> I suppose under the universal principle of justice you set
> forth below that
> if you didn't lock your house and somebody came in and stole
> your stuff,
> that you wouldn't consider it theft because, hey, you weren't prudent.
BTW That's the case in France, so may be also in another countries.
Jean-Michel Bécar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.etsi.org
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel : +33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
Mobile : +33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
Fax : +33 (0)4 92 38 52 15
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin B. Schwimmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 16:35
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Political Domain Name story
>
>
> I suppose under the universal principle of justice you set
> forth below that
> if you didn't lock your house and somebody came in and stole
> your stuff,
> that you wouldn't consider it theft because, hey, you weren't prudent.
>
>
> At 05:33 PM 8/11/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >> maybe, maybe not. I don't know if Brown would prevail on
> those theories -
> >
> >It certainly seems to me that my internal sense of justice
> is pretty well
> >defined by those existing theories.
> >
> >I would hope that the answers we are looking for are "justice", not
> >"commercial advantage over non-commerial use."
> >
> >> I only attempted to rebut a single assertion - the
> assertion that it was
> >> "impossible" to cybersquat a common name.
> >
> >I happen to agree with that assertion... but my reason is pretty
> >straightforward. I deny that "cybersquatting" exists. I
> believe that
> >speculation is a time honored tradition and that if somebody
> loses the
> >race to acquire, then they lose.
> >
> >A few years ago I might still have had some residual
> sympathy for those
> >who went through the effort to coin names. But anybody who
> now coins a
> >name and then discovers, oops it's been taken. Well, too bad. The
> >Internet has been here for several years now.
> >
> >I noticed for example that this lesson has been learned and
> incorporated
> >into naming practice. For instance, Hewlett Packard, when
> thinking up the
> >name for their new company registered all the domain names under
> >consideration before they went public with anything. I call that
> >prudence.
> >
> >Overall I submit that it is better let those who aren't
> prudence operate
> >at their own risk rather than punish those who engage in otherwise
> >permissable speculation.
> >
> >Somehow I don't consider those who are asserting trademark
> rights to be
> >the kind of naive, innocent person who we need to protect
> from themselves.
> >
> >Willy Brown has been in politics for as long as I can
> remember. It's too
> >bad he just realized "hey I could'a had a V8, I could'a been
> a contender,
> >or I could'a had my own domain name in .com". He still can build his
> >domain in "sf.ca.us" (which would be more appropriate
> anyway.) Nobody has
> >stale URL's pointing to his never-yet-existed web site in .com.
> >
> >And does the mayor get this power to exclude over other TLD's? As I
> >mentioned "williebrown.sf.ca.us" would have been my first thought for
> >domain name, does that give Willie the rights to
> exclusionary powers there
> >too.
> >
> >I hope not, as it is too unconstrained, too unlimited, to vague.
> >
> >
> >
> >> If we utilize a temporary
> >> definition of cybersquat here - "the commission of a tort
> aimed at an
> >> identifiable entity through the registration of a domain name"
> >
> >I'd prefer it if any definition stated clearly what specific legally
> >cognizable harm is being defined.
> >
> >The definition above simply makes it a tort to commit a tort. It is
> >redundant law.
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> - then I
> >> believe that it is possible to "cybersquat" a common name
> such as willie
> >> brown.
> >>
> >> It's been too long a day for me here on the East Coast to
> get into arguing
> >> the merits of the anti-cybersquatting act just now.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Willie Brown possibly has superior rights to williebrown.com,
> >> >> williebrownjr.com and damayor.com vis a vis Andy Hasse
> because Mr. Hasse
> >> >> appears to have obtained domain names likely to be
> associated with
> Willie
> >> >> Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, possibly in a way
> calculated to harm
> >> >> Mayor Brown (Mr Hasse's employment by Mayor Brown's
> rival is relevant to
> >> >> this analysis). Possible theories include rights of publicity,
> common law
> >> >> trademark, false advertising, interference with prospective
> advantage, and
> >> >> unfair competition
> >> >
> >> >In other words, Mayor Brown has lots of rights under
> existing law to go
> >> >after the other person. He needs no assistance from
> anything new in the
> >> >domain name space, existing law provides more than
> adequate protection.
> >> >
> >> >So if Willy can demonstrate under existing laws that
> there is a violation
> >> >to his right of publicity, common law trademark, that the
> other use is
> >> >false advertising or interferes with a prospective
> advantage, or is unfair
> >> >competion, then fine.
> >> >
> >> >It appears that we need not add any special new rules in
> the domain name
> >> >arena to deal with this situation.
> >> >
> >> > --karl--
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
>
>
