7 ms·

If this seems too long to read, it's about a domain name registration dispute between RedHat and a volunteer who registered wemakefedora.org (RedHat was seeking

by jffry 5y ago

If this seems too long to read, it's about a domain name registration dispute between RedHat and a volunteer who registered wemakefedora.org (RedHat was seeking to gain control over the domain). The arbiter not only found against RedHat but also made a declaration that the dispute was brought in bad faith. The condensed excerpt is: "Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the <wemakefedora.org> domain name both because Complainant consented to Respondent’s use of the domain name so long as the website followed Complainant’s trademark guidelines and because Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark." and from the conclusion, "In light of these circumstances the Panel finds that Complainant brought this proceeding despite having clear knowledge of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the proceeding was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder."

phendrenad2 5y ago
So, it's a good outcome.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Possibly? The domain owner does appear to have a history of bad behavior in a wide range of communities, including harassment. The idea that he set up this domain to annoy RedHat is plausible. However, purposely annoying a large corporation does not mean their site doesn't also serve an actual purpose, or that it constitutes trademark infringement. I don't think I see much potential for actual confusion or financial loss, so it's hard to see a strong reason to revoke the domain.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kayodelycaon 5y ago
    Bringing a lawsuit against someone when the only grounds you have is you don’t like what they are doing and you know that is the definition of “bad faith”. The defendant may be an asshole, but they have every legal right to be one. RedHat is so clearly in the wrong, it’s disgusting.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I think it's fair to say that neither party had pure motives here. But a decision in favor of preserving what (in my view) amounts to a free speech issue seems like a win in this case. There are better ways to deal with assholes than setting what would have been a bad precedent for future cases if the ruling had gone the other way.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        An arbitration decision doesn't set a precedent.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Every decision sets a precedent that can be referred to by future parties as examples of how a similar case was handled previously, and presumably the folks deciding these will want some minimal level of consistency between decisions. But sure, you're correct in the limited sense of that something like US Supreme Court stare decisis doctrine isn't built into the arbitration system, and so precedents are not binding or prima facie evidence that a current case should be decided the same way as a prior one.
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        Well, I don't presume to know how US law works. In the UK, precedents are set by the decisions of the High Court (civil) or Crown Court (criminal), and by higher courts. Lower courts don't set precendents I believe - IANAL.
  - phendrenad2 5y ago
    If that's the only problem with this outcome, then it's definitely a good outcome.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > The domain owner does appear to have a history of bad behavior in a wide range of communities, including harassment. Could you point to a source or some examples?
    - dralley 5y ago
      Just scroll down in the thread.
  - KennyBlanken 5y ago
    "The idea that he set up this domain to annoy RedHat is plausible." Re-read what the court said: > Complainant consented to Respondent’s use of the domain name so long as the website followed Complainant’s trademark guidelines and because Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark Always amazes me when random HNers think they know more that people who literally spend their lives on this stuff.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      It wasn't a "court", it was an arbitrator.
    - the_why_of_y 5y ago
      As detailed elsewhere in this thread, the website doesn't follow Complainant’s published trademark guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30705278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30705278 Just skimming the website, there is an article defaming a Debian Maintainer that had been arrested by the Russian government by insinuating he's spying for the Russian government, referencing leaked emails from debian-private, and defaming a Google employee with insinuations. Free Software/Open Source projects rely on private mailing lists to discuss sensitive matters involving people, topics that would be discussed in-person in any non-distributed organization. It's understandable that the Fedora Project doesn't want its trademark attached to such content.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      By that reasoning no opinion is valid if it differs from the one given by the arbitration committee. (note that I said valid not binding. Clearly their opinion is the only one that is binding.) Maybe you are making that claim? But I don't think so because that would seem both unreasonable and because that would be an uncharitably negative interpretation of your statement (a practice which runs somewhat counter to HN community guidelines) As to the issue at hand, you may not be aware of the fact that arbitration folks are limited in what they may consider solely to what is given to them by RedHat & Pocock, and from this document RedHat does not appear to have brought Pocock's prior behavior into the matter. I on the other hand, unbound by the rules of arbitration, am allow to consider anything I'd like when formulating an opinion. And when I look at Pocock's history of interacting with various communities my opinion is that it is plausible (note that I don't claim it to be definitive) that Pockock's motives may have included the annoyance of RedHat. All of which is besides the point: Pocock could have come right out & said "I wanted to annoy RedHat" and that would still only have filled 1 out of the 3 considerations (bad faith) to rule in RedHat's favor. His site still could fulfill a legitimate noncommercial purpose, and not cause any confusion regarding the Fedora trademark, and therefore no require reassignment to RedHat. At a guess, this is possibly why RedHat didn't bring Pocock's other behavioral history into the issue: It was neither relevant nor sufficient to demonstrating their case. Always amazes me when random HNers waste their time making low effort posts that contribute nothing to the conversation by cherry picking one thing and making an issue of it. I probably shouldn't waste my time engaging such comments but, Oh well, nearly done, might as well finish... Besides which: >people who literally spend their lives on this stuff. You have only an extremely small idea of what I spend my life on. Contrary to a sparse profile that is extremely far from comprehensive of my full experience, I do in fact have professional exposure to legal (in this case quasi-legal) procedures and processes. That shouldn't matter though: we're not far enough into the weeds on the issue that true expertise is required for a reasonable opinion. Either way, I'm not going to post my curriculum vitae here merely to fend off snarky low-effort comments from folks that will likely make snarky low-effort posts regardless. It's supposed to be a site for discussion, not credentialism.
nerdponx 5y ago
Silly question, but would it have been possible for RedHat to simply revoke their consent, maybe on the grounds that association with Pocock would damage their image or something? If they did that, would this have been an easy win for them?

