At 10:19 AM 2/17/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Carl Oppedahl wrote:
>
>>>What is the domain name holders burden in a filing like that?
>>
>>Typically a few tens of thousands of dollars.
>
>Which is exactly why pseudo.org may lose their domain name. The
>non-infringing non-commercial domain name holder can't afford tens of
>thousands of dollars. The reverse domain name hijackers have very little
>downside. All they need do is claim infringement (even though there is NO
>analysis in the US that supports the claim, and they know it) and he domain
>name holder's only recourse is to spend tens of thousands in legal fees
>that generally aren't shifted back to the reverse hijacker in court.
>
>WIPO's policy wouldn't be any better. And people wonder why individuals
>and small business domain name holders need representation.
Well, then we have folks like Ellen Rony coming along and blasting all
"trademark lawyers," others like James Santaga who raves about "greedy
lawyers" and adds that the judges are all dolts, while at the same time
Phil Howard wants a change in the law to end the NSI policy. If such
should come about, what do you suppose would be the field of work of
those who will have accomplished that? EEs? I think not.
The thinking on this issue will become vastly improved when people quit
pointing fingers at stereotypical scapegoats and insulting whole groups
of people as a class.
Sheesh!
Bill Lovell
