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."
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.
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 $1000 will be looked at). So unless they make ad revenue it cost them money to steal it from me. And that brings me to the other point. Just because you were tricked to going there and saw the ads, doesn't mean they do [or should] make any money off that. If advertisers smartened up and only paid per lead actually generated, it would pretty much kill these sites overnight.
That is provided that people aren't stupid enough to use squatter domains to search/buy things.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
...eminent domain!
/ducks
Let me tell you about a guy named Mike Rowe who registered MikeRoweSoft.com. He was just a kid and M$ 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.
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
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.
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.
http://www.dailydomainer.com/200784-microsoft-eart hlink-charter-cybersquatting.html
Not *exactly* cybersquatting, but just as bad if not worse.
I wonder how you assessed the harm (or lack thereof) caused by typosquatting. From down there in your basement, perhaps you hadn't noticed that typosquat websites are loaded with pr0n, viruses, bogus search engines, and occasionally even attempts to pass themselves off as the real thing. These ills create the impression that it is perilous to seek out microsoft.com on the web. The harm from that impression is probably what prompted Microsoft to release the hounds.
Not to mention the harm to the customer (which Microsoft's lawyers are more or less acting as proxy for). Registering 'micorsoft.com' can only be an attempt to fraudulently subvert a customer's intention to pursue a relationship with microsoft. And that is real harm, no matter what value or dysvalue the cybersquatter website offers.
If a person wishes to bash Microsoft, then let them register 'microsoftsucks.com'. Or just do like everyone else: create a slashdot account. :)
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
perhaps you hadn't noticed that typosquat websites are loaded with pr0n, viruses, bogus search engines, and occasionally even attempts to pass themselves off as the real thing.
Well, every site loaded with viruses, bogus search engines and misleading informations should be closed, not just typosquatters, and not because they are typosquatting.
Registering 'micorsoft.com' can only be an attempt to fraudulently subvert a customer's intention to pursue a relationship with microsoft. And that is real harm
Why? Imagine tomorrow I build a true,legit software house called "MicorSoft". Yes, I capitalize also on typosquatting maybe, but that's no more than a clever advertising technique. Does this harm Microsoft? Maybe, but also competition harms Microsoft, yet we don't feel the need to protect it from competition.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
We don't protect them from competition, no, because everyone fares best with competition. But we do protect their identity from subversion. Bill Gates invested a massive amount of resources in developing an identity called 'Microsoft'... and the size of that investment, and the future value of that identity, both positively motivate Microsoft to behave itself. That is to say, nobody spends $5 billion to develop a brand name and then proceeds to sell a phoney product and flee to Mexico with the proceeds.
An interloper named 'Micorsoft' can damage that investment, even to the point of ruining the original company's positive incentives to behave to protect its name (though this is not likely in this case due to Microsoft's sheer size). Did you ever hear about the 'Ball Home' scam in Kentucky?
Actually we see the same thing with our own personal identities. You've presumably invested a lot of resources in your reputation, right? So I would damage you if I impersonated you to your friends, neighbors, and coworkers.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
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.