Slashdot Log In
Chip Rosenthal Wins Unicom Domain Name Case
Posted by
Hemos
on Tue Feb 05, 2002 09:54 AM
from the follow-up-with-win dept.
from the follow-up-with-win dept.
Seth Schoen writes "As seen last month,
Chip Rosenthal (whom many people know for
Reply-to
Munging Considered Harmful, among other projects) was threatened
with the loss of his domain
name unicom.com.
He's now won in court and
will get to keep the domain, at least for the time being."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Chip Rosenthal Wins Unicom Domain Name Case
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 170 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why was there even a court case? (Score:3, Informative)
According to the plaintiff's charges, Rosenthal was being accused of cyberpiracy. Why? It's almost like a child throwing a tantrum when he can't get his way.
Leave him alone... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, cybersquatting just to extort money out of a company or to otherwise do harm to a company is wrong; in these situations I think companies have legitimate beef with cybersquatters. However, let's not ignore that fact that this guy registered the domain in 1990!
Cyber squatters (Score:3, Insightful)
The good guy wins (sometimes) (Score:1)
Now that's irony.. (Score:4, Funny)
Funny (Score:2, Interesting)
A rare bit of sanity (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting analysis of "commercial" sites (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, this is a limited decision, but hopefully others (like WIPO!) would consider some of this ruling to be reasonable when deciding other domain name battles.
He didn't REALLY win--jurisdictional issues (Score:5, Informative)
The court did not render a judgment stating he had the right to his domain. Rather, they said that suing in California was not permissible due to a lack of jurisdiction over him.
There are several ways to establish jurisdiction over an out of state defendant:
-If Chris had "systematic and continuous" contacts with the State of California
-If his website was of an ambiguous (courts have a nebulous examination standard) level of interactivity and accessible from California (contacts with California established via the Internet)
Because they didn't find either of those, the court determined that he couldn't be tried in that court. This does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a case in Texas against him.
Basically he just won this battle. It's possible the war is still going on.
Re:He didn't REALLY win--jurisdictional issues (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the big value in the Unicom v. Rosenthal decision is that it provides the independent web publisher some peace of mind that some company cannot reach out, claim jurisdiction, and make them fight a long-distance lawsuit. That's very expensive and very difficult.
yeah, this aint over... (Score:4, Informative)
At any rate, Unicom Systems Inc will find a way to keep things going against Unicom Systems Development, we'll here more about this in a few months.
Clarifying the Win (Score:5, Informative)
Chip is in Austin, Texas, but the Plaintiff sued him in Los Angeles.
When we responded to the Complaint, we made several alternative motions, one being that a court in California lacked personal jurisdiction over Chip, not only because he's in Texas, but also because he does not have sufficient contacts with California to make it reasonable for him to be dragged into court here.
The Court granted our motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. That's a big victory, there's much to be said for the proposition that courts do not have unlimited reach, even when the Internet is involved (think Matt Pavlovich and the California DVDCCA case, for example), but it isn't a ruling on the merits.
If Plaintiff should choose to file a new action against Chip in Austin, we have plenty of ammunition for arguing the merits of his rightful claim to the unicom.com domain name, but readers should not assume that this win addressed that issue. The Court's ruling is here [unicom.com].
Re:Have they tried (Score:5, Informative)
No, they didn't go through ICANN. (Allegedly) aggrieved domain name owners can either use the ICANN UDRP or go to court, they're not required to use the ICANN procedures first. These folks chose to go to court first.
As for Chip, he would have no reason to go to ICANN. unicom.com is his domain name, he isn't contesting that the Plaintiff can keep its name, unicomsi.com.
Decision doesn't answer the question (Score:1)
HAve you noticed (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a ruling on merits, but interesting anyway (Score:2, Redundant)
This decision, though good for Chip, does not address the merits of the case, only the question of whether a California Court has jurisdiction to hear it. Presumably, the plaintiffs could got to a Federal Court somewhere and get the case heard (disclaimer: I don't know all of the facts, so that is merely a presumption on my part)
That doesn't mean the decision isn't interesting. The judge includes a nice discussion of purposeful availment and standards used to decide when the operator of a web site has or has not made him/herself subject to a jurisdiction's laws. Very good to see that mere presence doesn't trip the wire.
countersuit? (Score:1)
If I were him, I would file a countersuit. He registered the domain in 1990, and since the company didn't file for the trademark until 1997, he might have a lawsuit for *them* for trying to name their company to take advantage of his domain's popularity.
still penalized (Score:2, Funny)
The thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
./ time... (Score:3, Informative)
Try the main page, and I see it now says:
Okay, the google cache for his main page is at: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ta1nhhNpbHMCTom.
