On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 06:46:50PM -0400, Diane Cabell wrote:
> >
> > But if someone registers 200 common words for resale, that should
> > not be protected. It is not only denying access to commercial users
> > who might want the name, it is denying access to non-commercial
> > users just as much (if not more, since non-commercial users wouldn't
> > be able to pay the speculator).
>
>So they put up 200 nearly blank web pages. How would you then define what is a
>legitimate use and what is not?
Maybe putting up blank web pages would be enough -- I don't know,
and I don't think it really matters too much precisely what the
definition is. We drive on the right side of the road. They drive
on the left side in other places.
In any case, haven't there been cases already decided that made this
kind of distinction? Isn't there a famous case in England that shot
down people who were camping on domain names with the intent to sell?
While there are complex issues of judgement and law here, that is why
we have courts and juries, isn't it?
Why not one-domain-per-customer?
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
