Re: [wg-b] RE: opportunity to pre-empt, or license to infringe?

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

> It is a worldwide,
> instantaneous communication system that is democratic and decentralized.

[snip]

> Those who do
> not accept that fact and are unwilling to cooperate in that development,
> will have little influence [...]

It is an interesting form of democracy in which those who do not recognize
commercial claims as being of primary importance are doomed to have little
influence.

I hardly see how a presumptive determination that the string "Hatfield" can
only be used by a Philadelphia meat packer instead of a man named "Hatfield"
is going to contribute to some kind of global awakening.

While trademarks are not univeral, there is a UN Declaration of Human Rights
in which all persons are said to be entitled to their name.

I also fail to see how Mike Kirk pulling the number "20" out of thin air is
contributing to the "development" of anything.

Why is 20 more reasonable than 19 or 21?

If there is no *reason* for 20 to be better than either 19 or 21, then it is
simply arbitrary.  I had no idea prior to today that not agreeing to an
arbitrary number as "reasonable" would make me less of a person in this
"democracy" of yours.

I'd also like to know whether you would like to contribute to compensate me
for any of the hours I spent trying to protect a man named Rohn Price from
having his religious website at the domain name rohn.com taken away from him
by Rohn Industries, a company that he had never heard of.

Mr. Price's religious page had been linked to by many other religious
organizations, and Rohn Industries wrote a letter to NSI saying that he was
infringing their trademark for communication towers and industrial concrete
structures.  The domain name was put on hold, and many of the links to Mr.
Price's "blessings page", which had been a source of inspiration to many,
became inactive.

Do you support those kinds of fraudulent claims that have been made by
trademark owners against people using their own names in connection with
their internet presence in ways that have nothing to do with (a) commerce or
(b) the class of goods and services for which the trademark owners have
registrations?

I have a stack of cease and desist letters that have been forwarded to me by
various other people who have received threats of 100K damages under the
ACPA for domain names which were registered before November 29, 1999.  These
letters are simply lies told by fellow members of the bar relative to which
both you and I have certain ethical duties.

Would you like to help me sort through them and file the appropriate
complaints against these attorneys?

Or is that sort of thing just peachy with y'all?