21–30 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger question is whether anyone has the authority to take it away from him.
Trademark law probably says yes.
[deleted]
Anyway, the $500 offer is pretty insulting for this "premium" domain name. No wonder it didn't get sold.
[deleted]
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?
Otherwise we will begin to go in your refrigerator and take the food that is certain to end in the garbage, go in your closet and take the clothes you haven't worn in x years, give you your money back for the vacation home you bought and visit only 7 days out of the year and remains locked the rest of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger question is whether anyone has the authority to take it away from him.
Trademark law probably says yes.
You can't just see a domain you like, go register a trademark for it and demand they give it to you. Atleast not for .com.
What the fuck does this mean?
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?
In in real estate this problem is solved through taxation - tax the property for its appraised value, and squatting will be a thing of the past.
The article sets a slight bias in favour of Kneen already. So, many people might sympathise with him more. But who knows what negotiation talks actually happened?! The tone, the mood.. The coming generations should have a better chance at finding domain names I feel. So I personally would side with the one trying to acquire the domain name for his/her registered company.
Just because you happen to wish the world and the law worked differently doesn't make the article biased.