Believe it or not, many lawyers and law students DO read and comment on Slashdot...
This is NSI's way of avoiding liability
on
Dirty Domains
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but this is why the court owns the name: NSI does not want to get sued. It is the policy of NSI (and their policies change all of the time) to hand a domain name over to the courts at the first sign of a dispute. This way NSI (who has been named in a LOT of lawsuits) can step away from the dispute without being at fault.
Here is an excerpt (with a relevant section bolded by me) from NSI's Dispute Policy:
10. Litigation. Independent of the provisions of Section 9 of the Policy, in the event that:
(a) The registrant files a civil action related to the registration and use of the domain name against the complainant in a court of competent jurisdiction, and provides Network Solutions with a copy of the file-stamped complaint, Network Solutions will maintain the status quo ante of the domain name record pending a temporary or final decision of the court. For example, if the domain name is not on "Hold," it will not be placed on "Hold;" if the domain name is already on "Hold," it will remain on "Hold." In such cases, Network Solutions will deposit control of the domain name into the registry of the court by supplying the registrant with the registry certificate for deposit. While the domain name is in the registry of the court, Network Solutions will not make any changes to the domain name record unless ordered by the court. The registrant also shall promptly provide copies of any and all pleadings filed in the action to Network Solutions upon Network Solutions' request.
This reminds me, the SABRE group happens to own a patent that covers all uses on the web of the feature that allows a user to enter a zipcode and get a list of the locations nearest to that zipcode. See US Patent 5,893,093. This is not related to what you are talking about, but it worries me.
First, I will assume that the courts, particularly the U.S. courts, will NOT enforce this patent as claiming all e-commerce. This has been tried before, and courts have implied that they are not willingly to let a patent that pre-dated the Internet claim the Internet. See, e.g., Interactive Gift Express v. Compuserve, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1997 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Interactive Gift express claimed to cover the Internet with its patent. It lost.
Now, if this Norwegian company loses its claim that its patent covers e-commerce, the patent is unenforceable, but still exists as a disclosure to the public from 1993, or whenever it was filed (I think that European patents are public from the date of filing, unlike U.S. patents.). If it is very close to describing e-commerce, then this patent may be used to show why a whole new crop of e-commerce patents may be obvious in light of this old (1993) patent.
Internet developers should be collecting references to patents like these that may be used to block the issuance or enforcement of future obvious patents. I am thinking of using the domain www.ineffectualproperty.com to start a jump point for this sort of thing. Would anyone be interested in this?
Yes. In a sense, this is also government censorship.
By enforcing the NAACP's claim to those names which they have no intent of using, the government (or whoever decides this ultimately) is basically saying that no one can use the names at all!
The lines between censorship and not-censorship are blurry to nonexistent.
You are right. A dictionary definition of "censor" would probably not include this particular form of regulation. But, how is the result any different? In the end, material is kept from the eyes of those who might want to see it...
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
The theory that Toys 'R' Us uses in such suits is slightly different than trademark infringement. They claim that even if the goods sold under the offending mark don't compete with Toys 'R' Us, the mark "dilutes" their famous mark that they spent a ton of money to build up. In all fairness, Toys 'R' Us has worked quite hard at making the "'R' Us" label meaningful...
But, that argument is circular; 'R' Us only has value because a court is willing to enforce it as having value. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd have to agree with you that it is questionable that a company could grab hold of a phrase and prevent even non-competitive uses of that phrase...
The Supreme Court is a lot more likely to take a case where the Circuit Courts are in disagreement. So let's hope that Justice DOES charge someone else in another circuit and wins. Then, in a couple of years, *sigh*, the Supreme Court would decide... the Court is conservative, but generally pro-speech.
cost of renting the film, paying for labor, rent for the building, cut of sales that goes back to the distributor et al.... The profit does come from concessions.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It is amusing how some people are quick to claim that a thing such as a game could not possibly change behavior, but a thing such as a gun can... It seems to me that it would be the other way around if anything.
