May 8, 2000
4:50 PM   Subscribe

Unbelievable news nugget of the day: my friend Matt Lavallee has been slapped with a cease-and-desist order from the Mattel Toy Corporation for his personal domain, I guess no one with a name that sounds like a misspelled company is allowed to buy domains from now on? Something needs to be done, corporations do not own the web.
posted by mathowie (62 comments total)
I would love to see the text of the cease-and-desist. Are they actually claiming trademark dilusion?

Seems to me that if couldn't beat into submition, Mattel doesn't stand a chance.

If they thought this was protected under their trademark, they had plenty of time to buy it. This is ridiculous. Let me know who to email my outrage to.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:08 PM on May 8, 2000

Matt's getting the cease-and-desist order in a day or two (they mailed it to an old address), and should be scanning it for public scrutiny.
posted by mathowie at 5:19 PM on May 8, 2000

there was talk of a website to document these abuses...whatever came of that?

this is outrageous.

posted by rebeccablood at 5:20 PM on May 8, 2000

Especially given that MATTEL.COM was created on June 5, 1995, and MATTL.COM was created on January 30, 2000 -- 'twould seem to me that they had over four years to grab this domain, if they really felt that it had value specific to them.

Gawd, when will companies learn...
posted by delfuego at 5:20 PM on May 8, 2000

countersue for harassment! i don't think I'll be buying anymore Cabbage Patch Kids®, Barbie dolls®, Matchbox® cars, Myst® games or Hot Wheels®! Let us know what else we can do....
posted by greyscale at 5:32 PM on May 8, 2000

How about Altavisa and Drudgreport WARNING: Content, for other missing letters?

I thought when the claims were fought that those who were first were allowed to put up whatever they wanted?
< a href="">This has a couple of articles about domain disputes since I remember Volkswagon, BBC, and Etoys, all having disputes with domain names. More recently I thought I read in a weblog somewhere that someone had a domain that Microsoft wanted or had a product with the same name. Does anyone know what happened with that?
Here is a reference list of articles about infringment that may be of use, since I certainly hope Matt has no problems with Mattle since companies do not own the web. Let us know what the value of one letter is and how you would protect yourself from a company attacking?
posted by brent at 5:50 PM on May 8, 2000

Just to be the devil's advocate, I posit this: While companies definitely do not own the web as a whole, they can lay claim to the .com extension, can they not? does not appear to be a commercial site in any sense of the word, so going by the original guidelines the extensions were based on, his site should go elsewhere. OK back to reality, I can't keep that argument going much longer. The bottom line is that we need to be active about this, otherwise corporations will own (more of) the web. We have a lot of power, the people who congregate on MetaFilter, we really do. I'm sure if we put our minds to it, we could come up with a scalable protest site, that would allow us to be heard! A few nice utilities (such as corporate email generator, congressman email generator, etc) and some good organization of current net outrages could go along way. Sure corporations don't own the web, but they own a lot more of it than they did 2 years ago, 2 months ago, 2 days ago, 2 hours ago...
posted by chaz at 5:59 PM on May 8, 2000

Make no mistake....Mattel is the WORST.

They were going after any site that has BarbieĀ® anywhere in it's domain for a while...

People that are willing to stand up to a company's legal department will win everytime in these cases. After a lot of hours, aggravation & legal fees...who's got time for that?

Mattel is counting on that.
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 6:01 PM on May 8, 2000

I would be willing to contribute to a fund to fight these types of legal battles. Perhaps one exists already?
posted by pb at 6:10 PM on May 8, 2000

While .com has been traditionally commercial, you'll note that Network Solutions' (awful) site claims that there are no restrictions on who can register a .com, .net, or .org.

I've already seen .net used on a few billboards and commercials.

