[HN Gopher] Uzi Nissan (nissan.com) died of covid July 2020 and ...
___________________________________________________________________
Uzi Nissan (nissan.com) died of covid July 2020 and the website is
now down
Author : bmcahren
Score : 183 points
Date : 2022-07-01 17:51 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nissan.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nissan.com)
| sorokod wrote:
| Nisan is relatively common Hebrew name from the month of Nisan
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisan
| VoidWhisperer wrote:
| While the content of the website appears to be down now,
| according to the whois[1], the website registration itself with
| it being registered to Nissan Computer Corp. does not expire
| until 2024.
|
| [1]: https://who.is/whois/nissan.com
| branon wrote:
| Is it known who will renew the domain? Nice legacy for the guy.
| malux85 wrote:
| We should try and find out who is managing his estate, let's
| get it renewed the maximum duration, just to annoy Nissan
| capableweb wrote:
| I'd be up to contribute some funds to have a $5 DO droplet
| serving the website for some time as well. I'll start by
| committing to one year of hosting ($60). I'll never buy a
| Nissan because of their actions against nissan.com, but
| somehow it doesn't always feel like enough.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| Probably not even necessary to do that much. Point it at
| Cloudflare backed by an S3 bucket with a single "in
| memorandum" page and host it until the end of technology
| as we know it for ~$1.
| capableweb wrote:
| I've learnt my lesson to depend as little as possible on
| vendors with specific technologies when you want to keep
| something alive for a long, long time. The less reliance
| on specific closed-source & cloud technologies, the
| better.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| In this case S3 is just a _thing_ that can serve a static
| HTML page, which I 'm not sure I would consider
| proprietary in any way, and Cloudflare is just a way to
| serve it basically for free.
|
| This isn't anything that has proprietary risk of not
| being supportable/migratable if necessary.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I don't care what happens to NISSAN.COM, as long as it does not
| fall to Nissan Motors. Ideally, someone should restore it from
| the last good snapshot and ask for donations to renew the domain
| on a regular basis. I would be happy to contribute to this
| effort.
| bmcahren wrote:
| I was discussing trademarks and domains with somebody today and
| tried to show them my favorite long-standing trademark dispute
| nissan.com but it appears all of the website content has been
| taken down in May 2022.
|
| Here's one of the last standing copies:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220406221134/https://nissan.co...
|
| Oh, and digest.com where he told is lawsuit story is now for sale
| (http://digest.com/)
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220402233023/https://digest.co...
| giobox wrote:
| The UDRP ("Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" - the
| arbitration process all domain name disputes go through - you
| have little choice as mandated by ICANN for all domain name
| registrars) has been hopelessly broken in favor of the pursuer
| for a long time. It's a pursuer pays system; surprise surprise
| pursuers almost always win. UDRP panels are run by private
| firms of typically retired judges looking to cash in for easy
| work, selected by WIPO ("World Intellectual Property
| Organisation") . WIPO love the UDRP, because for the first time
| its given them real teeth to enforce something directly.
| Similarly, if you don't respond to a UDRP notification the case
| is almost always decided against you and you lose control of
| the domain, regardless of the merits of the case.
|
| If you want to look up some really terrible UDRP decisions
| regarding things that can't typically be trademarked under
| almost all legal systems (place and family names etc), the
| barcelona.com case is pretty famous. Same too with
| mcdonalds.com. Nissan.com is just another example sadly.
|
| There have even been UDRP cases where the panel has claimed
| using WHOIS anonymization was an "act of bad faith" and handed
| the domain to the pursuer. It's a wild system.
|
| > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en
|
| > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en
| creeble wrote:
| >Nissan.com is just another example sadly.
|
| Example of what? The car company never won a UDRP case
| against Mr Nissan.
| giobox wrote:
| Example of litigating over something that can't typically
| be trademarked - "Nissan" is a family name. There are
| plenty of articles online discussing the nissan.com case
| from the UDRP perspective, which is the typical remedy, and
| one Nissan can still pursue - you can't escape the UDRP due
| to the ICANN mandate.
| creeble wrote:
| Ford, Chrysler, Bloomberg - I'm not sure what you mean by
| "can't typically be trademarked".
|
| If Nissan Motors believed they could win via UDRP, why
| haven't they?
| giobox wrote:
| Mr Nissan's hand is rather strengthened when he can show
| the UDRP panel he won a similar case in a US court of
| law, which might take the wind out the sails on the
| Nissan Motors side. For what its worth, the WIPO
| databases show plenty of other UDRP claims from Nissan
| Motors.
|
| > I'm not sure what you mean by "can't typically be
| trademarked".
|
| I mean exactly that - under most trademark law systems,
| you cant typically trademark a family name. I say
| typically because like everything there are exceptions.
| alberth wrote:
| What's odd is that the domain was renewed just 2 months ago
| (April 6th).
| [deleted]
| chiph wrote:
| Uzi was my ISP when I had ADSL in Raleigh and was a pleasure to
| work with when I had issues with BellSouth's service. I was sorry
| to hear about his death.
