Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

354 comments

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030134)

FP

How to get out of it... (2, Funny)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030136)

Post a picture of some hillbilly with a guitar, with the caption saying "I tunes my guitar!"

One thing I wanted to try once to piss off Microsoft was to get a picture of some swarthy Latino guy with his shirt off, and post a caption saying, "This is Amil. Isn't he hot?"

(think about it...)

Re:How to get out of it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030154)

I don't get it

--jISM

Re:How to get out of it... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030168)

Itsa 'hot amil' you idiotsa!

and what is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030190)

What is "hot amil"?

I worked out that it was "hot amil" but it has no meaning for me.

Re:and what is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030205)

mistyped hotmail ;-p

dumbest joke ever (0, Offtopic)

BoneMarrow (577933) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030240)

think about it

Re:dumbest joke ever (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030440)

Not even close to dumbest joke ever.

  • Recursive acronyms
  • 'Yet another' names
  • Why programmers can't tell the difference between Halloween and Christmas
  • What does this cable do? [No carrier]
  • "Article text" quote with server error message
hotamil doesn't even come into the running for worst ever.

He should try to get their trademark signed over!! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030166)

It's clear that he's been using Itunes for his online binary download product before Apple ripped him off and registered a copycat trademark. This means that the registration was made without due dilligence etc. etc. etc. Just because it isn't registered, doesn't mean a trademark isn't valid.

He should try to get the itunes trademark signed over.

Re:He should try to get their trademark signed ove (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030257)

He, just like any descentend of israel is trying to rip people off

Re:He should try to get their trademark signed ove (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030285)

On his own website, [quickquid.com] he acknowledges that Apple had applied for the trademark before he registered the domain:
Apple Computer Inc applied for a trademark for the name "ITUNES" on the 27th October 2000.
If anything, HIS registration was made without due diligence.
  • Proud To Be An Anonymous Coward.

Re:How to get out of it... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030191)

Why don't you just post bullshit on /. instead?

Re:How to get out of it... (-1, Offtopic)

BoneMarrow (577933) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030218)

are you gay?

Go Steve (-1, Flamebait)

ericdano (113424) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030138)

Well, come on, this guy knew Apple was going to register it. Has this guy done anything with it? No. He should sell the domain for a small fee, like $100K and be done with it.

Re:Go Steve (4, Informative)

Freexe (717562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030186)

nominet doesn't allow you to cybersquat and then sell your domain for money.

Re:Go Steve (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030188)

RFTA or visit the site. Seems like it's in use to me...

Re:Go Steve (1)

InternationalCow (681980) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030193)

I think that Steve is not intending to pay anything. If the guy is indeed convicted of cybersquatting, he won't get a small fee. He will get nothing at all. If I were him, I would have tried to settle this a long time ago. Although in that case, Steve would have probably sued my ass anyway :)

Re:Go Steve (1)

benito27uk (646600) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030276)

As you obviously haven't RTFA you won't realise that the guy isn't cybersquatting, he registered the site a month BEFORE Apple registered the Trademark, and the limited trademark that was registered did not cover music products.

Why should he settle, two days after he registered the site he made use of it by forwarding it to a music search engine service at his CyberBritain site.

Re:Go Steve (1)

DigitumDei (578031) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030403)

You forget that if you are anti mac, or should I say, anti ipod/itunes, then you are EVIL!!!!

This whole thread is going to be filled with posts saying "this guy is cyber squatting and should be punished" and the fact that the registration for this site preceded macs trademarking of itunes will more than likely be ignored. Hmm I think we need a Fanboy moderation option...

That said, I bet he has seen a HUGE increase in traffic since the itunes started. And this case may cause even more traffic, so I'm guessing the owner is happy for now.

Re:Go Steve (1)

ericdano (113424) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030419)

ooo, so, like maybe he read MacRumors or something before? Oh no, I suppose he didn't huh?

He's going to lose the name, you'll see....

Re:Go Steve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030423)

And if he had registered a couple of years earlier I'm sure noone would see any problem. The fact is he registered it *just* before trademarking, when he could easily have found out about it. On top of that it's been a while since I've seen a website that looks more like it's cybersquatting than itunes.co.uk does.

Re:Go Steve (1)

InternationalCow (681980) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030464)

And if you RTFP you would have noticed that I said "IF he is convicted...". I never said he was.

Go Steve??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030282)

Benjamin Cohen registered the site FOUR YEARS before Apple even launched their UK itunes web site and he's been using it for legitimate business since 2000. How he can be accused of cybersquatting is ridiculous.
Apple should do the decent thing and if they are so desperate for the domain they should offer him a reasonable sum rather than employing the same bullying tactics Microsoft, East, et al have employed in the past.

Re:Go Steve (2, Informative)

bsartist (550317) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030491)

Well, come on, this guy knew Apple was going to register it.

Not unless he had inside information, or a crystal ball. iTunes 1.0 wasn't released until Jan 2001 - more than a year after he registered his domain.

Seems like he had no luck with the ladies... (0, Offtopic)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030144)

Thats why he was Porn Baron!!

So which is worse? (5, Insightful)

Phidoux (705500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030145)

Cybersquatting or intimidation?

Re:So which is worse? (2, Informative)

Palal (836081) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030164)

Apple had a similar problem with the 'iMac' trademark. Seems they need to get their act together and start registerring their trademarks before they release the product. But this doesn't even compare to Microsoft's hicup of forgetting to register hotmail.co.uk !!!

Re:So which is worse? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030196)

It isn't the first time Microsoft forgot to renew a domain [techdirt.com] .

Re:So which is worse? (4, Interesting)

miu (626917) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030197)

You have to remember that this was early 2000 also, everything was still e-this and i-that, it is very possible that this guy came up with the name independent of any knowledge of Apple's music service.

I'd think Apple would want to stay far far away from Trademark and name disputes wrt the music biz - doesn't Apple Records still have lawsuits going because Apple Computers violated their agreement to stay out of the music biz with that name?

Re:So which is worse? (1)

ColdGrits (204506) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030387)

" Seems they need to get their act together and start registerring their trademarks before they release the product"

Erm, they did.

They submitted their trademark application in October 2000. Before this guy started his site.

Hell, he even admits that himself if you read his site!

Re:So which is worse? (1)

bsartist (550317) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030486)

Seems they need to get their act together and start registerring their trademarks before they release the product.

They did. According to WikiPedia, iTunes 1.0 was released nearly a year after they registered the trademark.

Re:So which is worse? (1)

Domini (103836) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030312)

Cybersquatting.

Since it's a form of intimidation as well.

I rate it right up there with SPAM.

I'm sure Apple informally asked 'nicely' before embarking on this course of action.

Going to the site itunes.co.uk you will see no mention of the iTunes used in the domain in the page heading or title.

Re:So which is worse? (0)

R.Caley (126968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030400)

I rate it right up there with SPAM.

Given Apple didn't value the name enough to trademark it, or register it themselves, I don't see they have a (moral) leg to stand on.

Squatting on a pre-existing name (say an author's pen name or an organisation's trading name, or common alias) where the owner plausibly couldn't get in first (as was the case back when the commercialisation of the Web was new) is a Bad Thing.

However, taking a name of a new product which the owner has decided not to get and not to protect seems perfectly fine to me.

Given that Apple had a way to block this (trademark) and didn't, and given that they couldn't be arsed to pay $20, or whatever, to get the domain themselves (this isn't itunes.something.obscure after all, it's the obvious name in one of their main markets), they should have to live with the results of their business decisions.

They'd get more sympathy from me if they had a reason for needing a UK specific domain other than screwing their suckers, er, sorry, I mean customers.

Re:So which is worse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030460)

They registered iTunes.com long before this guy registered iTunes.co.uk

His site was not unrelated. It directly references Apple's iTunes.

iTunes.co.uk has to be UK specific as this would only be fair for local CD music distributors. I'm sure this was also required of them from pressure of the local companies (who are the real people ripping off the UK public).

Who was first does not really matter, it belongs to Apple. Having it as an alias for QuickQuid.com to catch people who want to go to Apple's iTunes is morally wrong.

