“”All year, we have been citing WIPO decision for being inconsistent and blatantly unfair to domain holders.
Finally today as a late Christmas present to domainers we finally have a good decision, not only because the panel ruled in favor of the domain holder but because the panel took the time to very methodically discuss when trademarks will be protected, the circumstances under when domain parking is “legitimate use”. Moreover the domain holder in this case was a domainer. Someone who is described as the panel as holding domains and parking them as a business model and the fact that the domain holder was so engaged actually helped it in this case.
This is an important decision for all domainer to read and understand.
The case involved the domain ZeroSpam.com.
First as to this particular case.
The complaint had a registered trademark for the term Zero Spam.
“The only use to which the domain name has been put is to resolve to a parking page containing links to other websites advertising goods or services. At various times, those links have been to products or services concerning spam control.”
However the sole panelist in denying the complaint said:
“””The Respondent registered the disputed domain name well over seven years before the Complainant’s trademark registration was granted, almost six years before the Complainant’s application for trademark registration was lodged, and almost a year before the Complainant’s alleged first use of its trademark.”
“because there is no evidence that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s impending trademark rights at the time the Respondent registered the domain name, the Complainant cannot establish that the Respondent registered the domain name with bad faith intent.””
However the panelist went on to discuss that this is not an absolute rule citing the following cases:
“””This finding does not, however, resolve the dispute”””
In three recent decisions under the Policy – City Views Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services / Xander, Jeduyu, ALGEBRALIVE, WIPO Case No. D2009-0643, Phillip Securities Pte Ltd v. Yue Hoong Leong, ADNDRC Decision DE-0900226, and Octogen Pharmacal Company, Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, Inc. / Rich Sanders and Octogen e-Solutions, WIPO Case No. D2009-0786 (together, “Octogen trio of cases”) – a distinguished panelist expressed the view that, based on a close reading of the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003,
“”“bad faith registration can be deemed to have occurred even without regard to the state of mind of the registrant at the time of registration, if the domain name is subsequently used to trade on the goodwill of the mark holder”””.
“The Policy itself expressly recognizes that, where the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark and the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, in certain circumstances bad faith use of a domain name alone is sufficient to entitle the complainant to a remedy.”
In the case of Ville de Paris v. Jeff Walter, WIPO Case No. D2009-1278, the panel found that the circumstances of the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name were such as to give rise to a remedy under the Policy, despite the fact that the domain name may not originally have been registered by the respondent in bad faith.
“”In that case, the respondent, upon becoming aware of the complainant’s trademark, intentionally altered its proposed use of the domain name to a use that caused confusion with, and disruption to, the complainant’s activities, and demanded from the complainant an option to acquire the complainant’s domain names as a condition of the respondent ceasing its confusing and disruptive use of the disputed domain name.””
Accordingly, these were bad faith actions that justified a finding in favour of the complainant.
“”In this case there is no evidence that the Respondent has, at any time after registering the disputed domain name in 2002, held the domain name registration in bad faith. There is, for example, no evidence that the Respondent intentionally altered its use of the disputed domain name so as to cause confusion with, or disruption, to the Complainant’s activities, or in any other way intentionally used the disputed domain name to derive a benefit from the Complainant’s trademark.””
Now for some of the general discussion about trademarks and domain parking being legitimate use:
“””Previous panels deciding disputes under the Policy have considered whether using the disputed domain name to resolve to parking pages with pay-per-click links can constitute a use of the domain such as to give rise to the Respondent having rights or legitimate interests in the domain name – see, e.g., Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964 (“Media General”), and Trade Me Limited v. Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2009-0093 (“Trade Me”).”
“”In the Trade Me case, the panel stated, “where a respondent registers a domain name consisting of a ‘dictionary’ term because the respondent has a good faith belief that the domain name’s value derives from its generic or descriptive qualities rather than its specific trademark value, the use of the domain name consistent with such good faith belief may establish a legitimate interest. “”
“”See Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304. See also Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964 (domain name must have been registered because of, and any use consistent with, its attraction as a dictionary word or descriptive term, and not because of its value as a trademark).”
“”In the Media General case, the panel recognised that “reselling domain names or using them for advertising links can in certain circumstances represent legitimate interests …but not in all instances”.
“”In the panel’s view, such practices are most likely to be deemed legitimate under the Policy when: (i) the respondent regularly engages in the business of registering and reselling domain names and/or using them to display advertising links; (ii) the respondent makes good faith efforts to avoid registering and using domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to marks held by others; (iii) the domain name in question is a “dictionary word” or a generic or descriptive phrase; (iv) the domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a famous or distinctive trademark; and (v) there is no evidence that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s mark. This Panel agrees with that reasoning.”””
In this case the panel found that:
“””The evidence of the Respondent’s numerous other domain name registrations indicates that the Respondent regularly engages in the business of registering domain names for the purpose of reselling and/or using them for revenue generation. The disputed domain name is a descriptive phrase, formed by the conjunction of two descriptive words. The Complainant’s trademark is not famous and, because it consists of a descriptive phrase, it is not particularly distinctive. Finally, given that the disputed domain name was registered more than seven years before the registration, and approximately one year before the first demonstrated use in commerce, of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent could not have had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark until a significant time after registration and initial use of the domain name.””
“””Overall, it appears to this Panel to be more likely than not that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name due to its descriptive quality, and not its trademark quality. The descriptive quality of the disputed domain name is that it is a phrase that succinctly and clearly describes a situation in which spam is not present. The trademark quality of the disputed domain name only arose some substantial time after the Respondent registered and began using the domain name, upon the Complainant’s later adoption and use of this descriptive phrase as its trademark. Thus, this Panel is inclined to the view that the Complainant has failed to show that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.””
SO finally we have a “correct”, well reasoned, well written decision.
A domain made up of dictionary or generic descriptive words even if parked, is protected against a subsequent trademark as long as you do not change your parked page to “take advantage” of the trademark and/or attempt to directly “blackmail” the trademark holder buy overtly offering the domain for sale to them.
Andrew F. Christie was the sole panelist.
Good job.
But see Alleman’s take on this in today’s Domainwire.com
Wow……that was probably the most balanced decision I have ever read. Nice to see for a change.
I think the Zero Spam trademark is not very strong since they are springboarding off a generic domain using it for the Spam market. Not a wise choice of domain if they are looking for TM protection.
It looks like they just wanted to take some domain property from someone for a UDRP filing fees. I’m glad they lost.
Ooops…..I think Andrew has some good points about this guy. 🙂
Wow, hard to believe this is the same panelist that Andrew discusses in his column.
It is a brand new YEAR!!! Time for Change!!!
Howard
I see nothing wrong with a panelist citing his own decisions, most appellate courts do the same thing.
I have seen a ton of WIPO decisions lately conclude with statements like a parking page=non-legitimate use, without regard for any of the other rulings that say otherwise.
In this case at least the panelist is trying to put a line in the sand and tell you which side you need to be on, at least in his eyes, to be a domainer, have your domain pointed to a parking page and not have it taken from you.
David
Right same guy.
For myself I don’t have a problem with a guy following his other cases and citing them in his opinion. As I said above courts do this all the time.
I still believe this to be a well written opinion and I will just have to disagree with Andrew on this one.
If I was to give out a dunce of the year award to a panelist it certainly would have been one of the many who made decisions taking away domains with just making a statement “that parking a domain is not a legitimate use”, rather than this guy which tried to distinguish situations and left the domain with the holder.
Mike
I agree that the decision was correct, but the path that was taken to get there is filled with booby traps. If this particular panelist who pats himself on the back ANONYMOUSLY is instrumental in changing the UDRP requirements that a domain must be registered AND used in bad faith to be actionable, a lot of well intentioned domainers will be losing their domains arbitrarily. Even though the registration precedes the trademark, it becomes extremely subjective as to whether or not the domain is being USED in bad faith and makes it much easier for the complainant who got his trademark years after the domain was registered.
At a certain point the US 14th amendment will come into focus (equal access) as all panalists seem to be circumventing with their rhetoric in their opinons – it is comical how these floundering panelists are desparate for revenue. The only issue will be – what kind of remedy will be placed againt the panelists and even ICANN when this all comes unglued – talk about a bunch of panelist weasels running for the hills.
Domaining (as apartantly some call it when you own more than one domain and engage in horrific activities such as PPC) is not going away – even with this nice carrot given to us in ZeroSpam.com.
brian
capitolhill.com
Howard
Each of these panelist make the law up as they go along. Nothing new.
There is no requirement of uniformity and not real right of appeal, which winds up “overturning” a ruling. All appeals take place outside this system and therefore have no effect on it.
The problems you discuss are inherent in this system and the best we can do is figure out how to work within it, as the only change I see talked about is one where these decisions come quicker and cheaper for the complainants
I’ve been in trademark lawsuits before, and in one horrible ruling, I lost a case to a competitor who literally stole the name of my company, in the same business, and actually used a participant from my company to start their business based on my company name, in direct competition with my brand! My production business TM brand was established several years prior to the filing.
The judges ruling was: “The defendant has already invested monies to further their productions under this name, and the Plaintiff waited six months to file this action. I cannot give the Plaintiff in this action the control of their TM if they allowed this much time to pass before filing a TM infringement complaint. Therefore, the defendant may continue to use the name claimed by Plaintiff as a TM.”
Essentially, the judge awarded another competitor the right to use the name of MY COMPANY, allowing them to produce events under that exact name, because I didn’t respond fast enough to the fact they were infringing on my TM. Imagine the confusion. Outrageous.
Sometimes, the law has its head up some hole that is dark and smelly. Trust me, if you’re trying to move ahead in this world, you’ll come across situations like this. However, this lends credibility to the fact if you register a domain name BEFORE some company decides it’s a nice brand name, you should ALWAYS put the little letters “™” behind any webpage you build behind a domain name. Legally, that little “TM” helps.
I’m not an attorney, so seek advice about TM issues from an attorney.
Learning to live with a system in which panelists make it up as they go along, responding to the subtle (and not-so-subtle) pressures of WIPO and the other accredited arbitration bodies to move decisions in a complainant-friendly direction, to encourage forum shopping at registrants’ expense, is simply unacceptable.
But recent action by an ICANN working group points us in the right direction.
The STI-RT group that was assigned to develop more acceptable proposals for a trademark clearinghouse and uniform rapid suspension (URS) for new gTLDs produced a report that has been unanimously approved by the GNSO, ICANN’s internal policymaking body, and is now out for public comment until January 26. ICA participated in the STI-RT Working group and we will be filing a comment.
The URS proposed by the review group contains multiple features that benefit domainers — in particular, it provides two critically important safe harbors:
1)”Trading in domain names for profit, and holding a large portfolio of domain names, are of themselves not indicia of bad faith.” In other words, domaining in and of itself is not evidence of bad faith registration or use, contrary to some recent UDRP decisions.
2) “Sale of traffic (i.e., connecting domain names to parking pages and earning click-per-view revenue) does not in and of itself constitute abuse under this policy.” In other words, earning PPC income from one’s domain is also no indication in and of itself of bad faith.
The report also has other attractive features, including an internal, de novo appeals process — eliminating the need for expensive court proceedings to overturn ridiculous arbitrator decisions, and also providing an appeals mechanism to registrants who don’t have access to a national law like the ACPA — and a recommendation that ICANN enter into contracts with URS providers to achieve uniformity that discourages forum shopping.
The steps ahead for the domain investment industry are clear:
1) Work to ensure that the ICANN Board approves adoption of these principles, so that they can become established ICANN policy that can be cited to renegade UDRP arbitrators.
2)Push ICANN to initiate a policy development process (PDP) for UDRP reform.
3) Work within that reform process to address the specific UDRP problems and abuses that domainers are experiencing, and in particular put the UDRP providers under a common contract to discourage forum shopping and the kind of blatant catering to complainant interests refleceted in the current CAC and WIPO proposals (strongly opposed by ICA) to institute “fast track UDRP” through amendment of their Supplemental Rules.
These are formidable tasks that lie ahead, but stopping the URS as proposed by the IRT and getting the results now before ICANN was formidable as well. With the industry’s support ICA will continue to pursue these goals one step after another.
Happy Holidays.
MHB – cause most panelist have lack of reason, no sense in business ………..
Plenty of decisions were logically incorrect and often, side that started WIPO doesn’t have any ties to domain, or maybe tis equal to ties 7847584 online and offline businesses got to such domain.
Paid directory – legal, search engine with highlight positions – legal, linkfarms – legal, spyware, and parking page ilegal?!?!?!? Spyware are trojans aren’t cause of WIPO takedown, parking is?
Give dumb people power and worst things happen.
All domainers should unanimously thank Phil Corwin for the great job that he is doing in representing the domain industry at ICANN. The best way to do so is to join ICA.
Will a claim on generic words domain stand? ever had? just wondering!
If yes,
it is the time for Domainers to tell the panel it shouldn’t. Full stop.
A bottle is bottle. What is filled with, can’t be named as bad faith.
