Sex.com Case...

[Opti]

Couple of quotes from this article..

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/comm...55E1702,00.html (http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6589538%255E1702,00.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

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..

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??

[Hooper]

god opti. you're so out of the loop. ;-)

i've never heard of either of those.. sounds like they interviewed cohen for their facts here.

[cj]

i'd wouldn't call the courier mail a reliable source of factual information
:rolleyes:

[Opti]

Thanks Hooper :)))))

Was worried I may have gone senile for a moment..

It's a Queensland newspaper... no journalist byline... maybe they interviewed DUC and he thought it would be more interesting with some cash invovled! :awinky: