In this context, here are two definitions for you.
Moron: Somebody who believes that government reading your emails is about catching terrorists.
Terrorists know about Echelon and will use other methods e.g. personal courier - either that or get caught.
Moron: Somebody who says, "They can read my email - I have nothing to hide."
This information can be used retrospectively against you - wait until you get a just cause to fight. The UK government love to put down protesters - as can be seen when they tried to get the dirt on Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom I presume would have nothing to worry about, having her emails read.
Labour has found another email from a government adviser seeking information searches on the Paddington rail campaigners.
The adviser to Stephen Byers, sent a second request for the searches - which have been seen as an attempt to 'dig dirt' on members of the public.
Dan Corry's email to the Labour headquarters at Millbank Tower expressed a wish to find out what was behind the group's criticisms of Stephen Byers.
In it, Mr Corry said: "Any other checking useful. They seem to have an anti-SB agenda and we want to find out what lies behind it."
The department said the second email had been unearthed in a "very thorough" trawl of the email traffic from Mr Byers's special advisers.
A spokesman said it failed to reach the Labour Party owing to "intermittent difficulties" with the system.
The disclosure last week of Mr Corry's original email asking for information about the political affiliations of the Paddington group, prompted bitter accusations that the Government was trying to smear the crash survivors for asking awkward questions.
It led to unreserved apologies from Mr Corry and from new Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.
I had asked the question before on ICANNs own forum: It seems to me difficulties are due to piss poor management and nothing to do with need for structural reform. For instance, why stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have you looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.
As it is one attribute, the subclass could be single field.
> * However, how are users going to know what class to use for a given company?
This has already been decided - look at trademark records. You talk of using.reg as directory - because people will KNOW who ford.carmaker.us.reg is when redirected from ford.com. As it stands, nobody either small business or person can use the word 'ford' without risk of Ford Motors wrath.
Would suggest plurals removed and if required multiple entries, give several listings.
Other languages can easily be accomodated.
> * A judge decides if a mark is confusing.
Look at trademark process - the mark is submitted first to see if it does conflict or infringes.
> * Why not make this yellow page site your goal then?
Because certain trademarks are abusing their powers to claim world rights to a word or initials.
I have several ideas for trademark directory e.g. apple.reg lists all apple trademarks in default country.
> The Canadian rapeseed industry became, quite quickly, the Canola industry.
Two entries.
> You completely avoided the issue of correlation versus causation.
Do you deny these rules and laws and Sunrise were brought in to protect big business trademarks - without due regard to small businesses without trademark and peoples rights to use these words?
> Claiming things to be indisputably self-evident is a bit different than giving indisputable proof.
I submit the evidence that they are corrupt is very compelling. Indeed, there is no other likely reason - can you give one?
> There's no need to repeat the same comment in article after article.
The fact it is the first time you saw it bares true witness that it does - again, am I correct?
> * I don't think moderation on slashdot is a particularly credible measure of the quality of a posting or whether it needed repeating.
It shows your opinion is one of many.
> , I'd at least expect you to realize that such biased implications aren't going to do much for your argument.
They are reasoned logical conclusions based on all facts.
> Equating honesty with agreeing with your point is simply logical silliness.
You misrepresent me - I did not say that - did I?
I equate honesty with being decietful, using spin and refusing to confirm or deny basic facts in their answer.
There are four essential requirements to identify registered trademarks on the Internet:
1. name 2. classification 3. country 4. trademark identifier
Try to find a Honest Lawyer who will deny this - you will not.
> If a large portion of the legal community had examined your proposal and the disagreement was minimal, you might have an argument.
A very large section of the legal community have examined my proposal - making a lot of money from these problems, they refuse to comment.
> When you talk to a small number of people, arguing that a failure to deny is implicit assent to being fact is absurdity.
Ask yourself objectively - why do they refuse to confirm or deny?
> First of all, you don't address the issue of unregistered versus registered trademarks.
Yes I do - it is one of the feeble excuses used by some lawyers - see that link on the site.
> Even if you build in all these attributes, what do you when a country adds a new one in the future?
Multiple registered trademarks are accomodated. All trademarks are distinctive from others or declared invalid - so they can all be seperated.
> There is no ontology for class naming.
Classification is set - subclasses can be used.
> You give examples like "record" and "computing" but there are many aspects of the record and computing business and a company may not have the registered trademark in all of them. [stupid examples]
A trademark is not allowed were there is risk of 'consumer confusion' or conflict with prior trademark - is it not?
> What do you do if you grant someone name.class.reg but the idea of what 'class' is later changes?
All this is mentioned in feeble excuses link. Like multiple entries in yellow pages, give several listings.
> Industries diverge from their original intent, specialize into subindustries, or change what they call themselves on a regular basis. When the bar industry starts being called the baz industry, how do you make the change to all existing domains under bar without causing mass confusion for users?
You appear to be talking twaddle - give real world example.
> Based on actions people or groups take, you assign reasons for why they took those actions. You don't seem to have the necessary information to make deductions of that sort.
Yes I do.
1) They know registered trademarks have four attributes.
2) They abridge peoples rights to use common words with Sunrise and UDRP.
3) They allow some trademarks priority over others.
4) They cite 'consumer confusion' or 'trademark conflict' for doing this - when they could remove those excuses.
> When a group doesn't respond, you call them "cowardly". How do you know they are cowards as opposed to being too busy to respond, ordered not to, or not having finished thinking about the idea.
