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 ! >