|
| The website was up just the other month, so this is a new
| development by his family/heirs.
|
| That Nissan Motors didn't immediately grab the domain after his
| passing may be evidence that domain names are an inheritable
| asset? Any lawyers have info on this?
| mikece wrote:
| Uzi battled Nissan motor company because the company thought they
| had the right to take the domain from a man who had registered it
| because it's his surname. Nissan Motors should have been slapped
| with a massive punitive fine for that, but instead they continued
| to bleed Mr. Uzi Nissan of his resources by suing him repeatedly.
|
| Memo to Nissan Motor Company: it was because of this act of
| lawfare that I personally renounced ever buying a Nissan again
| (even though the Altima and Maxima were excellent cars). You
| deserve to be punished for your actions. I regret that refusing
| to give you my business isn't worth more.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Reminds me of the Frys.com saga:
| https://phoneboy.com/pig/rant/fryscom
| angst_ridden wrote:
| It wasn't just his surname. It was his company name, too, and a
| trademark.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| [edit: I stand corrected; Mr. Nissan conducted business at
| nissan.com]
| moron4hire wrote:
| Uzi Nissan ran an IT services consultancy for 30 years, so it
| was actually a commercial website on the .com TLD.
| jweir wrote:
| One of the earliest bits of net activism was Etoy - a Swiss art
| collective vs Etoys - a US online toy reseller.
|
| Etoys got a US judge to seize the etoy.com domain name.
|
| Etoy launched back with Toy War. A gamified activist platform
| were participants could earn points by attacking Etoys.
|
| https://etoy.com/projects/toywar/
| all2 wrote:
| This moral position transcends time. Don't equate dollars to
| the actual value of your actions. Your heart is well set
| against evil.
| Kaytaro wrote:
| Should domains be first come first serve though? Why?
|
| Almost 100% of people when they hear "Nissan" think of the car
| company, so why should that domain direct to some random guy
| who happened to claim it first?
| briffle wrote:
| Right, but then does McDonalds the burger place get priority,
| or McDonalds Plumbing, which has been in business longer than
| the restraunt has existed?
|
| An Even better example is what if Apple Music had registered
| Apple.com first? At the time, many, many more people had
| heard of the beatles then computer company in California.
| bluehatbrit wrote:
| Why should corporations have more of a claim to property or
| resources than individuals, just because more people know of
| them? If they were exercising phishing attacks then fair
| enough, but if they had a personal website of some sort on
| there, why the hell should a company get it just because they
| have the same name?
| Kaytaro wrote:
| Because domains pointing to where you'd expect just makes
| the internet a better place. It reduces dependency on
| search engines, makes the internet simpler to use, and
| ideally you could be confident that nissan.com isn't some
| Joe Blow but a trusted company.
|
| What benefit does "first come first serve" provide? Nothing
| other than allowing individuals to hijack widespread
| brands.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Sir, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of property
| rights.
|
| God, I'm glad I don't live in a hell hole where someone
| who is trying to make the world a better place can just
| trample over me.
| [deleted]
| stavros wrote:
| Yes they should, why not?
| LightG wrote:
| You f@cking idiota ...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Isn't first come first served already the default?
|
| Which leads to scalpers trying to buy out brand names ahead
| of the corporations so they'll be offered money for them
| later?
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| Why is it a problem for the car company if some guy named
| Nissan has a website? They can simply choose a different
| domain.
| GTP wrote:
| True, but then you can't register a domain under your name
| because it happens to exist a company with the same name? I
| understand trying to prevent people form registering domains
| they don't have anything to do with just because they're
| looking to sell them for a high price to somebody that has
| actually an use for them, but I'm against the idea of
| extending this to the case of people registering their own
| name.
| codegeek wrote:
| I agree with you but honestly if it was another person named
| Toyota who purchased toyota.com, they would definitely be
| pursued/sued by Toyota as well. Large Corporations are powerful
| and will do everything they can to get what they want. It just
| happens to be Nissan in this case. So I wouldn't treat them any
| different than the others to be honest.
| elromulous wrote:
| For folks who haven't read the whole story, the issue Uzi
| took with them was that they never even made him an offer to
| buy it, they jumped straight to litigation. He said he would
| have sold it to them for a reasonable price had they not
| chosen litigation as their first approach.
| somenewaccount1 wrote:
| not necessarily at all. A rational company would have offered
| a sum that to them was minuscule part of advertising budget,
| but a fortune for a single person.
|
| My understanding was that Nissan hadn't even made an offer
| before suing him for 10M, at least that is how the story
| goes. They probably could have just offered him a million, or
| 10, and everyone is happy. Being they are a "large"
| corporation and all.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they
| can to get what they want.
|
| Valve, despite controlling something like 80% of PC game
| sales, hasn't gone after the owner guy who owns steam.com
| jdironman wrote:
| Exactly, it should be a best effort thing not harassment.
