Did you know that there are 2 sex.coms ?

[sarettah]

Either did I, but there are.

1 is the one we know and loathe owned by Gary Kremen (I think)

The other is apparently a company (called sex.com) in Philadelphia that thinks they bought it for 11.4 mill and say they made a $500,000 deposit on it :blink:

So, Kremen, if you are around, how abouts popping in and giving us the skinny on this ?

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/weird_news/12763766.htm

Sex.com sues over Web site

Heard the one about the folks from Philadelphia who say they lost $500,000 on an Internet porn site?

It's no joke. Their company filed suit over the matter in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia - in a document that also reveals the purported market value of a Web site with the domain address www.sex.com.

It's worth $11 million.

"A domain name can make or break a company," said Robert M. Silverman of Ambler, a lawyer for Philadelphia-based Sex.com Inc., which filed the lawsuit. Silverman declined to identify the local owners.

"These intangible assets have so much good will attached to them and are so recognizable," Silverman said. "It's no different than back in the 20th century, when a jingle was everything for a product."

According to the lawsuit, filed yesterday, Sex.com signed an $11.4 million deal last month with a Boston domain company to acquire the Internet address www.sex.com.

As part of the deal, Sex.com alleged that it made a $500,000 deposit to Web site broker Domain Name Acquisition Group L.L.C., the defendant in the case.

The civil complaint did not say why the deal fell apart but alleged that Domain Name engaged in "repeated untruths regarding the domain name Sex.Com, about other competing offers for the domain name Sex.Com, and various other material and relevant exaggerations and untruths."

Domain Name president Andrew Miller said he had not yet seen the lawsuit and therefore could not comment. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Bruce Kauffman.


Just a little editing to get Kremen's board TRACKER (http://www.boardscanner.com/) to go off. Kremen Sex.com Cohen wants to pay you

[Dravyk]

Electra and I saw that story yesterday morning and were debating whether to put it in. We didn't because as far as we could tell -- and this only took reading the article about six times -- it seems:

a) the reporter has no clue how the internet works

b) the reporter has no clue what the actual story is

c) the company buying the domain doesn't know how the internet works or who actually owns the domain

d) the same company does not seem to know they can be sued by Gary for infringement.

What it appears to me to be is that this company buying a domain for 11.4 mil and who gave 1/2 a mil already gave it to a Boston company who -- guess what?! -- don't own the domain! (Because Gary Kremen does.)

And apparently none of these morons, the company nor the reporter, are capable of doing a freaking WHOIS!!!!!

[Newton]

Electra and I saw that story yesterday morning and were debating whether to put it in. We didn't because as far as we could tell -- and this only took reading the article about six times -- it seems:

a) the reporter has no clue how the internet works

b) the reporter has no clue what the actual story is

c) the company buying the domain doesn't know how the internet works or who actually owns the domain

d) the same company does not seem to know they can be sued by Gary for infringement.

What it appears to me to be is that this company buying a domain for 11.4 mil and who gave 1/2 a mil already gave it to a Boston company who -- guess what?! -- don't own the domain! (Because Gary Kremen does.)

And apparently none of these morons, the company nor the reporter, are capable of doing a freaking WHOIS!!!!!

I sell cheap Buckingham Palace .. :okthumb:

[Trev]

I sell cheap Buckingham Palace .. :okthumb:
How can you sell something that I own... :yowsa:

[Grump]

It doesn't seem at all unusual to form a corporation named for the domain you are in the process of buying. If they had paid a $half million deposit the deal must have been fairly well along (or at least they thought it was), so I see nothing odd there.

A corporation formed for the purpose of buying the same named domain certainly is not an infringement. Had the deal gone through they would have had the right to use the corporate name online, if not then they wouldn't have been infringing unless they entered into some other online business using that corporate name.

[DrGuile]

lol, wonder if others fell for the scam...

[sarettah]

It doesn't seem at all unusual to form a corporation named for the domain you are in the process of buying. If they had paid a $half million deposit the deal must have been fairly well along (or at least they thought it was), so I see nothing odd there.

A corporation formed for the purpose of buying the same named domain certainly is not an infringement. Had the deal gone through they would have had the right to use the corporate name online, if not then they wouldn't have been infringing unless they entered into some other online business using that corporate name.


Who said anything about infrngement ? (If I missed it, sorry)

From the way I read this, a domain speculator accepted $500K and promised he could deliver sex.com (the domain) to sex.com (the corporation in philadelphia) for $11.4M and then either could not do it or did not try to do it or something similar. In short, they sold something they didn't own and got nailed when they couldn't deliver.

They should have watched the Music Man to see how to pull that off properly :okthumb:

[DrGuile]

Also, not only did they not know what the Internet is, they've apparently never heard of escrow/in-trust accounts

[Dravyk]

I'd love to know how a company doesn't do due diligence for a transaction of this amount before hand to make sure they actually owned it!!!

Oh, giveaway #105 ... If men.com went two years ago for $13.5 million, who would possibly think sex.com would go for a measely 11.4? My gawd these folks are totally clueless!!

Right, Guile, the escrow too! Duuuuuh!

Grump, what you said is correct about the corporation. But since now we know it's not the owner, yeah, they could now get it on infringing.

[Sin]

That's a very interesting article...

[Newton]

How can you sell something that I own... :yowsa:

You obviously didn't read the fine print .. may I point out section 3c paragraph ii .. which states ..
"If my transit is parked in the front .. then I am at home and strictly no visitors" ;)

[Trev]

You obviously didn't read the fine print .. may I point out section 3c paragraph ii .. which states ..
"If my transit is parked in the front .. then I am at home and strictly no visitors" ;)
Ah, I seem to have missed that as I only skimmed the contract, I must apologize. Please continue with your attempt at selling your London home. ;)