In their responses, US Government Departments (DoC & PTO) have been evasive to the basic point of my emails: Is an trademark identifier, like.reg to replace ® RTM, also class & country ESSENTIAL to identify ALL trademarks on the Internet?
They have always known this to be true - ERGO they are cowards.
> How do you know someone is corrupt just because they disagree with you?
Don't be stupid - they are corrupt because they allow abuse of peoples rights and allow unfair competition.
> What if I really just disagree with what you think?
Then give reasoned reply why registered trademarks do not have four attributes OR say why peoples rights should be abused and unfair competition allowed.
> Even if WIPO tells you your ideas are silly.
It is *indisputable* that the answer was self-evident. Though some idiots try to muddy the water.
> Posting the same thing repeatedly does not contribute to the discussion.
It has only been posted once on this discussion - has it not?
> But I didn't want to see it so it I am irrelevant to the argument that it needed repeating.
The fact my post has been moderated as Interesting shows your opinion is just one of many - so does need repeating (when applicable on different discussions).
No Trademark Lawyer has denied the basic fact - registered trademark can be identified on the Internet by four attributes: name.class.country.identifier
What you state is obviously true, "The new TLDs that ICANN are proposing will simply cause more chaos. They will not solve anything."
They use these new gTLDs and Sunrise Period as propaganda - I say the same thing on my site:
Ask them to deny this:
THOUSANDs of new 'open' TLDs will not solve any problem - even if every one has 'Sunrise Period'
It will not solve 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' or stop anybody 'passing off'.
Also, as an example on Sunrise, thousands of trademarks using word 'Apple' have no guarantee of being able to use name.
Apple computers will still protect and make claim to every Apple.[anything] - even though they share word with 727 others in the USA alone (plus all those in 200+ countries).
Sunrise gives Big Business priority over the people and is unfair to small businesses without a trademark.
Like you say, "The solution is so simple and so obvious that they can't possibly have missed it."
This is just two reasons why I believe them corrupt.
Your managed heirarchy solution is the obvious technical solution - except for registered trademarks - they HAVE TO USE four attributes to make unique. Every trademark is distinctive from others or declared invalid.
Four essential requirements:
1. name 2. classification 3. country 4. trademark identifier
First off - trademarks are a good thing - for consumer and business.
Fact: UDRP is bull* propaganda.
For one thing, it goes against Unfair Competition Law - they give priority to one business above others, who share the same word(s) or initials. For another they abridge the use of words to the people.
I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) on these domain and trademark problems.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.
For example, the World Trade Organization - WTO shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone. The same with any initials, International Trade Centre - ITC, International Monetary Fund - IMF etc., etc., etc.
Same for any word apple, ball, cat etc., etc., etc. They all are shared by many other businesses.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce know the answer to exclusively identify ALL trademark domains.
It would allow ALL to use their trademark, without 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Based on all evidence, I believe the authorities are corrupt. If they truly wanted rid of these problems, why do they not use the solution?
People and small non-trademarked businesses could then use domains without these excuses being used to take away (steal) their legal property in UDRP.
The simple solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see - no connection with United Nations WIPO.org.
Fact 1: Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
Fact 2: The authorities steal words that belong to everybody and give them to Big Business - because domain names were not designed to be trademarks. Ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System. He was asked, what do you wish you had invented? His reply, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
Fact 3: The UN World Intellectual Property Organization and the US Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. Please see at WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with the United Nations WIPO.org.
BM> I'm refuting your post that suggests that you let your beliefs interefer with your findings.
My beliefs are based on reasoned logic - and have not been refuted. My findings are objective - and can be proven to be so. Please give evidence that the findings are not objective.
BM> I interpret this as if you think that your beliefs - in conjunction with your findings - have proven something, which of course is rubbish.
As my reply above shows - you misinterpret.
BM> I don't see corruptness or conspiracies here...
Just like there was no corruptness or conspiracies at Enron.
I see it to be just like there - they all gain - the Lawyers, ICANN, WIPO and US DOC.
You are either niave, stupid or somebody with vested interest (e.g. Lawyer or in Big Business).
I believe the corruption runs deep through ICANN right to the United States Department of Commerce.
For instance, checkout JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
***End quote.
In a good two month period in October and November 2000 they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers; I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
They would lose a lot of money, if there were less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption.
G> My beliefs and findings, [...], have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made."
BM> That statement makes me wonder whether your findings and your ways to gather them really are separated from you beliefs.
You have no idea how I gathered them, have you Big Mouth?
I have spoken to many in the Legal Profession and also both US and UK authorities.
The authorities know to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'. They could let ALL trademarks be used on the Internet without these problems.
Not one lawyer has been able to refute the solution.
Perhaps you would like to have a go - if you think your hard enough;-)
No? - Perhaps then, you would explain why they do not use it?
Please check feeble excuses link before answering.
So, given that no all trademarks can use their mark (against Unfair Competition Law) - are they corrupt or are they stupid?
My money, given that they have virtually admitted knowing solution, is that they are corrupt.
J> Case in point: I have a page which describes my rotten experiences with the Ford Motor Company and a 1992 Explorer, at http://www.conmicro.cx/explorer.html. I didn't go out and register fordsucks.com, even though I could have in 1994 when I had the problem. Guess what? People have no trouble finding the page anyway.
Do you not think a lot more people would find it at fordsucks.com?
