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."
Once Microsoft takes care of the cybersquatters and the spammers, my internet browsing experience will be perfect! ...
So, bets on when that's going to happen?
I think I shall blow some karma by cheering Microsoft on. Cybersquatting has long tickled my free-rider detector, so it would be nice to see a few of them get pwned.
And never mind the malevolence of many of the squatters' typotrap websites.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
My blog
These days the entire .com TLD has been ruined by cybersquatters and profiteers. There are barely any usable .com names available that havn't already been purchased by someone out to make a quick buck by offering to sell it to you at a vastly inflated price. 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. 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?
.com domain today, you may as well go straight to sedo.com and save the wasted effort of trying to register one yourself. It's taken.
The long and the short of it is that if you want a
Personally, I would have sued the Cybersquatters first, and left innocent kids called Mike Rowe alone.
This is one of the very few things I can agree with Microsoft about. It's damn irritating to search for a domain name, find that it's not taken, then several days later try to register it only to find IT IS TAKEN by some cyber squatting asshole.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
A growing problem? This problem has been around for the entirety of the 15-some odd years I've been using the internet. Typo-squatters are nothing more than a minor nuisance now, how about a company with Microsoft's clout tries taking on spammers and fixing the single most annoying thing the internet has brought into our lives. Unless Bill is a big believer in some kind of herbal male enhancement products or Canadian prescription drugs.
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
The above points are all well taken -- I guess I was just concerned about corporations throwing their weight around and rushing to litigate in the knowledge that most people will not or cannot afford to fight them. I was working at Palm when Palm sued the owner of www.mypalm.com, in a move that was internally regarded as completely unjustified by everyone who didn't wear a suit to work. Palm eventually dropped the suit and settled with the guy when the developers revolted against corporate on this issue (if only we'd known that was the tip if the iceberg).
I'm afraid that this precedent could lead to many other cases of companies trying to seize domains they want through legal methods. I'd rather see people get their DNS from someone they trust, than a judge decide that Delta Airlines owns the trademark to the word Delta.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
For example, folk who go to "libtomcrypt.org" will be treated with a squatters website. But if you google for "libtomcrypt" the correct domain comes up near the the top (searching for libtom hits the website on the first link).
Whomever bought libtomcrypt.org had to shell out the $10 or whatever it cost to steal it from me. Will they make money from it? I don't know. I'm not going to buy it back though (their website claims no offer under $1000 will be looked at). So unless they make ad revenue it cost them money to steal it from me. And that brings me to the other point. Just because you were tricked to going there and saw the ads, doesn't mean they do [or should] make any money off that. If advertisers smartened up and only paid per lead actually generated, it would pretty much kill these sites overnight.
That is provided that people aren't stupid enough to use squatter domains to search/buy things.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
...eminent domain!
/ducks
Well, it's more like some clown got out of his car on the median and put up the sign instead of the city, but I get the analogy.
As long as the sign's not misleading (saying it's Microsoft and/or not disclosing the toll), the issue is even less here, since unlike on roads citizens can indeed advertise on the intratubes.
Let me tell you about a guy named Mike Rowe who registered MikeRoweSoft.com. He was just a kid and M$ went after them in all of its awful majesty and by the time the dust cleared, M$ had the domain and the kid, I think, had a new Xbox and some educational packages "to help his career along". Hm, wonder whether he asked to learn about the Linux kernel.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
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.
Why cant these people be allowed to make some money off of the domains that they paid for? If domain names were given away then i would agree, but these are peices of property that are paid for fair and square. If someone can buy them and turn a quick profit then so be it!
that's one bloody scary profession...
probably whole "internet safety enforcement team" is pretty well equipped with weapons and bulletproof jackets, going around and shouting all kinds of legalese.
Rich
Interesting story.
It's a tricky issue. Having a trademark means you're responsible for actively defending that trademark. If you don't, you can lose it. And that would be a nasty thing indeed for any big business.
That said it would be perfectly valid to just request that the owner of mypalm.com posted a 'palm is a trademark of' notice... and probably much cheaper.
Many large companies and lawyers purchase trademarks for mere speculation. Some made the headlines recently...
Brand protection attorneys use dedicated software to monitor all sorts of databases and the Internet so that they can leap at any time to try monetize trademarks that they keep semi-dormant. It's easy for them, it's just a little extra in their regular business.