The morally right thing to do is not to Domain-Squat and steal trade secrets. It's only a negligent and naiive thing to do when you don't protect yourself against scum like this.

Pleople like these are the reason why companies do so much to protect themselves that they actually hurt innocent bystanders.

Dunno, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030410)

but check out this great IT news site I found!!!
http://slashdot.co.uk/ [slashdot.co.uk]

Re:So which is worse? (1)

Beautyon (214567) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030450)

How much business could Apple be loosing through misdirections to this site? Lets find out [alexa.com] .

Small traffic...

Hmmmmmmm

squat... maybe (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030155)

why does http://itunes.co.uk/ [itunes.co.uk] take me to a place called Quickquid.com.

Re:squat... maybe (1)

nick korma (836538) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030445)

I was going to post a reply to this but then decided that it was pointless... however after the third full stop changed my mind. perhaps it takes you to quickquid because your machine is infected with ad-aware and your constant searching for online £pound shops (a uk hobby where you can buy all manner of trash for you guessed it £1 ) means that your IE browser is now almost useless... or it could just be a forwarder?

hmm... (2, Insightful)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030158)

He knew it was going to be registered, if I went out and registered 'longhorn.co.uk' or something , then i'd expect to get taken to court. I appreciate that's a bad example though, before any one starts jumping up and down :)

Re:hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030172)

How did he know? AFAIK itunes wasn't launched until 2002 and there were certainly no rumours about it in 2000 when the domain was registered.

Re:hmm... (0)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030182)

so it was a lucky guess then, yeah? bollocks. he knew, whether it was from an inside source or publicly available info.

Did you miss the dotcom era? (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030401)

There was "e" and "i" everything. Frankly I'd find it amazing if someone somewhere wasn't using iTunes before Apple finally got round to it.

Re:hmm... (0)

Phidoux (705500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030294)

;-) You'd get taken to court by a buncha cowboys!

Re:hmm... (-1, Troll)

Barbarian (9467) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030296)

They have Longhorn cattle in the UK?

Re:hmm... (2, Insightful)

Hinhule (811436) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030349)

pff.. you could make the longhorn.co.uk a page about unicorns, rhinos or big penises and claim you never heard of windows longhorn.

besides it's probably just a working name. I seriously doubt microsoft will name their product so conveniently for the comedians.

Re:hmm... (2, Funny)

rishistar (662278) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030422)

longhorn.....why that'd be a great name for a pr0n site!

Re:hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030435)

Once again, if the parent had bothered to look at the article or domain name registrations...

Cohen had his 'iTunes' domain registered before Apple released the trademark, and four years before they launched the service.

Please, for the love of doG, at least peek at the articles and facts reported on. :P

Me again, night before christmas!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030159)

Sorry~~~Posting AC so the moderators don't ruin my excellent karma~~~ Twas the night before finals and all through the school, no cracker was studying, nor drowning in the pool. I came into class with a small bottle of dex, in hope that the brains of my teachers would crumble like Chex. A bitch named Rose walked in as everything was going swell. I giggled gleefully and laughed as she fell! Later, in comms, a retarded evolutionist named clara talks. I picture her holes all filled with black cocks. Ahoy, Ahoy, don't be listless... Have happy holidays, and merry GNAA Christmas!!!

Not a squatter (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030160)

RTFA, he registered it before Apple even thought about creating iTunes and he did use it to redirect to his search engine.

Re:Not a squatter (1)

spike hay (534165) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030192)

Yeah. Apple is in the wrong on this one. They shouldn't go around suing people for ex post facto trademark infringement.

Re:Not a squatter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030250)

There were plenty of rumors about it before he registered it. He's a squatter.

Re:Not a squatter (1)

dan the person (93490) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030277)

First iTunes release was jan 9 2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_iTunes/ [wikipedia.org]

Would not be at all surprised that rumours including the name were around 2 months before public release when he registered the domain.

Think about all the software developers and interface designers that worked on it, then all the marketing people... i just spent 6 months in a leaky boat...

Re:Not a squatter (1)

benito27uk (646600) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030359)

The link you gave doesn't say that the first release was jan 9 2001.

In fact it says "Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name."

Re:Not a squatter (1)

chaoaretasty (701798) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030453)

Rumours aren't facts. Not only might the rumour of such a program have not been true, but names can change quite a few times from initial rumours to final releases. If you want to secure domains for a product that hasn't even been officially announced then buy them up. It's not like this guy waiting for iTunes to get really big before buying the domain.

Re:Not a squatter (4, Insightful)

Sulka (4250) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030302)

Yeah, right.

Please answer the following question: what made him think people would use the itunes domain address for searching his search engine in the first place? Has he advertised the domain name in public?

If the only use for the domain has been to catch anyone who thinks there's an iTunes.co.uk service and he hasn't advertised any service under that name, it's quite clear he's been relying on someone launching a service with the name.

I've seen a ton of sites being captured for the use of directing users to a "search engine". Most of these engines are either blatant marketing ploys or virus-spreading sites. If you've checked the Quick Quid site, you'll see it's mostly the former. If you sign up, you're allowing your address to be sold to third parties who may contact you with just about any means, including messages to your mobile!

Exactly how is this service described with the name "iTunes"?

Re:Not a squatter (3)

blackdragon7777 (720994) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030317)

Surely you don't believe that Apple would come up with a concept, go through the process of OKing it, and trademarking it in less than 1 month and 1 day.

Doesn't really matter, does it? (5, Insightful)

Trillan (597339) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030348)

I checked this out while it was still news, before Slashdot ran the story. Then, the site featured a giant picture of the iPod front and center with "GET AN IPOD FREE!" Yup, another stupid scam page.

No, this guy is not innocent. Best case is that this guy is a lying weasel of a spammer who latched on to the domain name out of thousands. Worst case is he heard a rumor. Either way, once iTunes was publicly announced he clearly violated trademark law in deliberately causing confusion amongst consumers about what the website represented.

This guy is abusing Apple's trademark to harvest email addresses. Whether or not he got there before Apple registered the site is irrelevant because it *is* registered and he does not have a legitimate use for the name.

Also, Apple had been working on iTunes for some time before the registration date. Do you think a new product magically appears in a month? (Even thought it was based on SoundJam, it still represented many changes.)

What has happened is that the guy has realized he will lose, so he went crying to the media and changed the site a little so it isn't so clear a violation. Morons like you ate it up. In a few days, after he think he's milked the free publicity as much as he can risk, he'll sell out to Apple.

I hope he doesn't -- Apple would end up with his testicles in a jar. But he will. And he'll probably use the opportunity to cry more tears to the media.

Re:Doesn't really matter, does it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030472)

Why is this +5 Insightful?

Just because one idiot can come up with something that doesn't get included in any of the major caches anywhere, and happens to disprove the article?

For fuck's sake, at least check out the damn links, and associated caches located quite a few different places around the farking 'net. :P

Re:Doesn't really matter, does it? (3, Insightful)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030474)

Also, Apple had been working on iTunes for some time before the registration date. Do you think a new product magically appears in a month? (Even thought it was based on SoundJam, it still represented many changes.)

Not that I have sympathy for the guy (I really don't know enough about the whole issue), but if Apple worked on iTunes for years, knew that they would call it iTunes and didn't register the trademark during the development phase, then they are dumber then a dim light bulb for a billion $ company.

Re:Not a squatter (1)

Carrot007 (37198) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030367)

: RTFA

this is slashdot, we don't go for that sort of behavior

Probably a squatter (1)

eliaalariel (793441) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030428)

According to Quickquid's article [quickquid.com] , Apple applied for a patent on the 27th October. If you were a desperate businessman with your ears close to the ground and you heard an Apple executive mention "ITunes", what would you do?
If in four years the best use Cohen has for this domain name is to forward it to his advertisement coupons (which is now where it leads), I would say that Apple have some ground to get annoyed. Furthermore, although it would be difficult to prove that Cohen knew about their project when he registered the domain, he admits in the register's interview this may not be neccessary.