| I'm sure they are probably monitoring its availability no
| doubt.
| capableweb wrote:
| I'm not sure Valve would be considered "large corporation",
| at least at this point. Last time I checked, they had
| something like 300 employees. I'm not sure where the line
| would be for me to consider something a "large
| corporation", but at least 10000 would be my first guess.
| greenthrow wrote:
| Number of employees is irrelevant here. Revenue, profit,
| holdings, these are what is relevant to the issue at
| hand. On those measures, Valve is enormous.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| I think billion dollar valuations would suffice to be
| "large corporation" to me. Valve meets that.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Valve has to be worth way more than a billion dollars. A
| billion is like medium-stage startup at this point. They
| have to be worth 10x that easy, as a floor. Much higher
| (100x) for a strategic acquisition from a company like
| Microsoft.
| samtheprogram wrote:
| "Much higher (100x) for a strategic acquisition from a
| company like Microsoft" is grossly exaggerated. There
| were only 171 companies worth more than $88.3bn (<100x a
| billion) as of December [1], a number that may have even
| dropped during current market conditions. Activision
| Blizzard is worth today ~$60bn and Microsoft is buying it
| at ~$68bn [2]. It's one the largest acquisitions they've
| made, and the largest publicly known amount by far [3]
| with LinkedIn (2016) second at $26bn.
|
| Agree that Valve is likely worth at least 10x a billion,
| though.
|
| [1]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/A-tale-
| of-2-markets... [2]:
| https://news.microsoft.com/2022/01/18/microsoft-to-
| acquire-a... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m
| ergers_and_acquisitio...
| capableweb wrote:
| Interesting, I've never considered the
| value/valuation/profits to be a part of what makes a
| corporation large or not, but mainly focused on just the
| size of the organization. So a corporation could go from
| small -> medium -> large without even changing the
| headcount?
| moron4hire wrote:
| It's about the amount of power and influence you can
| wield. In a discussion like this, "large corporation" is
| just a shorthand. When it comes to the legal system
| everyone _should_ be on equally footing. That they aren
| 't is why these things are so upsetting.
| croes wrote:
| In Germany Nissan Motors would have got the domain.
|
| According to german law "A private person with that name had
| priority over someone not called that. A company of that
| name, or a company with a registered trademark has precedence
| over a person of that name. A city or municipality has the
| highest precedence"
| askvictor wrote:
| It's easy to forget that the com in .com is a shortening
| 'commercial' - i.e. a commercial enterprise. In Australia,
| (until relatively recently I think), a .com.au domain was
| restricted to registered businesses. For individuals, there
| is (was?) an id.au domain.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| It's customary even for BigCos to make an offer to buy the
| domain first.
|
| It's entirely possible the registrant of a toyota.com (if
| Toyota the company didn't get it first) would have been made
| an offer for the domain that would have been easy to accept.
| Nissan (the owner of nissan.com) was never made a fair offer
| for his domain.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > Large Corporations are powerful and will do everything they
| can to get what they want.
|
| In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much by
| definition, the most extreme position of "might is right".
| The principle text on which is attributed to one "Ragnar
| Redbeard" [1].
|
| The philosophy is simple. I may rob you, rape you, vandalise,
| ransack, lie, pillage and kill, for the one simple reason
| that I am stronger and you are the weaker. And the "rule of
| law" (insofar as it can exist) must recognise that as my
| legitimate right. It is obviously an infantile fantasy. Yet I
| see it echoed in various forms within these pages.
|
| First of all, it is something that nobody of sound mind
| believes, other than as a pose. It is an anchor point, a
| strawman from which to develop real ethical positions.
|
| But most of all, it's a fantasy we occasionally wish as true,
| because if it were, these so-called "powerful corporations"
| would be reduced to dust and ruin within days by those the
| real powers in this world who exercise patient restraint.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_Is_Right
| hh3k0 wrote:
| > In the scheme of ethical philosophy there is, pretty much
| by definition, the most extreme position of "might is
| right".
|
| I've occasionally wondered, is that not reality for all of
| us? Even us living in democratic nations? Is democracy at
| its core not a "might" (through a greater cardinality)
| makes right of sorts?
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > I've occasionally wondered, is that not reality for all
| of us? Even us living in democratic nations? Is democracy
| at its core not a "might" (through a greater cardinality)
| makes right of sorts?
|
| The tyranny of the majority? Absolutely. The trajectory
| along which many ethical arguments about power roll is to
| start with the 'Redbeard' straw-man and then offer up
| increasingly diluted forms, social contracts and so on,
| until an acceptable proxy is found for universalisable
| systematic violence [1] in kind.
|
| [1] This may not be a literal violence at all. The point
| at which it passes under an acceptable threshold, as
| sublimated power, says a lot about each culture. For
| example, acceptance of brutal inequality may be taken as
| such a sublime violence - the measure of a civilisation
| is how it treats its weakest members.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| It is. It's just that capital is the might of today.
