[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] WIPO goes too far, and always has ...
It all falls under the moniker of "Intellectual Property", as such, there is
very little difference, in effect, between trademark and copyright. Both
call for, and cause, exclusionary practices.
WIPO attempts to claim monolithic (global) jurisdiction. In the US, at
least, many of these organizations are either backed by WIPO funding or
political association and clout. Please read the EFF references. In the US,
WIPO has been quite active, to the detriment of other concerns. Please
remember that genesis of this WG and WG-A, a specific request from the US
Executive branch at specific WIPO prompting. That record can be traced back,
all the way to the White Paper.
Evenso, and granting your disassociative argument, the aggregate effects are
deleterious to the overall Internet. For the TM-based exclusion argument to
prevail would ALSO grant weight to exclusionary discretion, for the OTHER IP
interests. Ergo, the whole bunch needs to be considerd in aggregate, whether
or not they are superficially allied.
BTW, lack of good-faith is not, perforce, dishonest. Often it is the simple
denial of binding conditions. What's bad about it is that this lack creates
an unbalanced negotiating position, where one side binds itself and the
other doesn't. Just as deceit implies dishonesty, but is not itself
dishonest. We all deceive each other constantly and there are many levels of
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 12:21 PM
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-b] WIPO goes too far, and always has ...
> At 12:16 31.10.99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >Hello Harald,
> >I fail to see why you ignore the obvious. Trademark
> interests are very much
> >relevent to the DNS issues before us.
> But the IFPI is not a trademark organization. Its concern (at
> least in the
> activity covered by this particular article) is copyright.
> I have an opinion on the IFPI effort, but don't consider it
> relevant to the
> domain name debate.
> > The point is that we are sitting at a
> >negotiating table with interests that are not present in good faith.
> Claiming that the IP lobby is monolithic is probably as misguided as
> claiming that the Internet community is. If you want to call
> a particular
> organization or individual dishonest (which is my naive non-American
> translation of "not present in good faith"), feel free to do so.
> > You
> >have obviously failed to follow the links that I have provided.
> I followed the ZDNet link, which was what prompted me to
> write my response.
> Since it seems that we end up in the same positions in this
> group more
> often than not, I want to understand your argument. But I didn't.
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway