Why does it matter how far in advance or how speculatively someone took the domain?
If they are indeed different, I would argue that learning of an emerging product and preemptively buying the domain is not cybersquatting but more like IP theft.
Regardless, the point remains that the .com TLD is saturated with parked domains, meaning folks must go to more poorly managed TLDs for reasonably priced domains. Personally, that’s not the way the world should work. A parked domain does not offer value to the world the same way that undeveloped/underdeveloped land does. Indeed, a small store holding its own against gentrified land often provides more value to the community that if it were consumed by public domain. And even with physical property, it is possible to seize underutilized land in the name of public good.
TL;DR: I get that you #define cybersquatting in a way that excludes speculative parking. Not only do I disagree with your definition, but I don’t see how speculative parking or whatever you call it is reasonable.
I'd argue that a "buy this domain! offers start at $1500" parking page and no e-mail or other DNS records set up, over years, is a pretty good indicator you're not actually using a domain.
Also the fact that you exceed some personal limit (or limit per legally registered company), let's say 25. For example, the general case we're all talking about, a company with 10,000 domains on sale for minimum bid of $2,500 would exceed 25 and would have to pay the penalty on all but the first 25.
This is such a self-defeating effort, but I don't define it that way, most everyone does. Because the root -- squatting -- refers to occupying someone else's property. This isn't a point in debate -- a quick search verifies that every single authoritative source seemingly in existence is in agreement with me.
"And even with physical property, it is possible to seize underutilized land in the name of public good."
That is an extraordinary action that happens incredibly rarely and is extremely contentious. It does happen, but it's certainly not comparable with "I got an idea and I want that domain".
And let's be real here -- those domain resellers usually sell the domains they are "squatting" [sic] on for an absolute _pittance_. If a couple hundred dollars is what ruins some great startup plan, I'm going to go on a limb and say it wasn't such a great startup plan.
Indeed, what most people want is to say "Hey that's unfair that he's parked on that! Let ME park on that and sit on it indefinitely because I've got a Great Idea that I'm going to get around eventually". That's what 99% of the parked domains already are.
> I would argue that learning of an emerging product and preemptively buying the domain is not cybersquatting but more like IP theft.
Or how about investment? If you can see the future, pay for the valuable domain before it's valuable, then get your return by selling it to the company that wants it. Isn't that quite a lot like giving money to the company in exchange for a share of the profits? The risk is that you might misjudge and waste money on worthless domains, just like traditional investing.
In investing you control real resources that you offer to the company to further their goals in exchange for future gains. When you squated on a good name you seized an opportunity from them by registering a name you had no use for for a legally defined minimum fee and demanding payment for something you had no use for ensuring they must pay someone hundreds or thousands instead of the legally defined minimum fee.
It would make more sense to let registrars charge what they please instead.
It's the opposite of investing. Squatters aren't providing value they are pure parasites. People are most apt to learn of the parties smartly chosen name not through their marketing but via being the second person to come up with it and learning they must pay the squatter.
It matters because the startup hasn't chosen their name yet (and presumably will check available domains before choosing a name because they're not fools). It's pretty much the same as land speculation. Don't found a business and claim your address is an empty lot you saw downtown under the assumption that this is freely available land.
If they are indeed different, I would argue that learning of an emerging product and preemptively buying the domain is not cybersquatting but more like IP theft.
Regardless, the point remains that the .com TLD is saturated with parked domains, meaning folks must go to more poorly managed TLDs for reasonably priced domains. Personally, that’s not the way the world should work. A parked domain does not offer value to the world the same way that undeveloped/underdeveloped land does. Indeed, a small store holding its own against gentrified land often provides more value to the community that if it were consumed by public domain. And even with physical property, it is possible to seize underutilized land in the name of public good.
TL;DR: I get that you #define cybersquatting in a way that excludes speculative parking. Not only do I disagree with your definition, but I don’t see how speculative parking or whatever you call it is reasonable.