> 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.
> >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.
(I wish I could fix that typo "prudence" to be "prudent".)
I said (or intended to say) that when it comes to matters involving the
use of domain names and trademarks, those who are prudent can protect
themselves. We should not punish those engaging in otherwise legitimate
speculation in order to protect the imprudent.
In your example, theft is not something that is "otherwise legitimate".
It is a criminal act in just about any context.
Speculation is not something that is in and of itself a criminal act. In
fact, it is a time honored practice in which virtually all of us engage in
one way or another.
We should not be suppressing legitimate actions in order to protect those
who are too stupid to get the domain name when they think up a new mark.
--karl--
