|ICANN is wrong|
| 1:13 am on Jun 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Dave Winer makes some interesting points about ICANN's decision to establish new generic TLDs.
|ICANN is wrong [scripting.com] |
But what happens if someone buys your trademark? Don't worry ICANN says, we have that covered, with a process that allows trademark holders to challenge squatter registrations.
But what if the name was created by an open source community, without the financial resources to mount a challenge? I have some standing there, because I played a role in establishing blogs. How does Google get the right to capture all the goodwill generated in the word blog? They are not the exclusive owner of it, as they are with the name Google. However they claim the right to become that owner, by paying $185K to ICANN. Nowhere in their proposal is an offer to pay money to the people who created the idea that they would take over. And what if the creators aren't willing to sell it to them?
Now you see the problem. And it extends to words and concepts that weren't created by anyone living today. Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc. These things shouldn't be TLDs, they're too important, too basic to life. Not the kinds of things any company, for crying out loud, should be able to claim to own.
| 3:07 pm on Jun 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It's just an extension of a trend.
Companies now file patents for software/apps that merely (procedurally) mimic human behavior/interaction. No invention. Just mimicry by code that immiates the inherent procedures and logic for human exchanges of information and ideas. No new tech, like the creation of fiber optic technolog. Just code immitating life.
That's like claiming exclusive rights to human behavior and human interaction.
"Well, our patent application articulated a 'system and method' for uploading an image to a database and then . . . "
Argh. Eventually the only way anyone will (attempt) to make money is by suing everyone else for violating their "system and method" patent.