All Apple need do is stress that technologically illiterate people visiting www.itunes.co.uk could conceivably be deluded into thinking that these discount links are what they are advertising. Now call me a cynic, but I think they have a point.

Dammit, why didn't I think of that... (1)

Satcho (837947) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030169)

Re:Dammit, why didn't I think of that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030219)

dude, you need to learn how ot use tinyURL.com

Re:Dammit, why didn't I think of that... (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030269)

*drool* hehe... as a chess programmer, utilizing parallel programming I'd love to have just a couple hours on a machine this beefy.
Does this count as a supercomputer? Perhaps not a Cray but still... wow.

Does anyone remember... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030180)

... Mikerowesoft.com? (Was that it? Or did it have hyphens?)

Re:Does anyone remember... (1)

Satcho (837947) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030202)

I think it had hyphens.

Re:Does anyone remember... (1)

Antony.S (813668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030216)

Hint: You could actually just visit the site instead of speculating!

http://www.mikerowesoft.com/ [mikerowesoft.com]

Anyone knows (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030195)

where I can dl more RAM to my Mac?? Pls help.

Read the article guys (3, Insightful)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030201)

This guy registered "itunes" before Apple did by one whole month and was using the site as well.

Re:Read the article guys (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030373)

I read the article. I also looked at the site yesterday, before he changed it -- it was an email harvesting site that offered a "free ipod" in exchange for a variety of personal information. There was no legitimate content on it, just that pathetic phishing attempt.

Please explain how this is a legitimate use of iTunes that does not infringe on Apple's trademarks.

Frankly, I'm surprised Apple's first call wasn't to police. Doesn't the UK have laws against online credit card fraud?

If he doesn't back down, Apple will end up with his undersized spammer testicles in a jar. But I'm sure he'll back down as soon as the initial round of publicity has passed.

Meanwhile, a lot of people who should know better are eating it up.

The first rule of spam is "Spammers lie."

Who had an iTunes domain first? (Doesn't matter) (4, Insightful)

Shag (3737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030204)

Hmmm... looks like the itunes.com domain in the US has been registered since 1998. I'm not sure, though, whether it's been Apple's possession all that time. If not, it might be interesting to look at exactly what date it came into Apple's possession. If the date is after November 7, 2000, then yeah, he'd obviously have had to be psychic.

That said, regardless of who did what first, Apple's almost certainly going to argue that someone else having an "iTunes" domain name in a commercial space in a country where they're offering their product and store, and that person doing something with said domain that pertains to music, is obviously cause for confusion.

(I dare say it's more cause for confusion than Apple being called Apple and selling music, whilst at the same time the Beatles' music company is called Apple.)

Re:Who had an iTunes domain first? (Doesn't matter (1)

CobwoyNeal (778670) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030253)

Or have insider information from apple employees that were developing it before the product was publicly anounced.

Re:Who had an iTunes domain first? (Doesn't matter (4, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030270)

Of course, if he registered before Apple for that purpose, then it's Apple that's causing confusion regarding his venture, not the other way around, and should be the ones to back down.

Re:Who had an iTunes domain first? (Doesn't matter (2, Informative)

phreakv6 (760152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030271)

If the date is after November 7, 2000, then yeah, he'd obviously have had to be psychic.

whois database shows that it was
Registered on: 07-Nov-2000
and not after Nov 7.. so guess he is not psychic :)

Re:Who had an iTunes domain first? (Doesn't matter (1)

bazily (838434) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030318)

The only problem being that Apple themselves caused the confusion. Based the their story, Apple registered itunes on a restricted basis not to include music. Obviously their legal team knew they were screwed, but put it off for later. Then Apple tried in 2003 to add the music bit, which is still in progress.

Apple will likely convince the trendy users that someone stole their domain and win in the court of public opinion even though they don't have any rights. Sure Bono, Sean Penn, or some other outspoken celebrity idiot will offer their 2 expert cents about domain registration soon.

Re:Who had an iTunes domain first? (Doesn't matter (2, Interesting)

dustinbarbour (721795) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030333)

I'll never understand all of this copyright nonsense. Seriously.. So the guy registered itunes.co.uk and uses it for music related commerce. Who cares? The site is OBVIOUSLY not realted to Apple and any shmuck who thinks he's doing business with Apple Computers while at the site is retarded. Apple needs to get over it. Buy the man off. Give him 50,000 British pounds and I would bet my balls that he'd give up the domain. I mean, that would be more than he could possibly be getting from sales.

Who had APPLE firts. Does that matter? (2, Interesting)

lucason (795664) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030341)

Apple shouldn't even be selling music as a result of their agreement with "APPLE music". (You know, the beatles' record label...)

Amayzing that they are now defending what they were then refuting.

It's kind of like MS ripping off windowed GUI and then pattenting their own. (Oops I just cited precedent...)

whois (0, Redundant)

phreakv6 (760152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030237)

Domain Name:
itunes.co.uk
Registrant:
CyberBritain Group Ltd
Registrant's Address:
Lower Ground Floor
155 Armhurst Road
London
London
E8 2AW
GB
Registrant's Agent:
TUCOWS INC [Tag = TUCOWS-CA]
URL: http://www.opensrs.org
Relevant Dates:
Registered on: 07-Nov-2000
Renewal Date: 07-Nov-2006
Last updated: 21-Oct-2004
--

thats the whois info for the domain.That was registered way back in 2000 !!

Re:whois (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030267)

yes, it was. as it says in the article. and the summary.

Re:whois (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030307)

Really. How does one not read three sentences; I'd almost think it'd take more effort to ignore that little information than to absorb it.

Hate to side with the big boys... (1, Troll)

wcitechnologies (836709) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030265)

I hate to side with the giant company and all, but I have to. To register a domain with the intent of selling it back to another already established company or idea is just wrong.


I lost my father's business website, because at the time I was just an ignorant cyber-pup (aka, n00b), and eventually had to just register a new version of his company name, because we didn't have the capital for a legal battle.


After two years, we finally got it back because the squatter gave up on selling it to us and let the name expire. So, if you can't have the legal system kick a squatter's ass, let Father Time do it!

RTFA (2, Insightful)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030331)

To register a domain with the intent of selling it back to another already established company or idea is just wrong.
Indeed. However, there's nothing wrong with registering a domain with the intent of using it, not knowing that a big company is going to release a product with the same name at some point in the future.

Dig deeper (4, Insightful)

tm2b (42473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030283)

At first glance, this would seem to be an abuse.

Here's the thing, though - the domain [itunes.co.uk] now points at a site [quickquid.com] that specifically talks about a program "for Apple's iTunes."

If the domain were used for something completely unrelated to Apple's program, I think Apple would be unreasonable for attacking the registration. However, the domain is instead being used to undermine Apple's specific trademark and as such is, I think, arguably fair game.

The Register article really errs in not even mentioning this aspect.

Re:Dig deeper (2, Informative)

dustinbarbour (721795) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030379)

Wait wait wait.. Where do you see him selling a program "for Apple's iTunes"? I find "Apple" on the page only once and that is within this sentence: "Join today and not only get £5 free, but also a chance to win an Apple iPod with £50 worth of iTunes for free." Certainly giving away free iPods isn't a crime. So where is his infraction? On top of that, if he domain truly weas registered back in 2000 as a previous poster noted, I'd say Apple was screwed and that, if Apple wanted the domain, they should make him an offer he can't refuse. He can't be making any sort of income from that website. I mean, come on.. I've seen better work done with Frontpage!

news? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030287)

guys the register had this story on monday:

TWO days ago!

Pot. Kettle. Black. (3, Insightful)

Gilesx (525831) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030291)

Hmm so Microsoft do this to poor old Mike Rowe, and it's yet another example of the nasty corporate behemouth, yet when Apple do the same thing to someone who registered the domain BEFORE it was a registered Apple trademark, and they're to be praised for their actions?

What's equally surprising is that it's not as if Apple haven't had their share of trademark issues with the record label of the same name owned by The Beatles.

So Microsoft and The Beatles bad, Apple good? How on earth did they achieve this demi-god status amongst everyone?

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (1)

Neophytus (642863) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030306)

It isn't good on apple's part. Not at all.

