If someone registered a domain in my name without my permission, they don't have a right to the fraudulently obtained domain but neither do I unless I'm up-front and make a claim based on the fraudulent previous registration. Even then my claim may not hold water - the "rightful" owner may be "nobody, the domain goes back into the hopper of unclaimed domain names."
I should never pretend to be the person who actually registered it. That's fraud.
That is total nonsense. First, you are not claiming to be the person who actually registered it. You are claiming to be the person of record in the DNS records. That is not a lie. The person has put YOUR name and address there. Consider it a gift free and clear if you must. If they want to contest it later, let them come forward. There are plenty of DNS records that are registered by some clerk in a business using the contact info of the person responsible. It's normal. Your boss says "register domains x, y, and z, and put in the same contact info as our main site".
This is one reason never to use an anonymous registration service. This makes it very easy to "steal back" your own identity (though by definition you can't "steal" what is already legally in your name). If the company had used an anonymous service, the con artist would have registered it using a made-up identity. That squat would be a lot harder to rectify, and that is what the employer wants fixed asap.
Example
Someone registers a hate site soliciting donations using your contact info. Are you really going to wait a year for the domain to lapse, or are you going to send a pdf with proof of identity, take over the web site, and change the site so that it's a repudiation of everything and details what really happened, and the steps you took?
The scammer will never contest it - they'd be going to jail for identity theft and fraud (they took money using your name) - and they'd still not have a legal claim to the site, same as if someone bought a newspaper subscription in your name as a gift.
My suggestion elsewhere is cheaper, quicker, and simpler. It also solves the immediate "thorn under the skin".
Since the snail-mail address info matches, all he has to do is send an email to the registrar (cc to his bosses) saying that the email address is bogus, and that he wants the domain transferred to his employer. They will ask for proof of identity (government photo id like a drivers license) and then transfer the domain. How hard is that? the process can be started tonight, the snail mail sent tomorrow by registered mail or FedEx, and the whole thing resolved by the end of the week for less than the cost of a pizza.
No lawyer needed (people get their backs up when you involve a lawyer, and any lawyer is going to want a 4-figure retainer, and will end up costing in the 5 figures).
Do this, cut your loses, negotiate a severance agreement, and move on. The company has acted legally - the only party the poster has a claim against is the original scammer, and good luck with that.
I can't believe that this place, which is supposed to be a net-aware tech forum, falls on the "hire a lawyer" approach every time. The company doesn't want to know Jack Sh*t about a lawyer. They want a solution. So does the poster.
To the original poster - if you want to thank me, I accept chocolate L-)
Just look at all the parked domains that are "monetized". Google has over 20 million domains under adsense for domains.
Throw in the others, and you've probably got 20% to 30% (there are private companies that also have millions of domains "under management") of the internet that's typo-squatting or otherwise "monetized." Often without the owners knowledge - they registered it, but never got around to using it, so instead of serving up a "not found", the registrar squats it.
Then add all the affiliate marketing scammers that do the same thing - and then add the meta-scammers, the SEO and SEM "experts", and the Internet is no better today than it was back in the days of CoolWebSearch - just that the big boys have made it legal, and for others to participate.
If he is under suspension, and not getting paid, he is free to look for work elsewhere, provided he respects any non-compete. He might as well start his job search as soon as possible, because with the current economy, it's going to be a long one.
Now is also the best time to negotiate - the longer this is not addressed, the more set in stone everything becomes.
A lawyer cannot show him he was wronged by the company - the company has acted legally. The party who wronged him was the scammer. The company has no legal liability for the acts of any 3rd party they don't have a business or contractual relationship with.
Eventually, either the domain is going to be used, or abandoned.
The public parts of the registration information at Registrar B match pretty exactly those of my legitimate domain registrations at Registrar A, including Registrar A's mailing address and phone number. The only things left out in the mailing address are the reference to a domain name and ATTN: Registrar A. Of course the anonymized email address differs as well.
So he sends, by snail mail, a notice to the registrar telling them that the email address information is not valid, and to please transfer it to his soon-to-be former employer, along with a copy to his former employer. The registrar will ask for government photo id confirming his mailing address and name, and transfer the domain. What's the big deal? No need for a lawyer.
What happens after that is anyone's guess, but the employer doesn't have to take him back, since this doesn't prove that someone else registered the domain. My advice stands - cut your losses, because there will always be suspicion, and the next time something happens, guess who the #1 suspect is going to be.
