Nintendo Loses Appeal for WiiU.com Domain

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Just because you are a big powerful international corporation, that doesn’t always give you the right to something that isn’t rightfully yours. Nintendo found this out the hard way recently when the company was denied its appeal to own the WiiU.com domain. Looks like Nintendo was nine years late to the party.

The unknown owner of the domain first registered it in 2004, well before Nintendo ever debuted or released the original Wii console, let alone the Wii U. It's thought that the name was simply part of a mass registration of four-letter domains and, in this case, the owner struck gold.
Click to expand...
 
OP acts as if this domain owner is using the site for anything but squatting.

Fuck cyber squatters and fuck anyone who supports the practice
 
Xinmosni said:
OP acts as if this domain owner is using the site for anything but squatting.

Fuck cyber squatters and fuck anyone who supports the practice
Click to expand...

CyberSquatting from 2004? I agree with the OP, it was a legitimate transaction for the site.

I just went to WiiU and the owners put up a very cheap (decent looking) site with WiiU news on it. Takes me back to the 90's when you thought you were getting an official site by typing their name followed by a .com and usually it was anything but :D
 
Trimlock said:
CyberSquatting from 2004? I agree with the OP, it was a legitimate transaction for the site.

I just went to WiiU and the owners put up a very cheap (decent looking) site with WiiU news on it. Takes me back to the 90's when you thought you were getting an official site by typing their name followed by a .com and usually it was anything but :D
Click to expand...

All I see is a cyber-squatting search site :-\
 
This is nothing different than patent trolls. People sitting on it and not doing a damned thing with it. Don't care if they are paying for it year after year or not.

Use it or lose it.
 
So Nintendo should have a right to a domain registered years before anyone knew about the gaming consoles???

See: Nissan.com
 
necrosis said:
This is nothing different than patent trolls. People sitting on it and not doing a damned thing with it. Don't care if they are paying for it year after year or not.

Use it or lose it.
Click to expand...

It's one thing if a new product is being developed with public knowledge, or someone got some inside information and registered a domain name in the hope of extorting money. It's another thing altogether when the domain is registered like 8 years before the product exists or is announced.
 
A bulk web domain like this is no different than a submarine patent where the person patents something they have no way to produce and waits for someone to produce and then you sue them. The easiest solution to this problem would be to make websites first come first served and non-transferable. They could be abandoned so that someone else could acquire them but they could not be sold for a huge profit windfall. This profiting off of domain names is bad for the internet and should be prohibited. The internet is not a commodity ;)
 
canna said:
It's one thing if a new product is being developed with public knowledge, or someone got some inside information and registered a domain name in the hope of extorting money. It's another thing altogether when the domain is registered like 8 years before the product exists or is announced.
Click to expand...

There's two layers of squatting one of which you mention, but in cases like those the squatters normally lose.

The other, is holding a domain for the sake of holding it, without actually using it in any way other than hoping a product comes out with your domain name so you can strike gold.

Both IMO are silly. That said I don't think Nintendo should get carte blanche access to anything related to their company. How much does it cost to register a domain? How much does it cost in yearly upkeep? Nintendo should have to pay twice this amount considering the site was never used for any legitimate reason.
 
canna said:
It's one thing if a new product is being developed with public knowledge, or someone got some inside information and registered a domain name in the hope of extorting money. It's another thing altogether when the domain is registered like 8 years before the product exists or is announced.
Click to expand...
Again. Use it or lose it.
 
kent said:
So Nintendo should have a right to a domain registered years before anyone knew about the gaming consoles???

See: Nissan.com
Click to expand...

wow. Learn something new everyday. Nissan is being a huge dick about that domain name,

http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php
FEBRUARY - 2008, Ruling on Attorneys' Fees and Final Judgment.
The court ordered NMC to pay $58,000 as cost under rule 68, this is less than 2% of what the cost was to defend this case.

I don't get this part. What that less than 2% of the 10,000000 NMC was asking for or something else?
 
Kaitian said:
Can you elaborate on Nissan.com ?
Click to expand...

Guy owned Nissan.com, last name was Nissan. He owned Nissan Computer Corporation (I think...) and the story goes something like:

- Registered it in 1991 with legitimate use, as in furthering the Nissan Computer Corporation.

- Nissan honked at them in 1995 expressing concern but not asking for the domain.

