Slashdot Mirror


How Someone Acquired the Google.com Domain Name For a Single Minute

An anonymous reader writes with the story of how Sanmay Ved bought "Google.com" even though it only lasted a minute. BGR reports:We've all been there: It's nearly 2 in the morning and you're cruising around the Internet looking for new domain names to purchase. I mean, talk about a cliched night, right? Now imagine that during the course of your domain browsing, you unexpectedly discover that the holy grail of domain names — Google.com — is available for purchase for the low, low price of just $12. Testing fate, you attempt to initiate a transaction. Dare I say, you're feeling a little bit lucky. And just like that, in the blink of an eye, the transaction goes through and the vaunted and the highly valuable Google domain is in your possession. While this might read like a ridiculous plot summary from some horrible piece of nerd fiction, this series of events above, believe it or not, actually happened to former Googler Sanmay Ved earlier this week.

70 comments

  1. Re:Fuck you Dice!!! by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also, please move the first button to the end, so I can read it as 'effing twit'

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  2. Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    LAST POST!

  3. Re:Fuck you Dice!!! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    Block slashdot.org##.nav-social

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  4. Were the nameservers updated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the nameservers never reflected this change, this is just an accounting issue. He never had control of the domain.

    Yawn..nothing to see here.

  5. cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase by Nutria · · Score: 0

    Cliche to whom?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase

      Cliche to whom?

      Cliche to people who haven't heard of Parallel Construction.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase by edittard · · Score: 1

      Parallel construction doesn't mean using a word wrongly.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    3. Re:cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Parallel construction doesn't mean using a word wrongly.

      However, whenever an incredible "trust me, I found this by coincidence" occurs, it's quite possible that they actually found it from a source they don't care to admit.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domain swatting low-life scum?

      Up at 2am? Sure.

      Cruising for domains to buy? WTF are you talking about?

    5. Re:cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase by purplepolecat · · Score: 1

      Like when you're strolling past the impound lot of the Spurbury police station, minding your own business, and you suddenly get the urge to break into that Winnebago. Call it a sixth, or even a seventh sense.

    6. Re:cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win this thread.

    7. Re:cruising at 2AM for new domains to purchase by Nutria · · Score: 1

      This must be some cultural reference that I'm too old to get.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  6. Re:Were the nameservers updated? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, he never owned the domain. google.com is registered through 2020 so the registry (Verisign) would've refused, and they certainly wouldn't have allowed the delegation to change. Even their system thought he had the domain for less than 1 minute. Clearly just a glitch.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  7. Re:Were the nameservers updated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wrong. The domain name controls the name servers used for the domain, so if he had the name server setup, he could have sent traffic to his server.

    Uhh not quite. The .com zone would need to be updated, as well as the glue A records for the nameservers for DNS requests to be sent. The .com zone didn't get updated....

    You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

  8. So? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even if you did manage to purchase a major domain what would it get you? For better or worse every case I've heard of where some individual was trying to elicit large amounts from a company/organization by sitting on a domain, the companies, without too much difficulty, took possession of a domain that related significantly to their company/organization. I suppose some companies would pay a bit to avoid litigation but not too much as they can get it with a little time and effort.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it would get you is hundreds of thousands of dollars from JS/etc malware botnet distributors

    2. Re:So? by PRMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ever been to http://nissan.com/?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    3. Re:So? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      ... every case I've heard of where some individual was trying to elicit large amounts from a company/organization by sitting on a domain, the companies, without too much difficulty, took possession of a domain that related significantly to their company/organization.

      Ah, but there are likely many cases we did not hear of, because the squatter was successful, and confidentiality might have been a condition of the settlement.

      Someone could buy up a name like Google because they liked how it sounded, or they wanted to do a website about big numbers, they could then monetize the site thanks to the high level of organic traffic.

    4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone could buy up a name like Google because they liked how it sounded, or they wanted to do a website about big numbers, they could then monetize the site thanks to the high level of organic traffic.

      For that website about "Big Numbers"; the spelling would be "Googol".-- the "Google" spelling is a variation that's considered unique enough to be an intentional violation of a there trademark.

    5. Re:So? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I had a dream about owning hotmail.com once. First I turned it into a porn-by-email site, and when Microsoft complained I turned it into my own email site. Of course because all the sign ups were new people would register boll@hotmail.com and start getting the old Bill's email.

      Even for me that was a weird one.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't they get Uwe Boll's old email instead?

    7. Re:So? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I can't believe they're still going after him. Well, they were the last time I checked his site. He's spent a fortune - I hope he recoups his financial losses while still young enough to spend them.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:So? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Back in 2002 Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) were planning to massively re-brand themselves as Intruducingmonday.com, however, they forgot to register the .co.uk! Big mistake as it was soon registered by Rob Manuel of b3ta.com and USVSTH3M who quickly put a flash video largely consisting of Two Fingered salutes and Donkeys and a song with lyrics like "La la la we've got your name" and "We like donkeys". This quickly went viral resulting in PWC abandoning their re-branding efforts (Not sure if heads rolled or not) and b3ta.com getting thousands of new members.

