Raf

Diazbro: the term "being dragged into court" is a colloquiallism which means you're the one getting sued. Pat didn't initiate the lawsuit, he's the defendant. Therefore he's getting dragged into court. That he decides to walk in rather than get dragged in is inconsequential to my point: We're not going to court. Our legal theories cannot be used by our courtroom adversaries because... we don't have courtroom adversaries. Pat doesn't need to listen to our amateur legal theories. That is very true. But he also doesn't need to go online and announce his legal theories to the whole world, especially knowing that his courtroom adversaries are observing every word. This isn't a game. This isn't just a thread. This is a lawsuit that in some way threatens this man's livelihood. And for what? A domain name? Give up that issue and what has TWI got on him? NOTHING. Why do you think TWI has not gone after Paw? Because they CAN'T! Pat can continue his fight without thewayinternational.com. The point of telling Pat to knock off the amateur lawyering is not about disagreement with his position (some agree and some don't). It's about encouraging him to do the smart thing and not hand ammunition to the enemy. Greetings from Chicago.

Hey guys, I'm here! Call me at the hotel, 800-325-3535. Or better if you have my cell phone (I'm in the biz center right now).

And for the second time in history, I agree with Mike.

We've been infiltrated!

I can see why you thought that, oldiesman. History proves you were wrong, but it's okay. There's no way you could have known that at the time.

Wow. Maybe they have he original THE thread.

Diazbro, Yes, the amateur lawyering is the same thing for which Pat is being criticized. The difference is that we're not being dragged into court, he is. I could spout off legal theories and strategies until the cows come home and it makes no difference. This man is going to court, but before doing so, insists on arming his enemy with as much ammunition as possible.

Earlier you told us you sold it for $1. Patrick, for your own legal good, SHUT UP ABOUT THIS!

Pat, Zixar's interpretation of © is correct. Yours is not. The reason TWI cannot go after Pawtucket for having an "About The Way" forum is precisely because of ©. But there is a substantial difference between that and registering "thewayinternational.com" as a url. If you called it "thetruthabouttheway.com," you would be on stronger footing. Any reasonable person who goes to "www.thewayinternational.com" has a reasonable expectation to access a web site owned and operated by The Way International. You are deliberately capitalizing on that expectation in order to provide information that would lead people AWAY from TWI. Under your interpretation of ©, I would be able to start a website called "thewaymagazine.com" and specifically use that site to provide information against the interest of The Way International. They would sue me if I did so. And I don't know if they would win or not, but they should win, because I am deliberately capitalizing on their trademark in order to defame them. For those who argue that the Mormons don't sue anyone who uses "Church of Jesus Christ," why don't you try this: register: "churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints.com" and see if you don't get sued.

Thanks for posting this, oldiesman. I can certainly see why people decided to stay, although I disagreed with that decision at the time and, frankly, I believe I am way better off for it. He left out that the carnality is also in the mindset and the heart of those making the request.

Pat, If I was a lawyer, I would tell you to bring this topic up on as many threads as possible, discuss your tactics and legal strategies, and explain your version of the history of this conflict as publicly as possible. If I was a lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do. Oh, clarification: If I was TWI's lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do.

Pat, YOU DON'T NEED A POLL. It's not "nice" to include GSers in your decision. Legally, it's absurd. I don't know why you feel like you have to talk about this, why you need to broaden the net to include as many unnecessary voices as possible (I include my own in that list). Two voices matter: yours, and your lawyer's. If you want your voice to include all this conflicting input, that's your privilege, I guess. Just seems to me that you're reaching out instead of reaching up, if you catch my meaning (wow, a TWI image that makes sense! An AOS one at that!).

Integrity and conscience need no poll. Do what you think is right, Pat. If you want our opinion, don't evaluate it by poll. Evaluate it by argument, integrity and conscience. And if you're going to characterize our opinion as "bend over" and let TWI stick it to you, don't pretend you're open about hearing an alternative point of view. How about, "Take a stand for God and let TWI have its domain name (minus the cost of acquiring and maintaining the name over the past few years). That way I can concentrate my efforts and limited resources on battles that are actually worthy of all our time." How's THAT for an option? That's my position, but if I tried to vote for it, I would have to vote for "bend over." You don't need a poll to decide what to do. You need integrity: that way whatever position you ultimately adopt, you can at least say you did what you thought was right.

There's a certain song by Fastball that seems, I don't know, appropriate.

That would be the "bend over" option, as Pat so diplomatically put it, with absolutely no intention of letting the imagery sway your vote.

