Re: Re[2]: IAHC Proposal (Attacks Thereon)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Carl Oppedahl allegedly said:
> 
> At 06:09 PM 01/13/97 -0800, you wrote:
[...]
> With NSI's policy, you have nothing at all.  Only a registered trademark
> would protect you, and you don't have that.

Well, yes, I was overenthusiastic.  However, I could also get hit by 
a truck tomorrow and make it all moot.  It is my reasonable 
expectation that the registration will complete fairly soon.

> Even ignoring the NSI policy, consider this:  you claim a date of first use
> in February of 1995.  For all you know, someone else has superior rights to
> you, maybe someone who began using the mark in January of 1995.

Probably not, though.  It would be a rather unusual set of
circumstances, given the various searches I did and other information
I have.  Of course, there are no certainties, only probabilities. 

> You could get an NSI letter tomorrow,

[...]

Yes I could.  I don't like NSI's policy.  However, you forget that 
NSI's policy is not the policy at issue.

> >> >Sally used the term "pirates" for these people.  I was following her 
> >> >terminology. 
> >> 
> >> No, she did not.
> >
> >It would be really helpful if you would simmer down, think for a 
> >few seconds, and perhaps check your facts.
> >
> >To quote her letter:
> >
> >	Another way to spin the numbers would be 
> >	to start with the 800,000 figure, take 
> >	away the deliberate "pirates" (some 
> >	estimates I have seen put that number as 
> >	high as 100,000),...
> >
> >[snip]
> 
> Nowhere in the quoted portion, nor in any other part of her posting, did
> she label as a "pirate" the people I was calling "these people", namely the
> domain name owner who isn't infringing anyone's trademark and is using some
> non-unique word as the domain name.  She refers only to "deliberate
> 'pirates'".  I am afraid you haven't proven your point.

What's to prove?  She used the term "pirate", and she didn't define 
it, I took it from context to mean those who grab names without the 
intent of using them and with the intent of selling them to people 
who would want them.

Go read it again, in context.  You think 1 in 8 domain registrations 
are what *you* refer to as "pirates"?

Incidentally, I note that you did not attempt to refute my point that 
a trademark search, coupled with a reasonable policies on the part of 
registrars, would give at least as much protection as a 60 day wait.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F