See
Slashdot Users should get a clue by 4iedBandit
and
Before everyone jumps off the handle... by deblau
up a few messages, which say make similer points...
I'm no expert, but actually reading a good deal of documentation about the case, it seems to me that the person making the original claim that this is against Internet policy (Alex Rubenstein from the company having the TRO made against them -NAC), is making a bigger deal out of what is really meant by the TRO.
To me it seems that the TRO (temporally restraining order) is saying that NAC, shouldn't 'maliciously' affect the IP's of the plaintiff, just like it wouldn't with normal customers. I agree it might be a bit heavy handed in its wording, and saying it cant be done.
I think that its just saying that NAC shouldn't treat the plaintiff any different to other customers: they are still a client while they want to move their services to the new provider, the plaintiff has said that it is still willing to pay for services until all services are successfully moved over to the new provider.
The TRO is Temporally (its in the name) and hence CANT be used to enforce a permantant movement of IP's to somewhere else. All the court wants to ensure that NAC still provide Internet access while the plaintiff is still a (paying) Customer.
I don't actually see where the plaintiff is trying to actually move IP's away from NAC, they just want to ensure the ones they currently have aren't disrupted, until the plaintiff has moved to the new provider.
I'm sorry if this message repeats itself a bit but i want to make my point clear.
DISCLAIMER: this is what I imply from the stuff I've read (at This page), I might well have missed something .
Slashdot Mirror
See Slashdot Users should get a clue by 4iedBandit and Before everyone jumps off the handle... by deblau up a few messages, which say make similer points...
I'm no expert, but actually reading a good deal of documentation about the case, it seems to me that the person making the original claim that this is against Internet policy (Alex Rubenstein from the company having the TRO made against them -NAC), is making a bigger deal out of what is really meant by the TRO.
To me it seems that the TRO (temporally restraining order) is saying that NAC, shouldn't 'maliciously' affect the IP's of the plaintiff, just like it wouldn't with normal customers. I agree it might be a bit heavy handed in its wording, and saying it cant be done.
I think that its just saying that NAC shouldn't treat the plaintiff any different to other customers: they are still a client while they want to move their services to the new provider, the plaintiff has said that it is still willing to pay for services until all services are successfully moved over to the new provider.
The TRO is Temporally (its in the name) and hence CANT be used to enforce a permantant movement of IP's to somewhere else. All the court wants to ensure that NAC still provide Internet access while the plaintiff is still a (paying) Customer.
I don't actually see where the plaintiff is trying to actually move IP's away from NAC, they just want to ensure the ones they currently have aren't disrupted, until the plaintiff has moved to the new provider.
I'm sorry if this message repeats itself a bit but i want to make my point clear.
DISCLAIMER: this is what I imply from the stuff I've read (at This page), I might well have missed something .