Updates on Bodog's domain fight

A few weeks ago we reported on Bodog’s sudden change of domain name to bodoglife.com due to a default judgment on the patent case brought against them by 1st Tech. Calvin Ayre swore to fight against what he considered an unfair ruling, and his legal team has achieved a partial victory over 1st Tech.

A Nevada court ruled on the case, but none of the parts were fully satisfied: while the $49 million ruling in favor of 1st Tech is still in effect, all of their attempts to seize or stop Bodog’s domains were denied because they "failed to satisfy the requirements for permanent injunctive relief and in the Court's view, [1st Tech] is requesting relief beyond this Court's power to grant."

Calvin Ayre commented on these developments on his blog, stating their intention to appeal the default judgment based on the fact that the sued subdivision of Bodog was not even operating at the time: “Is Bodog going to appeal the default judgment? Hell yeah. The Costa Rican company they sued, Bodog Entertainment Group SA, does not itself provide online services nor did it ever operate or own any websites. […]Plus, that company was shut down operationally a year ago… and even then it merely provided some call center data entry and domain management services for various entities that used the Bodog name.”

In very lively language, Ayre takes a stab at his prosecutors and their patent lawsuit: “Thought 1st Technology and their lawyer bosses are classic patent trolls, this has never been a patent case; it has always just been a legal system "stick up" where the objective was always to grab the domains and try to force a monetary settlement, the legal equivalent of a back alley mugging.”

Finally, Ayre hopes that his appeal will be successful and that it will help set a precedent for international law and how it applies to off-shore internet businesses: “This is the first time in history that a non-US company, with zero operations or assets in the US has had its domain names seized with no prior notice simply because it was using a US-based domain name registrar. We do not believe that domain names should be allowed to be defined as assets to be seized for purposes of collecting on a judgment.”