Howard
I second that motion.
And I vote with my dollars as I’m a silver member of the ICA
To everyone else who considers themselves a domainer, buy yourself a Christmas present and join or renew your membership to the ICA, its truly the gift that keeps on giving
Boy oh boy…you domainers are really full of your selves arent you? every one else for a few hundred years since the indusrail revolution have used the brawn in their backs and the sweat of their brow to build up compnaies so you can come along like parasites on the floatsom and jetson and calim cute little names to peddle off as your creation when in fact you create nothing, you produce nothing, you make nothing what so ever?
Take a look at the recent laws that have been coming your way and the gvt actions taken?
You are on the endangered species list for your predatory covertly hostile conduct, and you will be brought before the courts in the end by every company that affords a lawyer to take you down along the way.
@Stewart
Okay, I’ll bite.
Where were you when people were buying up acres by the thousands in California just 40 years ago? And Bob Hope was one of them. He paid a few dollars per acre, and built NOTHING on them.
Mr. Bob Hope, American’s favorite comedian for six decades, sold his “cheap acreage with nothing on them” to developers. Did he charge them the same price he paid for them? Wait, no, Bob Hope was an American Capitalist. He believed you could “discover gold” and make money from it.
Your argument is so fundamentally ignorant that it makes me feel bad pointing it out to you and the thousands of other “Gee I wish I had bought that domain before someone else did”, that by and large, domainers are BUSINESSMEN.
Investing in domains is a legitimate, wide-open opportunity for SMART investors (just like those land barons who knew where to buy land where a railroad was going to be built through) for cheap. I’m not saying all domainers are angels, and do things ethically, but painting anyone who buys a domain for $7.50, and resells it for $3,000 a year later as “parasites” is just a sad confession by you that you were not “fast enough” or “up to speed” to the value of domain investing.
Now it seems you have a lot of anger towards domain investors who bought domains that “other people want”, but you don’t explain WHY those people should get the domains other than the empty argument that the domain owners haven’t “created something” out of those domains. It’s comforting to take that stance, because however weak it is, it’s the only “sympathetic” argument you have. But, going on Rick the King’s business attitude, I’ll just say here.. “Domain investing isn’t based on sympathy.”
Save your money, Stew. Buy a domain you want… it’s an investment, just like GOLD.
well stephen, ya got me on the Bob Hope one there ol stick, after all (Ronnie ray Guns)Reagan is library up in then there hills as well!
As far as my ignorance goes? Hey guy, I dont usually go around calling people ignorant, but I will call domainers and the rest of the skanks crooks liars and thieves?
You are all your own worst enemies so far as I can tell? Have you ever googled domain name law suit and read up? OH MY TOTO! OH MY!
say good night Halvarez, ask not for whom the jail cell door slams, it slams for thee.
till the time comes when the domain business is cleaned up by the UK as of late over knock off goods, and the US FDA shuts down pharma wanna be’s, and China demands there be a business entity in China after all, and oh wait till the Arab world weighs in with scimitars at the ready on friday evening at dusk?
then the rest of us will watch you consume yourselves in all your schemes to snatch away from one another instead?
@Stewart,
I kinda like the effect the drugs you’re on — please identify them so I can check em out, take a few, and post a few comments that make no sense whatsoever too, but I’d at least be having as much fun as you! You’re way out of my league at this point, broey.
cheers for the new year!
What if someone told Bob Hope that he could make more money by building billboards on his land and selling ad space?
What if there were compelling data to supporting what the person told Bob, and no data to challenge it?
What would Bob do?
The domains-to-real estate comparison is seriously flawed.
How many people can view or visit a tract of land in a day?
There is a legitimacy problem with “domaining”, even when it does not run afoul of any law. There are large corporations that own many, many domains that have no corresponding trademark. Are they “domainers”?
And there is still widespread ignorance of technology, including how the “web” works. For example, few people could explain, in detail, *how* “domainers” do what they do, though this will not stop them from having a strong opinion about this topic.
But how long can we expect this situation to continue?
1. The “business model”, even when no laws are broken, is one of the most efficient in existence. Here, the analogies to real estate, gold rushes, etc. are more accurate. The ROI is often shocking. The number and scope of people one can reach through this technology far exceeds the capabilities of any other medium in common use and the means to do so, “domains”, are sold at commodity prices. Wake up.
2. There will soon be generations graduating from universities who have been exposed to this technology since birth. They will have no fear of going straight into the technical details. And those details are publicly available.
What the technologically ignorant fail to see is that selling advertising and marketing are the most lucrative aspects of so-called “e-commerce”. Selling goods or services, at enormous scales with low overhead, while certainly significant, is secondary. The “web” (for better or worse) is a massive advertising channel, and it’s exploitation for this purpose is in its infancy.
The “sweat of the brow”, stewart, is, perhaps, making the effort to understand technology, on some level above what is commonplace. And then acting on it.
“Ignorance” is presently the commonplace level of knowledge with respect to this technology, despite the fact all the information to understand it is publicly available. It costs nothing but your time to learn. This equals opportunity.
The widespread ignorance gives many people, who take the time to research and understand “how things work”, and such people may range from “domainers” having little technical knowledge to those with long-term careers or advanced technical degrees in areas associated with related technology, a substantial competitive advantage. Through a disparity of knowledge, they can make money.
But this general ignorance cannot persist indefinitely. The details are not as complex as many would have people believe. The gap in knowledge will begin to close over time.
When the ignorance gives way to a general understanding, when all people appreciate the IP network (for better or worse) as a massive advertising and marketing channel like none the world has known before (for better or worse), when those future non-technophobic generations are in positions of influence (it is inevitable), I do not expect to see the same attitudes we are seeing today. It will be interesting to observe.
In case it is not clear to anyone reading this, the largest commercial value of the “web” is in *marketing*.
Without advertising dollars, large cap companies with whom everyone is familiar, e.g. G, Y, FB, etc. would be struggling, if they were even soluble.
Despite what some may think, their profits are not derived through selling wonderful products or services. It matters little toward the bottom line how “great” their technology is. (Interestingly, much of the most reliable technology is “free”, created by “enthusiasts”.)
The profits come from selling *advertising*.
stewart, does selling electronic ad space qualify as “sweat of the brow”? Selling ad space in the “print” world was never like this.
I do not mean to imply the largest value of the “web” is commercial in nature. Value is highly subjective.
The network has many uses, e.g. dissemination of academic knowledge for one. In fact, this, the work of universities, was a key factor in the development of the network and the (“free”) technology that it runs on. Enthusiasts.
@Ponderosa
Very well written.
Its good to know that “Bob Hope” and folks like us that have decent domain portfolios have geniuses who can think for us – there is an entire US political party based on that tyoe of “thinking for us” genius – sorry for your frustration trying to micro-manage an ever evolving advertising model
Thanks Stephen D. I should keep quiet but… there is so much useless thought polluting the wire these days, why not a little more rambling gibberish? If I could set a “self-destruct” time on these posts I would. Blog owner: delete my posts at will. I will be thankful for it.
My point was that attitudes will change as more people begin to understand technology, which we all must know, implicitly, but we seem to ignore. These negative attitudes are temporary.
Let’s talk about UDRP.
On balance, the trademark bar does not understand computers very well, let alone DNS. They are not very technical. (The patent bar is a different matter.) Apologies to anyone who is offended by those statements, but, with few exceptions, this it true. I respect the fact that not everyone is going to take the time to read through the RFC’s. There are “better things to do”. In the case of patent lawyers, the job may require them to read such things.
This climate of relative ignorance will change however, because soon enough there will be lawyers, including TM attorneys, who were born into a world of computerised devices. These young people will have no resistence to learning how these devices work and how they interact with the network.
Regarding the current issues with domains, only after the lawyers figure how things work can the corporations, courts and legislators begin to do something to redirect the revenue from “internet marketing” (and we know much of it once belonged to traditonal media) to “more worthy candidates”. Meanwhile, “search engines”, “parking companies” and the “domainers” are the current “players”. Because they understand how things work. They have the technical expertise.
We have all read the some of the memoranda from TM counsel in domain disputes. It is embarassing how little is understood. What the “crooked domainers” whom they are faced with are doing is easy, and no doubt highly profitable. But apparently it’s far too “computer-oriented” to hold the attention of most trademark lawyers.
That will change, eventually.
For those “domainers” who are not breaking any laws, who are focused on words that cannot be protected via trademark law, I would reserve judgment. We could certainly accuse them of “gaming” the system. But maybe we should stop ourselves and think about this.
On the patent side, there is plenty of “gaming” with respect to the business of computers. And I don’t see the “players” getting nearly as much “heat” as are the “domainers”. I think it is a worthy comparison.
