Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
America Online Your Rights Online

AOL Threatens Peng, Demands Domain Handover 219

nutznboltz writes "According to the Peng project website AOL has sent them a cease-and-desist letter claiming that Peng, a GPLed software project is commerically exploiting AOL and has until Oct 15th to hand over the pengaol.com domain name." Update: 10/12 17:45 GMT by T : As several readers have pointed out, the domain name in question is actually pengaol.org, rather than pengaol.com.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AOL Threatens Peng, Demands Domain Handover

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:36PM (#4437434)
    Using aol.com in your domain name for something AOL related is just asking for trouble.
    • To fix this, hand over pengaol.com and go register pengdialer.com, which is still available [gandi.net].
    • Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sean Clifford ( 322444 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @02:06PM (#4437555) Journal
      Using aol.com in your domain name for something AOL related is just asking for trouble.


      Bullshit. AOLSucks.com [aolsucks.com] wouldn't have the impact without "aol" being part of the domain name. They successfully defended the domain under the auspices of fair use.


      Just because the letters aol are part of your domain name doesn't give AOL the right to stomp down on your ass - even if the subject of your site is related to AOL.


      If you're up to something infringing on their trademark like trying to make money off their good name, then yeah you're violating their mark. But this doesn't.


      IANAL, but you should get one. They're really not all that expensive. Stand up to the bully. Tell AOL to fuck off.

      • Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Something like AOLSucks can receive special protection under the law (because of the type of speech), while using AOL in the name of a related product does not. If you own company XYZ, do you want someone else to setup a company called XYZ next door? Most business owners wouldn't.

        The real question is "Why was AOL in the domain name?" Was it because they wanted to relate their product to AOL? Yes. That's why they're in the wrong. It's not as if they set up a domain years ago for a product called Paola, and then AOL came along and said "Hey! AOL is in there!" It's not like when Gateway 2000 stole gateway.com from it's legit owner.
      • Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by neuroticia ( 557805 ) <neuroticia@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Saturday October 12, 2002 @03:05PM (#4437785) Journal
        Except for one thing. It allows the user to connect to AOL, bypassing AOL's software, bypassing AOL's control over their Online Service. It removes advertising, AOL's content, and other parts of the AOL user experience that AOL wants to provide.

        If AOL wanted to provide Linux users with their software, they would. If AOL wanted to allow users to dial up to their OSP without using the AOL interface, they would. But they don't.

        AOL is an Online Service Provider, not an ISP. They make part of their income off of fleecing companies and convincing them to join up. Anything that allows the end-user to avoid seeing the companies that have joined up, is effectively removing some of the selling power that AOL has.

        On top of AOL's aims to provide a specific user experience, and get funding from various companies based on the number of eyes that will see their content, AOL is also required to defend their trademark--otherwise they will lose the right to defend their trademark, and it will become a term that lapses into common usage, thus usable in ways that AOL would not like.

        AOLSucks is fine, it's a commentary site. It's non-competitive with AOL, and does not deny that AOL is a trademark. Pengaol is a violation of AOL's rights. Sucks, but it's true.

        -Sara
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Peng can now be found here: http://www.peng.apinc.org/
    • by Anonymous Coward
      AOL has no material interest in this. These guys REed dialer interoperability, nothing more. AOL sells accounts, and the software can't use the service without you having one.

      Just like Telephones... If you sell a service, then you should have the right to access it using whatever platform YOU choose.

      We really, really, need to get back to a flatly "first sale" world. Not just for books, but for everything. Soon, no doubt, we'll be seeing everything from washing machines to toasters laying propriatary ties at our feet.

      BUY A THING -- OWN A THING.

      OWN A THING -- DO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO WITH IT.

      PERIOD.

    • Yeah, you might end up in gaol.
  • by anonymous coword ( 615639 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:39PM (#4437444) Homepage Journal
    That has a / or . in its domain name. Since every one has that in their url, everyone with a domain name will be recieving a cease and desist letter from Rob Malda soon.
  • So... a big corporation sees something that resembles its name, and without even investigating into what it actually does, it sics the lawyers on 'em....

    They're not too bright if they don't realize that it has the potential to expand their business.... All it does is give people using OS's other than Win/Mac the opportunity to use their absolutely trustworthy and splendid service (/sarcasm). They still have to pay AOL for it. Peng's not making a profit on it. How is this harmful to AOL again?

