Sign the "Save Unicom.Com" Guestbook

The guestbook has been closed. Thanks to everybody for their comments and support. -Chip


    19th June 2002 - 03:16:43 PM    
544 : mario
nice! I got my own domain and hope Ill never have to deal with monkeys and gorillas for it..... thanks....

    05th June 2002 - 01:13:31 PM    
543 : innkeeper2097
Hey cool site. Wil Wheaton signed my guest book too!

    22nd May 2002 - 12:57:50 AM    
542 : Dennis

I'm glad to see you received a ruling in your favor. Similiar to message 539 (Judah Jacobs), the fellow you filed the complaint (Corry Hong) is one of those folks that has to own all he "thinks" is his.

Those developers he spoke of in Costa Mesa (last I heard), have been let go. Mostly due to Corry's need to cut costs, I'm sure. He's attempting to build himself a "Little Computer Associates" over there. You know how they work. Buy software company out, fire the developers, rake in as much cash as you can from the maintenance.

There's another little software company, down in Orange, California (Van.....), who has gained a couple of developers that they lost. This fellow down in Orange isn't any better, as he too, likes to file frivolous lawsuits. Difference is, this guy has the bucks to do just that.

I hope you didn't lose too much in legal fees, just to fight this silly bas****.

    15th May 2002 - 11:18:15 AM    
541 : Hey, Attorney Fletcher
You've already spammed looking for business at least once (msg 531). Enough already ...

And why are you using a .org domain when you are definitely trying to make money? You wouldn't be attempting to mislead anyone into thinking you're a non-profit, now, would you?

(I've deleted the aformentioned advertisements from this guestbook. -Chip)

    11th May 2002 - 02:15:35 PM    
540 : Keep This Up
This site needs to be kept online to document Evil Perpetrators and Big Bullies. May David continue to slay Goliath in these fivilous suits -- God Bless America.

    10th May 2002 - 08:37:32 AM    
539 : Rupan
Good services

    05th May 2002 - 06:51:38 PM    
538 : Judah Jacobs matt bressler...headhunter of SPCI you originally sent my resume to UnicomSI. For any resume that you send there, the guy will use it as a lead. He's a thief. He contacted me directly many months later as if you did not exist. He wanted me to work for peanuts. I met three of his developers at his Costa Mesa, CA office. They were all using pirated IBM software on their PCs. The developers all had licensed IBM mainframe software running on their PCs under Hercules thought you'd like to call the software piracy people. If you'd like me to testify against this bastard I will. The company is one guy. Don't give him more credit than is due. The other workers have no say.

    05th May 2002 - 02:35:31 PM    

    22nd April 2002 - 12:33:47 PM    

    18th April 2002 - 07:34:46 PM    
535 : Jay Hipps
Hey Chip --

Long time no talk. Got here by accidentally punching up an old bookmark and thought I'd pitch in.

Here's the weird part -- in about 90 minutes, I'm getting in my car to go see John Hiatt perform.

Letting the mystery be-- Jay

    11th April 2002 - 06:27:21 AM    
534 : Bradley Ward
Well done. Frivilous suits like the one against you are what's wrong with the world today!

    09th April 2002 - 05:42:34 AM    
533 :
very important message

    04th April 2002 - 08:18:56 PM    
532 : Chris in New Hampshire
Take'em all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and leave them battered and bloodied along the way!

They will/have been directed to pay for your court costs and legal fees?

    01st April 2002 - 09:16:59 PM    
531 : Corry S. Hong
How could I be so stupid? (banging head) Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

    09th March 2002 - 09:34:28 AM    

    08th March 2002 - 11:35:31 AM    
529 : Gail Dobson
Incredible saga. Good for you fighting back. Congratulations.

    06th March 2002 - 08:58:02 PM    
528 : Edward Reid
Reverse domain name hijacking stinks. Thanks for fighting.

