4 ms·

If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it (probably trademark protection). These cases are rare compared to th

by pbz 14y ago

If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it (probably trademark protection). These cases are rare compared to the number of parked domains that only have the "for sale" sign on them. If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10, not $10K.

larrys 14y ago
"If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it" So you are saying that google can have a "good" use for a domain and speculating "probably trademark protection". Actually the domain that I am referring to was from a company that they acquired that was shut down. And no they don't have a good use for it. They told me that. They just don't care. It is of no benefit to the decision maker to sell the domain. He won't get the money. So why not hold on to it in case they have a use in 10 years? (And all the evidence points in that direction). Additionally: In the case of this particular domain they simply don't want what they feel is a potential competitor to get the domain. "If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10" Absolutely positively the biggest myth out there. Simply not the way any market works. That a domain that you want would be there for you when you want it. Emphasis: You. Not that someone with another idea would have gotten it first and you'd have to convince them to sell.
- pbz 14y ago
  You're not seriously saying Google is a squatter, are you? When a company buys another company it's a package deal. How would you separate the value of the domain from the rest of the acquired IP? It's too much of a headache; remember they have to answer to their shareholders. There's no myth, it's logic. If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal, then if I want domain X then it's either available or used by somebody - which I have no problem with. If you think that sitting on it, because somebody may have a good use for it in the future, provides any useful service you're fooling yourself. In that case parasites also provide a good service by regulating the ecosystem.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "When a company buys another company it's a package deal. " They aren't using the domain. The company they acquired they shut down. All transition has been done. So by the logic that many commenters here use they are squatters. Because they aren't using the domain. As an aside google and many large corporations who aren't actively selling domains own domains that they have stockpiled for one reason on another (preventing competition). Back to the domain in question. It doesn't go anywhere. Just because they aren't in the business of registering domains for the purpose of profit doesn't make it less so (by once again people's definitions here..) that they are squatters. And just because they got the domain buy acquiring a company doesn't change the facts. "If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal," It seems like the thing you want to be illegal is people being in the business of buying and selling domain names then, am I correct? You think domains are a public trust and there should be a committee that passes judgement on who can get a domain and also monitors that a domain is used in an acceptable way and finally that a domain isn't sold without content. And a whole bunch of regulation to prevent people from gaming the system. Unfortunately that would hurt the internet. Your idea isn't practical and not the way a free market works. There is nothing special about domains that requires such special protection. They aren't kidneys or liver transplants. Lastly, there are other TLD that you can register your name in. You just can't get .com or any of the mostly popular ones. If you can't get hackernews.com you can get hackernews.tld I was around at the start when a) domains were free b) domains were then priced at $100 for 2 years and c) that price was lowered to $70 for 2 years. Then came ICANN and many registrars and domains dropped to $10 or whatever godaddy was charging at the time or Tucows etc. I was around in the beginning when you had to fill out a long form and say what you were doing with the name. Pretty soon there were so many people wanting domains that NSI asked the NSF if they could charge per name. Then people got upset with the money they were making and we got competition. Reviewing applications for domains stopped and that was actually good. It allowed the Internet to grow quickly. A vestige of this system exists with .edu names. Last I check (and this may have changed since I haven't attempted for years) I couldn't even get one for a University without justifying why they couldn't use their main .edu. It also exists with some sponsored TLD that you've never heard of. Bottom line: Who is going to pay for the regulation and who is going to run that system?
- detst 14y ago
  Look, I think what you do is legal and should be legal. But I think you're letting your emotions from people criticizing you get in the way of your logic. >> If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10 > Absolutely positively the biggest myth out there. He didn't literally mean that without squatters, every domain would be available and you know it. Of course someone could still beat you to it but the problem most people have is with squatters not Google owning a random name that they don't want to sell (unfortunate but I think they have good reason to keep it and it's not a major problem for most people). When someone has an idea and goes through 100 names before finding something available to register, the odds are that approximately 100 of those will be in use or squatters (often the majority), not Google unwilling to sell. Take away the squatters (again, I'm not suggesting it should be illegal) and you've solved a big problem for a lot of people. That's just the way it is. You don't have to care and you can rationalize it to yourself all you want but it doesn't change that fact.

