[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] RE: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to infringe?
Mr. Hartman --
You have insinuated that the view which acknowledges a priority for the
communication rather than the commercial interests of the Internet reflects
an unwillingness to cooperate in its development.
I believe you sorely underestimate the educational value of the material
being posted online.
I have a teenage son who uses the Internet as his primary source of
research for school work. From monitoring the Americas Cup race to
investigating the contentious issues surrounding gun control, I venture
that the vast majority of Internet users have NEVER laid their credit card
numbers down to make an online purchase.
I desperately want to assure that the Internet does not become solely a
global mall. The trademark industry's insistence that its marks prevail
over all other uses of words moves this incredible global communication
medium in that direction, and your remarks below reflect this limited
perspective.
A decent standard of living does not rely upon an electronic commercial
agenda. A decent standard of living relies upon people having the
informational tools they need to help themselves.
The power to communicate human rights abuses IN REAL TIME beyond global
boundaries will serve as a better monitoring device than an army of
uniformed guards. A decent standard of living goes hand-in-hand with free
speech.
Millions of people worldwide were able to track the Pathfinder mission on
the Internet and watch Sojourner maneuver on Martial soil. I cannot guess
the sociological implications of being able to witness IN REAL TIME this
absolutely phenomenal technological feat, but I feel that such shared
experiences bring us closer together as a species.
A close family relative had a triple bypass a few years ago. All family
members were better informed about the procedure and risks and follow-up
requirements because of the information generously shared on the Internet
by physicians. That information most certainly has enhanced the lives of
all of us affected by that dangerous surgery.
Do not presume that you know what value I ascribe to the Internet. IMHO,
the Internet is the largest cooperative venture of humankind, a land of
knowledge and exploration--accessible, contextual, international,
continuous, open and instant to anyone with a digital passport. It is not
solely a trademark owner's playground.
As co-author of The Domain Name Handbook, I quote Paul Saffo, a strategist
at the Institute for the Future, who I believe accurately reflects the
process that is holding us in its sway: "This revolution is more than
unpredictable. We are performing a great unwitting experiment that is
changing our societal structures, our government structures, our business
structures. Everything, absolutely everything, is up for grabs, and
nothing is going to make sense for a couple of decades, so you may as well
sit back and enjoy the ride."
>At last year's annual meeting of the International Trademark Association, I
>stated that the Internet is a unique phenomenon: It is a worldwide,
>instantaneous communication system that is democratic and decentralized. It
>should remain so and, as I said then, how the Internet community copes with
>the issue of regulation and governance in dealing with problems such as
>privacy, criminality, taxation and economic competition without jeopardizing
>the Internet's essential character will be the fundamental challenge.
>
>That said, I believe that you, and others, underestimate the economic value,
>opportunity and importance of the Internet. The Internet has the potential
>of significantly increasing productivity, reducing costs, and ultimately
>improving the standard of living of all peoples around the world. Not today
>or tomorrow, but in 10 years, maybe 25. One can glibly say that free speech
>is paramount, but to most people in the world, and to their governments, a
>decent standard of living takes precedence.
>
>Commercial interests and other trademark owners will inevitably play a large
>role in the growth and economic development of the Internet. Those who do
>not accept that fact and are unwilling to cooperate in that development,
>will have little influence in maintaining the character of Internet I
>described above.
>
>Steve Hartman
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ellen Rony [SMTP:erony@marin.k12.ca.us]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 6:35 PM
>> To: Hartman, Steve
>> Cc: 'Judith Oppenheimer'; 'John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.'; wg-b@dnso.org
>> Subject: Re: [wg-b] RE: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to
>> infringe?
>>
>> Steve Hartman wrote:
>>
>> >In my judgment speculation in the trademarks of others unnecessarily
>> drives
>> >up the cost of doing business on the Internet and reduces the efficiency
>> of
>> >the Internet, with no countervailing benefits.
>> >
>> >A sunrise provision has the potential of appreciably reducing the number
>> of
>> >cybersquatting opportunities and, in so doing, reducing the amount of
>> >cybersquatter-related litigation.
>>
>> A sunrise provision for trademarks plus 20 variations turns the trademark
>> owners into cybersquatters.
>>
>> Why should trademark owners, who are only one class of users on the
>> Internet, be given such preferential treatment. How about people who want
>> their given names as domain names. Would you favor giving every person a
>> sunrise provision that he and she get theirfirst+last names before anyone
>> else gets them during a 30 day sunrise provision. Does that sound fair?
>> If not, why is it any different.
>>
>> On balance, the benefits of the trademark sunrise provision outweigh all
>> other uses of the Internet and treat it as solely a commercial one. ..COM
>> means communication, not just commerce.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >On balance, this benefits of the sunrise provision outweigh free speech
>> and
>> >hoarding concerns.
>> >
>> >Steve Hartman
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Judith Oppenheimer [SMTP:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 1:50 PM
>> >> To: Hartman, Steve; 'John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.'; wg-b@dnso.org
>> >> Subject: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to infringe?
>> >> Importance: High
>> >>
>> >> Steve Hartman, Nabisco, says,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "[The Sunrise Proposal] simply allows trademark owners the opportunity
>> to
>> >> pre-empty speculators and cybersquatters."
>> >>
>> >> Cybersquatting involves infringement of trademark rights and is
>> >> actionable.
>> >>
>> >> Speculating is legal and legitimate activity. Trademark owners have no
>> >> legal right to infringe on speculators' activity.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Judith Oppenheimer
>>
>>
>> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
>> Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com
>> Co-author *=" ____ / erony@marin.k12.ca.us
>> The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010
>> // \\ "Carpe canine"
>>
>> The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author *=" ____ / erony@marin.k12.ca.us
The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010
// \\ "Carpe canine"
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.