On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:20:07 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 06:59:32PM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:05:08 -0700, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>[...]
>> >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.
>
>TM holders have a fairly strong case that speculation causes them
>harm. Nobody has denied that, and I don't think there is really
>anything to prove. The question is, therefore, whether the harm to
>TM holders is balanced by some good provided by speculators; or
>contrarywise, is there some serious wrong done by banning
>speculation.
I don't agree here. Any harm caused to them was caused by their
inability to act BEFORE the speculator did. This was caused by their
own action (or inaction in this case) just like in any other area of
legal speculation.
>> Just one more example of the CORE faction's attempt to shift burdens
>> of proof from one side to another.
>
>I would like to make something of the fact that you can't come up
>with any response but yet another ad hominem, but unfortunately, all
>indications are that you are incapable of producing anything but ad
>hominems.
Wrong again Kent. I made a simple observation that is backed up in
fact. Nothing ad hominem about it.
In the area of trademarks, CORE has supported a policy that shifts the
burden from the trademark holder to the domain name holder, and now
you are supporting shifting the burden from the trademark holders to
the speculators.
Quite frankly, the trademark holders have a responsibility under the
law to act and protect their own marks, there is no need to grant them
special rights and privileges to make their jobs easier. Protecting a
mark SHOULD be a difficult thing.
--
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)
