I do believe there is some truth to the statement above. I cannot remember exactly how, but it was proven that the individual running twoplustwodotme and jewdonk.com were the same person (I believe they redirected as well). Jewdonk.com seemed to be a website about Martin Carrico and his wife Winnie, centered around self promotion. My understanding was neither was very adept at web design, so possibly they hired the individual described above (Nick) to create the site for them.

The more and more I read of this thread the more I sympathize with Boyd's position.

I gather this domain that he had was 'parked' which in effect meant that it was not functioning and not deriving any income.

Before Mason commenced court proceedings, Boyd let the domain expire which meant any future damage or harm to Mason and 2plus2 had vanquished.

Mason appears to have continued the proceedings just to prove a point which is to teach Boyd a lesson and others a lesson not to mess with him or 2plus2's intellectual property.

In the end, apart from getting what was technically the correct judgement in his favour, he would have got hardly anything worthwhile IMO from those several questions he asked of Boyd seeking information about why he set up the domain, what he did with it and what money he derived from it.

Seems +EV then. Deters potential future infringers which saves money and legal fees.

This situation is very easy to explain. Dutch Boyd took a shot when he registered the name. It was a bad faith registration, and the intent was to infringe on the Two Plus Two trademark. Dutch Boyd had no idea that the name would not derive significant revenue. He almost assuredly expected that it would generated more traffic than it did. If that had occurred, he would have then been able to really infringe and profit from that traffic.

As to Mason Malmuth. He has the right to protect the Two Plus Two trademark. Also, if he doesn't protect his right once he realizes that someone is infringing on it, if there is a big problem down the road, his lack of aggressiveness can be used against him. On Mason's first inquiry about the domain name, Mason would have no idea how much traffic and revenue was being generated. It could have been quite significant, but he did not know. Once Mason goes down this road, spending his time and company resources on this, he has to finish the job, or else he will forever be chasing people down and asking for similar names to be returned to him.

Mason rightly assumes that most everyone attempting to infringe on the Two Plus Two trademark will likely be at least a somewhat frequent lurker/poster at this site, and if Mason can take a stand and go the extra mile against Dutch Boyd, a known poker name, then it will in all likelihood deter a number of potential would-be infringers, and it will save Mason and others at Two Plus Two a lot of time, money, and effort in the future.

Once in a while, you have to take actions that may seem like overkill to those not involved. In Mason's, and Two Plus Two's defense, anything less than a public burial of Dutch Boyd doesn't make any financial sense, and ethically speaking, Dutch Boyd is the one who has unclean hands. If you rob a bank and get caught, justice demands that the punishment is more than just a simple return of the money, otherwise, everyone can take a free shot. If you attempt to rob someone on the street, and it turns out that they only have $2 on them, you cannot argue that your robbery is less of a crime than the robbery of the bank.

That settles the legal and ethical questions. Now let's talk about what most of you are actually talking about.

Dutch Boyd, though known to have been involved in at least a handful of questionable ethical activities, seems to be a likeable interesting fellow. Throw out the allegedly shady activities, and he appears to be an extremely entertaining person, along the lines of the troubled genius. A likeable manic, bi-polar gentleman. Of course, those who believe that they have been victimized by Dutch Boyd in the past hate him, and others who have been victimized by poker generally, probably are not so fond of him and his alleged past dealings. Most neutral observers with no poker axe to grind would probably find Dutch Boyd an interesting person, with insights that are worth listening to.

As to Mason Malmuth, his image seems to be that of a curmudgeon. A somewhat soulless, unfunny dinosaur in the poker world. These are exactly the types of poker personalities that the younger crowd despises. The "Nit" who is never at risk of being homeless, and who can enjoy poker for decades on his own terms, paying his bills without owing people money, and likely living a pretty enjoyable normal life, with the freedom to do what he wants.

Dutch Boyd and Mason Malmuth/Two Plus Two got tangled up in a situation where the risk/shot taker met up with someone who had the staying power/resources to protect himself and put an end to the situation while sending a strong message to others not to mess with him.

The final point is that Dutch Boyd had some terrible terrible luck in this case. Trademark infringement is a somewhat gray area, especially when it comes to domain names, and the Internet, functionally speaking, was only about 10 years old when Dutch Boyd registered the name back in the mid 2000's. Practically speaking, the Internet was younger than 10 years old at that point. Domain Names have always been a bit like the Wild Wild West. There are still today many people who profit from infringing on trademarks. On blatant abuses using potentially valuable high traffic domain names, they will often disguise their ownership, or, if caught red handed, they will simply turn over the name or delete it. But once in a while, a person or company will go the extra mile and go for the knockout punch on the infringer.

This seems like overkill to the dispassionate observer, but it actually is the deal that those who infringe sign up for. When they register a name in bad faith, they know that a very small percentage of time they will be faced with a situation that can turn very bad. Just like when someone drinks and drives. Most times they will not get caught. Sometimes they will get a DUI, and every once in a while, someone who may have had only one or two drinks will wipe out a family and be staring at a manslaughter charge. But it all starts with the initial bad idea of drinking and driving. There are a range of possibilities that can happen on the way home, and the truly horrendous result can certainly be explained as being bad luck.

Dutch Boyd's actions are very light if put on the scale of moral wrongs. His intentions were not good, but it still doesn't qualify as an outrageous human action. But Mason Malmuth had to do what he had to do. He really had no choice. I don't think they will let Dutch Boyd off the hook. Yes, they have proved their point, and will likely deter others in the future from infringing on the Two Plus Two trademark, but it will probably be an unpayable judgement forever, and my guess would be that Mason and Two Plus Two would be fine with that.

If I had one suggestion it would be for Mason and Dutch Boyd to agree to a small settlement, with a strict confidentiality agreement. Neither side would be allowed to make a public or private statement about the settlement. That way Dutch could put this behind him, and Mason and Two Plus Two could still get full value from the fact that they have a large judgment that will deter others. But in reality, there is no reason for Mason and Two Plus Two to give up that hard won leverage. They are probably content to have the publicized judgment. Getting paid is just gravy. They did what they had to do.

So maybe a medium sized settlement the next time Dutch Boyd makes a score would be best for all.

^ extremely well-written.

Astute post by loggy. That is exactly how I view the situation.

Hi loggy:

Let me address a couple of issues that you raise in your thoughtful post. You wrote and the bolding is by me:

One thing Boyd did was to shield the ownership of the website, and it took our legal team some time to identify him as the owner. If he only thought that www.twoplustwo.com was good for $5 a month and would receive little traffic, why would he do this?

Every effort was made to do exactly this sort of thing. It was Boyd and not us who refused to negotiate in any way.

Best wishes,
Mason

FFS, if there was any justice, DB would have gone to jail over Pokerspot. Then he promised to reimburse his clients, but despite the fact that DB had some big scores, I am pretty sure none of them saw dime one.

I know that many people here are down on Mason, and I agree that he can act like a petulant child (reference Druff), but he is one of the key figures in the popularization of poker. DB is just a criminal, and apparently a sociopathic liar. He may be "interesting", but that is no excuse for his past sins. Mason should harass that mofo till the end of time over payment on the judgement. As Sklansky once noted(I am paraphrasing here), time is a dimension just like space. If someone screwed you over (Pokerspot), you wouldn't forgive them just because they moved to another state. So why forgive them just because they are now in a different time. DB never attempted to make the situation right, so I cannot understand having any sympathy for him. He deserves worse than what Mason did to him. It would certainly be a nice gesture on Mason's part though, if he does collect some money, to offer some to past victims of DB's frauds.

Excellent post above by Loggy, one that clarified a good deal for me. I am much more curious, however, about the second lawsuit. If Anthony Scocozzo's statements in his reddit thread are correct or even remotely accurate, why did the lawsuit against him continue and not get refiled against Nick Albano? Did Mason and his legal team believe the two worked together the entire time or that he was flat-out lying? And why was any thread Anthony started removed from 2plus2 (again, assuming he's telling the truth about that in reddit)?

Much of what is written in the reddit post you reference is not accurate, and it's difficult to believe that anyone would believe some of it.

But to make a long story short, and this is the first time I'm announcing this, more recently, our attorney did work out a settlement with the Nick Albino person. Of course, he then disappeared and we haven't heard from him.

Mason

Not showing your name on a domain registration is fairly common and only requires clicking a checkbox and paying an extra buck or two and some places is included in the domain price. He said it was one of hundreds of domains he registered that day so he probably bought privacy protection on all of them.

I don't think anyone with an understanding of domains/websites could dispute that he registered the name for any other reason than to try and get traffic/$$$ from it.

Hi Bradley:

Again, Boyd was asked these questions and refused to provide any answers to us.

Best wishes,
Mason

Curious of 2p2 had any sort of relationship with GT prior to getting the results of the audit?

I'm curious how many times are you going to ask this question, and you already know the answer. I and Two Plus Two have been represented by the same attorney since our very beginning in 1987. And, in 1987 his firm was not yet part of Greenberg-Traurig. That merger came years before the Dutch Boyd issues.

I'm also curious as to why you're so obsessed with these issues. Every question you've been asking you should already know the answer to, especially for someone who has done the amount of research you claim to have done, since everything has already been posted on these forums starting in 2009.

Mason

I really hate coming on here and responding to you, Mason... but this is a lie. Maybe you believe it, but anybody with access to a historic whois search can plainly see that I didn't hide behind a privacy service for the five years I had registered twoplustwopoker.com. I'd encourage anyone to check.

