>Clare Wardle wrote:
>
>> The problem is that in the current situation, whoever owns a particular
domain name particularly a .com domain name has something that is
increasingly valuable to a business with that name.
>
then Mueller wrote:
>This is an assumption on your part that may or may not be true. The idea
that people search the Internet using exclusively domain names, and that a
domain name by itself has tremendous value, has never been verified. It is
simply a panicky assumption on the
>part of many businesses.
>
>> This problem must have a technical solution - it is after basically a
technical problem caused by the way the internet works.
>
>It is not a technical problem at all. It is a semantic problem, a
marketing problem, and a property rights problem. Technically, it is
absurdly simple to coordinate two competing claimants for a domain name.
Give united airlines united1.com and united van
>lines united2.com. The problem is that no one wants those solutions
because they are undesirable from a marketing and semantic standpoint.
Then I guess they're not solutions.
"Everyone is angling for the enhanced visibility and (assumed) economic
value of united.com. Which means that what
>trademark owners who insist that they MUST have <string>.com are really
asking for is something far more powerful and sweeping than what
traditional trademark law ever granted them. They want their trademark to
give them an exclusivity that is much broader
>than the exclusivity within a specific industry and geographic
jurisdiction of original trademark concepts. If people are "demonising"
trademark owners, that is the reason.--MM"
>
This has never been verified and is simply a panicky assumption on the part
of biased academics who were apparently scared by a trademark owner when
young.