None of this requires a lawyer, just common sense, and the cost of a couple of registered letters and a few photocopies. The well is poisoned. If he does what I suggest, he will be seen as acting in good faith, but that is all that can be done. No lawyer will be able to "prove" anything - that's simply not their job, and in this case, probably not possible anyways, so he'll be blowing between $20k and $50k for nothing.
It's like a bad marriage - who cares who's right? The relationship is over, it's too poisoned to recover from. Sure, you can spend a ton of money "proving" you're right. All that will get you is more debts. Lawyers love this - people spending hundreds of dollars an hour arguing who gets custody of a half-empty bottle of dish-washing detergent (true case that finally caused one lawyer to decide to quit family law altogether).
Like I said, pick your battles. It's not YOUR $20k-$50k to prove nothing. My way, at least the domain confusion is ended. A lawyer wouldn't think of that, and would charge a 4-figure retainer before even sending the registered mail.
Pick up the biography of any famous retired lawyer who can speak honestly - they'll tell you that lawyers are for the most part lazy, stupid, unprepared, and greedy. Or search for "lawyer billable minutes scam".
I only look for domains that I think I might have a use for at some future date, so my searches are pretty narrowly focused. Then, when I have some spare time, I'll get around to doing something with it. For example, it took me a year to get around to actually using alphagfx.com and I ended up using it for something different from what I originally intended. Funny how that works out.
Or maybe we need to put more emphasis on proper education, rather than let "the great unwashed masses" remain "the great unwashed masses".
Make knowledge, not war!
Smart people, not smart bombs!
I know, it won't happen, because industry makes more profit keeping 2 million Americans in jail each year than they would by getting rid of victimless crimes and spending the money on education and job creation that would give people an alternative to crime in the first place.
This is civil - not criminal. All the lawyer will end up doing is costing you more money to tell you something you already know - U == Screwed!
The lawyer will tell you basically that, unlike criminal cases, where you have to be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that in civil matters, the indicators of your innocence have to be more than the indicators of your guilt.
It's called "the balance of probabilities." So far, the balance of the probabilities, based on the "evidence", is all in their favour.
You've already told them you didn't do it. Your best option now, unless you live in a jurisdiction that isn't "at will", is to conserve your resources while you look for another job. If this were a small enough business that the people around you would find it totally out of character for you to do this, you wouldn't be in this situation right now - they would have believed you. As it is, they don't, and worse, they can't afford to back down at this point.
Pick your fights. You've told them you didn't do it - now tell them you're not comfortable working for a place that calls you a liar and you want to discuss a severance package that includes an agreement that you were RIF'ed if anyone should ask for references. Because even if you prove you didn't do it, your job there is history, and at some level you know this is true. Besides, do you want to work for a place that calls you a liar and a crook?
I'm not being mean here, even though the tone might come across as such - it's because you really need a bucket of water (or a brick) to the face to make you realize that you're in a no-win situation. It's the same "wake up and smell the coffee" advice I'd give to my closest friends if they were in the same situation. It sucks, but so does life in general. We can't change that, but we can change how we react to it. We can either stew on it, and let it turn into acid that eats through our guts and permeates our life and our personality, or we can move on.
We all know people who, a decade later, still won't stop talking about someone who screwed them over at EVERY occasion. Try it - go on a dinner date with someone who's divorced - sometimes it's like their ex is sitting at the table with you... you want to say "you're obviously not over them. Maybe you two should get back together if you like arguing about each others actions so much. Call me when you're really single."
This is the same situation. Nobody, not a lawyer, not anyone on slashdot, can change what's happened. What we can do is give you the encouragement to help you deal with the situation in the most efficient, least destructive, way, both professionally and personally, and help you rebuild. The lawyer won't do that - their first interest is $$$. Before it's finished, this case will cost you a minimum of $20k, and probably a lot more.
If you can handle the legal stuff yourself, my advice would be a bit different, but not by much. Some things it's just best to agree to disagree, tell them that you've thought about it, and when they find the culprit, you'd like to be kept in the loop, that you won't use that info to hold them responsible, and if there's anything you can do to help, just call, and that you understand they're only trying to protect their business and the other employees, and then move on. You'll keep your respect and earn theirs. It's a small world. You never know, they may call back in a few years with good news - you should keep that door open.
I've had bosses who are dicks - even after I've quit, I tell them that if there's a problem, call me. They might be too proud to admit they made a mistake, but the smarter ones are not too proud to take my advice when they're stuck, and I'm not too proud to refuse to help them.