    Oh wait. On the "About Peng" page, it says it's a "reverse ingeneering" [sic] of AOL's technology, so it must be evil.
    • It could be seen as harmful due to the fact that without the bloated software, you aren't being exposed to advertisements and such that aol makes money off of.

      I'm not a finance major or anything, but I would say that losing money, because people no longer are using the bloated software, is harmful.

      That said, I still like what peng is doing, if AOL is going to be too lazy to get software created for linux, then its their own damn fault something like this is available.
    • If AOL should be suing anyone it should be suing the makers of Trillian, Cerulean Studios.
  • .org not .com (Score:3, Informative)

    by bjschrock ( 557973 ) <bschrock@@@gmail...com> on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:41PM (#4437458)
    It looks like the name in question is pengaol.org, and they've moved the site to another location. So they've either already given up, or are just getting ready to just in case.
  • Correction: (Score:5, Informative)

    by flogger ( 524072 ) <non@nonegiven> on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:42PM (#4437460) Journal
    They are asked to hand over the pengaol.org [pengaol.org] domain name. Not the pengaol.com
  • by mhesseltine ( 541806 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:42PM (#4437463) Homepage Journal

    pengdialer.org is available as a domain. Why would you specifically use someone else's trademark in your name, knowing that companies with money will persue a change?

  • Hmmm (Score:3, Informative)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:43PM (#4437466)
    Registrant:
    STEPHANE GUTH (PENGAOL-DOM)
    3 Rue Des Vergers
    BLIESBRUCK,57200
    FR

    Domain Name: PENGAOL.ORG

    Administrative Contact:
    GUTH, STEPHANE (SGM450) birdyisme@AOL.COM
    3 Rue Des Vergers
    BLIESBRUCK, 57200
    FR
    +33387022871
    Technical Contact:
    Departement Noms de domaine (CP1146-ORG) internic@AMEN.FR
    AMEN.FR - Agence des Medias Numeriques
    12/14, rond-point des Champs-elysees
    PARIS
    FRANCE
    +33 1 46 51 95 60
    Fax- +33 1 46 51 95 60

    Record expires on 30-Jun-2003.
    Record created on 30-Jun-2001.
    Database last updated on 12-Oct-2002 13:39:17 EDT.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    PARIS.AMEN.FR 217.174.192.229
    NS2.AMEN.FR 195.154.205.4


    I'd suggest that Peng move to the domain [fuckaol.org] and tell AOL what they really think.

    BTW, seeing as Peng is French, are there any Nazi references or links on AOL? Let's hope not for AOL's sake.
    • I'd suggest that Peng move to the domain [fuckaol.org] and tell AOL what they really think. This is what is says: "www.fuckaol.org has been suspended by Domain Direct Administration. If you are the owner of this domain, please contact help@domaindirect.com to have your domain reinstated." In other words, the AOL/TimeWarner police are everywhere.
  • Uh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sfraggle ( 212671 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:43PM (#4437470)
    Seriously though, what were they thinking? AOL _is_ a trademark. Dont get me wrong, I generally agree with a lot of the anti-megacorp stuff (software patents, the evils of the DMCA etc) but in this case they are clearly using AOLs trademark. It seems pretty justified to me.
    • Is "DOW" a trademark? Does that mean that WinDOWs infringes? I thought not.
      • no, but winDOW a stock helper would be infringing. PengAOL is also. It is a dialer that connects to AOL, and could therefore cause confusion. I really think it is fair of them to not be able to use AOL in their name. Now if they were banned from mentioning AOL compatibility, that is different.
    • Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @02:06PM (#4437553)
      Seriously though, what were they thinking? AOL _is_ a trademark.

      Yes, it is. Therefore it's illegal for me to market my company "Another Old Look" (which sells faux antiques) as "AOL."

      On the other hand, it does not prevent me from using their trademark to refer to them, as in the ISP help page, http://www.sample.com/help/former_aol_users which explains the Internet to people who have only used AOL.

      Just as there is no trademark infringement if an auto parts manufacturer sells decorative wheel covers designed for Cadillacs and calls them "Roulette Wheel Covers for Cadillac," there is no trademark infringement for someone who provides accessories for AOL mentioning that fact. They're not claiming to be AOL, they're describing a context.

      • Re:Uh (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ChopsMIDI ( 613634 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @02:23PM (#4437603) Homepage
        Therefore it's illegal for me to market my company "Another Old Look" (which sells faux antiques) as "AOL."

        Actually... that instance would be okay because the two companies are completely unrelated.

        AOL is just an acromyn, but only when used in the right context references American Online.