They were caught out: Their trademark was made public after the domain was registered, hence impossible to prove that it was registered with malicious intent. Tough luck, and I hope that this one fails.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030493)

I can see the argument that a few people are making that there were obviously rumors of itunes before the public release of iTunes.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (1, Troll)

davmoo (63521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030324)

You must be new here.

See, here's how it works on Slashdot. Microsoft is everything evil. Apple is everything good. The fact that they are both capitalistic megacorps is irrelevant. When Microsoft does it, its a monopolistic dirty trick and they should be crushed by the government. When Apple does it, its good marketing strategy and we should support them by buying their products. Bill Gates is Satan. Steve Jobs is God. Those who question this philosophy are minions of BillGatus of Borg, and must be crushed at all cost.

And I'm sure that, in fine Slashdot tradition, this reply will get modded down because I dare blaspheme the name of Apple and Jobs.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030358)

Thank god for you martyrs with no lives. You've shown us the err of our ways! We promise never to make a Borg joke again!

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030338)

I think your reasoning is incorrect. You overlook an important fact i think, namely that the common work area for Apple MUSIC and Apple COMPUTERS only appeared after both companies had been operating for 20+ years. This may change the trademark infringement quite a bit.

Furthermore it's funny that a word like "apple" could be trademarked in the first place. Either way, another difference you overlook is that come the year 2000, Apple MUSIC is a small player [no pun intended] on the market and Apple COMPUTERS clearly did not intend to hitch on that names's popularity for their music efforts.

On the other hand, registering a web site a mere 2 months in advance of the official iTunes launch and then currently linking to digital music sites is much more suspect.

Before pointing to bias from other people, please try to form a balanced opinion on the matter.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (1)

liangzai (837960) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030340)

Because Apple is the good guy, just trying to protect what is theirs. iTunes is a little jewel with a remarkably crisp and unique brand name.

Beatles, on the other hand, is the ugly guy who wanted to squeeze some extra money from Apple, although there never was any conflict of brands with this very generic name.

Microsoft, finally, wants to dominate the universe and own everything, and is therefore automatically the bad guy. If they occasionally are right, people still oppose them, on principle grounds.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (4, Insightful)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030399)

This guy registered itunes.co.uk. iTunes is an Apple product.

Mike Rowe registered a site with his own name. I wouldn't feel the same way if Apple was trying to get the domain eyetunes.co.uk.

Re:Pot. Kettle. Black. (1)

carou (88501) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030418)

This guy registered itunes.co.uk. iTunes is an Apple product.

Not at the time he registered it, it wasn't!

why are the so many people who are incapable (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030292)

why are the so many people who are incapable of erading anything other than the subject of the article?

Filing / First Use Date is What Really Counts (4, Informative)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11030378)

Filing / First Use Date is What Really Counts ...

The UK Patent Office - Trade marks - Database
http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/dbase/index. htm

Filed Oct-24-2000 ... that's before Nov-07-2000 - and according to the UK Patent Office website, the database updates weekly; perhaps it didn't back then, but my guess is he knew about Apple's intended use and/or pending TM application(s).

http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/number?detailsreq ue sted=C&trademark=2249936

Being that he's a millionaire, Apple's TM claims appear weak (my layman's opinion based upon my own experiences in domain name speculation), and he is determined to fight, Apple may eventually choose to settle for some decent size amount ... 6-figure sum USD/GBP wouldn't surprise me.

Ron Bennett

genuine business cases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030397)

if he had any genuiene intent at it would have been fair. corporations are no angels, but here apple seems to have a fair case here. i'd like similar cases to be handled well by the internic or anyone concerned. cybersquatting is unfair business, and more so for the people. itunes.co.uk would have been the logical choice for uk citizens. ipod was a hit, so would the itunes site be. i'd like to see the guy dragged bare arse after being tied to colin mcrae's car ;)

More Corporate Bully-Boy Tactics (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11030442)

Basically, prefixing "i" to the name of your site could result in letters/threats/court action from Apple's lawyers in much the same way as prefixing "easy" does from Easy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...