Wasn't it Alan Hunter, MTV VJ, that registered mtv.com and fit into a bit of a fight over it with the network?
So defining cybersquatting as owning domain names that you don't use is ok?
What about domains you have sites up for, though no one visits them? Or domains that you even maintain sites for, but no one visits?
How about very few visits, of family and friends?
You don't want to go down that road, or contested domain names will go to the 'best use', inevitably being whoever or whatever can get the most 'value'. Or has some claim that is unenforceable otherwise. Or tells a better story.
Some people consider that 'farsighted''.
"apparently the company tried to transfer the domain to themselves without his authorization."
That's the basis for *one* of his countersuits.
I've been involved in similar situations, where a corporation tried to transfer a domain name, got caught, made an offer to purchase, and simultaneously sued for infringement. In one case the complainant settled for a fair purchase price with the previous owner, my service client at the time, and they got enough time to make a transition. In the other, my client actually had the suit dismissed, then auctioned the domain name off and never told me who bought it.
In both instances the court was really intrigued by the attempt to hijack the domain name. Even in the 90s judges were understanding this 'Internet thing' was real, and had tangible value.
I hope this guy sues them for the attempted theft, though a criminal case would be more appropriate.
Once they are appointed, they rarely care who backed their ascension to the bench. Unless the judge is a Democrat, they never forget.
All that 'utility' stuff shouldn't be exposed to public nets anyways, maybe not even to your intranet.
Since your threats are both external (DDOS, botnets, intrusion) and internal (malware, bots, id10ts), you need to protect your management systems from both, and segregate your networks.
Yes, a huge nuisance to be using portals, multiple authentications, etc, but the choice, for some, is having to explain how they crooks got into your corp net and picked it clean, or how they got into EVERYTHING and you can't get them out of all that, 'cause your management tools are also compromised, and they keep respawning internally, and you just can't, and they just keep, and it's so haaaarrd...
Because you can't, probably, 'just reimage' all your servers, VMs, firewalls and appliances, even the damned UPS stuff. At least not without a total shutdown, and probably without a specific ETA...
Now you have a reason to get a 3D Printer.
And make a home furnace as well...
The context is obvious and uncontested except for those who wish to abolish the amendment, or neuter it.
Old argument, still invalid.
But the language of the law is clear. 'State'...
If that doesn't mean 'state' then the court has set precedent to let lower courts decide what laws mean.
And that is not how this nation is intended to work.
The revolution is winning.
Good. At least one of those rooms is likely a kitchen.
SO the solution to homelessness is to house people in these homes with 3-4 strangers.
What could go wrong with that plan?
So taking the risk inherent in renting in California is being a parasite?
Get a bad tenant, and you could lose more than your investment, and the income you were hoping for. The definition of risk. In fact, you could be facing legal penalties in excess of your losses if you're not careful.
All while your tenant, leveraging the law, sits happy and safe on your dime. They have the municipal government backing them. You have nothing. And their lawyers are going to be bigger than yours.
You have a strange concept of 'parasite'.
You give tacit approval for the government to tell you how to spend your income. Then you complain they don't manage the economy so you can actually follow their advice.
Maybe you should start exercising some personal initiative, or move where the government meets your expectations???