by pbz 14y ago

larrys 14y ago

"If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it" So you are saying that google can have a "good" use for a domain and speculating "probably trademark protection". Actually the domain that I am referring to was from a company that they acquired that was shut down. And no they don't have a good use for it. They told me that. They just don't care. It is of no benefit to the decision maker to sell the domain. He won't get the money. So why not hold on to it in case they have a use in 10 years? (And all the evidence points in that direction). Additionally: In the case of this particular domain they simply don't want what they feel is a potential competitor to get the domain. "If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10" Absolutely positively the biggest myth out there. Simply not the way any market works. That a domain that you want would be there for you when you want it. Emphasis: You. Not that someone with another idea would have gotten it first and you'd have to convince them to sell.

pbz 14y ago
You're not seriously saying Google is a squatter, are you? When a company buys another company it's a package deal. How would you separate the value of the domain from the rest of the acquired IP? It's too much of a headache; remember they have to answer to their shareholders. There's no myth, it's logic. If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal, then if I want domain X then it's either available or used by somebody - which I have no problem with. If you think that sitting on it, because somebody may have a good use for it in the future, provides any useful service you're fooling yourself. In that case parasites also provide a good service by regulating the ecosystem.
- larrys 14y ago
  "When a company buys another company it's a package deal. " They aren't using the domain. The company they acquired they shut down. All transition has been done. So by the logic that many commenters here use they are squatters. Because they aren't using the domain. As an aside google and many large corporations who aren't actively selling domains own domains that they have stockpiled for one reason on another (preventing competition). Back to the domain in question. It doesn't go anywhere. Just because they aren't in the business of registering domains for the purpose of profit doesn't make it less so (by once again people's definitions here..) that they are squatters. And just because they got the domain buy acquiring a company doesn't change the facts. "If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal," It seems like the thing you want to be illegal is people being in the business of buying and selling domain names then, am I correct? You think domains are a public trust and there should be a committee that passes judgement on who can get a domain and also monitors that a domain is used in an acceptable way and finally that a domain isn't sold without content. And a whole bunch of regulation to prevent people from gaming the system. Unfortunately that would hurt the internet. Your idea isn't practical and not the way a free market works. There is nothing special about domains that requires such special protection. They aren't kidneys or liver transplants. Lastly, there are other TLD that you can register your name in. You just can't get .com or any of the mostly popular ones. If you can't get hackernews.com you can get hackernews.tld I was around at the start when a) domains were free b) domains were then priced at $100 for 2 years and c) that price was lowered to $70 for 2 years. Then came ICANN and many registrars and domains dropped to $10 or whatever godaddy was charging at the time or Tucows etc. I was around in the beginning when you had to fill out a long form and say what you were doing with the name. Pretty soon there were so many people wanting domains that NSI asked the NSF if they could charge per name. Then people got upset with the money they were making and we got competition. Reviewing applications for domains stopped and that was actually good. It allowed the Internet to grow quickly. A vestige of this system exists with .edu names. Last I check (and this may have changed since I haven't attempted for years) I couldn't even get one for a University without justifying why they couldn't use their main .edu. It also exists with some sponsored TLD that you've never heard of. Bottom line: Who is going to pay for the regulation and who is going to run that system?
detst 14y ago
Look, I think what you do is legal and should be legal. But I think you're letting your emotions from people criticizing you get in the way of your logic. >> If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10 > Absolutely positively the biggest myth out there. He didn't literally mean that without squatters, every domain would be available and you know it. Of course someone could still beat you to it but the problem most people have is with squatters not Google owning a random name that they don't want to sell (unfortunate but I think they have good reason to keep it and it's not a major problem for most people). When someone has an idea and goes through 100 names before finding something available to register, the odds are that approximately 100 of those will be in use or squatters (often the majority), not Google unwilling to sell. Take away the squatters (again, I'm not suggesting it should be illegal) and you've solved a big problem for a lot of people. That's just the way it is. You don't have to care and you can rationalize it to yourself all you want but it doesn't change that fact.