Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 99 99

There was a mess 20 years ago? I registered my domain with Network Solutions. I was living in Australia at the time. The only "mess" I encountered was the annoyance of currency conversion fees on my credit card, both for the registration and for the hosting - I had my site hosted in the USA because at the time any hosting in Australia was (a) at the end of a very very thin pipe, and (b) cruelly expensive.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 99 99

... yeah. Castle doctrine doesn't apply to domain names, y'know. Besides, the entire transaction happens at some physically remote location. BigCo says to registrant "MINE" (just like the seagulls in Finding Nemo). Registrant hands the keys to BigCo. There's nobody for you to aim at.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 2) 99 99

The outcome isn't really uncertain; the richer party is guaranteed to win. Basically the way it tends to break down is: The original registrant is deemed to have "abandoned" the _trademark_ because they are not "doing business" with the trademark. And the challenger can show that they have been doing business with the same trademark; they can show invoices for advertising, copies of magazine advertisements, TV advertisements, press coverage of their product showing the name, etc. In some cases, a settlement amount is set by the court to reflect that the original owner did "invest" in the name, sort of a cash reimbursement of imputed goodwill. But you're better off talking direct to the company that's challenging you and negotiating a cash price up front. ESPECIALLY once you take the bullshit factor into account - lawyers, paperwork, etc. In summary: If you're an individual fighting a corporation, you're generally screwed. This advice applies to many facets of life, really; Erin Brockovitch notwithstanding.

Comment: Re:The short answer is nothing (Score 1) 99 99

This is an irrelevancy. We are not discussing cybersquatters. We are discussing the - not uncommon - case where a small entitity or individual legitimately owns a domain, and a large entity later comes and demands it because the scope of their trademark expands to include it.

Comment: The short answer is nothing (Score 4, Insightful) 99 99

The unfortunate fact is that it really doesn't matter if you establish prior use of the domain, because arguments of this sort only arise when there's an external trademark that already has multiple millions of dollars of "goodwill" competing for the use of the domain. The typical timeline for this sort of thing is: Joe Public registers because his daughter's nickname is Boo and he wants a cool place for showing off her baby pictures. 10 years later, someone builds the persona of their dog Boo into a huge franchise, and decides that they want an internet persona. They file to push Joe Public off the domain. Because they NOW have a huge investment in "boo", they beat Joe Public's use of the term even though, had they had a trademark battle initially, he would have won through prior ownership. And it's expensive to fight these battles. I own a three-letter domain name, which I've had since the mid 1990s. Yes, I've owned this domain for 20+ years. I have had to fight off - fortunately at no great cost - a couple of people who wanted to use business names that had the same acronym as my domain. I'm getting sort of tired of it to be honest - three letter .com domains can fetch as much as $100K in the right markets, and I'd seriously consider an offer like that at this point, despite a huge load of my life being linked to that site.

Comment: Re: that's funny... (Score 4, Insightful) 368 368

You're so missing the point. There are *ALREADY* about seventeen billion ways those artists can get their free, no-royalties-paid exposure to the public; Spotify's free tier, Youtube, various other Internet streaming/radio sites, etc. Apple is trying to muscle its way into the internet streaming music business and build credibility for its brand. They are trying to get their marketing budget for free by riding the artists. It is APPLE that is trying to break into a new market, not the artists - it is Apple that should pay the royalties for those trial periods.

Comment: Re:Every child should NOT learn how to code... (Score 1) 306 306

Some would argue that Common Core and related nonsense is precisely doing that - training kids only to be "testing bees". And some would argue that the social attitudes forced on kids by school district policies (zero tolerance, for example) are training kids to be drooling government slaves. #justsayin.

Comment: Re:I kind of agree (Score 1) 306 306

In 1985 when I was in 7th grade, the school I was attending (in Melbourne, Australia) had LOGO programming on Apple IIe and IIc computers as part of the math course (programming various geometry), and a language I don't recall on Mac 512Ke and Mac Plus computers as part of the 8th grade curriculum. It was a small part of the year (a couple of weeks? something like that?) but it was intended to teach using a programming language to model mathematical problems. Which it did.

Comment: Re:No kid should be forced to code ... (Score 2, Interesting) 306 306

Not sure if your comment is trolling, sarcasm, or just too deep for the average bear to understand. My first paid programming assignment was at the age of 10. And, it was in Australia. (Admittedly, it was just writing and modifying some bullshit educational software on the Apple II, but hey, it was software that other people used, and I was paid for it).

Comment: Re:typo? (Score 1) 227 227

Same surface area? What sort of ruler are you using there; is it graduated in numbers or in unicorns? The RPi is a board-scale solution that's massive compared to an 8-bit PIC or AVR. You're aware that there are PICs in SOT223 packages, right? And even the very largest PIC is smaller than the combination of ROM and RAM and required support circuitry in the RPi.

Comment: Re:typo? (Score 1) 227 227

> There are a few IoT devices that are WiFi based. You cherry-picked those. They are a temporary solution for legacy environments. Actually no, WiFi solves specific networking needs such as "connect to the Internet without a special hub device being required". Until BTLE repeater support or Z-Wave/Zigbee is built into every domestic WiFi router [as given away by FriendlyCableCo, Inc], and probably not even then, WiFi will be a major force in home networking and it is assuredly the lowest common denominator technology today. There have been a great many advances in tricky WiFi implementations for battery powered sensors, by the way. Cablecos won't pick a technology (unless they are selling a specific set of widgets that go with that technology) because there is no clear winner. There's probably _never_ going to be standardization on one radio technology for home automation, because of the strong desire for proprietary locked-in systems - having worked at a company that made, and makes, home automation equipment, and being in the meetings where technology is chosen, I can tell you any system that currently exists is a decade away from achieving critical mass for bulk consumer acceptance. This has always been the case for home automation, and always will be. The same comment goes for operating systems (at least two were released in just the last week),

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." -- Ford Prefect, _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_