I love watching Microsoft get lawsuit happy. It is again that time of year. Something tells me that Microsoft is just upset that somebody beat them to a new market.... With their buying power, Microsoft could be the ultimate cyber-squatter. The only problem is that there are too many other little companies which have beat them to the punch, making it problematic for them to mass register domains. I can see how that would be annoying. In fact, its almost as annoying as those filthy, annoying, people trying to work the patent system. Maybe they can take on those nasty people who attempted to prevent competition by attempting to shut antivirus makers out of their OS. Maybe Microsoft should take them o.... oops... forgot, that is Microsoft. Well maybe they should fight RIAA... in the ultimate battle of who can flood the US legal system more rapidly.
I think it's great Microsoft wants to tackle the cybersquatter problem. However, I strongly suspect this is more to do with having a bloated legal team than anything else.
What ever happened to innovation? People are doing it, people will continue to do it even if a handful of people get pinched, so create a better technology protocol - don't RIAA it with a fleet of lawyers.
Sure, they sound like they're saving the interweb from some kind of creeping disease, but upon reading the article it sounds less benvolent. "Dyslexic Domain is to pay Microsoft £24,000 ($46,000), returning the profits it is estimated to have made from infringing domain names. [...] Microsoft will also reveal it has recovered 1,100 domain names since it began its campaign against cybersquatting last year." "Recovering" 1,100 domain names... meaning now MS owns them. Did they just buy every typo variant of "www.microsoft.com" ? In fact, did they just get Paid $48k to acquire them? ------ The main thing that popped into my head when I read the /. brief, and then started wondering why it sounds sorta fishy, is this:
Can I start suing all those tons of (often large) companies that patent every damn thing they can think of, just so they can make money in the eventuality that someone with some real vision figures out how to do something useful with it?
[right, perhaps the difference here is previously existing "intellectual property". Still it would be great if companies formed just to think up random stuff and wait to make money of someone else's invention, through patent lawsuits only, would get screwed 'cuz I think they're much sleazier than domain squatters ]
This is one of the best, most stinging reversals of the double standards corporations set vs individuals.
I'm tempted to bookmark and "steal" it next time i see someone spewing antipopulist vitriol about the "free market"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Is www.whitehouse.com still what I think it is?
Ok.. so verisign and others are basically domain squatters as well.
basically, people who own dns servers will immediately register any typo anybody makes...
every domain name that has ever been tried by anyone in the world gets "squatted" by people who control dns servers, and they are given the "right" to then charge you a substantial markup for that domain, but nobody ever complains about them, oh no...because only corporations are allowed to squat domains.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Reduce, reuse, cycle
To all those of you saying that cybersquatting is simply the result of the free market, well you are wrong. It is the result of improper pricing for domains in the first place. All short or word-like domains should have been priced higher. When prices are too low, a shortage will result -- as it has.
Also, Microsoft has a legitimate interest is removing cybersquatters, as do we all, because quite a few of these (appart from other issues) are phishing or pushing crapware (or just advertizing, but that is acceptable in my book). Also, holding domains captive results in crappier names for everyone, which is a bad thing.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
IMHO, the problem isn't just cybersquatters who register based on trademarks. It's cybersquatting in general. I wanted to register a domain name that was an acronym, but I find that various people just register acronyms. .gov, .org, .com, and .us were taken (I thought you had to be a non-profit to register a .org? What happened to that?) so I am stuck. I can't afford to pay their silly fees, and I wouldn't want them to profit anyway, so I won't do it. How many legit sites are shut-out by these tactics?
AFAIK it would only be a trademark issue if mypalm.com is producing/selling handheld computers; mypalm.com looks like it's just a personal site about them. IANAL, so I imagine someone may correct me.
(IANAL)
Microsoft has the nerve to sue other companies for typosquatting? Normally, I'm all for suing such vermin but Microsoft? Type www.lyndows.com in your browser and see where you end up. Lemme see if I can find an email address for TFA's author and ask to to go back to Microsoft for a comment.
It doesn't matter whether they think its a good example or not. The fact that your trademark doesn't give you rights to THAT domain would make this lawsuit obviously futile. This was already resolved a long time ago when companies didn't have websites and wanted to get on the arena. They discovered other people already had the domain that was "theirs." They found out they had to just buy it from the other people. Trademark!=domain registration. It's that simple.
