"Oops, we just threw 15.000.000$ out of the window, after 10Kg of it disapeared in the mail..."
Well, this will be cheap compared to the present day "Oops, we just intentionally fired a n-th $15.000.000 cruise missile, and oops, hit our own troops. No wonder the President owns stock in General Dynamics":)
All the other Slashdotters are bitching about evil ICANN/UDRP/whatever, I can provide you with some information. I have done two UDRP cases against some squatters, the other was with WIPO and the other with National Arbitration Forum.
WIPO is all right, but at $1500 it's quite expensive. Of course, if you want to do it correctly the first time, you might want to use a specialist (not necessarily an attorney but someone who has done these cases previously).
NAF used to be pretty cheap, for $950 you could file couple of names. The procedure is pretty painless (well, you need to send them three copies of all docs, such as all registration papers, trademark docs etc. which can be a big bunch of paper and even cost some shipping costs if you live here in.eu).
Comparing the present day fees, the cheapest was The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) $1000. If you do not put your faith in foreign princes, there's Nat'l Arbitration Forum $1150.
There is actually some work involved, and considering the amount of effort the arbitrators put in writing the decisions I think the price is quite reasonable. You could try to raise the money via a charity of some kind, a common enemy is a good way to gather cash as GWB might say...
One problem with credit card payments is that they force you to enter your personal data on a form. This scares people off, even though they would otherwise be happy to pay for the service.
If there were a feasible micropayment service, it could help with this, but I haven't seen any service that would be widely enough accepted.
More likely the primary value of the contract to the employer is in dumb workers, who don't know their rights and think that the contract is enforceable. This is actually a very common practice...
That is exactly why you should not have an exclusive contract with one supplier. When you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Diversity allows different solutions for different problems.
But if you are the "bogus threat", you are in trouble. Taking into consideration that government officials rarely like to admit having been wrong in the first place, your life is probably ruined.
Yeah, why should a doctor be curing their patients if he can send them to unneeded tests and scans and make some extra $$$. Why should a cop arrest a criminal if he can get a nice bribe for letting him go. Why should I keep a door open for elderly if I can mug them instead. Why not to stab my friends in the back if they are so STUPID to turn their back to me.
The inability to understand that a human society is based on trust is one of the problems that are faced by a sociopath.
But more probably you were just joking, and I didn't get it.
The reason for your sufferings is that your wife can't use the new technology. She is still using it according to the old telephone usage paradigm, which says that you should always answer a ringing phone. This really doesn't work with cellphones.
Mine is quiet when I sleep, and when I wake up, I look at the caller id and call back or listen to the voicemails depending on who has been calling! I also press the red button (which makes the call route to my voicemail) when I am doing something else and cannot answer.
This might be true, but we're not near infinity yet - in this sense the increasing abundance of mobile web access devices has taken us back in time...:-)
This obviously goes against Slashdot party line, but I say that
UDRP is a good thing!
Our company has lately been a target for two squatting attempts. Most of the WIPO and NAF cases are like ours: Some schmuck registers company.net or company.biz before the company in question, and then tries to extort money for it. As a response, we always file a UDRP complaint.
Let me go through what you need to prove to take the domain name from the holder:
0. That you have paid at least $950 to file the dispute (for a single domain name). It is not free. On top of this you have the lawyer fees.
1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your trademark or service mark. That is, you need to have registered the mark earlier. No one can challenge a name that is not their mark.
2. The domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. If the current holder has legitimate interest in the domain name, there is no case!
3. The name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Bad faith is defined as (but not limited to) offering to sell it or being in the business of selling domain names, that is, being a domain name squatter. Or, registering the name in purpose of disrupting your business, or preventing the trademark owner from doing business with the name. Or, deliberately misleading people to your website in search of the trademark owner.
The cases in which the respondent has a valid argument are a very small minority. Most of the decisions serve a valid purpose of protecting trademarks.
vivendiuniversalsucks.com is an exception. But in the case filings I see that they did not try to pass as a parody - parody would be protected by trademark law. Remember that you can always challenge a UDRP decision in other courts! That's what this guy should have done, I think.
And for the people who say the UDRP favors big business: Of course it does! But so does trademark law. The biggest companies usually have the most recognized trademarks in the audience. And here the audience is the world. If you select n Internet users at random, and ask them which company they would associate "Apple" to, most of them give Apple computer corporation as answer. This is the reasoning why Apple should own apple.com.
However, in the cases where the respondent is found to have a legitimate interest in the domain name, I think the complainant should pay all his lawyer fees.
What comes to the complainant selecting the judges, that is the way arbitration is usually done. And, let me say it again: if you do not like the decision, go ahead and challenge it in a real court!
Slashdot Mirror
Be a little more civilized, stop kicking people already on the ground.
Try "claria virus" on Google :)
Claria virus
Stop US support of Israeli human rights abuses now!
