Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Sue Cybersquatters
An anonymous reader writes "The Financial Times writes that Microsoft will
launch a series of lawsuits against cybersquatters, and will urge other companies to help tackle what it says is a growing problem on the internet. Microsoft says it hopes its example will encourage other trademark owners to bring similar lawsuits: "Cybersquatting is a growing problem for brands around the world and we hope to educate other brand holders and encourage them to take action," said Aaron Kornblum, senior attorney on Microsoft's internet safety enforcement team."
As much as I hate M$, I have to cheer them on for this. These squatters are a major nuisance. Also, these squatters try to install spyware and trojans on your computer. Or even worse, try to spread a bot net attack.
Personally, I would have sued the Cybersquatters first, and left innocent kids called Mike Rowe alone.
Although OpenDNS has saved me from several typos, I don't think that eliminates the need to sue Cybersquatters who are making money my intercepting traffic that was intended to go elsewhere. The fact there is an industry churing out sites like espnn.com is like a city putting up a delibierately misleading sign on a highway that diverted people onto a toll road (although I swear that's the way the GW Bridge is set up).
Wouldn't it be cheaper if M$ just paid off any of the squatters? I mean the practice of registering domain names of trademarked names sounds like good ol' capitalism to me... If M$ thinks this is unethical or whatever, ha! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.
Come on- Cybersquatting is nothing but the free market in action. I am sure microsoft could afford to pay any cybersquatter a decent amount of money to get back a domain they will then hold forever. And as far as all of you who are having a difficult time finding a name, tough. That is what a free marketplace is all about. Personally I know of a legitimate company that had a name similar to youtube and instead of complaining adapted their site to take advantage of all the new traffic. Why is is that when the litlte guy makes a buck it is so damn problematic but when the corps rape the little guys it is just ok. Viva la Squatters. Now technological solutions to spam... well that I would support. cheers
Mind | Body | Spirit | Cash
It's a numbers game. They lose $5 on you and dozens of others but they make $30,000 on some obscure domain that suddenly becomes important (like FireLouPinella.com will be by the end of the Cubs season).
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
This is one of those things that I'm split on. On the one hand, I think MS is in the right to be pursuing cybersquatters, especially when you consider that most of these folk tend to be trying to peddle spam. On the other, I still don't like the precedent that was set fairly early on of folks who had registered domains in good faith having them stripped away because an individual or company had deemed it "cybersquatting." There is the potential for abuse here, and Microsoft's pockets (and legal resources) are deep enough that even the thought of taking them on will make most people want to settle.
Logical fallacy (hasty induction):
P is bad
P is a subset of Q
Therefore, Q is Bad
I can buy blank DVDs from the store fair and square, burn pirated software onto them, and sell them for $2 apiece. I paid (a pittance) for the DVDs, so it's a nice fair profit, according to this logic.
The issue is one of infringing on intellectual property rights.
I get a distinct feeling that they're annoyed that they aren't making as much money as they could on typo domains (Microsoft redirecting unknown domains in IE to their search site). I have to wonder if this made any influence on their decision to go after cyber-squatters.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I'd have to side with the cybersquatters on this one. While it's annoying to occasionally run across a site you weren't expecting, I think it is just wrong to say that a person or company should be "entitled" to a domain name. Most people and companies did not jump to acquire the domain name when the web was first born, and most likely have not actively pursued the name for the past 15 years. As such, I say that the person who did scoop up the name (and PAID for it) has a better right to it. Why should a person or company who wants the domain 5 years after it first existed be given special treatment. You snooze, you lose. (Hell, there are a billion acres of land out west that ranchers are "squatting" on. If you follow M$ reasoning, I should be able to sue them to get the land at a discounted price.)
And I doubt M$ intentions are that noble. I've seen many companies sue other legitimate sites as "cybersquatters". The rival company has a similar product or name, and they bullied into selling the domain to the bigger fish.
If you want cybersquatting to go away, you need to address the root issue. Raise the price of registering a domain name. Cybersquatters will dissappear. The only reason they exist right now is that the investment is trivial compared to the expected profit.
You're right, it's not simply the result of the free market. It is, however, partly the result of a free market.
Not at all. There are plenty of commodities available for next to nothing in the physical realm, which are in short supply due to limitations on who may collect the goods (like land ownership), whose prices are high due to market forces. Claimsquatters looking for seams of precious metals are in the same boat as domain squatters, yet no one would argue that claimsquatting was not a result of the free market; nor would one argue that land speculation is not a result of the free market.
Also a factor, but this is not exlusionary to the market forces that cause the value to be so high. In fact, the domains wouldn't be improperly priced if it weren't for market forces.
Domain names are not a commodity, one cannot simply subsititute one domain name for another and have them be equivalent products. You can't extrapolate that low prices caused a shortage in this case. If you did want to consider domain names a commodity, then you'd have to say that they are priced too high, since the supply of them is infinite -- they should be free.
Yes, they have an interest. Legitimacy is another concern; if free market capitalism were to really apply, there is no question of legitimacy, only of interest.
Phishing: Agreed.
Pushing crapware: Caveat Emptor
Why a bad thing? In the long run, crappy domain names for everyone means that domain names will become less important for branding, which means less dependence on English, less dependence on getting the best domain name for your organization or person -- which frees us all up to spend more resources on other things. The whole domain registry system is broken, and the sooner domain names lose their relevance[1], the better.
[1] As is already happening, as people increasing use Google or other search engines as portals.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well, what's your solution to this? It's free market, face it.
Note that I don't like that, but I can't see how can I think to step on the basic right to anyone to buy a domain for any purpose and do what they like with that domain.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
The registrars don't seem to have any interest in solving the problem; after all, they're getting paid plenty of money for lots of domains that they otherwise wouldn't be selling.
Assume that I am a registrar. Now, explain to me exactly what this problem is that I should be solving, and why it is in my interests to solve it.
Can't do it? That's because there *is* no problem, not for the registrars. "But it'll improve surfing experience for end users!" is true (I hate typo-squatters as much as the next rabidly-anti typo-squatting person), but irrelevant to the registrars.
I wonder what they plan to do in five years time when the entire namespace has been registered and the only people selling domains are domain squatters and resellers?
Live off the renewal fees. If they stopped selling obviously-crap names, they'd make less money now (sales) *and* in the future (renewals).
I appreciate your position, but the registrars have nothing to gain and everything to lose from clamping down on this.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You want to know the real reason why Microsoft wants to get rid of cybersquatters? If you use Windows, fire up iexplore and type in some address that doesn't exist, you are redirected to a MSN Search page.
F ORM=DNSAS&q=non.existent.domain for example. Microsoft wants all mistyped urls redirected to their search engine.
If Microsoft can get rid of thousands of cybersquatters, they get more redirects going to http://sea.search.sympatico.msn.ca/dnserror.aspx?
Microsoft is no better than the cybersquatters, the only difference is they have the money and lawyers to bully them into submission.