Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL • Hacker News Board

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#101

Post by gumby » Fri, Jul 03, 2015, 8:25 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #6

I have sympathy for Kneen, but do we really, as a society, benefit from people that buy useful domains and then sit on them for 16 years while doing nothing with them?

Good point. Society should favour those who take fallow domain names and turn them into productive IP!

I suspect he did "nothing" (our term) with them by simply getting mere email via that domain, or running a background service, or even just musing in the back of his mind about building a business for which workbetter.com would be a good domain.

But let's just say Mehta starts his "coworking" space. Then perhaps society later deems it good to have a program that takes the underemployed and increases their skill levels. Or encourage those whose jobs have been replaced by robots to find more spiritually fulfilling and socially valuable volenteer jobs in the community. Then we can take the worksbetter.com name away from the useless coworking space and redirect it to a socially more beneficial use!

Look, I hate squatters, but Keen seems hardly even close to being one of them. What he is is someone who shows that the cost of getting rid of squatters is higher than the burden of having those parasites around.

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#102

Post by MrSourz » Fri, Jul 03, 2015, 8:34 PM UTC

jebblue wrote: post #2

It doesn't look like he was CyberSquatting to me. I hope it resolves in his favor. If the person bringing the suit should win it would set a bad precedent for all Internet business.

I agree with you. The best part of the article was the two legal documents. Fascinating stuff and good to know about.

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#103

Post by redblacktree » Fri, Jul 03, 2015, 8:49 PM UTC

chaosfox wrote: post #72

kennywinker wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And then when your company starts to do better, you throw $xx,xxx at the owner of the .com version and getdropbox.com becomes dropbox.com.

sometimes money is not enough, see steam.com

How odd. I'm sure they could get a small fortune for that name.

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#104

Post by toast0 » Fri, Jul 03, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #68

tedunangst wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sell me your domain for 5000 or I'll offer 100000...

We manage to assess real estate without running into those problems. It definitely wouldn't be an easy policy to enact.

Eh, California takes the sales price as the base price and has a 2% annual cap on increases. I guess you could charge a little bit more every year for domains, but that feels extortionist.

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#105

Post by jlgaddis » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 1:17 AM UTC

swang wrote: post #8

The guy's name is Harsh, what other actions would you expect from him? But seriously, looking at the doc and not mentioned in the article. Harsh apparently tried to negotiate, failed, then tried to "transfer" the domain. When Kneen called him out on this, Harsh suggested it was someone else, and that he wouldn't have done this since he found a suitable alternative. So I'm pretty sure Harsh was being purposely manipul…

Not only was he being manipulative, he was being outright dishonest.

On 25 June, he told Kneen that "it was an internal mixup and the error has been corrected" -- a day after the civil suit was filed (cf. screenshot of tweet in article).

To me -- and possibly to a judge -- that shows "bad faith".

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#106

Post by jlgaddis » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 1:33 AM UTC

keithpeter wrote: post #3

Won't Web searches about WorkBetter always point to news about this case now? Sort of bad PR even before the new company gets started. An 'out of court' settlement would be better perhaps for both parties.

Since WorkBetter is a co-working space, I'm guessing that their target market is, largely, folks like many of us on HN: those in the tech industry who work remotely. These are the same people who are going to Google the company to gather as much info about it as possible and then be turned off or put off by the fact that they'd sue someone over a domain name dispute. Some people wouldn't care, obviously, but I wouldn't want to be a customer of an organization that filed such frivolous lawsuits just because they didn't get their way.

A dismissal of the suit, initiated by the Plaintiff, would be in the best interest of both parties, in my opinion.

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#107

Post by jlgaddis » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 1:58 AM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #9

shkkmo wrote: post #6

I have sympathy for Kneen, but do we really, as a society, benefit from people that buy useful domains and then sit on them for 16 years while doing nothing with them?

The bigger question is whether anyone has the authority to take it away from him.

I take it you haven't heard of the UDRP?

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#108

Post by jlgaddis » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 3:05 AM UTC

ziles88 wrote: post #100

Looks EXACTLY like cybersquatting to me. You have to learn to read behind the lines here. I've had to deal with these people before, they are infuriating. Heres the facts that suck - Has the domain for 16 years, doing nothing with it. - Strings a long a deal for purchase because it doesn't meet his demands. - Continues to fight extremely hard to do nothing with said domain. I find it convenient the author never menti…

I haven't checked to see if there's an MX (or other) RRs for that zone, but just because there isn't a web page (or something more than a "parking" page) doesn't mean he's "doing nothing with it".

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#109

Post by keithpeter » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 8:02 AM UTC

jlgaddis wrote: post #106

keithpeter wrote: post #3

Won't Web searches about WorkBetter always point to news about this case now? Sort of bad PR even before the new company gets started. An 'out of court' settlement would be better perhaps for both parties.

Since WorkBetter is a co-working space, I'm guessing that their target market is, largely, folks like many of us on HN: those in the tech industry who work remotely. These are the same people who are going to Google the company to gather as much info about it as possible and then be turned off or put off by the fact that they'd sue someone over a domain name dispute. Some people wouldn't care, obviously, but I wouldn…

Such an outcome would be much cheaper as well.

Not quite a co-working space but the place below has sprung up in Birmingham as part of a much larger organisation (or franchise)

http://birmingham.impacthub.net/what-is-impact-hub/

Re: Startup Sues a Domain Name Owner to Grab a 16-Year-Old URL

#110

Post by PhantomGremlin » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 9:52 AM UTC

clamprecht wrote: post #53

shkkmo wrote: post #6

I have sympathy for Kneen, but do we really, as a society, benefit from people that buy useful domains and then sit on them for 16 years while doing nothing with them?

Would you argue that the guy who has owned the beautiful un developed downtown property for 16 (or 60) years should be forced to sell it to build a W hotel because it's a "better use" of the land? How about building an orphanage? To me it's the very definition of property rights. I get to do what I want with my property, including doing nothing (as long as I don't otherwise break the law).

I wish your view was the law of the land. But, very unfortunately, it's not. Read about this US Supreme Court decision and weep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

The dissenters were very upset about "reverse Robin Hood", i.e. "take from the poor, give to the rich".