Bodog's Domain Names Confiscated

**Nifty29** · 30th August 2007, 04:11 PM

Scary stuff!

Bodog Looses Domain Name

Why on earth do people keep say LOOSING?? There is no such word - the correct word is LOSING. You LOSE something, you dont LOOSE something. Sorry, but its my pet hate (besides pets that is)

I'm off to re-read the Oxford Concise....

**Simmo!** · 30th August 2007, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Nifty29

I'm off to re-read the Oxford Concise....

Looser

**jetset** · 30th August 2007, 04:57 PM

James01 is from Germany - due to language differences he may not be aware of the difference.

**GrandMaster** · 30th August 2007, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Nifty29

Scary stuff!

Why on earth do people keep say LOOSING?? There is no such word - the correct word is LOSING. You LOSE something, you dont LOOSE something. Sorry, but its my pet hate (besides pets that is)

I'm off to re-read the Oxford Concise....

"Loose" is a perfectly good English verb and you can certainly loose something, the only problem is that at least 90% of the time people mean "lose" when they write "loose".

**SlotsWizard** · 30th August 2007, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by GrandMaster

"Loose" is a perfectly good English verb and you can certainly loose something, the only problem is that at least 90% of the time people mean "lose" when they write "loose".

For people who don't speak English as their primary language, there are lots of "gotchas" when trying to learn English with similar-looking words, for example, lose and hose, bough and cough, brought and drought, etc.

It's a totally different situation when a native English-speaker uses "loose" in place of "lose", for example:

I wouldn't have been a looser if the slots were a little loser.

Anywho, back to Bodog...

**NASHVEGAS** · 30th August 2007, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by SlotsWizard

Anywho, back to Bodog...

back to Newbodog

**Nifty29** · 31st August 2007, 09:35 PM

Yikes - didnt notice the nationality of the author there - in that situation, it's entirely forgivable. As for the others......

"Loose" is a perfectly good English verb and you can certainly loose something, the only problem is that at least 90% of the time people mean "lose" when they write "loose".

Yes, except you would 'loosen' something to make it 'loose' - and I hope I'm not losing anything in the translation

SIMMO - the only thing you have loose is a few screws

OK thats my soapbox session for this month......back to the old newbodog thing...

**GrandMaster** · 31st August 2007, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Nifty29

Yikes - didnt notice the nationality of the author there - in that situation, it's entirely forgivable. As for the others......

Yes, except you would 'loosen' something to make it 'loose' - and I hope I'm not losing anything in the translation

SIMMO - the only thing you have loose is a few screws

OK thats my soapbox session for this month......back to the old newbodog thing...

Here is the definition from Marriam-Webster.

Main Entry: loose
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): loosed; loos�ing
transitive verb
1 a : to let loose : RELEASE b : to free from restraint
2 : to make loose : UNTIE <loose a knot>
3 : to cast loose : DETACH
4 : to let fly : DISCHARGE
5 : to make less rigid, tight, or strict : RELAX
intransitive verb : to let fly a missile (as an arrow) : FIRE

**Paddy** · 3rd September 2007, 04:53 AM

Some of the posters here are getting the story out in bits and drabs, but this is much for serious for Bodog than just the domain name thing.

This has nothing to do with Calvin being afraid to set foot on US soil. He could have lawyers do that. I've spoken with a lawyer who knows the whole story and Calvin's attitude was basically, bugger off, US law doesn't matter to me.

This patent has to do with being able to send large amounts of information, such as all the graphics that are on gaming sites, over limited bandwith networks. It's a legit company with a legit patent that has to do with technology. It has nothing to do with this Mel Molnick guy and Home Gaming Network.

I've managed to go over the legal documents and now have more or less the complete picture of what legal tactics the patent holder is using.They are devastating to Bodog and unsurviveable.

I have written about all this over at Offshore Gambling Digest http://offshore.ibphost.com/index.php. I'm Coldeyeme there. It saves me going over all this again if people interested can just go over there. Cut and paste back here if you like.

Basically, the story is this. The judgment is based on the number of downloads of Bodog's gaming software per year into the US. It is this gaming software that the patent holder says violates his patent. I'm sure it must otherwise Bodog would have fought the case in the US. There is nothing stopping Bodog from sending lawyers to fight any case in the US. They have lawyers in the US dealing with this now, when it's too late. They were served properly and always knew this case was going on.

The amount owed comes to $10 million based on the outrageously exaggerated figures Calvin gave Bodog in all that crap over a year ago. He's now paying for millions of players he made up to impress Forbes. There's another $39 million owed for something called the "future value" of losses that will occur for illegal use of the patent in the future.

The domain name thing is just one of literally hundreds of bullets the patent holder can fire at any and all of the Bodog "entertainment" companies. They have a Nevada court order, subsequent to their initial judgment, which says that no person or business anywhere in the US can have any business dealings whatsoever with what are called the "Bodog Entities". That includes websites, affiliates, ISP's, anyone in the media who markets or promotes Bodog, anyone who tries to even get a penny to or from them, and yes, domain name registrars.

For instance, once they get around to it, they can get a court to stop gambling911 from showing Bodog's logo or in any way promoting the company or acting as an affiliate. If Major Wager operates its business from the US, or EOG does, they can be ordered by a court in their respective states to completely stop doing business with Bodog. No television station in the US can take Bodog ads or sell pay per vue on Bodog Fight.

They have a stranglehold on all Bodog business in the US. There is a bit of an enforcement issue outside of Nevada. Let's say ION Television in New York, which has just cancelled the Bodog Fight debacle, would have tried to sell pay per vue. The patent holder would have had to have had his injunction "enjoining" order "domesticated", i.e. approved by a New York state court, and then served on ION. That is just an example, but it may already have happened.

Every state where someone is doing business with Bodog has to domesticate the Nevada order and then that person or business is stopped from any further Bodog business.

The domain name registration company was a US company in Washington State. In August, the judgment and enjoining order was domesticated to Washington State and the other day the domain name got shut down. The only reason we know about it was that you couldn't load the site any more. Many other things may have already happened.

Anyways, I'm doing what I didn't want to do. These are the OGD thread links.

This is the Thread at OGD

**SlotsWizard** · 3rd September 2007, 05:34 AM

Thank you for the information and links, Paddy.

Does the following statement:

Originally Posted by Paddy

It is this gaming software that the patent holder says violates his patent.

Imply that all casinos using Realtime Gaming software are violating the patent? Or is it because Bodog specifically didn't license something? Or is it not the casino software at all, but the sports/horses/etc. software which is the target of the lawsuit?