Slashdot Mirror
Verisign's Lawsuit Against ICANN Dismissed
emtboy9 writes "Internet domain name registry VeriSign just can't seem to convince anyone that redirecting misspelled Web addresses to its own site is a good thing. A federal district court judge on Thursday threw out VeriSign's legal arguments that ICANN's ban on this tactic amounted to a violation of U.S. antitrust law. VeriSign, which runs the master database for .com and .net addresses, had argued that its competitors had succeeded in stymying VeriSign's plans for its Site Finder service by providing advice to the board of directors of ICANN, or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers."
"a service to the community"
Those guys actually tried to pull that...
I wonder how much stake overture had in that.. No journalist has ever approached them to find out their role in that story.
a service indeed..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
This would work if a third-party site that had lists of registrars went up...
But then VeriSign wouldn't make as much money!
Maybe someone can fill me in, I have been following this, but I still don't get how one company can control all the .com and .net domains....Isn't that illegal?
ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
Maybe the knowledge of the judges, lawyers and whatnot is finally catching up with the times, and they are displaying some comprehension of the high tech fields on which they're ruling.
Maybe the lawyers are catching up, but it has always been a requirement that a judge make a decision based on law. If he makes a decision you don't agree with, then somewhere there's a law that you don't agree with. If he makes a decision that you DO agree with, it's because there is a law somewhere that you DO agree with.
I wish people would stop demonizing judges, or putting them on pedestals. They don't have much wiggle room for a "good" or "bad" decision. Their function is to interpret the law, even if they don't like what it says. All they can do is mitigate the damages according to what is allowed by law.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If you get a domain wrong, the god damn browser should take you to google or whatever search engine you specified under some settings within your browser.
Its not like it would be that hard to do.
or the best example provided *because* of this is http://www.whitehouse.org/. Moce, very moce!
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
Is it "always" however? I do not think we can say that a judge makes a decision, always, based on some pre-existing law. We do have precedents, and in the case of the Internet - which is still fairly young - we may not have many precedent cases.
Judges have been known to go against pre-existing common laws and law based on differing circumstances, though this can be related to my first point.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
If only this same judge could magically get even five minutes with the patent folks and teach them a thing or two about a thing or two. We should be so lucky.
----
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
404 error pages are served by the server corresponding to the domain you typed in. if the domain doesn't exist (i.e. doesn't point to a server) then you get the msn search page or the VeriSign thing in the past.
In IE, there are options to turn off "friendly" error messages and let the server (not IE) serve you its own error page. It doesn't stop the server from making a "pretty" error page for you, but at least it will stop IE from giving you a generic "friendly" error message.
Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Browsing -> Uncheck the "Show Friendly..." boxes
One cool application of this good thing I stumbled upon was one of the so many trojans (don't remember the exact flavour, CWSShredder erased it) which added its own IP address in the hosts file for sitefinder.verisign.com - the result? It took the user several days to find out how the heck the trojan kept showing back, since he only visited 2 (two) sites with IE because of the usual incompatibilities. A small typo, a mhtml:// exploit and voila! The fellow actually thought that the site where he did some e-commerce stuff was hacking his machine.. talk about losing a customer and not know what hit you.
At least that's what I remember it being called.
When private corporation accounted for over half of what was and content on the Internet.
I think it was 1997 or 1998.
Sniff.
Love the logic. I hadn't actually thought about it like that. I've been using alternate root servers for a long time now. Whilst the .biz cock-up is a minor annoyance, the thought that if everyone did the same petty companies like Verisign and even ICANN would rapidly become insignificant amuses me ;o)
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
Whether a law is good or bad is subjective. Holding someone accountable for a reading of law that you do not agree with is ludicrous. If you don't like the law work to change the law. Whether a judge is good or bad is going to depend on which side of the ruling you happen to be on.
I've always wondered by a browser couldn't chase the dns to provide a more meaningfull diagnostic. For example:
"No such domain exists" - the TLD servers returned NXDOMAIN
"The domain exists but the authoritative servers are unreachable" - domain has been properly delegated by the parent zone but the nameservers are off the air
"The domain is not set up properly" - the domain has been properly delegated and the authoritative nameservers answer with proper NS records but no A record can be found.
And so on and so forth. Seeing the same "No DNS" since Marc Andresson released the first copy of Netscape on usenet is pretty lame.
Need Mercedes parts ?