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."

5 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: -1, Troll

    Email spam is still a problem. ICANN still whacking off.

  2. Re:Firsties! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll


    Failsies, you douchebag!

    Also, people with links to free ipod or flat screen pyramid schemes in their sigs are dumb cunts and should mocked and abused at every opportunity.

    Not that you're one of them, I just felt that it needed to be said.

  3. Like it really matters.... by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 0, Troll


    Had they won this case, SCO would have claimed ownership of Verizon and took it down anyways. It's a "serivce"(ha) so damn bad, that even intarweb surfers can come up with 15 techy reasons why it sucks.

    Had there been a better judge, Verizon would have had to give up on .com and hand it over to someone half competant, and in it's place they would get control over .pwned.

  4. Re:After a long drought out legal common sense... by minus_273 · · Score: -1, Troll

    i dont know, an activist judge can make his own laws or alter existing laws with impunity.

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
  5. Plagarism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    emtboy9s writeup is not much of a writeup. It's word for word the first 3 paragraph of the article without giving CNet credit for it. That's kind of a no-no to me.