analysis At least the seller wasn't a domain squatter...

[Acroplex]

The public image of domain investing is easily tarnished by the use of the "C word."

Cybersquatting is defined as "the practice of registering names, especially well-known company or brand names, as Internet domains, in the hope of reselling them at a profit."

That being said, while the passing holding of domains can be a basis for a Complainant to establish UDRP points against a domain holder, the truth is that most domain investors use their domains legitimately: by parking them (PPC revenue,) by providing affiliate content, developing them, or even by offering them for sale - for the right price.

In a nutshell: Domain investing is a legitimate business - not a fringe, fly-by-night hobby for squatters. https://domaingang.com/domain-news/hey-com-domain-seller-wasnt-a-squatter-says-basecamp-ceo/

Some think otherwise, however.

 

[pb]

Funny thing is, if the domain wasn't developed and/or it was in the hands of a domainer, he would have probably paid less to get it. In fact, if it wasn't for domain investors, if it was obligatory to develop a domain in order to keep owning it, there would be a serious shortage of great names, and the prices would go way up.

Seriously, it's like he's glad he bought a developed plot of land and tore down the existing buildings instead of purchasing an empty, unused plot owned by someone who bought or inherited it but never got around to building anything.

 

[Acroplex]

Funny thing is, if the domain wasn't developed and/or it was in the hands of a domainer, he would have probably paid less to get it.

You nailed it. An existing brand holder takes into account the expenses they incurred to build the brand, and the cost of domain rebranding.