Update on Sex.com's Legal Battle
 

From what I can see they are not backing off (and they should not) and I think it's just a matter of time before VeriSign settles.


http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/1594541

February 24, 2003
Sex.com: Internet Will Not be Crippled
By Clint Boulton
Sex.com Monday scoffed at VeriSign's (Quote, Company Info) claims that the Internet is so unstable that the appellate court victory by Sex.com in its lawsuit against the registrar "would cripple the Internet and jeopardize the national economic benefit for e-commerce."

In the latest barb of the protracted legal battle between the adult content search engine and the Web's largest registrar, Sex.com Founder and CEO Gary Kremen said the attempt by VeriSign to cry foul over the ruling issued in January by an appellate court shows that VeriSign has "dug a hole so deep and they can't dig themselves out of it."

In January 2002, the Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco went to the state Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether a domain name is property that can be converted as well as guidance to assess damages that might amount to $100 million. One week later, VeriSign, known as Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) when the multi-tiered case began, pleaded to the Supreme Court in a brief that a ruling in Sex.com's favor would effectively cripple the way the Web works.

Sex.com said the VeriSign plea, part of a last-ditch effort to secure a victory in its favor, is predicated on assumptions that a court decision acknowledging the property rights of domain names registrants will devastate business mediums, having "enormous ramifications for a large sector of similar service providers, including cable television service and telephone service providers."

Kremen's attorney, Jim Wagstaffe, said the brief was the latest attempt by NSI to evade responsibility for the issue.

"NSI is telling its customers that their domain names aren't really theirs to keep," Wagstaffe said. "NSI wants to reap 21st century profits, but not to be subject to 21st century law," Wagstaffe said.

Sex.com, now wholly owned and operated by Grant Media, tabbed other supporters to quash the VeriSign's crippled Internet claim, perhaps none more convincing than its own domain name expert witness in the Sex.com litigation, Ellen Rony.

"NSI insists that requiring of it a duty to care for the domain name registrations of customers would threaten the survival of all registrars, raise fees to unacceptable levels and somehow disable the Internet worldwide," said Rony, who has written books on domain-related issues. "Such hyperbole miscasts the issue at bar. Kremen asks to hold NSI accountable for its misdeeds in facilitating the re-registration of Sex.com to an unauthorized third party and violating its own published policies. Kremen merely seeks the remedial rights that California affords owners of property."

VeriSign does not comment on ongoing litigation.

The case as it stands now hinges on whether NSI will be held accountable for unilaterally taking the Sex.com domain name from Kremen. In 1995, NSI handed over the domain to Stephen Cohen after he sent a forged letter to NSI headquarters. NSI failed to verify the authenticity of the letter and signed over the domain rights to Cohen, who proceeded to make the domain into a major pornographic business. After Kremen won a $65 million judgment against Cohen, Cohen fled the country and has remained a fugitive.

Kremen claimed NSI did not properly protect his property. NSI claims that domain names aren't property and they cannot be held responsible for giving its customers' registered names away.

Well it's all interesting. I'm against hijackers too, but it's been pretty clear from the beginning that domain registrations are temporary and therefore you don't really "own" the domain.

Sounds like sex.com is making a good point, but if the documents were really forged, how is that NSI's fault? This text doesn't explain how NSI is at fault... Maybe I'm missing something -- is NSI suspected of being bribed or something? Now that would be some cool shit...

temporary!?
what world are you living in?

you lease a car for say 1 year, you are infact a temporay owner of the car.

you car gets stolden, just because its temporary you have no right to it, is that what you are saying?

That comment was very, very lame.

or a better exampl thefly,

you take out storage space, you are the temporay renter of the space,

all your belongings are in the rented space,

the owner or the storage facility wrongfully gives out your key,

o but wait its temporary sureee

yep wat a retard,
he tries to sound all smart but is just a dumass

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh now that is some funny shit. Good thing these things are presented in a written brief, because I doubt they could state that verbally with a straight face.

It's NSI's fault because those idiots did the transfer without asking the owner to confirm the transfer. That's irresponsible and they are getting sued for that.

The fact is VeriSign will be a pain to transfer your own domain but I guess if you steal one they help ya.

Every time I read updates on this case I am amazed, truly.

All any of us domain owners want is the assurance that for the duration of the purchase/lease agreement we actually OWN the domain. If NSI can't guarantee that, then there must be other companies to buy/rent/lease domain names from, right?

Sex.com must win.

Leave the Fly alone guys, it's not his fault he's a fool.

:1orglaugh

Good one. Don't we all wish.

I support any action that hurts Verisign.

http://downloads.sex.com/corporate/l...graycary03.pdf

A lot of legalese but worth reading!

:thumbsup I second that.