Do you not think, using it like the title to a book, fordsucks.com expresses more about what you think of them?
Surely you can see, fordsucks.com is better for this?
J> You still fail to show how a corporation with a trademarked name is preventing you from expressing your opinion.
The authorities know how to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'. They could let ALL trademarks be used on the Internet without these problems.
These are OPEN (repeat OPEN) TLD - the US DOC and ICANN could have many 'restricted' TLD for trademarks, so are allowing this conflict to muffle you.
They are also allowing this conflict so that (as all words are trademarked) they can take domains from the legal owner e.g. JT.com and crew.com.
G> Virtually ALL words are trademarked, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. True or False?
J> True but irrelevant. So what if you can't use their name in the address? They can't do a thing about the content of your page.
On your thinking, the title of a book could not specify its contents.
G> By giving priority to trademarks for ALL words, the authorities totally disrespect your rights to use them. True or False?
J> False. You can use trademarks all you want to in the content of your page. All that's required is that you acknowledge their ownership. You can't use them in the address of your page, but you still fail to explain why this is relevant.
You are saying a book title cannot explain its contents. Perhaps I will explain better on this:
J> This still doesn't establish any connection between Paul's statement that the DNS is for naming resources and your contention that ICANN and big business are out to muffle free speech. It is that connection that I believe is nonexistent, and asserting that connection without backing it up is the flaw in the argument against ICANN and WIPO.
The connection was between Paul saying domains are naming resources and you saying they were just addresses. So domains, as they can be used as such (e.g. fordsucks.com) they are in fact speech.
J> That's why their victory will be hollow: because even if they do win the war, they will utterly fail in stifling criticism.
But it is okay with you if they will muffle it by taking control of the DNS?
All words are trademarks. The DNS was not meant as trademark system was it?
Virtually ALL words are trademarked, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. True or False?
Why then - AS CONFLICT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID - do they not want solution to stop 'trademark conflict' and 'consumer confussion'?
The ANSWER is quite simple - Big Business wish dominant control of these words.
Reason being, they wish to flout Unfair Competition Law.
By giving priority to trademarks for ALL words, the authorities totally disrespect your rights to use them. True or False?
WHY is that, do you think?
The ANSWER is quite simple - amongst other reasons, they do not wish open public criticism of them.
Reason being, a good domain name shouts it louder.
I said, "Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?"
You replied, "NEITHER!"
You later say, "Further, if I'm going to go looking for information about the WIPO, there's not a reason in the world why I'd blindly type wipo.org.uk into my browser's URL window, any more..."
Which are you most likely to find looking for information about UN WIPO in the UK - and which more likely to remember in a weeks time?
You also say, "Neither one of those addresses carries any information whatsoever about the point you're propounding."
As UN WIPO.org take away like sounding domain names to trademarks (like United Nations has trademark 'WIPO') - I think it makes my point quite well - True or False?
P.S. You also said, "Here's where you lose me: I see no logical connection whatsoever between Paul's statement and this one."
There was a paragraph in between those two, meant to explain WIPO.org.uk was a NAMED RESOURCE - you said domains are just addresses.
Given your expertise Jay, I am greatly suprised that you don't get it.
You say, "Domain names are addresses, people! They're not speech!"
That is a simplistic and slightly misleading statement.
Domains names are for naming resources.
Paul Mockapetris, DNS creator, said, "The goal of domain names is to provide a mechanism for naming resources in such a way that the names are usable in different hosts, networks, protocol families, internets, and administrative organizations."
I use WIPO.org.uk because the United Nations use WIPO.org to take away domains from owners. There was no better domain for me to make protest and publish the solution to trademark problem.
ICANN and Big Business want control over words you can use on the Internet. They say to stop trademark problems - to my mind that is a lie. For one thing, they want to muffle you.
Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
You would think then, they would want solution to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' on the Internet - wouldn't you?
A solution that does not make restrictions upon them or mean giving up their dot com domains?
The answer was self-evident - but they do not want it. This is even though Sunrise and UDRP abridges US citizen rights to even use dictionary words - it also gives priority of one trademark over another - with non-trademark holder standing no chance. This violates First Amendment principles and is against Unfair Competition Law.
Paul Mockapetris, creator of the Domain Name System was asked, what do you wish you had invented?
He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
The Internet is going to the dogs.
Fact: UDRP is not only imperfect and inconsistent - it a fatally flawed system.
Fact: You are being deceived - the authorities know the answer to trademark problems on the Internet.
The United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization are hiding it.
The US Patent and Trademark Office virtually admitted this, "The questions you raised with respect to trademark conflicts, as well as the proposed solutions, have their basis in good common-sense. As such, they have been debated and discussed quite exhaustively within the USPTO, the Administration, and internationally."
Honest attorneys, including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III (UN WIPO panellist judge), have ratified the solution.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
This is most important - as Sunrise and UDRP abridges what words people can use in an open (repeat - OPEN) gTLD. They also give priority of one business over another.
Please keep re-reading last paragraph until you completely understand - they violate the First Amendment and go against Unfair Competition Law.
That is quite apart and separate from the fact that they know the solution.
Which is this:
User enters apple.com - is redirected to apple.computer.us.reg
User enters apple.newTLD - is redirected to apple.record.uk.reg
In the address bar - can you tell the difference between, apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?
So, no 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' there then.
A new restricted TLD, of.REG, for trademarks would act as certificate of authentication and directory, when entered directly.
