10 ms·

I agree with you but honestly if it was another person named Toyota who purchased toyota.com, they would definitely be pursued/sued by Toyota as well. Large Cor

I agree with you but honestly if it was another person named Toyota who purchased toyota.com, they would definitely be pursued/sued by Toyota as well. Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want. It just happens to be Nissan in this case. So I wouldn't treat them any different than the others to be honest.

HideousKojima 4y ago
>Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want. Valve, despite controlling something like 80% of PC game sales, hasn't gone after the owner guy who owns steam.com
- jdironman 4y ago
  Exactly, it should be a best effort thing not harassment. I'm sure they are probably monitoring its availability no doubt.
- capableweb 4y ago
  I'm not sure Valve would be considered "large corporation", at least at this point. Last time I checked, they had something like 300 employees. I'm not sure where the line would be for me to consider something a "large corporation", but at least 10000 would be my first guess.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    I think billion dollar valuations would suffice to be "large corporation" to me. Valve meets that.
    - mywittyname 4y ago
      Valve has to be worth way more than a billion dollars. A billion is like medium-stage startup at this point. They have to be worth 10x that easy, as a floor. Much higher (100x) for a strategic acquisition from a company like Microsoft.
      - samtheprogram 4y ago
        "Much higher (100x) for a strategic acquisition from a company like Microsoft" is grossly exaggerated. There were only 171 companies worth more than $88.3bn (<100x a billion) as of December [1], a number that may have even dropped during current market conditions. Activision Blizzard is worth today ~$60bn and Microsoft is buying it at ~$68bn [2]. It's one the largest acquisitions they've made, and the largest publicly known amount by far [3] with LinkedIn (2016) second at $26bn. Agree that Valve is likely worth at least 10x a billion, though. [1]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/A-tale-of-2-markets-America-s-100bn-club-grows-as-China-s-shrinks https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/A-tale-of-2-markets... [2]: https://news.microsoft.com/2022/01/18/microsoft-to-acquire-activision-blizzard-to-bring-the-joy-and-community-of-gaming-to-everyone-across-every-device/ https://news.microsoft.com/2022/01/18/microsoft-to-acquire-a... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
    - capableweb 4y ago
      Interesting, I've never considered the value/valuation/profits to be a part of what makes a corporation large or not, but mainly focused on just the size of the organization. So a corporation could go from small -> medium -> large without even changing the headcount?
      - moron4hire 4y ago
        It's about the amount of power and influence you can wield. In a discussion like this, "large corporation" is just a shorthand. When it comes to the legal system everyone should be on equally footing. That they aren't is why these things are so upsetting.
  - greenthrow 4y ago
    Number of employees is irrelevant here. Revenue, profit, holdings, these are what is relevant to the issue at hand. On those measures, Valve is enormous.
somenewaccount1 4y ago
not necessarily at all. A rational company would have offered a sum that to them was minuscule part of advertising budget, but a fortune for a single person. My understanding was that Nissan hadn't even made an offer before suing him for 10M, at least that is how the story goes. They probably could have just offered him a million, or 10, and everyone is happy. Being they are a "large" corporation and all.
croes 4y ago
In Germany Nissan Motors would have got the domain. According to german law "A private person with that name had priority over someone not called that. A company of that name, or a company with a registered trademark has precedence over a person of that name. A city or municipality has the highest precedence"
- askvictor 4y ago
  It's easy to forget that the com in .com is a shortening 'commercial' - i.e. a commercial enterprise. In Australia, (until relatively recently I think), a .com.au domain was restricted to registered businesses. For individuals, there is (was?) an id.au domain.
  - prepend 4y ago
    If I remember correctly, Uzi Nissan was a consultant practicing under his own name and Nissan.com was registered as a commercial site for his business.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want. In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by definition, the most extreme position of "might is right". The principle text on which is attributed to one "Ragnar Redbeard" [1]. The philosophy is simple. I may rob you, rape you, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill, for the one simple reason that I am stronger and you are the weaker. And the "rule of law" (insofar as it can exist) must recognise that as my legitimate right. It is obviously an infantile fantasy. Yet I see it echoed in various forms within these pages. First of all, it is something that nobody of sound mind believes, other than as a pose. It is an anchor point, a strawman from which to develop real ethical positions. But most of all, it's a fantasy we occasionally wish as true, because if it were, these so-called "powerful corporations" would be reduced to dust and ruin within days by those the real powers in this world who exercise patient restraint. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right
- adastra22 4y ago
  It is something that Germany believed in the first half of the 20th century. It is something Russia believes now. It ain’t as dead as it ought to be.
  - exceptione 4y ago
    I am not sure why you are downvoted, because you are dead right. "Might makes right" is exactly the 'philosophy' of the dictators of both countries. Human rights and related concepts are for them nonsense and signs of the weak. The clash between Hitler and Stalin was a clash of two very like minded people. Some horrid people defend the massacring by Putin by defending the might makes right mindset. They even might think of themselves as independent or critical thinkers. They are not. Might makes right is the doctrine of fascism, and it is good you call out this type of thinking when you see it.
    - user_named 4y ago
      The US certainly believes in might makes right too.
elromulous 4y ago
For folks who haven't read the whole story, the issue Uzi took with them was that they never even made him an offer to buy it, they jumped straight to litigation. He said he would have sold it to them for a reasonable price had they not chosen litigation as their first approach.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
It's customary even for BigCos to make an offer to buy the domain first. It's entirely possible the registrant of a toyota.com (if Toyota the company didn't get it first) would have been made an offer for the domain that would have been easy to accept. Nissan (the owner of nissan.com) was never made a fair offer for his domain.
kurupt213 4y ago
That is not the right way to look at things. You should not be harassed legally because someone with more resources wants what is rightfully yours. They can offer to buy, you can decline.
permo-w 4y ago
>Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want that may be so, but it doesn't make it a good thing, or something we should accept. corporatism is bleeding the world dry, and nearly everyone seems content to sit back and watch. corporations will be corporations, we lament, but resolutely fail to do anything about