| Money to influence legislation, money to withstand long
| legal battles, etc.
| exceptione wrote:
| Democracy is the enemy of the might makes right. Might
| makes right selects the stronger clan, and selects its
| strongest leader: that is, the one who follows this
| doctrine the most brutally and successfully. Because if
| you don't, someone else will be more ruthless. So in a
| democracy we protect minority interests and curb the
| powers of commercial entities. And we have the Trias
| Politica.
|
| You might wonder if we do enough, for example making sure
| commercial entities are kept under control. Democracy is
| work, it is not a guarantee you will keep having it. You
| can lose it, and many entities are fine with destroying
| it too further their own self interest. You don't have it
| because of how exceptional you think you are. So take an
| active role to protect it.
| adventured wrote:
| Democracy isn't the enemy of might makes right at all.
|
| In actual democratic systems, the stronger great majority
| (eg the 75% or 90%) can do anything they want to with a
| weak minority. There are many prominent examples of
| democratic systems being used to implement might makes
| right via majority abuse of the minority.
|
| You have to intentionally neuter democratic systems with
| strict constitutions that protect individual rights, to
| prevent might makes right from always taking over
| democratic systems. You have to put very strong
| constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority
| from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the
| democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits
| their possible actions for the protection of the
| minority.
| andrekandre wrote:
| > You have to put very strong constraints in place to
| prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker
| minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a
| straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for
| the protection of the minority.
|
| in a democracy aren't all voices (votes) equal?
|
| if i have more money and power than you, at the ballot it
| doesn't matter, you and your weaker friends can overrule
| me no matter how much money i had
| exceptione wrote:
| I don't agree with your wording. You sound like that
| especially in a democracy the minorities get crushed. But
| its the democracies that build upon the core idea of
| alienable human rights, that gives you voting power but
| also guarantees as an individual. It is no wonder that
| you will find such constitutions in democracies. Thats
| why I said trias politica.
|
| I encourage you to think critically and at the same time
| ask you to cherish what you have. It is you duty to
| defend democracy and keep it functioning, or else you
| will lose it. I am not saying that do you do that
| personally, but I see a lot of spoiled people in the west
| that shit on their own chair, by dismissing democracy,
| even sometimes equaling it with autocratic regimes. Those
| don't know what they ask for.
| ncmncm wrote:
| The notion of inalienable human rights is, specifically,
| opposed to democracy. Democracy needs to be subordinated
| to that more fundamental principle.
|
| They are often associated only because places where
| democracy is strong also tend to acknowledge human
| rights, at least in the abstract. (Obviously autocrats
| will not acknowledge it.) But it was, and is, often not
| so. Ask any Jim Crow victim. Or widow of a police
| violence victim.
| cupofpython wrote:
| power will succeed, but that is very different than
| believing _anything_ a greater power is capable of
| enforcing must be accepted as morally correct just
| because they are stronger
| adastra22 wrote:
| It is something that Germany believed in the first half of
| the 20th century. It is something Russia believes now. It
| ain't as dead as it ought to be.
| exceptione wrote:
| I am not sure why you are downvoted, because you are dead
| right. "Might makes right" is exactly the 'philosophy' of
| the dictators of both countries. Human rights and related
| concepts are for them nonsense and signs of the weak. The
| clash between Hitler and Stalin was a clash of two very
| like minded people.
|
| Some horrid people defend the massacring by Putin by
| defending the might makes right mindset. They even might
| think of themselves as independent or critical thinkers.
| They are not. Might makes right is the doctrine of
| fascism, and it is good you call out this type of
| thinking when you see it.
| user_named wrote:
| The US certainly believes in might makes right too.
| ncmncm wrote:
| The US has always fostered a strong undercurrent of
| fascist attitude toward the outside world, and toward its
| underclass.
| exceptione wrote:
| I don't think so, even more so in absence of any
| evidence. And I am not from the US. The US had the
| biggest power the past decades and have used it to uphold
| a rule based world order. Be careful what you wish for.
|
| Make no mistake, I have lots of critical things to say
| about the US. The war on terror was a stupid reaction on
| the rise of terrorism and extremism, for example. But the
| US has in general been a real good force for the world.
|
| Wait till you what might makes right really means, you
| will soon regret armchair snarks.
| user_named wrote:
| No. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.
| adventured wrote:
| Most of Europe believed might makes right until post WW2.
| Hell, Spain was still a dictatorship until 1975 and a
| large part of Eastern Europe was still de facto enslaved
| until the fall of the USSR. Even now you've got a looming
| dictatorship in Hungary, a dictatorship in Belarus, a
| dictatorship in Russia, and a dictatorship in Turkey (a
| quasi European state).
