On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:49:39 -0400, John Gaskill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Holding a domain name for the purpose of reselling at a profit, and
>not using the domain as a site URL is certainly engaging in commerce.
>If you buy fish, freeze them and advertise that you have "frozen fish,"
>even
>i
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:04:59 -0400, John Gaskill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
>>A domain name is no different than an original painting
>> -- both are unique, both might be valueable to some and
>> worthless to others. Both are constructed out of essentially
>> valueless pa
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,84-38546,00.html?tt.yfin..txt.ni
EU probes NSI for antitrust violations
By Dan Goodin
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 29, 1999, 4:50 p.m. PT
In a move likely to intensify controversy over privatizing the registration
of domain names, the European Union is inve
Are they going to probe de Beers, too ?
At 10:58 AM 6/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
>http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,84-38546,00.html?tt.yfin..txt.ni
>
>EU probes NSI for antitrust violations
>By Dan Goodin
>Staff Writer, CNET News.com
>June 29, 1999, 4:50 p.m. PT
>In a move likely to intensify con
http://www.icann.org/crada.htm
Richard J. Sexton a écrit:
>
> Are they going to probe de Beers, too ?
The EU, or at least the people in it who have been conspiring with
ISOC and CORE in setting up the ICANN special interest, may find
themselves the subject of an antitrust investigation.
> At 10:58 AM 6/30/99 -0400, you wrot
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Onno
>Hovers
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Neither does France allow individuals to register in .fr. These two
>> countries, Australia and France, are the organizers and leaders of
>> the GAC. Couple that with the fa
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:05:08 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:29:01PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
>wrote:
>> It has been gently pointed out to me off list that people can and have
>> trademarked the word "cars" for various things othe
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:39:36 -0400, "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School
of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Again, with some fairly small changes, I think the WIPO ADR rules will be
>better than the (lousy) status quo, the NSI dispute policy. That's not to
>say I'm going to love even the amended r
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, William X. Walsh wrote (inter alia):
> Professor, you have it wrong here. The status quo is the legal
> system.
> NSI's policy needs to be scrapped to let the legal systems do the job
> they exist for.
If you are a DN holder in .com, like it or not the status quo is the NS
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,84-38606,00.html
"Internet Names WorldWide, a division of Melbourne IT, said today
that it began selling domain names to authorized partners under the
program. Like Register.com, the only other "test bed" registrar now up
and running, Internet Names is charging
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:05:14 -0400, John Gaskill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 6/30/98, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:49:39 -0400, John Gaskill wrote:
>>
>>>Holding a domain name for the purpose of reselling at a profit, and
>>>not using the domain as a site URL is certain
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 16:05:24 -0400, John Gaskill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:04:59 -0400, John Gaskill wrote:
>>
>>>Karl Auerbach wrote:
>>>
A domain name is no different than an original painting
-- both are unique, both might be valueable to some and
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,84-38599,00.html
"The Australian law states that minors cannot view online material
rated "R." However, the law also bans all citizen's access to X-rated
material that has "real depictions of actual sexual intercourse" and
delete content rated "RC" for "refused
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> If the sole purpose of me buying property is to deny you use of that
> desirable property, am I guilty of a crime?
Not a crime, but a tort (in many states). Tortious interference with
prospective business advantage. Or, the venerable "prima facie
Martin,
Part of the threat, as I see it, is how the text of the Abraham bill
would be used in practice. Jail time and $100,000 damage awards are scary
things.
The liability components of the bill speak in terms of intent, always a
tricky thing to define, and something that usually requires a
At 03:40 PM 6/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 30 15:40:26 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from drx.rivalworks.com (drx.rivalworks.com [209.6.170.10])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC0FF01B
> for <[
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 06:59:32PM +, William X. Walsh wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:05:08 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
[...]
> >Assuming that a restrictive and clean definition of "domain name
> >speculation" can be developed, what concrete social harm is done by
> >disa
> TM holders have a fairly strong case that speculation causes them
> harm.
How is the harm caused by a domain name speculator worse than the harm
done by another trademark owner who happens to have the same string and
the domain name?
And if mark holders are harmed by domain names, then the c
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:20:07 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 06:59:32PM +, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:05:08 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>[...]
>> >Assuming that a restrictive and clean definition of "domain n
Mark and all,
Good points here Mark and also some good questions. These
questions should be clarified as they are answered by the GA
and the "Constituency" groups. Oooops! The constituencies
are all not completely formed yet! (Jeff Smacks his forehead)
SO, well I guess than that idea is
Bret and all,
I agree with you that the Abraham bill goes way to far. But
than again so does the WIPO "Recommendations".
Oh and by the way Bret, I also agree with you that some of the
list participants on this list should be jailed. YOU are chief among them!
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> Mart
> What is it about domain names that make them unique and make
> speculation unlawful?
>
Obviously, its nothing inherent in itheir domainicity; it has to do
with the way human culture develops. As Rob Raisch points out,
there are no absolute hooks on which we can hang anything;
everythi
23 matches
Mail list logo