But, the whole mattl thing is beyond ridiculous. What could they possibly have to stand on? Once more info on this is up, I'll be happy to link to it judiciously.
posted by hijinx at 6:10 PM on May 8, 2000


There is only one E.F.F., but there are millions of Mattel's. Sounds like more impetus for me to finish up my idea of a tool for automating the use of places like Fax 4 Free for political and personal protests...
posted by nomisxid at 6:14 PM on May 8, 2000

As a postscript, I'll second pb's notion for a fund in cases such as these. I'd be happy to speak with my wallet in this matter, if need be.

As an aside, I am going to trademark a series of common dipthongs of the English language and then sue every major corporation using one of my dipthongs.
posted by hijinx at 6:17 PM on May 8, 2000

Just a few other domaind will have to sue if they proceed:

Once they start down this path they can't stop. If they claim they're doing this to protect their trademark they'll need to control every permutation. Including which someone just grabbed, and, which still seems to be available.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:42 PM on May 8, 2000

The Micro$oft ordeal which brent referred to is the issue with Digital Divas. This group, of which I'm a member, has had the domain since 1997 and recently Micro$oft has created It seems they didn't bother to check for other people using similar names, particularly for a group like the Divas, which aims to do what the M$ site seems to be for. More info can be found at the Divas vs Goliath site. If those who said they'd be willing to contribute to such battles, the Divas would definitely appreciate your help. :)
posted by valerie at 7:10 PM on May 8, 2000

This is the stuff the ACLU loves sometimes. Waldo always seems to be getting in situations that involve the ACLU and him teaming up... Since teh site set a precedence here, the ACLU might be willing to take this. I would call them.

And there HAS to be a limit here. if they don't register it, tough shit. seriously. because people are idiots and can't type a url doesn't give a company the right to gustapo web users who had the foresight to register a domain and put a personal site up. makes perfect sense Matt L. it's not like it's Frank P. registering ...

i quote RATM on days like this: "F**k the police..." except change out the police for the corporate world.
posted by eljuanbobo at 7:27 PM on May 8, 2000

Matt? Check out my thread on "Jackbooted Trademark..." It has a statutory reference that non profit operations *do not*, by US Code, infringe or dilute trademarks, and a sample "bugger-off" letter.
posted by baylink at 7:30 PM on May 8, 2000

chaz sez:
>>Just to be the devil's advocate, I posit this: While companies definitely do not own the web as a whole, they can lay claim to the .com extension, can they not? does not appear to be a commercial site in any sense of the word, so going by the original guidelines the extensions were based on, his site should go elsewhere.<<

I would entertain this argument if corporations were then not permitted to own the .net and .org extensions of their names...which they do.

posted by rebeccablood at 9:33 PM on May 8, 2000

just appalling. if i think about this any more i will turn into cornholio. hey mattel, the cluephone's ringing, and i think it's for you.
posted by Zeldman at 11:41 PM on May 8, 2000

It is of course typical of huge companies with almost unlimited resources to bully people they perceive as using their trademarks. Here's a great example of McDonald's stomping all over someone.

Incidently, have you seen
posted by dodgygeezer at 3:05 AM on May 9, 2000

Tellingly, I can't find an email link on the entire site.


Please direct general inquiries to Mattel's main phone number, which is (310) 252-2000.

Let it begin.
posted by solistrato at 7:26 AM on May 9, 2000

Similar to the micros0ft (zero micro software) page of days gone by. There is a good list of some of the more prominent of these domain disputes at Domain Diaries.
posted by confusatron at 7:27 AM on May 9, 2000

I'm gonna get into hot water for this, but... Why is it unacceptable for to sut down or take over, but everyone (Well, except from some particularly repellent satirists) seems to support in its suit against I'm as anti-corporate (anti-Microsoft in particular) as the next guy, but this still smacks of a double standard to me. The case only makes sense to me as a pre-emptive strike to prevent Microsoft from taking over the domain.
posted by harmful at 7:35 AM on May 9, 2000

