Legal row over iTunes domain name
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 28 March 2005 - 18:16 · 68 comments & 1568 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by nic on 28 Mar 2005 - 18:23
- Wasn't iTunes a registered trademark of Apple before 2000? I think i remember a friend with a Mac and using iTunes in '99. Memory is kinda flaky though.
-
#1.1 Posted by dp123 on 28 Mar 2005 - 22:23
- No, but here's the timeline:
itunes.com was registered on Aug., 11th, 1998. (...about when Apple purchased SoundJam MP. They kept the project relatively quiet, but prior to its release there were plenty of rumors and everyone was pointing to this domain name.)
The iTunes US trademark was published January 9th, 2001. (But this is the release date of the software; hence, due to Apple's secrecy it doesn't appear until then... However, the operable date in a trademark or patent dispute is the "priority date". It has a priority date of Oct. 24th, 2000.)
The iTunes UK trademark is dated Oct. 24th, 2000. The database doesn't seem to be working so I can't get more details.
(see: http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/text?search...tatusselected=A)
The .co.uk domain name was registered on Nov. 7th, 2000.
A year and a half after Apple grabbed the domain name, and two weeks after the trademark took effect.
Last edited by 9953 on 28 Mar 2005 - 22:57
-
#2 Posted by aStRaLgOd on 28 Mar 2005 - 18:27
- Go boy! Show those big corporate giants who's the boss!
-
(9 replies)
#3 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Mar 2005 - 18:29
- that's stupid..so if you want to sell a domain name then you should lose all rights to it huh? that's just utter stupidity. if i had patented sex.com before the boom of the 90s and i wanted to sell it before the boom, would i lose all rights to the site then cause i want to make some money off a good name for a site? just stupid.
-
#3.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 28 Mar 2005 - 18:43
- Huh? Your post doesn't make any sense. If you sell something, OF COURSE YOU LOSE THE RIGHTS TO IT!!!!!!. What's so hard to understand about that? On another note, you can't "patent" a name.
-
#3.2 Posted by mrogers on 28 Mar 2005 - 18:59
- No, actually YOUR post doesn't make any sense. If you READ the news post, you'll see that the argument they're making is that since he tried to sell it he should lose all rights, which is stupid. That's like saying if I tried to sell my car but wasn't able to, I then woulnd't be allowed to drive it, even though I still owned it. So why don't you learn to read before going nuts with the bold, italic, and underline buttons. And I think you know full well that macrosslover meant "trademark", not patent. So before you call someone else stupid, get the story straight first.
-
#3.3 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Mar 2005 - 19:00
- by their argument he should lose the rights to the site becaues he was ATTEMPTING to sell the domain name, never actually selling the domain name. so if a website owner was jsut sending out info to sell a domain he should lose it outright because he's trying to sell it? even though he hasn't sold it yet? that's a stupid reason to ninja somebodies domain from them. and i was going to say the same thing mrogers, i see some people just can't read between the lines and have to be so damn literal all the time.
-
#3.4 Posted by roadwarrior on 28 Mar 2005 - 19:06
- Macrosslover, the way you worded your original post didn't make any sense at all. I see what you are saying now, but what he did is called "domain squatting", and is considered by most domain registrars as abuse of a domain name. He wasn't making active use of the name, he had never registered a trademark on it, therefore if someone else comes along and actually does make use of the name, and trademarks it, they have every legal right to ask him to stop using it.
-
#3.5 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Mar 2005 - 19:17
- i see what you are saying, but i also thought he was using his site as well. It may have been a crap site when compared to what Apple was using itunes for, but if he just wanted to use itunes as his own personal website/blog and not as a music download site, does that make his claim any less valid? using my example again, if i had originally used the sex.com site as jsut a educational tool on the subject until the .com boom hit and i saw the money potential of selling it as a porn site, does that make my claim to the site any less valid and should i lose it because i'm trying to sell it. The key is did he know of itunes, as Apple was using it, before he got the website.
-
#3.6 Posted by Jstphish on 28 Mar 2005 - 22:18
- He is using the domain name only to redirect traffic to his site. That is abuse.
