6 ms·

We may argue that domain names are different from phone numbers because they are recognisable. They carry trademarks, and unlike phone numbers, are often the w

We may argue that domain names are different from phone numbers because they are recognisable. They carry trademarks, and unlike phone numbers, are often the way we remember of an internet facing person or company. Also, the practical consequences of losing a phone number are much tamer than that of losing a domain name. I'm not sure the courts would hold the same conclusions for domain names and phone numbers. While even if the latter is not property, the former could be treated as intellectual property. Though in this case, that would be one more reason to give the domain name to the French government…

xkcd-sucks 9y ago
So the domain owner should have registered a business called "France.com"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jkaplowitz 9y ago
  He did operate such a business. From the article: "For over 20 years, Frydman built up a business (also known as France.com) [...]." I don't think we've routinely required ".com" to be part of the business branding of .com domain owners, but Ars Technica says he had that.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  He did, but more importantly, the French government isn't a business either.
  - koolba 9y ago
    Nor is the French government a US citizen, permanent resident, or corporation. Does this mean they can seize the word “France” in other languages well?
    - gsich 9y ago
      They definitly want to. France is a vulture when it comes to it's language.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    As far as I understand, this is a US citizen, having registered their domain with a US business (web.com), and the government of France filed a lawsuit in a US court, and the decision was made based on US law. And apparently US law allows this for the French government, even if they're not a US citizen or corporation (I'm not sure how that works but if it wasn't specifically allowed by US law, it wouldn't have happened). So France didn't "seize" anything. You can argue the govt of France shouldn't have filed this suit, but based on what reasoning? It's not really their job to protect the interests of US citizens. I mean, that's how it is. It's not very nice. In reverse, the US only seems to care about US citizens as well. I agree it would be nice if governments cared more about the rights of their allies' citizens as well, such as not violating their privacy on a global scale and not hacking into the private home computers of allies' citizens. Also I kind of feel the article confuses the matter a little by referring to the guy as a "French-born American" (which isn't at all relevant enough to the case to lead with in the first paragraph), and incorrectly stating he "has now sued his home country" when he has in fact sued his country of birth. His home country is the USA if he's an American. (unless I got the meaning of those terms wrong, in which case I stand by the fact that it's confusing to lead with :) ) edit I think I wanted to reply to the sibling post, sorry for even more confusion :)
chimeracoder 9y ago
> We may argue that domain names are different from phone numbers because they are recognisable. They carry trademarks, and unlike phone numbers, are often the way we remember of an internet facing person or company. This isn't unlike how phone numbers used to be until 10-20 years ago (and still are for many people today, outside of tech circles). Off the top of my head, I can rattle off at least six different phone numbers for businesses which I've never used (and some of which don't even exist anymore), simply because they chose a phone number that spelled out something memorable and relevant, and then used that heavily in their promotional materials and advertising, the same way you would for a domain name or app name today. Heck Googling just one, I found a Youtube documentary that chronicles the 40-year history of jingles associated with one of those numbers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI > Also, the practical consequences of losing a phone number are much tamer than that of losing a domain name. That's absolutely not true. They actually translate one-to-one quite well. > While even if the latter is not property, the former could be treated as intellectual property "Intellectual property" is a catchall term that conflates three completely distinct concepts in law: copyright, patents, and trademarks. Phone numbers are obviously not patentable; the entire idea is nonsensical. And phone numbers are explicitly not subject to copyright protection, and there's case law about this exact scenario. You can copyright a particular publication of phone numbers (such as a phone book), but not the number itself, and even if you could, that doesn't mean you're actually the owner of the number (the one who holds the copyright). You could make the argument for trademark protection, and that's exactly what this case is about. Unfortunately, it's a bidirectional application of competing marks - the man who owns France.com was already being accused of infringing French trademark law in the first place by claiming France.com as a mark.
- merb 9y ago
  > Heck Googling just one, I found a Youtube documentary that chronicles the 40-year history of jingles associated with one of those numbers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI NSFW: In germany there was 0190 76 76 76 - come play with me. (seven - sex, seven - sex, etc.)
mc32 9y ago
What about the case where companies pay for vanity phone numbers that either match their business name, or approximate the business name: ex, 800 mattress or 800 eyeglasses?
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  Is the government seizing those too?
  - komali2 9y ago
    The idea is if one, then the other. Kind of like when you spec out edge cases.
  - Spare_account 9y ago
    They could. Should they be able to?
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Well, the Supreme Court just reinforced the difference between types of property, and upheld the idea that a government-granted artificial privilege doesn't have the same set of rights and due process attached to it that other types of property do. Trademarks, being in the same boat, could in theory be revoked with less due process.
- walrus01 9y ago
  since the 800 prefix has been exhausted, there is a pretty healthy secondary resale market in selling 800 numbers that have some recognizable combination of alphnumeric digits. "as seen on TV" type ads selling kitchen gadgets and such will pay a fairly large amount of money for a "good" 800 DID.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    Based on your other replies in this thread, you obviously know that there are more toll free NPAs than just “800”. As many of them have been around a long time, I would argue they are just as recognizable.
reificator 9y ago
> We may argue that domain names are different from phone numbers because they are recognisable. They carry trademarks, and unlike phone numbers, are often the way we remember of an internet facing person or company. > Call JG Wentworth- 877-CASH-NOW! > So ladies, if ya' butt is round, and you want a Triple-X throw down, dial 1 900-MIX-A-LOT and kick them nasty thoughts. Baby got back! > I pity the foo' who don't use 1 800-COLLECT > Jenny Jenny, don't change your number: 8-6-7-5-3-0-9! > Save big bucks on every call- dial 1 800-CALL-ATT And that's off the top of my head, many of which I haven't heard for 15 or more years.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  I would argue that with a phone number, the letters are explicitly tied to the address whereas a domain is more or less key value pair for an ip address.
azernik 9y ago
Intellectual property isn't quite property either. The Supreme Court recently rules against a patent troll claiming that an administrative revocation of a patent was a taking without due process precisely by this reasoning.[EDIT: as detailed at http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/opinion-analysis-justices-rebuff-constitutional-attack-on-administrative-re-examination-of-patents/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/opinion-analysis-justices-...] Specifically: > Two key points support the view that patents are matters of purely “public right.” The first is the notion, illustrated by quotations from earlier cases, that the patent is a “creature of statute law” that “take[s] from the public rights of immense value, and bestow[s] them upon the patentee.” The second is that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by granting patents; Congress’ decision to authorize the executive branch to grant patents is thus a constitutionally sanctioned delineation of “the executive power,” something which “need not be adjudicated in an Article III court.” Public rights are not property.