|
| Germany's evil ideology of conquest and might makes
| right, which was rife in their culture throughout the
| 18th, 19th and part of the 20th century, was definitely
| not limited to the first half of the 20th century (not
| that you were necessarily claiming such). The Nazi
| ideology was entirely ripped off from existing cultural
| beliefs that were common in Germany and the greater
| region at that time and had been for centuries. Hitler
| was about as non-original as you could get, he simply
| took common ideas from the culture and swirled them
| together. Bismarck and Hindenberg were also monsters,
| Hitler was just worse and was the natural end of their
| failed, vile culture during those centuries.
|
| It took thousands of years for the Europeans to figure
| out they needed to banish might makes right.
| all2 wrote:
| "God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal."
|
| There is codified in the Constitution of the United States
| recognition that some will always seek to subjugate others.
| And an enshrined recognition that this is morally wrong is
| the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms. Many of the
| founding fathers of the United States made statements to
| the affect that a well armed citizenry was the only method
| by which true tyranny could be removed.
|
| And true tyranny is the living example of "might makes
| right".
|
| The appeal to "something better" than our base instinct to
| crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their women
| is distinct to Christian morality. No other religion or
| political ideology makes this appeal.
|
| This is why the United States -- with its distinctly
| Christian moral foundation -- is unique in the world. The
| founders recognized first the right of association and
| speech, and second the right to personal autonomy; to bear
| arms and kill those who would subjugate or kill you.
| random314 wrote:
| > The appeal to "something better" than our base instinct
| to crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their
| women is distinct to Christian morality. No other
| religion or political ideology makes this appeal.
|
| What!!
| InefficientRed wrote:
| I can't tell if this is unhinged xenophobia or satire.
|
| In case of the former: the crusades, any of the millions
| of athiest or non-christian pacifists, and... I can't
| believe this needs stating, but shooting someone in the
| face with an assault rifle is an exercise of "might".
| gpderetta wrote:
| Something something Poe's law something...
| boston_clone wrote:
| Considering their history of using Gab, you can safely
| assume the former.
|
| Their complete misunderstanding of the history of both
| this country's founding and Christianity really help
| cement that assumption as accurate, though.
|
| It's unfortunate to see that the US education system has
| regressed so poorly.
| [deleted]
| all2 wrote:
| And shooting someone who is trying to kill you or your
| family is an exercise in individual sovereignty.
| toolz wrote:
| Is there no ethical argument to be made that the domain
| would better serve the car company? Domain names are a
| limited resource, is it more ethical to practice "first is
| right" ethics?
| metadat wrote:
| Domain names aren't actually a limited resource. Only the
| short ones are.
|
| Fundamental flaw of the system, because just like
| physical real estate, whoever got there first has an
| enormous advantage.
|
| Nobody is arguing on my behalf to kick my landlord to the
| curb, though.
| moomin wrote:
| Watch you don't apply this reasoning to your own house.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Eminent domain would be a possible analogy in the context
| of real estate.
|
| Though you are correct that very few people argue for
| eminent domain against their own land holdings.
| toolz wrote:
| eminent domain is used in this way, and I don't really
| agree with the rule, but there is an argument to be made
| for my land being taken over because it serves some other
| purpose better than it serves me.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| You are also paid "fair market value" in emminent domain
| takings, they don't just seize your property.
|
| IDK what Nissan Motors offered Mr. Nissan for the domain
| but I'm guessing it must have been a case of "it's not
| for sale" because they probably would have paid nearly
| anything he asked if he'd been willing to name a price.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Well, if they believe in markets that's basically what
| money is for: you think something is worth more to you
| than to somebody else, then just pay the other party for
| it.
|
| There's plenty of cases where this kind of reasoning
| fails, because it doesn't care about ethics, but in this
| exact situation there no ethical question at stakes,
| especially since Uzi Nissan bought this domain name in
| good faith. It's just a matter of how much the two
| companies value their respective utility for this scarce
| resource.
|
| (+ insert rant here about how all capitalists love is
| crony capitalism and how much they hate markets)
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's interesting to ask oneself, I think, how many
| person-hours of lawyer labor Nissan paid for, and whether
| less money than that could have been consolidated into
| one lump-sum payment to Mr. Nissan of "a quantity that
| immediately bumps one individual up to nouveau-riche
| class," such that whether he had a domain name from which
| to do business was irrelevant because he didn't have to
| work.
|
| Of course, that assumes Mr. Nissan would have been
| willing to trade at all. Some people aren't motivated by
| money, which certainly increases the complexity of the
| "markets solve all things" hypothesis.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| They tried to strong-arm him, he resisted and they ended-
| up both stuck is a dollar auction game[1], a typical
| game-theory situation where both players end up losing
| way more than expected gain at the beginning.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_auction
| sobkas wrote:
| If they start paying for stuff like this without any
| resistance they will lose deterrent of having enough
| lawyers to bombard you with lawsuits to the end of your
| life. Now I will think twice if I want to cross any
| corporation. This is a chilling effect the are aiming
| for. Shut up or else.