-
#3.7 Posted by dp123 on 28 Mar 2005 - 22:36
- macross, and what if someone had obtained a priority date on the trademark "sex" two weeks before he bought the domain, and he never used the domain in anyway but as a forwarder to a site at the domain "cyberbritain.COM" which forwards to "quickquid.COM" which strangely has the name "igetgifts.COM" which has nothing to do with SEX?
What if you had that trademark but were unable to get a UK domain? What if someone else had your trademark domain name and it led to a service/site completely unrelated to SEX or SEX.COM? How do you feel now? -
#3.8 Posted by macrosslover on 29 Mar 2005 - 06:16
- i feel i should have gotten the .uk, .au and other countries websites from the start
-
#3.9 Posted by CubanPete on 29 Mar 2005 - 16:30
- I see what some of you are saying but just because he doesnt have a, shall we say "Solid" reason for the redirecting/website, doesnt mean he isnt using the domain. I dont have a website on the other end of my domain but i use it for e-mail address's and the odd ftp
-
(8 replies)
#4 Posted by ShmengeTravel on 28 Mar 2005 - 18:42
- The story is he owned the domain literally (i believe) a month before apple trademarked iTunes. Apple then forced him to turn the domain over. So he has every right to sue. He buys a domain, a month later a huge corporation decides to trademark a product with the same name as his domain, and HE has to hand over his site to the corporation? He had it first!
-
#4.1 Posted by dp123 on 28 Mar 2005 - 18:50
- Please.... the product already existed, and since the trademark followed shortly after that means Apple had probably been conducting trademark searches MONTHS PRIOR. They had a product. Got the trademark shortly after the domain was registered. He has NEVER had a product, trademark, or even web site named iTUNES!
He has never attempted to trademark the name, and he solely uses the domain as a forwarder! If it's such a valuable domain, why doesn't he ACTUALLY use it? Or is the value of the domain name in the fact that people are confused, and hit it because they think they are using an Apple iTune's domain name...?
I'm sick and tired of people claiming this is big companies against the little guy. If a little company had an existinf product, had been going through the trademark process, developed a huge and recognizeable name, and the person who had the domain had no attachment to that name and solely used that domain as a forwarder to some other site, they would lose too. Big or small company. -
#4.2 Posted by roadwarrior on 28 Mar 2005 - 18:56
- I was going to post the same thing as dp123, but thanks for saving me the time.
-
#4.3 Posted by cacoe on 28 Mar 2005 - 19:01
- isn't the point of the whole thing that they just completly bypassed the origonal owner of the site and forced the providers to give it them? i mean, i'd be pretty pissed about that no matter what reason it was done for. sure if apple approached me and said they want my domain, i'd probably give it up for a decent amount of money.... not likley that they would want my domain though
-
#4.4 Posted by macrosslover on 28 Mar 2005 - 19:04
- from what i understand they approached him first and wanted him to just give it up, then he said no and asked for money and they offered 5000, but he wanted 50,000...and here is where we stand now.
-
#4.5 Posted by Ironman273 on 28 Mar 2005 - 19:09
- The fact of the matter (as dp123 said) is that he has no legitimate use for the domain name. To put it bluntly, he's holding the domain hostage for a £50,000 ransom.
If he had a company that was using the name, then it would be a different story but the whole purpose is to cybersquat. -
#4.6 Posted by ArKeYa on 29 Mar 2005 - 03:13
- To use our analogy...
How can you hold hostage something you own?
Isn't squatting illegally occupying "space". How can you squat if you own the capital ( domain name ) in the first place? -
#4.7 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 18:58
- Arkeya, you don't OWN domain names. You "rent" them based on the contract of the TLD domain registry manager.
-
#4.8 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 20:04
- Arkeya, also:
QUOTE The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act is a federal law that took affect on November 29, 1999. This new domain name dispute law is intended to give trademark and service mark owners legal remedies against defendants who obtain domain names "in bad faith" that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark. If a mark is a famous mark, the same remedies are available if the domain name is identical to, confusingly similar to or dilutive of the mark.
http://www.keytlaw.com/urls/acpa.htm
-
(3 replies)
#5 Posted by Oneill on 28 Mar 2005 - 19:42
- So what if he did, he paid the money for it like everyone else he should be able to do what he wants with the domain, which includes redirect if he was so inclined to do.