HideousKojima 4y ago

>Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want. Valve, despite controlling something like 80% of PC game sales, hasn't gone after the owner guy who owns steam.com

jdironman 4y ago
Exactly, it should be a best effort thing not harassment. I'm sure they are probably monitoring its availability no doubt.
capableweb 4y ago
I'm not sure Valve would be considered "large corporation", at least at this point. Last time I checked, they had something like 300 employees. I'm not sure where the line would be for me to consider something a "large corporation", but at least 10000 would be my first guess.
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  I think billion dollar valuations would suffice to be "large corporation" to me. Valve meets that.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    Valve has to be worth way more than a billion dollars. A billion is like medium-stage startup at this point. They have to be worth 10x that easy, as a floor. Much higher (100x) for a strategic acquisition from a company like Microsoft.
    - samtheprogram 4y ago
      "Much higher (100x) for a strategic acquisition from a company like Microsoft" is grossly exaggerated. There were only 171 companies worth more than $88.3bn (<100x a billion) as of December [1], a number that may have even dropped during current market conditions. Activision Blizzard is worth today ~$60bn and Microsoft is buying it at ~$68bn [2]. It's one the largest acquisitions they've made, and the largest publicly known amount by far [3] with LinkedIn (2016) second at $26bn. Agree that Valve is likely worth at least 10x a billion, though. [1]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/A-tale-of-2-markets-America-s-100bn-club-grows-as-China-s-shrinks https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/A-tale-of-2-markets... [2]: https://news.microsoft.com/2022/01/18/microsoft-to-acquire-activision-blizzard-to-bring-the-joy-and-community-of-gaming-to-everyone-across-every-device/ https://news.microsoft.com/2022/01/18/microsoft-to-acquire-a... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Interesting, I've never considered the value/valuation/profits to be a part of what makes a corporation large or not, but mainly focused on just the size of the organization. So a corporation could go from small -> medium -> large without even changing the headcount?
    - moron4hire 4y ago
      It's about the amount of power and influence you can wield. In a discussion like this, "large corporation" is just a shorthand. When it comes to the legal system everyone should be on equally footing. That they aren't is why these things are so upsetting.
- greenthrow 4y ago
  Number of employees is irrelevant here. Revenue, profit, holdings, these are what is relevant to the issue at hand. On those measures, Valve is enormous.

