Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

At 01:10 PM 12/24/96 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:

>The true purpose behind that 60-day waiting period is obvious if you look at
>the make-up of the IAHC.
>
>Count the number of lawyers and others with legal background, determine the
>PERCENTAGE of their interest, and then figure out how lawyers make their
>money.
>
>They bill by the hour.
>
>These folks are attempting to create a new industry (and its not the first 
>time) from which they can reap extensive fees and ultimately profits.
>
>Its not about litigation necessarily.  Once you litigate you LOSE,
>regardless of who wins the lawsuit.  This much is known by any successful
>businessperson unless the dispute at issue is worth huge sums of money.
>
>Most trademark lawsuits aren't, or are against defendants who have nothing
>sufficient to seize if you DO win.
>
>However, if you can create a new industry.....
>
>So much for this process being about acting in the PUBLIC interest.

I am sorry to have to tell you, but you are mistaken about this.  

There are two categories of lawsuits now -- those where there is a bona
fide claim of trademark infringement, and those where the domain name owner
merely covets the domain name.

The latter would be greatly reduced under the IAHC or INTA proposals.

The former would be shifted to an early time, namely when the domain name
is new.  The party who registers it will not have invested years (perhaps
unwisely) in a domain name that was leading to trouble, so the stakes (and
hence the legal expenditures) are likely to be smaller.

The present situation, in which NSI harms innocent domain name owners by
threatening to cut off their domain names for no good reason, and in which
they have to sue NSI, that is the one that makes money for the lawyers.
(Mostly NSI's lawyers, of course.  I recall attending the deposition of the
president of Roadrunner Computer, in which NSI sent not one, not two, but
three no doubt highly paid lawyers to represent their side.)