Lawyers read feeble excuses link on my site before replying - I have heard them all.
Nobody wants the solution - because by not having it they gain. Primarily - Lawyers get loads of money from the conflicts and Big Business by muffling criticism and ensuring they monopolize their trademark words on the Internet.
My beliefs and findings, above and on my site, have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with United Nations WIPO.org.
Fact - Sunrise and UDRP is against Unfair Competition Law and the First Amendment.
To explain:
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
Most trademarks share the same words or initials with many others.
Any TM lawyer will tell you all that I write is true - though they will certainly disagree with my conclussion.
Most companies share the same word(s) for trademark, in a different type of business (classification).
But only one will be allowed to use it, to get the domain name in the American.US ccTLD.
For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone. Please check at USPTO.
In this example, only one can be WTO.us !!!
What about the other five ???
As this is the main American country TLD (ccTLD) - is it not unfair on the others, that one should be given priority over them?
The same goes for all words in the dictionary - a few will get priority over the many.
Point 1 - I thought it unlawful to award it to just one - is it not against unfair competition law?
Point 2 - This is abridgement of words that small businesses (without a trademark) and the American people can use - Surely it violates the First Amendment?
Perhaps a lawyer would like to address these two points.
None have so far - wonder why?
No - I don't wonder why - I know the truth of the matter.
My logical conclussion is this: Big Business is abusing the powers of their trademarks, the Lawyers are making a fortune out of it and the Authorities are corrupt.
The authorities know the solution to trademark conflict with domain names. It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) on these domain and trademark problems.
Because of they way the Internet is being mismanaged, conflict is impossible to avoid.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone.
The solution to exclusively identify all trademark domains was always self-evident.
It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
I truly believe that the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce hide it for reasons of money and power - that they are corrupt.
They wish to abridge peoples right to use these words - they violate the First Amendment.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see the simple solution - no connection with United Nations WIPO.org;-)
I will draw your attention to my posting below, with reference to the following quote from your link:
"Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)"
I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) about these domain and trademark problems.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce already knew that a restricted TLD was required for trademarks (e.g. dot REG).
They knew the answer to exclusively identify ALL trademark domains.
Information for lawyers - yes I know all about classifications and all the other 'so-called' problems.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see rationale behind the solution (which was self-evident).
Incidentally, you would think the news media would report on WIPO.org.uk - as the United Nations WIPO.org take away similar domains to trademarks - wouldn't you?
Also they would report the fact that the solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, a UN WIPO panellist judge himself.
I have contacted over 100 news editors and journalists of newspapers and TV. Perhaps they are all ignorant imbeciles and could not recognize a story if it bit their bottom;-)
Somebody please explain how reading emails, or using carnivore, or putting in backdoors will stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. personal contact, courier and steganography.
They will HAVE TO - or get caught.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiesce - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason, why they want this information - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - this bull* will not protect you from terrorists.
Incidentally, the United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization know the solution to domain name and trademark problems.
I have been warning about this problem on WIPO.org.uk for some time now.
Virtually every word is trademarked, even the common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Caterpillar tractors claimed 'cat' is 'their' trademark on the Internet - even though hundreds of trademarks use the word 'cat' - again in U.S. alone (see for yourself).
Conflict with trademark and domain name is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid. Yet, the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution. It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.ORG) and the United States Department of Commerce know how to solve trademark and domain name conflict. They hide the answer to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is impossible to avoid - surely they would have to be corrupt people not to use solution?
It is obvious a restricted TLD is required to replace the ® trademark symbol. The World Intellectual Property Organisation SWIPE domains from the lawful owner - so I got SWIPO.ORG to redirect to them.
Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from SWIPO.ORG.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see the simple solution.
Slashdot Mirror
In this context, here are two definitions for you.
Moron: Somebody who believes that government reading your emails is about catching terrorists.
Terrorists know about Echelon and will use other methods e.g. personal courier - either that or get caught.
Moron: Somebody who says, "They can read my email - I have nothing to hide."
This information can be used retrospectively against you - wait until you get a just cause to fight. The UK government love to put down protesters - as can be seen when they tried to get the dirt on Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom I presume would have nothing to worry about, having her emails read.
News article: Labour admits second email seeking searches on rail group
Labour has found another email from a government adviser seeking information searches on the Paddington rail campaigners.
The adviser to Stephen Byers, sent a second request for the searches - which have been seen as an attempt to 'dig dirt' on members of the public.
Dan Corry's email to the Labour headquarters at Millbank Tower expressed a wish to find out what was behind the group's criticisms of Stephen Byers.
In it, Mr Corry said: "Any other checking useful. They seem to have an anti-SB agenda and we want to find out what lies behind it."
The department said the second email had been unearthed in a "very thorough" trawl of the email traffic from Mr Byers's special advisers.
A spokesman said it failed to reach the Labour Party owing to "intermittent difficulties" with the system.
The disclosure last week of Mr Corry's original email asking for information about the political affiliations of the Paddington group, prompted bitter accusations that the Government was trying to smear the crash survivors for asking awkward questions.
It led to unreserved apologies from Mr Corry and from new Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.
Story filed: 02:35 Tuesday 11th June 2002
Beware corporate theft of your domain name. Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
I had asked the question before on ICANNs own forum: It seems to me difficulties are due to piss poor management and nothing to do with need for structural reform. For instance, why stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have you looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
Karls platform.