Thats like buying an mp3 player but not actually using it to listen to mp3s, should the company who manufactured it be able to force you to give it back to them? -
#5.1 Posted by cacoe on 28 Mar 2005 - 19:45
- yea, i agree with that.. not the best comparison but it gets across a point
-
#5.2 Posted by dp123 on 28 Mar 2005 - 21:43
- It's not like that at all... where are the trademark issues in your analogy?
It's a simple and plain fact that the bodies which regulate domain names have decided that company names and trademarked names should go to the them unless the other parties can show that they named their sites before the trademark existed and if they have already established a web presence/product. This isn't the first time it has happened... but this time it involves Apple. Let's remember: Apple offered him FIVE GRAND! That's a fair sum... hell, it was a fair sum when cybersquatting was more problematic, and we were in the heydey of the internet bubble. Remember: cybersquatting is a bad thing... right?
-
(9 replies)
#6 Posted by SlakeT on 28 Mar 2005 - 20:45
- More coporate pigs at apple.
-
#6.1 Posted by dp123 on 28 Mar 2005 - 21:49
- Because they offered him $5 grand? Because an arbitration body decided (consistently with past disagreements) in Apple's favor? Or because you hate Apple?
-
#6.2 Posted by SlakeT on 28 Mar 2005 - 22:41
- Because he owned it first and named his price which apple did not accept. So the corporate pigs at apple decided to force it. I don't know how you slice it but thats a load.
-
#6.3 Posted by dp123 on 28 Mar 2005 - 23:04
- You mean TWO WEEKS AFTER Apple applied for the trademark, right?
And you mean Apple decided to force it after sending him letters from their lawyers saying they had trademark rights to the name, after he offered to sell the name to Napster and they turned him down, after Apple offered him $5,000 which he turned down, THEN he offered his price of $50,000, right?
You sound like this moron:
The Respondent expressly said that the Expert appointed by Nominet should not be an Apple Mac user, because in the view of the Respondent there is a 'cult' associated with the products of the Complainant, which attract fanatical users," said Claire Milne, Nominet's independent expert adjudicating the case.
"I have already confirmed my independence and impartiality for the purpose of this appointment. Nominet procedures do not let either party vet experts. However, in case either party is interested, I also confirm that I do not own or use, or plan to own or use, any of the products of the Complainant."
http://www.pcw.co.uk/news/1161963
-
#6.4 Posted by SlakeT on 29 Mar 2005 - 02:43
- Hey fan boy - its apples stupidity they didn't buy it first.
QUOTE And you mean Apple decided to force it after sending him letters from their lawyers saying they had trademark rights to the name
By your logic I should go out on the web searching for new products, services or whatever - then quickly trademark it in my home country - then threaten with the scum of the world (lawyers) to sue if they don't give it up. That's about as foolish as your moron comment son. Stop being such a fan boy and open your eye you droned sheep like cult follower. -
#6.5 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:23
- SlakeT, I was just explaining the facts and chain of events to you. Since you seem to enjoy being misinformed.
-
#6.8 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 19:41
- SlakeT, have you made a point YET?
QUOTE By your logic I should go out on the web searching for new products, services or whatever - then quickly trademark it in my home country - then threaten with the scum of the world (lawyers) to sue if they don't give it up. That's about as foolish as your moron comment son. Stop being such a fan boy and open your eye you droned sheep like cult follower.
Huh? Apple trademarked iTunes in America and the UK simultaneously, both prior to the domain name purchase.
And your analogy doesn't even include a domain name.
And, yes, your analogy does occur. People have lost trademarks in some countries because they were only concerned about their home market.
-
(10 replies)
#7 Posted by werejag on 28 Mar 2005 - 22:07
- when you buy something it is yours, it doesnt matter if you use it as toilet paper or as a valuable china. its your and i and others have no rights to it. unless the big companies like apple wants it. then they claim you are some theif and they take it. then people like above fanboy this
-
#7.1 Posted by dp123 on 28 Mar 2005 - 22:27
- No, it isn't. Time to grow up and face reality:
if someone sells you something that it is stolen, it is not your's. If someone sells you something which is illegal to own, it is not your's. If someone sells you something that violates someone else's rights to that property, it is not your's.
