VIDEO: Ron Paul files suit for RonPaul.com (Fox News)

[sailingaway]

The way I understand cybersquatting, and I am no expert on it, is that it is more so for registered trademarks (which Ron does not have being a politician), and where the person "squatting" has no intention of building a site, but just sits on the domain name. Kind of like if one of us bought pepsi.com before Pepsico was able to register it, and then demanded $1 million for the name.

I think where Ron loses on this is that 1) he does not have a trademark claim, and 2) the site owner is not acting in bad faith since he put up a legitimate news and info site focused around the subject of the domain. If I could wager on this, I would bet the arbitration rules in favor of the site owner, but we shall see.

The rules quoted spoke of confusion. Also Ron made a showing of trademark development when he was not in office and he is not in office now. The arbitrators will decide if his claim is good or not. I think he can clearly show confusion just by showing the multiple media reports that it was his site.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I have to wonder if Ron Paul is really behind this. It doesn't seem like something he'd push to the point of a lawsuit.

You "this doesn't seem like something Ron Paul would ______" people have been wrong before.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yeah, but he would have been relying on people who know about this stuff that he trusts, most likely. He sure doesn't know about it.

Cmon Sailing...you seriously think that a man who is a doctor, a 30 year public servant, a three time Presidential candidate, and the author of several books is in the dark on all this and just signs whatever is put in front of him.

I'm sorry but that is just insulting, it's almost calling the man stupid.

 

[sailingaway]

Very disappointed in Ron Paul (even though I know its not specifically RP, but he should start taking responsibility for those acting in his name), not because he wan'ts control of the site, but because he's going to the institution he wants to abolish for being unconstitutional i.e. unlawful.

Actually, that part I'm ok on, it happens to be designated in the domain and site owner's agreement as where to go for claims. Ron didn't just dream it up. He is claiming the site owner violated the terms of use for domains essentially, as I understand it.

 

[jj-]

If I could wager on this, I would bet the arbitration rules in favor of the site owner, but we shall see.

Yeah, but what suggests it might go the other way is that they ruled in favor of Hillary Clinton, although the owner of that site absolutely didn't do anything with the site.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

The rules quoted spoke of confusion. Also Ron made a showing of trademark development when he was not in office and he is not in office now. The arbitrators will decide if his claim is good or not. I think he can clearly show confusion just by showing the multiple media reports that it was his site.

Well we shall see how they rule. I think he loses on the trademark and on the "bad faith" issues. Confusion is subjective. If the site owner did everything reasonable, by way of disclaimers, he shouldn't be responsible for people's ignorance in my opinion.

 

[sailingaway]

Cmon Sailing...you seriously think that a man who is a doctor, a 30 year public servant, a three time Presidential candidate, and the author of several books is in the dark on all this and just signs whatever is put in front of him.

I'm sorry but that is just insulting, it's almost calling the man stupid.

I think you are trying to make this look bad simply because you want it to look bad. And yeah, I think someone who is so unknowlegable about the internet that he didn't even know what youtube was before he ran in 2008 would rely on advisors. I also think it possible some of what angelatc fears has happened may have happened, that he has entered into another 'just let me take care of all the business stuff, you just do the things you like, speak out and write etc....' situation with someone who is handling all this and he turned it over to them. I don't know that, but I could see it as a possibility.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yeah, but what suggests it might go the other way is that they ruled in favor of Hillary Clinton, although the owner of that site absolutely didn't do anything with the site.

Which meets the bad faith aspect.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think you are trying to make this look bad simply because you want it to look bad. And yeah, I think someone who is so unknowlegable about the internet that he didn't even know what youtube was before he ran in 2008 would rely on advisors. I also think it possible some of what angelatc fears has happened may have happened, that he has entered into another 'just let me take care of all the business stuff, you just do the things you like, speak out and write etc....' situation with someone who is handling all this and he turned it over to them. I don't know that, but I could see it as a possibility.

Sorry but when you imply that the man has no clue what is going on around him, even though he signed the affidavit, I think you are making it look bad. I think he is going about this the wrong way and should have negotiated on a price that both parties were happy with. I do not think he should have went the ICANN route for a number of reasons. On the other hand you paint him as an innocent bystander and rather clueless. I think that is worse.

A man can be forgiven for making a bad business decision. But being clueless is a much more serious problem and suggests that there are more clueless episodes to be expected.

 

[sailingaway]

You are spinning it. If he turned stuff he doesn't know about over to business managers who he believes have much more knowledge than he does it is in my opinion a bad choice but it isn't clueless. Many turn decisions over to advisors or attorneys or make decisions based solely on the 'reality' explained to them by such.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

And frankly, the guy should be able to ask whatever price he wants for it. He owns it.

Well, there's the thing. Some would say he doesn't actually own all of it because it is Ron Paul's name and likeness that they are using. Sure, they contributed something to it, but a good portion of it came from the fact that Ron Paul is who he is, so the question is, how much of it do they deserve credit for?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

You are spinning it. If he turned stuff he doesn't know about over to business managers who he believes have much more knowledge than he does it is in my opinion a bad choice but it isn't clueless. Many turn decisions over to advisors or attorneys or make decisions based solely on the 'reality' explained to them by such.

Did he not read what he signed? Did he not ask anyone what is going on? Did he not consider the impact of his doing so? Did he not ask why there were no further negotiations on price?

I ran businesses for close to 50 years, and not to brag but I had a lot more people working for me than Ron does. I had people that handled certain aspects of the business that I trusted, but at the same time I was always aware of what was going on.

 

[fr33]

Did he not read what he signed? Did he not ask anyone what is going on? Did he not consider the impact of his doing so?

Apply this standard to the owner of ronpaul.com and he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He violated the terms of the ICANN contract he signed.

 

[sailingaway]

Did he not read what he signed? Did he not ask anyone what is going on? Did he not consider the impact of his doing so? Did he not ask why there were no further negotiations on price?

I ran businesses for close to 50 years, and not to brag but I had a lot more people working for me than Ron does. I had people that handled certain aspects of the business that I trusted, but at the same time I was always aware of what was going on.

He may have been given a summary and signed on the basis of that. We don't know, do we? If he was told 'they are holding you up and making threats about selling it to those who might use it to harm you and asking five times what it is worth and they know they didn't have a right to run it under these rules. And also was told now they refuse to sell at all and have it on the open market to others, and under the rules they agreed to they never had a right to run it this way' who knows?

Also note your words. YOU RAN a business. If the deal was more of a 'I'll run the business you don't have to think of any of that' as talent arrangements often are, so he could just do the issue advocacy and speaking and educating, it would be a different situation than 'running a business'.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Apply this standard to the owner of ronpaul.com and he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He violated the terms of the ICANN contract he signed.

Arbitration will decide that. Obviously, you feel he did. I disagree.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

He may have been given a summary and signed on the basis of that. We don't know, do we? If he was told 'they are holding you up and making threats about selling it to those who might use it to harm you and asking five times what it is worth and they know they didn't have a right to run it under these rules. And also was told now they refuse to sell at all and have it on the open market to others, and under the rules they agreed to they never had a right to run it this way' who knows?

A summary of a one page affidavit? It's a freaking legal document, no one in their right mind signs something like this without fully knowing what is going on. I just don't buy it.

I know you like to keep this image of him in your mind and I am sorry if my analysis of the situation destroys that, but he is a man who is responsible for his own actions. I feel he acted wrong in this case. There were better ways to resolve this and he chose the route which, in the opinion of some, makes him look bad.

 

[jj-]

Well, there's the thing. Some would say he doesn't actually own all of it because it is Ron Paul's name and likeness that they are using. Sure, they contributed something to it, but a good portion of it came from the fact that Ron Paul is who he is, so the question is, how much of it do they deserve credit for?

If you write a biography of Ron Paul, full of pictures, and sell millions, how much credit do you deserve for it?

 

[sailingaway]

A summary of a one page affidavit?

No, of the overall situation. Is there anything in the affidavit itself you think he should have objected to?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

No, of the overall situation. Is there anything in the affidavit itself you think he should have objected to?

I think he shouldn't have filed it in the first place, picked up the phone and got it settled. It's amazing what a phone call can accomplish.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

But that's a different discussion. We were talking about free markets. You are correct in that domain holders aren't given a free market option, but that doesn't mean Ron Paul couldn't / shouldn't make a series of offers based on free market principles.

I think you're really being niave. You honestly think that the fact that their initial offer is exactly double what the site holders paid for it is just a coincidence, and that Ron doesn't know they paid $25k for it originally?

If Paul believed he's entitled for it for free, why offer anything at all?

He didn't offer anything. He estimated the value of the site, but he didn't make an offer. See, you keep characterizing it as being a violation of the free market to sue for something you could buy. What if someone stole your car? Would you buy it back? Ron built his own name and now people are making money off of it. The issue isn't that the guy's price isn't right. The issue is that he's not entitled to making money off of someone else's name and likeness. The issue is that he doesn't dserve all of the credit for the site because the only reason it has any modicum of popularity or relevance is because Ron Paul is who he is. Therefore, he deserves a claim to his own name.