Well, Microsoft is using Digital Diva to make money using the name that the Digital Divas have built up over time. Matt just wants to have a website with his name on it. There's a difference.
posted by mikel at 7:40 AM on May 9, 2000

mikel hit it right between the eyes. Mattel is being paranoid and greedy, as big corporations are wont to do (see also: Microsoft). MattL isn't trying to market competing products or services and doing so by horning in on Mattel's established name. Microsoft, on the other hand, is doing just that: offering a warmed-over, touchy-feely, patronizing, white-washed, martha-stewart-esque version of what the do. What's more revolting about Microsoft's actions are that they're yet another attempt to appear warm and fuzzy (anyone catch that be-sweatered Bill Gates commercial that started running the day of the court decision?) to the American public. Microsoft's digitaldiva site is less about actually helping people (though it's aimed at women --- and smacks of the the Barbie saying "math is hard" fiasco) become more adept with technology than it is about preserving Microsoft's near-monopoly.
posted by
sjarvis at 7:57 AM on May 9, 2000

Hey, guess what? You (meaning *I*, of course) should CLOSE link tags, or the rest of your comment will end up one giant link to the Digital Divas site (at least it wasn't a link to Microsoft). Oops.
posted by sjarvis at 7:58 AM on May 9, 2000

Yeah, Matt, you might want to install that "edit" feature... ;)
posted by solistrato at 8:18 AM on May 9, 2000

Quick question: Doesn't a person's name count as his own trademark/copyright? I mean isn't this why companies can not register generic names such as "John," "Jane," etc? If this is so, then I believe "MattL" would be the copyright of any person on the planet named Matt and having a middle name or a last name that starts with a "L." Because Matt was the first of all these Matt L.'s to register, he has rights to it, but at the same time Matt can not sue someone who just recently bought the other MattL domain name. Now isn't this how things are supposed to be? according to the law i.e.?Also what about the fact that the web is not US based, it's a worldwide phenomena, and thus when we talk about laws pertaining to the web, we must talk in terms of international laws. Shouldn't like the laws of global television/radio apply to the web as opposed to US laws? I wish someone would explain the drastic need to apply US laws to everything pertaining to the web. If that is so, then perhaps we need new TLDs that are more international, and all domains covered in those TLDs are bound by the international laws. [I also am not happy about the fact that US is allowed to use .gov & .mil for it's self. It would be so much easier if was made commercial.]
posted by riffola at 8:25 AM on May 9, 2000

Everytime I read about this crap it pisses me off. I mean do large corporation legal teams have nothing else to do but harass personal web site owners. It scares me to think that any company with a similiar or not so similiar domain name can't just drop a few attorneys on your doorstep screaming trademark infringement and shut down your bloggerized journal of links with little or no effort.
posted by dangerman at 8:40 AM on May 9, 2000

It's just occurred to me that a case is going to have to make it to the Supreme Court, in order for it to become a "Landmark Precedent" (or something like that).

So long as individual states have their rulings going back & forth... no one will be safe.
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 9:57 AM on May 9, 2000

It's stupid, yes, dangerman -- but trademark law is written that way. If a company fails to defend its mark, it can lose it, which means they feel they must send lawyer letters to any possible infringers.

I don't have problems with Mattel going after abusers of the Barbie trademark -- for doll collecting sites or magazines. The print equivalent would be shut down if they didn't have permission. If they're going after somebody NAMED Barbie, that's stupid, and usually legal, except that individuals don't have the time or money to defend themselves.

I think Matt is clearly legally in a safe harbor here, but Mattel is simply able to outspend him. He may be able to fend them off with a few well-written letters exchanged with their legal team, as others have been able to (q.v. Meat of the Loom.) It should be easy to show that he has no toy-related content on his site.

riffola, be careful -- do NOT confuse copyright and trademark. They are very different. A trademark generally must be used in a commercial sense, within a specific market sphere (so you can have both National Car Rental and National ). You can't trademark certain common words (e.g. "food"). And as for US law, Matt certainly could move his server beyond its reach, but he would still live here and be subject to civil penalties. Just because something is accessible internationally doesn't mean that jurisdiction is erased. There is no international supremacy of law beyond what is agreed to under treaties such as the WTO (and that kind of supremacy is exactly what the protestors are protesting). Matt probably has more protections under US law than most places.