Sometime later Nissan sued and lost.
 
necrosis said:
This is nothing different than patent trolls. People sitting on it and not doing a damned thing with it. Don't care if they are paying for it year after year or not.

Use it or lose it.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with you... But unless you are going to rewrite copyright law it'll never happen. You don't want to know how much books and sheet music are commercially unavailable and outside public domain due to copyright squatting.
 
Ahh, it's a free world, just use something else, or pay for a rediect link on the front page. Ever go to www.yamaha.com to look at Motorcycles? Not theirs, but they do have a link for them on the site.
 
ol1bit said:
Ahh, it's a free world, just use something else, or pay for a rediect link on the front page. Ever go to www.yamaha.com to look at Motorcycles? Not theirs, but they do have a link for them on the site.
Click to expand...

Hoss, Yamaha.com is completely "theirs".

You realize that the same people who make pianos are part of the same corporation who make pianos, right? So yes, Yamaha.com does belong to them just as much as everyone else under the Yamaha umbrella. Yamaha is like General Electric, in that they have their fingers in all manner of products and services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_Corporation
 
You would think Nintendo would have checked on the availability of the domain before naming the console (and that applies to any company about to release a new product). It's not like there was any compelling reason that it had to be call the WiiU.

Still, I think they should have won. I'm sick of people just buying up names and doing nothing with them in the hope of extorting money from some company in the future. It is pretty obvious that was the case with this one, since it is just a generic search site. At least with the Nissan thing, the guy had a legitimate claim to the domain.
 
Koolthulu said:
You would think Nintendo would have checked on the availability of the domain before naming the console (and that applies to any company about to release a new product). It's not like there was any compelling reason that it had to be call the WiiU.

Still, I think they should have won. I'm sick of people just buying up names and doing nothing with them in the hope of extorting money from some company in the future. It is pretty obvious that was the case with this one, since it is just a generic search site. At least with the Nissan thing, the guy had a legitimate claim to the domain.
Click to expand...

How is that different from people buying up land and waiting for companies to need the land? Sounds fine too me. Anyways, that's not what happened here.
 
Dreaz said:
How is that different from people buying up land and waiting for companies to need the land? Sounds fine too me. Anyways, that's not what happened here.
Click to expand...

Well in that case there could be a strong case towards eminent domain forcing said land owner to sell at fair market value. It's not used much, and usually involves someones house (mostly because those are the stories that become newsworthy), but the argument of sitting on a piece of land for the purpose of sitting on it could have negative repercussions on the local economy and what not. Now if someone did develop it and actually used it then you'd have a harder time arguing that.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Well in that case there could be a strong case towards eminent domain forcing said land owner to sell at fair market value. It's not used much, and usually involves someones house (mostly because those are the stories that become newsworthy), but the argument of sitting on a piece of land for the purpose of sitting on it could have negative repercussions on the local economy and what not. Now if someone did develop it and actually used it then you'd have a harder time arguing that.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. Put down some kind of arbitrary cost that the company would have to pay (some percentage of the value of the domain or something) and let that be that.
 
That's a hell of a slippery slope, especially in times where corporations are already allowed too much power over the public.

Imminent domain covers something to be utilized by the public. The public cannot 'utilize' the domain, they can just visit it in a browser. The domain's use/ownership would need to be held by the public.

The direct analogy to real property in this case would be taking away someone's house and/or land for a corp to build a wholly-owned retail store in its place. The sad part is, that probably HAS happened for a Wal-Mart or something similar. And that's a travesty.
 
Koolthulu said:
You would think Nintendo would have checked on the availability of the domain before naming the console (and that applies to any company about to release a new product). It's not like there was any compelling reason that it had to be call the WiiU.

Still, I think they should have won. I'm sick of people just buying up names and doing nothing with them in the hope of extorting money from some company in the future. It is pretty obvious that was the case with this one, since it is just a generic search site. At least with the Nissan thing, the guy had a legitimate claim to the domain.
Click to expand...

This is controversial and a problem. Just for the record many years ago, EVERY 4 and I think even 5 letter .com domain was bought up by squatters. So that means if you want to use ANY 1 and many 2 syllable words well you are screwed. So does that mean from this day on out that every new company or product is screwed into longer and longer and more meaningless names?

