On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:05:08 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:29:01PM -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
>wrote:
>> It has been gently pointed out to me off list that people can and have
>> trademarked the word "cars" for various things other than the sale of
>> vehicles. Which suggests that there may really be no words in which the
>> WIPO rules make trafficking safe.
>
>Assuming that a restrictive and clean definition of "domain name
>speculation" can be developed, what concrete social harm is done by
>disallowing it totally?
See this is where you have it all wrong. Policies are adopted not
because adopting them doesn't cause concrete social harm, but because
NOT adopting does.
In other words, to ban something, you have to prove that the act
causes concrete social harms.
Just one more example of the CORE faction's attempt to shift burdens
of proof from one side to another.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