Changed meaning of top domains ? (Score:1)
Shouldn't a commercial company like Unicom have the rights to the Unicom.com address, rather that an individual exploiting the weak control of
And with a new top domain like
The site (Score:2)
I am Slashdotted Sorry ... this web site is Slashdotted at the moment.
Here is the Google cache version of my main page.
Until my new shipment of bandwidth arrives, you may want to visit the Save Unicom.Com web site to read about the lawsuit.
Now how's *that* for Karma Whorin! ;-)
Priority? (Score:4, Informative)
Lots of other companies have used trademarks including the word "unicom". Rosenthal says he searched the federal trademark registry and found more than 20 registrations besides unicomsi's 3. Or in a search I just ran myself, Thomas Register (http://www.thomasregister.com/, registration required) lists 3 companies whose names start with "Unicom", not including Unicom Systems Inc. There's a maker of industrial air filters in Oregon, a printer in Alberta, and a "LAN products manufacturer" in California. I wonder if that one has heard from Unicomsi?
IANAL, but it certainly looks to me that, no matter when unicomsi registered their various trademarks, they've never had priority to just the name "unicom", or even to that name in a computer-related market. According to Rosenthal, unicomsi's registered marks are graphic designs including the word "UNICOM" -- that makes the whole mark a valid trademark (assuming the graphics are unique), but it hardly gives them the right to the name itself. And if they did own the name as related to software, still they failed to defend it for 11 years.
Anyway, this round was only about whether u-si could sue a Texas website in a California court. If u-si wants to hire a Texas lawyer, they can start over again in Texas -- of course, this is more expensive for them, and I'd certainly be amazed if they won in _any_ court on the facts I know of.
If they do continue in Texas, a suggested settlement: Rosenthal puts their banner ad at the top of his web page "Were you looking for Unicom Systems, Inc., support for legacy...". Not that he couldn't beat them entirely, but it would save time and money.
The great thing about that decision is that it tends against all the various silly lawsuits claiming that because your web site can be seen, or is mirrored in, or links to sites in some other jurisdiction, you can be yanked into court in a different state or country.
Prior prior use (Score:2, Interesting)
At O'Hare airport [airnav.com] UNICOM is on the 122.95 frequency.
Fighting over the first use of the term UNICOM is like fighting over who owns "home page."
Unicom is slashdotted, but www.unicomsi.com (Score:1)
Cybersquatting and Reverse-Cybersquatting (Score:2, Interesting)
However, consider a reverse case. Consider if a smart large bank -- like JP Morgan and Co -- buys tons and tons of land, which is now cheap. Despite the land now being cheap, it will eventually be valuable, as the US population is increasing and more space will be required to house future populations. Once over-crowding starts occuring, and people experience the need to perhaps live on the inter-city land that populates our expressways/highways/throughways/whatever, the banks will be in prime-time position to sell that land at outrageous prices. That doesn't seem so fair, and for good reason. Why? Because it is the powerful using their resources to take advantage of the disempowered.
Though these cases are relevant to the internet-case of cybersquatting and reverse-cyber-squatting, they don't map directly. These cases deal with real-world examples, real world property. The internet is more metaphysical, abstract: in the realm of ideas.
(1) Cybersquatting is registering a domain name with no intent to use it, but simply the intent to use the name as leverage to get a company, organization, or person to buy it at the highest price possible; alternatively, the site may be used for some constructive purpose, but aa temporary location for that constructive purpose, with the end goal being using that domain name to extract maximum money from another entity.
a. Against a company. An example would be my registering the domain name www.ibm.org and never using it for anything, but simply hoping that IBM would pay you money to get the rights to it. This brings up an important point. As IBM already has a website -- ibm.com -- its claim to take that site from the original owner based solely on cybersquatting is diminished. IBM already has a recognizable domain name which will bring most people to it: in fact, the most recognizable domain name. Company.com is what you type as a standard to get to a companies home page. A case where the company would have a strong claim would be where it had no internet site before, and someone put up site wwww.company-that-previously-had-no-site.com, and put nothing on it, its clearly to extract money. However, if they put up such a site and provided a message board about company products, criticisms, etc, as well as information and hints from ppl who've bought their products, then its not cybersquatting and the organization has no claim.
