Milton Mueller a �crit:
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > Agree 100%.
> > Perhaps the word is used as an opening shot. The TM lobby will bargain to
> > drop it , if the substance of the "tresspass" on Domain Name Rights can be
> > sustained.
>
> One problem here is that the longer and more carefully one examines the claims
> of TM interests of abuse, the more one finds that there is very little
> "counterfeiting" and "infringement" going on. Almost everything they complain
> about are activities unique to the Internet that are on some kind of strange
> legal boundary: Name speculation constitutes the vast majority of their
> complaints; typo domain names is another example. It is very difficult to make
> a credible case that typo domains is counterfeiting. It is even harder to show
> that such activities have a meaningful economic impact on their alleged
> victims. There are even legal precedents from the telephone world (phone
> numbers one digit away from famous 800 numbers) that do not uphold the TM
> owners conviction that such things are so obviously wrong they must be stopped
> without a trial. When real fraud occurs, such as the famous "callATT" case in
> which fake credit cards were allegedly being sold, the perpetrator gets
> identified and shut down so fast its hard to see why any special regulatory
> issues pertaining to domain names are raised.
Did it never occur to you that the so-called trademark interests are not
unaware of this? And that their whole argument might be a ploy for getting
into a position where they can exercise control over the allocation of
domain names (and eventually address space) for economic advantage? If you
look at the INTA's proposal, for example, you will see that there isn't very
much attention paid in it to diminishing the influence of registrars over
domain names. Instead, great attention is paid to creating a hierarchical
structure such as in a modern industrial corporation. They would not go to
such trouble to do this in order to save a little money on trademark
disputes. They are doing it because they have their own plans for the
Internet, and they need to manuever into a position of executive control in
order to realize those plans. The trademark issue is a chimera, as you
rightly point out. But that doesn't make the people behind it any less
dangerous. Rather, more so.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
