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

[angelatc]

No, it doesn't. It involves seeking to enforce the VOLUNTARILY SIGNED CONTRACT.

Ron didn't sign any contract. He's using the fact that the other party was forced to sign a contract.

 

[angelatc]

Ron certainly was stuck with the boiler plate the same way, though.

No, he's not. He could have resolved it by paying the asking price. He could have resolved it by accepting the .org site. He could have resolved in a myriad of different way, but he chose the bully route.

 

[RickyJ]

Ron didn't sign any contract. He's using the fact that the other party was forced to sign a contract.

The sad fact is there will be no "winners" in this case. The damage appears to have been done.

 

[green73]

I don't care what they say. Dorner lives!

 

[angelatc]

UDRP that ICANN uses was developed from the UN's WIPO. You cannot buy a dot com without agreeing to UDRP and process established by ICANN for the resolution of disputes.

Also this: "When a registrant chooses a domain name, the registrant must "represent and warrant", among other things, that registering the name "will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party", and agree to participate in an arbitration-like proceeding should any third party assert such a claim."

Sure. And when you rent an apartment in certain parts of the country, you agree to allow the the government to pop and and "inspect" any time they choose to to inspect the property. ANd when you get a driver's license, you agree to let them test your breath any time they want to.

The agreements aren't made in good faith. I can't believe that the other-wise liberty minded people here are taking the side of the corporations in this. Arbitration is the method they devised to circumvent our rights in the legal system.

One corporation to rule them all.......

 

[angelatc]

I don't care what they say. Dorner lives!

Sure. Just ask any Law Enforcment officer - we are all Dorner now!

 

[sailingaway]

If someone has a paid account on domaintools, they will give the entire whois history.

Or, for a flat rate:

101 connected domains would be the domains in the last 9 yrs that domaintools knows to be pointing to ronpaul.com nameservers, or hosted on the same server

so, this is why it comes up first when you search Ron's name.

 

[sailingaway]

No, he's not. He could have resolved it by paying the asking price. He could have resolved it by accepting the .org site. He could have resolved in a myriad of different way, but he chose the bully route.

The other party got only the rights allowed by his domain agreement and it prohibited certain actions. That they have a monopoly is awful, but Ron didn't give it to them. BOTH he and the site owner have to deal with the situation that exists.

 

[sailingaway]

Another thing that may have happened that we don't know about- if any real appraisal work was done, pulling reports such as the one above would be standard due diligence. They may have found something that made them not want to deal with this guy.

I'm not confident.

 

[sailingaway]

No, he's not. He could have resolved it by paying the asking price. He could have resolved it by accepting the .org site. He could have resolved in a myriad of different way, but he chose the bully route.

The other side could have resolved it by asking a lower price, too. There are reasons those rules exist, so Ron can use his OWN NAME when he is the one who made it valuable. The site was on the market. The price the site owner was asking was based on RON's popularity it sure looks like, not his own work.

Ron first ignored the claim he had and tried to buy it, he said he had it appraised, but if you want someone to ignore the rights they have, in good faith, I don't think it is too much to ask the other side to act in good faith as well, and not gouge him based on his own popularity. I don't know the proper value of the site, and no one knows who will win the claim, however to expect Ron only to throw away his rights while the other guy gouges him doesn't seem evenhanded to me.

 

[angelatc]

The other party got only the rights allowed by his domain agreement and it prohibited certain actions. That they have a monopoly is awful, but Ron didn't give it to them. BOTH he and the site owner have to deal with the situation that exists.

No, they don't. Ron had the ability to buy the site for the asking price. They didn't assert they had a right to the name until after they deemed the price too high.

And we know this because Lew Rockwell made it perfectly clear that they thought the price was too high. He was sneering over the numbers long before the suit was filed.

 

[CPUd]

so, this is why it comes up first when you search Ron's name.

It definitely doesn't hurt it. What he's doing is funnelling all the type-in traffic and otherwise dead links from the other domains straight to ronpaul.com; the domain name itself is arguably among the highest contributing factors in ranking for "Ron Paul", but it has been proven that a domain that exactly matches the search query is not guaranteed to get the top ranking. It all depends on the inbound links to the domain.

Whenever a major site has a link on their page to the domain(s), it passes along some of that weight. Depending on how he redirected those other domains, that weight can also get passed to ronpaul.com.

 

[sailingaway]

No, they don't. Ron had the ability to buy the site for the asking price. They didn't assert they had a right to the name until after they deemed the price too high.

And we know this because Lew Rockwell made it perfectly clear that they thought the price was too high. He was sneering over the numbers long before the suit was filed.

I responded to that. Not Lew, but the price part.

 

[randpaul2016]

lol Ron Paul's sure off to a great start at ruining his legacy.

gtfo

 

[randpaul2016]

Remember, folks, RON PAUL trademarked his name, image, and likeness, as have many "famous" individuals. If Ron Paul were truly the evil person they're trying to make him out to be, he'd be going for punitive damages and not just ownership of the domain name. Trademark infringement laws don't make exceptions just because you may have good intentions. The law is the law

RonPaul.com turning on Ron Paul is just really sad. The liberty movement is about putting this bullshit bickering aside. This is downright pathetic. I will not visit RonPaul.com ever again, until it's Dr. Paul's. I get that you've supported him, but it's HIS name, HIS legacy. He is an amazing man, and we cannot afford this bickering to divide the liberty folks too! Sometimes I think there really is no hope for this country...

Isn't the issue you have site with his name and posting his words and are trying to make money off of his work? I saw one place where you talked about the brand you built...seems like he is the brand and wants to control his name going forward. If your name was Ron Paul I'd say keep the site.

You guys are really stretching this. You are not Ron Paul, but you want to capitalize on Ron Paul. I am a huge supporter of what Ron Paul stands for. I don't understand why you think it is wrong of the man to want to own the rights to his own name. Now, if you were also named Ron Paul, then you might have a claim...

But seriously, do you think you are advancing the cause with this nonsense? Get over yourselves, and give the man his name back

 

[angelatc]

The other side could have resolved it by asking a lower price, too. There are reasons those rules exist, so Ron can use his OWN NAME when he is the one who made it valuable. The site was on the market. The price the site owner was asking was based on RON's popularity it sure looks like, not his own work.

Ron first ignored the claim he had and tried to buy it, he said he had it appraised, but if you want someone to ignore the rights they have, in good faith, I don't think it is too much to ask them to act in good faith as well, and not gauge him based on his own popularity. I don't know the proper value of the site, and no one knows who will win the claim, however to expect Ron only to throw away his rights while the other guy gauges him doesn't seem evenhanded to me.

The proper value is the value that the owner of the site wants to ask. The concept that some arbritrary third party should decide what a "fair" profit is straight out of the Obama / liberal playbook.

I bought a book at a Library book sale for less than .10. I have it listed for sale for $150.00. I had it listed for $300, because I didn't really want to sell it, which made it worth more to me. It didn't make it worth more to anybody else, but I certainly didn't get letters telling me that I was asking too much. Same thing applies here. The web site owner has every right to ask any amount he or she chooses for the site.

I still don't understand why, if Ron really thought he had a right to the name, did they offer to buy it in the first place? The smart play there would have been to sent the legal forms, and *then* tell them they could avoid the risk by accepting a cash offer of $50,000. Instead they fumbled around with the numbers for a year, then decided to sue because they couldn't get their price.

 

[angelatc]

Remember, folks, RON PAUL trademarked his name, image, and likeness, as have many "famous" individuals. If Ron Paul were truly the evil person they're trying to make him out to be, he'd be going for punitive damages and not just ownership of the domain name. Trademark infringement laws don't make exceptions just because you may have good intentions. The law is the law

RonPaul.com turning on Ron Paul is just really sad. The liberty movement is about putting this bullshit bickering aside. This is downright pathetic. I will not visit RonPaul.com ever again, until it's Dr. Paul's. I get that you've supported him, but it's HIS name, HIS legacy. He is an amazing man, and we cannot afford this bickering to divide the liberty folks too! Sometimes I think there really is no hope for this country...

Isn't the issue you have site with his name and posting his words and are trying to make money off of his work? I saw one place where you talked about the brand you built...seems like he is the brand and wants to control his name going forward. If your name was Ron Paul I'd say keep the site.

You guys are really stretching this. You are not Ron Paul, but you want to capitalize on Ron Paul. I am a huge supporter of what Ron Paul stands for. I don't understand why you think it is wrong of the man to want to own the rights to his own name. Now, if you were also named Ron Paul, then you might have a claim...

But seriously, do you think you are advancing the cause with this nonsense? Get over yourselves, and give the man his name back

You're just making facts up.

Ron Paul never owned RonPaul.com. The person that owns it bought it at auction, from another man named Ron Paul. That other Ron Paul also registered the trademark "Ron Paul" when the domain was registered, and eventually sold.

Ron Paul never officially trademarked his name. If he had tried, prior to 2009, he could not, because another Ron Paul held the registered trademark.

This domain was established when the other Ron Paul sold the site in the free market, and while he held the trademark. He eventually abandoned the trademark, and now our Ron Paul is trying to take advantage of that loophole.

 

[angelatc]

[deleted]just asking ron paul for money is ridiculous. ron paul asks...you comply. end of story

Gee, I'll never understand why people think we're culties.....


(Jesse - is that you? Speaking of asking for money.....)

 

[GunnyFreedom]

[deleted] just asking ron paul for money is ridiculous. ron paul asks...you comply. end of story

That's even dumber than the UN trope.

 

[Banksy]

TheAmazingAtheist dissing him for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjJ9eb87yt0