      • Re:Uh (Score:5, Insightful)

        by andyf ( 15400 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @02:29PM (#4437616) Homepage
        Actually, I really don't think it would be illegal if you were in a completely different product arena. Basically, if there's no likelihood of confusion [utexas.edu], it's less likely that you'll get in trouble. In the pengaol case though, I think there would be a likelood of confusion, but there probably wouldn't be for "Another Old Look" calling itself AOL. (Though you could probably get a lawyer to argue anything.)
  • Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:43PM (#4437473) Homepage Journal
    I didn't even know that existed. That solves all of the problems with AOL. I remember way back when I used AOL. It was an ok service provider. I didn't get busy signals like everyone else. The only gripe I ever had with AOL as in ISP was that in order to connect you had to run the bloated memory eating AOL software. Whereas for another dial up ISP I could use the super lite built in windows dial up networking. I don't want to have to use up all my RAM just to establish a connection. I always ended up minimizing the AOL software and using netscape or other programs.

    PENG, which I didn't know about until just now, appears to be the ultimate solution. It makes AOL exactly the same as every other dial-up ISP. No bloated software to load, and it works in linux!

    I can see why aol is pissed though. Because of PENG there is at least one person out there who isn't seeing their ads and is probably getting better transfer rates because there isn't a crapload of software hogging the cpu and bandwith(with ads). So that's money lost for AOL. Admittedly it isn't much money lost. I mean how many people use linux and AOL? Two totally seperate groups of people.

    Hopefully it will encourage AOL to not force its users to load a giant ad-laden piece of software to connect, or at least to re-compile that bloated piece of software for linux.

    Nah, I don't think they're that intelligent.
    • Whereas for another dial up ISP I could use the super lite built in windows dial up networking. I don't want to have to use up all my RAM just to establish a connection. I always ended up minimizing the AOL software and using netscape or other programs.

      I never thought I'd see Windows and "super lite" in the same sentence. DUN is probably just as bloated, it just loads with Windows and can't be removed (like IE), so it seems fast and light. At least it doesn't put ads on your screen like AOL.

      • Re:Wow (Score:2, Informative)

        by AnyoneEB ( 574727 )
        DUN is probably just as bloated, it just loads with Windows and can't be removed (like IE), so it seems fast and light.
        Under Windows 9x you can remove Dial-Up Networking, but you need it installed for some LAN features including internet sharing (even if you are sharing cable/DSL). As far as I can see there's no option to remove DUP under Windows XP, but it might be hidden away somewhere.
    • by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @04:53PM (#4438157)
      AOL makes its money from all the "ad-laden" content and services it spoonfeeds to its subscribers. So don't expect them to produce software that enables AOL users to ignore that content. Or, to allow someone else to do the same without a legal challenge.

      AOL has dallied with Linux dialers in the past, getting, I believe, at least one to beta. They've probably done the math and decided the costs of supporting Linux as an AOL client are more than the revenue they'd take in.

      Under U.S. law, anyone who has registered a trademark must be seen to defend their rights to that trademark against infringers, or risk losing the trademakr altogether via a court decision that the trademarked language or art has lapsed into general usage. Years ago, Xerox went after use of the word "xerox" (which they'd trademarked) to refer generically to any copier. Even ran TV commercials telling people not to say "please xerox this".

      Marketing a product that combines duplication of a proprietary product's functionality with an infringement of that product's copyright is tantamount to inviting a cease and desist order.

      If you don't like this, at least realize that your real target isn't AOL but trademark law.

      • Correction:

        Make the next to last paragraph read "...infringement of that product's trademark is tantamount...." (replacing "copyright" with "trademark".)

        Rats:-)
    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

      by asteinberg ( 521580 ) <ari DOT steinberg AT stanford DOT edu> on Saturday October 12, 2002 @07:25PM (#4438584) Homepage
      I didn't even know that existed.

      The irony about moves like this is that AOL, in trying to destroy Peng, has instead just brought it to the attention of thousands of people just like you. Instead of helping a few users get around AOL's bloated interface, it can now help hundreds. Plus, since it's open-source, I think it's probably a safe assumption that it is here to stay - even if AOL's pressure scares the author into stopping his work on the program, the source is still out there, and now thousands of Slashdot-readers know about it and are interested in it.

      Yet another example of how (surprise, surprise) big companies like AOL Just Don't Get It.

    • It allowed people to decode and convert RealPlayer format so you wouldn't have to see all the annoying ads. Real shut them down.

