Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Carl,

  Please read below your comments.

Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> 
> At 02:56 AM 12/27/96 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> >>
> >> At 05:08 PM 12/26/96 PST, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >> >Perry said...
> >> >>Christopher Ambler writes:
> >> >>> First off, I should echo Kent's comments that the 60-day period would
> >> >>> apply to only a seriously small percentage of domains,
> >> >>
> >> >>I'd guess over 99% of contracts are never contested. Why do we bother
> >> >>to write them down? Aren't written contracts just a "hassle" we
> >> >>could do without?
> >> >>
> >> >>The vast majority of wills are simple. Why have a will at all?
> >> >
> >> >Because making a contract or writing a will harms nobody. A 60-day
> >> >waiting period harms the vast vast majority of domain registrants.
> >>
> >> Nope.  It helps them, months and years later.  By slowing down or halting
> >> the latecomers who, months or years later, would try to force them to give
> >> up their domain names.
> >
> >*Might* help them later.  And it isn't clear that a waiting period
> >would help any more than a pure publication period.
> 
> We have a publication period now, right?  Anybody who wants to can check
> Whois to see that a domain name has been added, right?  Or they can
> download the root-level server file (eight or ten megabytes, right?) and
> compare it with yesterday's?  And indeed the publication period we have now
> is one that lasts forever.  Yet we still have covetous-trademark-owner
> lawsuits like clue, ty, regis, dci, disc, and juno.  And the hundreds of
> other cases that didn't reach the point of being lawsuits because the
> domain name owner didn't have enough money to sue.
> 
> Granted, the chief cause of most of those cases was the terrible NSI
> policy.  But I am pointing out that having a publication period didn't seem
> to dissuade those trademark owners in presenting their demands.

  Carl, pardon me, but I think you are attempting to seek the perfict 
solution.  There is none.  No law, can absolutly protect everyone
all the time.  That's why we have layers highly skilled like yourself,
to assist in that problem solving.  We also have corts to redress these
concerns.  I admire your honest concern, but it think that you are 
"tugging on supermans cape" here. 

  Ass to protecting the little guy, that really should be up to 
the legal community and other intrested parties, whom which to 
jointly file these suits to their mutual benifit, if indeed they
in and of themselves cannot afford to sue if the situation calls
for it.  That is the only other Legal recourse the "Little" guy
has. It's not great, but it is workable.  I know i have done it
myself, in our early days.

Regards,

> 
> ---
> Carl Oppedahl, Oppedahl & Larson, patent law firm
> http://www.patents.com/ has hundreds of pages of answers to
> frequently asked questions on patent, copyright, and trademark law

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com