xkcd-sucks 9y ago

So the domain owner should have registered a business called "France.com"

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jkaplowitz 9y ago
He did operate such a business. From the article: "For over 20 years, Frydman built up a business (also known as France.com) [...]." I don't think we've routinely required ".com" to be part of the business branding of .com domain owners, but Ars Technica says he had that.
ThomPete 9y ago
He did, but more importantly, the French government isn't a business either.
- koolba 9y ago
  Nor is the French government a US citizen, permanent resident, or corporation. Does this mean they can seize the word “France” in other languages well?
  - gsich 9y ago
    They definitly want to. France is a vulture when it comes to it's language.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  As far as I understand, this is a US citizen, having registered their domain with a US business (web.com), and the government of France filed a lawsuit in a US court, and the decision was made based on US law. And apparently US law allows this for the French government, even if they're not a US citizen or corporation (I'm not sure how that works but if it wasn't specifically allowed by US law, it wouldn't have happened). So France didn't "seize" anything. You can argue the govt of France shouldn't have filed this suit, but based on what reasoning? It's not really their job to protect the interests of US citizens. I mean, that's how it is. It's not very nice. In reverse, the US only seems to care about US citizens as well. I agree it would be nice if governments cared more about the rights of their allies' citizens as well, such as not violating their privacy on a global scale and not hacking into the private home computers of allies' citizens. Also I kind of feel the article confuses the matter a little by referring to the guy as a "French-born American" (which isn't at all relevant enough to the case to lead with in the first paragraph), and incorrectly stating he "has now sued his home country" when he has in fact sued his country of birth. His home country is the USA if he's an American. (unless I got the meaning of those terms wrong, in which case I stand by the fact that it's confusing to lead with :) ) edit I think I wanted to reply to the sibling post, sorry for even more confusion :)

