Re[2]: [ga] Domain names as observed (was Tucows Response to Cochet tiTransfer Letter)

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Sotiris,

Sunday, July 29, 2001, 6:42:48 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> Hello Sotiris,
>>
>> Sunday, July 29, 2001, 2:31:22 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>
>> > Fraud *is* a type of theft William.  Trademark law was instituted to protect
>> > against FRAUD.
>>
>> Wrong.

> One word answers are not what I'd call `convincing'...

Neither are assertions with nothing to back them up.

>>
>> >> Courts have already ruled on this Sotiris. While those decisions are
>> >> not binding in every jurisdiction, they do set strong precedents.
>>
>> > Please produce a list of what you consider "strong precedents".
>>
>> How about a US Federal Court ruling which set a strong precedence,
>> which applied the real legal definition of property under the law?
>>
>> Sex.com
>> U.S. District Court Judge James Ware dismissed a theft claim --
>> technically called a "conversion" claim -- against the convicted felon
>> accused of hijacking sex.com, ruling that Web domains aren't property,
>> and therefore can't be stolen.
>>
>> "There is simply no evidence establishing that a domain name,
>> including sex.com," meets the definition of property "as required by
>> the law of conversion," the judge wrote in his ruling, citing his own
>> words from a May decision in a separate suit brought by sex.com's
>> original owner, Gary Kremen, against domain registrar Network
>> Solutions.
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38398,00.html

> The part you conveniently omitted from your citing of the article is a little less
> than favourable to your case, William:

> "The judge acknowledged that it's not totally clear whether property law should or
> shouldn't apply to Web domains, but emphasized that the job of clarifying the law
> rests with the legislature, not the courts. Legal experts seconded his opinion."
> ("his opinion" i.e. that the job of clarifying the law rests with the legislature, not
> the courts!)

This is true of any area of discussion.

What he said was that under the law, as it exists today, domain names
are not property.  His statemnet above, which is FAR from being
important to the point, merely acknowledges that the congress may pass
laws to change that in the future.

Legal exports seconded his opinion, an opinion refers to the entire
written document, Sotiris.  I can tell you have had no legal training
at all.  Even my limited amount lends itself to an understanding of
what an opinion is when referenced in this fashion.

>>
>> >> The Harrods case does nothing to advance the concept of domain names
>> >> being property.  Not by ANY reasonable stretch.
>>
>> > Forgive me for not ascribing to your specific standards of REASON, William.  All
>> > I'm haring from you is the same thing over and over again.  Where are your
>> > REASONINGS?  Please produce the evidence of which you speak.
>>
>> How about facts?

> How about them?  You have yet to produce the "strong precedents", you mentioned.  You
> cite one case, and even the judge in that case admits his decision may be open to
> reversal ("The judge acknowledged that it's not totally clear whether property law
> should or shouldn't apply to Web domains.."

No, what he said is true of ANY case, that the Congress may pass a law
changing the status.  That does not make the precedent any less
strong.


> I'd actually prefer to see a jury decide... there still is trial by jury in the United

Actually, as to matters of LAW, the judges decide.  The juries decide
matters of fact.

The UDRP is not a legal proceeding, Sotiris, it is "supra legal" and
exists outside the legal system.  What the UDRP does has no impact on
the courts or the law.

You really should find an attorney to explain all this to you.

I have.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html