5 ms·

The biggest tech market opportunity 20 years ago, with hindsight, was probably one of the simplest: .com domain names. Generic ones...no reason to mess with tra

The biggest tech market opportunity 20 years ago, with hindsight, was probably one of the simplest: .com domain names. Generic ones...no reason to mess with trademarked names. Many of those simple, "dictionary word" .com names have fetched well into 8 figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_domain_names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_domain_n...

kragen 12y ago
If you’re going to eliminate ethics as a consideration (and you are, by advocating domainsquatting) there were a wealth of other opportunities out there. Spammers, for example, made a lot of money for a while. DoubleClick cashed out for US$3B, which makes “well into 8 figures” sound pretty small. Maybe you could run literal extortion rackets, the kind where you threaten people with violence, but it’s hard to know how much money the biggest people made in that business: was it US$1M or US$10B? Or you could go lower and found a patent troll, or a law firm catering to patent trolls.
- lmm 12y ago
  None of those are where the market is going to be in 20 years, that's where the market is now. Spamming is AIUI very competitive; likewise literal extortion and patent trolling.
  - kragen 12y ago
    I was talking about 20 years ago, when spamming, like the domain-name extortion Erica was advocating, was restrained by norms of behavior that considered it antisocial. I don’t know enough about the private-violence extortion market to comment intelligently, but patent trolling isn’t competitive at all — except in very unusual circumstances, the extortion victims do not have the option of buying protection from you from a competing patent troll.
    - lmm 12y ago
      The practising entities selling the patents to you have plenty of trolls to choose from though.
      - kragen 12y ago
        20 years ago they didn’t, but I’m not sure it matters that much, because you have plenty of fire-sale worthless patents to choose from among the various bankruptcies and then file frivolous lawsuits over.
        lmm 12y ago
        Presumably if it's a profitable business then the bankruptcy auction prices for patents will rise to the point that they're only barely profitable. 20 years ago they didn't, but the more interesting question is what's the thing that's available cheaply today that people will be buying in 20 years. If you have some ideas for this in the unethical space I am genuinely interested.
        kragen 12y ago
        I do, but I’d prefer not to tell people whose interest in them is too genuine. :)

kragen 12y ago

If you’re going to eliminate ethics as a consideration (and you are, by advocating domainsquatting) there were a wealth of other opportunities out there. Spammers, for example, made a lot of money for a while. DoubleClick cashed out for US$3B, which makes “well into 8 figures” sound pretty small. Maybe you could run literal extortion rackets, the kind where you threaten people with violence, but it’s hard to know how much money the biggest people made in that business: was it US$1M or US$10B? Or you could go lower and found a patent troll, or a law firm catering to patent trolls.

lmm 12y ago
None of those are where the market is going to be in 20 years, that's where the market is now. Spamming is AIUI very competitive; likewise literal extortion and patent trolling.
- kragen 12y ago
  I was talking about 20 years ago, when spamming, like the domain-name extortion Erica was advocating, was restrained by norms of behavior that considered it antisocial. I don’t know enough about the private-violence extortion market to comment intelligently, but patent trolling isn’t competitive at all — except in very unusual circumstances, the extortion victims do not have the option of buying protection from you from a competing patent troll.
  - lmm 12y ago
    The practising entities selling the patents to you have plenty of trolls to choose from though.
    - kragen 12y ago
      20 years ago they didn’t, but I’m not sure it matters that much, because you have plenty of fire-sale worthless patents to choose from among the various bankruptcies and then file frivolous lawsuits over.
      - lmm 12y ago
        Presumably if it's a profitable business then the bankruptcy auction prices for patents will rise to the point that they're only barely profitable. 20 years ago they didn't, but the more interesting question is what's the thing that's available cheaply today that people will be buying in 20 years. If you have some ideas for this in the unethical space I am genuinely interested.
        kragen 12y ago
        I do, but I’d prefer not to tell people whose interest in them is too genuine. :)