Couple of quotes from this article..
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/comm...55E1702,00.html
With all the bullshit talked on this topic I was surprised to see two lines in this article talking about stuff I hadn't heard/noticed before
Quote:
|
In return for the forged letter and $US1000, the company (Network Solutions) transferred ownership of the site name to Cohen, prompting Kremen to launch the long legal battle to win back the name he registered in 1994.
|
I've never seen that $1000 mentioned before..
and maybe I just missed this... but it's news to me too..
Quote:
|
Cohen claimed that he owned Sex.com before Kremen first registered it and that he should therefore retain ownership of it.
|
Anyone else as badly informed or is it just me that managed to miss these seemingly important points??
06-13-2003
Threaded Mode
