<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Eric Goldman &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Eric Goldman on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2012, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2011-07-05T17:48:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> "Can IP Be Protected in the Internet Age?" Panel Recap from Russian Economic Development Conference (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/can_ip_be_protected_in_internet_age</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/can_ip_be_protected_in_internet_age</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In June, I attended the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum ("SPIEF"), organized by the Russian government's Ministry of Economic Development. This was a major event drawing thousands of participants to St. Petersburg... I participated on a panel entitled "Can IP Be Protected in the Internet Age?" Right away, I trust many of you find the titling odd... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/can_ip_be_protected_in_internet_age">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2011-07-05T17:48:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Wildcarding Subdomains Is OK; Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Isn't - Goforit v. Digimedia (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101202_wildcarding_subdomains_ok_reverse_domain_hijacking_not_ok</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101202_wildcarding_subdomains_ok_reverse_domain_hijacking_not_ok</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is a super-interesting dispute involving two not-so-interesting litigants. The plaintiff Goforit runs a type of meta-search engine at goforit.com. After spending 5 minutes at the site, I couldn't identify a single reason why anyone would want to use it. Also inexplicably, Goforit appears to be quite pleased with its trademark rights in "Goforit," a term that seems more like an exhortation than a trademark. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101202_wildcarding_subdomains_ok_reverse_domain_hijacking_not_ok">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-12-02T17:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Funky Ninth Circuit Opinion on Domain Names and Nominative Use - Toyota v. Tabari (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100716_ninth_circuit_opinion_on_domain_names_nominative_use_toyota_tabari</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100716_ninth_circuit_opinion_on_domain_names_nominative_use_toyota_tabari</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Every time I see a federal appellate opinion on domain names, I'm vaguely reminded of the Country Joe song <em>I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag</em>, whose course goes "And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?" Fortunately, domain name disputes do not lead to the senseless loss of life we experienced from the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, lengthy domain name litigation usually has little more strategic value. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100716_ninth_circuit_opinion_on_domain_names_nominative_use_toyota_tabari">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-07-16T09:31:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Google and China: Some General Thoughts (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_and_china_some_general_thoughts</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_and_china_some_general_thoughts</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have deferred blogging on the Google/China imbroglio for a few reasons. First, heavyweights such as Jonathan Zittrain have tracked International online censorship and online security issues more closely than I have. Second, after Google's provocative blog post, I wanted to see the facts develop rather than rely solely on Google's assertions. The spin doctors are now moving in, so the useful development of the factual record will be slowing down. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_and_china_some_general_thoughts">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-01-23T12:49:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> 10 Noteworthy Cyberlaw Developments of 2009 (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/10_noteworthy_cyberlaw_developments_of_2009</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/10_noteworthy_cyberlaw_developments_of_2009</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While I like John Ottaviani's perspectives on 2009's top Cyberlaw developments a lot, I independently developed my own top 10 list that has a different emphasis. You might enjoy the contrasts. My list... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/10_noteworthy_cyberlaw_developments_of_2009">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2010-01-12T17:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Google Confirms That Keyword Metatags Don't Matter (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090922_google_confirms_that_keyword_metatags_dont_matter</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090922_google_confirms_that_keyword_metatags_dont_matter</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Few Internet technologies have horked cyberlaw as much as keyword metatags. Back in the 1990s, some search engines indexed keyword metatags, which encouraged some websites to stuff their keyword metatags as a way of gaming the rankings. Judges took a dim view of this practice, largely because the surreptitious nature of keyword metatags seemed inherently sinister, regardless of their efficacy. In the interim, search engines wizened up. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090922_google_confirms_that_keyword_metatags_dont_matter">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-09-22T09:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> An End to Spam Litigation Factories? (Gordon v. Virtumundo) (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090808_an_end_to_spam_litigation_factories</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090808_an_end_to_spam_litigation_factories</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When CAN-SPAM was passed in 2003, it was fairly clear that Congress wasn't trying to enable broad private enforcement. Everyone knew that rabid anti-spammers would seize any new statutory right for a litigation frenzy... Although I personally think Congress would better served all of us by omitting all private enforcement rights in CAN-SPAM, unquestionably the private rights in CAN-SPAM are drafted narrowly to prevent their abuses. That hasn't stopped some zealous anti-spammers from testing the limits of CAN-SPAM's private enforcement remedies anyway. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090808_an_end_to_spam_litigation_factories">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-08-08T14:26:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Contributory Cybersquatting and the Impending Demise of Domain Name Proxy Services? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090529_cybersquatting_impending_demise_domain_proxy</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090529_cybersquatting_impending_demise_domain_proxy</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This case involves an alleged domain name theft. Solid Host is a web host and initial owner of the domain name solidhost.com, which it registered through eNom in 2004. Solid Host claims that in 2008, a security breach at eNom allowed an unknown interloper (Doe) to steal the domain name and move the registration to NameCheap. Doe also acquired NameCheap's "WhoisGuard" service, a domain name proxy service that masked Doe's contact information in the Whois database. Solid Host contacted Doe and sought the domain name; Doe asked for $12,000, and Solid Host took a pass... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090529_cybersquatting_impending_demise_domain_proxy">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-05-29T15:38:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> The Third Wave of Internet Exceptionalism (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090311_third_wave_of_internet_exceptionalism</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090311_third_wave_of_internet_exceptionalism</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From the beginning, the Internet has been viewed as something special and "unique." For example, in 1996, a judge called the Internet "a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication." The Internet's perceived novelty has prompted regulators to engage in "Internet exceptionalism," crafting Internet-specific laws that diverge from regulatory precedents in other media. Internet exceptionalism has come in three distinct waves... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090311_third_wave_of_internet_exceptionalism">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-03-11T13:50:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Domaining Registrar Defeats Cybersquatting Lawsuit: Philbrick v. eNom (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090225_domaining_registrar_defeats_cybersquatting_lawsuit</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090225_domaining_registrar_defeats_cybersquatting_lawsuit</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Philbrick's Sports is a New Hampshire retailer of sporting goods. eNom's customer registered two domain name variants of Philbrick Sport's website. When the customer didn't pay eNom, eNom took the names back for itself... Each of these domain names were parked with Yahoo, who displayed sponsored ads on the domains. Philbrick's then sued eNom, claiming cybersquatting and trademark infringement. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090225_domaining_registrar_defeats_cybersquatting_lawsuit">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-02-25T17:12:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Outdated Whois Information Might Lead to False Light Tort: Meyerkord v. Zipatoni (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090120_outdated_whois_information_meyerkord_v_zipatoni</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090120_outdated_whois_information_meyerkord_v_zipatoni</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's a late entry, but this opinion may be a dark horse candidate for the most bizarre case of 2008. Meyerkord was a Zipatoni employee and listed as the registrant on domain names at Zipatoni's Register.com account. Meyerkord left in 2003. In 2006, Zipatoni ran an astroturfing viral campaign for Sony to promote the Play Station Portable at the domain alliwantforxmasisapsp.com... Unfortunately for Sony -- and Meyerkord -- the campaign did not go well. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090120_outdated_whois_information_meyerkord_v_zipatoni">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2009-01-20T12:19:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Vulcan Golf v. Google Class Certification Denied (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081222_vulcan_golf_v_google_denied</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081222_vulcan_golf_v_google_denied</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is a complex lawsuit by trademark owners attacking domaining and the role of the Google AdSense for Domains program in funding domaining activity. When I <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/06/google_sued_in.htm">first blogged</a> on the case in 2007, I wrote: "the lawsuit could effectively fall apart if the judge rejects formation of a class. Trademark class action lawsuits are rare for good reason..." Last week, the court ruled on class certification, and perhaps not surprisingly, the <a href="http://claranet.scu.edu/eres/documentview.aspx?associd=30280">court denied certification</a> -- giving Google and the other defendants an early Christmas gift. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081222_vulcan_golf_v_google_denied">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-12-22T08:07:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Email Ad Network Isn't Liable for Spam: Ferron v. Echostar (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081008_email_ad_network_spam</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081008_email_ad_network_spam</link>
			<description><![CDATA[John Ferron is one of several "repeat" plaintiffs around the country suing over unsolicited email (perhaps not coincidentally, he's also an attorney). In this case, Ferron sued a variety of defendants associated with unsolicited email promoting dish satellite offerings for violations of Ohio's consumer protection law and the Electronic Mail Advertising Act (EMAA). <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081008_email_ad_network_spam">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-10-08T08:14:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Delayed Enforcement Blocks Domain Name Lawsuit: Southern Grouts v. 3M (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/2008929_domain_name_lawsuit_southern_grouts_3m</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/2008929_domain_name_lawsuit_southern_grouts_3m</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm often baffled by lawsuits over domain names and keywords because they just don't seem to make any economic sense. This lawsuit is especially perplexing given the plaintiff's delays and the seeming impossibility of the plaintiff reaching a profitable outcome, even if it won in court. What was the plaintiff thinking? <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/2008929_domain_name_lawsuit_southern_grouts_3m">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-09-29T13:18:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> June Court Decision Detrimental to Domaining Practices (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In a June court ruling, domainer Navigation Catalyst and registrar Basic Fusion lost a cybersquatting lawsuit to Verizon... This is an extremely interesting and potentially precedent-setting case regarding domaining and domain name tasting. The court condemns both practices, leading to a preliminary injunction against the domainer and its registrar based on the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). As far as I can recall, this is the first time that a domainer has lost an ACPA lawsuit in court, and it provides an important data point confirming that domaining can be cybersquatting (a previously unresolved issue)... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88214_court_decision_detrimental_to_domaining">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-02T14:27:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