And the US owns .mil, and .gov just because the internet started here. It's an historical accident, and one I don't think they'll voluntarily give up. ;-)
posted by dhartung at 10:02 AM on May 9, 2000

Eric, trademark law IS national, and there are many precedents. Mostly in favor of trademark owners (that's the law). There are certain discrepancies, but those pertain to federal appeals court DISTRICTS, and generally when such discrepancies arise the Supreme Court favors cases which will help resolve them, or Congress acts to improve the law.
posted by dhartung at 10:04 AM on May 9, 2000

I'd like to apologize for the use of the word "satirists" in my previous post. Those people are just morons, and well nigh illiterate ones at that.
posted by harmful at 10:17 AM on May 9, 2000

the answer is so obvious, mattel is overlooking it. if mattel wants they should make matt an offer, not a cease and desist letter. it pisses mattel off that they didn't think of claiming the site sooner. they just can't accept that fact. they would only want for no other reasons other than redirecting to due to users mispelling their name.

i never liked barbie anyway. she started out as a german hooker, and now the bitch has everything. down with mattel.
posted by jay at 10:56 AM on May 9, 2000

If Mattel wins this by some diabolic miracle, what's next? Will all web-users then have to incorporate themselves just to get domain space, or will we be forced to go through 'convenient' providers ala Xoom or Geocities or whatnot? Obviously, this case will need to end in favor of Matt L., or we all get screwed.
posted by visix6 at 11:01 AM on May 9, 2000

Something needs to be done, yes, but corporations *do* own the web. They're bigger, better funded, have more lawyers, and less ethics.

Canter & Siegel won, you know...
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:17 AM on May 9, 2000

Here's a good way to start fighting back against corporations which (as we all seem to agree) have too much power.

As for me, I collect fashion dolls including Barbies, and planned to spend a couple hundred dollars later this year on dolls for my collection. Not anymore! I won't be buying any Mattel products until this matter is resolved in Matt L.'s favor and Mattel apologizes for bothering him. I'll spend my money on Japanese dolls instead.
posted by wiremommy at 11:35 AM on May 9, 2000

E-mail form can be found at:

You may not have to create an auto-mailer for this because they have a form submit button. Click t many times, in contrast to what they ask you not to do.

When will these monkeys learn?
posted by rich at 11:49 AM on May 9, 2000

All I can say is that this is so in character for Mattel that it hurts. I used to work for them (or rather a company that got swallowed up by them), and if they spent half as much energy trying to really serve their customers and develop their brands as they do threatening people with lawsuits, my stock options might have been worth something.
posted by raku at 12:24 PM on May 9, 2000

I am totally on the side of Matt L. I'd also like to explain why this is different from the Digital Divas situation -- we are NOT seeking to have MS stop using the domain -- frankly, we don't really care so much about that. It is their using the SAME NAME to provide the SAME services on their website that is the problem.

Imagine you have a business called MonkeyButts and you sell widgets. If MS came along and started selling the same widgets under the name MonkeyButt, you'd be pretty pissed off, and no one would take issue with you're being pissed off. That is all that the Digital Diva situation is. The domain name is just a side-effect of the dispute.

Hope this clears up the issue.
posted by faith at 12:33 PM on May 9, 2000

Personally, I'd go to any company that has MonkeyButt in their name, plural or singular.

Even if I didn't need widgets.