I know, this has happened to me; a domain I had my eye on for years *just happened* to get snapped up earlier on the same day that my hosting company tried to buy it; I was suspicious at the time, and right to be- I found out what had happened later on.
I wasn't about to waste time approaching the thieving vermin who stole it, as I knew they'd try to extort me more than I was prepared to pay. Lo and behold, I checked again a month later and it was no longer registered. Presumably they got a refund when they realised that they weren't going to make any money, so I got the domain after all, though I registered it myself this time.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Also, given the normal traffic in the area of the GW, you have about an hour to parse every sign along the way.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
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.
Or else we'll pay you a call, like those weenies at the Dyslexic Domains Company*
*knock knock*
"Who dat?"
"Internet Safety Enforcement, hit the dirt motherfuckers!"
"AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"
--
* Ream name.. see TFA!
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.
Microsoft doesn't do anything unless money is involved.
As opposed to the cybersquatters, who are holding the websites just to display their opinion? The opinion that "This website is available for lease or for sale. Please contact " etc, etc.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
...do I keep picturing Martin Short's lawyer character Nathan Thurm saying everything Kornblum says? Maybe that's just the way the world works?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
isnt microsoft's deal with novell just microsoft cybersquatting on Linux's IP???
just an extreme thought...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Mike Rowe received:
His expenses paid,
The cost of switching to a new site,
Training on certification of Microsoft products,
Subscription to Microsoft's developer program website,
An Xbox games console with games,
An invitation for himself and his parents to Microsoft's HQ in Washington for an annual technology fair.
So basically, he got an XBox and everything he would need to embark on a career supporting Microsoft software. Given that, it's unlikely he used anything Microsoft gave him to become a Linux hacker.
... does anybody else doubt if Microsoft is going after more than maybe the 5 or 10 cybersquatters who own domains that look like Microsoft's? I for one wouldn't bet on them doing a real effort and wipe the entire problem away. An if that is so, where is the news? Microsoft is going to sue a couple of people who they think are peeing at their legs. Huh?
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
I just got a nastygram from their attorneys about my glass systems for model trains (microwindows.com). Dammit!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Doesn't Microsoft and other companies engage in cyber-squatting themselves when they register domains like www.microsoftsucks.com? They are keeping others from posting legitimate gripe sites by registering and sitting on the domain name.
The problem that I see is that you can have more than one legitimate use for the same domain.
For example, I heard a story about when the little hamburger chain, MacDonalds, was expanding in Britain and found out that someone already owned the macdonalds.uk domain. They sent a nasty gram to the owner claiming ownership. The reply was supposedly quite terse and was signed "The MacDonald".
For those who aren't familiar with Scottish tradition, the head of clan "X" is called "The X" and they are responsible for deciding when the clan goes to war. I can just picture the head of the UK PR department for MacDonalds (the hamburger chain) trying to explain that little faux pas while listening to bag pipes coming over the horizon. :-)
That's right, the entire Internet exists for corporations. After all, that's the only reason the 'net exits. It's simply a conduit for advertising and FUD. :rollseyes:
More and more, I find myself longing for the bang!path days of old...
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
http://www.dailydomainer.com/200784-microsoft-eart hlink-charter-cybersquatting.html
Not *exactly* cybersquatting, but just as bad if not worse.
If they want to use the power they have to make the internet in some way a better place, which I think we can all agree it would be without people cybers-quatting for greed and profit, they have my vote.
The question becomes, if they nail the current squatters to the wall what is to prevent another round of squatters from snatching up the domains? If they really want to be heroes in this field they should destroy the squatters, then take the domains and establish a non-profit org which would take applications and award the domain name to the first person with a viable use for it. Unfortunately this would be exceedingly venerable to corruption. Once they've established the "domain trust" hand it over to a neutral third party and fund it "blind trust" style.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
You, sir or madam, are the problem.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Sure, the internet would much better without cybersquatting, and I would be amazed if Microsoft is successful; however, is it not perfectly legal to buy a domain and do nothing with it? If we want to keep our rights and freedoms on the web, then anyone could buy any domain and do what they want with it, especially if it's a .com (commercial) domain. :(
"ATI cards are like buses...They're huge, red and have bad drivers."