chimeracoder 9y ago

> We may argue that domain names are different from phone numbers because they are recognisable. They carry trademarks, and unlike phone numbers, are often the way we remember of an internet facing person or company. This isn't unlike how phone numbers used to be until 10-20 years ago (and still are for many people today, outside of tech circles). Off the top of my head, I can rattle off at least six different phone numbers for businesses which I've never used (and some of which don't even exist anymore), simply because they chose a phone number that spelled out something memorable and relevant, and then used that heavily in their promotional materials and advertising, the same way you would for a domain name or app name today. Heck Googling just one, I found a Youtube documentary that chronicles the 40-year history of jingles associated with one of those numbers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI > Also, the practical consequences of losing a phone number are much tamer than that of losing a domain name. That's absolutely not true. They actually translate one-to-one quite well. > While even if the latter is not property, the former could be treated as intellectual property "Intellectual property" is a catchall term that conflates three completely distinct concepts in law: copyright, patents, and trademarks. Phone numbers are obviously not patentable; the entire idea is nonsensical. And phone numbers are explicitly not subject to copyright protection, and there's case law about this exact scenario. You can copyright a particular publication of phone numbers (such as a phone book), but not the number itself, and even if you could, that doesn't mean you're actually the owner of the number (the one who holds the copyright). You could make the argument for trademark protection, and that's exactly what this case is about. Unfortunately, it's a bidirectional application of competing marks - the man who owns France.com was already being accused of infringing French trademark law in the first place by claiming France.com as a mark.

merb 9y ago
> Heck Googling just one, I found a Youtube documentary that chronicles the 40-year history of jingles associated with one of those numbers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI NSFW: In germany there was 0190 76 76 76 - come play with me. (seven - sex, seven - sex, etc.)

mc32 9y ago

What about the case where companies pay for vanity phone numbers that either match their business name, or approximate the business name: ex, 800 mattress or 800 eyeglasses?

CyberDildonics 9y ago
Is the government seizing those too?
- komali2 9y ago
  The idea is if one, then the other. Kind of like when you spec out edge cases.
- Spare_account 9y ago
  They could. Should they be able to?
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Well, the Supreme Court just reinforced the difference between types of property, and upheld the idea that a government-granted artificial privilege doesn't have the same set of rights and due process attached to it that other types of property do. Trademarks, being in the same boat, could in theory be revoked with less due process.
walrus01 9y ago
since the 800 prefix has been exhausted, there is a pretty healthy secondary resale market in selling 800 numbers that have some recognizable combination of alphnumeric digits. "as seen on TV" type ads selling kitchen gadgets and such will pay a fairly large amount of money for a "good" 800 DID.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  Based on your other replies in this thread, you obviously know that there are more toll free NPAs than just “800”. As many of them have been around a long time, I would argue they are just as recognizable.

reificator 9y ago

> We may argue that domain names are different from phone numbers because they are recognisable. They carry trademarks, and unlike phone numbers, are often the way we remember of an internet facing person or company. > Call JG Wentworth- 877-CASH-NOW! > So ladies, if ya' butt is round, and you want a Triple-X throw down, dial 1 900-MIX-A-LOT and kick them nasty thoughts. Baby got back! > I pity the foo' who don't use 1 800-COLLECT > Jenny Jenny, don't change your number: 8-6-7-5-3-0-9! > Save big bucks on every call- dial 1 800-CALL-ATT And that's off the top of my head, many of which I haven't heard for 15 or more years.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
I would argue that with a phone number, the letters are explicitly tied to the address whereas a domain is more or less key value pair for an ip address.

azernik 9y ago

Intellectual property isn't quite property either. The Supreme Court recently rules against a patent troll claiming that an administrative revocation of a patent was a taking without due process precisely by this reasoning.[EDIT: as detailed at http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/opinion-analysis-justices-rebuff-constitutional-attack-on-administrative-re-examination-of-patents/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/04/opinion-analysis-justices-...] Specifically: > Two key points support the view that patents are matters of purely “public right.” The first is the notion, illustrated by quotations from earlier cases, that the patent is a “creature of statute law” that “take[s] from the public rights of immense value, and bestow[s] them upon the patentee.” The second is that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by granting patents; Congress’ decision to authorize the executive branch to grant patents is thus a constitutionally sanctioned delineation of “the executive power,” something which “need not be adjudicated in an Article III court.” Public rights are not property.