Apple registered a domain name in 98, this cybersquatter jumped onboard, but already after Apple received priority on the trademark date.
It's not about fanboism. It's about reality and the law. Of course, arguing against this... that might be underdogism or Apple-hatin'... Neither of which is more or less valid than the fanboism you are accusing me of... -
#7.2 Posted by werejag on 28 Mar 2005 - 23:01
- apple had a chance in 1998 to buy domains. it did not so it loses
-
#7.3 Posted by dp123 on 28 Mar 2005 - 23:07
- Apple didn't even own SoundJam for most of '98. They applied for the trademark 2 weeks before he registered the site, and he has never used it for anything other than abusive means.
Cohen had a chance to buy it in '98 too. Had he done that, and used the domain for a real site, he'd have a case. But he did not so he loses. -
#7.4 Posted by werejag on 29 Mar 2005 - 00:55
- what he uses the site for is not a legal issue. he bought the domain so he has rights to do what ever he want include sell it
-
#7.5 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 01:00
QUOTE what he uses the site for is not a legal issue. he bought the domain so he has rights to do what ever he want include sell it
Strange... I thought he "bought" (more properly: "rented" ) it from Nominet, and Nominet told him he doesn't have the rights to it. Are you reading a story I haven't? Are you the secret puppetmaster of Nominet who will make the True ruling after Cohen's appeal?
In fact, isn't Cohen arguing that Nominet whom he "BOUGHT" the domain from doesn't have the rights to determine how domains are used:
QUOTE Mr Cohen expressed surprise at the decision and said he would be challenging the legitimacy of Nominet in making it.
"We feel that the procedure that Nominet utilises to settle disputes is unfair and biased towards big business at the expense of legitimate small British companies."
Domains aren't governed by laws in the typical sense, true, but that doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. (Domains aren't governed by what werejag wants either.) Domains are governed by Domain Registries and affiliated agencies depending on the TLDs in question. They have ruled so his final recourse is the law, which is likely to uphold Nominet's decision.
They have determined that it IS MORE IMPORTANT to have domains in use and used properly rather than letting them rot due to cybersquating or, worse, be manipulated via phishing.
I've seen lots of similar cases: I haven't seen one yet that determined: he bought it, he can do whatever he wants. Can you point me to a domain name dispute that ended this way, please?
And as I said before, you are behaving as if judicial systems (or any body of regulations) are governed by 2 year olds. Even if this was a legal case, you can't just say: if I bought it, I own it, I can do whatever I want. (Are you stamping your feet when you say that?) That sounds nice, but please take some advice: most of us are grown up enough to know that this is overgeneralized beyond meaning and too trite to ponder for those of us who live in civil societies governed by laws in which ownership and the rights associated with "ownership" are far more complex rather than pouting like 2 year olds.
(By the way, I paid $20 bucks for nude pictures of your mom... Can I do whatever I want with them?)
Last edited by 9953 on 29 Mar 2005 - 02:17-
#7.6 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 29 Mar 2005 - 04:09
- Agreed, dp123. (BTW, can I get a copy of those pics?)
-
#7.7 Posted by Judge Roy Bean on 29 Mar 2005 - 06:46
- dp123,
QUOTE ..... Can you point me to a domain name dispute that ended this way, please?
Try www.sting.com - it ain't who you think it will be!
Seriously, that is one of the very few cases I've seen that was decided in favor of the little guy, but the reasons were exactly on point. I can't get there (filters prevent BS Flash scripts from f*#&@%king my 'puter up), so I'm just gonna take a WAG and say that he probably has a note about the arbitration, which took place quite a few years ago.
If not, the use Google to research it.
Otherwise, I have to agree with your analysis. That is, providing all the facts we've been given are indeed true, vis-a-vis the timeline of events. I'm inclined to accept them so far. Cohen hasn't presented a very creditable defense against that timeline, and he has to know how the ball bounces....er, I mean he really should know the policies and procedures regarding domain name disputes, and that he was just waving a big, red flag in front of Apple's face.
Or so I see it, anyway.