***End quote.
In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
ICANN minutes.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.
>* Please point it out then as I couldn't find the section to which you refer.
.reg registrations."
. class.reg.
.reg as directory - because people will KNOW who ford.carmaker.us.reg is when redirected from ford.com. As it stands, nobody either small business or person can use the word 'ford' without risk of Ford Motors wrath.
Simply hold down ctrl key and press F - type in the word feeble.
> A country isn't compelled to differentiate marks solely by the criteria you listed.
In feeble excuses link, "Each country would control its own
> name.submostclass.secondsubmostclass.....subclass
As it is one attribute, the subclass could be single field.
> * However, how are users going to know what class to use for a given company?
This has already been decided - look at trademark records. You talk of using
Would suggest plurals removed and if required multiple entries, give several listings.
Other languages can easily be accomodated.
> * A judge decides if a mark is confusing.
Look at trademark process - the mark is submitted first to see if it does conflict or infringes.
> * Why not make this yellow page site your goal then?
Because certain trademarks are abusing their powers to claim world rights to a word or initials.
I have several ideas for trademark directory e.g. apple.reg lists all apple trademarks in default country.
> The Canadian rapeseed industry became, quite quickly, the Canola industry.
Two entries.
> You completely avoided the issue of correlation versus causation.
Do you deny these rules and laws and Sunrise were brought in to protect big business trademarks - without due regard to small businesses without trademark and peoples rights to use these words?
> Claiming things to be indisputably self-evident is a bit different than giving indisputable proof.
I submit the evidence that they are corrupt is very compelling. Indeed, there is no other likely reason - can you give one?
> There's no need to repeat the same comment in article after article.
The fact it is the first time you saw it bares true witness that it does - again, am I correct?
> * I don't think moderation on slashdot is a particularly credible measure of the quality of a posting or whether it needed repeating.
It shows your opinion is one of many.
> , I'd at least expect you to realize that such biased implications aren't going to do much for your argument.
They are reasoned logical conclusions based on all facts.
> Equating honesty with agreeing with your point is simply logical silliness.
You misrepresent me - I did not say that - did I?
I equate honesty with being decietful, using spin and refusing to confirm or deny basic facts in their answer.
There are four essential requirements to identify registered trademarks on the Internet:
1. name
2. classification
3. country
4. trademark identifier
Try to find a Honest Lawyer who will deny this - you will not.
> If a large portion of the legal community had examined your proposal and the disagreement was minimal, you might have an argument.
A very large section of the legal community have examined my proposal - making a lot of money from these problems, they refuse to comment.
> When you talk to a small number of people, arguing that a failure to deny is implicit assent to being fact is absurdity.
Ask yourself objectively - why do they refuse to confirm or deny?
> I don't wish to remain anonymous but I don't participate in the user system here because I disagree with its design.
Are you Neil, Steven or James?
> First of all, you don't address the issue of unregistered versus registered trademarks.
.reg to replace ® RTM, also class & country ESSENTIAL to identify ALL trademarks on the Internet?
Yes I do - it is one of the feeble excuses used by some lawyers - see that link on the site.
> Even if you build in all these attributes, what do you when a country adds a new one in the future?
Multiple registered trademarks are accomodated. All trademarks are distinctive from others or declared invalid - so they can all be seperated.
> There is no ontology for class naming.
Classification is set - subclasses can be used.
> You give examples like "record" and "computing" but there are many aspects of the record and computing business and a company may not have the registered trademark in all of them. [stupid examples]
A trademark is not allowed were there is risk of 'consumer confusion' or conflict with prior trademark - is it not?
> What do you do if you grant someone name.class.reg but the idea of what 'class' is later changes?
All this is mentioned in feeble excuses link. Like multiple entries in yellow pages, give several listings.
> Industries diverge from their original intent, specialize into subindustries, or change what they call themselves on a regular basis. When the bar industry starts being called the baz industry, how do you make the change to all existing domains under bar without causing mass confusion for users?
You appear to be talking twaddle - give real world example.
> Based on actions people or groups take, you assign reasons for why they took those actions. You don't seem to have the necessary information to make deductions of that sort.
Yes I do.
1) They know registered trademarks have four attributes.
2) They abridge peoples rights to use common words with Sunrise and UDRP.
3) They allow some trademarks priority over others.
4) They cite 'consumer confusion' or 'trademark conflict' for doing this - when they could remove those excuses.
> When a group doesn't respond, you call them "cowardly". How do you know they are cowards as opposed to being too busy to respond, ordered not to, or not having finished thinking about the idea.
In their responses, US Government Departments (DoC & PTO) have been evasive to the basic point of my emails: Is an trademark identifier, like
They have always known this to be true - ERGO they are cowards.
> How do you know someone is corrupt just because they disagree with you?
Don't be stupid - they are corrupt because they allow abuse of peoples rights and allow unfair competition.
> What if I really just disagree with what you think?
Then give reasoned reply why registered trademarks do not have four attributes OR say why peoples rights should be abused and unfair competition allowed.
> Even if WIPO tells you your ideas are silly.
It is *indisputable* that the answer was self-evident. Though some idiots try to muddy the water.
> Posting the same thing repeatedly does not contribute to the discussion.
It has only been posted once on this discussion - has it not?
> But I didn't want to see it so it I am irrelevant to the argument that it needed repeating.
The fact my post has been moderated as Interesting shows your opinion is just one of many - so does need repeating (when applicable on different discussions).