      I don't hack into your company so please don't advertise into my home.
  • Sleezy Law Firm? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Unknown Relic ( 544714 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:45PM (#4437479) Homepage
    "Arent Fox asks us as a first step, to suppress every reference to the Aol brand name and logo, and after another (rather sinuous) argument, to hand over the pengaol.org domain name. We have to comply and answer before october 14th, or they will inform Aol of their action."

    Note the last sentence. It sounds to me like it's not AOL initiating this, but in fact a sleezy law firm looking to create themselves some from by finding people to sue. They're probably hoping that peng will not comply, and thus generate themselves a juicy law suit.
    • by 99bottles ( 257169 )
      Hmmm... Good point.
      From this AOL suit [observers.net] back in 2000 (from a different firm), I notice much more detail in the threat, including legal references. In particular, it seems strange that a reputable firm would simply use "Re:AOL" as the subject of the corresponence.
    • Re:Sleezy Law Firm? (Score:3, Informative)

      by LoadStar ( 532607 )
      Note the last sentence. It sounds to me like it's not AOL initiating this, but in fact a sleezy law firm looking to create themselves some from by finding people to sue. They're probably hoping that peng will not comply, and thus generate themselves a juicy law suit.

      No, Arent Fox probably does represent AOL Time Warner. This doesn't, of course, preclude that they are a sleazy law firm, but then again, most law firms can probably be described as sleazy.

      Arent Fox is a pretty major law firm. I recognize the name from various Apple rumors sites - Arent Fox is the law firm Apple uses to go after the rumors sites when they break an NDA.

      In this case, it's very likely that Arent Fox is retained by AOL Time Warner to pursue any and all copyright infringement cases they find. They are likely given a wide jurisdiction to act in AOL's behalf, up to the point of filing a law suit against a party. IANAL (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express), but I believe this is fairly standard in agency law.

      What you describe is common in Germany, from what I understand, where any lawyer can go after a party, without having any kind of agency relationship with the offended party. (I vaguely remember a case involving SuSE of this type, I believe.) I don't believe that this type of action is legal in the US. I believe you have to be retained in an agency relationship with a party before you are able to pursue legal action.

    • Almost certainly not.

      (Note: IANYAL. This is not legal advice.)

      In the letter [apinc.org], they refer to AOL as their "client" and say that they "represent AOL" in these matters. They can't do that if AOL isn't really their client. If it turns out that AOL is in fact not their client, Peng will have a cause of action against Arent Fox. But Arent Fox aren't that stupid; I'm pretty sure they're actually retained by AOL.

      Here's my guess: AOL has retained Arent Fox to defend their trademarks, etc., and to send out nastygrams demanding compliance. "We will advise AOL of its available remedies" (which is what the letter says, very different from "they will inform AOL of their action") doesn't mean "We'll go tell on you," but rather, "we will give legal advice to our client about what actions our client should take."

      So it's probably not AOL directly initiating this, but it's not some fee-finding trademark-chaser who's going to show up at AOL's door with a possible suit. AOL has almost certainly asked them to find people to sue (or, at least, to find people to send nastygrams to); they're not doing it on their own.
    • Other folks have already pointed out that read correctly Arent Fox's letter makes perfect legal sense. You may disagree with it, but you need to take that up with AOL. I'd just like to mention that Arent Fox is a Major DC and NYC lawfirm. You could call them lots of things, especially if you were on the losing side, but sleazy isn't one of them. These guys you take seriously. If Peng is to have a shot of surviving this--and for what little it's worth I think they do--they need serious legal help and they need it now.

      Steven*

      *Who has nothing to do with Arent Fox except that he knows their reputation.

  • Come on AOL, (Score:5, Informative)

    by norweigiantroll ( 582720 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:48PM (#4437491)
    Go pick on someone your own size. Gaim, Peng, Jabber, etc., seems like AOL just likes to harass non-profit, open-source projects. Come on, these people are working (mostly for free) on the software, giving out the software for free, and releasing the source code too. AOL should be ashamed of itself for for harassing people who are just trying to help their fellow man.
    • From the way things look, this isn't AOL doing the picking on here. But if it were, there is a clear reason why they would want to see the fall of Peng. And that is power. They don't really care about the number of linux clients they could get. Besides, most people running linux might not go for being an AOL client anyways. So no noticable market share increase. They would rather prevent this company from releasing software that uses its own technology.

      ...and releasing the source code too.

