Bret and all,
I agree with you that the Abraham bill goes way to far. But
than again so does the WIPO "Recommendations".
Oh and by the way Bret, I also agree with you that some of the
list participants on this list should be jailed. YOU are chief among them!
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Part of the threat, as I see it, is how the text of the Abraham bill
> would be used in practice. Jail time and $100,000 damage awards are scary
> things.
>
> The liability components of the bill speak in terms of intent, always a
> tricky thing to define, and something that usually requires a trial to
> resolve. (The bill is at:
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1255:)
>
> If the Abraham bill passes, all of the lawyers here know what the cease
> and desist letter (and the resulting complaint) to the operator of the
> next veronica.org will look like. Regardless of "intent," there will be a
> threat of jail time and/or statutory damages, which could not be made
> under existing law, that will make individuals, non-profits, and small
> businesses less willing to play their winning hands.
>
> It's the same problem we've seen with dilution. *Every* trademark case
> now seems to contain a dilution cause of action and every company, no
> matter how small or how local, claims to have a "famous name."
>
> I'll gladly put part of the blame for all of this on overzealous (or
> overcautious) lawyers, but the Abraham bill goes well beyond what is
> necessary. Cybersquatters are maddening, but so are a lot of the list
> members here. While I'd like to see jail time for them, that's really
> overkill.
>
> But forget the textual debate for a minute. I can't really believe that
> you support the Abraham bill as drafted. And as a fellow supporter of
> ICANN and self-governance, wouldn't you rather see the Abraham bill
> flushed in favor of whatever the community recommends through the DNSO
> process? (Understanding of course, that ICANN's contractual authority,
> via control over the root bottleneck, does not yet give it the power to
> incarcerate us. ;-)
>
> -- Bret
>
> >DNRC writes:
> >
> >>In the real world, use of Cadillac for cat food
> >>and Cadillac for automobiles is permitted. Yet on the Internet, that
> >>type of use could make you a criminal under this bill."
> >
> >The Cadillac pet food business started before there was a federal dilution
> >statute (which statute had no retroactive effect). If a similar use began
> >today, such a use may well be found to be actionable under 43(c) of the
> >Lanham Act. Thus the proposed bill is not inconsistent with present law to
> >the extent indicated above.
>
> ...
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