An honest poll would contain far more neutral language. Calling (the current) option A "bend over" does NOT reflect the position of those who think you're making the wrong move and should just give them their domain name. I, for one, think it's the Christ-like thing to do. Again, you have so many battles with TWI, and THIS IS NOT WORTH THE FIGHT. That doesn't mean "bend over," but if YOU think it does, then it doesn't matter what I think. You've now started three threads on one topic, Pat. You're going to court against these people. Do yourself a legal favor and SHUT UP!

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. Disingenuous is good. Self-serving is good, but disingenuous is better. Insincere is an easy one. Convenient is probably the word I would have chosen.

I laughed just about non-stop throughout. Even Marlon Wayans, who normally annoys me, seemed like a perfect fit with this particular bunch. My personal favorite: "You brought your b**ch to the Waffle Hut!"

Wow. Thanks Long Gone. Pat, on the legal front I really do bid you Godspeed. I don't know what else to say: it's not like I'm all fond of TWI and want to see them win or anything. Far from it. By the way, thanks for the PT. It did shed some light on the issue. Their motives are, unsurprisingly, despicable. Your legal rights may well entitle you to a fat paycheck. As you point out, TWI specifically ignored advice to grab the domain name well before you bought it. That arrogance will cost them, I'll bet. But I guess I'm coming at this from too much of a "sermon on the mount" attitude. If this doesn't call for an application of "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies," I don't know what does. Yes, I understand that these verses are hyperbole, and that we really don't empty our closets for every shmoe who comes along with a frivolous lawsuit. But dang, what does this advice mean if it doesn't apply in this case? I know, I've given an allegedly "Christian" opinion on a message board that is not strictly "Christian." I understand that people are entitled to their opinion and will vehemently disagree with me (even good Christians will disagree with me, I'm sure). But that's the reasoning behind my opinion. There are plenty of fights worth fighting against TWI. In my humble opinion, this ain't one of them.

Jeesh, George, you would think these people spent an inordinate amount of time on message boards.

Pat, TWI is not wrong in this case. Give them their name back. Ask for the money you invested in acquiring the domain name. That's all you're entitled to. A judge and jury may get you more, but that doesn't make you right.

I'm with anyone who stands up to TWI when they're wrong.

No, Pat. I wouldn't. That's what makes us different, I guess. I wouldn't have TWI take me to court just to rub their faces in the fact that they didn't take sound advice. You may have the legal right to do so: I'm not disputing that. But Christian to Christian, I'm not with you on this one.

Not so simple at all, Pat. Cybersquatting is taking a domain name that reasonably belongs to someone else. I don't know what the law is on this, but you look at me with a straight face and tell me that taking the name "thewayinternational.com" is not cybersquatting. Registering the name is prima facie evidence of cybersquatting. It doesn't have to be proven: it IS proof. Are you The Way International? No. Are they The Way International? Yes. Who should register the name? Well, you did. Yeah, they're idiots for not registering it first (especially given Ex-TWI's advice. I agree with Oldiesman: this is your strongest legal defense). But that doesn't make your action any more noble. You attempt to sell it for $15,000 and you call that a fair price? Did it cost you $15,000 to acquire the name? To maintain it? Look, as far as the law of the U.S. is concerned, I don't know if you're right or wrong. Good luck. But in my humble opinion, as far as right and wrong is concerned, you're cybersquatting, you're not The Way International, and you're being a pest. I don't like TWI any more than you do, but watching you guys go at it is going to be very much like watching an arm wrestling contest at a leper colony. You have so many morally and ethically legitimate ways to get at them. You really do. This particular method of yours, again in MY opinion and mine only, absolutely cheapens and morally invalidates your other efforts.

Pat, If you're going to ask questions, ask a hard one. Google: 17,000,000 web pages containing "The Way." The VAST majority of those occurrences are in complete sentences that have nothing to do with Christianity. (ie, "We were at a strip club. The dancer was hot. I loved the way she picked up that bottle without using her hands). Nothing to do with The Way International, and your implication that all these folks should be sued for trademarki infringement is, well, stupid. Why are they harassing a former member as opposed to any other church using the trademark "The Way?" That's easy: FORMER MEMBERS ARE THE ONLY ONES USING "THE WAY" TO DELIBERATELY INFRINGE ON THE WAY INTERNATIONAL'S TRADEMARK. Who are you to taunt them for not going after people who are NOT deliberately trying to infrigne on their trademark? If I had limited resources, I'd go after the people who were infringing on my trademark ON PURPOSE before I started going after anyone who happened to be doing it by accident. Pat, you're doing this on purpose. I don't know if you'll win in court or if you'll lose, but as a general rule I consider cybersquatting to be low-level extortion. You're being a cybersquatter with a vendetta, and that won't serve you well in court.