No Trademark Lawyer has denied the basic fact - registered trademark can be identified on the Internet by four attributes: name.class.country.identifier
A few honest Lawyers have admitted this FACT.
What you state is obviously true, "The new TLDs that ICANN are proposing will simply cause more chaos. They will not solve anything."
They use these new gTLDs and Sunrise Period as propaganda - I say the same thing on my site:
Ask them to deny this:
THOUSANDs of new 'open' TLDs will not solve any problem - even if every one has 'Sunrise Period'
It will not solve 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' or stop anybody 'passing off'.
Also, as an example on Sunrise, thousands of trademarks using word 'Apple' have no guarantee of being able to use name.
Apple computers will still protect and make claim to every Apple.[anything] - even though they share word with 727 others in the USA alone (plus all those in 200+ countries).
Sunrise gives Big Business priority over the people and is unfair to small businesses without a trademark.
Like you say, "The solution is so simple and so obvious that they can't possibly have missed it."
This is just two reasons why I believe them corrupt.
Your managed heirarchy solution is the obvious technical solution - except for registered trademarks - they HAVE TO USE four attributes to make unique. Every trademark is distinctive from others or declared invalid.
Four essential requirements:
1. name
2. classification
3. country
4. trademark identifier
Nobody in the Legal Profession has denied this.
Please explain why the solution is wrong - if you can.
;-)
As to being a raving nut - my logic is reasoned and rational - please explain what is not - if you can.
How can a post to these threads be spam - if it is on topic?
The fact that you have not seen the solution before, bares witness to the fact it needs repeating - does it not?
If you do not answer these points, then you clearly are a coward - no wonder you wish to remain anonymous
First off - trademarks are a good thing - for consumer and business.
Fact: UDRP is bull* propaganda.
For one thing, it goes against Unfair Competition Law - they give priority to one business above others, who share the same word(s) or initials. For another they abridge the use of words to the people.
I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) on these domain and trademark problems.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.
For example, the World Trade Organization - WTO shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone. The same with any initials, International Trade Centre - ITC, International Monetary Fund - IMF etc., etc., etc.
Same for any word apple, ball, cat etc., etc., etc. They all are shared by many other businesses.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce know the answer to exclusively identify ALL trademark domains.
It would allow ALL to use their trademark, without 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Based on all evidence, I believe the authorities are corrupt. If they truly wanted rid of these problems, why do they not use the solution?
People and small non-trademarked businesses could then use domains without these excuses being used to take away (steal) their legal property in UDRP.
The simple solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see - no connection with United Nations WIPO.org.
Fact 1: Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
Fact 2: The authorities steal words that belong to everybody and give them to Big Business - because domain names were not designed to be trademarks. Ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System. He was asked, what do you wish you had invented? His reply, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
Fact 3: The UN World Intellectual Property Organization and the US Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. Please see at WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with the United Nations WIPO.org.
I apologize - good grammar is not one of my skills :-)
;-)
But you are obviously of good intelligent to get my meaning
BM> I'm refuting your post that suggests that you let your beliefs interefer with your findings.
My beliefs are based on reasoned logic - and have not been refuted. My findings are objective - and can be proven to be so. Please give evidence that the findings are not objective.
BM> I interpret this as if you think that your beliefs - in conjunction with your findings - have proven something, which of course is rubbish.
As my reply above shows - you misinterpret.
BM> I don't see corruptness or conspiracies here...
Just like there was no corruptness or conspiracies at Enron.
I see it to be just like there - they all gain - the Lawyers, ICANN, WIPO and US DOC.
You are either niave, stupid or somebody with vested interest (e.g. Lawyer or in Big Business).
I believe the corruption runs deep through ICANN right to the United States Department of Commerce.
For instance, checkout JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN.
A quote from Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
***End quote.
In a good two month period in October and November 2000 they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers; I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
They would lose a lot of money, if there were less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption.
G> My beliefs and findings, [...], have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made."
;-)
BM> That statement makes me wonder whether your findings and your ways to gather them really are separated from you beliefs.
You have no idea how I gathered them, have you Big Mouth?
I have spoken to many in the Legal Profession and also both US and UK authorities.
The authorities know to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'. They could let ALL trademarks be used on the Internet without these problems.
Not one lawyer has been able to refute the solution.
Perhaps you would like to have a go - if you think your hard enough
No? - Perhaps then, you would explain why they do not use it?
Please check feeble excuses link before answering.
So, given that no all trademarks can use their mark (against Unfair Competition Law) - are they corrupt or are they stupid?
My money, given that they have virtually admitted knowing solution, is that they are corrupt.
I will tie both your posts together.
J> Case in point: I have a page which describes my rotten experiences with the Ford Motor Company and a 1992 Explorer, at http://www.conmicro.cx/explorer.html. I didn't go out and register fordsucks.com, even though I could have in 1994 when I had the problem. Guess what? People have no trouble finding the page anyway.
Do you not think a lot more people would find it at fordsucks.com?
Do you not think, using it like the title to a book, fordsucks.com expresses more about what you think of them?
Surely you can see, fordsucks.com is better for this?
J> You still fail to show how a corporation with a trademarked name is preventing you from expressing your opinion.
The authorities know how to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'. They could let ALL trademarks be used on the Internet without these problems.
These are OPEN (repeat OPEN) TLD - the US DOC and ICANN could have many 'restricted' TLD for trademarks, so are allowing this conflict to muffle you.
They are also allowing this conflict so that (as all words are trademarked) they can take domains from the legal owner e.g. JT.com and crew.com.
G> Virtually ALL words are trademarked, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. True or False?
J> True but irrelevant. So what if you can't use their name in the address? They can't do a thing about the content of your page.
On your thinking, the title of a book could not specify its contents.
G> By giving priority to trademarks for ALL words, the authorities totally disrespect your rights to use them. True or False?
J> False. You can use trademarks all you want to in the content of your page. All that's required is that you acknowledge their ownership. You can't use them in the address of your page, but you still fail to explain why this is relevant.
You are saying a book title cannot explain its contents. Perhaps I will explain better on this:
J> This still doesn't establish any connection between Paul's statement that the DNS is for naming resources and your contention that ICANN and big business are out to muffle free speech. It is that connection that I believe is nonexistent, and asserting that connection without backing it up is the flaw in the argument against ICANN and WIPO.
The connection was between Paul saying domains are naming resources and you saying they were just addresses. So domains, as they can be used as such (e.g. fordsucks.com) they are in fact speech.
J> That's why their victory will be hollow: because even if they do win the war, they will utterly fail in stifling criticism.
But it is okay with you if they will muffle it by taking control of the DNS?
All words are trademarks. The DNS was not meant as trademark system was it?
Paul Mockapetris was asked, what do you wish you had invented?
He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
Do you not agree with him? - I know that I do.
The DNS is not for trademarks to own - is it?
You miss the point:
Virtually ALL words are trademarked, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. True or False?
Why then - AS CONFLICT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID - do they not want solution to stop 'trademark conflict' and 'consumer confussion'?
The ANSWER is quite simple - Big Business wish dominant control of these words.
Reason being, they wish to flout Unfair Competition Law.
By giving priority to trademarks for ALL words, the authorities totally disrespect your rights to use them. True or False?
WHY is that, do you think?
The ANSWER is quite simple - amongst other reasons, they do not wish open public criticism of them.
Reason being, a good domain name shouts it louder.
I said, "Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?"
You replied, "NEITHER!"
You later say, "Further, if I'm going to go looking for information about the WIPO, there's not a reason in the world why I'd blindly type wipo.org.uk into my browser's URL window, any more..."
Which are you most likely to find looking for information about UN WIPO in the UK - and which more likely to remember in a weeks time?
You also say, "Neither one of those addresses carries any information whatsoever about the point you're propounding."
As UN WIPO.org take away like sounding domain names to trademarks (like United Nations has trademark 'WIPO') - I think it makes my point quite well - True or False?
P.S. You also said, "Here's where you lose me: I see no logical connection whatsoever between Paul's statement and this one."
There was a paragraph in between those two, meant to explain WIPO.org.uk was a NAMED RESOURCE - you said domains are just addresses.
Given your expertise Jay, I am greatly suprised that you don't get it.
You say, "Domain names are addresses, people! They're not speech!"
That is a simplistic and slightly misleading statement.
Domains names are for naming resources.
Paul Mockapetris, DNS creator, said, "The goal of domain names is to provide a mechanism for naming resources in such a way that the names are usable in different hosts, networks, protocol families, internets, and administrative organizations."
I use WIPO.org.uk because the United Nations use WIPO.org to take away domains from owners. There was no better domain for me to make protest and publish the solution to trademark problem.
ICANN and Big Business want control over words you can use on the Internet. They say to stop trademark problems - to my mind that is a lie. For one thing, they want to muffle you.
Which of these gets the message across better: WIPO.org.uk OR freespace.virgin.net/garry.anderson/WIPO?
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
You would think then, they would want solution to stop 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' on the Internet - wouldn't you?
A solution that does not make restrictions upon them or mean giving up their dot com domains?
The answer was self-evident - but they do not want it. This is even though Sunrise and UDRP abridges US citizen rights to even use dictionary words - it also gives priority of one trademark over another - with non-trademark holder standing no chance. This violates First Amendment principles and is against Unfair Competition Law.
Paul Mockapetris, creator of the Domain Name System was asked, what do you wish you had invented?
.REG, for trademarks would act as certificate of authentication and directory, when entered directly.
He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
The Internet is going to the dogs.
Fact: UDRP is not only imperfect and inconsistent - it a fatally flawed system.
Fact: You are being deceived - the authorities know the answer to trademark problems on the Internet.
The United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization are hiding it.
The US Patent and Trademark Office virtually admitted this, "The questions you raised with respect to trademark conflicts, as well as the proposed solutions, have their basis in good common-sense. As such, they have been debated and discussed quite exhaustively within the USPTO, the Administration, and internationally."
Honest attorneys, including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III (UN WIPO panellist judge), have ratified the solution.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
This is most important - as Sunrise and UDRP abridges what words people can use in an open (repeat - OPEN) gTLD. They also give priority of one business over another.
Please keep re-reading last paragraph until you completely understand - they violate the First Amendment and go against Unfair Competition Law.
That is quite apart and separate from the fact that they know the solution.
Which is this:
User enters apple.com - is redirected to apple.computer.us.reg
User enters apple.newTLD - is redirected to apple.record.uk.reg
In the address bar - can you tell the difference between, apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?
So, no 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' there then.
A new restricted TLD, of
Lawyers read feeble excuses link on my site before replying - I have heard them all.
