US Postal Service Shuts Down Internet Post Office
from the they-had-one? dept
Did you know that the US Postal Service offered an "internet post office" called NetPost? They called it an experiment in "hybrid" mail. Senders would send a document electronically, which would be delivered to a printing location physically near the final destination. The documents would then be printed out and delivered via snail mail. I vaguely remember hearing about this when it first started, but promptly forgot all about it. So did just about everyone else, apparently. The Post Office has announced that they won't be renewing the service. They won't say why, but there's a good chance it has something to do with the fact that most people don't see the benefit. About the only real benefit is for the Post Office itself, who wouldn't have to ship the mail over long distances. However, for most people, if they're going to use that, they might as well just send the mailing completely electronically to its destination.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They Don't Get It
Normally when you move you go to the post office and fill out a change of address form. Then you hand them the form and they have someone type the information into their system. Whenever you receive mail at the old address they print one of those yellow stickers with your new address and put it onto the envelope.
I moved a few weeks ago, and I decided that instead of going to the post office I would see if I could do the change of address online. I went to their web site and found that indeed I could do that.
I filled out the forms online, going through three pages, and on the last page, after all of my data was entered, I was given two options. I could print out the information on my printer and mail it to them (whereupon someone at the post office would retype all of my info into their system), or I could pay $1 to submit the data to them via the Internet.
I was flabbergasted! First, they never indicated anywhere that there would be a charge for the service, and secondly, I was saving them the cost of the labor to type my data into their system! It was already sitting there on their server, ready to flow into their change-of-address system, but they wanted a dollar to complete the process!
I said "screw it" and filled out the form at the post office.
It has to be less expensive to let the customers fill out and submit the information online, so I don't understand why they wanted to charge me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They Don't Get It
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They Don't Get It
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They Don't Get It
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They Don't Get It
Did you ever stop to think it could be a preventative measure to keep people from randomly forwarding your mail to some other address, as they either need to go into the post office in person (and risk being remembered) or use a credit card to do it online, and leave an elecronic trail?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They Don't Get It
Ahha ... just an example of programming being used to convenience the consumer instead of the other way around ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They Don't Get It
"
Er, yes, but this would among other things add a step or two and negate the time and effort saved.
I agree that the $1 charge sets up a trail and discourages random address changes. It should be explained as such at the site...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Success! They were picked up for another year!
Considering the US's great contribution to global warming, criminal neglect which killed 20,000 europeans this year (and which will likely do next year too), will the US be invading themselves next year? Remember - regime change begins at home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I did this today
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I did this today
If I had to guess, I would suspect that they hired some company to do the programming and handle the logistics in exchange for some or all of the fee. BUT, the cost savings to the post office should be enough to cover the cost of paying the contractor without having to collect a fee from the customer.
One of the great advantages of the Internet is customer self-service. Let the customer do the work and you can reduce your customer service overhead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I did this a few weeks ago
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They Don't Get It [ Internet Postal Service ]
Internet Postal Service
Who will be the Internet Postal Service? The answer is the private sector ISPs.
What the United States Postal Service should do is go public and get rid of the overloaded expenses and hire knowledgable tech savy individuals.
The following is a case where the USPS spent nearly $2,000,000 on a domain name case just because the site was ranked higher than the United States Postal Service on Google.
_____________________________
Opinion and Order - United States Trademark Law
FILED
2001 April 16
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CV 99-1290-MA
OPINION AND ORDER
ZIPEE CORP., a Washington corporation, and
ZIPEE.COM, INC., an Oregon corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant.
Kristine Olson
United States Attorney
District of Oregon
William W. Youngman
Assistant United States Attorney
1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Patricia K. Norris
Keith Beauchamp
Jennifer Van Kirk
Lewis and Roca LLP
40 North Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Attorneys for Defendant
MARSH, Judge.
Plaintiffs originally filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; defendant filed an answer asserting counterclaims for federal trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114, unfair competiton under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), federal and state statutory dilution, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) and Wash. Rev. Code 19.77.160 and common law trade name infringement and unfair competition. On December 12, 2000, I granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issues of infringement and cybersquatting and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, defendant requested dismissal of its remaining counter-claims. On January 29, 2001, I entered a judgment permanently enjoining plaintiffs and any of their associates from using the postal services' marks and I awarded defendant its taxable costs. After entry of judgment, I granted plaintiffs' attorneys' motion to withdraw. There has been no substitution of counsel for plaintiffs.
Defendant now moves for attorney fees and non-taxable costs totaling $1,183,403.22 under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). Plaintiffs have filed no opposition. The Lanham Act provides that a court may award reasonable attorney fees in "exceptional cases." Although the Act fails to define what constitutes an "exceptional" case, the Ninth Circuit has held that a trademark case is exceptional if the infringement is "malicious, fraudulent, deliberate or willful." Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Awards are "never automatic." Rolex Watch, USA, Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir. 1999).
The secision to award fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Gracie, 217 F.3d at 1068. A finding of willful infringement will support a fee award. See Id. Fees may be denied where the legality of the activity is "unsettled," see e.g. Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom, Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 279 (3rd Cir. 2000), or where the claims are "not unfounded" or brought for puposes of harassment. See e.g. National Ass'n of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. Very Minor Leagues, Inc., 223 F.3d 1143, 1149-50 (10th Cir. 2000).
The prevailing party bears the burden of demonstrating the exceptional nature of the case by "clear and convincing evidence." Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379, 1390 (5th Cir. 1996); Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 1998 WL 349554, 47 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1049, 1050 (D. Or. 1998).
Defendant contends that it is entitled to fees because plaintiffs' infringement was willful and based upon evidence relied upon in support of the cybersquatting counterclaim relative to plaintiffs' registration of other internet domain names that are confusingly similar to other businesses.
While I found infringement and cybersquatting established in this case, there was a genuine, good faith dispute as to whether or not the term "postal service," was entitled to trademark protection at all. Defendant has no registration for the phrase "postal service," but instead relied upon related registrations for U.S. Postal Service marks. Whether "postal service" was generic and unprotectable or descriptive and protectable because it had acquired secondary meaning was not a groundless or unreasonable issue. I find that the plaintiffs' internet domain name registration for postal-service.net and related marks presented a question of unsettled legality. Thus, I cannot say that this represents and "exceptional" case to justify a fee award.
Based upon the foregoing, I decline to exercise my discretion to award attorney fees in this action. Accordingly, defendant's motion for fees (#150) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13 day of April, 2001.
Signed
Malcolm F. Marsh
United States District Judge
Additional Information on Internet Postal Service case:
United States District Court
Google Thread
Iformation supplied by the Internet Postal Service
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They Don't Get It [ Internet Postal Service ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]