      Like AOL really wants everyone to have access to its own proprietary protocols.
      • Like AOL really wants everyone to have access to its own proprietary protocols. Depending on how Peng came about the info on the AOL protocols, it may be perfectly legal reverse engineering. Coversely, it may not be, I don't know, just addressing the possiility that the knowledge was obtained through legally protected means.
    • but dont you think that the fact that these projects are open source would form a greater threat to holding on to their Intellectual Properties than say a project on AOL dialer thats proprietary ? this ofcourse would be from aol point of view that they want to stop development programs such as these & prevent people from getting new ideas looking at the source.
    • Re:Come on AOL, (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mhesseltine ( 541806 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @03:06PM (#4437790) Homepage Journal

      Maybe, AOL is using this as a tactic to start talks about a settlement. The settlement could involve AOL acquiring peng like they did with Nullsoft, Netscape, ICQ, etc. Let someone else build the idea, and once it's proven, buy the company and incorporate it. This saves AOL the burden of spending on R&D, but gives them a new market.

      • The settlement could involve AOL acquiring peng like they did with Nullsoft, Netscape, ICQ, etc. Let someone else build the idea, and once it's proven, buy the company and incorporate it. This saves AOL the burden of spending on R&D, but gives them a new market.

        why not? worked for microsoft *groans as his karma is mercilessly slaughtered for mentioning it*
    • Slow down a minute and let's put this in context:
      GAIM? You mean the program whpse name is the addition to the acronym AIM standing for (AOL Instant Messenger) of the letter G standing for GNOME or GTK toolkit or whatever? A program which depends on a protocol written by AOL and whose logins exchanges are mediated by AOL's servers? Now it happens that AOL has one of the IM networks with enough people to make it a useful communications medium, so it is reasonable to ask that they make it available to others, but.... they're still the ones who made the network happen. There are many important things to debate about whether such networks should open and publicly available, but just because a company built a private one doesn't mean they're a bad guy.

      Here's an analogy:
      If I built a private road, I would feel free to tell a small trucking project that I didn't want it using my roads, for reasons including maintenance, liability, effect on the people who live by my road, etc. Even a "nice" trucking project. I might build a private road even though I believe roads should generally be public, simply because a public road is a more complicated and slower endeavour.

      So take the debate back where it belongs:

      Q: Should AOL allow other dialers?
      A: Probably, under certain circumstances and conditions.
      Q: Should AOL allow other projects to use its messaging network?
      A: Probably, under certain circumstances and conditions.
      And so on and so forth

      I'm all for an intelligent conversation about these terms and conditions.

      Not only that, but even if they were a simple bad guy, why would you call them names if you know your side will have to work with them at some point? It's just counterproductive.

  • by 99bottles ( 257169 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:52PM (#4437503)
    On a hunch, I did whois on aaol.com, baol.com, caol.com, daol.com, eaol.com, ...then I got bored.

    It looks like they better start suing, they've got a lot of others using their trademark.
    • You've never heard of context? AOL doesn't own the trademark on "gaol" (yes, it is a word!) just because it has the letters "aol" in it. It's the same thing with Microsoft Windows..... if they had complete control over the word "Windows" then I'm sure there would be a lot of glass shops and window-hangers out of business. AFAIK, The infringing use of a trademark must be that it will cause confusion or clearly use the trademark in a method similar to that of the trademark owner's use. AOL does have a case if it's just about trademark... but anything else is pure crap.
  • by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:53PM (#4437504)
    Arent Fox [arentfox.com]

    Why not drop them a line [mailto].
  • by Ektanoor ( 9949 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:54PM (#4437508) Journal
    It seems that looking at sites/articles is not a problem among certain /.-ters. If one looks well at this letter, then he may note that they only have taken a look the the name of the site...

    Besides it seems that Peng's development came into a halt somewhere in August. This news is in the first page in French- "Peng ne sera plus maintenu" 03.08.2002. So, the claims come a little out of sight and rather harsh. Again, we see that lawyers are also bad readers, love to shoot first, blindly and stupidly.
  • by zod1025 ( 189215 ) <`gro.yrdraziwnredom' `ta' `doz'> on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:55PM (#4437511) Homepage
    The human mind is really good at spotting differences. When you read the words "Microsoft" and "Micro$oft" you instantly know that those are very different words. It therefore follows that domain names with different spellings are easily distinguishable and completely distinct.

    The domain "micro$oft.com" is not in any way confusable with the domain "microsoft.com". They are different. You have to push different keys on the keyboard to get to these sites.

