What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
93 Comments
- xafan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+130@sparks2
If you ever went to science class you'd realize that "Half Life" is a term used to quantify the lifetime of radioactivity in a material. You can't trademark a term like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half-life - Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+99Isn't it supposed to be "half-life.com" anyway? I don't think anyone at Valve really cares much.
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -1/+84Actually, he'll make more money if he sells it right away. If he waits too long it will only be worth $500,000, then $250,000, then $125,000, then...
- timbro1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+79quarterlife.com on sale for $500,000
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+68Hahah:
"HalfLife
A Musical Comedy About the End of the Universe"
nice
GG valve. - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+61"it is half-life2.com, it's also half-life3.com"
Everything up to half-life6. But when half-life6 comes out, I'm cashing in. - warnerrr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+54"Could make a few pennies if he holds on to that one"
Pesos, whois says they are in Mexico. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25They'll just beat him with a crowbar...
- ehelbush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I don't think they will purchase.
- Electric_Sheep, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26@sparks2
You could say that, but valve released Half-Life in the end of 1998, but the halflife.com domain has been registered since 1995, predating the game. - blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@alostpacket
That's not entirely correct. Apple only owns the trademark "Apple" as it applies to "computers, computer software, computer peripherals, etc." There are tons of other companies called "Apple" in various industries, the most obvious being the one dealing with apples, the fruit.
Apple, Inc. (computers) only owns apple.com because it acquired it legally by registering it first or from buying it off someone else. If apple.com existed today owned by someone else and it was a website about generic apples, a personal website with someone last name Apple, or something else that had nothing to do with computers, Apple computer would have no legal right to it. Same with halflife.com and bully.com. - alostpacket, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@xafan & the others digging down sparks2
well no, not exactly. you *can* trademark generic terms if you can show that most people already associate that term with your product. You know, apple.com I think valve would have a case there if they previously owned that domain. however it isnt clear that's the case here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Registrability_and_distinctive_character - jockser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16i love how he written a whole musical comedy called halflife ? wtf is this for real ?
- goodbeershow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11He could sell it to a reality show featuring midgets I guess.
- youpidou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Sounds like the site was registered before the game became well known. I just love this comment on the 1998 version of the front page:
"If you got here hoping to find out the half-lives of radioactive elements, click here for a bit of info on the subject."
http://web.archive.org/web/19981206233630/http://www.halflife.com/ - strateego, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@sparks2 you cannot claim that the game Half-Life was the first to use this, just because you own the trademark for a word in one field does not mean that you own it in another. Look at the example http://theos.com/dispute.html he fought for his domain name, and won. I can't just create a game, call it by a generic term, like for example, gun and bullets, and then dam and gunandbellets.com
Now if you can prove he bought it with the intent to sell it to valve, then you might have a case. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Valve won't buy it because it's not called HalfLife it's Half-Life (they already own Half-Life.com)
sometimes the hyphen is needed. - bonexaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8they do own halflife2.com though.. for a million, definitely not worth it.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8he tried to get too much. Valve probably would settle for $10,000
That's still a ***** of cash for a domain name - unununium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"retarted" [sic] says it all
- Dylan47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Witch doctors wearing black evening gowns perform surgery on an industrial robot in an automated car factory. Millions of protezoae swarm towards a speck suspended at the centre of a droplet of reddish water and play with it before attacking and devouring it -- then swirl in ecstasy." its all pritty much jibberish...
- ccolluney, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Loud screaming. Intense light from overhead. Screaming stops followed by the sound of heavy breathing. Silhouettes of three astronauts against the ceiling. White noise muffles their conversation" ?? .... I think this guy is serious.
- ccolluney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Closer to being short $999,999
- pureliquidhw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5decay is exponential so inverse square law applies,
8 million
if my fuzzy math is right. - cosmotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If a domain with the same name as a trademark can be transfered to the trademark owner, then either the trademark must have been registered/popular before the domain was registered or there is some serious room for abuse.
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4I'm assuming its next to the section for child molesters and people who talk in movie theaters?
/Browncoat and damn proud of it. - vario, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Exactly. Valve never even owned the domain. It's been in use since 1998 by a completely different party.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.halflife.com
Stupid story, dugg down. Typical, unresearched misinformation. - gmuiplaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Stratego: No you cannot trademark generic terms. If a term is "generic" it is, by definition, NOT subject to trademark protection. This is because the courts are concerned with companies tying up the basic building blocks of language. There is a reason why in the trademark industry a Trademark that has "gone generic" (that is, the mark has become the term denoting the good itself, and is not an indication of the association between the good and its source) is said to have committed "genericide." What you meant to say was that words that are not "inherently distinctive" may achieve trademark level distinctiveness over time, through long and continuous use in commerce such that the term, as associated with the goods, is indicative of the source of those goods.
As for this website, this is the very reason the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACCPA) was passed in the late 90's. Based on the content of the website (and the alliteration in the "play" on the website), if Valve wanted this site, they could easily get it through judicial enforcement. And it wouldn;t cost them a dime, as ACCPA actions typically allow the plaintiff to recover their attorney's fees from the defendant. - lovkraft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I will bet a million dollars it WON'T be sold for that amount. I follow domain sales on a daily basis and you can get three letter domains for less than $1000.
There are two possible situations:
1. Some company other than Valve buys the domain. They will have to deal with copyright restrictions so the only likely business venture is a half life fan/gaming site. And that wont be worth a million (note: a fansite just might boost halflife sales)
2. Valve buys it. Since they already managed their franchise for a decase without this domain it will have little impact on their already astronomical sales. They can basically only hope to win type-ins, which will be limited to a few hundred visitors a month.
So if Valve buys, it won't boost their sales. Someone else buys the domain, it won't hurt Valve's sales. - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Man, I hate when people park domains, especially when they're doing it just to make a buck... It's because of people like this that it's incredibly hard to find a good .com anymore.
- teddyrux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Damn you! I went to check to see what was there! For those that don't want to take my word that it's a site with a white page, just click http://www.quarterlife.com/
- LeeJunFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wouldn't let the fact that it's an everyday term disuade me from thinking they will go after him for trademark, you think for a second apple wouldn't or doesn't for a common word as apple? Or all the people who have faced celebrities for registering a their names? Even though it also happens to be the name of the person who registered it?
It all depends on the judge of the day. - Crushed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Rule #1 of registering a website for a videogame: if the name is already taken, just add "-game" or "-thegame" onto the end of it.
- r3neGaDe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apparently, Valve didn't own http://www.half-life.com either, at least until 2001.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000408044944/www.half-life.com/ - arcooke, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@sparks2
There are laws about that, yes.. but "half life" doesn't have to mean Half-Life the video game.. Half life is also a scientific term that has to do with the decay of atoms. - str3ama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@xafan
want to bet on that? Archie Comics sued a couple who had bought the domain veronica.com to use to showcase pictures of their newborn baby, Archie comics said they 'owned' the name Veronica and they actually won. Try visiting http://www.veronica.com and see where it takes you! - beckerist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3quarterlife.com has the red "Target" bullseye as it's favicon.ico ( http://www.quarterlife.com/favicon.ico )
- ThankTheCheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2there's a special place in hell for domain squatters.
- Daveoh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1learn2english
- dallasjfreeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1they are dreaming
- EmmSee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Put some content on it and throw up AdSense in the meantime ... type-in traffic... CHING $ CHING $!
- puppis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@xafan
yeah and Amazon is a rain forest in south america so you can't trademark that either... right???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon - Aksumka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Valve =/= owned. Official HL² site is .net
- redwallhp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's still worth a bit. Halflife.com would rank up pretty near Half-Life.com without even trying, plus people are likely to forget the dash a lot (a big risk if you put a hyphen in your domain). If you were to put some CPM-based ads on it (and a link to the real site to avoid confusion) you could probably make a bit of money.
- kjcdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://web.archive.org/web/*/HalfLife.com
Look at all the pages over the years
Steam never cared about that domain, what they care about is this one - http://www.google.com/search?&q=half+life - Agret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=inurl%3A%22-game.com%22+%7C+inurl%3A%22-game.org%22+%7C+inurl%3A%22-game.net%22+%7C+inurl%3A%22-game.co.uk%22&btnG=Search
- nowayhoseb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Xafan
"If you ever went to science class you'd realize that "Half Life" is a term used to quantify the lifetime of radioactivity in a material. You can't trademark a term like that."
Yes you can. You can trademark anything and use it as a brand withing an industry. Infinity is vast and infinite and yet at least 500 companies worldwide use the term infinity. My company name is a historic event which at least 500 other companies use, the only difference is that I am the only one in the industry with that particular name and I CAN defend the trademark in court. - enigma487, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article is just stupid.
http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=halflife.com&prog_id=godaddy
halflife.com has been registered since 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_%28game%29
half-life was released in 1998.
do you actually believe that someone squatted this in 1995 knowing that Half-Life would be as big as it is now??
and nowhere in the wayback machine is it for sale. - Surreal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I thought it was common knowledge that valve owned half-life.com, not halflife.com
Regardless, this is both inaccurate and lame. Buried as such. - Adamesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not copyright, but could be a trademark issue and violative of the anticybersquatting consumer protection act (ACPA). My guess is that this is a violation, but if the owner has a valid reason for owning the name (ie. not to scalp it), then he's got a good defense. It could be much more complicated if the owner is overseas though.
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is