MonkeyButt. Heh heh.

posted by solistrato at 12:55 PM on May 9, 2000

The digitaldiva(s).com issue is crap. DigitalDivas have NO right to take action against Microsoft and it sickens me to see that they are. Just because Microsoft is an unliked huge corporation, doesn't open them up to stupid lawsuits like this. If Microsoft is "stealing" attention away from, it's NOT a domain name issue. The only reason I am commenting here is because I saw a comment from one of their greedy members and it made me almost throw up. The site that is coming to report these things is It's not finished yet because we're all volenteers and very busy. Contact us if you want to help keep crap lawsuits like Mattel v. MattL and v. and v. (see our original site at -- which prompted eToys to buy and the new v. *'s.
posted by mwarden at 1:53 PM on May 9, 2000

mwarden, can you READ??? I just posted that we, the Digital Divas, do not care about MS's use of the domain name and that the dispute is quite different from the etoy/etoys and mattl/mattel disputes for that reason. As I just said it is NOT a domain name issue, and we are not pursuing it as such. I'll thank you to READ what's right in front of your face before you call something crap.
posted by faith at 2:36 PM on May 9, 2000

mwarden, can you READ??? I just posted that we, the Digital Divas, do not care about MS's use of the domain name and that the dispute is quite different from the etoy/etoys and mattl/mattel disputes for that reason. As I just said it is NOT a domain name issue, and we are not pursuing it as such. I'll thank you to READ what's right in front of your face before you call something crap.
posted by faith at 2:42 PM on May 9, 2000

but they're not selling the same widgets as you are. as far as i can tell, digitaldivas is a site for women in the web industry. but as stated above, digitaldiva is extremely condescending, and the overall tone of it is that women don't know enough about technology, so they need a little "help." this, quite frankly, makes me want to vomit. your target audience (read: ME) won't be taken away from you by this stupid attempt by microsoft to play nice, no matter what their domain name.
posted by bluishorange at 3:52 PM on May 9, 2000

back to the MattL situation: surely there's someone here who can get an article into Wired about this?

posted by rebeccablood at 4:11 PM on May 9, 2000

Dhartung: Yeah I realize that trademarks are not the smae as copyrights, and I should've been more clearer about it. But I still feel that a person ought to have a right to be able to buy a domain name in his own name if the domain name is available. As for the US Laws, sorry I just am not comfortable with them, hence I don't like them being applied to anything & everything on the internet.You know I just wish that a group of people would come together & create a site that is almost along the lines of w3c, but this site will deal with copyright, trademark & general laws that ought to be made universal, you know kinda like treating the web as "international waters" or "international airspace." With powers to solve disputes. I think Network Solutions has created a site for domain name disputes, but theirs being a commercial venture would obviously not cater to domains registered by other registrars.
posted by riffola at 4:31 PM on May 9, 2000

I won two rounds against Mattel and now starting round three against them.

Mattel has engaged in abusive litigation against me. It is detailed at

They have gone after others. I have been in contact with others who have been subject to abusive tactics by Mattel's and trying to get in touch with everyone who Mattel has filed abusive litigation against. You can provide the information via my website ( .


posted by at 11:05 PM on May 9, 2000

You want to fight back against Mattel???
Here are two ways:

1. Provide me with contact information on each person/company that is in litgation with Mattel.

2. Contact press people. Publicize my case ( to press contacts and by putting links on sites.

3. Contact press people about all the other abusive cases by Mattel.

4. Go to the June 7th stockholders meeting (esp. if you are a shareholder).

5. Call Mattel and ask for explainations.
Jessica Fisher (310) 252-2703

John Suske (617) 494-5816

posted by at 11:19 PM on May 9, 2000

I made a mistake the contact info for John Suske at Mattel/TLC is:
John Suske (617) 494-5816

Sorry about that.

posted by at 11:21 PM on May 9, 2000

Nice troll, Mwarden; I'd say you got exactly the bite you were after.

Yes, the Digital Diva's have grounds, I would say, to bring a trademark dilution case against MS... in fact, they *have* to; didn't we just cover this ground?