    02nd March 2002 - 11:35:03 PM    
527 : Cindy Cohn
Hi Chip,

Congratulations again. I knew you were in good hands when Jim Tyre joined your case.

I'm here because I want to cite your victory in our briefs in the Pavlovich DeCSS case in California Supreme Court.

You not only won, but if the Supreme Court is wise, you're case will also help others from being dragged wrongfully into a far away court.


    01st March 2002 - 06:42:27 AM    
526 : Wendy Seltzer
Kudos on your well-deserved victory, and thanks for the link to

We hope the site will be useful to people who find themselves in situations like Chip's. Within the Trademark and Domain Names topic area, for example, we include references on the federal Anticybersquatting law, ICANN's UDRP process, and documenting your domain defense.

It's a pleasure to have some good news to report on that front.

    26th February 2002 - 12:45:37 PM    
525 : Jim Tyre
Hi, I'm one of Chip's attorneys.

I see that each of the last two posts make mention of - a new project run by EFF, Harvard's Berkman Center and several prominent law school clinics.

The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is new, they're still developing their database, but if you should find yourself in a situation similar to Chip's, I would encourage you to visit the site, get some good basic information. If you've received a Cease and Desist letter, you might wish to submit it to them for inclusion in their database. It's a good project, but their success depends as much on you as on them.

Heck, I might even suggest to Chip that he add a link to the appropriate box on - but I'm just his lawyer, there's no telling if he'll follow my suggestion. ;-)

    25th February 2002 - 12:30:27 PM    
524 : Corporations Threaten Free Speech
If there was ever any doubt that Trademark and Copyright Misuse by Corporations is being used to restrict Free Speech, this is blatant example.

    25th February 2002 - 12:00:08 PM    
523 : EFF, Law Schools Create Site to Educate About Copy
Concerned that corporations are using cease-and-desist notices to intimidate sites whose content may be protected by the First Amendment, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several law schools have created a searchable cease-and-desist database to inform recipients of their rights. The first entries in the database, at, include line-by-line commentary and analysis provided by law students at Harvard, Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley. Read the article: The New York Times @

    22nd February 2002 - 03:41:10 PM    
522 : Linking Suit -- More Frivilous Actions Wasting Cou
The Internet is one big Hyperlink. Ford recently lost a suit to stop linking:

2600 WINS FORD LAWSUIT - RIGHT TO LINK UPHELD Posted 23 Dec 2001 01:52:12 UTC

    21st February 2002 - 11:11:43 PM    
521 : The Very Rev. Tony Begonja
My attorney suggested I visit the web site. I'm glad I did. I'm currently being sued by a nutcase in Colorado for linking to his web site -- seriously. I didn't cave in to bullies when I was little, and I sure won't now. I'm glad to read that you guys didn't cave into bullies, either. Fr. Tony Begonja Presbyter-Priest-Pastor, Author Researcher, Webmaster

    18th February 2002 - 10:15:33 PM    
520 : Andrew Cragg
Well Done!

I have not been sued but I certainly have wasted a great deal of time with people trying to do ridiculous things.

Why is it that people who do not understand copyright, fair use, etc are such a pain. Perhaps bullying has been a successful strategy for them.

Once again, well done for standing up, you are saving a lot of other people from the same agony.


    11th February 2002 - 11:44:16 PM    
519 : Neal
I found you through Mike Magee's The Inquirer, a UK bastion of free IT information. It was worth the trip if for nothing else than the spider trap.

Hooray to Chip for keeping yet another original site out of the hands of hyper-hyped blinking, flashing, 'portal' hawkers. In the words of Mel Brooks, "Marketing! It's all about marketing! That's where the real money is". :-)

    11th February 2002 - 08:52:50 PM    
518 : Formal Notice
Chip wrote:

Maybe even more importantly, we've put companies on notice that small domain-holders are willing to stand up against predatory domain-stealing tactics.

