Bill and all,
Bill, good points here and well put. Kent Crispin's many attempts
at legal expertise are terribly blatant, as this one that you elude to
is as well. His mischaracterization of others an others positions
in an obvious attempt to discredit them, also is well known on this
and other lists of similar subjects. Personally I believe he owes you
a public apology. (Don't hold you breath though)
As you know Bill, you and I have chatted a couple of times on the
Phone regarding the ICANN and some of their directives, ideas,
and policies. I think that we are in agreement with what you stated below,
that IF and WHEN the ICANN becomes truly professionally managed
they may be able to become accepted broadly. However it seems
fairly obvious at present that this situation does not exist currently.
Bill Lovell wrote:
> At 06:35 PM 7/5/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> Note: This is being sent again; I want to make sure it hits the IFWP list.
> Bill Lovell
>
> >On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 05:39:50PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
> School of Law wrote:
> >> I have not been reading this all as carefully as I should, so forgive me
> >> for not knowing the context...
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Kent Crispin wrote (apparently summarizing someone
> >> else's statements):
> >>
> >> > could be made that domain names should not be resellable. You may
> >> > have noticed the arguments earlier that TMs cannot be resold;
> >>
> >> TMs can be sold in the US. I believe it can be done as a straight sale;
> >
> >The claim was that this is not the case. The claim was, as I recall,
> >that the USPTO can be somehow cajoled to transfer the registration,
> >but that a straight sale is not possible. Bill Lovell, who claims to
> >be an IP attorney of distinction,
>
> Why is it that some people cannot carry on a purportedly intelligent
> discourse
> without sticking in disparaging remarks? I do not "claim" to be an IP
> attorney;
> I am one -- the Oregon State Bar, the Oregon Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent
> and Trademark Office, the District Court for the District of Oregon, the
> Ninth
> Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U. S. Supreme Court will all agree. As for
> "with distinction," I would have to say that it is a characteristic of
> person space
> that there can only be one person per space; in that regard I am distinct
> from
> all other persons, and in that sense I do make the claim (just be damn glad
> that
> there are not two of me), but not having ever before used my name and the
> word
> "distinction" in the same sentence, to my knowledge, I'm unaware of where Mr.
> Kent Crispin would have got that horse pucky.
>
> Ah, the answer: Mr. Kent Crispin has been caught out blathering legal
> nonsense,
> and is looking either to find a scapegoat or change the subject. As for the
> above
> quote, "The claim was that this is not the case. The claim was, as I
> recall, that
> the USPTO can be somehow cajoled to transfer the registration, but that a
> straight
> sale is not possible," I've been following these threads for quite some
> time, and
> I can't recall anyone ever being dumb enought to advance that theory. The
> USPTO
> can't be "cajoled" into doing anything; if entities such as ICANN ever come
> to be
> as well and professionally managed, we shall all have cause to be grateful.
>
> Bill Lovell
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