Uh... the United States is a lot more laissez-faire than the rest of the world, in general. Don't think that just because something doesn't make sense that it must be unique to the U.S.!
This is what happens when the administrative state is allowed to grow out of control. But, as was mentioned in an earlier post, you have to admit that this policy is consistent with the existence of a minimum wage, maximum working hours, etc...
No, the arguments in the article are not as applicable to patents as they are to copyrights. In my view, the Internet has not changed the invention landscape enough to reach the conclusion that patents no longer encourage invention. Non-software patents, and even some software patents, require intensive capital investment that would not exist but for patent monopoly. Copyright is another story...
I don't think that the murder analogy is perfect. The whole rationale for preventing murder is that killing is "wrong." Even if murder is not completely prevented it is still "wrong" and therefore proscribable. Copyright, on the other hand, exists to provide incentives to produce and share future work by preventing others from copying that work. If copyright does not acheive this goal, it does not serve its purpose and should be modified. The Internet, and the open software movement, certainly cast doubt on the efficacy and necessity of copyright in achieving this goal.
Now, if you regard your works as something that you have an inalienable right to, then you could make the argument that it is in fact "wrong" to copy your works without permission. I don't think, however, that this was the original justification for copyright. I do agree with you that the labor theory of property should govern. You put in the sweat; it's yours...
This decision is not about trademarks. It is about being able to find a way to be reimbursed for legal fees (what is greedy about that?). The judge ruled that the company's other domain names were property that could be taken in order to satify the judgement in favor of Umbro. I don't understand why you are so upset about this.
No, the decision described in the article doesn't deal with the trademark aspect of domain names. Umbro won the right to the domain name in a previous suit. Since the company was Canadian, Umbro could not seize any of the company's assets as damages. So, the court in this case ruled that the Canadian company's other domain names were property that could be taken and auctioned off. A property right in the domain name is a lot more valuable than the previous license to the domain name! This is good for domain name holders.
Exactly. I doubt many would defend intellectual property as *actual* property, since it is clearly a social construct (so is "real" property, but that is another story). Protection of intellectual property spurs development (perhaps even toward that eternal ear of corn mentioned in the essay). As long as society values technological development and wealth, then monopolistic IP seems to be a rather effective way to do it! Forgive my armchair empiricism; I'd love to hear an argument about how technology can be better encouraged in a world without IP...
Slashdot Mirror
One problem: To become a patent attorney/agent, you must pass the patent bar, which requires that you have a degree in a science/engineering field.
Believe it or not, many lawyers and law students DO read and comment on Slashdot...
Here is an excerpt (with a relevant section bolded by me) from NSI's Dispute Policy:
10. Litigation. Independent of the provisions of Section 9 of the Policy, in the
event that:
(a) The registrant files a civil action related to the registration and use of
the domain name against the complainant in a court of competent
jurisdiction, and provides Network Solutions with a copy of the
file-stamped complaint, Network Solutions will maintain the status quo
ante of the domain name record pending a temporary or final decision
of the court. For example, if the domain name is not on "Hold," it will
not be placed on "Hold;" if the domain name is already on "Hold," it will
remain on "Hold." In such cases, Network Solutions will deposit
control of the domain name into the registry of the court by supplying
the registrant with the registry certificate for deposit. While the domain
name is in the registry of the court, Network Solutions will not make
any changes to the domain name record unless ordered by the court.
The registrant also shall promptly provide copies of any and all
pleadings filed in the action to Network Solutions upon Network
Solutions' request.
Good ideas! ;)
This reminds me, the SABRE group happens to own a patent that covers all uses on the web of the feature that allows a user to enter a zipcode and get a list of the locations nearest to that zipcode. See US Patent 5,893,093. This is not related to what you are talking about, but it worries me.