      So yes you can do quite a bit if you manage to purchase an important domain

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    9. Re:So? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Their (the automotive company) lawyers are salaried no doubt. That company will just keep grinding him down to bankruptcy until he's forced to give up the domain.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:So? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I sent him a donation quite a while ago but, come to think of it, I'm in much, much, better financial shape than I was when he was first asking. We're talking way way back like early 2000s or so as I recall. Maybe as recent as ten years ago. That's a long time in the internet world. Not so very long a time in the legal realm.

      I think I can contact him to see about making an actual realistic donation. I'd prefer to not push a large sum through an online vending company but a direct bank transfer will work. I am on the road but there are lots of credit unions with shared banking so it's not a problem.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So,
      He may have a case that the domain is his.

      This seems a special case because there was no third party.
      The seller (Google) clearly owned it, they had the authority to sell it, and they did.

      It looks like they sold it to him fair and square.
        They may not have intended to sell it, but there is an argument that they delegated that authority to their sales engine.

      Then they took it back because they could because they ran both the registery and sales engine.
      Not fair and square behavior under their duties as a registery.

      He might not have the right to use it for things that collide with their trademark, but for other things, he might be able to use it.

      There's enough money involved here to make it worth looking into.
      Big G might be wise to go see the guy and settle.

      It would be interesting to see how this turns out, but the only externally visible thing may be the new toys he gets.

    12. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck collecting the money, you would be hunted down like you just robbed a bank. Normal malware spreaders get away with it because they don't draw a whole lot of attention & they don't upset the wrong people. Hijack a major domain and a multinational corporation is going to be calling the FBI, Interpol, Congressmen, EU reps and everyone else in their contacts list.

    13. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It helps when the site you're planning to extort is acting as its own registrar, as Google was in this case.

    14. Re:So? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      I had a dream about owning hotmail.com once. First I turned it into a porn-by-email site, and when Microsoft complained I turned it into my own email site. Of course because all the sign ups were new people would register boll@hotmail.com and start getting the old Bill's email.

      Isn't that how hotmail works now?

    15. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't been to his site in a while, but it last looks like the auto company went to apply for a trademark with regards to computers, which apparently they were granted (per the link on Nissan.com's website). I had read that prior use could invalidate another from trademarking a name, and trademark rights are acquired by use (which Nissan computers has in spades). Unfortunately, that doesn't always matter. Just look at Coca-Karma.

  9. i'm trying to understand this post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    something of google was registered to become something not of google or registered domain for some second not allowed...

    how was this action available if not for a registered site to be really registered if not in time... possible but not likely because the network wouldn't switch without google being google really...

  10. Re:Were the nameservers updated? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    would've refused, and they certainly wouldn't have allowed the delegation to change.

    Unless Google was doing something whacky like running their Google domains service he bought the domain through on the same nameservers that the Google.com zone was hosted on, And allowing the buyer to edit their existing zone contents without needing to change the list of nameservers.

  11. But the revenue stream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd take one minute of Google's revenue...

  12. Re:Fuck you Dice!!! by Falos · · Score: 2

    I dunno, I'm not particularly avephillic but I'm fond of the "bird fucking" we have now.

  13. Re:Were the nameservers updated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    he just said it COULD have been. You might know what you're talking about but you're an ass.

  14. Re: Were the nameservers updated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, not more than two weeks ago I noticed it was due to expire this year. So, check your facts, Jack.

  15. Re:Were the nameservers updated? by tom229 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think everyone's a little bit confused here. Domain name registry is provided by authorized registrars on behalf on top level domains (tld); in this case .com. The "nameservers" addresses are registered with the tld, which will then provide second, third, forth, whatever you want level lookups. I haven't read tfa but this had to be a registrar goof up. Most give at least a 3 month grace period for renewals even after it expires. And that's just for regular joes. I'm sure titans of the internet have special rules.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  16. The story is obviously a fake by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

    It says the guy loves Google. Who the hell loves Google eh?

    Fake...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  17. We've all been there? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We've all been there: It's nearly 2 in the morning and you're cruising around the Internet looking for new domain names to purchase.

    Actually, no - I can't say I've ever done this. It seems like a colossal waste of time.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:We've all been there? by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

      We've all been there: It's nearly 2 in the morning and you're cruising around the Internet looking for new domain names to purchase.

      Actually, no - I can't say I've ever done this. It seems like a colossal waste of time.