b. Against an organization. For example, registering the domain name www.naral.net in hopes of extracting money from NARAL. Again, the same as above applies. NARAL has the most obvious most recognizable website for what they are, so their claim is diminished. But if someone puts up a site wwww.organization-that-previously-had-no-site.com
c. Against a person. This hasn't occured much yet, but it may in the future. For example person A, named John Doe, puts up a website named www.janedoe.com. He has no intention of using that website, but knows Jane Doe is rich and will eventually want to have her own website after her own name; so he simply holds onto the website, in hopes that eventually he can squeeze her. This is cybersquatting. But if another woman with the same name, Jane Doe, puts up a website and uses it, its not cybersquatting. Finally, if a company or organization puts up a website with a persons name -- unless it be an organization member -- that's cybersquatting. Organizations/companies have no business putting up sites named with people's name. The only exception would be if that person is a member of the organization, or if they want to use that person as a positive example; i.e., an anarchist organization putting up the domain name KattieSierra.com to honor her. There's nothign malevolent about that; though, of course, if she doesn't want it, she has the rights to claim it. Every individual should be able to claim a domain name named after them. In cases where individuals share the same first, middle, and last names, first come first serve (unless one David Cassidy puts up a website titled David Heinrich to try to extract money from all the other David Heinrich). These are the easy cases. What about the hard cases. What if someone who hates you puts up a website with your first, middle, and last name -- johnxdoe -- and spews about how much of a jerk you are, makes hateful remarks about you, and otherwise demeans you on the site. Or worse, what if said person puts up a website with your name and pretends to be you, except misrepresenting you? I think that these cases are unacceptable. And I realize that's iffy. If someone wants to put up a website trying to masquerade as me or insult me, they should have to in some way put "anti" or something similar in the address: i.e., www.antidavidheinrich.com. This is a minor restriction on freedom of speech which serves to prevent misrepresentation.
Now, back to the comparisons with people hoarding potential rail-road land back in the day, or buying "2nd tier" beach property in California. There is a clear difference between those cases and stategic registration of domain names. Those cases apply for physical property and must be strategically made; one can't simply buy all land. Furthermore, one is actually abstracting the real value the land will hold in the future. That property is in fact that valuable, and would cost that much to the hotels. But if I squat a domain name, the company might have to pay me a million dollars for something that would've costed only a few bucks otherwise.
Its not that I'm for big corporations. Its that this type of game-playing demeans the usefulness of the internet and domain names. And its not to say that big corporations don't play this game to.
Corporations usually don't engage in cybersquatting; though they could if they wanted to. Cybersquatting is really a riskless activity, as I believe it should be. Do you really want to fine someone or put them in jail for that? The worst that can happen is the person loses his domain name, and doesn't get to sell it to the corporation for a high price. But back to corporations -- what they do do is distort cybersquatting norms to allow them to strangle competition or prevent sites from displaying that are critical of them, and otherwise abuse domain-name norms.
A site opens up with the domain name, www.anti-riaa.com, and uses it to harsly criticize the RIAA. The RIAA sues for "cybersquatting". Plainly ludicrous. Cybersquatting implies that the "target" had the intent or motive to want to use the domain-name. The RIAA would never use that domain-name. Yet, they want to claim it in order to prevent criticism. This is a kind of reverse cybersquatting. It furthermore diminishes the functionality of domain names. People expect that if they type in such a domain name, they'll get a website against the RIAA, not a blank page.
Another case is where companies try to take away competing companies domain names, or individuals domain names based on "trademark similarlities". Prime example, Lindows.com. Do they really think that people will confuse Windows with Lindows? Most intelligent people wouldn't. But even if they would, that's not Lindows fault -- that's the fault of ppl who are so dumb. Furthermore, Lindows intent isn't to confuse people, making them think its an MS product. Its simply to let them know that it should work fine with MS software. If anyone is confused, they'll be straightened out once they look at the sight. More disturbing is the implication by MS that they have trademark rights to anything that rhymes with Windows, or if of a similar sound.