by jffry 5y ago

phendrenad2 5y ago

So, it's a good outcome.

ineedasername 5y ago
Possibly? The domain owner does appear to have a history of bad behavior in a wide range of communities, including harassment. The idea that he set up this domain to annoy RedHat is plausible. However, purposely annoying a large corporation does not mean their site doesn't also serve an actual purpose, or that it constitutes trademark infringement. I don't think I see much potential for actual confusion or financial loss, so it's hard to see a strong reason to revoke the domain.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  Bringing a lawsuit against someone when the only grounds you have is you don’t like what they are doing and you know that is the definition of “bad faith”. The defendant may be an asshole, but they have every legal right to be one. RedHat is so clearly in the wrong, it’s disgusting.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I think it's fair to say that neither party had pure motives here. But a decision in favor of preserving what (in my view) amounts to a free speech issue seems like a win in this case. There are better ways to deal with assholes than setting what would have been a bad precedent for future cases if the ruling had gone the other way.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      An arbitration decision doesn't set a precedent.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Every decision sets a precedent that can be referred to by future parties as examples of how a similar case was handled previously, and presumably the folks deciding these will want some minimal level of consistency between decisions. But sure, you're correct in the limited sense of that something like US Supreme Court stare decisis doctrine isn't built into the arbitration system, and so precedents are not binding or prima facie evidence that a current case should be decided the same way as a prior one.
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        Well, I don't presume to know how US law works. In the UK, precedents are set by the decisions of the High Court (civil) or Crown Court (criminal), and by higher courts. Lower courts don't set precendents I believe - IANAL.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  If that's the only problem with this outcome, then it's definitely a good outcome.
- unmole 5y ago
  > The domain owner does appear to have a history of bad behavior in a wide range of communities, including harassment. Could you point to a source or some examples?
  - dralley 5y ago
    Just scroll down in the thread.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  "The idea that he set up this domain to annoy RedHat is plausible." Re-read what the court said: > Complainant consented to Respondent’s use of the domain name so long as the website followed Complainant’s trademark guidelines and because Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert Internet users or to tarnish Complainant's FEDORA trademark Always amazes me when random HNers think they know more that people who literally spend their lives on this stuff.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    It wasn't a "court", it was an arbitrator.
  - the_why_of_y 5y ago
    As detailed elsewhere in this thread, the website doesn't follow Complainant’s published trademark guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30705278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30705278 Just skimming the website, there is an article defaming a Debian Maintainer that had been arrested by the Russian government by insinuating he's spying for the Russian government, referencing leaked emails from debian-private, and defaming a Google employee with insinuations. Free Software/Open Source projects rely on private mailing lists to discuss sensitive matters involving people, topics that would be discussed in-person in any non-distributed organization. It's understandable that the Fedora Project doesn't want its trademark attached to such content.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    By that reasoning no opinion is valid if it differs from the one given by the arbitration committee. (note that I said valid not binding. Clearly their opinion is the only one that is binding.) Maybe you are making that claim? But I don't think so because that would seem both unreasonable and because that would be an uncharitably negative interpretation of your statement (a practice which runs somewhat counter to HN community guidelines) As to the issue at hand, you may not be aware of the fact that arbitration folks are limited in what they may consider solely to what is given to them by RedHat & Pocock, and from this document RedHat does not appear to have brought Pocock's prior behavior into the matter. I on the other hand, unbound by the rules of arbitration, am allow to consider anything I'd like when formulating an opinion. And when I look at Pocock's history of interacting with various communities my opinion is that it is plausible (note that I don't claim it to be definitive) that Pockock's motives may have included the annoyance of RedHat. All of which is besides the point: Pocock could have come right out & said "I wanted to annoy RedHat" and that would still only have filled 1 out of the 3 considerations (bad faith) to rule in RedHat's favor. His site still could fulfill a legitimate noncommercial purpose, and not cause any confusion regarding the Fedora trademark, and therefore no require reassignment to RedHat. At a guess, this is possibly why RedHat didn't bring Pocock's other behavioral history into the issue: It was neither relevant nor sufficient to demonstrating their case. Always amazes me when random HNers waste their time making low effort posts that contribute nothing to the conversation by cherry picking one thing and making an issue of it. I probably shouldn't waste my time engaging such comments but, Oh well, nearly done, might as well finish... Besides which: >people who literally spend their lives on this stuff. You have only an extremely small idea of what I spend my life on. Contrary to a sparse profile that is extremely far from comprehensive of my full experience, I do in fact have professional exposure to legal (in this case quasi-legal) procedures and processes. That shouldn't matter though: we're not far enough into the weeds on the issue that true expertise is required for a reasonable opinion. Either way, I'm not going to post my curriculum vitae here merely to fend off snarky low-effort comments from folks that will likely make snarky low-effort posts regardless. It's supposed to be a site for discussion, not credentialism.

nerdponx 5y ago

Silly question, but would it have been possible for RedHat to simply revoke their consent, maybe on the grounds that association with Pocock would damage their image or something? If they did that, would this have been an easy win for them?