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:Go Microsoft!

[DaMattster]

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.

Should have done this earlier

[jrumney]

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

Re:OpenDNS

[vp_development]

Although OpenDNS has saved me from several typos, I don't think that eliminates the need to sue Cybersquatters who are making money my intercepting traffic that was intended to go elsewhere. The fact there is an industry churing out sites like espnn.com [espnn.com] is like a city putting up a delibierately misleading sign on a highway that diverted people onto a toll road (although I swear that's the way the GW Bridge is set up [wikipedia.org]).

Cheaper Solution

[s31523]

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.

OMG - Corporation Loses a bit of Revenue!?

[jimijon]

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 the litlte guy makes a buck it is so damn problematic but when the corps rape the little guys it is just ok. Viva la Squatters. Now technological solutions to spam... well that I would support. cheers

Re:Cheaper Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding intellectual property ransom has nothing to do with capitalism. Take your marxist claptrap elsewhere.

Re:Bah, it's more annoying than anything.

[nightsweat]

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).

Re:Cheaper Solution

[Zonekeeper]

Since when is a domain name on the internet intellectual property? What the hell kind of assinine view holds that a company (or any entity for that matter) automatically has rights to every type of medium that might contain the ability to market their product and or service? The internet wasn't built for that in the first place, just because companies have commercialized it to a large degree doesn't give them some special claim, or at least it shouldn't. Normally I come down HARD on the side of capitalism, but I think some important fundamentals are being overlooked here or purposely brushed aside for the almighty $currency.

Still makes me nervous

[starX]

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.

Re:Go Microsoft!

[voice_of_all_reason]

Logical fallacy (hasty induction):

P is bad
P is a subset of Q
Therefore, Q is Bad

Re:Cheaper Solution

[Red Flayer]

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. Not allowing someone to use an equitable system to gain rights over a domain is against the principles of capitalism.

Note, however, that the term 'intellectual property' doesn't really apply here.

Take your marxist claptrap elsewhere.

Marxist claptrap? I'm sorry, what part of the OP's post has anything to do with Marxism? Your post insinuates that not allowing ownership of intellectual property is capitalist. I'm sorry, isn't property ownership one of the tenets of capitalism? As long as the system allows for intellectual property (to continue using your incorrect term) then how is being allowed to sell it to the highest bidder Marxist?

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but the insightful mod on the parent to this post struck me as odd. The parent espouses an action that is more Marxist in nature than the OP, and then calls the OP Marxist. Never mind the tone of the post, or the loaded, albeit inaccurate, langage -- "olding intellectual property ransom."

Re:Cheaper Solution

[Rithiur]

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.

Re:What is wrong with a little free enterprise?

[demiurgency]

I can buy blank DVDs from the store fair and square, burn pirated software onto them, and sell them for $2 apiece. I paid (a pittance) for the DVDs, so it's a nice fair profit, according to this logic.

The issue is one of infringing on intellectual property rights.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Free Market

[Khammurabi]

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 a person or company who wants the domain 5 years after it first existed be given special treatment. You snooze, you lose. (Hell, there are a billion acres of land out west that ranchers are "squatting" on. If you follow M$ reasoning, I should be able to sue them to get the land at a discounted price.)

And I doubt M$ intentions are that noble. I've seen many companies sue other legitimate sites as "cybersquatters". The rival company has a similar product or name, and they bullied into selling the domain to the bigger fish.

If you want cybersquatting to go away, you need to address the root issue. Raise the price of registering a domain name. Cybersquatters will dissappear. The only reason they exist right now is that the investment is trivial compared to the expected profit.

Re:Cybersquatting != free market

[Red Flayer]

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 free market.

It is the result of improper pricing for domains in the first place.

Not at all. There are plenty of commodities available for next to nothing in the physical realm, which are in short supply due to limitations on who may collect the goods (like land ownership), whose prices are high due to market forces. Claimsquatters looking for seams of precious metals are in the same boat as domain squatters, yet no one would argue that claimsquatting was not a result of the free market; nor would one argue that land speculation is not a result of the free market.

It is the result of improper pricing for domains in the first place.

Also a factor, but this is not exlusionary to the market forces that cause the value to be so high. In fact, the domains wouldn't be improperly priced if it weren't for market forces.

When prices are too low, a shortage will result -- as it has.

Domain names are not a commodity, one cannot simply subsititute one domain name for another and have them be equivalent products. You can't extrapolate that low prices caused a shortage in this case. If you did want to consider domain names a commodity, then you'd have to say that they are priced too high, since the supply of them is infinite -- they should be free.

Also, Microsoft has a legitimate interest is removing cybersquatters,

Yes, they have an interest. Legitimacy is another concern; if free market capitalism were to really apply, there is no question of legitimacy, only of interest.

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)

Phishing: Agreed.
Pushing crapware: Caveat Emptor

Also, holding domains captive results in crappier names for everyone, which is a bad thing

Why a bad thing? In the long run, crappy domain names for everyone means that domain names will become less important for branding, which means less dependence on English, less dependence on getting the best domain name for your organization or person -- which frees us all up to spend more resources on other things. The whole domain registry system is broken, and the sooner domain names lose their relevance[1], the better.

[1] As is already happening, as people increasing use Google or other search engines as portals.

Re:The entire .com TLD is a wasteland

[cyclop]

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:Free Market

[inviolet]

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:Free Market

[cyclop]

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

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.

Re:Free Market

[inviolet]

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 developing an identity called 'Microsoft'... and the size of that investment, and the future value of that identity, both positively motivate Microsoft to behave itself. That is to say, nobody spends $5 billion to develop a brand name and then proceeds to sell a phoney product and flee to Mexico with the proceeds.

An interloper named 'Micorsoft' can damage that investment, even to the point of ruining the original company's positive incentives to behave to protect its name (though this is not likely in this case due to Microsoft's sheer size). Did you ever hear about the 'Ball Home' scam in Kentucky?

Actually we see the same thing with our own personal identities. You've presumably invested a lot of resources in your reputation, right? So I would damage you if I impersonated you to your friends, neighbors, and coworkers.

Re:The entire .com TLD is a wasteland

[Tim C]

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-anti typo-squatting person), but irrelevant to the registrars.

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?

Live off the renewal fees. If they stopped selling obviously-crap names, they'd make less money now (sales) *and* in the future (renewals).

I appreciate your position, but the registrars have nothing to gain and everything to lose from clamping down on this.

Real reason for Microsofts tactics

[Emetophobe]

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.