On Tue, Dec 30, 1997 at 12:03:10PM +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 28, 1997 at 08:27:35PM -0500, Bob Helfant wrote:
> >> At 07:55 PM 12/27/97 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >> >I think you are overlooking something here:
> >> >
> >> >Cost of xerox.firm: $100
> >> >Legal cost to xerox to go to court: $5000
> >> >
> >> >I offer "xerox.firm" to xerox for $3000
> >> >They save $5000-$3000: $2000
> >> >I make $3000-$100: $2900
[...]
> Kent,
> In my recent experience of 'domain name piracy' companies would much rather
> spend a few (hundred) thousand dollars to establish a principle than pay a
> tiny amount for a domain name.
> The IP departments would take the lead on this and most would relish the
> chance to fight this battle.
> Its small change to the companies, and after recent cases in the US and UK
> I don't think 'pirates' have much of a leg to stand on.
> I don't think you'll find many UK people stupid enough to try this after
> recent cases. A few precedents soon set the matter straight.
> It's not CORE's concern - more POCs surely?
Ivan, real data is always very valuable in any discussion -- I would
be interested to know a bit more about your recent experience in this
area.
But to continue the example just a bit: If the company looks
threatening, the correct strategy for the speculator is to capitulate
immediately, and transfers the domain at cost. Cost to the company:
huge (because even filing court papers to initiate action costs
money); cost to the speculator: nothing. Legal action on the part of
the company is a minor threat, if the speculator is clever. A
speculator who allows the case to get to court is stupid.
One of the caveats I was going to make in my above example is that
very large companies have legal expertise on staff, and it is much
more likely that they will indeed pursue legal action. Also, the
nature of the name matters: Pepsico, I think, would be quite likely to
squash any attempt at use of the name "pepsi" -- "pepsi" is a very
strong trademark. But United Airlines might be very much less
inclined to take action against a pirate who claimed "united.firm".
In that case, the pirate could pedal the name to United Airlines,
United Van Lines, and many other companies.
But it seems to me that the companies that are really vulnerable to
this kind of action are small companies with good trademarks.
-- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:17 PST