Same trademark, same area of endeavour (women in computing; yes, there are subtle differences in approach and target, but I *guarantee* you USPTO doesn't slice it that fine).

Sounds like a job for the press.

Did you know that people can be divided into two groups with regard to their opinion of Microsoft?

People with MC{SE,P,...}'s and everyone else.

[ there. there's *my* troll for the day. ]
posted by baylink at 7:43 AM on May 10, 2000

All right, before this train of thought is *completely* derailed, let's back to business: getting Mattel to shut the hell up and leaving Matt L. alone.
posted by solistrato at 10:38 AM on May 10, 2000

"this is different from the Digital Divas situation -- we are NOT seeking to have MS stop using the domain"

Just because you post your comment twice, doesn't make it any more correct.

Are you trying to tell me that if they didn't use the words "digital" or "diva" anywhere on the site, but were still at, you wouldn't have sent the order? The only reason you are getting ANY support is because the "bad guy" is Microsoft. I would bet the house that if Sally Sue consistantly referred to herself as a digital diva on her personal site, you wouldn't care. Don't tell me this "is NOT a domain name issue". You even reference both the and domain names in your cease and desist orders. This is very much a domain name issue. Your case is strengthened by the trademark argument, but you sent that order because:

a. you were threatened by Microsoft, rightfully so
b. their domain name is "next door" to yours

The fact is, you do NOT have the rights to and you would still have slapped MS on the wrist whether or not the words "digital" and "diva" appeared within the site itself.

If you would like to respond, do it by email so that we don't continue to clutter this page with offtopic comments:
posted by mwarden at 4:35 PM on May 10, 2000

Sorry Mwarden, I don't need to respond to you privately when you bait me in a public forum. In the first place, I apologize profusely for the double post. The computer in my office hiccuped. I don't have control over the fact that we are still using 166's there.

And actually, no, we wouldn't have an issue with usind the domain if it were not in direct competition with the services we provide. Believe me or not, I don't really care. Please don't tell me what I "would" have done if the situation were different because you have no idea about what I would do, what the Digital Divas would do, and clearly don't want to understand this from our perspective.

What I will say, and bear in mind I cannot say all that I want to under the circumstances, is that we have received e-mails for this woman at our domain name. Asking the same kinds of questions we usually field, but clearly meant for her.

I will say again, this is not a domain name dispute. You are entitled to your opinion otherwise, but sorry, you're wrong.
posted by faith at 10:49 PM on May 10, 2000

I gave the anonymous mwarden too much credit: that wasn't a troll, it (no discernible sex) is really that dumb.
posted by baylink at 7:18 AM on May 11, 2000

Faith, since you left me no email address, I can't reply to you anywhere other than here, on a public forum.

I'm going to say upfront that I respect you for not publicly calling others names like "troll" and "dumb". While I don't, in any way, agree with what you are doing with Microsoft, I do respect your maturity that others seem to lack.

"And actually, no, we wouldn't have an issue with usind the domain if it were not in direct competition with the services we provide."

As far as I can tell, they are giving the advice away for free (except for the tours, etc.).

"Believe me or not, I don't really care."

I would have been more inclined to believe you and your oganization if you hadn't referenced the Web site in the C&D order.

"Please don't tell me what I "would" have done if the situation were different because you have no... [etc. etc.]"

I would hope that this is a joke. I'm assuming everyone here realized that I was expressing an opinion on what I believed the probably outcome would have been had "digital" and "diva" not been used on the web site. For those who don't have the ability to comprehend this, allow me to rephrase:

I believe that the exact same outcome would have occurred (with a slightly altered C&D order) if "digital" and "diva" had not been used within the website. I believe would have been annoyed by and would have tried to focus a case on the use of the trademark within the domain name (which isn't applicable). This is an OPINION. You have the right to disagree, but you have no authority to tell me I'm wrong, mainly because it is a hypothetical situation.

"What I will say, and bear in mind I cannot say all that I want to under the circumstances, is that we have received e-mails for this woman at our domain name."

So, it's not a domain name issue? Still?

"Asking the same kinds of questions we usually field, but clearly meant for her."

How does this strengthen your claim? In this case, you are taking "business" away from Microsoft's digital diva. I understand what you were trying to convey, but these emails probably reached you because of a mis-typing of the email address... which is most-certainly domain related.

"I will say again, this is not a domain name dispute."

Ummm... no comment.

Again, I ask you to take this off of the public forum. You have the right to respond, but, for God's sake, leave your email address so that I can take this discussion off. *I* am not worried about leaving a public attack unanswered... if I had been, I would have returned responses to certain people's un-backed, immature, empty name-calling.
posted by mwarden at 2:28 PM on May 11, 2000

Wow... it's like the battle of the last word freaks. (I can't believe I, of all people, said that.)

Uh...guys, can we please get back to the issue at hand? Perhaps a different thread is in order?

For everyone that forgot it's about Mattel needs to get a black eye...and FAST!
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 3:55 PM on May 11, 2000

Yes I agree, Mattl v. Mattle is the battle focus here. I think I have my answer reading some of the comments from the Digital Divas v. Digital Diva. I am still curious of what the outcome will be with Matt over one letter. Hasboro v. is another one. I still say first to grab a domain gets it. If the company doesn't want anyone to have a type-o in the domain get it before the rest. Some issue over and points that issue out. I wonder if Mattle had the disputed domain, and later found that people/customers type in too much would they change there real name in order to please those who can't sepll? (YES! I know it is incorrectly typed in) Again let me/us know the outcome.
posted by brent at 4:04 PM on May 11, 2000

See what irks the hell out me, Brent, is that when we get our domain names we have to agree that these names are available on a "first come/first served" basis.

That should be it. You bought it, it's yours. End of story.

Now it's like the little kid leaves the candy store, and the big kid goes "HEY...that's mine...thanks!" and takes his candy away...
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 5:15 PM on May 11, 2000

mwarden, email me at and I'll happily rip you a new one. I don't know what you have against digitaldivas, but it's clear that you don't have a clue about trademark law, and you are in every definition of the term a troll and a baiter. Only somebody with two brain cells would flame someone for a double post, as if there were any content in that criticism. And in my experience, only trolls and baiters object to the term. cannot be taking business away from Microsoft's Digitaldiva, because they were there FIRST. This is, for better or worse, the way trademark law operates, and if you don't get that you have no business being involved in a website covering domain "issues". Sit down, read a FAQ on intellectual property, understand the law, THEN maybe you can be of some use. Until then, you're just blowing an awful lot of hot air. Excuse me, hot, FOUL air.

(Oh, and baylink, I'm proof that being MCSE-track doesn't make you a m$ parrot.)
posted by dhartung at 11:08 AM on May 12, 2000

dhartung, thank you again.

mwarden, you may reach me at if you feel the need.
posted by faith at 9:34 PM on May 12, 2000

Thanks, Dan; I appreciate that.

And, you know, it's funny: *I* didn't have any problems finding an email address for Faith: it took me two whole clicks. Now, doesn't necessarily parse all that well, but it is demonstrably hers... :-)

And I guess mwarden is proof that being well written doesn't necessarily make you not be a Kook.

As for "let's get back on topic", Jeezus Keerist! This is the longest thread I've seen on MF since I got here! Is there anyone who really thinks that there's something left to be said on topic that hasn't already been said?
posted by baylink at 9:23 AM on May 13, 2000 [1 favorite]

I think a boycott of all their products is in order. Someone could make a page and lists the sites that will be joining in the boycott.
posted by miseryc at 12:48 PM on May 14, 2000

« Older In this piece,   |   A new era in movie piracy Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments