>Well, the allegation has been made that on-going businesses are threatened
>>with extinction when NSI sends the 37-day letter, in which case it would
>>make sense to get together the court filing fees and about a $1000 in
>legal fees
>>to file a declaratory judgment complaint with pendant tort claims (i.e.
>malicious prosecution). If it is merely a $70 investment, then, no, it
>doesn't make economic sense, they just sell the
>>name to the entity to whom it is worth more. The Cato Institute would
>endorse such allocation of resources.
Free speech rights are only "worth" something if it's an on-going business?
It's ok to lose a right because you can't afford to fight for it, in the
face of incorrect accusations and bullying by people with more money?
"Sell" the name to the entity when an offer to sell is currently looked on
as "proof" of cyberpiracy? "Sell" the name when it's "on hold" and useless?
Oh please. Let's get back to the reality of what is happening when an
innocent party's domain name is reverse hijacked.