I think its obvious to most COMMON-SENSE people that something is or is not cybersquatting when they see it. But that ridiculous definition of "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't do. The public has a right to know EXACTLY is and is not acceptable; EXACTLY what is an is not, for example, "PORNOGRAPHY" (one of the more brilliant quotes by one of the 9 wise men, "I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it"). If we cannot define precisely what is not an acceptable activity, we have no right to expect people not to do it. People need to know the rules of the game before they play. There's no reason why norms, laws, customs, etc can't be as precisely defined as the rules of chess.
For example, in chess, there are a few official rules, clearly defined, and there are also some "unofficial" rules which any two professionals understand:
(1) The official rules. I.e., how each piece moves, exceptions to the normal movement of pieces, conditions in which the king must move, stalemate conditions, and checkmate conditions.
(2) The unofficial rules. A typical set goes something like this: 1 You touch a piece, you have to move it; 2 No taking back moves; 3 No talking; 4 No motions, positions, etc that would distract the opponent and detract from his/her ability to think.
The rules in chess are clearly defined. There is no ambiguity.
The rules governing law and domain-name resolution should be the same: precisely clear. I will attempt to propose some here. I do not pretend that they are perfectly clear, nor that they are comprehensive. But I will try to make them as much so as I can. Obviously, a real set of rules needs to be thoroughly thought out. Each rule must be stated as clearly as possible, as elegantlty as possible, and with as few words as possible. There must be a sufficient number of rules to cover all "inappropriate activity". Here's my rough draft:
1. IF someone registers a domain name (entity-name.com) BEFORE entity-name does, assuming entity-name exists at the time of registration, AND that someone has no intent of using that domain name, but only trying to extract money from entity-name, THEN it is cybersquatting. The entity-name should be able to obtain entity-name.com from the cybersquatter at the price of domain-name registration.
2. IF someone registers a domain-name (entity-name.com) BEFORE entity-name does, AND actually uses it for some purpose, whether connected to the domain-name or not, AND has no intent of using it to extract money from entity-name, THEN that is not cybersquatting. Entity-name can always register the domain-name Entity_name.com.
3. IF someone registers a domain-name (entity-name.com) BEFORE entity-name does, AND uses it for some purpose, whether connected to the domain-name or not, BUT has the intent of never-the-less using it to extract money from entity-name, AND is thus simply using that "purpose" as a front, THEN that is cybersquatting. The individual can copy the web-site content to his hard drive and post it at another domain-name. Meanwhile, entity-name should be able to get entity-name.com from that individual by paying him the cost of registration.
4. IF someone registers a domain name (entity-name.com) before entity-name exists, THEN no matter the post-entity-name existance activity of that someone, it is not cybersquatting. Whether or not the indivual makes use of that domain-name, it is clearly not his intent to use the domain-name to extract money from entity-name. Simply because the person has not yet used entity-name.com by the time entity-name comes into existence does not mean the person should be deprived of his site. There has been no planned extortion. Should entity-name offer the individual money to get that domain-name, so be it.
5. IF entity-name already owns a domain-name (entity-name.com) AND an individual creates a site with a similar domain-name (i.e., entity_name.com), AND that individual's end intent is to extract money from entity-name for entity_name.com, THEN that is cybersquatting. However, entity-name hasn't as strong a claim to have the domain-name taken away. Entity-name already has the best domain name possible (as they themselves have affirmed by registering that as their domain-name). They have no real need obtain entity_name.com when they already have entity-name.com.
6. IF entity-name already has a domain-name (entity-name.com) AND an individual creates a similar domain-name (i.e., entity_name.com or anti-entity-name.com), AND uses that domain name either to offer useful information about entity-name from a member/customer's pov, or to criticize entity-name, THEN that is not cybersquatting. Entity-name has no claim to take away that domain-name.
7. Dormancy time limit. I believe that all "intellectual property" -- if we are to have such a draconian thing -- should last a maximum of five years. Thus, for non-users of a domain-name, the domain-name is automatically relinquished from their control after 5 years if they do nothing with it. "Nothing" is a very high standard. If an individual uses the domain name for nothing other than saying, "I like blah blah blah blah blah", then that is NOT nothing. Nothing means either no page has been put there, or its just been a "for sale" sign for 5 years, or its just been an "under construction" sign for 5 years.