Or sue the registrar for not verifying the identity of the person doing the domain registration.
It's time we ended both unverified registrations and "privacy protection" for domain registrations.
Not only will it make this sort of crime harder, but it will also reduce spam, since it will be a lot easier to track down the spammer (most of whom hide behind a bogus or "private" registration).
The other route is to simply have all dns servers return a "not found" when a domain registration is not confirmed or is "private". I'd love to see a firefox plugin that does that.
flewthe.coop - nice, but not $80 a year nice. Definitely in the More Money Than Brains department. Still, I remember when everyone had to go through netsol - back in the $100 per year per domain days.
When I let it lapse because I had no further use for that project, someone else bought it, let it lapse after they couldn't sell it, and now someone else has been trying to sell it for the last decade (which will be kind of hard - they don't even have the name resolving to a parked site, which tells you how low-traffic it is). Some people really need to learn about sunk costs.
No, a trial is what is required for determining the facts. And you don't need evidence of "actual disclosure" - again, you need to stick to the issue. Read the statute. The potential for disclosure is sufficient for an injunction.
Someone actually wasted money on s.coop They're trying to palm it off as a url-shortening service (though it would have been cooler to be either an ice cream or news site).
I can think of one other.coop worth having, but can't see why I'd want to spend the $8.:)
It's more like $74.00, $120.00, or $90.00 a year. And in their stats section, you'll see that a state that has 14 coop domains registered lists the same domain a dozen times (Alabama - I picked the first state in the list). Talk about puffing up your numbers.
And the registrars are dropping support - the second one that I tried that's supposedly accredited (EuroDNS) has dropped it, as has nameisp.
p.coop is dying. Oh wait, more like "dot coop? He's dead, Jim!"
The kind of dual screen device I'd be tempted by would be like a regular netbook/laptop but on the bak (sic) of the normal scren (sic) there'd be an eInk display.
Ovbiously (sic), only one display at a time could be active.
Nah, this is the "new new" social web - you hold it vertically and leave the back active so you can share what you're doing with the whole world, instead of just the NSA.
And you can stand in front of a mirror if you want "dual-screen" mode.
You'll also get to play games like "Remove the Fingerprints" much more often.
But I think you should be more tempted by a device that does "speel-chicking" (spell-checking for the rest of us:-)
I'd rather watch something that makes me laugh than something that grosses me out.
I appreciate that it may have been "some of the most spectacular theatrical performances", but I am not going to watch a movie that uses skinning women alive as a "plot device."
I don't know what it is, but we seem to be going along a trend where we want more shock, for cheap effect. Example, a couple of nights ago, I turned on the tv and the show's intro has a woman park in the driveway at night, and the remote won't open the garage door. So she unlocks the front door, goes back to the car to get her sleeping kid out of the back seat, and walks back to the front of the house. The front door, which had only been slightly ajar, is now open wider, but it's still dark inside the house.
Sorry, but I find this sort of thing a turn-off. I'm sure many women do, or worse, have just become so desensitized from the over-exposure that when violence happens in real life, they just accept it as inevitable.
I'd rather watch Spaceballs again, or go read a book. Make me laugh instead. I'll enjoy it more, and sleep better.
While I *did* come across a 5-letter, I settled for the 6-letter one instead because I just knew people were going to mis-type it (and the 6-letter was available for all 3 of the "good" TLDs, and had never been registered before, whereas the 5-letter was a lapsed registration).
I ignore anything that's not com|org|net; if I get the com, I don't really care about the other 2 - they're just a bonus, and if I can't get com, I won't bother with the other 2 anyway.
.aero,.biz,.coop (let's face it, the only good domain name in.coop is chicken.coop), info,.jobs (hey, Steve has his own TLD),.museum,.name,.travel - these are all garbage for registrars to make more money from businesses and individuals with no imagination. It must work, which is a sad commentary.
The country tlds? I think you'll agree that she sums it up.
We don't publish the names of rape victims. Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
Using your logic every time an author decides to omit a piece of information he deems more harmful than informative an act of censorship is being committed. Such a definition so broadens (or perhaps dilutes) the definition of censorship that the word becomes virtually meaningless.
If an author withholds the name of a rape victim because the law requires him to do so it is censorship. If the author withholds the name because he believe it is the right thing to do that is not censorship.
A court-ordered publication ban is something that a writer ignores at his or her own peril. Is it censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
You know how they say "Pics or it never happened?"
The KIN 2.
We "could" have called it the Next of KIN, but it died in the same awful fiery crash. Fortunately, since only KIN 1 and KIN 2 owners were affected, the impact was almost nil.
Is it censorship? Yes.
Do you want someone killed because someone else screwed up in a cooperative deal that was supposed to prevent this? No.
Not all censorship is created equal.
We don't publish the names of children who are victims of sexual abuse.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish the names of rape victims.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish the names of stalking victims.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish your credit card info all over the net (hopefully)
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We may disagree on the standard for reasonableness, but some things really don't need to be "out there".
We practice censorship all the time.
I won't watch "Silence of the Lambs" because I walked in on the scene where some guy is hunched over a sewing machine.
"What's he doing?"
"Making a woman suit."
"A what?"
"He killed these women, skinned them, and now he's..."
"Bye!"
For me, that's not entertainment. For someone else, it is. And after hopping over to Wikipedia and reading the plot summary, I don't think I missed anything.
Adults can decide to watch it, but I think we'd agree that children below a certain age (as determined by their parents) shouldn't watch stuff like that, without triggering the "think of the children" or "censorship" alarms.
You again fail. The precedent I quoted, and I'll point it out once again, established that the court refused to invalidate the non-compete solely because it was a non-compete. The court ruled that because the non-compete was based on possible trade secret disclosure, it could not be invalidated so simply. The court specifically mentions this exception, and only then goes on to find it invalid on other grounds. Most people who write non-competes are stupid - they write them overly-broad, because people are greedy. If the non-compete had stuck to only trade secrets, the court was clear - it would have been valid.
Next point: The ONLY person who is using the term "inevitable disclosure" is you. Neither I, nor the California civil code, use it.
There is simply no such concept in the California Civil Code as "inevitable disclosure." The nearest reference, and the one HP cites, is "an actual or threatened misappropriation". Threatened does not mean calling someone up and saying "I'm going to disclose these secrets unless" - that's covered by the criminal, not civil, code. Threatened misappropriation is where there is a likelyhood, based on the conduct or position of the parties, of misappropriation of the trade secret information.
It need not be inevitable; it need not even be probable. The threshold is set on a case-by-case basis, the same as, for example, what constitutes "reasonable doubt" is left to the minds of the jury. Arguing that disclosure is not "inevitable" is irrelevant to the actual law.
If HP chooses to use the term "inevitable" in their brief, that is just to supply background - it is not their actual complaint, which is the article of the law that is cited. The judge already has that law before him. The judge doesn't have to decide that Hurd will "inevitably" disclose trade secrets. He has to decide whether Hurd and Oracles actions meet a threshold level that makes it reasonable, in his or her mind, to hold a trial to determine if they have violated the actual statute, which doesn't mention "inevitable.
The judge will not make that decision based on whether Hurd would "inevitably disclose" the trade secrets, but whether Hurd's employment might threaten to disclose those secrets, and whether that possibility warrants a trial. He or she doesn't care. Why? Because your "inevitable disclosure" is not what this case is about - it's not even part of the law. If you were to walk into a court and argue that it's not inevitable, so the case should be dismissed, the judge would say that inevitability is too high a standard, and you'd better come up with arguments that speak to the actual law in question.
Which is something you should try. You've been avoiding that all this time. So take a break, realize that you've lost this one because your continuing to argue "inevitable disclosure" shows you can't even parse a one-line article of the code, and come back with another topic. But not this week - I have a court case on Thursday - I'm forcing a fraud artist into personal bankruptcy (hey, the government won't do it so somebody has to:-), and we have the court booked for the whole day.
Yet you buy those products without hesitation from that factory town -and thousands of others like it- every time you shop. But it sure is nice to be self-righteous on the Internet isn't it?
Several years ago I went to buy a tennis racquet.
Before going, I decided that I would spend extra just to have one NOT made in China.
Guess how much extra it cost?
Good news: Not a penny extra.
Bad news: Because I couldn't find a single one that wasn't made in China.
End result: No tennis racquet for ME!
Unfortunately, when it comes to light bulbs, your options will be
(a) buy energy-saving bulbs from China, or
(b) save energy by sitting alone in the dark.
Yeah. Internet domain names are like most of the women out there. All the ones that I could probably have any serious, long-term interest in, worth committing to, well they were already spoken for and taken a long time ago.
And women say "All the good men are either married or have boyfriends.":-)
It's simply not true that all the good domain names are taken. Sure, I've seen people register longdomainnameatsoandsoplaceihavenoida.com because they have no imagination, but the supply of good short names is nowhere near depleted, even in the dot.com hierarchy. I picked up a nice 6-character one this year in the com, org, and net tlds. You just have to be a bit imaginative.
And you're a troll with NO legal experience. So what. The only opinion that counts is the judges. But the opinion I cited (and which you tried to say disproves it) refers specifically to the trademark protection provisions, and specificaly cited, acknowledged, and refused to invalidate the non-compete on the basis of an "invalid" claim for protection of trade secrets under California law. That's sufficient legal precedent to get this case before a jury unless someone spiked the judge's prune juice.
goatdaddy.com is also taken (no, I am NOT going to click on the link and see where it leads), foedaddy.com, gomommy.com, nogodaddy.com, goaddy.com, g0daddy.com, but h0daddy.com is availabile, and so is goatdaddie.com. Knock yourselves out.
The reason I do not accept your position is that it's the case law and not one's reading of black letter law that counts
Your attempt to mis-read the case law I quoted puts the lie to that little canard. As for the rest, I've probably argued - and won - more cases in both the criminal and civil courts than you - and my take is that in this case, HP is going to be able to connect the dots.
As for the rest, it's just more meaningless trolling on your part. Like everything else you've been posting:-) How many cases have you argued and won? (and no, Small Claims court doesn't count - that's the minor leagues).
Slashdot Mirror
That is total nonsense. First, you are not claiming to be the person who actually registered it. You are claiming to be the person of record in the DNS records. That is not a lie. The person has put YOUR name and address there. Consider it a gift free and clear if you must. If they want to contest it later, let them come forward. There are plenty of DNS records that are registered by some clerk in a business using the contact info of the person responsible. It's normal. Your boss says "register domains x, y, and z, and put in the same contact info as our main site".
This is one reason never to use an anonymous registration service. This makes it very easy to "steal back" your own identity (though by definition you can't "steal" what is already legally in your name). If the company had used an anonymous service, the con artist would have registered it using a made-up identity. That squat would be a lot harder to rectify, and that is what the employer wants fixed asap.
Example
Someone registers a hate site soliciting donations using your contact info. Are you really going to wait a year for the domain to lapse, or are you going to send a pdf with proof of identity, take over the web site, and change the site so that it's a repudiation of everything and details what really happened, and the steps you took?
The scammer will never contest it - they'd be going to jail for identity theft and fraud (they took money using your name) - and they'd still not have a legal claim to the site, same as if someone bought a newspaper subscription in your name as a gift.
Since the snail-mail address info matches, all he has to do is send an email to the registrar (cc to his bosses) saying that the email address is bogus, and that he wants the domain transferred to his employer. They will ask for proof of identity (government photo id like a drivers license) and then transfer the domain. How hard is that? the process can be started tonight, the snail mail sent tomorrow by registered mail or FedEx, and the whole thing resolved by the end of the week for less than the cost of a pizza.
No lawyer needed (people get their backs up when you involve a lawyer, and any lawyer is going to want a 4-figure retainer, and will end up costing in the 5 figures).
Do this, cut your loses, negotiate a severance agreement, and move on. The company has acted legally - the only party the poster has a claim against is the original scammer, and good luck with that.
I can't believe that this place, which is supposed to be a net-aware tech forum, falls on the "hire a lawyer" approach every time. The company doesn't want to know Jack Sh*t about a lawyer. They want a solution. So does the poster.
To the original poster - if you want to thank me, I accept chocolate L-)
Throw in the others, and you've probably got 20% to 30% (there are private companies that also have millions of domains "under management") of the internet that's typo-squatting or otherwise "monetized." Often without the owners knowledge - they registered it, but never got around to using it, so instead of serving up a "not found", the registrar squats it.
Then add all the affiliate marketing scammers that do the same thing - and then add the meta-scammers, the SEO and SEM "experts", and the Internet is no better today than it was back in the days of CoolWebSearch - just that the big boys have made it legal, and for others to participate.
Now is also the best time to negotiate - the longer this is not addressed, the more set in stone everything becomes.
A lawyer cannot show him he was wronged by the company - the company has acted legally. The party who wronged him was the scammer. The company has no legal liability for the acts of any 3rd party they don't have a business or contractual relationship with.
Eventually, either the domain is going to be used, or abandoned.
