4 ms·

>In the mean time, someone read about this big project and decides to built a mini mart called Main St. Shopping right around the corner Are you trying to sten

by Shinkei 13y ago

>In the mean time, someone read about this big project and decides to built a mini mart called Main St. Shopping right around the corner Are you trying to stengthen my argument? You've just proven that they were doing the very thing I'm arguing is unethical. Now if they incidentally named their shopping plaza this name and they can prove it was coincidence... well then we have an argument. As for Google.io, they DO have a business there... and all over the internet. If there was an existing business there named Google that say delivered math lessons to homeschoolers, then I would say Google could not legitimately claim them as squatting. This is a "I know it when I see it" standard. It's usually pretty obvious what is squatting and what is not.

nivla 13y ago
>Are you trying to stengthen my argument? You've just proven that they were doing the very thing I'm arguing is unethical. No, the point is you are trying to use emotions to determine the "good" guy from the "bad" guy, which is not as black and white as it seems. On the same issue: 4chan.com was created on "12/13/03" where as 4chan.org was created on "2004-02-14". Now you can't say just because 4chan.org is popular, they should be awarded 4chan.com OR that 4chan.org should be transferred to 4chan.com because the name was "copied" from them and is thus "unethical". >As for Google.io, they DO have a business there... and all over the internet. No they don't! Having a brand on the internet does not automagically qualify you for legally registered business rights all around the world. Having a universal trademark is hard, time consuming and restricted to local laws. >This is a "I know it when I see it" standard. It's usually pretty obvious what is squatting and what is not. Yes this worked out so well which is why our laws are based on vagueness.
- Shinkei 13y ago
  >Yes this worked out so well which is why our laws are based on vagueness. Actually this is a common thing in Law. Many times we can't objectively define something, but 'most' people know it when they see it. Some examples you should look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur It is a mark of our intelligence as humans that we can rapidly integrate the available knowledge and render judgement--at least tacitly.
- krfsm 13y ago
  >On the same issue: 4chan.com was created on "12/13/03" where as 4chan.org was created on "2004-02-14". Now you can't say just because 4chan.org is popular, they should be awarded 4chan.com OR that 4chan.org should be transferred to 4chan.com because the name was "copied" from them and is thus "unethical". You have not observed the full history. 4chan was popular before both dates observed by you, but under the 4chan.net domain (from September 2003). That domain was suspended by the registrar on 2004-02-11, which was the cause of the move to 4chan.org. I.e. the 4chan.com domain was registered about three months after 4chan.net, at a point where the latter had substantial traffic.

by Shinkei 13y ago

nivla 13y ago

>Are you trying to stengthen my argument? You've just proven that they were doing the very thing I'm arguing is unethical. No, the point is you are trying to use emotions to determine the "good" guy from the "bad" guy, which is not as black and white as it seems. On the same issue: 4chan.com was created on "12/13/03" where as 4chan.org was created on "2004-02-14". Now you can't say just because 4chan.org is popular, they should be awarded 4chan.com OR that 4chan.org should be transferred to 4chan.com because the name was "copied" from them and is thus "unethical". >As for Google.io, they DO have a business there... and all over the internet. No they don't! Having a brand on the internet does not automagically qualify you for legally registered business rights all around the world. Having a universal trademark is hard, time consuming and restricted to local laws. >This is a "I know it when I see it" standard. It's usually pretty obvious what is squatting and what is not. Yes this worked out so well which is why our laws are based on vagueness.

Shinkei 13y ago
>Yes this worked out so well which is why our laws are based on vagueness. Actually this is a common thing in Law. Many times we can't objectively define something, but 'most' people know it when they see it. Some examples you should look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur It is a mark of our intelligence as humans that we can rapidly integrate the available knowledge and render judgement--at least tacitly.
krfsm 13y ago
>On the same issue: 4chan.com was created on "12/13/03" where as 4chan.org was created on "2004-02-14". Now you can't say just because 4chan.org is popular, they should be awarded 4chan.com OR that 4chan.org should be transferred to 4chan.com because the name was "copied" from them and is thus "unethical". You have not observed the full history. 4chan was popular before both dates observed by you, but under the 4chan.net domain (from September 2003). That domain was suspended by the registrar on 2004-02-11, which was the cause of the move to 4chan.org. I.e. the 4chan.com domain was registered about three months after 4chan.net, at a point where the latter had substantial traffic.