Now, if this Norwegian company loses its claim that its patent covers e-commerce, the patent is unenforceable, but still exists as a disclosure to the public from 1993, or whenever it was filed (I think that European patents are public from the date of filing, unlike U.S. patents.). If it is very close to describing e-commerce, then this patent may be used to show why a whole new crop of e-commerce patents may be obvious in light of this old (1993) patent.
Internet developers should be collecting references to patents like these that may be used to block the issuance or enforcement of future obvious patents. I am thinking of using the domain www.ineffectualproperty.com to start a jump point for this sort of thing. Would anyone be interested in this?
OR, if one of the sources in the article is correct, the publisher will just negiotiate away the writer's rights beforehand, leaving them nothing.
Either way, I don't see much good coming out of this decision...
By enforcing the NAACP's claim to those names which they have no intent of using, the government (or whoever decides this ultimately) is basically saying that no one can use the names at all!
The lines between censorship and not-censorship are blurry to nonexistent.
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
But, that argument is circular; 'R' Us only has value because a court is willing to enforce it as having value. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd have to agree with you that it is questionable that a company could grab hold of a phrase and prevent even non-competitive uses of that phrase...
Write your Congressman.
A court would probably not enforce your liquidated damages clause for $1000/incident. You can't ask for a lot more than actual damages.
The Supreme Court is a lot more likely to take a case where the Circuit Courts are in disagreement. So let's hope that Justice DOES charge someone else in another circuit and wins. Then, in a couple of years, *sigh*, the Supreme Court would decide... the Court is conservative, but generally pro-speech.
uh...
cost of renting the film, paying for labor, rent for the building, cut of sales that goes back to the distributor et al.... The profit does come from concessions.
and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It is amusing how some people are quick to claim that a thing such as a game could not possibly change behavior, but a thing such as a gun can... It seems to me that it would be the other way around if anything.
This is what happens when the administrative state is allowed to grow out of control. But, as was mentioned in an earlier post, you have to admit that this policy is consistent with the existence of a minimum wage, maximum working hours, etc...
No, the arguments in the article are not as applicable to patents as they are to copyrights. In my view, the Internet has not changed the invention landscape enough to reach the conclusion that patents no longer encourage invention. Non-software patents, and even some software patents, require intensive capital investment that would not exist but for patent monopoly. Copyright is another story...
Now, if you regard your works as something that you have an inalienable right to, then you could make the argument that it is in fact "wrong" to copy your works without permission. I don't think, however, that this was the original justification for copyright. I do agree with you that the labor theory of property should govern. You put in the sweat; it's yours...
Come on! It seems that most of us /.ers are satisfied with the audio quality of MP3s. What possible use could we have with quality audio equipment? :)
You don't know how pleasing it is to hear that another law student reads Slashdot.
why is it so scary that someone could take your domain name if you owe them money? It seems no worse than having your home stereo system repossessed.
This decision is not about trademarks. It is about being able to find a way to be reimbursed for legal fees (what is greedy about that?). The judge ruled that the company's other domain names were property that could be taken in order to satify the judgement in favor of Umbro. I don't understand why you are so upset about this.
No, the decision described in the article doesn't deal with the trademark aspect of domain names. Umbro won the right to the domain name in a previous suit. Since the company was Canadian, Umbro could not seize any of the company's assets as damages. So, the court in this case ruled that the Canadian company's other domain names were property that could be taken and auctioned off. A property right in the domain name is a lot more valuable than the previous license to the domain name! This is good for domain name holders.
Exactly. I doubt many would defend intellectual property as *actual* property, since it is clearly a social construct (so is "real" property, but that is another story). Protection of intellectual property spurs development (perhaps even toward that eternal ear of corn mentioned in the essay). As long as society values technological development and wealth, then monopolistic IP seems to be a rather effective way to do it! Forgive my armchair empiricism; I'd love to hear an argument about how technology can be better encouraged in a world without IP...
Is there some place where we can download a "free" version of a hyperbolic tree java class?