This is a website maintained by Alf Temme dealing with the special interests of the domain registration process and domain property rights. The site deals with "domain squatting" and "typo squatting".
The main factor that is totally overlooked by the legislators in drafting legislation against Typosquatting and Cybersquatting and other such derogatory terms that the legal profession has dreamt up, is the enormous advertising opportunity for the benefit of the whole economy and the BENEFIT to the general public that is lost. So there is a great loss to the economy as a whole while there is little or no harm to the trademark holders.
Legislation should always be drawn up with the greater good in mind, but legislators will always sell their legislation to the highest bidders, the special interests, the monopolies that want to strengthen their monopolies some more at the expense of "We the People".
Advertising in all its forms is the life-blood of any economy. An economy without advertising is doomed to failure like the old USSR where advertising was seen as a capitalist decadent practice. The only advertising they did was for their Communist Party to extoll the virtues of its programs.
But advertising in all its forms and manifestations is strongly disliked and even hated by almost everybody. Many governments make laws and regulations against all forms of advertising and in the process kill the economy one small step at a time. All surviving forms of advertising become then extremely expensive and out of reach for small business. Only the large monopoly corporations can then afford advertising any longer and that leads to the small businesses either going under or being bough up by the monopoly corporations leading to less competition and higher consumer prices.
Small business is the main driving force of an economy, but when more small businesses are driven out of business, the more the economy will suffer and that affects the living standard of all of us.
Why do we hate advertising so much and call for legislation and regulation against all forms of advertising? Legislators will eagerly comply with the public's wishes to get their vote during the next election. Complying with the public's wishes is not the right method of governing because it leads to rule by the often uneducated masses from which any government should be protected. Legislators should allways do what is best for the people and not what is good for themselves. But that again can lead to elitist attitudes of the legislators that are now going to be in judgement of what is best for the people based upon their own opinion and that opinon may be wrong because it was not based upon an educated objective analysis. In the case of advertising they need to be educated as to the fact that advertising in all its forms is the life-blood for the success of any economy and that killing advertising is a deathblow for the economy. Since the economy affects all people and also the people that demand the elimination of different forms of advertising, the judgement of the legislators must not be based upon how many more votes they can get in the next election, but rather on the "greatest good" by weighing the harm it will do to the economy versus the harm as perceived by the public by not outlawing such advertising under review.
Basically all forms of advertising are annoying because they aim to divert our attention away from what we currently are doing. They are aimed at confusing us away from what we are doing. The only forms of advertising we tolerate is the advertising we voluntarily want to seek out such as the advertising sections of the Sunday newspaper, the yellow page books, online websites that are serving advertising such as Google, Yahoo, CraigsList and others:
1.We hate billboards because they hurt the landscape.So we demand legislation to outlaw billboards. And a lot of such legislation was passed by local governments and it made things look better along the highways but it harmed the economy. Many small motels, restaurants and tourist attractions along those highways can no longer attract the most relevant customers they used to attract before the billboard bans.
2. We hate TV advertising because it interferes with our viewing of the programs we want to watch. So we buy Tivo or the like recording devices with which we can skip all the advertisements. That dramatically reduces the advertising of higher priced consumer products because the consumers of those products have Tivo like devices. The poorer consumers that do not have the advertising eliminating devices will now be exposed to more pharmaceutical advertising "ask your doctor" and junk food ads because that is targeted to the poorer public. Not good for the economy and not good for health of the general population.
3. We hate flyers under our windshield wipers and hanging on our house entry doorknobs. Ordinances against these flyers are again reducing advertising opportunity and are hurting the economy.
4. We introduce legislation against yellow page books because we get too many of them delivered to our doorsteps and they require a lot of trees that are cut down to make the paper they are printed on. Some local governments have enacted legislation that require the yellow pages books to only be delivered to addresses that speciffically requested them. This seems like a good idea, but consumers do not take the initiative to order yellow page books. Currently physical paper YellowPages are almost irrelevant because the online versions of YellowPages have taken over, but search engines eat everybody's cake.
5.We hate email spam because it fills our email boxes with junk-email that is annoying. So our lawmakers have enacted legislation against it and cut down on that possibility for advertising and that harms the economy again and with the lower sales and services it harms all of us. You may have noticed that you or some people you know have indeed reacted to some of these spam emails and have installed spam filters that work like Tivo for email.
During the Clinton administration large corporations were able to persuade congress to pass legislation that now is in conflict with Supreme Court rulings about the permitted use of domain names in "diverting of initial interest" and the matters of "confusion" and dilution of tradename rights.
On this website Alf Temme describes the process of domain name dispute arbitration and how ICANN has accommodated this process by its rules and regulations relating to domain name registration in such a way that it creates great opportunities for members of the legal profession to legally confiscate domain names from their rightful owners.
I, Alf Temme, have been involved in several domain name dispute resolution procedures and have lost every one of them because I did not have the time and money to defend against them. The correction of the injustice in the ICANN rules and the injustice in US laws governing domain name registration and domain name use should be addressed.
Time is a fleeting commodity and my priority is my tax reform proposal that was under examination at the US Patent office for an intellectual property patent. The US Patent Office published my application on its website for awhile but then did everything for 8 long years to reject it for the most idiotic reasons. The full explanation of my tax reform proposal can be read here: http://www.realtaxreform.com/
I am interested in righting wrongs with things that could be improved upon by governments. Basically I am tilting at windmills like the man of La Mancha, Don Quixote.
There is something wrong with this domain ownership business and the legislation enacted in relation with it. In the following pages I will try to shed some light on it and on the wrong premises on which the wrong legislation is based.
I have earned some money with the domain typos but it does not come even close to financing the promotion of my tax reform and my efforts of trying to replace the insane 75,000 page IRS tax code with a tax collection system that will save the US economy a minimum of over a trillion dollars per year or an average of over $7500 per family per year (2002 dollars).
I have just been sued by Dell computers for registering 7 typo domains that are mistyped versions of the name Dell. I believe that Michael Dell would not have taken this tack because he is typically a person who would not wish to pursue anticompetitive and monopolistic tactics. He would wish to give the consumer the best experience of a competitive marketplace with maximum free choice. I will ask him to support my tax proposal rather than giving it a financial setback through the litigation initiated by the company that he built from nothing and for which he just recently retook the CEO position after others had run Dell down after he had resigned as CEO a number of years earlier.