Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

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

#41

Post by shkkmo »

gallerytungsten wrote: post #32
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?

Is it society that would be benefiting from Harsh taking away Keen's domain? Or is it Harsh? By defining the benefit as being to "society" one might sound noble while masking the reality: Harsh is attempting to steal Keen's domain name in a sleazy and opportunistic fashion. Defining this kind of hijacking as a benefit to society is misdirection at best.

I'm absolutely not trying to defend Harsh Mehta's tactics.

I'm just trying to start a conversation about the value of Kneen's sitting on a domain name he isn't using for 16 year.

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

#42

Post by albedoa »

tptacek wrote: post #28

The unfortunate thing about the case is that both parties are Internet natives and, Mehta especially, part of the startup ecosystem. What the fuck does this mean?

It means they were present on the internet before the vast majority of its current population.

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

#43

Post by nnain »

mattmanser wrote: post #30
nnain wrote: post #20

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.

Uh, no, it doesn't. Just because you happen to wish the world and the law worked differently doesn't make the article biased.

I'm not wishing that the law works differently. I'm presenting an opinion. The court will decide based on the law. May the right one win.

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

#44

Post by pmontra »

tptacek wrote: post #28

The unfortunate thing about the case is that both parties are Internet natives and, Mehta especially, part of the startup ecosystem. What the fuck does this mean?

Maybe that they'll have to meet in person many people that are reading these news now and be asked about it. Many embarrassing conversations will follow.

Or that an Internet native should not do this.

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

#45

Post by shkkmo »

mbrameld wrote: post #14
solve wrote: post #7

Forcing squatters to have to file a trademark to retain their squatted domains would improve the squatting situation 10000x. Clearly the current Workbetter.com owner is squatting the name.

The article makes it sound like he was willing to sell very cheaply on the condition that the new owner actually use the domain and not resell it. That's not really squatting behavior.

That's not what the article says at all:

"Mehta made it clear he was interested only in the name and Kneen reconsidered briefly, even proposing some restrictions including a required payment if Mehta resold the domain. Ultimately, however, Kneen refused to sell."

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

#46

Post by rgbrenner »

lazyant wrote: post #39

I remember here some nasty comments about the previous owner of the dropbox.com domain (similar situation of an old unused domain), calling him squatter etc when Dropbox finally acquired it.

OK.. let's check that. here's the HN post for it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=880522

Let's look at some of the comments:

- Finally, I don't think this owner, nor Justintv.com, are cybersquatters since they owned their domains since the 90's.

- I agree with you, but in this case the original owner wasn't a squatter.

- note that I don't like squatters either, but who can tell that he wasn't legitimate when he registered it first?

- Not to mention that he registered it in the 90's! How does that possibly count as squatting?

Nope.. not really seeing any "nasty comments"

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

#47

Post by lsaferite »

darkstar999 wrote: post #40
moonpoint wrote: post #23

This is same argument that real estate sharks use to use eminent domain and alleged blight to bully property owners.

Can you elaborate? I'm having trouble making the connection from domain names to real estate.

He has a domain (land) that the startup (property developer) wants but refuses to sell. He's trying to use domain squatting laws (eminent domain laws) to force an ownership transfer.

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

#48

Post by pmontra »

I think many of us have been looking for an available domain for a site and found all of them registered years before and parked since then.

The normal way to proceed is look for another name and try again. Mehta is doing it wrong.

However I don't like the general idea of squatting, also on domains. I'd be happy if there was an easy way to prevent it. Somebody suggested incremental renewal fees for unused domains, but how to tell if a domain is unused? It won't be difficult to automate some "working" site for parked domains (think of those blogs that are populated with content automatically scraped from real sites.) Other ideas?

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

#49

Post by lsaferite »

shkkmo wrote: post #41
gallerytungsten wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it society that would be benefiting from Harsh taking away Keen's domain? Or is it Harsh? By defining the benefit as being to "society" one might sound noble while masking the reality: Harsh is attempting to steal Keen's domain name in a sleazy and opportunistic fashion. Defining this kind of hijacking as a benefit to society is misdirection at best.

I'm absolutely not trying to defend Harsh Mehta's tactics. I'm just trying to start a conversation about the value of Kneen's sitting on a domain name he isn't using for 16 year.

Same argument can be made against property owners that refuse to developer their land.

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

#50

Post by grok2 »

shkkmo wrote: post #41
gallerytungsten wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it society that would be benefiting from Harsh taking away Keen's domain? Or is it Harsh? By defining the benefit as being to "society" one might sound noble while masking the reality: Harsh is attempting to steal Keen's domain name in a sleazy and opportunistic fashion. Defining this kind of hijacking as a benefit to society is misdirection at best.

I'm absolutely not trying to defend Harsh Mehta's tactics. I'm just trying to start a conversation about the value of Kneen's sitting on a domain name he isn't using for 16 year.

That is like telling that most of a billionaire's billions are not really worthwhile to them and that they are uselessly "squatting" on them when instead they could be put to good use by someone else. One's possessions legally acquired are one's own to do what one wishes with it! Including sitting uselessly on them.
Post reply on HN