8. Assumption of innocence. The party brining the complaint must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other has done what is alleged.
9. The power tilt modifier. Naturally, in resolving disputes, the balance should be tilted towards the side of the less powerful, as the less powerful is more likely to be the innocent side in any given case, and the side less able to defend itself. If the less powerful is the person bearing the complaints, then its tilted towards them. If the less powerful is the person brining the complaint, then its tilted towards them. This does not overturn rule #8, but only modifies it slightly.
If you have a business domain, get a trademark (Score:3, Interesting)
Trademarks can be registered on either the "principal" or the "supplemental" register. Trademarks on the principal register can be enforced against others. Trademarks on the supplemental register can't be enforced against others, but prevent others from claiming you are infringing their trademark. If your application for registration on the principal register is rejected, you can often get a registration on the supplementary register, for which the standards are lower. In particular, you can usually get a supplementary register trademark on a commonly used word, which is valuable for domain purposes.
Either way, you get to use the ® symbol, and you're protected against any trademark-related claims on a domain.
This case is just one of thousands (Score:2)
Because of they way the Internet is being mismanaged, conflict is impossible to avoid.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone.
The solution to exclusively identify all trademark domains was always self-evident.
It was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
I truly believe that the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce hide it for reasons of money and power - that they are corrupt.
They wish to abridge peoples right to use these words - they violate the First Amendment.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see the simple solution - no connection with United Nations WIPO.org
A Question About DeCSS... (Score:1)
Did the kid who wrote DeCSS in another country have any contact with California? (Which is where I thought the DeCSS case was litigated...)
Is there a way that they can use this ruling?
Not Over Yet (Score:1)
Unicom Systems may decide to re-file their case in Texas, and as little as I wish a continued lawsuit on Mr. Rosenthal, for them to re-file and lose decisively would establish a far more useful precedent than this dismissal does.
Cybersquatting (Score:1)
What really bugs me though are companies that take domains from other people because it's www.companysucks.com. Again, if the company wasn't bright enough to buy that site before hand, they deserve to pay whatever the other person wants for that domain. Remember, no one FORCES the company to pay outrages prices for a domain name, the company decides that that is what the doamin is worth to them. There is a reason before the release of a new product (i.e. iPod) Apple buys the domain, so that no one else gets to it first. Likewise, if I ever start my computer repair business (Orbit Computer Repair) I will register the domain before I star teh actual business. Of course there are many variations on that name that I could use, and let's not forget I could still use
Commons for Doman-Names? (Score:1)
For example, did you know that www.aristotle.com belongs to some obscure company, Aristotle International? What the sites about, what the company sells, who knows. The point is, that a site with the name of one of the greatest philosophers of all time isn't devoted to him.
To me, that's outrageous.
Sites with the names of such influencial people in our history, or historic names, or something in them which belongs to us all, should be in the public domain. Namely, they should be devoted to this commons, in the public domain.
How to make a good use of those sites in the commons, I'm not sure of. Perhaps a government-funded reference list of all relevant information, books, etc. For example, aristotle.* would have a listing of hyperlinks to all the books written by Aristotle, as well as his biography, and links to other sites about him.
Other such domain-names which I think should be in the commons include:
www.plato.*
www.einstein.*
www.hobbes.*
www.orwell.*
www.nuremburg.*
www.socrates.*
www.bohrniels.*
www.rutherford.*
www.usconstitution.*
etc.
You get the point.
The idea that some companies get to profit off names which belong in the commons, the public domain, which belongs to us all, is outrageous.
Re:Some info about IP. (Score:1)
You are full of shit. Where did you get these numbers? Out of your arse?
Re:Jim Tyre, Age 32, Found Dead This Morning (Score:2)
The reports of my death are greatly ....
When did this happen? Why wasn't I told?
I am not rolling cigars [fujipub.com] in Tampa, or anywhere.
Re:Laws need to be changed. (Score:2)
There are also torts of abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
The problem with these are the companies that bring this, like Mattel [sorehands.com] are not concerned that a judge may order costs and fees. Costs and fees may amount to $10,000-$2000, where such a company would spend less than that in a month on outside counsel.In some companies, the inhouse counsel gets additional monies for assisting outside counsel.