    Now, if some buisness were to have a link to the "micro$oft.com" domain and say "Click here to get to MICROSOFT!" then THEY should get a C&D letter. NOT the owners of the "micro$oft.com" domain.

    Any other use of litigation regarding particular choices of domain names is an abuse, and should be stopped.
  • by fire-eyes ( 522894 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:55PM (#4437516) Homepage
    Of course, this is only a suggestion.

    http://osdn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/penga ol /peng1.04.tar.gz

    http://unc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pengao l/ pengaol0.96.tar.gz
  • Legal Fund (EFF?) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fire-eyes ( 522894 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @01:58PM (#4437523) Homepage
    I don't think this is big enough for EFF but...

    Perhaps a legal fund of some sort could be set up. It'll certainly get 20 bucks from me.
  • More like AOHell!

    AH HA HA

    Nice one!
  • Should the owner already start making coffee for the AOL lawyers :) Domain name "takeovers" like this are insane. If your company happens to be known with a three letter name, does that automatically mean you can takeover anything which ends to these magic three letters. If so, I will make one company that's called A, another with name B, and third called ...erm... D :)?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 12, 2002 @02:04PM (#4437547)
    Ding! "You've got Sued"
  • Shame (Score:2, Informative)

    I've used Pengaol before, and it works fine. Essentially it's just a tunnel: if you have a valid username and password you can use it as a normal ISP from Linux. You don't have access to the AOL chatrooms or proprietary content (or didn't when I used it a year or so ago), and you have to sign up from a Windows machine: you can't create an AOL account with Pengaol.

    I don't see how AOL are being harmed by this, since you still need to be signed up with them. Hopefully they'll keep the project going in spite of this harassment.

    • I don't see how AOL are being harmed by this, since you still need to be signed up with them.

      Because you aren't seeing all the ads and customized content on the front page.
  • Maybe they should consider suing themselves on behalf of FOX Broadcasting.
  • Three months later...

    The Fox TV channel sues Arent Fox....

    Three months later....

    The Mexican government sues the FOX TV broadcast company for profiting from their president's name......

    Ahh, shuks
  • by vegetablespork ( 575101 ) <vegetablespork@gmail.com> on Saturday October 12, 2002 @02:16PM (#4437584) Homepage
    [user@host Suppressed]$ ls

    aebpr22.zip* eBookReader (old verson)/
    TiVo MPEG/
    ASPI Me (backdate to 1998)/ PanoTools/ WINE with DX/
    Blizzard Jackboots/ peng1.04.tar.gz WMA crack (v7)/
    Broadcast 2000/ skie/ Xolox/
    DeCSS/ Streambox VCR 3.1b/ xp-stuff/

    [user@host Suppressed]$

    When will these idiots learn that attempts to suppress software only result in wider distribution. I hadn't heard of Peng until today: now I'm preserving a copy.

  • by ramzak2k ( 596734 )
    Did you guys read there About page [apinc.org] ?

    they have a line that says,
    "This program includes a reverse ingeenering of the Aol's protocol. "

    Arent Fox guys must be drooling over that statement licking their DMCA plate.
    • You are allowed to revese engineer under the DMCA in order to create interoperable software, I believe.
      • Section 1201(f) (Score:3, Informative)

        by yerricde ( 125198 )

        You are allowed to revese engineer under the DMCA in order to create interoperable software, I believe.

        True, under the letter of the law: 17 USC 1201(f) [cornell.edu]. But good luck proving in court that your "means are necessary to achieve such interoperability".

      • by Renaud ( 6194 )
        You are allowed to revese engineer under the DMCA in order to create interoperable software, I believe.

        The D-M-C what ?
        They're in France anyway, and is reverse engineering is legal here, period.
        (dunno how the EUCD is going to affect this, though...)
  • by Joe Jordan ( 453607 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @02:28PM (#4437612) Journal
    This is nothing new. AOL has been doing this to virtually any domain name that has the letters "A" "O" and "L" in sequential form for as long as I can remember.

    I also had an a-o-l domain name. "EnhanceAOL.com" was my site before I got a cease and desist from Arent Fox claiming that I was diluting their trademark. My site was an aol add-on site - software that actually improved upon their client software (hence the term 'enhance aol'. They don't look at the "content" of your site. They don't care if your trying to save the poor starving children of the world. If you have "aol" somewhere in your domain, they're going to take it.

