robot
Administrator
- Inscrit
- 9 Septembre 2008
- Réponses
- 3.952
- Réactions+
- 0
- Discussion Auteur
- #1
Most of you remember that a Kentucky Circuit court took a seizure order of 141 domain names said to constitute "gambling devices".
The Kentucky Court of Appeals overruled this court, logically ruling that a domain name, "a series of numbers, or Internet address", cannot "be said to constitute a 'machine or any mechanical or other device... designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling". As they are not gambling devices, the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over them.
In a dissenting opinion, one of the judges ruled a domain name can be seen as a device.
Opinion of Court of Appeals
- Prof. Cedric Manara [Content under License]
Pour en lire plus...
The Kentucky Court of Appeals overruled this court, logically ruling that a domain name, "a series of numbers, or Internet address", cannot "be said to constitute a 'machine or any mechanical or other device... designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling". As they are not gambling devices, the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over them.
In a dissenting opinion, one of the judges ruled a domain name can be seen as a device.
Opinion of Court of Appeals
- Prof. Cedric Manara [Content under License]
Pour en lire plus...
