All there. All speculation. Most of the names you cite are Toeppen cases, a few
are One in a Million. Since the court decisions explicitly recognized that the
Toeppen and OiaM were name speculators, I think you have verified my
classifications.
Thanks, Martin.
--MM
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> microsoftnetwork.com.
>
> crateandbarrel.com.
>
> harrods.com.
>
> jsainsbury.com
>
> micros0ft.com.
>
> panaflex.com.
>
> In a debate that revolves around whether there is a problem, to hide all of
> these under the rubric of "speculation" is disengenuous. I'm sure that
> Congress was left with no doubt that the third party registration of
> cratebandbarrel.com was left out of your definition of infringement.
>
> At 05:56 PM 3/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> >
> >> One of the reasons that Mueller's study is not worth the storage space it
> >> takes up is that he presumed to categorize cases based on an incomplete
> >> knowledge of the facts (and law) involved. I mean, how many final court
> >> decisions did he use in his study (not that final court decisions give the
> >> definitive facts but they do give the definitive law).
> >
> >We're all still waiting for you to contest a single one of those
> >classifications.Is Pokey.org a string conflict as I defined it, or not? How
> >about zippo.com?
> >How many final court decisions did we use? All of them that were available.
> >
> >By the way, all knowledge of "facts" is incomplete.
> >--MM
> >
> >
> >