    Don't believe me? I found this site: search.wipo.int [wipo.int] which lists at least some of the AOL domains that have been repo-ed by AOL -- If anyone knows of a better source please post because I know there's been more.
    • by Hayzeus ( 596826 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @03:10PM (#4437803) Homepage
      Don't believe me? I found this site: search.wipo.int [wipo.int] which lists at least some of the AOL domains that have been repo-ed by AOL

      A lot of these are also DENIALS of AOLs petitions. This usually seems to be the case when WIPO finds that the allegedly infringing domain has is actually being used for something. Under the WIPO guidlines, AOLs attempt to take your domain should have been denied. Trademark infringement is actually another matter, though. WIPO considers possible infrigement, but infrigement alone shouldn't get the complaintant's request approved.

      Just out of curiosity, did you ever end up going before WIPO? How did things pan out?

      • Just out of curiosity, did you ever end up going before WIPO? How did things pan out?

        I had just started advertising the domain for less than a months time before I got my first 'cease and desist'. I ignored them hoping they'd go away, but got another one about a month later. I wasn't about to risk lawsuit from a multi-billion dollar corporation, so I called Arent Fox and told them they could have it if they refunded the 2 year registration fee. They did, and I did. I didn't know as much back then as I do now, but I'm not sure if handling the situation differently would have resulted in any different outcome.
  • % nslookup pengaol.org Server: ns2.charterpipeline.net Address: 24.205.1.62 Non-authoritative answer: Name: pengaol.org Address: 0.0.0.0 Hmm. Did they give in, or is their name server just dying?
  • Could be worse... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @02:40PM (#4437662) Homepage
    From the "about Peng" section of their site:

    This program includes a reverse ingeenering of the Aol's protocol.

    Hopefully everyone still remembers the fit DigitalConvergence threw over their ColonCat's protocol being reverse engineered. AOL isn't telling them to stop developing their software, just to stop using AOL in their domain name - that's understandable. By having AOL in the domain name, it makes it appear there is a similarity, endorsement or affiliation.

    As for www.aolsucks.com, that's a sight voicing an OPINION about AOL, NOT offering a product or service. For example, I could register www.dellsucks.com (or maybe someone already has, this is just an example) to share my personal opinion about Dell computers. However, if I started www.upgradeyourdell.com - I'm sure Dell would be none too pleased and I WOULD be infringing their trademark.

    eBay has a similar Improper Trademark Usage policy regarding auction titles [ebay.com]. If, for example, you're selling generic 9v batteries, you cannot use a title like "Lot of 12 9v Batteries like Energizer, Duracell".
  • So that? They're based in France, so whatever barking AOL does through it's US lawyers will be woefully ineffective.
    • but if they bark with their French lawyers it may be effective...
    • Your signature is in horrible taste. I hate Israel as much as the next guy. I think it's disgusting how the racist bastards kill with impunity. However, to say that anything can justify the race-based killing of people that Hitler conducted smacks of ignorance and stupidity. Nothing justifies ethnic genocide. PERIOD.
  • by baudbarf ( 451398 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @04:13PM (#4438029) Homepage
    Before reading this article, I'd never heard of peng before. Now I know all about it, and might even use it, because AOL made the news by threatening to sue them. Yet it seems that their intent was quite to the contrary.
  • If Peng have to hand over the 'Pengaol' domain because it contains the name 'aol' then surely AOL would have to give it back under the same logic.
  • Go Peng! (but ...) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by valmont ( 3573 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @09:48PM (#4438937) Homepage Journal
    I find Peng's efforts highly laudable and i'm glad to see they have gotten themselves a brand new home [apinc.org].

    but really AOL is always going to try to fight reverse-engineering attempts of their proprietary protocols. face it, they suck.

    With all the alternative ISPs out there, why would anyone subject themselves to AOL for connectivity? My guess is many families have had their AOL accounts for a while now, and more educated children of those households attempt to cope with the lameness by using this cool dialer.

    I'd say there will come a time when people will have to bite the bullet and give up those AOL screennames. They suck at broadband, they're heavily tied into dial-up, they spam the crap out of you, and shove content down your throat all the while confining you to their obnoxious sandbox and screwing-up your network settings. They do everything in their power to abstract the Internet back into AOL. I find that eeevuuuhl.

    I for one have been using EarthLink for years on a slew of operating systems, starting from dial-up up to DSL (over 2 1/2 years now), and it's always been a breeze. They'll send you a CD that'll handle the whole sign-up and installation process, or you can just get an account on-line within minutes [earthlink.net], and at the end of the web-based process they'll show you a secure page with your username, password, dial-up number, mail and dns settings with which you can manually configure your OS. And BAM you're done. That's $22/month vs $25/month. And if you are craving spoon-fed content, you can always access your account's "start page [earthlink.net]". Note that each earthlink account actually comes with uhh i think 7 additional accounts or was it 8 additional? forgot. Each account has its own e-mail box, home page address (10MB quota, not bad) (http://home.earthlink.net/~youraccount), and start page. Oh, also the EarthLink DSL account also gives you .. uh .. i think 20 hours of free modem dial-up access, so you can get on-line while travelling through hotels and what-not. They *will* bill your ass if you go over 20 hours though. careful.

    Anyway this was just an example of what i find to be a really good nationwide alternative to AOL, but there are other local ISPs all over the place. I'd stay away from local phone companies for DSL service, and go thru a re-seller of their service instead. Phone companies might give you connectivity but they won't give you nearly as many "on-line" perks as other true ISPs will, make sure you comparison-shop. For example verizon assigns you some obnoxious cryptic email address when you get their DSL package. *lame*.

    Also keep in mind that any time a local phone company advertises their DSL service to you, i'm pretty sure there has to be at least one other company that offers you similar service, typically with more features for about the same price albeit potentially slightly different service terms. I know EarthLink is pretty-much everywhere, but you have other companies such as speakeasy dsl or something that offer cool plans for gamers.

    DSLReports.com [dslreports.com] is always a good place to look for competitive offerings from various providers in your area.

    • In the UK, at least until recently, AOL ran the only unmetered dialup service that did not require a BT telephone line.
      In addition to that it was a fast, reliable and cost effective service. I hate the dialer as much as the next /. reader but the service was the best.
      I have now moved and have an excellent ADSL connection but for six months AOL was the best solution by far.


      • oh yah that must have been tough, yeah i heard AOL has had some pretty aggressive service plans throughout Europe to work around per-minute charges limitations the local telco monopolies were imposing to their dial-up users. I have a few friends in France who had an unlimited dial-up line thru AOL, then i heard that whole thing sorta bit AOL in the arse as costs were too elevated. You've got any background on that whole deal?

  • by nhavar ( 115351 ) on Saturday October 12, 2002 @11:43PM (#4439333) Homepage
    A recent statement made by President George W. Bush at a press conference regarding the "digital divide" has drawn sharp criticism and a barrage of cease and desist letters from AOL (with attached AOL cds). The statement in question "We will work to get America online and bridge the digital divide" is said to be a violation of AOL (America On Line) intellectual property. Turd Ferguson, AOL's chief IP lawyer, stated "This is a clear attempt by the president to use AOL's good name to further his own cause" and added "As the world's best and fastest growing ISP we will be the one to get everyone online. Any statement to the contrary is just foolish and could give cause for litigation." When questioned about the issue Steve Case stated "Yeah what he said... Anyway all your friends are on it."

    The President has refused any major comment on the issue but was quoted by a reliable inside source as mumbling something about "...modifying the draft, we need more lawyers and 40-something chairman to drop on Iraq".

  • by Garry Anderson ( 194949 ) on Monday October 14, 2002 @05:23AM (#4444413) Homepage
    Quote: A federal appeals panel has ruled that the operator of Bargainbeanies.com is not violating the trademark of Beanie Babies creator Ty by offering used dolls through the Web address. The case is significant because it supports the ability of second-hand resellers to market and hawk their wares over the Internet without running afoul of trademark laws.

    http://news.com.com/2100-1023-961090.html?tag=cd_m h [com.com]

    Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with five trademarks - in the U.S. alone [uspto.gov] (please check). This could be any acronym or initialism - including the famous International Trade Centre (ITC) or International Monetary Fund (IMF).

    You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm.

    The authorities hide the simple solution to this conflict. From correspondence with them and their response, I believe them corrupt. Why? For a start, trademark holders do not own the vast majority of domains - it is obvious that something is needed to replace the registered trademark symbol - a new TLD of .reg would do that. This is for the same reasons, primarily to advise people that the mark is legally registered and protected by law. It is indisputable fact that the answer to domain and trademark problems was self-evident and is easier to use than the telephone. Honest lawyers have ratified the solution.

    To see major findings please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] - not associated with UN WIPO.org. Although I use the initials WIPO, it is obvious to even the 'crooks' in UN WIPO that this site not associated with them. Same as is obvious to those at AOL that pengaol.org is not associated with them.

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...