somenewaccount1 4y ago

not necessarily at all. A rational company would have offered a sum that to them was minuscule part of advertising budget, but a fortune for a single person. My understanding was that Nissan hadn't even made an offer before suing him for 10M, at least that is how the story goes. They probably could have just offered him a million, or 10, and everyone is happy. Being they are a "large" corporation and all.

croes 4y ago

In Germany Nissan Motors would have got the domain. According to german law "A private person with that name had priority over someone not called that. A company of that name, or a company with a registered trademark has precedence over a person of that name. A city or municipality has the highest precedence"

askvictor 4y ago
It's easy to forget that the com in .com is a shortening 'commercial' - i.e. a commercial enterprise. In Australia, (until relatively recently I think), a .com.au domain was restricted to registered businesses. For individuals, there is (was?) an id.au domain.
- prepend 4y ago
  If I remember correctly, Uzi Nissan was a consultant practicing under his own name and Nissan.com was registered as a commercial site for his business.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want. In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by definition, the most extreme position of "might is right". The principle text on which is attributed to one "Ragnar Redbeard" [1]. The philosophy is simple. I may rob you, rape you, vandalise, ransack, lie, pillage and kill, for the one simple reason that I am stronger and you are the weaker. And the "rule of law" (insofar as it can exist) must recognise that as my legitimate right. It is obviously an infantile fantasy. Yet I see it echoed in various forms within these pages. First of all, it is something that nobody of sound mind believes, other than as a pose. It is an anchor point, a strawman from which to develop real ethical positions. But most of all, it's a fantasy we occasionally wish as true, because if it were, these so-called "powerful corporations" would be reduced to dust and ruin within days by those the real powers in this world who exercise patient restraint. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right

adastra22 4y ago
It is something that Germany believed in the first half of the 20th century. It is something Russia believes now. It ain’t as dead as it ought to be.
- exceptione 4y ago
  I am not sure why you are downvoted, because you are dead right. "Might makes right" is exactly the 'philosophy' of the dictators of both countries. Human rights and related concepts are for them nonsense and signs of the weak. The clash between Hitler and Stalin was a clash of two very like minded people. Some horrid people defend the massacring by Putin by defending the might makes right mindset. They even might think of themselves as independent or critical thinkers. They are not. Might makes right is the doctrine of fascism, and it is good you call out this type of thinking when you see it.
  - user_named 4y ago
    The US certainly believes in might makes right too.

elromulous 4y ago

For folks who haven't read the whole story, the issue Uzi took with them was that they never even made him an offer to buy it, they jumped straight to litigation. He said he would have sold it to them for a reasonable price had they not chosen litigation as their first approach.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

It's customary even for BigCos to make an offer to buy the domain first. It's entirely possible the registrant of a toyota.com (if Toyota the company didn't get it first) would have been made an offer for the domain that would have been easy to accept. Nissan (the owner of nissan.com) was never made a fair offer for his domain.

kurupt213 4y ago

That is not the right way to look at things. You should not be harassed legally because someone with more resources wants what is rightfully yours. They can offer to buy, you can decline.

permo-w 4y ago

>Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they can to get what they want that may be so, but it doesn't make it a good thing, or something we should accept. corporatism is bleeding the world dry, and nearly everyone seems content to sit back and watch. corporations will be corporations, we lament, but resolutely fail to do anything about