Da Judge
-
#7.8 Posted by werejag on 29 Mar 2005 - 12:12
- owning a trademark or copyright does not give you all domain names that could be "rented" or bought. time lines do not matter. the domain was to be "rented" or bought and was not.
dp123
why do you have to act like a child talking about my mother. i expected you to act like an adult. what if i told you my mother was dead how do you feel now about this? wish this place allowed me to cuss at you. you over steped your self
-
#7.9 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:31
- werejag, apparently, you are too childish to grow out of such foolish blanket statements as "I own it, I can do whatever I want with it..." yet you won't give up the argument. I can debate someone who can grow up or accept reality so I thought that might make you deal with reality, I guess not.
QUOTE owning a trademark or copyright does not give you all domain names that could be "rented" or bought. time lines do not matter. the domain was to be "rented" or bought and was not.
Yes, it does. Timelines do matter. What you use the domain does matter. Accept it. Grow up.
QUOTE Nominet's solictor Edward Phillips has been in touch confirming the decision by independent expert Claire Milne, and urging us to not draw conclusions until the full decision is published.
"In this case the Expert explains that the finding of abusive registration is made, in part, because of the use of the name. The decision describes the sequence of events in relation to the domain name, which you may find informative."
He also stressed the experts' independence from Nominet. "The decisions are not made by Nominet UK, they are made by the Independent Experts and I can assure you that the Experts truly are independent. The DRS staff and I never discuss with the Experts how we want a case to go, do not edit the decisions or recommend changes to the Experts when the decisions come back, and go to great lengths to ensure our neutrality. Equally we do not comment on published decisions, either to endorse or criticise."
As for the apparent conflict with the High Court in the Phone4U.co.uk case, Phillips makes the point: "The Experts bear the general law in mind, but the basis that they are making their decisions on are different to a normal civil law case. In a civil law case the cause of action will be 'passing off' or registered trade mark infringement: in the DRS the Expert is considering the narrower question of (a) does the Complainant have rights and (b) is the registration or use of the name 'abusive'. This distinction has always been there, and arises because the DRS simply solves a dispute under the contract of registration, not a larger problem, as the courts seek to."®
-
#7.10 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 19:57
- Judge, sure, I know that dispute. But the "little guy" did not win because he owns it, he can do whatever he wants.
He won because sting is a generic word that can have many uses and Sting has not trademarked his name.
Look at this list of disputes. There are numerous cases of the big guy losing... but never because "you can do whatever you want with what you 'own'."
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/domaindis...indisputes.html
Oh, by the way, it wasn't who I expected: it is Sting of Police and 7-hour lovemaking fame! Looks like ultimately the original owner did sell it.
Last edited by 9953 on 29 Mar 2005 - 22:11
-
#8 Posted by Jstphish on 28 Mar 2005 - 22:21
QUOTE Mr Cohen claims he had never heard of iTunes when he registered the domain.
Yeah sure. I believe that.
-
#9 Posted by russdaplaya on 28 Mar 2005 - 23:57
- Why do all these internet loonies in lawsuits have the surname Cohen
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by EduardValencia on 29 Mar 2005 - 04:26
- holy **** everyone wants to sue apple now
-
#10.1 Posted by lbmouse on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:51
- Apple likes to sue the little guys, why can't the little guys sue Apple?
-
#10.2 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 19:44
- No one's sued Apple yet... in this case. Apple petitioned Nominet for the domain, they won. Now Cohen is trying to petition the High Court. I don't know if this counts as an appeal, a review, or what, but basically he's claiming that Nominet has no right to decide how they use their domain name space.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by BTallack on 29 Mar 2005 - 07:01
- It makes perfect sense to me that Apple got the name. If there's a restaurant that has an untrademarked name, and I go start a restaurant of the same name and trademark it, I can legally force the other restaurant to change the name, regardless of whether they were there first.
The man was commiting trademark infringement by redirecting it to a different music download site. It's as simple as that. He's not going to win suing Apple.
-
(2 replies)
#12 Posted by TwoTailedFox on 29 Mar 2005 - 09:50
- So, if I own McDonalds.aq, they can just hand it over to McDonalds when they open an Antarctica Branch?
-
#12.1 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 21:55
- If you don't have a good use for it, YES. But if you parody McDonald's or criticize them or publish some other content related to that name, McDonald's is less likely to be successful.
-
#12.2 Posted by TwoTailedFox on 30 Mar 2005 - 04:12
- Considering I work there, I have all the ammunition I need should push come to shove
-
(5 replies)
#13 Posted by Homer™ on 29 Mar 2005 - 10:47
- What I find amusing is the way he's demanded £50k, when in reality that site doesn't look like it'd even be worth Apple's offer of £5k.
Had he just accepted Apple's offer he'd have been ok, but he did not so he's made it worse for himself.
I'm no fanboy, but I'm on Apple's side for this simply because they had the idea years before he did, and applied for the trademark 2 weeks before he registered the domain.
And, to me, he is abusing the itunes.co.uk domain. He fullwell knows that the domain is used for one of Apple's large products, yet he doesn't put up a page redirecting people to itunes.com, nope, he forwards it to one of his own money making sites effectively throwing the potential for Apple to loose business into the air. -
#13.1 Posted by PROGAME on 29 Mar 2005 - 16:47
QUOTE And, to me, he is abusing the itunes.co.uk domain. He fullwell knows that the domain is used for one of Apple's large products, yet he doesn't put up a page redirecting people to itunes.com
i thought you said you are not a fanboy
why should he redirect HIS domain, the one HE bought, to apple's website? that doesn't make any sense at all
QUOTE he forwards it to one of his own money making sites effectively throwing the potential for Apple to loose business into the air.
if it is his domain he can do whatever he wants with it, redirecting it to a site full of ads too.
just because he isn't using it for some informative website doesn't mean Apple can just take it away from him you know...
the topic is did he register this domain because that domain sounds cool to put ads in, or because he wanted to mislead people
i am not convinced it is the second one-
#13.2 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:38
QUOTE if it is his domain he can do whatever he wants with it, redirecting it to a site full of ads too.
just because he isn't using it for some informative website doesn't mean Apple can just take it away from him you know...
Actually, that is exactly the heart of the matter:
QUOTE "The Experts bear the general law in mind, but the basis that they are making their decisions on are different to a normal civil law case. In a civil law case the cause of action will be 'passing off' or registered trade mark infringement: in the DRS the Expert is considering the narrower question of (a) does the Complainant have rights and (b) is the registration or use of the name 'abusive'. This distinction has always been there, and arises because the DRS simply solves a dispute under the contract of registration, not a larger problem, as the courts seek to."®
Last edited by 9953 on 29 Mar 2005 - 19:35-
#13.3 Posted by PROGAME on 29 Mar 2005 - 21:31
- then i completely disagree
trying to make money out of ads is an abuse now?
QUOTE it would appear that the long-held notion of prior rights has been set aside in Nominet's most recent domain resolution rules. Has the UK registry become corporate friendly?
yes they can now just take domain names they want only because they are big and strong -
#13.4 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 21:53
- No, not using the name to host a site is an abuse. If he had plans to use it, if it is so important to him, it wouldn't just be a forwarder.
Domain names are finite and scarce; registries are fully within their rights to try to make sure names are maximized to their fullest... or at least used.
Also, attempting to sell it to Napster and rejecting Apple's offer of 5G and coming back asking for 50G is further abuse... It shows he knows its greatest value is to Apple or its competitors, and it shows that this was his true intention... Use It or Lose It!
-
#14 Posted by angrybrit on 29 Mar 2005 - 17:57
- I hope Apple wins!
-
#15 Posted by TheSarge on 29 Mar 2005 - 18:56
- Apple is gonna win this one, and it's got nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong: Apple is big buisness, and this little guy is gonna get steamrolled by Apple's army of lawyers. Nevermind that he owns that domain name, he's still gonna lose.
-
(2 replies)
#16 Posted by Divide Overflow on 29 Mar 2005 - 20:26
- IMO, if he is a cybersquatter, which in this instance seems to be the case, more power to him. That's business. He purchased the domain name first. Business is not polite, nor is it courteous. He wanted Apple to pay him 50k for the domain name. They counteroffered with 5, which was rediculous, but it gives Apple extra leverage to say that he was not willing to work with them. IMO this guy was being generous with the 50k price on the domain name. He could have asked for millions.
