Re: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

 The full text of Lockheed v. NSI is at:

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/f606ac175e010d64882566eb0065
8118/4635319b8bdf28ae882568150068b21d?OpenDocument

The relevant text:

"The "direct control and monitoring" rule established by Hard Rock and
Fonovisa likewise fails to reach the instant situation. The district court
correctly recognized that NSI's rote translation service does not entail
the kind of direct control and monitoring required to justify an extension
of the "supplies a product" requirement. See 985 F. Supp. at 962 ("While
the landlord of a flea market might reasonably be expected to monitor the
merchandise sold on his premises, NSI cannot reasonably be expected to
monitor the Internet."). Such a stretch would reach well beyond the
contemplation of Inwood Lab. and its progeny.

In an attempt to fit under Fonovisa's umbrella, Lockheed characterizes
NSI's service as a licensing arrangement with alleged third-party
infringers. Although we accept Lockheed's argument that NSI licenses its
routing service to domain-name registrants, the routing service is just
that -- a service. In
Fonovisa and Hard Rock, by contrast, the defendants licensed
real estate, with the consequent direct control over the activity
that the third-party alleged infringers engaged in on the prem-
ises. Hard Rock, 955 F.2d at 1149; see Fonovisa, 96 F.3d at
265."








At 07:01 AM 10/26/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Given this morning's story at:
>
>           http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/99/138374.html
>
>...which discusses a recent US Federal Appeals court ruling that
>registrars cannot be held liable for the names they register, I'm
>wondering whether the vote just completed would turn out a bit
>differently?
>
>True, it may only vary by a few votes.  But then, consensus was reached
>by that same slim margin.
>
>-- 
>Mark C. Langston
>mark@bitshift.org
>Systems Admin
>San Jose, CA
>
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @