Blogger’s done some upgrading, so I’ve switched to their comment system and abandoned Haloscan (though I really liked them).

If your comments disappeared, I hope you’re not too offended. If you are, stop being so danged sensitive.
——–

I’ve been reading about the Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer Corporation suit for quite a while. The first memory I have of encountering it was about two years ago.

Today, while getting ready for work, I somehow ended up on the page linked above again, and found myself searching for details on the case. I’ve asked similar questions before, but… really, are judges and lawyers given bonuses if they make little to no sense?

The case was tried in California. Why? Because, obviously, Nissan Computer Corporation (a small computer shop and ISP in Raleigh, NC) was targeting its products at Californians! Apparently, Nissan Computer Corp. (Hereafter referred to as NCC because I’m lazy) had signed advertising contracts with California-based companies such as AskJeeves, which is evidence that they were targeting Californians.

I read the summary of the court case, and I couldn’t help but laugh.

Then, I got to thinking about what Uzi Nissan had really done wrong. He purchased a domain name, and he used it.

Let me repeat that. He purchased a domain name. He used the thing he purchased, in the way it was intended to be used, and he was sued for it.

Nevermind that I have serious issues with the whole concept of CyberSquatting (which I’ll cover below); he wasn’t squatting, he was USING the website. Anyone who was confused by the picture of his store and the “Nissan Computer Corporation” name at the top was too stupid to be allowed on the roads anyway, so I think he was performing a public service.

The eventual judgement forbids Mr. Nissan from a.) using the domain name for any commercial purpose, b.) selling advertising on his domain name, and c.) linking to any site which might have advertising. So, in effect, the government has taken this man’s right to use his property (which is no different, to me, from taking the property itself) and isn’t giving him fair compensation. Isn’t that, you know, illegal?

As I see it, the judge noticed that Mr. Nissan had, at least, an equal claim to the name as Nissan Motors did. Therefore, taking his domain away from him would be bad. SO, he simply rendered the domain useless, and when Mr. Nissan gives it up (because he’s paying money for something he can’t use, and why would he do that?!), Nissan Motors can take it anyway.

It’s stupid.

Finally, what the hell is wrong with buying a domain name and then selling it later, anyway? Squatting is illegal, because it involves the use of public lands (or private lands for which you have neither ownership nor permission to use) for your own personal dwelling place. “CyberSquatting” involves buying (or leasing) something that you think will increase in value, then selling it. That is not a crime. It’s only considered such because big corporations believe their customers are too stupid to use a search engine (or to look at their advertisements) to find their actual address.

If I pay for something, it should be my right to use it as I wish. If I want to keep it so I can sell it later, what’s (legally) wrong with that (I can understand having moral issues, but as I am fond of saying, the government cannot legislate morality)? If I want to open my own company and host my company’s webpage on my domain, why the hell shouldn’t I be allowed to?
——–