| rakoo wrote:
| Your question relies on multiple assumptions that not
| everyone, including me, may agree with:
|
| - domain names should be distributed based on some
| measurement of "utility" - the Nissan company is bigger
| than the Nissan person, therefore they have a higher
| utility - domain names control should be changed outside
| of one's control
|
| There is no perfect way to assign domain names. As you
| say, first come first serve has its downsides. But I
| don't like the idea of big capitalistic companies taking
| over domain names just because more people know them; in
| fact that's yet another demonstration of capitalism
| accumulating even more resources at the expense of
| someone less.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| I've never heard about this Ragnar Redbeard before, but I
| find it pretty funny because this book was published
| approximately one century _after_ Jean Jacques Rousseau
| published a refutation of this exact same theory in _Du
| contrat social_ (which kind of shows how unoriginal
| Redbeard thought was).
| jemski wrote:
| Hear hear. A much better worded explanation than my soul
| would allow.
|
| I'm dumbfounded when the observation is made. On the one
| hand, if it's just common sense that large corporations
| will do what they want to anyone at any time, isn't our
| need to fight them on it similarly common? The second part
| is always left out. Probably rarely on purpose, but always
| to the benefit of the aggressor.
| adventured wrote:
| > if it's just common sense that large corporations will
| do what they want to anyone at any time, isn't our need
| to fight them on it similarly common?
|
| Of course and "we" do fight them as a matter of routine,
| and "we" win frequently too.
|
| If that weren't the case, the EPA wouldn't exist, OSHA
| wouldn't exist, the FDA wouldn't exist, the FAA wouldn't
| exist, the 40 hour work week wouldn't exist, automobiles
| wouldn't have a vast number of legally mandated safety
| requirements, building codes wouldn't exist, and so on
| and so forth.
| MikeTheGreat wrote:
| > the EPA wouldn't exist
|
| It's worth pointing out that the recent Supreme Court
| case [1] may have changed this back to what large
| corporations and Republicans have wanted; the precendent
| that the case sets may then enable Republicans to
| dismantle the rest of the agencies you mentioned [2]
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530
| [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530
| #writin...
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| The few wins we managed to secure decades ago pale in
| comparisons to the thousands of legislative and judicial
| victories corporations have won and continue to win
| since. Even your EPA example was just whittled down by
| the Supreme Court
|
| It's not comparable, we rarely win. I'm not sure why you
| surround "we" in quotes, because the people benefiting
| from this arrangement represent an extremely small number
| and it's unlikely you're among them.
| cupofpython wrote:
| >(even though the Altima and Maxima were excellent cars)
|
| why advertise for them for free?
| missedthecue wrote:
| I think he's implying that his boycott imposed a cost on him,
| and therefore had more meaning, because had they behaved
| differently, he would have liked to have owned a Nissan.
| cupofpython wrote:
| I understand that, but he regrets that his decision could
| not be more influential.
|
| Which is severely undermined by the claim that Nissan makes
| great cars
|
| Especially when considering the person making the claim has
| an implied incentive to hate the cars. He's making a
| genuine claim that "I want to hate their cars but I cant"
|
| which is fantastic advertising for Nissan.
| mikece wrote:
| Exactly. I'm 6'5" and Nissan made cars with much more
| headroom than Honda or Toyota.
| Pakdef wrote:
| > I personally renounced ever buying a Nissan again
|
| Personally, I stopped buying Nissan cars because of bad
| experiences/failed transmissions right after warranty expired.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| Seems like their sports cars are alright. I enjoy my Z31
| project car.
| astrange wrote:
| Not because their Japanese executives had their US executives
| kidnapped and tortured by the police?
|
| https://asiatimes.com/2022/06/former-nissan-executive-
| greg-k...
| dubswithus wrote:
| One doesn't need an excuse not to buy some of the ugliest cars
| ever made.
| zagrebian wrote:
| What makes you think that any other carmaker would have behaved
| differently?
| themaninthedark wrote:
| This is sad news.
|
| When I first heard about this back in High School, I had the
| same reaction. I hope they put back up the old website or at
| least a memorial page for him.
| megablast wrote:
| This is hilarious.
|
| You hate Nissan because they bullied this guy.
|
| So you bought a different brand car.
|
| Cars which kill a million people directly worldwide, and
| another million due to pollution??
|
| That waste trillions due to roads destroying our cities and
| countryside.
|
| Spread pollution everywhere.
|
| Waste trillions on hospitals, nurses, doctors and police for
| all the crashes.
|
| Maimed and disabled millions around the world.
|
| And much worse.
|
| But you are fine with cars, but Nissan bullied some guy.
| google234123 wrote:
| Cars don't make decisions, people do, yet you blame "cars".
| Anyway, your entire argument is a straw man.
| dang wrote:
| " _Don 't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them
| instead._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| dang wrote:
| Can you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar
| comments to HN? You've done this repeatedly, and we end up
| having to ban such accounts. It's not what this site is for,
| and it destroys what it is for.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking
| the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be
| grateful.
| walrus01 wrote:
| the altima and maxima may be fine cars but there's also nothing
| wrong with a camry or an accord. plenty of good alternatives.
| mikece wrote:
| I'm 6'5" and Nissan made cars with much more headroom than
| Honda or Toyota.
| ses1984 wrote:
| Are there any car companies that are innocent?
| technothrasher wrote:
| Tucker?
| jdironman wrote:
| Little fischer red and yellow one?
| stevefan1999 wrote:
| hell, are there any companies that ate innocent? never.
| somenewaccount1 wrote:
| fwiw, you are not the only person who avoided buying Nissan
| over this lawsuit. While they may never be able to see the
| impact their decisions have had on their bottom line, it is
| likely more than most people would guess.
