Did you read the article?
If you were talking about brown.com (or even williebrown.com in another
context) I might agree with you except the article states that the names
taken were:
"williebrown.com, williebrownjr.com, damayor.com, frankjordan.com,
jordanformayor.com -- and even williesucks.com -- are registered to Hasse
Inc., owned by one Andy Hasse"
so this is how someone can cybersquat on a common name. The defenses of a
hypothetical innocent person are not available to this non-hypothetical
person who clearly targeted Mayor Brown (unless you can come up with
another Willie Brown Jr. who is known as damayor).
At 02:12 PM 8/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>
>> DOMAIN FIGHT CAUSES BROWN OUT (POL. Tuesday)
>>
http://www.wired.com/news/news/email/explode-infobeat/politics/story/21201.h
>> tml
>>
>> An opportunistic cybersquatter who holds key domain names in
>> the race for San Francisco mayor is now on a candidate's
>> payroll. Incumbent Willie Brown's Net identity is in
>> jeopardy. By Chris Oakes.
>
>Now *that* was written by an ignorant reporter. How can someone
>"cybersquat" on a common name?
>
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\
>Patrick Greenwell
> "This is our time. It will not come again."
>\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/
>
>
>
>
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