Re:Some info about IP. (Score:1)
Product cost is extremely difficult to measure in a firm that produces more than one product and which engages in non-trivial research and development. Simply, you cannot measure products like this.
The correct level for this type of socio-economic analysis is the household and the firm. Firms have expenses, some of which they can link directly to a good sold (i.e. the cost of the raw materials) and some which are extremely fluid (i.e. the salary of the CEO). But unlike expenses, revenues usually have one type: sales. It is therefore extremely easy to assess the revenue a product/service generates, but because of the issue with cost analysis, accounting for profit is only truly possible at the firm level.
What I really don't understand is: what's your point? "Intellectual property" is supposedly good for workers, and therefore must be given priority protected legal status? Or are you saying we don't need to bother, since the workers are what's important because without them "intellectual property" is mostly useless anyhow?
Re:Some info about IP. (Score:2)
Well...I don't think I agree with that. Intel fits about 180 Pentium 4's onto a single wafer. Your "estimated" manufacturing cost of $20 per chip comes out to $3600 per wafer. A bare 8" wafer with an epitaxially grown SI02 layer goes for about $3000. Are you seriously suggesting that by the time that the chip emerges at the end of the process that only $600 of value is added to the entire wafer? Bear in mind that in order to develop up to 12 layers of material on the chip that a ton of photolithography, deposition and etching has to take place. And following that, the die have to be cut, tested, packaged...it's a very long process. From start to finish, it will take several days to process a wafer from bare silicon to finished package.
To top it off, while 180 P4's may come off the die, they don't all work. A very mature process with substantially fewer process steps than that of a processor would cheer for a 90% yield rate. P4's aren't mature...draw your own conclusions from that.
Also, Intel is cash flow positive. And their investment in R&D for Q4 2001 was fairly typical at about $950 million, but the cost of goods sold came in at well over $3 billion.
In fact, it costs about $50 to produce the very cheapest Pentiums...the slow Celerons and PIII's that have been in production long enough to work out the kinks in the process.
Nonetheless, your point about IP is well taken. I'm an engineer in R&D for a big semiconductor company...we spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on R&D. While that's a significant portion of the company's budget (in Intel's case, it was 14% of revenues last quarter), it's safe to say that it isn't the major expense of the cost of the chips that we produce. Manufacturing expenses are the brunt of the expense. It simply costs a lot of money to build the chips.
I don't know about stereos or freezers, but I do know about semiconductors.
-h-
Re:Laws need to be changed. (Score:1)
I wanted to repeat this (minus an ad hominim attack on lawyers ;-) so that people who are filtering out acowards could read it. I happen to agree with the logic. I think a better solution would be to have the losing party's legal team pay the winning party's legal fees. This penalty should be no greater than what the losing party paid for their own legal council.
I wouldn't want to see situations evolve where a corp can simply threaten a legitimate lawsuit with "you'll owe us $1M if you lose, better settle now." But I would like to see a situation where Joe Public has a legitimate beef so he pays $100k for lawyers against a corp who spends $10M on their lawyers. Joe wins his legitimate beef so he gets the award and his lawyer gets a $10M bonus. This rewards the lawyer who takes up legitimate causes and punishes the lawyer that sues for the [insert comical frivilous lawsuit (i.e. hot McD's coffee)].
Corps would also benefit since they would have the possibility of actually recouping their defense against frivilous lawsuits instead of settleing.
Ouch (Score:1)
Oh well, everyone find something different funny, I'll just try to be more obvious next time.
(Am I the only one who thinks Offtopic should be +1? The most and probably only interesting conversations I've been in are the ones that wander over all kinds of different topics.)
You have the numbers backwards (Score:1)
I worked at one of Ford Motor Company's top-earning manufacturing plants in 1997, and the numbers that I saw indicated that they were earning about $5,000 on a $30,000 vehicle ... *before* things like warranty costs were taken into account.
So, instead of 90% profit 10% cost, the real numbers are more like 10% profit, 90% cost. There was a time when you could earn more money by keeping your money in the bank ...
Re:So what do I need to do to protect MY domain? (Score:2)
these bullshit suits?
Start saving and investing wisely now, so when the time comes you'll have a large bankroll to spend on more expensive lawyers than the plaintiff's.
~Philly