The Rest of the Internet Community:

Let all of us to unite and fight this legal blackmail leveled against small domain-holders. Let us EXPOSE these tactics and SUPPORT the victims. Let us all spread the word and pledge to not only BOYCOTT these malicious companies, but to inform their customers and their clients and to tell at least three friends and colleagues and ask them to join with their SUPPORT to BOYCOTT and inform at least three of their friends and colleagues to create an OUTRAGE and BOYCOTT chain that puts our collective strengths together to fight this common enemy.

    11th February 2002 - 05:43:34 AM    
517 : Valerie Romness
In a world of deregulation there is justice

continued success

    11th February 2002 - 02:34:55 AM    
516 : Martin Taylor
At last some common sense has prevailed. I have always thought that the old attitude of "First come first served" should be applied on all domain name battles.

One up for ther little man - Lets hope the rest of the world follows suit. London - UK

    08th February 2002 - 07:36:02 PM    
515 : Precedent Monument
This site needs to remain up after this case is finally settled. This site EXPOSES the EVIL that some BIG CORPORATIONS will do to the American People.

It is time that all American Citizens realize that the fight for our way of life, our civil liberties, our freedom, and our Freedom of Speech must not only be fought on the foreign soil against sick Evildoers -- but also right here in American against evil Corporations like UnicomSI. What arrogance UnicomSi must have to think that out of all of the Unicoms -- and there are lots of them -- that they should be able to have the domain name -- even though someone has been using it for 10 years.

    08th February 2002 - 03:20:54 PM    
514 : kent chessnut
keep on keep IT on

    07th February 2002 - 07:48:40 PM    
513 : Legaleze
Chip -

Your getting a little ahead of yourself. The court's ruling was simply that they would not assert personal jurisdiction over you. USI is still quite at liberty to bring this action in a Texas federal court where the jurisdictional issues would be a certainty. Don't count your chickens . . .

    07th February 2002 - 06:14:19 PM    
512 : Playboy loses Trademark Infringement Suit...,1283,50255,00.html?tw=wn20020207

In a unanimous decision, a panel of federal judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said last Friday that could feature the term "Playmate of the Year" because it did not infringe upon the trademarks of Playboy Enterprises (PEI).

    07th February 2002 - 11:18:43 AM    
511 : S. Phillips sphillips-at-purelydigital-dot-org
I am glad that you won your case. Hope that my donation helped out.

S. Phillips Samuel Colt: Inventor of the point-and-click interface

    07th February 2002 - 11:07:59 AM    
510 : Bill Campbell <>
Good going Chip! I first heard about this today. I've often wondered what would happen if somebody decided to come after or which I've had registered and in use for over ten years (anybody who got these domains would inherit one hell of a spam problem :-)

    06th February 2002 - 01:19:56 PM    
509 : Matt
"Second, we're considering what my next step should be. Some of those steps could involve even more fees and costs. So, to some extent, the balance of the fund may help rule in or rule out some of those options."

I hope that means you're considering filing a counter-suit. Make 'em bleed!! I'd gladly donate some money, but I'm unemployed at the moment. If I manage to get a job, you'll be recieving a donation.

    06th February 2002 - 12:45:20 PM    
508 : Copy Thieves
Here is IBM's website copy:

Trademarks owned by IBM

This is a current listing of United States trademarks owned by IBM.

Not all common law marks used by IBM are listed on this page. Because of the large number of products marketed by IBM, IBM's practice is to list only the most important of its common law marks. Failure of a mark to appear on this page does not mean that IBM does not use the mark nor does it mean that the product is not actively marketed or is not significant within its relevant market.

Now here is Unicom Systems website copy:

Trademarks This is a current listing of United States trademarks owned by UNICOM Systems, Inc.

Not all common law marks used by UNICOM Systems, Inc. are listed on this page. Because of the large number of products marketed by UNICOM, UNICOMís practice is to list only the most important of its common law marks. Failure of a mark to appear on this page does not mean that IBM does not use the mark nor does it mean that the product is not actively marketed or is not significant within its relevant market.

