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."

Re:OpenDNS

But seriously, isn't this already addressed well through OpenDNS [opendns.org]?

Not everyone can use OpenDNS, for one. For another, OpenDNS works by not exactly following the RFC, attempting to correct mistakes made by users instead of directing them to the appropriate error page. OpenDNS is DWIM (do what I mean) and well, DWIM (as any regular user of zsh can testify to) has never quite worked right.

Go Microsoft!

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.

Re:Free Market

I support all these "cybersquatters". They are harming no one, and they just do a bit of profit from people mistyping. Not moral hard-earned hard work, sure, but surely less evil than suing them.

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. :)

Real reason for Microsofts tactics

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.

If Microsoft can get rid of thousands of cybersquatters, they get more redirects going to http://sea.search.sympatico.msn.ca/dnserror.aspx?F ORM=DNSAS&q=non.existent.domain [sympatico.msn.ca] for example. Microsoft wants all mistyped urls redirected to their search engine.

Microsoft is no better than the cybersquatters, the only difference is they have the money and lawyers to bully them into submission.

The entire .com TLD is a wasteland

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?

The long and the short of it is that if you want a .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.

Perhaps it's time for...

...eminent domain!
 
/ducks

Should have done this earlier

Personally, I would have sued the Cybersquatters first, and left innocent kids called Mike Rowe alone.

Re:Should have done this earlier

However dubious, Mike Rowe has the right to use his name to create a company called MikeRoweSoft. Once there is a legal entity registered with that name then what is the issue? Even when it comes to a personal name like Macdonalds. I believe a lady with that name operates a tea-room in Scotland which was contested by the 'other' one. Macdonalds challenged her in court for the right to use the name but they lost as it was her real surname and there was no intent to deceieve. In fact, the clan chieftain apparently testified pointing out that as a real Macdonald she actually had more right to the name than the Macdonalds company.

Cheaper Solution

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.

Bah, it's more annoying than anything.

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

Still makes me nervous

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.

Cybersquatting != free market

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.

Typo domains

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.