The link you sent me proves several of your statements wrong (the University only owned it from about until 2002 not until 2005 like you claimed, after that it appears to have been owned by a bank for a couple of years), and secondly the wayback machine can't accurately determine ownership unless the domain points to…

No wonder I've yet to see the turnip boar. I'm not a morning person.

It's a nightmare because it opens the floodgates to every domain being disputed because someone doesn't think the domain is being used appropriately.

Saying that "big companies bullying out little ones is worse" without actually justifying why it's worse beyond the implication that it's bad simply because they're a big company is an emotional argument no matter how you try and cut it. It's certainly not a logical or rational stance to argue that Nintendo shouldn't…

No, it's really not. If you think it is then please go do some reading on the DNS system and understand its purpose. Fuck it, you don't even need to read about it. You should be able to figure it out if you have half a brain.

And exactly how is the fact it was owned by a University in 2001 relevant to my earlier statement that it's been owned by the same entity since 2004. Let's recap shall we? In my original reply I stated:

There's a generic placeholder on there, and there has been a generic placeholder on there for the past nine years. The current owner is not putting it to any use and thus the site is defunct. And yes, a photo and your email would be a sufficient use of a personal website. You are actually putting it to a purpose, even…

I'm defending this decision because the alternative, big companies bullying out little ones is worse.

No idea where you're getting your information from, but according to the most legitimate source I can find it's not true. From the World Intellectual Property Organisation report on the case of Nintendo v. Domain Admin:

It's not the same at all. Domains were created for a purpose, they're tools to help us navigate the Internet. When they're misappropriated it doesn't simply affect the entity trying to acquire the domain, it affects those trying to navigate to a destination as well. They're not owned property, otherwise you wouldn't…

Not true, if that was the case Nintendo would have an easier time getting hold of it. It's been controlled by the same entity since 2004.

How you presented it however is ad hominem, which does not make for a logical argument. Fallacies rarely do.

If they were planning to do something with the domain, then in all likelihood they would have done it in the nine years since it was registered. And at any rate it's not like they'd have to let strangers into their office. In any proceeding like this evidence would simply be submitted, and has been submitted in this…

True, but I'm not arguing what the current rules of the system are. I'm arguing they shouldn't be that way. Domains are tools, their purpose is to help us navigate the internet. That purpose is compromised when domains aren't used legitimately though. If they weren't unique commodities and weren't a vital part of the…

You're an idiot and a misogynist to boot. So I think you're failing harder there kid.

I don't give a shit if it's Nintendo, any other big corporation, or even an enterprising individual on the other end. You know what isn't logical? Accusing me of being a Nintendo fanboy. That's so illogical it's a freaking logical fallacy. So don't you talk to me about logic.

But that's not the case here. You are using that domain, and yes I agree that no one has a right to forcibly remove it from you. However it does not seem like this domain has been put to use, ANY USE, for the last nine years. It was registered for a purpose that failed to materialise and they've just been hanging on…

It's a placeholder site now, and has been for the last nine years as far as I can tell. There's crawls on the web archive going back to 2004 that can verify this.

There was an honest motive behind it... nine freaking years ago. A motive, which in the nine years since has born no fruit. Intent to use a domain in the future is fine. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to register domains for future use, obviously there are cases where you want to reserve a domain…

Your analogy doesn't work. Two reasons: