Whether he's using the domain or not isn't really the issue here, the fact is that it was his first, and regardless of what he planned to use it for it's clear that it can't be used ONLY in relation to Coca-Cola the product.
He paid for it, he holds it, and he can do whatever he pleases with it. Are we now going to make a rule that unless you are using a domain you can't have it anymore? I shudder at the litigation that could come from that!
It seems the smartest choice in this situation is to try and sell the domain to the company. With some slick talk, I'm sure he could convince them that they'd rather hand him a check than pursue a lengthy and unfavorable legal battle that would raise resistance all across the net.
I worry for what happens when the new TLD's come along. Who will own coke.web?
Getting off topic here, but there are reasons why I'm trapped at AOL. I'm not working in VA, I'm working at one of the call centers out in the rest of the country (prefer not to say which actually to cover myself) and I'm trapped by stock options, tuition reimbursement, and several other things.
And to keep this on topic, uh.... The official phone response to THIS problem is that it's all the user's fault for clicking on yes, and of course we're not allowed to tell members ANYTHING that we think about the suit, under pain of death.
Taking tech calls for AOL has taught me that there is something truly wrong with 5.0, besides the obvious. When 4.0 was released we had complaints, but nothing this bad. What's surprised me so far is that no one has seen fit to sue when a new installation of AOL 5.0 completely hoses Windows. Yes, this happens more than you'd think. The official number is.1%. Out of 20 million, that is still more users than most other OSPs put together.
And the official response that we're supposed to give on the phone?
For the last several months it's been that we don't know the exact cause of the problem, but that we know it's not our fault. (My paraphrasing, the official response statements that they expect us to read are much more vague)
Slashdot Mirror
Whether he's using the domain or not isn't really the issue here, the fact is that it was his first, and regardless of what he planned to use it for it's clear that it can't be used ONLY in relation to Coca-Cola the product.
He paid for it, he holds it, and he can do whatever he pleases with it. Are we now going to make a rule that unless you are using a domain you can't have it anymore? I shudder at the litigation that could come from that!
It seems the smartest choice in this situation is to try and sell the domain to the company. With some slick talk, I'm sure he could convince them that they'd rather hand him a check than pursue a lengthy and unfavorable legal battle that would raise resistance all across the net.
I worry for what happens when the new TLD's come along. Who will own coke.web?
-Mad Dreamer
And to keep this on topic, uh.... The official phone response to THIS problem is that it's all the user's fault for clicking on yes, and of course we're not allowed to tell members ANYTHING that we think about the suit, under pain of death.
And the official response that we're supposed to give on the phone?
For the last several months it's been that we don't know the exact cause of the problem, but that we know it's not our fault. (My paraphrasing, the official response statements that they expect us to read are much more vague)
I feel dirty, but hey, it's a job.