24 comments

[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 75.1 ms ] thread
Interestingly enough, it looks like Oath.com is owned by Gary Millin, a very prominent domainer.

They probably should have waited to announce the rebranding until after they negotiated for the name...

See also Nissan.com
At least Nissan had their name prior to the domain being taken (they just didn't register it early enough.)

When I first read this I was thinking that this might be an Alphabet-type situation where the domain name doesn't really matter but I'm not getting that impression now.

This is interesting. At first I was on the side of Nissan Computer Corp., but on thinking about it: it's only because of Google that I know Nissan.com is not the motor company. This must have been a major pain for Nissan motors before Google. Nissan.com probably has many, many more hits due to visitors trying to find Nissan Motors. In such cases, I think we need to have a means to acknowledge that there is probably a stronger argument in favor of Nissan motors owning the domain.
> more hits due to visitors trying to find Nissan Motors. In such cases, I think we need to have a means to acknowledge that there is probably a stronger argument in favor of Nissan motors owning the domain.

In no way do we need to acknowledge that. If strangers show up at my house looking for you every hour, that doesn't mean that you should "probably" own my house.

If Nissan wanted the domain, they should have offered a fair price rather than trying to take it via a unfounded lawsuit.

I agree. I think the large number of people going to nissan.com expecting to find Nissan Motors just serves as evidence that Nissan Motors should consider buying the domain (assuming that Nissan gets sufficient benefit by having those visitors go directly to their site when they type out nissan.com)
That is a very expensive oversight if they did not already negotiate.

I would not be surprised, however, if they already have an agreement (and kept it in his name until after the announcement, so that it would not be 'leaked' by the whois changing).

I have a bunch of experience in this area. Domains are almost always acquired by a brand protection company like MarkMonitor or CSC. The domain is then transferred to the brand company or a shell company they own.

A few years ago I sold a domain to a major video game company. They created an entirely new Delaware LLC to receive the name and hide the fact that it was an upcoming franchise.

Verizon is going to learn the hard way that taking two pieces of shit and mashing them together will not magically turn them into a piece of gold, no matter how many billions of dollars they spend on it.
This is a huge fail whale. They missed the lesson from the AOL / Time Warner deal. Believe me, I lived through it. The "synergies" aren't there. They vastly overpaid for both. The thing I think it does say is that they have so much money they don't really care.
(comment deleted)
At first I thought it said oauth! I was thinking, 1.0 or 2.0?
At some point, people may get to implement Oath oauth login to a site by connecting via oath. :)
"Login with Oath" vs. "Login with Oauth"
I never want to see that in my life.
You bitches are going to suck the dicks of the humorless downvote brigade in no time..!
Auth/auth via Oath oauth.
Verizon should upgrade all their DSL to fiber optics, instead of wasting time on AOL/Yahoo.
How would executive bonuses get any bigger with that plan?
I think people misunderstand what's going on here. The aol and yahoo brands are not going away. This is more of an internal reorg. You're not going to go to oath.com or oath fantasy football. This is like alphabet with google, but internal.
I doubt it. I'd bet both ceos are suggesting plans to be more powerful than the other (or simply to remain employed) and this is one of those power struggles.
Tim Armstrong is running the combined company. There's no power struggle.
tell that to Marisa
It's missing brackets, i.e.

[Oath]