To me I think what needs to happen is that domains need to go up in price. If you cant afford $50 / year for a domain then you aren't using it honestly. you cant ever stop people from trying to make a buck but if you make it expensive enough it will sure limit how many people do it. If you get a basic domain name and someone needs it, not even someone very big you can easily fetch $500 for it and that will fund 50 domain names. And then you can run ads on all the sites which might pay for the domain name making it free to hoard them.

But this will never happen because ICANN and domain registrars probably make way more money off of the millions of domain squatters than they do legitimate domains so they have no reason to push for real reform.

So what we are left with is a great future where everyone is coming up with senseless names for companies and products. All they are looking for is something available. Of course the other option is you can always just pony up and pay the squatter what he wants. If you are big enough like Nintendo I am sure you can afford it, but you are just set on fighting it out of principle.
 
DiabloRojo said:
That's a hell of a slippery slope, especially in times where corporations are already allowed too much power over the public.

Imminent domain covers something to be utilized by the public. The public cannot 'utilize' the domain, they can just visit it in a browser. The domain's use/ownership would need to be held by the public.

The direct analogy to real property in this case would be taking away someone's house and/or land for a corp to build a wholly-owned retail store in its place. The sad part is, that probably HAS happened for a Wal-Mart or something similar. And that's a travesty.
Click to expand...

Yep and this problem has already been solved in the real world, you have taxes such as property taxes which put limits on how cheap someone can squat for. And if property in an area goes up in value so do its taxes this forces people to either make use of property or sell it. And clearly in the internet domain world something similar to this is lacking or the balance of costs vs reward is just too far off. Which is why I suggested raising the domain registration price.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Well in that case there could be a strong case towards eminent domain forcing said land owner to sell at fair market value. It's not used much, and usually involves someones house (mostly because those are the stories that become newsworthy), but the argument of sitting on a piece of land for the purpose of sitting on it could have negative repercussions on the local economy and what not. Now if someone did develop it and actually used it then you'd have a harder time arguing that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Eminent domain is one of the greatest crimes against individual freedom in the United States. If you own it lawfully, it's nobody's damned business what, if anything, you do with it. The United States has no lawful authority outlined in the Constitution to take what lawfully belongs to one to give to another, or requisition for itself.

It's called freedom. If Nintendo wants the domain that bad, they can buy it from the owner or else choose another domain name. Simple as that.
 
DiabloRojo said:
The direct analogy to real property in this case would be taking away someone's house and/or land for a corp to build a wholly-owned retail store in its place. The sad part is, that probably HAS happened for a Wal-Mart or something similar. And that's a travesty.
Click to expand...

I don't know about Wal-Mart, which is at least something EVERYONE in the local area can benefit from. But that is exactly how The Cowboys, and Jerry Jones, got the land to build their new stadium in the prime entertainment district of Arlington Texas.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/eminent_domain_ruling_affects_dallas_cowboys_stadium/

The city’s announcement came a day after the U.S. Supreme Court released a decision confirming that cities have wide latitude in condemning property for economic development purposes. That decision, which Dr. Cluck said didn’t affect the timing of next week’s votes, means that federal appeals of condemnations for the stadium in Arlington are unlikely.
Click to expand...
 
I wont fight eminent domain in the real world, I personally think while sometimes its abused its something that is needed. I mean really is it right to make every person in a state suffer because some farmer didn't freaking want to give up his land for a highway? There are lots of resources and one of those is land and location that need to be best used for the good of the public.

I will however say that in most areas the eminent domain compensation needs to be increased to something like 120% of property value.

The cowboys are actually a good example, if a city wants to try to keep a stadium and drive traffic and infrastructure into their area they should be able to do it otherwise they will end up like Detroit a shithole that lost nearly all of its culture.
 
Caedo said:
Absolutely not. Eminent domain is one of the greatest crimes against individual freedom in the United States. If you own it lawfully, it's nobody's damned business what, if anything, you do with it. The United States has no lawful authority outlined in the Constitution to take what lawfully belongs to one to give to another, or requisition for itself.

It's called freedom. If Nintendo wants the domain that bad, they can buy it from the owner or else choose another domain name. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

The United States doesn't, but individual states might. It depends.
 
Skripka said:
Hoss, Yamaha.com is completely "theirs".

You realize that the same people who make pianos are part of the same corporation who make pianos, right? So yes, Yamaha.com does belong to them just as much as everyone else under the Yamaha umbrella. Yamaha is like General Electric, in that they have their fingers in all manner of products and services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_Corporation
Click to expand...

QFT...

Tuning Fork... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top