Originally posted by jmcc


Well they would, to an extent, be the proceeds of criminal activity (again it might be blurring the line between civil and criminal).

This would be a bit more than blurring the line, it is clearly a civil case.

"Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark"

Originally posted by snoopy
This would be a bit more than blurring the line, it is clearly a civil case.

"Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark"

I know. But what happens when it is done on an organised and repeated basis? It may well have a lot of possibilities for the MSFT lawyer to move it towards the criminal end of the spectrum. (Just a bit of late night wargaming of worst case scenarios. )

Regards...jmcc

Here's a hypothetical on that "ill gotten gains" issue.

Suppose an employee takes $20,000 from a company wrongfully, and goes to Atlantic City and wins big at the blackjack table, winning $500,000. Does the employee owe the employer, who later sues (or in a criminal case) $20K, or $500K??

(oh nevermind, it's in appendix A - I think I fell asleep before I made it that far, sheesh)

Originally posted by jmcc
I know. But what happens when it is done on an organised and repeated basis? It may well have a lot of possibilities for the MSFT lawyer to move it towards the criminal end of the spectrum. (Just a bit of late night wargaming of worst case scenarios. )

Regards...jmcc

What criminal law has been broken though?

Originally posted by snoopy
What criminal law has been broken though?

If it could be made to stand up, RICO. The alleged cybersquatter operation could be demonstrated to have been set up to exploit the intellectual property of others on a commercial scale then all bets are off. If the MSFT lawyers can convince the court that cybersquatting is counterfeiting for the purposes of RICO, things will get very murky for the whole domain industry.

Regards...jmcc

Originally posted by jmcc
If the MSFT lawyers can convince the court that cybersquatting is counterfeiting for the purposes of RICO

I don't see how cybersquatting could be argued to be counterfeiting.

Why does MSFT claim Digi Real Estate Foundation to be a Canadian entity? As far as I know, they're incorporated in Panama.

Originally posted by GeorgeK
Here's a hypothetical on that "ill gotten gains" issue.

Suppose an employee takes $20,000 from a company wrongfully, and goes to Atlantic City and wins big at the blackjack table, winning $500,000. Does the employee owe the employer, who later sues (or in a criminal case) $20K, or $500K??

I read a similar case where winnings from gambling with stolen funds is considered null. The gaming company was awarded a judgement in the amount of the jackpot, which was already paid. The company the money was stolen from a judgement in the amount of the theft.

Originally posted by octobus
Why does MSFT claim Digi Real Estate Foundation to be a Canadian entity? As far as I know, they're incorporated in Panama.

i think you'll find microsoft/lawyers claim a whole lot of things...
non of them necessarily true,.

in serving someone, or going to court, the claimaint has rights of accusation, they do not necessarily have to be true. example so,and soowns 50,000 domains, when he might only own 33,.500

the defendant on the other hand,usually has to be able to substantiate anythjing they say in response. (might not apply in usa but does in europe)

Here's a hypothetical on that "ill gotten gains" issue.

Suppose an employee takes $20,000 from a company wrongfully, and goes to Atlantic City and wins big at the blackjack table, winning $500,000. Does the employee owe the employer, who later sues (or in a criminal case) $20K, or $500K??

$20K.

Look folks, there have been some weird ideas in this thread.

If I take ten dollars out of your pocket, deposit it in my bank account (which has $100 in it), and then buy a widget something for ten dollars by writing a check drawn on that bank account, you don't get the widget.

Now, if I can't pay you the ten dollars and whatever other damages there are, then, yes, you can start proceedings to seize my property, such as the widget, to satisfy the judgment, but in these circumstances it is not "your" widget simply because I stole ten dollars from you.

Here's another, a lottery winner that used stolen funds:

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=64185

Originally posted by jberryhill
$20K.

Look folks, there have been some weird ideas in this thread.

If I take ten dollars out of your pocket, deposit it in my bank account (which has $100 in it), and then buy a widget something for ten dollars by writing a check drawn on that bank account, you don't get the widget.

Now, if I can't pay you the ten dollars and whatever other damages there are, then, yes, you can start proceedings to seize my property, such as the widget, to satisfy the judgment, but in these circumstances it is not "your" widget simply because I stole ten dollars from you.

Your counter-example is a bit different from mine, but it highlights some assumptions in my example.

In my hypothetical, it's implicit that the thief had no alternative source of capital, i.e. they had no other funds, no credit card, and thus would otherwise not been able to get the $20K legitimately to have turned it into $500K. Thus, there's a direct linkage between the $20K and the $500K.

In the counter-example of $10, putting it into a bank account that already had $100 means that the thief was not capital constrained, and thus the linkage between the crime (stealing $10) and the "ill gotten gains" (the widget) is much weaker. The widget could have been purchased even if my $10 had not been taken.

Originally posted by octobus
Why does MSFT claim Digi Real Estate Foundation to be a Canadian entity? As far as I know, they're incorporated in Panama.

Sounds like they have done some digging. I'm not really sure how well these offshore companies would work when the owners/controllers are located in easily suable parts of the world. The vampires at Microsoft have plenty of money to throw at this.

Originally posted by jberryhill
$20K.

Look folks, there have been some weird ideas in this thread.

Many of them were probably mine. But what are the chances of RICO being used in the case of a cybersquatter who repeatedly, and on a large scale, cybersquats trademarks and other intellectual property?

Would it require amendments to the legislation to extend the counterfeiting coverage to domain names or could it be argued that cybersquatters are, in effect, counterfeiting? (And by extension, would the ill-gotten gains result in a charage of money laundering of the profits from the original cybersquatting should it be dealt with as counterfeiting?)

Regards...jmcc