Nobody wants the solution - because by not having it they gain. Primarily - Lawyers get loads of money from the conflicts and Big Business by muffling criticism and ensuring they monopolize their trademark words on the Internet.
My beliefs and findings, above and on my site, have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with United Nations WIPO.org.
Fact - Sunrise and UDRP is against Unfair Competition Law and the First Amendment.
.US ccTLD.
To explain:
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
Most trademarks share the same words or initials with many others.
Any TM lawyer will tell you all that I write is true - though they will certainly disagree with my conclussion.
Most companies share the same word(s) for trademark, in a different type of business (classification).
But only one will be allowed to use it, to get the domain name in the American
For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone. Please check at USPTO.
In this example, only one can be WTO.us !!!
What about the other five ???
As this is the main American country TLD (ccTLD) - is it not unfair on the others, that one should be given priority over them?
The same goes for all words in the dictionary - a few will get priority over the many.
Point 1 - I thought it unlawful to award it to just one - is it not against unfair competition law?
Point 2 - This is abridgement of words that small businesses (without a trademark) and the American people can use - Surely it violates the First Amendment?
Perhaps a lawyer would like to address these two points.
None have so far - wonder why?
No - I don't wonder why - I know the truth of the matter.
My logical conclussion is this: Big Business is abusing the powers of their trademarks, the Lawyers are making a fortune out of it and the Authorities are corrupt.
The authorities know the solution to trademark conflict with domain names. It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
Please see it yourself at WIPO.org.uk).
No bull* propaganda or spin from trademark lawyers - see feeble excuses link on the site.
I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) on these domain and trademark problems.
;-)
Because of they way the Internet is being mismanaged, conflict is impossible to avoid.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone.
The solution to exclusively identify all trademark domains was always self-evident.
It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
I truly believe that the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce hide it for reasons of money and power - that they are corrupt.
They wish to abridge peoples right to use these words - they violate the First Amendment.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see the simple solution - no connection with United Nations WIPO.org
I will draw your attention to my posting below, with reference to the following quote from your link:
"Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)"
By attacking these sites, Big Business wish to muffle criticism.
They also wish to have sole control of these WORDS - have PRIORITY over others using the same words as them.
Like I say - MOST share the same words with others.
e.g. Why should Dell Computers have priority over others using the word Dell?
This one from the year 1943 - filing Date October 27, 1958 - don't they have precedence?
Word Mark DELL - US Serial Number 72061365
Goods and Services IC 016. US 038. G & S: PAPERBACK BOOKS AND PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS. FIRST USE: 19430500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19430500
Lawyers are making a loads of money from Big Business clients attacking these sucks sites.
These are reasons why they both do not want a solution to this problem - they are CORRUPT.
The moderator of my previous post was being disingenuous - the contents was on topic - so is either moron, lawyer or in Big Business.
Free Speech is a right - not a privilege. Americans - check out the First Amendment: they abridge what words you can use.
I have been communicating with US and UK Government (and lawyers) about these problems for some time now.
;-)
The authorities know the solution - restricted TLD for trademarks.
ICANN President Stuart Lynn and Chairman Vint Cerf made admission about restricted top-level domains to Reuters.
"More people I talk to think it's the more likely direction," said Llyn.
I wonder why UN WIPO or US DOC did not tell them - (not).
WIPO took these domains, saying they were "confusingly similar" to the company's actual name.
This is just SPIN and PROPAGANDA - they know the solution.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.
For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone.
The authorities allow this conflict to continue, for reasons stated on my site and in comments to WIPO.
Domains could be made unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be.
The solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, himself a UN WIPO panellist judge.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see it.
Nothing to do with the United Nations Organization - WIPO.org
I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) about these domain and trademark problems.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce already knew that a restricted TLD was required for trademarks (e.g. dot REG).
They knew the answer to exclusively identify ALL trademark domains.
Information for lawyers - yes I know all about classifications and all the other 'so-called' problems.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see rationale behind the solution (which was self-evident).
Incidentally, you would think the news media would report on WIPO.org.uk - as the United Nations WIPO.org take away similar domains to trademarks - wouldn't you?
Also they would report the fact that the solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, a UN WIPO panellist judge himself.
I have contacted over 100 news editors and journalists of newspapers and TV. Perhaps they are all ignorant imbeciles and could not recognize a story if it bit their bottom
Somebody please explain how reading emails, or using carnivore, or putting in backdoors will stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. personal contact, courier and steganography.
They will HAVE TO - or get caught.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiesce - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason, why they want this information - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - this bull* will not protect you from terrorists.
Incidentally, the United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization know the solution to domain name and trademark problems.
You will find it at WIPO.org.uk.
I have been warning about this problem on WIPO.org.uk for some time now.
Virtually every word is trademarked, even the common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Caterpillar tractors claimed 'cat' is 'their' trademark on the Internet - even though hundreds of trademarks use the word 'cat' - again in U.S. alone (see for yourself).
Conflict with trademark and domain name is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid. Yet, the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org) and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution. It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.ORG) and the United States Department of Commerce know how to solve trademark and domain name conflict. They hide the answer to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is impossible to avoid - surely they would have to be corrupt people not to use solution?
It is obvious a restricted TLD is required to replace the ® trademark symbol. The World Intellectual Property Organisation SWIPE domains from the lawful owner - so I got SWIPO.ORG to redirect to them.
Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from SWIPO.ORG.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see the simple solution.