You forget the fact that people who drive near the GW are obligated by law to ignore all the signs. I hope you're not the wiseass who has actually been trying to get to his exit lane with some forethought instead of that the last minute!
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
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.
MS won't solve this but the problem is easy to solve. Remembering that
You're right that Microsoft is not going to elicit much sympathy. But the real issue is that NEW start-ups, companies, and people are getting locked out of semantic URLs by squatters. Microsoft can afford to pay off anyone...but I can't. The only alternatives are either nonsense domains (where do you think "Web 2.0" names come from...it's not because people think they're cute), or extremely long domains of 3 words or more.
This is directly analogous to the issue of network neutrality. Why should a small group of people be allowed to hold entire TLDs hostage for ransom? It's no better than a small group holding last-mile access hostage.
And can I just say that the "free market" comments are utter bullshit. It's NOT a free market--it's a heavily regulated market (ICANN, Verisign), and the heavy regulation creates artificial scarcity. Squatters are gaming the rules, and the answer is not to claim that there are no rules--the answer is to fix the rules.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Microsoft has an end-game that's not yet clear.
When, ever, has Microsoft done something that doesn't specifically enhance their bottom line?
Maybe they are going after a walled garden DNS system for Microsoft OS licensees? Nice hooks into their Sharepoint/Exchange crack pipe?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Flash back 20 years or so, and imagine Bill Gates talking about the role of lawyers in the tech biz. Probably, you'd need earplugs. Lawsuits? Regulation? Antitrust? You imagine the invective. Now, the tune is different. It's, Lawyers are a Firm's Best Friend! (Apologies to Marilyn Monroe) This is one more symptom that MS, which has created negative value for its shareholders this century, is really on the ropes financially. With their monopolies, they just don't have any feasible business direction that could make enough money to make their stock a good investment. So, they have switched tactics -- threaten to sue competing operating systems, occupy as much of the web as they can, make deals with Viacom and similar bullies to do anything possible to prevent communication that doesn't make a profit for MS and its buddies. The increasingly aggressive legal maneuvering by MS is a strong sign that the tech side of the company has no chance whatsoever of supporting the stock price, so the once-techie company becomes more and more of a legal bully. Oh Bill, remember when?
I'm going to start a company called McDowells and use Golden Arks on all my signs.
Well people start calling us threatening to sue because we were cybersquatting.(usually it started off with "stealing" then they did a little research and found the buzz word "cybersquatting") We would tell them "sorry it's ours" until one day a guys says "I'll give you $5,000" today for the domain. So we started offering them up for sale even though our initial reason for the purchase was ads and search engine manipulation.
We got a few lawsuits, nothing ever happened.
As for new registrations tough luck if you don't get your choice domains. Just because your letters run together the same way some other guys do doesn't mean it's rightfully yours.
Defaming an entity actively would understandably draw legal action for that offense but why should the entity being defamed get ownership of the domain for that?
As far as pricing is concerned who's to say what a domain's worth to it's owner? My company paid me to write and update software, analysts to sit there and find domains and then eventually a small registration cost. After registration there was hosting, research for parked content pages, etc.(not to mention answering phone calls of pissed off former owners) Just because the end registration cost was small didn't mean they hadn't invested a good deal of money developing the process to uncover specific domain criteria for purchase.
I've just rambled my way into figuring out what point I wanted to make in this post....
All your domains are belong to us!
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
I can see where this is headed:
Microshaft's team of 200 lawyers: "Clearly this business is cybersquatting because their business model has nothing to do with their domain name."
Defendant's single underpaid lawyer: "It's the $@#!ing owner's $@#!in' last name!"
Judge (who has stock in Microshaft): "Clearly Microsoft is correct here because their owner operates a shoddy foundation that causes more problems than it fixes. I find in favor of the complainant and summarily deny all appeals."
This satire brought to you by the Truth in Advertising Coalition, unless they actually exist, in which case, it's brought to you by some guy who's too afraid to leave his basement.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
Before I heard the term "cybersquatters," I thought of them as the "white trash of the Internet".
"Cybersquatters" sounds much more polite.
(but I also have a poor opinion of the "flippers" who, with the help of a mortgage industry gone wild, have thoroughly screwed up a good deal of the American housing market)
Grüß Gott aus Bayern!