So he sends, by snail mail, a notice to the registrar telling them that the email address information is not valid, and to please transfer it to his soon-to-be former employer, along with a copy to his former employer. The registrar will ask for government photo id confirming his mailing address and name, and transfer the domain. What's the big deal? No need for a lawyer.
What happens after that is anyone's guess, but the employer doesn't have to take him back, since this doesn't prove that someone else registered the domain. My advice stands - cut your losses, because there will always be suspicion, and the next time something happens, guess who the #1 suspect is going to be.
None of this requires a lawyer, just common sense, and the cost of a couple of registered letters and a few photocopies. The well is poisoned. If he does what I suggest, he will be seen as acting in good faith, but that is all that can be done. No lawyer will be able to "prove" anything - that's simply not their job, and in this case, probably not possible anyways, so he'll be blowing between $20k and $50k for nothing.
It's like a bad marriage - who cares who's right? The relationship is over, it's too poisoned to recover from. Sure, you can spend a ton of money "proving" you're right. All that will get you is more debts. Lawyers love this - people spending hundreds of dollars an hour arguing who gets custody of a half-empty bottle of dish-washing detergent (true case that finally caused one lawyer to decide to quit family law altogether).
Like I said, pick your battles. It's not YOUR $20k-$50k to prove nothing. My way, at least the domain confusion is ended. A lawyer wouldn't think of that, and would charge a 4-figure retainer before even sending the registered mail.
Pick up the biography of any famous retired lawyer who can speak honestly - they'll tell you that lawyers are for the most part lazy, stupid, unprepared, and greedy. Or search for "lawyer billable minutes scam".
I only look for domains that I think I might have a use for at some future date, so my searches are pretty narrowly focused. Then, when I have some spare time, I'll get around to doing something with it. For example, it took me a year to get around to actually using alphagfx.com and I ended up using it for something different from what I originally intended. Funny how that works out.
Make knowledge, not war!
Smart people, not smart bombs!
I know, it won't happen, because industry makes more profit keeping 2 million Americans in jail each year than they would by getting rid of victimless crimes and spending the money on education and job creation that would give people an alternative to crime in the first place.
The lawyer will tell you basically that, unlike criminal cases, where you have to be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that in civil matters, the indicators of your innocence have to be more than the indicators of your guilt.
It's called "the balance of probabilities." So far, the balance of the probabilities, based on the "evidence", is all in their favour.
You've already told them you didn't do it. Your best option now, unless you live in a jurisdiction that isn't "at will", is to conserve your resources while you look for another job. If this were a small enough business that the people around you would find it totally out of character for you to do this, you wouldn't be in this situation right now - they would have believed you. As it is, they don't, and worse, they can't afford to back down at this point.
Pick your fights. You've told them you didn't do it - now tell them you're not comfortable working for a place that calls you a liar and you want to discuss a severance package that includes an agreement that you were RIF'ed if anyone should ask for references. Because even if you prove you didn't do it, your job there is history, and at some level you know this is true. Besides, do you want to work for a place that calls you a liar and a crook?
I'm not being mean here, even though the tone might come across as such - it's because you really need a bucket of water (or a brick) to the face to make you realize that you're in a no-win situation. It's the same "wake up and smell the coffee" advice I'd give to my closest friends if they were in the same situation. It sucks, but so does life in general. We can't change that, but we can change how we react to it. We can either stew on it, and let it turn into acid that eats through our guts and permeates our life and our personality, or we can move on.
We all know people who, a decade later, still won't stop talking about someone who screwed them over at EVERY occasion. Try it - go on a dinner date with someone who's divorced - sometimes it's like their ex is sitting at the table with you ... you want to say "you're obviously not over them. Maybe you two should get back together if you like arguing about each others actions so much. Call me when you're really single."
This is the same situation. Nobody, not a lawyer, not anyone on slashdot, can change what's happened. What we can do is give you the encouragement to help you deal with the situation in the most efficient, least destructive, way, both professionally and personally, and help you rebuild. The lawyer won't do that - their first interest is $$$. Before it's finished, this case will cost you a minimum of $20k, and probably a lot more.
If you can handle the legal stuff yourself, my advice would be a bit different, but not by much. Some things it's just best to agree to disagree, tell them that you've thought about it, and when they find the culprit, you'd like to be kept in the loop, that you won't use that info to hold them responsible, and if there's anything you can do to help, just call, and that you understand they're only trying to protect their business and the other employees, and then move on. You'll keep your respect and earn theirs. It's a small world. You never know, they may call back in a few years with good news - you should keep that door open.