      I think that the process goes like this:
      01:00 am OKCupid.com
      01:30 am PornHub.com
      02:00 am ExpiredDomains.com

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:We've all been there? by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      A waste of everyone's time and resources. Domain grabbers are scum.

      "Oh you'd like to use this as a project/company/blog name? You can't, cause I'm sitting on it, neener neener!"

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    3. Re:We've all been there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like...
      01:00 am OKCupid.com
      01:30 am PornHub.com
      01:34 am ExpiredDomains.com

    4. Re:We've all been there? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      We've all been there: It's nearly 2 in the morning and you're cruising around the Internet looking for new domain names to purchase.

      Actually, no - I can't say I've ever done this. It seems like a colossal waste of time.

      Exactly, more like "Only scummy domain squatters have been there:"

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  18. Re: Were the nameservers updated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can check it right now, it is registered until 2020 through markmonitor. http://who.is/whois/google.com

  19. hosts file by PasiRajala · · Score: 1

    I succesfully captured google.com by adding it to my pcs host file with 127.0.0.1 .... that'll teach them!

    1. Re:hosts file by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 2

      Hush! You'll get APK going about his hosts file.

    2. Re:hosts file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I did for fark.com

  20. actually, no... by theonlyholle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just an attention seeking idiot, in my humble opinion. Just because a registrar's system will let you put a domain that's actually not available into the shopping basket and even lets you pay for it doesn't mean that you "owned" it at any point. It's like a real estate agent "selling" you the White House and accepting payment for it - doesn't mean that you now own it.

    1. Re:actually, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      he's a fucking MBA candidate. What do you expect? Because he can do something there's nothing from stopping this asshole from going ahead and trying to do it. He has visionary manager written all over him.

    2. Re:actually, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you two must be a real 'hit' at parties. When someone tells a joke, you are the clueless guys who never get it and never laugh. The 'special' part is then you go on about how a chicken would never cross a road because it's brain isn't big enough to figure it out. True psychological projection.

      So I'm sure you guys hear, 'actually no' quite a bit.

    3. Re:actually, no... by Stewie241 · · Score: 2

      Meh.

      I mean, if something legitimately looked like it would make it possible to purchase google.com, for example, and it was a reputable site, then I would try it. Not because I would want to do evil, and not because I intend to cause harm. But only because I'm curious and would assume that it doesn't actually work, and the small part (ok, bigger than I'd like to think) of me that relates to this comic would be compelled to point out to the reputable vendor that something was obviously wrong with their site as I would expect to complete the transaction and not actually end up owning google.com.

      The surprise for this guy was probably that the transaction actually went through and some reputable system actually believed him to own the domain.

    4. Re:actually, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to live in a world where a chicken can cross a road and nobody questions their motive.

    5. Re:actually, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      but then he got Google Webmaster Tools to recognize him as the owner, and he was getting information.
      He owned it, legitimately, but then before any opportunity to do much harm, Google responded and use a clause that allowed them to revert ownership. Pointless? To some degree, yes. But, did he technically own it? Yes.
      Also, that he was getting some notices means that there was a security lapse.

    6. Re: actually, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Obama or Biden were the real estate agent, I'd expect to own it.

  21. Re:Were the nameservers updated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the root name servers are only updated every few hours, not live, so nobody would have had a chance to see this guy's nameserver show up as authoritative.

  22. Never type Google into Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Detailing the entire experience on LinkedIn, Ved writes that he
    > typed Google.com into Google Domains on a whim

    There you have it. He broke the Internet!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    captcha: tedious

  23. "Google has reverted back" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Google has reverted back, and has acknowledged the incident." - for once, Indian English is unintentionally appropriate.

  24. Re:Fuck you Dice!!! by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    What's a home page? Use RSS

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  25. Re:Were the nameservers updated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean you WOOD have?

  26. Nothing to see here. Please move along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether he had control, or not, is a non-issue. All Google would do is whip out their cash and lawyers and get it back. You're forgetting - money gets what money wants.

  27. Challange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would anybody allow Google to "cancel" after the transaction is complete?

    I would have offered to sell it back to them for 100 Million dollars. They do Billions on that domain as it is, and 100 Million is nothing. And FIRST TO REGISTER is what counts, so I wouldn't have let them claim anything.

    1. Re:Challange by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Except selling a domain like that is explicitly against the rules and will result in you losing the domain.

      Refer to section 4.b. i-iv in https://www.icann.org/resource...

      Also note the date of the policy; this is not a new thing.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  28. Eiffel tower by heson · · Score: 1

    Hey, I just bought the Eiffel tower.
    Yet another article on bogus crap.

  29. read the article.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He started getting notifications that would only go to the owner of the domain, so it seems clear that he really did "own" it, at least according to one of Google's servers.

  30. Re: Fuck you Dice!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No birdfucking allowed!