I can't remember the last time I typed out a URL. It's just so '90s.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
This does not look like a cybersquatter. What's your point?
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
>When, ever, has Microsoft done something that doesn't specifically enhance their bottom line?
Microsoft Bob and his boyfriend Clippy?
need new glasses.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
You are correct. In a sense. Those markets existed, but were in their infancy. Only a select group of people were aware of them at the time. If you ask the random person on the street in 1985 what windows was and you wouldn't have anyone tell you it was related to computers. If you do that now, they'd tell you about win xp or vista, not Mac Os x or any other windowing system. So does that mean microsoft does have a right to them? I don't know its really an unexplored territory, that microsoft paid dearly to prevent linspire/ lindows from charting.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
well, patent squatting is a growing problem for independent developers
(not to mention, a problem to general human progress).
maybe microsoft and 'others' should take a long look in the mirror
before accusing others of squatting for financial self-interest.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Just beacuse some of us concieved cool domain names BEFORE the vested interests
became interested, DOES NOT MAKE US SQUATTERS !!! Sure assholes with many variations
or mis-spellings of common trademarks ARE squatters, BUT those of us who saw the
Internet as a viable medium BEFORE the corporate assholes became aware of the value,
need not suffer.
It is the people who cannot count, that deserve DEATH. Say I registered Microsoft.xxx
long before Mickysoft had a clue, should I be penalized? Not only NO, but HELL NO.
Mickysoft should pay through the nose for being so stupid. Period! In FACT THEY SHOULD
be penalized for lack of insight!!!!!
Typo squatters need not apply! THEY need to be tracked down and killed. Tiough shit, they got
on the bandwagon too late, and for nefarious reasons!!! FUsK THEM!!!
But a few people got there before I did.
I hate the fact that every time I want a domain name its taken, as I hate the fact that most
of the great real estate in the world is taken. But why on Earth should it be different?
Why shouldn't capitalism work freely? If Microsoft wants a domain that's taken, they should
have registered it sooner. They can hardly claim a lack of foresight when it comes to
technology. If they still want it now, they should pay for it. Plain and simple.
Domain names are expensive and sought after pieces of real estate.
And if Microsoft is pissed off because the owners of that real estate are simply "squatting"
to make a buck, then there's quite a few unused Microsoft patents I'd like to direct
their attention to...
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
On one hand, the squatters legally bought the domain names... ...on the other, they're choking the available range of names out so that if it keeps up, you'll have to say "Just visit my website at... um... www.nameserver02.ei135gpz7.net... ah, forget it, come to 192.168.3.24!"
That's why I only surf by IP addresses. I recently bought the rights to 127.0.0.1, lots of hits on that one.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
I've seen them buy out ISPs, transfer the domains registered by a few friends of mine (registered on their behalf by the ISP, of course) to YourName.msn.com (that screwed up a few on-line businesses pretty well) and then sell their original domain to a cybersquatter. So their record on this topic isn't clean, in my opinion.
Sure, cybersquatting isn't great. But I'd rather see existing rules for trademarks tweaked to fix the problem than get Microsoft in the middle of legal proceedings (for a fee, no doubt).
Have gnu, will travel.
Is it just me or is Microsoft seeking alternative means of profit since Vista was released? This looks like something the RIAA/MPAA or SCO would do, not a highly respectable corporation like Microsoft. Seriously, suing people trying to make a buck on the coattails of giants? That can't be a crime. IHMO
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.
let's hope they bother to distinguish between cybersquatters and individuals who happen to own a domain they want (or a domain they don't like).
from the article;
"It (microsoft) has won two lawsuits - in Utah and California - resulting in the total award of $3m in damages and the return of 409 domain names"
What on EARTH is going on there. Someone buys and open domain name, and is sued for it. This doesn't make logical NOR legal sense. First come first serve. if M$ wanted to own microsft.com as well as microsoft.com they should have bought it a long time ago.
Also, I find it weird that anyone would care about users stupid enough to not notice they entered the wrong URL. Is this something in the area of teh "save the children" bit, but then "save the retards" or some such?
Microsoft must have it's eye on goatse.cx
Now we can all look forward to more sleazebags with deep pockets extorting money from small commercial website owners with legitimate domain names but without the resources to defend themselves in court.
So, just like the mob, he was threatened and then paid off after he bent over for the Evil Empire (tm).