Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ...
From: adam (storage@eu.iewebs.com)
Date: Sun Nov 05 2000 - 06:41:11 EST
- Next message: adam: "RE: Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Previous message: Florian Effenberger: "Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- In reply to: Swerve: "Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Next in thread: Marc Schneiders: "Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Reply: Marc Schneiders: "Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Reply: Lee Hodgson (DomainGuideBook.com): "Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Reply: William X. Walsh: "Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
Swerve <Swerve@swerve.com> said:
> BUT, if the WIPO lawyers force a sunrise scenario, then the trademark
> holders of Love and Sex, and probably any single word you can think of, may
> scoop them before your automated scripting engine tries to pound the entry
> points.
>
In my opinion the people who operate the automated scripting engines are far,
far worse than trademark holders...
Trademarks are an imperfect solution, and always have been, but there is some
good points to them. Domain aggregators are scum, however, and deserve
nothing less than LARTing.
adam
- Next message: adam: "RE: Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Previous message: Florian Effenberger: "Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- In reply to: Swerve: "Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Next in thread: Marc Schneiders: "Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Reply: Marc Schneiders: "Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Reply: Lee Hodgson (DomainGuideBook.com): "Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Reply: William X. Walsh: "Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, ..."
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3
: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:36:04 EDT