View Full Version : PocketPC2002.com...going, going, gone!
Jason Dunn
03-06-2002, 11:36 PM
<a href="http://shareit1.element5.com/">http://shareit1.element5.com/</a><br /><br />As some of you know, I registered the domain pocketpc2002.com last year once I found out the name of the product. I knew that Microsoft didn't have a copyright for the term "Pocket PC", so I wasn't in danger of being a domain poacher - and if they had wanted it, they would already own it. :-)<br /><br />The domain was for sale for around six months before I was contacted by SEDO about selling the domain to an anonymous third party. It took nearly two months to complete the process, but the domain has officially changed hands today. Who was the buyer? ShareIt.com, an online software store. I'm not sure what their plans are for it, but an online Pocket PC software store seems likely. I've now updated my links to reflect the new home for my affiliate links. Thanks for your continued support!<br /><br />Registering/buying/selling domains is something I dabble in - there's a lot of interesting politics that go on with domain names. Just look at what happened with <a href="http://www.whois.net/search.cgi2?str=smartphone2002.com">the smartphone domains!</a>
michael
03-06-2002, 11:42 PM
How much did you get for it ?
Kemas
03-06-2002, 11:55 PM
Well, he is still with us so it wasn't a kings ransom... unless you are editing these pages from the warm coast of Mexico or the Carrabian. LOL.
Kemas
Master O'Mayhem
03-07-2002, 12:04 AM
TREE FITY!!
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 12:28 AM
How much did you get for it ?
I wouldn't normally be public with the amount, but I've always been open with site readers about financial issues that relate to the site, so what the heck. 8)
The final price was a low four figure number that rhymes with "tree". ;-) Not gobs of money, but since I'm trying to get my basement finished and turned into an office (working on the kitchen table sucks!), and based on my current lack of job-id-ness, it's very much needed.
I received several offers in the $150 to $350 range, but I didn't consider any of them to be serious offers. One guy offered 1 million Lira, which I was excited about until I did the conversion and it came out to $350 US or something. Silly forgein currencies. ;-)
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 12:29 AM
unless you are editing these pages from the warm coast of Mexico or the Carrabian
I WISH!
It's -25 Celcius here now, and we have a good foot of snow on the ground. Aughh....
So how is this any different from ticket scalping or ebay gouging? You're an unnecessary middle man who benefits nobody but yourself.
If you're cool with it, that's great. But I'd feel pretty crappy making money like that.
Jeff
entropy1980
03-07-2002, 02:28 AM
Good for you Jason! I hope your conversion goes smoothly, we just finished converting a basement to an office and i love it!
Kirk Stephens
03-07-2002, 02:45 AM
So how is this any different from ticket scalping or ebay gouging? You're an unnecessary middle man who benefits nobody but yourself.
If you're cool with it, that's great. But I'd feel pretty crappy making money like that.
Jeff
Jeff, whats your problem? There is nothing wrong with what Jason did. Web domains are bought and sold all the time.
Jeff, whats your problem? There is nothing wrong with what Jason did. Web domains are bought and sold all the time.
And so are ballgame tickets by scalpers. It's the exact same thing. A company or person has to pay many times the amount they normally would for something because someone else, with absolutely no intention of using it, got to it first.
Jeff
So how is this any different from ticket scalping or ebay gouging? You're an unnecessary middle man who benefits nobody but yourself.
If you're cool with it, that's great. But I'd feel pretty crappy making money like that.
I wonder if you would feel the same way if you didn't have a job, and ran a very popular web-site with your own money?
Congrats to you Jason, I'm sure you can use the money!
entropy1980
03-07-2002, 03:55 AM
Jeff it's called free market economy he has something somebody else wants and are willing to pay for so Jason sells it everybodys happy....
Steven Cedrone
03-07-2002, 04:08 AM
Jeff,
Since Jason does seem to be interested in Pocket PC's, what makes you think he wouldn't have used the domain at a later date.
4AMFriday
03-07-2002, 04:42 AM
Jason being one of the acceptations (If MS hadn't registered the domain, I can't think of anyone better to register it then the owner of this website), I generally get sick to my stomach when the very words "Cyber Squatter" are even mentioned.
Jason could have very well used the PocketPC2002 domain, but considering this site takes up so much of his time and all, I can understand his decision to sell it off to the highest bidder.
However, there is a fine line between those like Jason, and those who spend as little as $10 a domain to snap up all the domains they can possibly think of in hope of making a quick buck off of someone they know could really use it, and may not always be able to afford the asking price.
I do agree with Jeff in that regard. These people are scum... Plain and simple. They need to get smacked in the head with a heavy piece of mining equipment, and then sent to their local McDonalds to earn minimum wage for a decade or two.
As close as Jason came to this line with the PocketPC2002 domain (He had to have the slightest idea that MS would likely be gunning for it for a damn good reason), the domain would have seriously been better off in his hands.. Look how rusty and dusty the official PocketPC website has become.
Now, if PocketPC2002 had been squatted by some teenybopper who just sprouted their first pube thinking that MS would make them a millionaire.. Well, where do you think you can buy mining equipment locally these days?
P.S. - Jason.. Have your wounds healed from the pounding on Online Tonight? David must have been on the rag last night.
Regards
4AMFriday (Not Anonymous)
Hooch Tan
03-07-2002, 04:56 AM
I think I'll pipe up to defend Jason as well.
I define a "Cyber Squatter" as a person who buys up a domain with the sole purpose of selling it for a higher price and nothing else. From what I understand, he did have an intent to actually use it someday.