I'd also point out that I did, in fact, send over the full five years of traffic history to your lawyer before you filed your lawsuit. He said he doubted the validity of the info, so I had the registrar (Fabulous.com) send him a verified copy of the traffic history. The total parked revenue came out to $133 over five years... when you subtract the yearly registration cost, we're not talking about $5/mo. We're talking about $5/yr.

The domain was registered on the same day as around 500 other <keyword>poker.com domain names. I sent your lawyers that list as well. It wasn't an intentional shot... it was taking an automated method of google search terms ending in "poker" and adding .com. I didn't make a big deal of this in the lawsuit because automated methods don't shield a registrar from registering the wrong name. But it wasn't me intentionally taking a shot at you.

The "developed" site was actually just a parked page automatically served up by the registrar. I don't think you really understand the difference, and that's ok... most people wouldn't.

I can understand how you feel, Mason. You and I are actually very similar because someone else registered "DutchBoydPoker.com" several years ago, so I know exactly how you feel. The only difference is I didn't feel the need to make a federal case out of it.

I'm sure in your world, Mason, you're the reasonable one here. But maybe you'll at least confirm that I personally called you asking to meet and try and resolve this matter, and you just had your lawyer call me back and insist that all communication go through them. And the settlement attempts you made were just to demand $15,000 after the domain had expired and your lawyers had picked it up for reg fee.

I've already spent way too much time thinking about this. You ruined several holidays and caused a lot of stress for no good reason that I can see. I fought a good fight and lost. GG. Hopefully I'll be able to clear makeup this summer and pay off your judgment, and then we can put it behind us and forget about it.

^ If this is all true, is it safe to say Mason is a prick at heart?

Not the first possibility that I would come up with, but I am friends with the guy. Using just the slightest bit of intelligence, and running with what Boyd states, all communications and aspects of the case filtered through the lawyers. Mason can only report and act on what they present back to him.

Just a tidbit from my own look at the wayback machine. Parked pages usually dont have a contact us link going directly to the site owner. In this case info@twoplustwopoker.com, and they usually don't have a lengthy terms of service page.
I especially like item 9.2.

Example of a parked page: http://flightplanner.com/

The page also had a header tag of "Play online poker games in any of our multiplayer internet poker rooms"
https://web.archive.org/web/20071017...stwopoker.com/

In order to get a domain owner's information, you just do something called a whois search. I was listed as the registrant, with current phone number and email, for the duration of having the domain.

You've actually inadvertently lent credence to what Dutch said.

That "Terms of Service" contract is clearly boilerplate used by the registrar for that class of domain name.

Unless you think, of course, that Dutch is hiring lawyers from Australia (the same country where the registrar was located, btw).

I believe, from what I've read and seen, that this domain was indeed a domain parked by the registrar. I also believe that Mason and his lawyers didn't understand this... and the fact that his lawyers took considerable time *cough*billable hours*cough* to uncover who owned the site (when a simple whois query would do) seems silly.

I'm not inclined to defend Dutch, but the sounds like a case of Mason not understanding the technology, and neither did his lawyers. So instead they just threw money and litigation at it.

I've no idea if Dutch actually provided the billing information requested, and regardless of whether an automated method was used to register the domains or not, he's still on the hook if any marks infringed on someone with money and the inclination to pursue it.

But it really seems that if Mason met an alien life form, he'd shoot it with a shotgun rather trying to understand it.

I agree that it is boilerplate but I am really not familiar with TOS's on parked domains where the owner has no input on the content. To me it looks more like free or cheap hosting that he controlled. That is why I included a link to a typical parked domain.

That's a typical parked domain in 2014. That's not what they looked like back in the day.

I remember seeing dozens of parked domains that used a template very similar to this one shown in the wayback machine.

Mason and his lawyers didn't understand that it was a parked domain, one of hundreds that were mass-registered using a wildcard search, and that the site was not "built out" but rather just the registrar's standard template. So they shot it with a shotgun.

OK, here is a Dutch Boyd owned parked domain with a TOS and contact page:
http://www.jacknames.com/

Note that nothing is customized to include the domain name and the header is not modified from the default setting.

Again a 2014 version of a page; and it's a different registrar. This is such an apples to oranges comparison that I don't understand your point.

Yes, different registrars will have different parked domain page templates. Yes, parked domain page templates on websites now are different than they were 8 years ago.

???

Sidenote: if you do a whois looking on jacknames.com, it lists Dutch as the owner, with no privacy service in place. Which I think is a bad idea, personally, but it lends credences to Dutch's assertion that he didn't obfuscate ownership of his domains.

Why it look Mason and his lawyers some much time to uncover this is beyond me. Except for the billable hours thing. Hopefully his lawyers are a bit more technically savvy these days.

I believe that is the same (edit: original) registrar and host.

Here is some of the code from the twoplustwopoker page, which doesn't seem to be boilerplate. Use the slider to see it all:
Are you going to tell me that a signup code is standard on a parked page? Looks like a tracked affiliate code.