 categories for trademarks, not one. Since there is just one little ole dot com available, it confuses things greatly.
That's why it will be a lot fairer for the average joe when new domain extensions are finally added...Also, AOL does not currently have a trademark for AOLSearch as far as I know.
And according to NSI's policy trademark infringement is only for an identical, letter for letter trademark dispute. Not just because a domain name "contains" part of a trademark.
Regarding NSI's guilt in covering up things royally, that's a given. I've racked up a huge phone bill calling their Virginia headquaters. ( they don't have a 1-800 number) The runaround they gave me there would make your head spin. They have better cover-up and manuevering tactics than the CIA . But most of you already seem to know that
Regarding America Online's culpability, they have had AOLSearch in the works for a good while..Which is surprising, AOLSearch is a very lame, unoriginal name for their multi million dollar search engine to be named..It's not cool sounding like hotbot or yahoo.
And this isn't something they just dreamed up yesterday. In fact for those of you who have AOL 4.0 you will have noticed an annoying little pop up box sitting for weeks now in the lower right hand of your welcome screen that says "AOL Search preview"
So they've planning to develop a site that they didn't own...That alone makes them seem suspect and capable of doing anything to get the domain....Additionally, NSI officials have been very defensive of AOL in tone and protective of AOL's rights......Which is odd considering that AOL is set up to be a domain registar too and would be NSI's biggest upcoming competitor. Perhaps they're both sleeping with the enemy and may join forces soon....Wouldn't surprise me after this.
Anyway, if you are truly incensed at it all, feel free to write me and I'll let you know who you can write to further to get some action (justice) going !
wirednetfx@aol.com or investigation@post.com
NSI is wrong for moving an id without written approval of both parties. She is wrong because her site name can easily be construed as being part of AOL. It also does not break down from the site's long name as one would think it would.
So sure her site may be okay, but her domain name should change. Now, should AOL give her some cash? No.
Anyone stupid enough to register an domain name which is so similar to a big company deserves the grief. The only case that would deserve support is a big company changing a product or service just so they can justify taking the name.
. * Did aliens forget to remove your anal probe?
Perhaps this will teach daveo to make use of the 'preview' button next time...
Are they retarded? There is no way they will get good publicity by stealing a web site from an African-American woman. Perhaps the boys at AOL should just don white robes and go after Jews and other sensitive minority groups, too. Idiots.
Well, I have an .org address, and on my site I offer my shareware for sale, but believe me it hasn't made me any profit! How should this be interpreted under your proposed law? Am I really just a dot com in disguise?
-- thinkyhead software and media
is it?
-- thinkyhead software and media
Now you have me worried about my domain. I've received the same demand letter from AOL, but so far no word about my response.
Let's not forget, as one of the five test registars AOL may have direct access to the interNIC database.
" I invested a lot of time and energy into this. I wasn't cybersquatting. And to have this done and have an arrogant, indifferent attitude from Network Solutions makes my blood boil."
Gees, that never happened before lady. Get in line.
I don't really suspect AOL of plotting against black America, but (although there's no way of proving this) it wouldn't surprise me if NSI took this woman a little less seriously because of her race. It's like what has been shown with 911 calls - the bias is subtle, but it's there.
grep -ri 'should work'
1) Just cybersquat down over there, the doctor will be right with you.
2) Next week in gym class, we'll be doing cybersquat-thrusts.
3) Cybersquatting will be on page 171 on the upcoming edition of the Kama Sutra.
4) You don't know cybersquat, kid!
5) Was that your dog cybersquatting on my lawn earlier? I hope you're planning to clean that up.
6) I don't know. Maybe the universe cybersquatted, maybe God changed his mind...all I know is that we got a second chance.
7) FREE FREE FREE SEX VIDEO OF PAMELA AND TOMMY CYBERSQUATTING!!!
-
Not only is NSI's official stance that they don't care (read your domain registration agreement), but their entire system is automated so poorly as to guarantee that arrogant stance. Based on contracts sent through email, which are never inspected by human eyes, and not even filtered with so much as a batch script, I question how one company can be so valuable to Wall Street when there really isn't a body behind the money. Perhaps that is the real nemesis here. That indifferent monopolies are virtual guarantees of money.
Of course, this is all old news . . . does anybody know of any sites established so that us puny public individuals can rally, as citizens, against such corporate bullying? Time to establish the Net Party, or support better the Green Party, and bring forth some class action suits against everything everybody whines about incessantly, or provide credence for the consumer groups out there. If nothing else, I'd like to see a corporate badlist. I think everyone would be surprised at how pervasive this indifference is. Then I'd like to see a corporate goodlist (perhaps it isn't as small as you'd think--good incentive for the badlist to clean up their act).
It is worth the hassle of registering a domain name anymore? There have been cases of Commercial sites sueing owners of .org sites. .org, Not-for profit as I was left to believe, so a business could not use such. There have been cybersquatting cases where the business had won...even if the business didn't even exist when the site was put up. It's just not worth it to have a personal webpage anymore unless you do a www.isp_name.com/~username/index.html.
.per for personal websites. .xxx for porn sites. .spam for anysite that is going to be posting unsolicited e-mail (god I'd love to put a .spam filter in my e-mail). Things like that. Names that are seperate from each other, and cannot be crossed.
There needs to be three things.
1. Add more site designations.
2. Laws that enforce #1 above. Laws that prevent things like a company who holds a trademark on a word like "Sylvan" from suing a person who has a personal website dedicated to his Role-Playing game based on a setting in a elven or "Sylvan" setting
3. We need to stop companies from putting trademarks on words in the english language. Take AOL for example. They tried to sue for the phrase "You've got mail". How do describe the concept of having mail, without using any of these world You've, got, and mail? Short of "a piece of corispondance has arrived via the postal service for one [insert name here]". Pretty darn awkward isn't it. How long before we can't talk to a neighbor with out having to put a nickle in a jar, per word uttered, and having to send it to the people who hold the trademarks?
Well, that was my two credits worth...let's see, I owe about $15.05
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"