Domain typos and the billion $$$ empire. Everybody is set to cash in on it.. Why not?

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

WRONG IS WRONG!

A circumstance which exposes one to civil liability is a circumstance which exposes one to civil liability.

Whether it is a business decision or a moral one is, I suppose, up to you.

Take this example:

I manufacture widgets, and I know that the widget has a 1 in 100,000 chance of failure resulting in the loss of the user's little finger.

I know that the average liability payout for the loss of a little finger is $50,000.

I expect to sell 100,000 units per year, and make $5 profit on each one.

I know that I can improve the widget to lower the failure rate to 1 in 200,000.

The improvement will cost me $100,000 in increased manufacturing costs.

Do I make the safety improvement or not?

Explain the moral aspect of that decision.

And for those who aren't good at math.

If I don't make the improvement, I make $500,000 and pay out $50,000 in liability.

If I make the improvement, I make $400,000 and pay out $25,000 in liability (as I know have half the expectation cost of someone losing a finger).

So, do I opt to net $450,000 and expect someone is going to lose a finger, or do I opt to make $375,000 and there is a 50% chance that someone loses a finger?

Economically rational behavior is a remarkable thing. Anything else is just peeing against the tide.

 

[mike031]

A circumstance which exposes one to civil liability is a circumstance which exposes one to civil liability.

Whether it is a business decision or a moral one is, I suppose, up to you.

Take this example:

I manufacture widgets, and I know that the widget has a 1 in 100,000 chance of failure resulting in the loss of the user's little finger.

I know that the average liability payout for the loss of a little finger is $50,000.

I expect to sell 100,000 units per year, and make $5 profit on each one.

I know that I can improve the widget to lower the failure rate to 1 in 200,000.

The improvement will cost me $100,000 in increased manufacturing costs.

Do I make the safety improvement or not?

Explain the moral aspect of that decision.

And for those who aren't good at math.

If I don't make the improvement, I make $500,000 and pay out $50,000 in liability.

If I make the improvement, I make $400,000 and pay out $25,000 in liability (as I know have half the expectation cost of someone losing a finger).

So, do I opt to net $450,000 and expect someone is going to lose a finger, or do I opt to make $375,000 and there is a 50% chance that someone loses a finger?

Economically rational behavior is a remarkable thing. Anything else is just peeing against the tide.

i dont have a PhD to understand this stuff that has a deeper meaning... so i wont even attempt to re-read it :blush:

John, u are a great lawyer and u are great at what u do and many people can find a way out of this situations, thanks to great lawyers, the system is obviously broken, there are loopholes everywhere pretty much, but some of the industry's biggest companies business decisions and domain abuse are inexcusable

why is Franky so likeable?? is it because he has long blonde hair and he looks like a sexy girl?? :lol:

noo.. is it because he started to blog??? does it make it ok now that he came out into the public??! noooo??! is it becuase he has achieved certain status and is consdiered a god ?!?? nooo?? who cares?! everybody does

why is domainsponsor so likeable??!? is it becuase they have one of the best domain landing pages?? nooo?! is it because they throw the best parties!!? noo!?is it becuase they are run by a bunch of young bucks ?!?

why is kevin ham so likeable?!? cuz hes such a visionary?!? noo!?is it because he is asian that he is so well respected by all?? is it becuase his last name is Ham? nooo


lol :lol:

people dont have the balls to confront anybody anymore

im not the self appointed industry watchdog

i dont care to be

i got better things to do

i know some of u are now going to say, man "mike, mind ur own biz" well... all of this stuff EFFECTS my biz kind of, and it effects ur biz too--- u just seem to fail to understand exactly what is going on

but come on --- lets tell it how it is

 

[Theo]

Mike, I think you're the Sarah Palin of domaining.

 

[mike031]

Mike, I think you're the Sarah Palin of domaining.

there is my biggest fan... i mean stalker... i mean... uhh

what do i call you ?!

im not even sure

you are just WEIRD

go do something useful... go and design me a new cool avatar or some banners

NOW!!!

 

[Theo]

Still waiting to disclose to us some of your secrets, such as, some of the "thousands of domains" that you developed.

F.o.c.u.s

 

[mike031]

Still waiting to disclose to us some of your secrets, such as, some of the "thousands of domains" that you developed.

F.o.c.u.s

when hell freezes over :lol::lol::lol:

ps--stop stalking me

n.e.w.b.i.e

 

[denny007]

Mike, I think you're the Sarah Palin of domaining.

