Timothe, Edward, thanks.
My god is this unaesthetical ...
Again, TM overreach granted this.
On 2014-07-08 2:32 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
> Thanks for the link (to a web site registered to Microsoft's law firm)
> Milton. Court documents have yet to been posted on Pacer.
> The fact that Microsoft was granted an ex parte TRO in this case
> against Vitalwerks is absolutely disgraceful. It could be argued that
> Microsoft might be entitled to a restraining order, even ex parte,
> against the unnamed defendants, but Vitalwerks itself could easily
> have been served and given at least some chance to respond, under a
> gag order if necessary, to the emergency orders requested.
> Microsoft's complaint is of the "throw the kitchen sink and hope
> something sticks" variety. That's not to say there are not some
> legitimate charges here, there are, but whether Microsoft has standing
> to bring them and whether the defendants are correctly identified and
> joined is questionable.
> The innocent parties claiming to be injured today might be interested
> in this representation by Microsoft: "Vitalwerks...derives no known
> income from this free service. Thus, there is no hardship on
> Defendants or any 3rd party" in granting the TRO.
> Tell that to the folks who couldn't connect today.
> There is also a gem for our WHOIS privacy advocates. In it's
> negligence claim against Vitalwerks Microsoft claims that Vitalwerks,
> as best practice, should be required to collect and verify the name,
> address, telephone number and IP address of all it's customers and
> make it publicly available in a searchable database (page 20 of
> Microsoft's brief supporting it's Emergency TRO request). Delightful.
> Can't wait to see Microsoft bring the same charge against Facebook.
> In it's trademark claims, and much of Microsoft's standing is derived
> from it's position as a TM rights holder, Microsoft assumes TM rights
> in subdomain names are the same as legal rights granted marks holders
> in domain names under the ACSA. Big assumption not currently
> universally supported in law.
> We do need to follow this case. If Microsoft achieves victory in the
> manner requested on the basis argued we're looking at this case
> expanding TM rights and further eroding privacy, at least in the
> United States. Not to mention the diminution of due process, the
> horrid mixture of public and private law and other such folly...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 16:09:55 +0000
> Subject: Re: no-ip
> Microsoft used some very powerful legal tools, asking for
> temporary restraining orders, and convinced a judge that the need
> for immediate action justified those actions.
> Http://noticeoflawsuit.com <Http://noticeoflawsuit.com>
> They’ve since been forced to pull back on their response, but I
> agree with Timothe that this is an issue that requires close
> attention and has important implications for the ICANN community.
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of * Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 8, 2014 11:32 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] no-ip
> Hello Timothe,
> Thanks for bringing this up here; when i first read the news of
> Microsoft hijacking no-ip domain. The first technical question
> that came to mind was; Is Microsoft now some form of an hacker
> because i was just wondering how they took-over without any form
> of authorisation from the domain owner. However i guess the
> section below from your url clears it for me
>
> Under the terms of the court decision, the DNS lookups for the
> domains were passed to Microsoft's name servers, with the plan
> being that Redmond would filter out No-IP subdomains linked to
> malicious activity and let legitimate subdomains resolve as
> expected.
>
> Having cleared the technical sides of the story, the question now
> is whether no-ip should bound to respond to such call from
> Microsoft especially since its not an act from no-ip itself but
> the users. One could liken this to running botnets on systems that
> exist on a large ISP network to attack a particular organisation.
> Does the victim sue the ISP or the users who don't even know they
> are botnet nodes.
> Cheers!
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Timothe Litt <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I haven't been following things here for a while, so sorry if
> this has
> already been noticed.
>
> If not, here's a case of judicial interference with the DNS,
> coupled
> with incompetent 'solutions'.
>
> This is highly relevant to the ncsg constituency as many
> non-commercial
> users live with dynamic IP addresses, using services such as
> no-ip to
> have stable names in the DNS.
>
> Of course, our terms of membership can be read to exclude
> these users -
> but note that there's nothing to prevent a similar action
> being taken
> against direct holders of domain names...
>
> Here's the story:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/01/sorry_chaps_microsoft_unborks_legitimate_noip_users_domains/
>
>
> The comments provide more detail - which for technical readers
> is tragic.
>
> --
> Timothe Litt
> ACM Distinguished Engineer
> --------------------------
> This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's
> views,
> if any, on the matters discussed.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web: //http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/ <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>
> /Mobile: +2348035233535/
> /alt email:/// <http://goog_1872880453>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>
|