Apple should have acquired that domain name before deciding to use the name iPhone. Before the Apple phone rumors, an anonymous buyer would have been able to buy that domain for one tenth of whatever Apple paid now. Apple has just been wasting its money here.
The year is 2005. You get a letter from a legal firm asking if you would like to sell your domain name - iphone.com - to their client. Hmmmm - you think to yourself. I wonder who their anonymous client could be?
Let's see - we have the iPod, iMac, iTunes and they are all famous trademarks owned by Apple. I wonder if they could be the buyer after my domain name?
Naaaah - couldn't be, everyone knows Apple don't do phones. Sure, whoever they are can have it for 10k.
Actually I thought it would have been more than $1 mill. He could have got 2 and even more IMHO. If you think it's crazy then you obviously haven't sold a popular TLD.
And to compare the sex.com sale with a domain sale in 2007 is strange. If sex.com went on the market today it would go for more than iPhone.com. I think that guy lost out on a higher bid no matter what you may have read.
I'm a member of another forum that used vBulliten at one time, they had to switch away because it had maintenance and stability issues. I don't think it was designed for this load.
The PDA phones have been about along while now all with touchscreen tech. and each new one has improved sencitivity. I got no doubts that the iphone will let us down. Ive hear that there will be 5 colours aswell. Exciting stuff
The PDA phones have been about along while now all with touchscreen tech. and each new one has improved sencitivity. I got no doubts that the iphone will let us down. Ive hear that there will be 5 colours aswell. Exciting stuff
I don't know if the rules changed, but I can't believe such a sum was paid. Those using the trademarks of others as a domain name usually didn't have much of a leg to stand on. For example, even if your given name was Barbie, I think Mattel sued her or her parents out of barbie.com.
I know I may just be a cat, but I think that only applies if the domain name owner has not built up an indepedent business without knowledge of the trademark. This guy developed iphone.com without willfull infringement, and before the iPhone trademark by either Cisco or Apple had been established, so that's why he had a one million dollar leg to stand on.
I know I may just be a cat, but I think that only applies if the domain name owner has not built up an indepedent business without knowledge of the trademark. This guy developed iphone.com without willfull infringement, and before the iPhone trademark by either Cisco or Apple had been established, so that's why he had a one million dollar leg to stand on.
You took the words out of my mouth. The guy obviously wasn't cybersquatting as he'd had the domain for over 10 years and was running a legitimate business with it. He just happened to get lucky. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
You took the words out of my mouth. The guy obviously wasn't cybersquatting as he'd had the domain for over 10 years and was running a legitimate business with it. He just happened to get lucky. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
Maybe he should sue Apple and Cisco for infringing on HIS business!
Comments
Apple should have acquired that domain name before deciding to use the name iPhone. Before the Apple phone rumors, an anonymous buyer would have been able to buy that domain for one tenth of whatever Apple paid now. Apple has just been wasting its money here.
The year is 2005. You get a letter from a legal firm asking if you would like to sell your domain name - iphone.com - to their client. Hmmmm - you think to yourself. I wonder who their anonymous client could be?
Let's see - we have the iPod, iMac, iTunes and they are all famous trademarks owned by Apple. I wonder if they could be the buyer after my domain name?
Naaaah - couldn't be, everyone knows Apple don't do phones. Sure, whoever they are can have it for 10k.
In your and Apple's dreams!
And to compare the sex.com sale with a domain sale in 2007 is strange. If sex.com went on the market today it would go for more than iPhone.com. I think that guy lost out on a higher bid no matter what you may have read.
All I know for sure is it says way down there: "Powered by vBulletin". What that means as far as machines, I have no clue. Just guessing.
Somewhere, the threads and posts have been getting scrambled timewise (sometimes creating very interesting continuity problems!
The time problems have been happening since the WWDC keynote, because of the server load.
Frankly, "just guessing" doesn't cut it. Don't blame something because of fanboyism.
It is NOT windows:
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_rep...pleinsider.com
I'm a member of another forum that used vBulliten at one time, they had to switch away because it had maintenance and stability issues. I don't think it was designed for this load.
http://www.mp4-converter.net/iphone-...dvd-to-iphone/
The PDA phones have been about along while now all with touchscreen tech. and each new one has improved sencitivity. I got no doubts that the iphone will let us down. Ive hear that there will be 5 colours aswell. Exciting stuff
(URL removed)
No thanks on the link spam. Please go away.
... were sparring for the iPhone moniker?
Well, a quick "whois iphone.net" at the terminal gives an interesting tidbit:
Cisco owns the iphone.net domain. Creation date 28-Jan-1998, record last updated 20 minutes ago.
Hmm, wish I'd whois'ed it about an hour sooner. Anyone know who had this domain before, assuming it was an ownership change that just occurred?
The database gets updated all the time, it is not the domain modification date.
You should read the last updated information as "as of this date"
I don't know if the rules changed, but I can't believe such a sum was paid. Those using the trademarks of others as a domain name usually didn't have much of a leg to stand on. For example, even if your given name was Barbie, I think Mattel sued her or her parents out of barbie.com.
I know I may just be a cat, but I think that only applies if the domain name owner has not built up an indepedent business without knowledge of the trademark. This guy developed iphone.com without willfull infringement, and before the iPhone trademark by either Cisco or Apple had been established, so that's why he had a one million dollar leg to stand on.
I know I may just be a cat, but I think that only applies if the domain name owner has not built up an indepedent business without knowledge of the trademark. This guy developed iphone.com without willfull infringement, and before the iPhone trademark by either Cisco or Apple had been established, so that's why he had a one million dollar leg to stand on.
You took the words out of my mouth. The guy obviously wasn't cybersquatting as he'd had the domain for over 10 years and was running a legitimate business with it. He just happened to get lucky. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
You took the words out of my mouth. The guy obviously wasn't cybersquatting as he'd had the domain for over 10 years and was running a legitimate business with it. He just happened to get lucky. Nothing wrong with that IMO.
Maybe he should sue Apple and Cisco for infringing on HIS business!