Haha, true, although you might have insultede sarah here, her talking does make more sense than this blabber...

 

[Theo]

I lost the newbie status 7 years ago, Mike. That's after 5 years in the domain business.

In the meantime, stop avoiding the question - like Sarah Palin did - and do post a few of these "thousands of domains" you've developed.

I will even say "please".

 

[mike031]

we are all man here, literally, yet some act like little girls...

annoying.........

whinning...................

what is this??

let me remind you:

a PROFESSIONAL board

act like it..

and if you cant, then, stay off it

 

[Theo]

Answer the question, Sarah.

 

[mike031]

Answer the question, Sarah.

Acronita,

you waste too much of my valuable time with your BS

from now on, i only answer to one reply to your BS per 24 hrs...a random post which i will choose not to skip if i dont forget to

all others i will skip, i wont read them.. i wont reply to them

so, don't hold your breathe

...and you better be nice or else i will put you on the shitlist for good

 

[Theo]

Look Mike, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the domain kitchen.

When you post sheets of regurgitated statements, along with claims that you have developed "thousands of domains" or that you make six figures, be prepared to back them up.

And let me remind you that proper grammar and spelling is important, particularly in a forum that doesn't allow for edits

So far you've flooded several forums with the same endless drivel about ....nothing. I wonder at which point you'll realize that your credibility is in the minus range.

Instead of acting like a child that throws a tantrum because he was caught fibbing, tell us what are some of the "thousands of domains" that you have developed. Let's start at http://ispbronx.com - tell us how you monetize this monster of a development.

 

[ksinclair]

.
This is an interesting thread. And Mike made some interesting points, at least in the first post that started the thread. Obviously Mike spends a lot of time to create such a detailed post, and people should appreciate that. And Mike is willing to speak honestly, which many are not willing to do. It does seem to me, however, that Mike is much better at prepared comments than his later, more spontaneous posts in these threads. Just my opinion.

John Berryhill is a treasure for a public forum like this, and we should be respectful for any time he invests here. A lawyer that is not an enemy of domainers is a good thing. And no matter how much a person might like to pick on lawyers, if someone gets in legal trouble who is the first person they turn to?

I dont know the numbers but it is my sense of the TM issue that there are now more domains, not less, that are possible TM violations. I think fewer companies worry about it now; they just dont think about direct nav that much, they only think about google and their own ranking. I could be wrong but its amazing to me how often I run into domains that are very likely TM violations, and are ppc screens.

The topic of complicity is complicated and I dont think people or companies are inherently evil. There are just a lot of opportunism. And without some crossing the line we would not even know where the line is. I have a hard time knowing exactly what a TM violation is. Take the word Coke. Its a very strong brand. One of the strongest. Would Coke.com, if put to ppc, be a TM violation? Yet there is a a metallurgy about Coke, and many other uses of this word. And yet, no matter how logically one tries to argue it, it seems pretty obvious to me that if a guy puts Coke.com to ppc, he hopes to make money because of that mark. He would lie, in court, but that is what he really wants.

So I have come up with my own definition of what a TM violation is and I am curious if anyone else has cast it in this light. I will use a metaphor from how the law views pornogrpahy. Someone asked a Supreme Court justice if it was even possible to define what Pornography is - and you would need an exact definition if you are going to make laws about it. His response was something like, "I know it when I see it". Thats a great response. Its not literal but its very true.

I think we all know when we see a TM violation; we know it when we see it. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or in the mood to argue. But does that mean we change things? I dont think so. We might have an intuition but its not exact, and I think things are working reasonably well. Not perfect, but for the most part, reasonably well. Its like in sports; every basketball game you see has some player flopping or trying to draw a foul, baseball players try to trick the ref's, football has holding on probably every play. Dating is probably worse than sports. What about advertising? Every commercial is so idealized. So things are not about absolute truth, they are more about having a system that works 'good enough'.

I will end this post by saying that I do not see things changing much. Things seem steady to me. It just feels that way. Its like the shoplifting in stores - you wont ever get rid of it. You can work to minimize it but generally, it wont destroy the store, and most stores just build it into their cost structure. I am sure that our Overlord Google simply builds in some expected level of PPC fraud into its price model. Its a fact of life. (I would like to knojw what google really thinks the rate of ppc fraud is though). I dont know how much typosquatting hurts brands; but it might be less than you think. Most people hate ppc screens and if they land on one they try some other way to find what they want.

Kevin

 

[Theo]

Kevin, I'm sure you mean well, however allow me to tell you why you're being taken for a ride.

Reading through Mike's posts, the overall sentiment is that of a holier-than-thou knowitall, that rings the bells of doom while regurgitating endlessly one liners that appeal to someone from outside the domain industry. If someone with very basic knowledge of what the domain industry stands for read this drivel, they would go "oooh!" and "ahhh!" from the "revelations" it discloses.

Or does it disclose anything really, other than talk down on bloggers, other domainers and investors who do not share Mike's strategic plan of "mass development".

But once queried by numerous people at his numerous cloned threads, Mike refuses to quote any "mass developed" web sites. For a man who preaches with the eloquence of a gospel preacher, the delivery is anticlimactic.

The professionals amongst us know quite well what pitfalls in domaining to avoid and we definitely don't fall in the same category that Mike envisions. Mike talks with the excitement of a 6th grader who has just discovered debating, but there is no substance other than endless theatrics and pompous blanket statements. To have Elliott get ticked off is quite a feat.

 

[mike031]

.
This is an interesting thread. And Mike made some interesting points, at least in the first post that started the thread. Obviously Mike spends a lot of time to create such a detailed post, and people should appreciate that. And Mike is willing to speak honestly, which many are not willing to do. It does seem to me, however, that Mike is much better at prepared comments than his later, more spontaneous posts in these threads. Just my opinion.
Kevin

i think all of my points are interesting :yes:

and i didnt spend too much time on this, as mentioned earlier less than an hour on this...

i do end up spending way too much time responding to newbies though -- which i am goin to try and cut back on

thanks again for the positive feedback

 

[fab]

So, do I opt to net $450,000 and expect someone is going to lose a finger, or do I opt to make $375,000 and there is a 50% chance that someone loses a finger?

Economically rational behavior is a remarkable thing. Anything else is just peeing against the tide.

Oh c'mon, the answer here is obviously lower the liablity and lower the profit. I can't see the comparison between TM risks, civil case, and causing physical damage. Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, but the finger case seems to ba a criminal one.

 

[nameadvertising.com]

It's not, and never, was a criminal issue you mo%$#. Else, all typo squatters and TM violators would be in JAIL or indicted to be within one. It is an 'ethical' issue.

There are more unethical crimes committed than criminal ones. It is all about the former.

 

[fab]

It's not, and never, was a criminal issue you mo%$#. Else, all typo squatters and TM violators would be in JAIL or indicted to be within one. It is an 'ethical' issue.

There are more unethical crimes committed than criminal ones. It is all about the former.

Thanks for your kind words. Why don't you read the post before commenting, it wasn't long. I was clearly referring to the finger case that JB brought up, which is different then TM violations. Don't you think the peanut butter case could go to jail.

BTW, there was a long discussion here about this a while back, and there was someone trying to claim that it could be potentially criminal. No I didn't say it.

 

[Sonny Banks]

Kevin, I'm sure you mean well, however allow me to tell you why you're being taken for a ride.

Reading through Mike's posts, the overall sentiment is that of a holier-than-thou knowitall, that rings the bells of doom while regurgitating endlessly one liners that appeal to someone from outside the domain industry. If someone with very basic knowledge of what the domain industry stands for read this drivel, they would go "oooh!" and "ahhh!" from the "revelations" it discloses.

Or does it disclose anything really, other than talk down on bloggers, other domainers and investors who do not share Mike's strategic plan of "mass development".

But once queried by numerous people at his numerous cloned threads, Mike refuses to quote any "mass developed" web sites. For a man who preaches with the eloquence of a gospel preacher, the delivery is anticlimactic.

The professionals amongst us know quite well what pitfalls in domaining to avoid and we definitely don't fall in the same category that Mike envisions. Mike talks with the excitement of a 6th grader who has just discovered debating, but there is no substance other than endless theatrics and pompous blanket statements. To have Elliott get ticked off is quite a feat.

Acro well said...some people never learn.
Let this spammer post these crappy threads...the only that loose is HIM.

Serious domainers know this industry...they don't need a spammer to teach.

 

[nameadvertising.com]

Thanks for your kind words. Why don't you read the post before commenting, it wasn't long. I was clearly referring to the finger case that JB brought up, which is different then TM violations. Don't you think the peanut butter case could go to jail.

BTW, there was a long discussion here about this a while back, and there was someone trying to claim that it could be potentially criminal. No I didn't say it.

Okay, my apologies...