Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft

Microsoft to Sue Cybersquatters 221

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the pimples-of-the-internet dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft to Sue Cybersquatters

Comments Filter:
  • Go Microsoft! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inviolet (797804) <<gro.rettamsaedi> <ta> <todhsals>> on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @08:42AM (#18345703) Journal

    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DaMattster (977781)
      As much as I hate M$, I have to cheer them on for this. These squatters are a major nuisance. Also, these squatters try to install spyware and trojans on your computer. Or even worse, try to spread a bot net attack.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Logical fallacy (hasty induction):

        P is bad
        P is a subset of Q
        Therefore, Q is Bad
        • Microsoft has an end-game that's not yet clear.

          When, ever, has Microsoft done something that doesn't specifically enhance their bottom line?

          Maybe they are going after a walled garden DNS system for Microsoft OS licensees? Nice hooks into their Sharepoint/Exchange crack pipe?
          • by anonicon (215837)
            >When, ever, has Microsoft done something that doesn't specifically enhance their bottom line?

            Microsoft Bob and his boyfriend Clippy?
    • The thing that pisses me off about it is how they game search engine results, more than the stupid typo-squatting itself. These sites wouldn't be a real problem if we could cut out that bit of their business.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Seumas (6865)
      Yeah, this lawsuit idea is all fine and great if you're a big corporation like Microsoft. The small guy, like myself who has had malicious people squat on domains (my site, for example, but .net and .org, etc for example) are fucked because we can't afford thousands and thousands of dollars to bring a lawsuit against someone on the other side of the country.

      (And yes, this person squating my domains is doing so maliciously as they are a former user who continually harassed other users. Then there is also the
      • Well, if the cybersquatters are forced into bankruptcy by being hit with huge judgments in favor of Microsoft, they won't be able to afford to register variations of your domain name anymore. Plus one would think there'd be an overall deterrent effect on people thinking of getting into the cybersquatting business.
      • by kimvette (919543)
        Moral of the story: when you register domains for your business name, register the .com, .net, .org, .biz, and .us (or whatever TLD exists for your country). This negates the necessity of a squatter or competitor from infringing on your trademark.

        Believe it or not there are alternatives to litigation, even in today's sue-happy climate.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Squatters need sued, but will they go after parody sites as well and call them squatters?
      • by ePhil_One (634771)
        Squatters need sued, but will they go after parody sites as well and call them squatters?

        If they could be interpreted as Cybersquatting, yes. If you host your parody site at http://user.aol.com/~Coward/MSSucks.html [aol.com]; no. http://www.microshaft.com/ [microshaft.com] might have an issue (clearly parody, but only a 2 letter delta). http://www.microsoftsucks.com/ [microsoftsucks.com] might get a letter, but clearly has a legitimate defense.

      • This was my concern as well. Seeing as I operate a gripe site that has been threatened, I am constantly wary of developments like this. So far I have confidence that I am in the right in my site's right to exist according to US code Title 15 and 22, but all it takes is a big enough lobby group to remove those rights from me.

        For those interested in the lawyers threat and my response (with annotations to US code) it can be found here: http://farmersreallysucks.com/editorialtakedown1.s html [farmersreallysucks.com]
        -nB
    • by pubjames (468013)
      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.

      I once had the unpleasant experience of being targeted by the attack lawers of a big company. I had a domain name registered which contained part of their company name, and it was a generic word was relevant to my website. As an individual when you start getting letters and threatening (in the legal way...) phone calls from a big legal company,
    • This is a case of the lesser of two evils. I'm actually on MS' side here. Of course if you are some small business or individual with limited resources you won't be able to carry out an expensive legal campaign. The laws need to adjusted to aid folks like this.
    • Free Market (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Khammurabi (962376)
      I'd have to side with the cybersquatters on this one. While it's annoying to occasionally run across a site you weren't expecting, I think it is just wrong to say that a person or company should be "entitled" to a domain name. Most people and companies did not jump to acquire the domain name when the web was first born, and most likely have not actively pursued the name for the past 15 years. As such, I say that the person who did scoop up the name (and PAID for it) has a better right to it. Why should
      • by cyclop (780354)

        I fully agree.

        I can't believe people is here believing that the fact people are profiting from "www.microsofft.com" or "www.googlee.com" is something bad. It will be my brain hardwired to exact string checking, but the string "microsofft" IS NOT the string "microsoft". For what damn reason can the owner of the string "microsoft" go and sue the owner of the string "microsofft"? On one side, people should learn to type properly -if they don't, their fault. On another, how far goes it? Cover all 1-letter delt

        • Re:Free Market (Score:4, Insightful)

          by inviolet (797804) <<gro.rettamsaedi> <ta> <todhsals>> on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @11:33AM (#18347901) Journal

          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. :)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by cyclop (780354)

            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.

            Well, every site loaded with viruses, bogus search engines and misleading informations should be closed, not just typosquatters, and not because they are typosquatting.

            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

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by inviolet (797804)

              Why? Imagine tomorrow I build a true,legit software house called "MicorSoft". Yes, I capitalize also on typosquatting maybe, but that's no more than a clever advertising technique. Does this harm Microsoft? Maybe, but also competition harms Microsoft, yet we don't feel the need to protect it from competition.

              We don't protect them from competition, no, because everyone fares best with competition. But we do protect their identity from subversion. Bill Gates invested a massive amount of resources in develo

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sootman (158191)
      They must be looking for a new noble cause to undertake since they solved Spam last year. [cbsnews.com] Go team!
    • by Emetophobe (878584) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @03:32PM (#18352497)
      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @08:46AM (#18345745)
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @09:10AM (#18345983)
      ...eminent domain!
       
      /ducks
    • by Dogtanian (588974)

      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?
      Bribe some US congressmen into creating a few new TLDs and sell them instead; with the bonus that people who already own fzzbrgle.com will want to snap up fzzbrgle.moc, fzzbrgle.con, fzzbrgle.zap, to avoid squatters buying them up.

      Well, I exaggerate, but you get the idea.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cyclop (780354)

      Well, what's your solution to this? It's free market, face it.

      Note that I don't like that, but I can't see how can I think to step on the basic right to anyone to buy a domain for any purpose and do what they like with that domain.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tim C (15259)
      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.

      Assume that I am a registrar. Now, explain to me exactly what this problem is that I should be solving, and why it is in my interests to solve it.

      Can't do it? That's because there *is* no problem, not for the registrars. "But it'll improve surfing experience for end users!" is true (I hate typo-squatters as much as the next rabidly
  • by jrumney (197329) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @08:46AM (#18345751) Homepage

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

    • by Slashamatic (553801) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @09:41AM (#18346325)
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sunburnt (890890)

        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.

        And I should hope so, since the name of the company in question is McDonalds.

        Check out the history [wikipedia.org] of litigation between Anheuser-Busch (owners of the Budweiser trademark in the U.S.) and Budvar (who make a beer named "Budweiser," ostensibly named for the town of

        • You are quite right and I'm doubly embarrased as that particular purveyor of burgers is about two minutes from the door to this office.

          As for your comment about US Bud vs Czech Bud, yes that is an interesting one. Especially given the fortune that Anheuser-Busch spends on advertising (they certainly don't spend anything on brewing beer). Budweiser Budvar, OTOH does produce something quite drinkable but they clearly are not on the scale of AB. The interesting thing is that since the accession of the Czech r

  • This is one of the very few things I can agree with Microsoft about. It's damn irritating to search for a domain name, find that it's not taken, then several days later try to register it only to find IT IS TAKEN by some cyber squatting asshole.
    • It's damn irritating to pass by a jewelry store, then find THEY HAVE MY DIAMONDS that I was going to mine from the earth.

      Fixed.
  • Cheaper Solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by s31523 (926314) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @08:58AM (#18345881)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Holding intellectual property ransom has nothing to do with capitalism. Take your marxist claptrap elsewhere.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Red Flayer (890720)
        Well, I'll bite.

        Holding intellectual property ransom has nothing to do with capitalism.

        Sure it does, if you mean free market capitalism. If there is any kind of property, it is quite within the bounds of capitalism for the owner to choose to relinquish control only when someone pays a price they set. Sure, it may be annoying that the system structure allows anyone to get squatter's rights on domain property, but as long as the system allows it, "holding intellectual property ransom" is pure capitalism.

        • by cyclop (780354)

          If there is any kind of property, it is quite within the bounds of capitalism for the owner to choose to relinquish control only when someone pays a price they set.

          The so-called "intellectual property" is 100% immaterial -as such, it is not real property in the sense of the property of a car or a land acre. It is called and treated as such in the last centuries, but this doesn't mean we aren't dealing with fundamentally different things, so categories like "capitalism" or "communism" don't apply well he

          • Not so. If it is defined by the characteristics of property, and has value, then it falls within economic systems. You can't separate ownership from capitalism, regardless of whether the concept of ownership is something defined by law (as with IP), or by physical possession (as with small material goods), or by titular possession (as with large material goods).
      • Holding intellectual property ransom has nothing to do with capitalism.

        On the contrary; it has everything to with capitalism. Microsoft's entire existence is based on creating intellectual property and then only releasing it when paid their asking price. As I see it, registering the "micorsoft.com" domain name in hopes that someone will accidentally land there is no different than creating yet another new OS in hopes that you can force people to upgrade to it.

      • It's not Microsoft's IP until they prove it in a court of law, hence the need for a lawsuit.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Rithiur (736954)
      And continue paying them forever in the future? I think the point of lawsuits is to get a favorable ruling(s), so that tackling them in the future will be easier. And besides, if MS just started paying them all off, wouldn't that just encourage the practice even more?

      Even if Microsoft isn't the most ethical company, it doesn't change the fact that this can be a Good Thing.
  • Come on- Cybersquatting is nothing but the free market in action. I am sure microsoft could afford to pay any cybersquatter a decent amount of money to get back a domain they will then hold forever. And as far as all of you who are having a difficult time finding a name, tough. That is what a free marketplace is all about. Personally I know of a legitimate company that had a name similar to youtube and instead of complaining adapted their site to take advantage of all the new traffic. Why is is that when
    • Microsoft may be able to afford that but what about the rest of the world. You can't 'squat' Microsoft's telephone number in your area even if they have no office there. You must have some right to the name, either personally or for business. I believe that the same should apply to domain names. Typosquatting is more of a grey area, but it is fscking annoying mistyping a name and then ending up with a load of porn.
    • This is one of the best, most stinging reversals of the double standards corporations set vs individuals.

      I'm tempted to bookmark and "steal" it next time i see someone spewing antipopulist vitriol about the "free market"
    • You're right that Microsoft is not going to elicit much sympathy. But the real issue is that NEW start-ups, companies, and people are getting locked out of semantic URLs by squatters. Microsoft can afford to pay off anyone...but I can't. The only alternatives are either nonsense domains (where do you think "Web 2.0" names come from...it's not because people think they're cute), or extremely long domains of 3 words or more.

      This is directly analogous to the issue of network neutrality. Why should a small grou
  • by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @09:09AM (#18345973) Homepage
    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
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nightsweat (604367)
      It's a numbers game. They lose $5 on you and dozens of others but they make $30,000 on some obscure domain that suddenly becomes important (like FireLouPinella.com will be by the end of the Cubs season).
      • There is always FireLouPinellaNow.com :-)

        I don't get the whole "omg I gotta pay off some lo-life for a domain" bidnez. If you have a trademark and someone takes the domain, that's one thing. But if someone has a clever name and you want it, just think of another, or a variation on it [provided they're not trademarked].

        For me I went from libtomcrypt.org [stolen] to libtomcrypt.com [too long and retired] to libtom.org [nice and simple]. I also bought it for 10 years. So provided my registar doesn't mess w
    • afaict there are three ways for a squatter (whether a typo-squatter or a domain snatcher) to make money

      one way is advertising, some people will presumablly generate at least clicks and possiblly leads on the adverts.

      another is selling the domains back to thier rightfull owners (you said you wouldn't buy but i bet many do)

      the final way is drive-by installations of scumware (for users who use browsers with suitable security holes)
    • by _|()|\| (159991)

      whatever it cost to steal it from me. ... I'm not going to buy it back

      Can you elaborate on how libtomcrypt.org was "stolen"?

      • It hit the grace period and someone else (who didn't plan on hosting something called libtomcrypt.org) bought it before we could renew. Legally I guess that's not "stolen" but really if the intention wasn't to host something called "LibTomCrypt" why would you buy it other than to deprive someone else of it?

        In this case, a troll from sci.crypt bought it, put porn on the site and left it for a year. Then proceeded to post in usenet with my email address (joe-job) posting links to the porn he was hosting. T
        • by sgtrock (191182)
          "When I was younger, I thought that griefers (people who exists merely to make trouble for others) were just video game lowlifes. Now, of course, I understand that it's merely the video game equivalent of real life, once again. Spammers, cyber-squatters, and other internet jerks continue to amaze me. I really do wonder how they sleep at night."

          From Aladrin, right below your post in this thread. I'm sorry you ran afoul of this kind of jerk on UseNet. Unfortunately, you did exactly what he wanted. In his e
    • by Aladrin (926209)
      I agreed with you right up until "If advertisers smartened up and only paid per lead actually generated, it would pretty much kill these sites overnight." ...

      That's untrue for the same reason that spam still exists: People DO click the links, and they DO buy! It's amazing, and horrifying, and several other adjectives, but it's also true.

      When I was younger, I thought that griefers (people who exists merely to make trouble for others) were just video game lowlifes. Now, of course, I understand that it's me
  • by starX (306011) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @09:17AM (#18346057) Homepage
    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.
  • Cybersquatters will generally either offer to sell the name back to the trademark owner for an extortionate price, or make money from internet traffic accidentally landing on their page.

    Cybersquatters sound exactly like patent trolls, such as a certain company that patented double-clicking [newscientist.com] and IsNot [eweek.com], just with a different type of IP.

  • by penguinoid (724646) <spambait001@yahoo.com> on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @09:47AM (#18346423) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by acvh (120205)
      "All short or word-like domains should have been priced higher."

      All short or word-like domains were registered before they cost anything at all. Remember, please, the Internet was not created for businesses. It was created for information sharing. People who want to make money using the Internet should play by OUR rules; they shouldn't be imposing their rules on us.

      Cheers,

      acvh
    • by joebok (457904)
      You say cybersquatting is not simply the result of free market forces, then you go on to cite the free market forces (cheap domain names) that have resulted in the ubiquity of cybersquatting?

      I don't think there is anything really new or interesting about cybersquatting vs any other form of trademark infringement and/or deceptive advertising that has been going on for as long as there have been trademarks. It will work itself out in the courts as so many similar things have in years past.

      But in the end, I t
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer (890720)

      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.

      To all those of you saying that cybersquatting is simply the result of the free market, well you are wrong.

      You're right, it's not simply the result of the free market. It is, however, partly the result of a f

  • IMHO, the problem isn't just cybersquatters who register based on trademarks. It's cybersquatting in general. I wanted to register a domain name that was an acronym, but I find that various people just register acronyms. .gov, .org, .com, and .us were taken (I thought you had to be a non-profit to register a .org? What happened to that?) so I am stuck. I can't afford to pay their silly fees, and I wouldn't want them to profit anyway, so I won't do it. How many legit sites are shut-out by these tactics?
    • by cyclop (780354)
      Oh please.
      Be creative. Find another name relevant to you and containing your acronym inside and use it. If you company is ACME, use "acme-company", for example. If you do, let's say, players, register "acmeplayers" or something similar.
  • Enforced (Score:2, Funny)

    by goldaryn (834427)
    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.

    Or else we'll pay you a call, like those weenies at the Dyslexic Domains Company*

    *knock knock*
    "Who dat?"
    "Internet Safety Enforcement, hit the dirt motherfuckers!"
    "AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!"

    --
    * Ream name.. see TFA!
  • Typo domains (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ash-Fox (726320) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @10:14AM (#18346803)
    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.
  • ...do I keep picturing Martin Short's lawyer character Nathan Thurm saying everything Kornblum says? Maybe that's just the way the world works?
  • isnt microsoft's deal with novell just microsoft cybersquatting on Linux's IP???

    just an extreme thought...
  • ... does anybody else doubt if Microsoft is going after more than maybe the 5 or 10 cybersquatters who own domains that look like Microsoft's? I for one wouldn't bet on them doing a real effort and wipe the entire problem away. An if that is so, where is the news? Microsoft is going to sue a couple of people who they think are peeing at their legs. Huh?
  • I just got a nastygram from their attorneys about my glass systems for model trains (microwindows.com). Dammit!
  • That's right, the entire Internet exists for corporations. After all, that's the only reason the 'net exits. It's simply a conduit for advertising and FUD. :rollseyes:

    More and more, I find myself longing for the bang!path days of old...

  • http://www.dailydomainer.com/200784-microsoft-eart hlink-charter-cybersquatting.html [dailydomainer.com]

    Not *exactly* cybersquatting, but just as bad if not worse.
  • If they want to use the power they have to make the internet in some way a better place, which I think we can all agree it would be without people cybers-quatting for greed and profit, they have my vote.

    The question becomes, if they nail the current squatters to the wall what is to prevent another round of squatters from snatching up the domains? If they really want to be heroes in this field they should destroy the squatters, then take the domains and establish a non-profit org which would take applicatio
  • I can't remember the last time I typed out a URL. It's just so '90s.
  • well, patent squatting is a growing problem for independent developers
    (not to mention, a problem to general human progress).

    maybe microsoft and 'others' should take a long look in the mirror
    before accusing others of squatting for financial self-interest.


  • But a few people got there before I did.

    I hate the fact that every time I want a domain name its taken, as I hate the fact that most
    of the great real estate in the world is taken. But why on Earth should it be different?

    Why shouldn't capitalism work freely? If Microsoft wants a domain that's taken, they should
    have registered it sooner. They can hardly claim a lack of foresight when it comes to
    technology. If they still want it now, they should pay for it. Plain and simple.

    Domain names are expensive and

Imitation is the sincerest form of plagarism.

Working...