In the case of patents, it may be that the persons not directly involved care even less what goes on. Too technical perhaps. That is, we might be less likely to see a commenter like “stewart”. But even the most seasoned professionals, steeped in detailed knowledge, are in effect reduced to spectators. They are mere commentators. The “players” may change, but the “gaming” continues. It seems unstoppable. And just like “domaining” there is obviously something very “wrong”.
Look, for example, at the business that MS’s former CTO started. I encourage “stewart” have a look at that operation. They produce *nothing*, except heaps of fear, heaps of licences and, heaps of revenue. One could say they “collect patents”, similar to how “domainers” collect “domain names”, or (as a prolific “domainer” once suggested) how kids “collect Pokemon cards”. Who would have guessed? This is a highly profitable business. And as with some of the most successful “domainers”, when we look at what they are doing, we may be conflicted as to whether to congratulate the founders with regard to their cleverness or to condemn their actions for blatent disregard of ethics.
This “company” has locked up massive swaths of patents in the same way as “domainers” have locked up huge swaths internet namespace– “covertly”. And it is a challenging mental excercise to find “social utility” (for lack of better term) in the company’s goals, much as it takes some mental fitness to find “social utility” in what “domainers” do. In both cases, nothing is produced, “rents” are collected and there is heavy use of shell corporations.
But the patent system carries on, despite its flaws. And the “gaming” will continue.
Now, thanks to a new medium of advertising, the packet-switched network, there’s a “huge, gaping hole” in the trademark system. Generic names now have value. And “domainers” are exploiting this. One might say they are “gaming” the system.
As with the patent system, I do not expect that the trademark system will be “fixed”. I expect the “gaming” will continue. But the “players” may change.
But before one can “game” the system, one must understand how it works. Or know others who do.
The company I mentioned above has the patent expertise to secure large numbers of patents in relatively short periods of time and that is why they can game that system.
Who has the expertise in securing large numbers of domain names in short periods of time? The trademark bar and their clients? No. They only know how to secure trademarks. “Domainers” have the expertise.
This is going to change, eventually. Can you forsee a future where lawyers will be the gateway to securing domain names, as they are now the gateway to securing trademarks? You may shudder at the thought, but that day is coming as the population becomes more computer literate, including the lawyers. And the more “teeth” we give the UDRP and other dispute resolution mechanisms, the more likely the parties are to bring lawyers “into the fray”. As such, we hasten the move to this future.
Perhaps, as the “thing” (e.g. owning a domain name) becomes more expensive and thereby exclusive, it will become more appealing to corporate clients, and other well-positioned buyers. Owning domain names and defending against UDRP complaints is, perhaps, too “cheap”.
Under this idea, when the “thing” becomes prohibitively expensive to the “Average Joe” then corporations, and other capable buyers, will take a more substantial interest in it as an asset.
I think we should reserve judgment on “domainers”. We are not a fully computer literate population, yet.
I am quite certain that no one would attempt to impede the population’s movement toward computer literacy. More often, the vendors of computer products and services encourage and enbellish laziness whereby people do not have to take intitiative to learn about computers before using them.
But we also have preserved and expanded enough openness and sharing of information that anyone can learn an enormous amount of how things work, if they take the initiative. I think “domainers” are such persons. They have taken intiative where others have not.
These are interesting times because there is still a great disparity of knowledge regarding computers and networks to which they connect. Comments on these matters on blogs and forums often act as a reminder that the disparity remains.
The more “stewarts” we have left, perhaps the better for “domainers”. But one can see how the concept of the “troll” became so enduring– it is immensely tempting to respond to ignorance, instead of just ignoring it.
Delete this, please!
Note: It takes more than “patent expertise” to secure large swaths of patents. That former CTO made a substantial investment to get the company started. Patents like domain names are difficult to value. They can be worthless and bundled with other patents to disguise this, similar to sales of large domain name portfolios that contain only a small number of profit-producing names. But patents don’t “drop” like domain names. People are paid generously to see that this never happens. But patents are prohibitively expensive for all but a few “players” to “collect” in large quantities. Domain names are priced like commodities.
@Ponderosa
Forget the worries about the posts… start your own blog. You’re a very concise and straightforward writer with knowledge. Don’t waste it in comments on someone else’s blog (all the detail – no diss intended, Em-Bee).
Write a more truncated version on the blog you’re responding to, and then write a deeper article on your blog.
Just my 2 cents.
cheers