Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verisign's Lawsuit Against ICANN Dismissed

Posted by michael on from the too-bad-so-sad dept.

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."

7 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. yes.. because it was... by joeldg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.
  2. Would work... by omghi2u · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This would work if a third-party site that had lists of registrars went up...

    But then VeriSign wouldn't make as much money!

  3. What? by cr0y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  5. best example of this by Chuck+Bucket · · Score: 3, Interesting

    or the best example provided *because* of this is http://www.whitehouse.org/. Moce, very moce!

    CB

    --
    free ipod and free gmail!
  6. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by urlgrey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Logic and common sense prevailed here indeed.

    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.
    "Ok, folks, there are two new rules for awarding a patent. They are:

    "First, the idea can't have already existed in the outside world before you saw this idea. This means you'll have to do research. I suggest you try Google.

    "Second, the idea has to have merit. This means you'll have to do research. I suggest you ask at least two other people this question: 'Does this idea: [insert idea here] suck?"

    That's it. Meeting adjourned!
    We should be so lucky. :-|

    ----
    --
    Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
  7. A good thing indeed.. by tirnacopu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.