Domain Owl

The news reported in the Wall Street Journal regarding the Google company corporation global behemoth of interlinking departments and divisions was too little too late. Long has Big Google dominated the internet space, where SEO practices are concerned especially. For Google to defend its practices as merely one of several choices is disingenuous.

Google has dominated not only the online search engine promotion and marketing areas of business, but has also generally been responsible for the integration many of Microsoft type business applications in conjunction with their Google access.

Just try getting on Youtube without having to reset your Google password. Google has purposely penetrated the Youtube search engine of video content to enrich its search engine database holdings, at the expense of privacy for Google member users of Youtube.

There is no option to Youtube with a security parameter except to make a duplicate account upon which to host your audio/video channel or video content. Google has created massive departments of endeavor with each its own director of teams of workers to guide the mastery of the site visitation of a GoogleTube participant.

Big Google is now the Big Brother of Youtube. The appeal of Youtube is less than if it was associated with the multiple marketing levels that Google brings to bear. Why does a company that masters your gmail need to track your Youtube activity? And make no mistake, they are tracking it. Google has launched and promoted more freeware online than any other company, in the size and shape of business and desktop application intended to mimic (and eradicate) the need for Microsoft office Suite product dependence

Google might have had a good case against the antitrust fed warriors, but they have launched heaven and Earth to make themselves Number One, and must answer for those practices. I’m sure Yahoo and Bing and many other fledgeling search engines that have disappeared are watching the antitrust actions against Big Google with interest. But Google has maintained such an outside public profile, especially due to recent squareoffs against China’s online supercompanies, it is hard to accept they might argue their global presence is due to a humble, nonproprietary, unfair market advantage.

The catch-22 of modern business, as Bill Gates will be happy to tell anyone, is that success brings the sniffer dogs of the counter–revolution. federal mandatory concordance to free market enterprises business practices is the ugly undertow following every new wave of fresh success.A more conservative strategy of less rapid growth might have left the antitrust probe depths unplumbed. And with the bulk of the federal brain trust sifting through Google deals, internal correspondence, there may be food for legislative thought.

Except Microsoft Corporation has a proprietary interest in such online desktop business applications as Google Apps provides. Ironically these applications stem from basic computer interface utilities many Microsoft critics over the years have claimed Bill Gates and his merry men stole from other beginner software manufacturers in the early days of the desktop computer. It may be fruit of the poisoned tree that Google adopted this “free-market” clone of the Microsoft Office Suite as its own open access application, in a campaign of online offerings that brought federal antitrust scrutiny.

Want to access a Google apps program? Guess what- you just opened up all your data ad personal computing device security to Google. While Microsoft weathered many legal and antitrust storms by arguing the customization and free application of many of its wares to the online and program computing market, Google seems to be arguing that because a search engine is something that any entity online can operate, a search engines are equally free market enterprise.

Bug it is not news to anybody that all search engine are not alike. Bing does not have anywhere near the following and affiliate advertisement program volume of participants that Google Adsense does. If anything, many domainers and Internet entrepreneurs working in the domain space become uniquely affiliated with Google and Adsense for the length and breadth of their careers, and call it a success. This would not be possible is Google did not have such a stranglehold on the search engine apparatus online.

It looks like being Number One in the search engine stakes may have a price after all. The possibility of a new face in the SEO pace could come from GoDaddy if KKR and friends hatch their chickens at Godaddy’s acquisition table correctly. And why hasn’t FaceBook entered the Search Engine stakes? they’ve got the resources and the users already online 24/7.

Antitrust litigation ain’t cheap. Big Google will likely pass along these costs to shareholders and advertiser customers, which is bad news for the bulk of domainers utilizing Google-dominant SEO marketing strategies. This is good news for competitive search engines without the heavy burden of Google’s overhead or legal fees. Maybe some other search engine will give Big Google a run for its money.

