"The proof that the report is biased is that it does not agree with me." p.s. your classification system is bogus. If Mr. Oppedahl and Mr. Davis feel otherwise, I encourage them to write in and explain their positions. More to the point, do they vouch for the accuracy of your "study" or is it convenient for their clients' positions? At 06:22 PM 1/19/99 -0500, you wrote: >Criticism #1 (continued) >The Interim Report�s presentation of evidence and anecdotes is >selective and biased >======================================================== > >* The report ignores or minimizes evidence that trademark holders can, >and often do, abuse the rights of legitimate domain name registrants. >For example, at least three separate comment submissions in the WIPO >process referenced an independent study by Syracuse University >professor Milton Mueller. (That study categorized 121 cases of >publicly reported domain name-trademark conflicts and showed that 49% >of them were cases of �character string� conflicts, in which both >parties had a legitimate claim to the name and trademark law was being >exploited to engage in �reverse domain name grabbing.� Of the 121 >cases, clear infringement constituted only 12% of the cases.) The >statistical results of this report were not mentioned in the text, and >the existence of the study was relegated to a footnote in a sentence >that claimed that �few comprehensive analyses supported by empirical >evidence are available.� (p. 81, para 254). In stark contrast, the >WIPO report devoted an entire paragraph to a discussion of the results >of a study commissioned by MARQUES, a European trademark association. >The MARQUES report, which consisted of little more than an opinion >poll of a small number of trademark lawyers, of course cited results >favorable to the claims of brand and trademark holders. (p. 81, para >255). Likewise, the WIPO Interim Report devotes entire pages to >recounting the anecdotes submitted to them by trademark holders (see >pages 82-86), but did not cite or report any countervailing evidence >presented to them by critics of the trademark interests. > >The discriminatory treatment of evidence and comments is obvious. > > >__________________________________________________ >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____________________________________________ > > > __________________________________________________ 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____________________________________________