I've had bosses who are dicks - even after I've quit, I tell them that if there's a problem, call me. They might be too proud to admit they made a mistake, but the smarter ones are not too proud to take my advice when they're stuck, and I'm not too proud to refuse to help them.
It's time we ended both unverified registrations and "privacy protection" for domain registrations.
Not only will it make this sort of crime harder, but it will also reduce spam, since it will be a lot easier to track down the spammer (most of whom hide behind a bogus or "private" registration).
The other route is to simply have all dns servers return a "not found" when a domain registration is not confirmed or is "private". I'd love to see a firefox plugin that does that.
When I let it lapse because I had no further use for that project, someone else bought it, let it lapse after they couldn't sell it, and now someone else has been trying to sell it for the last decade (which will be kind of hard - they don't even have the name resolving to a parked site, which tells you how low-traffic it is). Some people really need to learn about sunk costs.
They don't need to monitor communications to "see who closes cases." That info is already there in the database. It's a lie, and the guy is a liar.
No, a trial is what is required for determining the facts. And you don't need evidence of "actual disclosure" - again, you need to stick to the issue. Read the statute. The potential for disclosure is sufficient for an injunction.
It's more like $74.00, $120.00, or $90.00 a year. And in their stats section, you'll see that a state that has 14 coop domains registered lists the same domain a dozen times (Alabama - I picked the first state in the list). Talk about puffing up your numbers.
And the registrars are dropping support - the second one that I tried that's supposedly accredited (EuroDNS) has dropped it, as has nameisp. p.coop is dying. Oh wait, more like "dot coop? He's dead, Jim!"
Nah, this is the "new new" social web - you hold it vertically and leave the back active so you can share what you're doing with the whole world, instead of just the NSA.
And you can stand in front of a mirror if you want "dual-screen" mode.
You'll also get to play games like "Remove the Fingerprints" much more often.
But I think you should be more tempted by a device that does "speel-chicking" (spell-checking for the rest of us :-)
I appreciate that it may have been "some of the most spectacular theatrical performances", but I am not going to watch a movie that uses skinning women alive as a "plot device."
I don't know what it is, but we seem to be going along a trend where we want more shock, for cheap effect. Example, a couple of nights ago, I turned on the tv and the show's intro has a woman park in the driveway at night, and the remote won't open the garage door. So she unlocks the front door, goes back to the car to get her sleeping kid out of the back seat, and walks back to the front of the house. The front door, which had only been slightly ajar, is now open wider, but it's still dark inside the house.
Sorry, but I find this sort of thing a turn-off. I'm sure many women do, or worse, have just become so desensitized from the over-exposure that when violence happens in real life, they just accept it as inevitable.
I'd rather watch Spaceballs again, or go read a book. Make me laugh instead. I'll enjoy it more, and sleep better.
While I *did* come across a 5-letter, I settled for the 6-letter one instead because I just knew people were going to mis-type it (and the 6-letter was available for all 3 of the "good" TLDs, and had never been registered before, whereas the 5-letter was a lapsed registration).
I ignore anything that's not com|org|net; if I get the com, I don't really care about the other 2 - they're just a bonus, and if I can't get com, I won't bother with the other 2 anyway.
.aero, .biz, .coop (let's face it, the only good domain name in .coop is chicken.coop), info, .jobs (hey, Steve has his own TLD), .museum, .name, .travel - these are all garbage for registrars to make more money from businesses and individuals with no imagination. It must work, which is a sad commentary.
The country tlds? I think you'll agree that she sums it up.
A court-ordered publication ban is something that a writer ignores at his or her own peril. Is it censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
The KIN 2.
We "could" have called it the Next of KIN, but it died in the same awful fiery crash. Fortunately, since only KIN 1 and KIN 2 owners were affected, the impact was almost nil.
Do you want someone killed because someone else screwed up in a cooperative deal that was supposed to prevent this? No.
Not all censorship is created equal.
We don't publish the names of children who are victims of sexual abuse.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish the names of rape victims.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish the names of stalking victims.
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We don't publish your credit card info all over the net (hopefully)
Is that censorship? Yes. Is it wrong? No.
We may disagree on the standard for reasonableness, but some things really don't need to be "out there".
We practice censorship all the time. ..."
I won't watch "Silence of the Lambs" because I walked in on the scene where some guy is hunched over a sewing machine.
