Re: [ga] eresolution realizes fairness doesn't pay under udrp

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 5 Dec 2001, at 23:22, Paul Cotton wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>
> <snip>
> And if the lawyer knows that NAF has a higher complainant win rate than
> eRes, that lawyer is "scrupulous" if she witholds that information from her
> client?
> 
> It would be malpractie NOT to seek to obtain the most favorable outcome for
> one's client.  Apparently, some former DRP's have no scruples when it comes
> to ignoring one of a lawyer's primary ethical obligations. <snip> --
> 
> I understand your points entirely - the problem is that such discrepancy
> exists between forums in the first place, not that lawyers may choose to
> exploit that discrepancy (as their paying clients would expect).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul Cotton
> 

I agree with you Paul.  On the assumption that the UDRP is in any way 
fair or just (NOT), it would seem feasible that to stop forum shopping 
cases would be assigned on a rotating basis.  That would go against 
the grain of IP interests, but would be a bit more fair to all - just a bit.

I would love to be able to "eat my words" and see some type of just 
program to resolve disputes.  I don't see that with the UDRP at all.

Leah


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html