Continue Reading

Many domainers can be somewhat unfamiliar with the way copyright is legally defined and protected. Domain lawsuits and disputes regarding domain named and websites content violation of copyright become more numerous every day. WIPO and other UDRP settlement companies can determine in arbitration which of two parties will go forward as owner of the domain name and have the right to operate Internet enterprises using that domain. With successful internet websites earning millions of dollars, the incentive for improper means of stealing trade secrets is very strong.
Website owners should take reasonable measure to establish copyright. Nondisclosure agreements should be reached and signed between the copyright owner, such as the domain owner, and the contractors, such as web designers, image or art creators, and content providers. The publishing notification of the website, usually found at the bottom of a website in small or nearly unnoticeable text, serves to underscore this emphasis on Internet use and materials copyright.
EU directives and domestic coterminous agreements originally covered media like films where fifty or even seventy years of copyright protection was automatically afforded. Trade secrets with IP protections can allow online software or “app” developers to guard trade secrets. It is important for domainers to follow the same procedures to safeguard development investment in their own domain names. Defining the trade secrets is the owner’s responsibility.
And the development phase of any website or software is the most closely guarded period, because without attachment to a name server or proprietary file location, the copyright needs to be proven in conjunction with other records and recorded storage media to belong to the owner. Once the website is launched and published online, the trade secrets phase has passed. The relationship between parties until that time, during that time, and beyond should be stipulated legally if angel investment or first round funding is in play.
For companies where a domain startup is involved, onsite physical security is suggested. Storage of network devices and system passwords should be implemented. Photocopying printed material and facsimile transmission should be logged. Shredding work development documents can be a good way to make sure nobody hijacks expensive progress toward a website launch for their own online store or portal. Employees access to trade secrets should also be restricted. Future patent income could be at stake.
Non-compete agreements can guard companies against their ideas and software getting stolen, but the problem become more serious when an independent contractor works for a domain name entity or website. The copyright laws do not protect against independent development of a secret, policy, software program, or original trade secret. Implied agreements do not stand up in court. Before a domainer extends trade secrets to a friend, colleague, industry acquaintance, or subcontractor, they better make sure they can operate prudently with respect to their copyright protection.
The computer network and the domainer’s devices are prime trade secrets storage areas. Online media can serve as a springboard to a hacked file server or desktop hard drive, where documents and programs are filed. Standalone computers and portable laptops should be checked daily for spyware and keylogger programs. if a hacker knows what you are doing and only needs several hundred lines of code to customize and publish online to copyright it before you, the deed could be done before the ‘owners” of the technology turn around.

Continue Reading

I am considering the news of the verdict in the reverse hijacking lawsuit between X6D Limited (XPAND 3-D sunglasses) and Telepathy, the original xpand.com domain owner, and I have two main streams of consciousness about this legal outcome. I must say the process is very confusing no matter how many times I read it.

1. I like that the original domain name owners do not have to release their domain because some clown came along years later, liked the name, and decided to found a company on it without securing the name.Were the business people involved inexperienced, arrogant, or simply not thinking ahead?

In this case allegedly the sunglasses company went ahead and made their brand the equal of an existing domain name, then either refused to acknowledge lack of due diligence or decided to force the court’s hand. That is not only the lazy man’s way to doing business, but makes one wonder how critical the business drivers are to let it happen.

Of course, this is why domain name owners track lookups and clicks. they want to know if someone is repeatedly checking out if there is a site or not, who owns it, and how much they might offer. This is the fear of many large portfolio domainers, that they will not be able to predict if some company is waiting for their dream name to expire unwanted. They’ll give it up and see another organization reap traffic and clicks on their effort.

2. I don’t like that if you find the perfect name, you are being held up for greenmail by the wild-eyed money grubbing domainer who has aid the renewal fees since the name’s acquisition or inception. Many domainers assume anyone serious about starting a company will secure the domain name before founding the brand, printing the business cards, funding the business model and painting the shingle.

But the reverse hijacking case had me worried. What if any company could simply hijack the name and start a company, then run to a judge (like in this case) and say golly this domainer has ESP and stole our name in advance! Securing the domain name of a company before releasing, titling, labeling or promoting any product of a same name is simply common sense. Companies who find the name already in play either buy it or move on.

The panel decided rightly, since they know that the plaintiff corporation could easily have chosen one of a billion brands to associate with their goods and services. If they had started the company in 1979, maybe they had not thought of acquiring the domain because the internet did not exist yet. but in that case the precursor of copyright would have belonged to the plaintiff, and no domainer would have bought (or renewed) a domain name protected by the copyright of another company.

All in all, it looks like the best case business practice is to consult with a new media or domain name attorney when forming a business to get an informed opinion. The record of this type of inquiry may come in handy later in court.

Continue Reading

Just when the heat was turned on high tax wise for many Los Angeles dot com and Internet based businesses, Los Angeles mayor Anthony Villaraigosa signed away the premium business tax rates slicing and dicing the clicks bizzes in Southern California. The ordinance keeps dotcoms like Shopzilla in business here. Without such regulation as this, all business will have trended to exit the California economy substantially.

The business environment in Los Angeles has gone from soft to Swiss Cheese, and many Santa Monica internet companies have gone belly up or are still struggling. In this softest-in-memory retail and business climate, Los Angeles last year taxed Internet businesses at a premium rate, driving many to threaten to relocate.

Looks like L.A. could be the new regrowth market.

Continue Reading