- Joined
- Sep 1, 2003
- Messages
- 327
- Reaction score
- 0
This post is purely a tidying up excercise.
I said, "Indeed they were in the process of selling it (although somewhat crudely)."
To which John replied, "No, they were in the process of lying about having a legitimate purpose while trying to extort a trademark owner on the basis of what was considered to be their more likely than not knowledge of the value of that trademark in their native country."
This is sophistry - fallacious reasoning.
They lied about the purpose - because they knew WIPO UDRP process was corrupt - biased in favour of trademark holder.
Even Dan says, "the intials have inherent legitimate uses up the wazoo."
That a trademark owner wanted to buy the generic domain is neither here nor there - anybody could use it for any legal purposes.
Even the trademark owner KNEW this and offered $50,000 for the Domain Name.
John uses perverse argument about LEGALLY killing people - but the domain owner did nothing illegal with the initials - a fact he does not deny.
John> "In fact, I challenged Garry Anderson to guess whether or not most contested two or three letter UDRP's are won by the complainant or the respondent. He decided not to take a proposition on that question because he doesn't want to pay me again, even though I still haven't counted."
1. I did not need to guess - because UDRP is corrupt and a statistical number in favour of complainant or respondent proves nothing. The fact is, EVERY two or three letter domain taken in UDRP (when owner is doing nothing unlawful), is trademark overreach. Another fact that John does not deny.
2. I did not pay John for a bet. I paid him for answering some questions.
I said, "Indeed they were in the process of selling it (although somewhat crudely)."
To which John replied, "No, they were in the process of lying about having a legitimate purpose while trying to extort a trademark owner on the basis of what was considered to be their more likely than not knowledge of the value of that trademark in their native country."
This is sophistry - fallacious reasoning.
They lied about the purpose - because they knew WIPO UDRP process was corrupt - biased in favour of trademark holder.
Even Dan says, "the intials have inherent legitimate uses up the wazoo."
That a trademark owner wanted to buy the generic domain is neither here nor there - anybody could use it for any legal purposes.
Even the trademark owner KNEW this and offered $50,000 for the Domain Name.
John uses perverse argument about LEGALLY killing people - but the domain owner did nothing illegal with the initials - a fact he does not deny.
John> "In fact, I challenged Garry Anderson to guess whether or not most contested two or three letter UDRP's are won by the complainant or the respondent. He decided not to take a proposition on that question because he doesn't want to pay me again, even though I still haven't counted."
1. I did not need to guess - because UDRP is corrupt and a statistical number in favour of complainant or respondent proves nothing. The fact is, EVERY two or three letter domain taken in UDRP (when owner is doing nothing unlawful), is trademark overreach. Another fact that John does not deny.
2. I did not pay John for a bet. I paid him for answering some questions.