"What's he doing?"
"Making a woman suit."
"A what?"
"He killed these women, skinned them, and now he's
"Bye!"
For me, that's not entertainment. For someone else, it is. And after hopping over to Wikipedia and reading the plot summary, I don't think I missed anything.
Adults can decide to watch it, but I think we'd agree that children below a certain age (as determined by their parents) shouldn't watch stuff like that, without triggering the "think of the children" or "censorship" alarms.
Do we get one for Windows Phone 7 - the Next of KIN?
Next point: The ONLY person who is using the term "inevitable disclosure" is you. Neither I, nor the California civil code, use it.
There is simply no such concept in the California Civil Code as "inevitable disclosure." The nearest reference, and the one HP cites, is "an actual or threatened misappropriation". Threatened does not mean calling someone up and saying "I'm going to disclose these secrets unless" - that's covered by the criminal, not civil, code. Threatened misappropriation is where there is a likelyhood, based on the conduct or position of the parties, of misappropriation of the trade secret information.
It need not be inevitable; it need not even be probable. The threshold is set on a case-by-case basis, the same as, for example, what constitutes "reasonable doubt" is left to the minds of the jury. Arguing that disclosure is not "inevitable" is irrelevant to the actual law.
If HP chooses to use the term "inevitable" in their brief, that is just to supply background - it is not their actual complaint, which is the article of the law that is cited. The judge already has that law before him. The judge doesn't have to decide that Hurd will "inevitably" disclose trade secrets. He has to decide whether Hurd and Oracles actions meet a threshold level that makes it reasonable, in his or her mind, to hold a trial to determine if they have violated the actual statute, which doesn't mention "inevitable.
The judge will not make that decision based on whether Hurd would "inevitably disclose" the trade secrets, but whether Hurd's employment might threaten to disclose those secrets, and whether that possibility warrants a trial. He or she doesn't care. Why? Because your "inevitable disclosure" is not what this case is about - it's not even part of the law. If you were to walk into a court and argue that it's not inevitable, so the case should be dismissed, the judge would say that inevitability is too high a standard, and you'd better come up with arguments that speak to the actual law in question.
Which is something you should try. You've been avoiding that all this time. So take a break, realize that you've lost this one because your continuing to argue "inevitable disclosure" shows you can't even parse a one-line article of the code, and come back with another topic. But not this week - I have a court case on Thursday - I'm forcing a fraud artist into personal bankruptcy (hey, the government won't do it so somebody has to :-), and we have the court booked for the whole day.
Several years ago I went to buy a tennis racquet.
Before going, I decided that I would spend extra just to have one NOT made in China.
Guess how much extra it cost?
Good news: Not a penny extra.
Bad news: Because I couldn't find a single one that wasn't made in China.
End result: No tennis racquet for ME!
Unfortunately, when it comes to light bulbs, your options will be
(a) buy energy-saving bulbs from China, or
(b) save energy by sitting alone in the dark.
From Communist China, GE light bulb screws YOU!
And women say "All the good men are either married or have boyfriends." :-)
It's simply not true that all the good domain names are taken. Sure, I've seen people register longdomainnameatsoandsoplaceihavenoida.com because they have no imagination, but the supply of good short names is nowhere near depleted, even in the dot.com hierarchy. I picked up a nice 6-character one this year in the com, org, and net tlds. You just have to be a bit imaginative.
And you're a troll with NO legal experience. So what. The only opinion that counts is the judges. But the opinion I cited (and which you tried to say disproves it) refers specifically to the trademark protection provisions, and specificaly cited, acknowledged, and refused to invalidate the non-compete on the basis of an "invalid" claim for protection of trade secrets under California law. That's sufficient legal precedent to get this case before a jury unless someone spiked the judge's prune juice.
goatdaddy.com is also taken (no, I am NOT going to click on the link and see where it leads), foedaddy.com, gomommy.com, nogodaddy.com, goaddy.com, g0daddy.com, but h0daddy.com is availabile, and so is goatdaddie.com. Knock yourselves out.
Your attempt to mis-read the case law I quoted puts the lie to that little canard. As for the rest, I've probably argued - and won - more cases in both the criminal and civil courts than you - and my take is that in this case, HP is going to be able to connect the dots.
As for the rest, it's just more meaningless trolling on your part. Like everything else you've been posting :-) How many cases have you argued and won? (and no, Small Claims court doesn't count - that's the minor leagues).