Instead, Apple is going the Microsoft route, and claiming infringement. I can see myself firmly rooted in continuing to build my own machines, running Windows (Hate MS, love the OS ) or some variant of Unix eventually.
-
#16.1 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 21:28
- Overflow, actually, Apple offered 5G first, then he came back with 50G... He also tried to sell it to Napster before that.
Apple is not claiming infringement. They are asking Nominet to review the domain name because it is an abusive use (attempting to hold a domain hostage is considered abuse; forwarding and not using the name is considered abuse.) -
#16.2 Posted by dp123 on 29 Mar 2005 - 21:59
- Also...
QUOTE He could have asked for millions.
Are you serious? It's not 1999 anymore. He could not have asked for millions.
This is the entire reason domain registries have arbitration control over domain name disputes and why some countries have cybersquatting laws... It's an entirely inelastic product... with a finite range... People shouldn't be able to hold them hostage for sums that aren't realistic on any market... particularly if it impairs some from conducting actual business on the web while the other party sits on it.
But Nominet say legal experts found Mr Cohen was abusing his registration. The body's judgement, dated the 10 March, states by offering to sell the domain name and by continuing to re-direct people from itunes.co.uk Mr Cohen is abusing his registration.
Mr Cohen claims he had never heard of iTunes when he registered the domain.
This second generation of Cinema Displays comes in three sizes (20-Inch, 23-Inch, and the 30-Inch model), and have extra features like dual Firewire & dual USB 2.0 ports. As you might expect, like everything else made by Apple, Cinema Displays aren’t the cheapest thing on the market ($1,299 and up). With Apple’s reputation as a quality vendor, one might reasonably expect a decent deal. Especially when you spend over $1,000 dollars, you’d expect to get an honest and fair warranty. However, with this new generation of Cinema Displays, Apple only offers a 1-year manufacturer warranty. Has Apple screwed over it’s so called valuable customers with a warranty best fitting a Gateway product?! We think so. If one was so inclined, one can purchase an extended warranty for around $199, giving you a 3-year extended warranty. But there’s a catch. In order to get the extended warranty, you must purchase either a PowerMac or PowerBook along side of your $1,299+ LCD; unless you're planning on doing just this, you'll be up a creek without the proverbial paddle.
So come on guys, we hear you cry. Be reasonable. How is this a major issue? Well, consumers shouldn’t have to spend an extra $1,200 just to get an extended warranty on a product that so far hasn't had the smoothest sailing. It becomes even more of a problem considering the other, more visible, problems.
Our second concern is the growing number of faulty Cinema Displays. Website’s across the internet have been reporting on Cinema Displays that show either a strong pink or fairly visible yellow hue. Clearly, this isn't the first time that the "pink hue" symptoms have occurred - they first occurred in Apple's PowerBook G3 link (click here). This problem had previously been noticed by graphic professionals, but the more serious pink/yellow hues can be seen by your average computer user. Apple has yet to make an official statement regarding this problem, but has replaced all Cinema Displays that are experiencing this problem. More worryingly, the company has been reported as deleting support threads on their site (click here, DreamLight.com is currently down please click here to view a cached version of the site). This, however, obviously isn't a long term fix. According to DreamLight, the pink/yellow hue comes back after only a few weeks of normal usage. DreamLight suggest from user reports that these problems could be due to unnecessary stress on the LCD.
Of course, this may not be Apple’s fault, but the LCD manufacturer LG. LG produces a wide variety of products ranging from LCD TV's, Cameras, DVD Players - even Refrigerator's. Still, in the PC world, LG products are often suggested to be anything but high quality with less than average performance. Back in 1999, Apple invested $100 million dollars into Samsung to help Samsung produce a large quantity of LCDs for Apples iBooks, PowerBooks, and Cinema Displays. As such, it’s anyone’s guess why Apple switched from Samsung to LG. Even though Apple doesn’t manufacture the LCDs, Apple has a responsibility to its customers. That responsibility is to offer a fair and honest warranty. Switching back doesn’t sound like too bad idea.