> Call JG Wentworth- 877-CASH-NOW!
> So ladies, if ya' butt is round, and you want a Triple-X throw down, dial 1 900-MIX-A-LOT and kick them nasty thoughts. Baby got back!
> I pity the foo' who don't use 1 800-COLLECT
> Jenny Jenny, don't change your number: 8-6-7-5-3-0-9!
> Save big bucks on every call- dial 1 800-CALL-ATT
And that's off the top of my head, many of which I haven't heard for 15 or more years.
This isn't unlike how phone numbers used to be until 10-20 years ago (and still are for many people today, outside of tech circles).
Off the top of my head, I can rattle off at least six different phone numbers for businesses which I've never used (and some of which don't even exist anymore), simply because they chose a phone number that spelled out something memorable and relevant, and then used that heavily in their promotional materials and advertising, the same way you would for a domain name or app name today.
Heck Googling just one, I found a Youtube documentary that chronicles the 40-year history of jingles associated with one of those numbers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDv8zqpl8mI
> Also, the practical consequences of losing a phone number are much tamer than that of losing a domain name.
That's absolutely not true. They actually translate one-to-one quite well.
> While even if the latter is not property, the former could be treated as intellectual property
"Intellectual property" is a catchall term that conflates three completely distinct concepts in law: copyright, patents, and trademarks.
Phone numbers are obviously not patentable; the entire idea is nonsensical. And phone numbers are explicitly not subject to copyright protection, and there's case law about this exact scenario. You can copyright a particular publication of phone numbers (such as a phone book), but not the number itself, and even if you could, that doesn't mean you're actually the owner of the number (the one who holds the copyright).
You could make the argument for trademark protection, and that's exactly what this case is about. Unfortunately, it's a bidirectional application of competing marks - the man who owns France.com was already being accused of infringing French trademark law in the first place by claiming France.com as a mark.
NSFW:
In germany there was 0190 76 76 76 - come play with me. (seven - sex, seven - sex, etc.)
"as seen on TV" type ads selling kitchen gadgets and such will pay a fairly large amount of money for a "good" 800 DID.
If you're setting up the inbound call center call routing for something like selling slapchops or asbestos-related personal injury lawyers (just as an example of television direct marketing), a vastly higher percentage of the age 55+ target market recognizes 800 immediately but is less certain about 888, 877 and others.
That used to be the case, but not so much anymore. 888 and 877 have been used enough by major companies over the past twenty years that most consumers know they are TF. The companies who claim 800 is the only way to go and not 888/877/866 have a vested financial interest in convincing you of that.
(Note: 855/844/833 have much less awareness, so my omission of them above was intentional)
Also, not disputing they are really valuable, I know that’s true from personal experience as well.
I’m more arguing that 800 numbers are valuable for a similar reason to diamonds being valuable. It’s not because diamonds are super rare or truly needed, it’s because the marketing has been so effective on them. The unbiased studies I’ve read show 888/877 are just as readily known and give a similar positive brand image as 800 numbers are. The industry doesn’t want to admit it though because they’ll lose out on the hype money.
Trademarks, being in the same boat, could in theory be revoked with less due process.
Specifically:
> Two key points support the view that patents are matters of purely “public right.” The first is the notion, illustrated by quotations from earlier cases, that the patent is a “creature of statute law” that “take[s] from the public rights of immense value, and bestow[s] them upon the patentee.” The second is that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by granting patents; Congress’ decision to authorize the executive branch to grant patents is thus a constitutionally sanctioned delineation of “the executive power,” something which “need not be adjudicated in an Article III court.”
Public rights are not property.
I don't think we've routinely required ".com" to be part of the business branding of .com domain owners, but Ars Technica says he had that.
Does this mean they can seize the word “France” in other languages well?
So France didn't "seize" anything.
You can argue the govt of France shouldn't have filed this suit, but based on what reasoning? It's not really their job to protect the interests of US citizens. I mean, that's how it is. It's not very nice. In reverse, the US only seems to care about US citizens as well. I agree it would be nice if governments cared more about the rights of their allies' citizens as well, such as not violating their privacy on a global scale and not hacking into the private home computers of allies' citizens.
Also I kind of feel the article confuses the matter a little by referring to the guy as a "French-born American" (which isn't at all relevant enough to the case to lead with in the first paragraph), and incorrectly stating he "has now sued his home country" when he has in fact sued his country of birth. His home country is the USA if he's an American. (unless I got the meaning of those terms wrong, in which case I stand by the fact that it's confusing to lead with :) )
edit I think I wanted to reply to the sibling post, sorry for even more confusion :)
I'm not sure the courts would hold the same conclusions for domain names and phone numbers. While even if the latter is not property, the former could be treated as intellectual property. Though in this case, that would be one more reason to give the domain name to the French government…