That's probably OK, given that the guy is trying to cheat the taxman anyway, which is a crime of about the same severity!
If you want money, fame, and to be good at something, just concentrate on doing what you love. The rest will come by themselves.
Well, this will be cheap compared to the present day "Oops, we just intentionally fired a n-th $15.000.000 cruise missile, and oops, hit our own troops. No wonder the President owns stock in General Dynamics" :)
Besides, the name is just plain weird. You don't want to recommend anyone a product whose name you have to explain every time :)
WIPO is all right, but at $1500 it's quite expensive. Of course, if you want to do it correctly the first time, you might want to use a specialist (not necessarily an attorney but someone who has done these cases previously).
NAF used to be pretty cheap, for $950 you could file couple of names. The procedure is pretty painless (well, you need to send them three copies of all docs, such as all registration papers, trademark docs etc. which can be a big bunch of paper and even cost some shipping costs if you live here in .eu).
Comparing the present day fees, the cheapest was The Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC) $1000. If you do not put your faith in foreign princes, there's Nat'l Arbitration Forum $1150.
There is actually some work involved, and considering the amount of effort the arbitrators put in writing the decisions I think the price is quite reasonable. You could try to raise the money via a charity of some kind, a common enemy is a good way to gather cash as GWB might say...
Or the metric equivalent, 150 (euro)cents of money and 150 cents of waist!
If there were a feasible micropayment service, it could help with this, but I haven't seen any service that would be widely enough accepted.
The rest of the world, who think Republicans and Democrats are quite extremely right-wing, would classify them quite moderate left-wing.
And yes, policies of President Bush Jr. (and Sr.) are most certainly one very important reason for last fall's WTC incident.
This must be a troll, or some very very Wilde humor.
More likely the primary value of the contract to the employer is in dumb workers, who don't know their rights and think that the contract is enforceable. This is actually a very common practice...
That is exactly why you should not have an exclusive contract with one supplier. When you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Diversity allows different solutions for different problems.
But if you are the "bogus threat", you are in trouble. Taking into consideration that government officials rarely like to admit having been wrong in the first place, your life is probably ruined.
Stop complaining, it's a standard Cato Institute way of doing research!
LOL... I think these trains will change all that, by taking new challengers of the crown to a basho!
And don't forget: When he retires at 70, he will have LOTS of money to spend!
The inability to understand that a human society is based on trust is one of the problems that are faced by a sociopath.
But more probably you were just joking, and I didn't get it.
Mine is quiet when I sleep, and when I wake up, I look at the caller id and call back or listen to the voicemails depending on who has been calling! I also press the red button (which makes the call route to my voicemail) when I am doing something else and cannot answer.
These people are obviously nothing but consumers. Disgusting.
This might be true, but we're not near infinity yet - in this sense the increasing abundance of mobile web access devices has taken us back in time... :-)
UDRP is a good thing!
Our company has lately been a target for two squatting attempts. Most of the WIPO and NAF cases are like ours: Some schmuck registers company.net or company.biz before the company in question, and then tries to extort money for it. As a response, we always file a UDRP complaint.
Let me go through what you need to prove to take the domain name from the holder:
0. That you have paid at least $950 to file the dispute (for a single domain name). It is not free. On top of this you have the lawyer fees.
1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your trademark or service mark. That is, you need to have registered the mark earlier. No one can challenge a name that is not their mark.
2. The domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. If the current holder has legitimate interest in the domain name, there is no case!
3. The name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Bad faith is defined as (but not limited to) offering to sell it or being in the business of selling domain names, that is, being a domain name squatter. Or, registering the name in purpose of disrupting your business, or preventing the trademark owner from doing business with the name. Or, deliberately misleading people to your website in search of the trademark owner.
The cases in which the respondent has a valid argument are a very small minority. Most of the decisions serve a valid purpose of protecting trademarks.
vivendiuniversalsucks.com is an exception. But in the case filings I see that they did not try to pass as a parody - parody would be protected by trademark law. Remember that you can always challenge a UDRP decision in other courts! That's what this guy should have done, I think.
And for the people who say the UDRP favors big business: Of course it does! But so does trademark law. The biggest companies usually have the most recognized trademarks in the audience. And here the audience is the world. If you select n Internet users at random, and ask them which company they would associate "Apple" to, most of them give Apple computer corporation as answer. This is the reasoning why Apple should own apple.com.
However, in the cases where the respondent is found to have a legitimate interest in the domain name, I think the complainant should pay all his lawyer fees.
What comes to the complainant selecting the judges, that is the way arbitration is usually done. And, let me say it again: if you do not like the decision, go ahead and challenge it in a real court!
UDRP FAQ at ChillingEffects.org
"which can be used against personnel and materiel for lethal and nonlethal missions".
meaning
"which can be used to kill people and destroy what they have".
Then you tell him, "no, it costs around 11 euros, call it 11 or I'm in the next shop"...