That being said, he was offered a price for the domain, and he had a need for the money. His need for that money outweighed his need for the extra domain. (I hope your basement turns out great!) So he took it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Yes, you can compare it to scalpers, but why not compare it to the buying and selling of stocks? Or buying a house and waiting until it appreciates and selling it off? Revitalizing antiques? Starting your own business and selling it to retire or move onto something else? All I'm saying is that in my probably not so humble opinion, I think Jason was well within his rights to sell the domain. :)
Yes, you can compare it to scalpers, but why not compare it to the buying and selling of stocks?
Because buying and selling stocks gives revenue to a company. That revenue helps keep the company afloat. Buying a bunch of domain names helps nobody.
Or buying a house and waiting until it appreciates and selling it off?
Buying the house helps the previous owners. Improving it helps the neighborhood. There's no community aid in domain squatting.
Revitalizing antiques?
That's increasing the value of an item by putting work into it. No work goes into sitting on a domain someone else might want.
Starting your own business and selling it to retire or move onto something else?
Businesses generally help the economy by producing valuable goods or services and providing employment. Buying up domains doesn't produce anything but profit for the squatter.
All I'm saying is that in my probably not so humble opinion, I think Jason was well within his rights to sell the domain. :)
And I never said it wasn't within his rights, just as it's well within your rights to purchase 50 of the newest, most in-demand iPaqs and sell them on ebay. But just because something is within your rights doesn't make it right. If you think it's okay to squat on domains, then you're okay with the ebay scaplers. It's the exact same thing.
I agree that it's a little different when someone owns a domain they were planning on using. And in this particular situation, it seems it may be the case. But Jason also said:
Registering/buying/selling domains is something I dabble in
Which to me means he's a cyber squatter.
Jeff
Hooch Tan
03-07-2002, 06:51 AM
Yes, you can compare it to scalpers, but why not compare it to the buying and selling of stocks?
Because buying and selling stocks gives revenue to a company. That revenue helps keep the company afloat. Buying a bunch of domain names helps nobody.
The buying and selling of stocks gives a company money for ownership or a float on promise of a return on investment later. It doesn't necessairily give a company revenue. Buying a bunch of domains does help somebody. It helps the regsitrars and the credit card companies. I won't attest to whether the registrar of the CC companies deserve to make a profit, though. :)
Or buying a house and waiting until it appreciates and selling it off?
Buying the house helps the previous owners. Improving it helps the neighborhood. There's no community aid in domain squatting.
See above. It creates a flow of money, and through that it helps the economic machine. And just buying a house and selling it later when land values increase doesn't have to include improving the house.
Revitalizing antiques?
That's increasing the value of an item by putting work into it. No work goes into sitting on a domain someone else might want.
This one, I will concede to. It was a poorly chosen example. My apologies.
Starting your own business and selling it to retire or move onto something else?
Businesses generally help the economy by producing valuable goods or services and providing employment. Buying up domains doesn't produce anything but profit for the squatter.
It does give profit for registrar, who might otherwise of had to wait for whatever length in time it takes for someone else to register the domain. That's lost revenue. The money from that goes to help pay for the staff of the registrar. It gives money to the credit card companies which filter through to its employees. And if it was hosted (even as a blank page), the ISP, thus providing them with money.
All I'm saying is that in my probably not so humble opinion, I think Jason was well within his rights to sell the domain. :)
And I never said it wasn't within his rights, just as it's well within your rights to purchase 50 of the newest, most in-demand iPaqs and sell them on ebay. But just because something is within your rights doesn't make it right. If you think it's okay to squat on domains, then you're okay with the ebay scaplers. It's the exact same thing.
I don't have a problem with ebay scalpers, or scalpers in general. I don't use them myself, mind you, but I don't object to their existence. I see it as someone recognizing value in something, purchasing it, and then waiting until it appreciates in value to be sold. Art, stamp collections and of course, comic books. :)
I agree that it's a little different when someone owns a domain they were planning on using. And in this particular situation, it seems it may be the case. But Jason also said:
Registering/buying/selling domains is something I dabble in
Which to me means he's a cyber squatter.
Jeff
This was something I missed, and you're right in that it does sound like he's a cyber squatter. I would ask Jason to expand on what exactly he does when he's buying and selling domains. I don't think any less of him for his actions, and I certainly have respect for your side. You bring up a lot of valid points. I just think we're seeing it through different glasses at this point.
entropy1980
03-07-2002, 08:47 AM
Who cares if whoever hasn't bought the right domain and or doesn't have a copyright it's out of their own stupidity or ignorance that it would happen more power to those who can make money from it, if there was no money to be made no one would be doing it so don't support people who do it and don't go to their sites hit them in their wallet otherwise don't be mad because you didn't think of it first. :?
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 04:56 PM
...with absolutely no intention of using it
Uh, didn't you notice that it was my online shopping site for FIVE months? I did use it! I received 25,000 visitors to the domain on the day Microsoft launched the Pocket PC 2002, so it was a cheap way to get free publicity and make some affiliate sales. It wasn't making all that much money though (not that I put a lot of effort into it though), so I thought I might be able to flip it to make a few bucks.
