Well that's certainly one opinion. I'd say there are far more examples that state the "value" of something is what someone is willing to pay for it. They are willing to pay a price based on what it is worth to them.
When I got a new computer that compiled C-code at over 4 times the speed that its predecessor did I didn't reduce my price by a quarter. The "value billing" model still holds true. The fact I could get the job done faster doesn't make it worth less to the client. I would say that a domain name to which one attaches a significant Internet identity (and possibly investment) to is far more than an "arbitrary string of characters" to them. The fact that "coke.com" isn't worth more than $35 US (Verisign's Fee) to a cattle farmer (or perhaps you) doesn't mean that's all it is worth. You sure you're not a lawyer trying to find a spin to put on this to convince a jury? :) (Keep spinning.) Jack "Roger B.A. Klorese" wrote: > At 03:22 PM 5/2/2002 -0500, POWERHOUSE wrote: > >> From a legal point of view, if the domain was not suppose to expire >> until Sept of this year, you >> have them bent over a barrell. They where "Negligent" to let it go, >> before it even expired. I'm >> not an attorney, but I would call one right away, ESPECIALLY since >> you paid so much money >> for the domain to start with. > > If I pay $5M for a candy bar and someone steals it from me, I'm > entitled to the cost of a candy bar, not what I paid for that candy > bar. My stupidity doesn't reserve a reward. > > No domain is "valuable." They're all arbitrary strings of characters; > we've pretty well proven that people who are looking to buy a car, for > instance, anre no more likely to blindly go to cars.com as anywhere > else.