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Sounds unlikely
| WheatM wrote:
| jliptzin wrote:
| In the same boat. I remember following this story since I was
| in high school
| 1-6 wrote:
| I wonder how much not having nissan.com affected Nissan's
| business. I'm probably sure it's tremendous.
| chiph wrote:
| Perhaps back when his fight with the automaker was going on.
| But typing "nissan" into Google has returned the automaker as
| the 1st result for quite a while now (SEO for the win). Someone
| would have to type the full domain name into their browser to
| end up at his site.
| zaidf wrote:
| Uzi Nissan was one of the more interesting people I met as a
| freelancer in college. He replied to a craigslist ad and we met
| for coffee. He had some crazy ideas (and conspiracies:) about all
| the things he wanted to hire a freelancer to do with nissan.com
| neonate wrote:
| Please tell us more?
| tekeous wrote:
| Should have hosted it with Njalla and watched Nissan fumble
| around trying to figure out who to sue
| tedk-42 wrote:
| As someone who had no idea who this person was or their legal
| troubles with Nissan (motor company), I find it strange that this
| was the battle he chose to fight to define who he was as a
| person.
|
| Each to his own though. Not a hill I would have chosen to die on.
| fourstar wrote:
| My brother owns (our last name.com). Our great great grandfather
| started and ran a fairly successful (pre-prohibition) brewery.
| Someone found out about our last name, trademarked it, and
| "restarted" the brewery with no relation to anyone in our family.
| The best part is they feigned ignorance when they "learned" that
| there were still living descendants in the area...
| maratc wrote:
| I'm sorry, I don't understand.
|
| Say I feel a lot of respect to e.g. Amelia Earhart, so much so
| that I want to establish an air-exploration company and name it
| Earhart Air Explorers. Do I need to get an approval from all of
| her descendants first?
| 0des wrote:
| What's the next step?
| fourstar wrote:
| Good question. We've talked to various lawyers throughout the
| years. The crappy part is that the people who resurrected it
| have hundreds of millions in real estate backed ventures (big
| $$$), so there's really not much we can do aside from pound
| sand considering we weren't brewing the beer, or enforcing
| the trademark. The even weirder thing is that they used his
| name as their contact email for the longest time on their
| website, made a brew dedicated to my late grandfather (a
| pediatrician they never met) based on tongue-depresser
| airplanes he made for his patients, and even had the gall to
| leave one of their first bottled brews at my great great
| grandfather's gravesite.
|
| So the only thing I can do is just raise awareness, and tell
| people who ask me if there is any relation (when they
| see/hear my last name) to not support them!
| jstanley wrote:
| If every generation since your great great grandfather had
| 3 children, then you can expect your great great
| grandfather to have 81 descendants in your generation (most
| of whom would have a different surname - to a first
| approximation you only retain the surname if your
| connection to him is on the father's side at every level).
|
| I'm guessing you wouldn't know all of them, and in the
| olden days people had more kids so it could easily be a lot
| higher than that. Isn't it possible that the people running
| the brewery are also great great grandchildren of your
| great great grandfather?
| [deleted]
| squirtle24 wrote:
| Some light googling led me to the brewery in question. On
| their About page, it would appear the answer is a no.
| They didn't know who the GG grandfather was until they
| randomly saw his name on a building, and then decided to
| name a beer after him.
| bee_rider wrote:
| > even had the gall to leave one of their first bottled
| brews at my great great grandfather's gravesite.
|
| That's a weird thing to do. I can see wanting to steal an
| established brand because people are attracted to legacy,
| especially in the case of something like brewing.
|
| But leaving a tribute at his grave is, honestly, just
| bizarre behavior. Are the obsessed or something? Do they
| think they have some connection to your family?
|
| One of your family should try to work for them, maybe the
| company will treat them like the second coming. Or human
| sacrifice. But hey, worth a shot, right?
| qorrect wrote:
| > even had the gall to leave one of their first bottled
| brews at my great great grandfather's gravesite.
|
| That came across as a genuine gesture ... I wonder if
| there is more to this story.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Might have been a photo-op.
| aeyes wrote:
| They probably didn't just leave the bottle there, my
| guess is that they have pictures of this which are used
| as marketing material.
| fourstar wrote:
| Yeah, a bit obsessed, I reckon. What irks me the most is
| my late father collected breweriana from the old brewery
| (serving trays, tip trays, signs, etc.). From what I've
| heard, after inheriting some of his collection and
| attending the bottle/breweriana shows he went to, I found
| out from a couple of dealers, that one of the guys from
| the brewery has also been collecting. So now I've got
| competition with deep pockets in an otherwise esoteric
| hobby.
| luhrkuhr wrote:
| Weird folks out there. I'm named for my grandfather, a
| former MLB player with a World Series win to his name.
| While back found out there was a man impersonating him
| after his death, not too far from where we lived at the
| time.
|
| https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2011/05/15/baseb
| all...
| fourstar wrote:
| What a story! Thanks for sharing. I love the bit in there
| about the lawyer buying the imposter the replica ring. It
| was written in a pretty unique way. My great great
| grandfather actually also owned a baseball team named
| after his signature beer. Random-fact: Abraham Lincoln's
| granddaughter's husband played for them.
| luhrkuhr wrote:
| Oh boy, so the story about the ring is it's own
| interesting tidbit - my whole life I was told my aunt
| stole the ring and "traded it for a bag of pot." Now, my
| grandfather only had two children so for it to be the
| exact same story but with my father as the perpetrator
| makes for an even stranger twist in this whole story.
|
| How did this man have such a similar story? My father
| lived and worked in the general area of the conman, did
| their paths cross at a bar? Both my aunt and father were
| and are substance abusing screw-ups for most of their
| lives so it could truly go either way!
|
| Unfortunately, I cut ties with my father before leaving
| for college and so will likely never know. I accidentally
| found this newspaper article a few years ago while
| Googling around, wondering if the stolen original ever
| turned up for auction or something and your comment about
| searching for merchandise reminded me. I've thought about
| writing to the imposter and or the article's author but I
| feel that would sound like a scam unto itself.
| marcelluspye wrote:
| Is this comment supposed to be the hook for a short story
| or film where you slowly learn that you're actually the
| grandson of the impostor?
| luhrkuhr wrote:
| Ha! No, I was old enough to be at my grandfather's well
| attended funeral to know who is the real Rocky.
| gxs wrote:
| Wow, this is enraging.
|
| It's situations like these that would test how truly civil
| I am. I'm not sure I'd be able to keep myself from
| retaliating in other ways.
| bdowling wrote:
| Trademarks are use-it-or-lose-it. Don't feel bad though. If
| Budweiser stops making beer, you can snag the name from them.
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Nissan Motors vs. Nissan Computer_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25622386 - Jan 2021 (1
| comment)
|
| _Nissan.com (is not owned by Nissan the car company)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24369990 - Sept 2020 (102
| comments)
|
| _Nissan Motor 's Lawsuit Against Us_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20680958 - Aug 2019 (1
| comment)
|
| _Uzi Nissan Spent 8 Years Fighting Nissan Motor Company to Keep
| Nissan.com_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16670141 -
| March 2018 (83 comments)
|
| _Nissan Motors LawSuit Against Nissan Computer_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15919367 - Dec 2017 (5
| comments)
|
| _Nissan vs. Nissan (2008)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10030968 - Aug 2015 (21
| comments)
|
| _Why You Can't Buy a Car on Nissan.com - Now I Know_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9692059 - June 2015 (4
| comments)
|
| _Why Nissan.com Isn't a Car Website_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6073980 - July 2013 (85
| comments)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Let's hope that his heirs hold on to the domain name.
| simondotau wrote:
| I hope they sell it to the car company for tens of millions of
| dollars. Or more.
| kube-system wrote:
| It resolves and loads a page for me, it has just been... updated.
| Wonder if his next of kin will be selling it.
| conductr wrote:
| > Wonder if his next of kin will be selling it
|
| Was my thought, hope he had put this in his estate with some
| reasonable transfer procedure
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The company will get it eventually.
|
| That's the thing about corporations: they outlive people. It
| took Disney 79 years and the trade of a sportscaster's career
| to get Oswald the Lucky Rabbit back, but they did it.
| [deleted]
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Did something change between when this was posted and now?
|
| The website is up for me, however the content is stripped down
| relative to the previous version (
| https://web.archive.org/web/20220406221134/https://nissan.co...
| ). All of the anti-Nissan content is gone and it simply says
| "Contact Us"
|
| Given the events, I wouldn't be surprised if his estate is moving
| toward trying to sell the domain and collect any possible
| proceeds.
| bmcahren wrote:
| No, but seeing as his vehemently anti-Nissan-motors content is
| gone in entirety from both nissan.com and digest.com I count
| this as "down" in terms of the website that once was a bastion
| of internet freedom.
| angst_ridden wrote:
| I used to work at a web firm that did Nissan USA's web site. I
| was in meetings where they discussed ways they would finally get
| the domain from Uzi. They obviously never succeeded. I did learn
| a lot about trademark law despite myself.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-01 23:01 UTC)