Forget the worries about the posts… start your own blog. You’re a very concise and straightforward writer with knowledge. Don’t waste it in comments on someone else’s blog (all the detail – no diss intended, Em-Bee).

Write a more truncated version on the blog you’re responding to, and then write a deeper article on your blog.

Just my 2 cents.

cheers

My point was that attitudes will change as more people begin to understand technology, which we all must know, implicitly, but we seem to ignore. These negative attitudes are temporary.

Let’s talk about UDRP.

On balance, the trademark bar does not understand computers very well, let alone DNS. They are not very technical. (The patent bar is a different matter.) Apologies to anyone who is offended by those statements, but, with few exceptions, this it true. I respect the fact that not everyone is going to take the time to read through the RFC’s. There are “better things to do”. In the case of patent lawyers, the job may require them to read such things.

This climate of relative ignorance will change however, because soon enough there will be lawyers, including TM attorneys, who were born into a world of computerised devices. These young people will have no resistence to learning how these devices work and how they interact with the network.

Regarding the current issues with domains, only after the lawyers figure how things work can the corporations, courts and legislators begin to do something to redirect the revenue from “internet marketing” (and we know much of it once belonged to traditonal media) to “more worthy candidates”. Meanwhile, “search engines”, “parking companies” and the “domainers” are the current “players”. Because they understand how things work. They have the technical expertise.

We have all read the some of the memoranda from TM counsel in domain disputes. It is embarassing how little is understood. What the “crooked domainers” whom they are faced with are doing is easy, and no doubt highly profitable. But apparently it’s far too “computer-oriented” to hold the attention of most trademark lawyers.

That will change, eventually.

For those “domainers” who are not breaking any laws, who are focused on words that cannot be protected via trademark law, I would reserve judgment. We could certainly accuse them of “gaming” the system. But maybe we should stop ourselves and think about this.

On the patent side, there is plenty of “gaming” with respect to the business of computers. And I don’t see the “players” getting nearly as much “heat” as are the “domainers”. I think it is a worthy comparison.

In the case of patents, it may be that the persons not directly involved care even less what goes on. Too technical perhaps. That is, we might be less likely to see a commenter like “stewart”. But even the most seasoned professionals, steeped in detailed knowledge, are in effect reduced to spectators. They are mere commentators. The “players” may change, but the “gaming” continues. It seems unstoppable. And just like “domaining” there is obviously something very “wrong”.

Look, for example, at the business that MS’s former CTO started. I encourage “stewart” have a look at that operation. They produce *nothing*, except heaps of fear, heaps of licences and, heaps of revenue. One could say they “collect patents”, similar to how “domainers” collect “domain names”, or (as a prolific “domainer” once suggested) how kids “collect Pokemon cards”. Who would have guessed? This is a highly profitable business. And as with some of the most successful “domainers”, when we look at what they are doing, we may be conflicted as to whether to congratulate the founders with regard to their cleverness or to condemn their actions for blatent disregard of ethics.

This “company” has locked up massive swaths of patents in the same way as “domainers” have locked up huge swaths internet namespace– “covertly”. And it is a challenging mental excercise to find “social utility” (for lack of better term) in the company’s goals, much as it takes some mental fitness to find “social utility” in what “domainers” do. In both cases, nothing is produced, “rents” are collected and there is heavy use of shell corporations.

But the patent system carries on, despite its flaws. And the “gaming” will continue.

Now, thanks to a new medium of advertising, the packet-switched network, there’s a “huge, gaping hole” in the trademark system. Generic names now have value. And “domainers” are exploiting this. One might say they are “gaming” the system.

As with the patent system, I do not expect that the trademark system will be “fixed”. I expect the “gaming” will continue. But the “players” may change.

But before one can “game” the system, one must understand how it works. Or know others who do.

The company I mentioned above has the patent expertise to secure large numbers of patents in relatively short periods of time and that is why they can game that system.

Who has the expertise in securing large numbers of domain names in short periods of time? The trademark bar and their clients? No. They only know how to secure trademarks. “Domainers” have the expertise.

This is going to change, eventually. Can you forsee a future where lawyers will be the gateway to securing domain names, as they are now the gateway to securing trademarks? You may shudder at the thought, but that day is coming as the population becomes more computer literate, including the lawyers. And the more “teeth” we give the UDRP and other dispute resolution mechanisms, the more likely the parties are to bring lawyers “into the fray”. As such, we hasten the move to this future.

Perhaps, as the “thing” (e.g. owning a domain name) becomes more expensive and thereby exclusive, it will become more appealing to corporate clients, and other well-positioned buyers. Owning domain names and defending against UDRP complaints is, perhaps, too “cheap”.

Under this idea, when the “thing” becomes prohibitively expensive to the “Average Joe” then corporations, and other capable buyers, will take a more substantial interest in it as an asset.

I think we should reserve judgment on “domainers”. We are not a fully computer literate population, yet.

I am quite certain that no one would attempt to impede the population’s movement toward computer literacy. More often, the vendors of computer products and services encourage and enbellish laziness whereby people do not have to take intitiative to learn about computers before using them.

But we also have preserved and expanded enough openness and sharing of information that anyone can learn an enormous amount of how things work, if they take the initiative. I think “domainers” are such persons. They have taken intiative where others have not.

These are interesting times because there is still a great disparity of knowledge regarding computers and networks to which they connect. Comments on these matters on blogs and forums often act as a reminder that the disparity remains.

The more “stewarts” we have left, perhaps the better for “domainers”. But one can see how the concept of the “troll” became so enduring– it is immensely tempting to respond to ignorance, instead of just ignoring it.

Delete this, please!

Very well written.

What if there were compelling data to supporting what the person told Bob, and no data to challenge it?

What would Bob do?

The domains-to-real estate comparison is seriously flawed.

How many people can view or visit a tract of land in a day?

There is a legitimacy problem with “domaining”, even when it does not run afoul of any law. There are large corporations that own many, many domains that have no corresponding trademark. Are they “domainers”?

And there is still widespread ignorance of technology, including how the “web” works. For example, few people could explain, in detail, *how* “domainers” do what they do, though this will not stop them from having a strong opinion about this topic.

But how long can we expect this situation to continue?

1. The “business model”, even when no laws are broken, is one of the most efficient in existence. Here, the analogies to real estate, gold rushes, etc. are more accurate. The ROI is often shocking. The number and scope of people one can reach through this technology far exceeds the capabilities of any other medium in common use and the means to do so, “domains”, are sold at commodity prices. Wake up.

2. There will soon be generations graduating from universities who have been exposed to this technology since birth. They will have no fear of going straight into the technical details. And those details are publicly available.

What the technologically ignorant fail to see is that selling advertising and marketing are the most lucrative aspects of so-called “e-commerce”. Selling goods or services, at enormous scales with low overhead, while certainly significant, is secondary. The “web” (for better or worse) is a massive advertising channel, and it’s exploitation for this purpose is in its infancy.

The “sweat of the brow”, stewart, is, perhaps, making the effort to understand technology, on some level above what is commonplace. And then acting on it.

“Ignorance” is presently the commonplace level of knowledge with respect to this technology, despite the fact all the information to understand it is publicly available. It costs nothing but your time to learn. This equals opportunity.

The widespread ignorance gives many people, who take the time to research and understand “how things work”, and such people may range from “domainers” having little technical knowledge to those with long-term careers or advanced technical degrees in areas associated with related technology, a substantial competitive advantage. Through a disparity of knowledge, they can make money.

But this general ignorance cannot persist indefinitely. The details are not as complex as many would have people believe. The gap in knowledge will begin to close over time.

When the ignorance gives way to a general understanding, when all people appreciate the IP network (for better or worse) as a massive advertising and marketing channel like none the world has known before (for better or worse), when those future non-technophobic generations are in positions of influence (it is inevitable), I do not expect to see the same attitudes we are seeing today. It will be interesting to observe.

In case it is not clear to anyone reading this, the largest commercial value of the “web” is in *marketing*.

Without advertising dollars, large cap companies with whom everyone is familiar, e.g. G, Y, FB, etc. would be struggling, if they were even soluble.

Despite what some may think, their profits are not derived through selling wonderful products or services. It matters little toward the bottom line how “great” their technology is. (Interestingly, much of the most reliable technology is “free”, created by “enthusiasts”.)

The profits come from selling *advertising*.

stewart, does selling electronic ad space qualify as “sweat of the brow”? Selling ad space in the “print” world was never like this.

I do not mean to imply the largest value of the “web” is commercial in nature. Value is highly subjective.

The network has many uses, e.g. dissemination of academic knowledge for one. In fact, this, the work of universities, was a key factor in the development of the network and the (“free”) technology that it runs on. Enthusiasts.

I kinda like the effect the drugs you’re on — please identify them so I can check em out, take a few, and post a few comments that make no sense whatsoever too, but I’d at least be having as much fun as you! You’re way out of my league at this point, broey.

cheers for the new year!

Okay, I’ll bite.

Where were you when people were buying up acres by the thousands in California just 40 years ago? And Bob Hope was one of them. He paid a few dollars per acre, and built NOTHING on them.

Mr. Bob Hope, American’s favorite comedian for six decades, sold his “cheap acreage with nothing on them” to developers. Did he charge them the same price he paid for them? Wait, no, Bob Hope was an American Capitalist. He believed you could “discover gold” and make money from it.

Your argument is so fundamentally ignorant that it makes me feel bad pointing it out to you and the thousands of other “Gee I wish I had bought that domain before someone else did”, that by and large, domainers are BUSINESSMEN.

Investing in domains is a legitimate, wide-open opportunity for SMART investors (just like those land barons who knew where to buy land where a railroad was going to be built through) for cheap. I’m not saying all domainers are angels, and do things ethically, but painting anyone who buys a domain for $7.50, and resells it for $3,000 a year later as “parasites” is just a sad confession by you that you were not “fast enough” or “up to speed” to the value of domain investing.

Now it seems you have a lot of anger towards domain investors who bought domains that “other people want”, but you don’t explain WHY those people should get the domains other than the empty argument that the domain owners haven’t “created something” out of those domains. It’s comforting to take that stance, because however weak it is, it’s the only “sympathetic” argument you have. But, going on Rick the King’s business attitude, I’ll just say here.. “Domain investing isn’t based on sympathy.”

Save your money, Stew. Buy a domain you want… it’s an investment, just like GOLD.