Your attitude is a little odd, unless you're into communism. :wink: Does the guy who buys a stock at $1 and sells it at $300 deserve it? Did he really "work" for that money or add value in any way? What's the difference between "work" and "smart business sense". I saw an opportunity to buy something of value for a low value, betting that it would be worth more than I bought it for if and when I decided to sell it. For every domain like that, I have ten that are complete flops. I bought pocketpcebooks.com hoping to create a portal for eBooks, didn't have the time to make it happen, and I couldn't even GIVE that domain away (which still strikes me as odd...). :-)
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 05:00 PM
P.S. - Jason.. Have your wounds healed from the pounding on Online Tonight? David must have been on the rag last night.
Actually, he was pretty nice to me. I listened to the rest of the show later though, and jeeeese did it ever get under my skin. :roll: Not that I want to make an enemy of David Lawrence, but I lost count of how many times he interrupted me and didn't let me finish talking. And asking me about DRM with 10 seconds left to go in the show. To quote him "Yeah....right." :?
Steven Cedrone
03-07-2002, 05:19 PM
Jason,
It was a shame! Just when you actually got to start talking about something interesting, the show was over....
Oh well!
BTW, the four "segments" did not add up to 1 hour was the rest commercial time? (that's alot of time, but I guess someone has to pay for the show)
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 05:40 PM
Buying a bunch of domain names helps nobody.
It's the economic food chain Jeff! A registrar sells domain names and makes X dollars in profit from ME. I set up that domain with my ISP (pair.com) and they make money from ME to set it up and also to host it every month. So now two companies have made a profit off of me - how does your example hold up again? When I was approached by SEDO about selling the domain, guess what? The domain broker, SEDO, also makes money from the transaction acting as a middleman.
Guess what Jeff? All that money changing hands is providing WORK for people in the technology industry and putting FOOD on their tables. I'd be REALLY interested in knowing what you do for a living, because you seem to hate the concept of capitalism and a free market economy. What do YOU do that benefits the world so much Jeff? :?
Even if no one were to make money along the way from the buying/selling of domain names, what do you think I do with that money? Covert it to $1 US bills and roll around in it naked? Of course not! The money goes back into my local economy, buying things. It also goes towards things like the three World Vision children that I support every month (http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/master.nsf/). How many kids do you help in that way Jeff? Do you give 10% of your income to your local church Jeff? I'm usually very private about how I spend my money and the charities I support, but I'll be dammned if I let you make me into a villian for making some money to support myself and others.
Which to me means he's a cyber squatter.
Who are you to judge me? What gives you that right? You don't know me Jeff, nor do you know what I've done for the Pocket PC community. If I'm a "cybersquatter" I'm the most unsuccessful one in history. :wink:
Out of all the domains I've registered, this is the third one I've sold. I registered pocketpcgear.com because I was thinking about starting a joint venture with a hardware reseller - never happened, so I sold it to someone who felt they could use it (and did make a handy profit from it). I also sold waver.com after registering it for the band I was in at the time (called "waver") when our band dissolved and another band in the us named waver wanted to buy it from it. I sold it for all of $500, which covered the costs of setting it up and hosting it for a year. Is that ok with you Jeff?
I've registered dozens of other domains - every time I get an idea, I register a domain. canyourpalmdothat.com, byebyepalm.com, pocketpcebooks.com, pocketpcmvp.com, pocketpcwriter.com, etc. All were domains I registered with the goal of starting something, but my goals are always bigger than my ability to execute on them. :lol:
Other domains, like www.pocketpcstuff.com, I give away to others. With that domain, I gave it to Ojster who now uses it for his personal web site.
And there you have it.
AAARGGGHHH! I just wrote a huge reply and it didn't go through. I hit the Submit button and it asked me to log on again. After it did that I was brought back to an empty reply screen, my post being lost forever. It's happened a couple of times to me on this board. You should really check it out.
To try and cobble together what I wrote from memory...
Just because I don't think scalping domain names, popular products, and tickets is cool, I'm a communist? I never said people shouldn't be allowed to do it, I personally don't think it helps anyone but the scalpers. Free market economy or not, what's legal and what's within your rights isn't necessarily good or cool.
As I've said before, there's a difference between selling a domain you were planning on using (or were actually using) and buying up domains you had no intention of building. You would appear to be in the former group, but you can see how one would think you were in the latter. Just because it happened to be a Pocket PC related domain doesn't mean you were planning on using it. It's your area of expertice so you'd know which domains would be in demand. Of course I should have seen when you were using it before, so that was pretty dumb of me.
Who am I to judge you? Nobody. But why did you post a story about the deal with a discussion board link? Just so people could pat you on the back? Tell you how very smart you are? Tell you what a great "business man" you were? When you have a discussion forum, you'll have to deal with dissenting opinions.
The argument that the registrars make money off the deal doesn't hold up. They would make their money anyway when the person who actually wanted the domain got it. Again likening it to ticket scalping, the team will get paid when the person who wants the ticket gets it. The scapler is a useless middle man who does nothing but profit for himself. There's no service provided other than to keep an item away from the people who could only afford it at face value.
If you can't see the difference between cyber squatting (which again I don't think you engaged in) and investing in a company, I really can't discuss this with you. A stock buyer invests money into a company he thinks has a chance of doing well. A domain hog takes something someone else wants and holds it for ransom. It's really night and day.
Just because money goes back into the economy doesn't make squatting right, either. Professional scalpers rent out offices (i.e. pay for ISP hosting) and hire employees. That money makes it back into the economy, but it doesn't change the fact that scalpers and squatters are leeches. They don't offer any good service.
And it doesn't really matter what's done with the money. They could invest every penny of profit into making the world a better place. If they really wanted to help out, there are lots of other ways to make money which are both profitable and provide a valuable good or service. You may look at those cyber squatters as a bunch of modern day Robin Hoods, but I still think they're scalpers.
So I don't have a problem with what you've done in your domain transactions. There was always an intent (or better) to use them, not just hold them for ransom.
Jeff
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 07:11 PM
Just because I don't think scalping domain names, popular products, and tickets is cool, I'm a communist? I never said people shouldn't be allowed to do it, I personally don't think it helps anyone but the scalpers. Free market economy or not, what's legal and what's within your rights isn't necessarily good or cool.
Which brings me back to the question you didn't answer: what do you do for a living Jeff? I'd like to return the favour and publicly demonize you if you don't mind. :twisted:
Just because I don't think scalping domain names, popular products, and tickets is cool, I'm a communist? I never said people shouldn't be allowed to do it, I personally don't think it helps anyone but the scalpers. Free market economy or not, what's legal and what's within your rights isn't necessarily good or cool.
Which brings me back to the question you didn't answer: what do you do for a living Jeff? I'd like to return the favour and publicly demonize you if you don't mind. :twisted:
I'm a systems administrator. Really Jason, I have nothing to hide and no grudge against you. Your original message made me think you were a cyber squatter. I personally find the practice far less than cool and expressed an opinion on it. You've made your position more clear and I see where you're coming from now. But I still don't like squatters and scalpers.
Jeff
spammer
03-07-2002, 07:34 PM
I just couldn't let this slip by. This is the world in which I live - I'm a spammer :twisted:. There are those that would say I prey upon the weak and needy of the web and that I break the rules when it comes to search engine marketing and domain registration and all that junk. I'd happily cybersquat if I could think of any useful domains that aren't already snapped up.
Now that you know a little about me let me explain something to you about cybersquatting (CS for ease of typing - spammers are inherintly lazy people).....
The term CS is derived from the old fashioned squatter. You know - the little old hermit that refused to move from his cardboard shack on someone else's property because he was there first. Note the key phrase "someone else's property". CS was born when enterprising cyber pioneers figured they could grab TRADEMARKED domain names and hold them ransom saying "We got here first". The problem with this is that they had it backwards. They had moved on to property that was already owned. The ownership is implicitly covered by the trademark and/or copyright.
If you are the first person to a domain that is still public ie: not trademarked. Good for you - you might make a few bucks.
I get blasted all the time by the white hats of my industry saying I cheat and so forth. The sad truth is simply that they can't beat me out in the search engines. I can outrank them for all their search terms so they would rather cry and point fingers than get with the program and compete. Same deal going here IMHO. Generally speaking most people hate to see others get ahead so easily and make a few "FREE" dollars. Sorry to say it's just part and parcel of a free market economy folks. If you can buy something and turn around and sell it for a profit that is simply business (as long as it's legal). Who care's if it's buying up a bunch of IPAQ's and selling them at a profit or buying up some domain names? Certainly not me - UP WITH CAPITALISM.
If you don't want to compete at least quit whining about those that do.
(scalping concert tickets IS illegal - at least where I come from - so it's a bad analogy in this discussion)
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 07:56 PM
Although I'm loathe to agree with someone called "spammer", he does raise an interesting point. :)
I'm not registering "microsoft.com" and waiting for the company to buy it from me. That's true cybersquatting - sitting on someone elses' copyright and brand - and immoral in my view. But if I go register a generic domain with terms I like, whether or not I plan on using it, is that immoral?
Go to www.pocketpcnews.com - does DeveloperOne have anything to do with Pocket PC News? No. But he was smart enough to get that domain early on, and there's nothing "immoral" about it since it's a generic term. I'd love to have that domain, but there's no reason why I SHOULD get it even though my site is heavily into Pocket PC news. He got there first, and was faster than I was.
Hooch Tan
03-07-2002, 08:03 PM
I'm wondering, putting aside the issue of Jason's intent for pocketpc2002.com, what is wrong with making a profit? Or more specifically, the buying and selling of domain names? I will concede that there are certain legal precedents when it comes to tradmarked names, or celebrity names, and so on. But simply buying a domain and selling it at a higher cost when that domain name, I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with it.
Is it the fact that someone is making a profit without any work? If so, what amount of work is necessary in order to make the profit considered moral?
I see it as someone with some savvy seeing an opportunity and taking it, yes, even exploiting it. But the buyer isn't forced into purchasing the domain either. There is risk involved. One could buy a domain and have it sit there, eating up costs month by month and year by year, and no see any sale whatsoever. I remember reading the news about companies buying business.com and loans.com for millions of dollars :D but it isn't like they were forced into buying those domains. They were willing to pay that much for the potential traffic those domains had.
What I'm asking for, is what am I missing? I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'd like to know what makes a cyber squatter immoral? The only reason I can think of is that they're making profit for very little work. And with that tack, I don't have a problem with, as there is work involved, or rather, knowledge. What other reasons are there?
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 08:09 PM
One could buy a domain and have it sit there, eating up costs month by month and year by year, and no see any sale whatsoever.
Been there, done that! I've lost a lot of money on domains, especially when they were $70 US a pop from Network Solutions. :-)
I see it as someone with some savvy seeing an opportunity and taking it, yes, even exploiting it. But the buyer isn't forced into purchasing the domain either. There is risk involved.
It's called "Domain Name Speculation" - you buy a domain for "X" dollars, hoping that it will rise in value over time. It's no different than penny stocks or speculative buys in minerals, goods, etc. You buy something for cheap and hope someone else will buy it for more later. That's the basic principal upon which capitalism is based!
LarDude
03-07-2002, 08:33 PM
I see it as someone with some savvy seeing an opportunity and taking it, yes, even exploiting it. But the buyer isn't forced into purchasing the domain either. There is risk involved. One could buy a domain and have it sit there, eating up costs month by month and year by year, and no see any sale whatsoever. I remember reading the news about companies buying business.com and loans.com for millions of dollars :D but it isn't like they were forced into buying those domains. They were willing to pay that much for the potential traffic those domains had.
What I'm asking for, is what am I missing? I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'd like to know what makes a cyber squatter immoral? The only reason I can think of is that they're making profit for very little work. And with that tack, I don't have a problem with, as there is work involved, or rather, knowledge. What other reasons are there?
Exactly! Risk, Risk, Risk! That is one of the *key* points that hasn't been highlighted enough in this discussion (although Jason did allude to the fact that not every domain "panned" out). Even though I am not a great fan of scalpers (esp. at hockey games), I have to admit that they are putting their own money at *Risk*.
As for "making profit for very little work", not everyone gets paid for what they "do", there are many professions where one gets paid *primarily* for what they "know" (OK. Maybe that's semantics, but there's a point there...somewhere). :wink:
Hooch Tan
03-07-2002, 08:33 PM
I see it as someone with some savvy seeing an opportunity and taking it, yes, even exploiting it. But the buyer isn't forced into purchasing the domain either. There is risk involved.
It's called "Domain Name Speculation" - you buy a domain for "X" dollars, hoping that it will rise in value over time. It's no different than penny stocks or speculative buys in minerals, goods, etc. You buy something for cheap and hope someone else will buy it for more later. That's the basic principal upon which capitalism is based!
So why are people so up in arms against cyber squatting? (I won't mince words on semantics.) What makes it worse than buying art, or commodities? I'll admit, I personally didn't like the idea at first, but in the past day, I thought more about it and realized I don't have a problem with it. I agree with you, I see it as what makes the economic engine work!
What I'm asking for, is what am I missing? I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'd like to know what makes a cyber squatter immoral? The only reason I can think of is that they're making profit for very little work. And with that tack, I don't have a problem with, as there is work involved, or rather, knowledge. What other reasons are there?
I think it's wrong for the same reasons I think ticket scalping is wrong. Let's ignore the legality of each situation, because it's not really relevant. Nobody yet has been able to explain the difference.
In both situations you're buying something for the sole purpose of selling it, no personal use will come of it.
In both situations the initial payment by the scalper is the only money put into the initial system.
In both cases the scalper speculates on the value of his purchase, knowing that it might not be worth anything if nobody buys it.
In both cases the end buyer doesn't have the "right" to the item, but he should be able to buy it for its face value.
In both cases there is no additional service provided by the middle man (although you could make the case that the ticket scalper helps you avoid box office lines, the domain squatter provides no such service).
In both cases, there is no collectable or senitmental value to the ticket/domain. I can look at my baseball card collection and enjoy the pictures and information contained, same for coins or stamps or antiques. There's nothing similar to that with domains.
In both cases the scalper keeps the item away from people who could only afford face value, leaving the best only accessible to the those with the most disposable income.
The only real difference I see is that domain names are virtually unlimited while tickets are finite. But I'd say www.pocketpcpurplemonkeydishwasher.com is less valuable than the seat under the center field scoreboard at Fenway.
It's well within your rights to think there's nothing wrong with cyber squatting or scalping. But if you think cyber squatting is okay and scalping is wrong, then I'd really like to hear why.
Jeff
PS: It did the log out thing again. What's the auto logout time set to for this board, Jason?
Hooch Tan
03-07-2002, 08:49 PM
The only real difference I see is that domain names are virtually unlimited while tickets are finite. But I'd say www.pocketpcpurplemonkeydishwasher.com is less valuable than the seat under the center field scoreboard at Fenway.
Okay, I have to ask. Where did you come up with that one? I had to stop to grin for a moment.
It's well within your rights to think there's nothing wrong with cyber squatting or scalping. But if you think cyber squatting is okay and scalping is wrong, then I'd really like to hear why.
The only issue I have with scalping, is when it's done in places where it is against the law. If it's within a person's legal right, then I have no qualms, though, I must admit, I've always been curious if I were to shadow a scalper just before a Leaf's game and offer up tickets for free to anyone who wanted them, but that's just my mischevious side. :twisted:
Either way, I do hope that Jason looks into that log-out period for posting thoughts. I sympathize with you completely on that.
PS. Speak of the devil. It just did the same thing to me!
LarDude
03-07-2002, 08:49 PM
It's called "Domain Name Speculation" - you buy a domain for "X" dollars, hoping that it will rise in value over time. It's no different than penny stocks or speculative buys in minerals, goods, etc. You buy something for cheap and hope someone else will buy it for more later. That's the basic principal upon which capitalism is based!
Jason,
Suppose your "X" dollars was $10,000, or $100,000. Suddenly, the whole context of this discussion changes and the "objections" becomes almost moot. How is it at all different from other forms of speculative buying?
(Unless one objects to speculative buying -- stocks, real estate, etc -- as a matter of principle).
spammer
03-07-2002, 09:12 PM
Scalping = illegal
Domain Speculation = legal
'nuff said.
Jeff - it obvious that you are not gonna relinquish the moral high ground here. I dare say that we could not come up with an acceptable explanation that would fit your paradigm. That's cool - it's good to have a belief system. I can respect that.
Steve Bush
03-07-2002, 09:16 PM
That's true cybersquatting - sitting on someone elses' copyright and brand - and immoral in my view.
Are you saying that you weren't trying to take advantage of Microsoft's brand (differentiating "brand" from "trademark") by buying up a bunch of domains with "Pocket PC" in them?
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 09:19 PM
PS: It did the log out thing again. What's the auto logout time set to for this board, Jason?
I'm not sure. It's not a user variable that I can set in the config panel - it would appear that only people who don't use the "auto logon" feature have problems. I'm looking into it, but I don't think there's anything I can do about it...
Jason Dunn
03-07-2002, 09:22 PM
Are you saying that you weren't trying to take advantage of Microsoft's brand (differentiating "brand" from "trademark") by buying up a bunch of domains with "Pocket PC" in them?
Good catch - I shouldn't have mentioned brand in there, becuase as the domain name of this site would indicate, I am trying to ride their brand. I don't see a moral problem with that. Having a Pocket PC site without "pocketpc" in the URL would be a little silly, no?
In the same way, if I owned a shoe store and registered nikerunningshoes.com, I wouldn't consider it "immoral" to use the name of the product in the URL.
Of course, everyone who had a palmsomething.com domain found out that not all companies agree with that. I'm lucky that Microsoft doesn't mind us using the term "Pocket PC" in the domains. :-)
Hooch Tan
03-07-2002, 09:26 PM
I'm not sure. It's not a user variable that I can set in the config panel - it would appear that only people who don't use the "auto logon" feature have problems. I'm looking into it, but I don't think there's anything I can do about it...
Is there any way you can change the user timeout? I'm guessing that's what is causing the logout. I don't have access to my website from work right now, so I can't upload a copy of phpBB to test that theory.
Tari Akpodiete
03-07-2002, 10:20 PM
Jason likes to 'dabble', to use his word, in domain name specuation. he buys and sells domains. apparently, he hopes it will be a profitable sideline. from what he has said, sometimes, it seems it is, and sometimes, it seems that it is not. he has said that sometimes he even gives away domain names.
now, very few people who come to his site actually know him, even if they think and feel that they do. the fact of the matter is that he's really a stranger. one who comes into our lives by invitation. he is no more a close friend to most visitors than someone who is seen on tv or in the movies or in a sporting arena. that's not to say anything negative about him before anyone gets the wrong idea. my above comments are a reality check. the immediacy of the tv and the web makes everything seem cozy and intimate, but that is a fallacy. and if you don't really know him, you can't say what his motivations are.
for some, from a semantic point of view, there is little difference between domain name squatting and domain name speculation. sometimes it is a legal issue, sometimes it is a moral issue, and sometimes it is both.
squatting happens when one deliberately registers a name which belongs legally to someone else. when this happens, there is now an arbitration mechanism for getting the name back for just the cost of registration. just ask Julia Roberts.
on the other hand, speculation is when one registers a domain name likely to be of interest to others, but which has not been legally protected, either because it cannot be protected because it is so generic (i.e. business.com, which sold for 7.5 million american), or because someone forgot to protect it.
now, in the event of a generic word, it is just luck of the draw. and buyer beware aka caveat emptor. if a company has trademarked, servicemarked and copyrighted a word or a phrase which then someone else goes and hijacks the domain name for it, well then, there is the aforementioned recourse. a case may also be made for a word or a phrase registered by someone but used by someone else for a very long time. that's harder to prove, but not impossible, although it could be costly, in terms of legal fees.
Jason seems to have legally registered a domain name. if it really belonged to Microsoft, they would have likely come after him, don't you think? and he likely would have surrended it without a fight. someone else wanted it, some company, which probably checked the legality of the name before making an offer. they wanted it, he gave it up, some money exchanged hands.
nothing illegal seems to have happened. the case would be different, if the domain name in question was not legally allowed to be held or sold by Jason.
Steve Bush
03-08-2002, 12:01 AM
I don't agree with your argument in this case, Tari. The words "handheld computer" and "personal digital assistant" are generic terms, but "Pocket PC," althought not trademarked by Microsoft, is clearly a brand name used for its handheld computers. Jason has admitted here that he was clearly trying to leverage Microsoft's brand.
Also, one of the key ways that courts determine whether someone is infringing on a copyright or trademark is if it can serve to deceive the public. Jason's own claim that the "pocketpc2002.com" site got 25K visitors on the day that Pocket PC 2002 was announced was a clear indication that this was the case. Most of these visitors likely believed that they were going to Microsoft's Pocket PC 2002 site.
As far as Jason's point about the "palmsomething.com" sites versus the "pocketpcsomething.com" sites. Palm is the company's trademarked name. If someone used Microsoft in its URL I'm sure that a cease-and-desist from MSFT would not be far behind. Finally, I don't agree with Jason's other point that Nike would allow someone to use "nikerunningshoes.com". That's a clear violation of a trademark, isn't it?
spammer
03-08-2002, 12:11 AM
"Pocket PC," althought not trademarked by Microsoft, is clearly a brand name used for its handheld computers
M$ doesn't even make "pocket pc" devices. They simply crank out the bloat...er...software that runs them. Everything in their software is trademarked and copyrighted nine ways from Sunday you can be sure.
For all intents and purposes the term "pocket pc" is no different from "handheld computer" or "personal digital assitant". It's simply a catch all phrase for that little electonic gadet you all like stuffing in your pocket so much :wink:
Jason Dunn
03-08-2002, 01:02 AM
I don't agree with your argument in this case, Tari. The words "handheld computer" and "personal digital assistant" are generic terms, but "Pocket PC," althought not trademarked by Microsoft, is clearly a brand name used for its handheld computers. Jason has admitted here that he was clearly trying to leverage Microsoft's brand.
Yes, I was. But if Microsoft was concerned about this, don't you think THEY would have registered it? They knew about their product name before I did. Hell, someone at Microsoft registered pocketpc.net! But I don't see the point you're trying to make here - I don't dispute that Pocket PC is a brand that I've chosen to affiliate several of my sites with. So? I asked Microsoft about PocketPC2002.com and they had zero problem with me registering it. So if it didn't matter to them, why are you getting so upset? :wink:
Also, one of the key ways that courts determine whether someone is infringing on a copyright or trademark is if it can serve to deceive the public. Jason's own claim that the "pocketpc2002.com" site got 25K visitors on the day that Pocket PC 2002 was announced was a clear indication that this was the case. Most of these visitors likely believed that they were going to Microsoft's Pocket PC 2002 site.
So you're saying I decieved people? Sheesh. When people typed in that URL, they got links to places like Amazon.com where you could buy the devices, and I also linked to a few news articles. It's not like I put up link to Palm device. :lol:
...Jason's other point that Nike would allow someone to use "nikerunningshoes.com". That's a clear violation of a trademark, isn't it?
More than likely, yes, but if I was a store owner and wanted to use that, I could contact Nike for permission. If I was an online store selling Nike shoes, Nike is benefitting from it, right?
Still not sure what your point is here Steve. :?
Jason Dunn
03-08-2002, 01:03 AM
Is there any way you can change the user timeout?
Like I said, it's not part of the config panel - it might be "under the hood", but I dont' have access to it from the user control panel.
This is my first post, so I will start by saying that this is a great site and a great service that Jason provides us. I have also met Jason at several shows as part of the MS Partners program and he is a GREAT guy. If he is financing this operation by selling names, I can deal with that - something has to pay for his time and the cost of his bandwidth.
Having said that - if it was anyone else who was holding domain names as an investment, I'd be in a rage. Has anyone here actually tried to register a name over the past two years? It is probably the most torturous and frustrating journey you will ever take in your life unless you are trying to register a nonsense name like wpdjjtgbjsdgf.com. I would say I have tried close to five hundred names over that time period. Of that number, maybe twenty actually lead to legitimate sites, fifty lead to frivolous sites holding the "name," and the rest didn't even bother with a site but were just parked by speculators waiting to "get rich."
Generally, the people I have contacted ALL wanted to sell, but seem to want around $3,000 $5,000 per $30 name. On the high end, there is a Korean who registered hundreds of PDA-centric names whose pricing is $50,000 - $100,000. He hasn't sold a single name in the year and a half I have been dealing with him, but those names will all remain off limits as long as he pays the nominal annual renewal fees!
So the core problem with holding domain names is that these "investments" all create roadblocks to legitimate use. Some investors may make $7.5 million on a name - but most people who would like web access are not rich. That means these "investors" are going to make next to nothing while they continue bottlenecking web growth waiting for their Pots of Gold. Who suffers? We all do! Network Solutions estimates that only 5% of the names they have sold over the past year have resulted in working sites. Sorry but that's not right...
Jason Dunn
03-08-2002, 02:00 AM
I hope this doesn't sound odd, but I share your frustration. I've gone looking for domains before, see that they're taken but not being used for anything, and then get no response when contacted by the owner. It can be very frustrating when you want to start a web site - you have to get creative with the name.
The thing is that with only a few exceptions (like pocketpc2002.com), I'm usually happy to sell the domain either for the cost I paid for it plus hosting (ie: my cost for owning it) or a small profit a few hundred bucks. I'm not looking to retire off of the handful of domains I have. I've let many lapse in the past six months - I own perhaps twenty in total now. But I've ALWAYS responded to someone who emails me, and in the case of Ojster (www.pocketpcstuff.com) I gave it to him for nothing because I knew he'd put it to good use and promote the Pocket PC.
spammer
03-08-2002, 02:19 AM
Having said that - if it was anyone else who was holding domain names as an investment, I'd be in a rage
So...I'm sitting on some domains but it's ok cuz I'm a nice guy (I really am) but if I prove to be not so nice you'll kick my ass in burst of uncontolled rage? Bit of a double standard there Tom.
LarDude
03-08-2002, 02:33 AM
Why should domain-name squatting really even be an issue? If the "good" names are taken, add another domain "extension". We already have .net, .org, .ca, .jp, etc.... so what's really the problem? (Besides, with the burst of the tech bubble, ".com" is almost a dirty word). At least with the original "land" squatters, real estate is/was limited. This shouldn't be the case here, as we're only limited by our imagination, whereas the domain-name squatter only has a finite amount of money. Having said that, how about a domain "extension" of .fetish (pocketpc.fetish, pocketpcpassion.fetish...hmmm)?
Tari Akpodiete
03-08-2002, 03:19 AM
Having said that - if it was anyone else who was holding domain names as an investment, I'd be in a rage.
with all due respect, that doesn't make sense. you can't say that something is right just because it is your friend that it doing it, but if anyone else was doing it, well then it would be wrong. and i am not saying that it is wrong or right. just pointing out the inconsistency of your statement.
and to the person who says they don't agree with my argument. i wasn't making an argument. in fact, my post was extremely neutral. i tried to be quite balanced actually by portraying a variety of possibilities. it's very hard to tell, from what i wrote, and how i wrote it, if i agree or disagree with what Jason did. and that was deliberate on my part.
if i was Jason, though, i might keep such future 'dabbling' success to myself. one really doesn't need all the aggravation.
Hooch Tan
03-08-2002, 04:40 AM
if i was Jason, though, i might keep such future 'dabbling' success to myself. one really doesn't need all the aggravation.
I agree with Tari here. It does seem to be a touchy or at the very least, a controversial subject. If Jason feels up to the debate that's going on, that's cool. But I will say this. I am glad that none of us have degenerated into a flame war of I'm right and you're wrong. I find it unnerving when I go to certain other discussion board about PocketPCs and find people racing to reach 100 posts, 1000 posts and so on. :)
Tari Akpodiete
03-08-2002, 05:06 AM
yeah, and the other thing i've noticed is that this topic has generated more posts than on-topic subjects!
The only issue I have with scalping, is when it's done in places where it is against the law. If it's within a person's legal right, then I have no qualms, though, I must admit, I've always been curious if I were to shadow a scalper just before a Leaf's game and offer up tickets for free to anyone who wanted them, but that's just my mischevious side.
How can your opinion of an act change depending on what different groups of local lawmakers have to say about it? Either you're okay with it or not. You can't say, "Scalping's cool in Boise, but I hate that scalping scum in Bismark." It doesn't make sense.
Jeff
Hooch Tan
03-08-2002, 05:47 AM
The only issue I have with scalping, is when it's done in places where it is against the law. If it's within a person's legal right, then I have no qualms, though, I must admit, I've always been curious if I were to shadow a scalper just before a Leaf's game and offer up tickets for free to anyone who wanted them, but that's just my mischevious side.
How can your opinion of an act change depending on what different groups of local lawmakers have to say about it? Either you're okay with it or not. You can't say, "Scalping's cool in Boise, but I hate that scalping scum in Bismark." It doesn't make sense.
Jeff
It is not my opinion of the act that changes. It is whether they are violating the law which is the issue for me. It's more like "I have no problem with you scalping in Boise or Bismark, but if do your scalping in Bismark, realize that you are breaking the law there and you will probably be convicted of that." It's like turning right on a red light. I have no problems with it, but in certain places, it is illegal to do just that. (Or at least was.) If you make a right where it isn't allowed, just know that if you get pulled over, it is your fault.
Hooch Tan
03-08-2002, 05:54 AM
Wait, let me see if I can put it another way to make it a bit more clear.
The only issue I have with scalping, is when it's done in places where it is against the law. If it's within a person's legal right, then I have no qualms, though, I must admit, I've always been curious if I were to shadow a scalper just before a Leaf's game and offer up tickets for free to anyone who wanted them, but that's just my mischevious side.
What I meant was that where an action (in this case, scalping) is against the law, there is what I take issue with, not the act itself. So with scalping, if you want to do it in Boise, and it's legal, knock yourself out. But if you are doing it in Bismark, and it is against the law, I have a problem with it because you are breaking the law, not solely on the fact that you are scalping.
I hope this makes it a bit clearer.
Spammer, you are right on the money - this is a double standard for me. I am making an exception for Jason, because the money he makes may offset the costs of a site that I have come to value very much.
As far as acting out with others - I'm not up for that. My only point was that few people make money sitting on names, they just get in the way of people who actually want to build a web site. Also, sorry but the right name IS a limited commodity. Let's face it there are more and more extensions available AND more and more opportunities for your users to get lost trying to find you. COM simplifies the ID process and also infers that you are a commercial operation.
Jason, it is good to know you are flexible with the names you are holding. I haven't found that with others and your are right - getting a usable name is the most frustrating issue of setting up a web site. I think that is the reason most people just give up trying. Everyone is "speculating" no one is "building" so the web is "stagnating!" :)
yeah, and the other thing i've noticed is that this topic has generated more posts than on-topic subjects!
That seems to be the way it is on most occasions. You stay on topic and have a few posts, go off-topic and the world decends on your message and starts posting. :wink:
What I meant was that where an action (in this case, scalping) is against the law, there is what I take issue with, not the act itself. So with scalping, if you want to do it in Boise, and it's legal, knock yourself out. But if you are doing it in Bismark, and it is against the law, I have a problem with it because you are breaking the law, not solely on the fact that you are scalping.
I hope this makes it a bit clearer.
Not really. Why do you agree with the law in one place and not in another? It's the same law in both places.
Hooch Tan
03-08-2002, 07:43 PM
What I meant was that where an action (in this case, scalping) is against the law, there is what I take issue with, not the act itself. So with scalping, if you want to do it in Boise, and it's legal, knock yourself out. But if you are doing it in Bismark, and it is against the law, I have a problem with it because you are breaking the law, not solely on the fact that you are scalping.
Not really. Why do you agree with the law in one place and not in another? It's the same law in both places.
Those places were examples. In the example, I was implying that in Boise, if scalping was legal (This is only any example. I am not familiar with the law there.), I wouldn't stop anyone from doing it. However, in Bismark if scalping was illegal (Again, this is hypothetical.) then I would take issue with the scalper. What I was trying to get across, was not necessairily agreeing with the law. There are certainly some laws which I disagree with. It is agreeing to abide by the law which was what I was trying to say.
I'm no saint, and I probably never will be, but I try to abide by the law as best I can, even if I don't agree with it.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.