    06th February 2002 - 12:42:51 PM    
507 : RE: 491 and 492
You are right!! Look these guys are IP thieves. They plagarized copy from IBM's website:

    06th February 2002 - 08:34:01 AM    
506 : Willem Kouwenhoven
If people would talk to people instead of to lawyers I think we would have less problems. This case, the VW service case in America (picked up on or something) and other similar business customer cases.Big business talks through lawyers instead of people. Why?

South Africa, we started talking, we changed, it IS amazing!

AND know what? We're still talking! Sports! Braai's! Movies!

BUT Mainly SPORTS, we are sports crazy 8-)

    06th February 2002 - 08:24:55 AM    
505 : legaleze
Chip -

Congratulations on avoiding having to go to CA to defend this action. Plaintiffs may still, of course, file the action in the TX district court but at least you won't have the expense involved in long distance litigation. Let's see what they do.

    06th February 2002 - 04:15:06 AM    
504 : Tim Weigel
Many congrats on your win. The lawsuit, apparently, was not important enough for the California company to even bother mentioning on THEIR web site (though they are AWFULLY proud of buying that house thing... Over a year ago...). Embarrasment, perhaps, or an unconscious declaration that it wasn't really a viable suit after all? Here's hoping they leave you the heck alone from here on out!

    06th February 2002 - 02:45:33 AM    
503 : Bob Page
Congratulations Chip. I've been watching your case for two reasons: a ".org" domain I registered in 1994 is being sniffed by a company that was formed in 96 and by their own claim support a bunch of lawyers. So far they haven't contacted me but they have contacted others outside the US using the name, who have contacted me. Second reason: literally, You Da Man: in the fall of 1976 you tought me what two's complement was, in front of the PDP/8e at AHS. The world changed that day. (Remember CLA CLL?)

    06th February 2002 - 02:10:37 AM    
502 : Michael R. Tchou
Hi Chip. Fight the good fight, my friend. I failed to announce my own similar predicament to the i'net (on the advice of my attys) and as a result have been fighting in various District and Circuit Federal courts to keep my own domain name for more than five years. I wish you the best. Keep the faith. - Michael R. Tchou -

    06th February 2002 - 12:55:02 AM    
501 : Michael Kaufman
Right on. Way to show lame companies they can't do lame crap like that. Congratulations :)

    06th February 2002 - 12:17:47 AM    
500 : Steven Bennett
Kick 'em in the 'nads for bullying ya!

Oh, wait, that wasn't PC...

Uhm... Congratulations!

    06th February 2002 - 12:06:06 AM    
499 : Eric Canzler
Congratulations! Maybe they should register and trademark It would be so much more fitting and appropriate and they wouldn't have to battle anybody for it.

    05th February 2002 - 09:31:48 PM    
498 : Mental Mark

So I guess you won't be needing that url I created for you. ;-)

Anyway, cool man and congrats. I just hope that ruling means the plaintiff is ordered to pay costs!

    05th February 2002 - 07:57:23 PM    
497 : Michael "" Fischer
congratulations on your defense!

during 2001, my domain name was itself subjected to the udrp hearing and arbitration process.

    05th February 2002 - 07:52:51 PM    
496 : Joseph
I hope you beat this company into the ground. If you had taken this out after 1997 when they trademarked Unicom, then it would be a different story. But since you had the name long before the company even existed, I think it should remain yours. I am just glad that you had the time and resources to fight this thing and set a precident. That is the important thing here.

    05th February 2002 - 07:24:33 PM    
495 : Inoshiro
I can't believe these people even tried to get the domain. No, wait, I remember eToys :)

Why people fight over a domain without even first asking the other person to just add a link (like, which is a nice agreement between a pair of companies over a mutually useful domain name) is downright rude. I'm glad the "Little guy" won :)


[1-44] [45-94] [95-144] [145-194] [195-244] [245-294] [295-344] [345-394] [395-444] [445-494] [495-544]

Powered by Big SamHOME