4 ms·

>Of course they don't, but they've got a very legitimate claim to own the TLD. Not really. Once trademarks become "things", that trademark ceases to be effecti

>Of course they don't, but they've got a very legitimate claim to own the TLD. Not really. Once trademarks become "things", that trademark ceases to be effective and can rarely be enforced. TLD's are not for trademarks. This isn't complicated. > A tool used globally to catch fish, birds and other animals for a millenia. Because .net, like .com, is shorthand. ".net" is short hand for network. And Verisign is the organization responsible for maintaining that TLD's domain registry. It has nothing to do with branding or trademarks. >A tool used globally to catch fish, birds and other animals for a millenia. This should be your sign that you're just grasping at straws and you're not here to learn or make any kind of substantial argument.

ryanlol 8y ago
>Not really. Once trademarks become "things", that trademark ceases to be effective and can rarely be enforced. TLD's are not for trademarks. This isn't complicated. Amazon (the company) has a very (probably the most) legitimate claim to the gTLD as the word is most often used to refer to the company. I'm not really sure that there's any need to bring trademarks into this. >This should be your sign that you're just grasping at straws and you're not here to learn or make any kind of substantial argument. It's literally the exact argument you made. I suppose this would mean that you're also grasping at straws, maybe we should start some kind of a club?
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >It's literally the exact argument you made. No it isn't. What plane of confusion are you on? I literally tried to describe this with shapes and you couldn't grasp it apparently.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    I think you need to take a break. Your .apple example was pretty silly, nobody else wanted that TLD. Why should Apple not get to have it if they’re the only ones who want to pay a fuckload of money for it?
Dylan16807 8y ago
Defining 'net' instead of 'network' was cheeky, sure, but it doesn't change the correctness of the argument one bit. It's still an ancient global concept. But one entity gets ownership of it. Why is .apple any worse? And for anything about .apple sites not being 'apple' enough, net is much worse. Your rebuttal is the equivalent to pointing out a grammar mistake.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >but it doesn't change the correctness of the argument one bit. It most definitely does. Because TLDs are designed to be at the top, because they are top level domains, used to house other domains in a general category. .net does not belong to a brand, it is a broad concept. So it correctly sits at the top. Other people are also able to freely register domains under that TLD. That's a far cry from one private company owning a TLD with broad applications, just to continue to carry out its niche commercial purpose. >Your rebuttal is the equivalent to pointing out a grammar mistake. No it's correctly pointing out how categories work combined with the most basic of reading comprehension abilities. This is really really elementary stuff.

ryanlol 8y ago

>Not really. Once trademarks become "things", that trademark ceases to be effective and can rarely be enforced. TLD's are not for trademarks. This isn't complicated. Amazon (the company) has a very (probably the most) legitimate claim to the gTLD as the word is most often used to refer to the company. I'm not really sure that there's any need to bring trademarks into this. >This should be your sign that you're just grasping at straws and you're not here to learn or make any kind of substantial argument. It's literally the exact argument you made. I suppose this would mean that you're also grasping at straws, maybe we should start some kind of a club?

kadendogthing 8y ago
>It's literally the exact argument you made. No it isn't. What plane of confusion are you on? I literally tried to describe this with shapes and you couldn't grasp it apparently.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  I think you need to take a break. Your .apple example was pretty silly, nobody else wanted that TLD. Why should Apple not get to have it if they’re the only ones who want to pay a fuckload of money for it?

Dylan16807 8y ago

Defining 'net' instead of 'network' was cheeky, sure, but it doesn't change the correctness of the argument one bit. It's still an ancient global concept. But one entity gets ownership of it. Why is .apple any worse? And for anything about .apple sites not being 'apple' enough, net is much worse. Your rebuttal is the equivalent to pointing out a grammar mistake.

kadendogthing 8y ago
>but it doesn't change the correctness of the argument one bit. It most definitely does. Because TLDs are designed to be at the top, because they are top level domains, used to house other domains in a general category. .net does not belong to a brand, it is a broad concept. So it correctly sits at the top. Other people are also able to freely register domains under that TLD. That's a far cry from one private company owning a TLD with broad applications, just to continue to carry out its niche commercial purpose. >Your rebuttal is the equivalent to pointing out a grammar mistake. No it's correctly pointing out how categories work combined with the most basic of reading comprehension abilities. This is really really elementary stuff.