6 ms·

What I don't understand is the legal basis of Microsoft, a private entity, simply being handed over the property (the domain names) of another private entity.

What I don't understand is the legal basis of Microsoft, a private entity, simply being handed over the property (the domain names) of another private entity. I understand that this is something that was ordered by a court, but under what legal theory was the order issued? I'm not a lawyer, but I think I've got at least a basic idea of the circumstances under which the government can take someone's property. This doesn't seem to coincide with any of those potential circumstances, especially when the seizure transfers the property to another non-governmental entity. What's more, where's the due process? No-IP seems to be saying that they didn't even know about the court case until being served with the order. Did they really not have the opportunity to contest this? EDIT: To summarize some of the documents people have linked to and analyzed below, it looks like Microsoft was granted a temporary restraining order under "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)", which allows for such orders to be granted without providing notice as long as certain requirements are met. Microsoft was required to post a $200,000.00 bond, which is supposed to pay for any damages incurred by No-IP, and No-IP will be granted the ability to contest the order in court on July 10, and maybe earlier. However, it is clear that No-IP knew nothing about even the lawsuit until they lost control of their domains, as this was specifically ordered by the court. Also, there is no answer as to whether transferring control over domain names from a defendant to a plaintiff is something that courts should be empowered to do as part of a temporary restraining order. I hope a lawyer with some knowledge in this area can chime in to answer that question.

jevinskie 12y ago
I don't think they had any opportunity to contest. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Registry Operators must: ... d. Shall completely refrain from providing any notice or warning to, or communicating in any way with Defendants or Defendants’ representatives and shall refrain from publicizing this Order until this Order is executed in full, except as necessary to propagate the changes ordered herein to all parts of the Domain Name System; http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order%20-%20flattened.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order... I haven't yet found Microsoft's justification for the seizure without notice.
- gnu8 12y ago
  How do we file the same action against Microsoft? I would like to take their domains for my own purposes, which are obviously far more worthy than what Microsoft is doing with them (I swear).
  - outside1234 12y ago
    Microsoft would respond. No-ip.com didn't respond.
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      >No-ip.com didn't respond. // Presumably you have a link where we can see the notarised documentation and proof of delivery of that which was sent to No-IP that they failed to respond to?
  - ntakasaki 12y ago
    A good start would be to actually read the legal documents behind the case instead of assuming a lot from someone's comments with cherrypicked facts. http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/index.htm http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/index.htm
    - legutierr 12y ago
      I am still looking through these files, but everything that I have read points to insufficient, or zero notice having been given to the defendants prior to this order. For instance, the complaint itself... http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Revised_Final%20No-IP%20Complaint.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Revised_Final%20No-IP%20... ...is dated June 19, 2014. And from the order itself... http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order%20-%20flattened.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order... ...we see the following instruction: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) that the Defendants shall appear before this Court on July 10, 2014, at 3:00 p.m., in LV Courtroom 7D to show cause, if there is any, why this Court should not enter a Preliminary Injunction, pending final ruling on the Complaint against the Defendants, enjoining them from the conduct temporarily restrained by the preceding provisions of this Order." Of course, July 1 is tomorrow. In this document, Microsoft seems to be requesting that all of this stuff be sealed until it is ready to disclose the existence of the lawsuit to the defendant, presumably after it has completed its seizure the domains: http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Final%20Motion%20to%20Seal.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Final%20Motion%20to%20Se... The facts of this seem pretty clear from your link. What I am wondering is if there is any precedence for this, and if this is really considered due process?
gcb0 12y ago
A competitor no less! no-ip and such are a required service for people to host their own "cloud" solutions from their home connections. Microsoft makes money with their own "cloud" offering. which does not require such services. So by closing down on those services (or using the redirect to collect data) they are making their offering more attractive. Obligatory car analogy: This is very well like Ford closing down all of Teslas charging stations because someone sold weed on one of them.
- CHY872 12y ago
  Nah, not really. A closer analogy is Ford shutting down all of Tesla's charging stations because the chargers had a nasty habit of attempting to bazooka any Ford cars that drove past. The competition from no-ip to Microsoft from this is virtually zero. Any serious hoster will have a static IP, or own their own domain.
  - gcb0 12y ago
    more like ford closing all charger stations because a few fords left unlocked got the stereos stolen. (how could i forgot the analogy windows=car left unlocked)
  - johnchristopher 12y ago
    I think we can improve on that: Ford shutting down all of Tesla's charging stations because the original chargers were replaced by mean people with new ones that had a nasty habit of attempting to bazooka any Ford charging station that were withing shooting distance. Those charger were installed by any customers who happened to be within earshot of a sleazy sales guy that had a solution to cure their cars for non-existent problems by smooth talking them about "did you know internet explorer could run 200% faster" even though their car ran firefox or chrome.
us0r 12y ago
Nope. Now that they have been served they can basically get a hearing immediately and get it lifted though (assuming they have any form of response). This is nothing new. Here is one a porn company got against a file locker service: http://www.xbiz.com/docs/xbiz/news/150302_oron062212.pdf http://www.xbiz.com/docs/xbiz/news/150302_oron062212.pdf. They eventually parlayed this into an asset freeze in Hong Kong.

jevinskie 12y ago

I don't think they had any opportunity to contest. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Registry Operators must: ... d. Shall completely refrain from providing any notice or warning to, or communicating in any way with Defendants or Defendants’ representatives and shall refrain from publicizing this Order until this Order is executed in full, except as necessary to propagate the changes ordered herein to all parts of the Domain Name System; http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order%20-%20flattened.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order... I haven't yet found Microsoft's justification for the seizure without notice.

gnu8 12y ago
How do we file the same action against Microsoft? I would like to take their domains for my own purposes, which are obviously far more worthy than what Microsoft is doing with them (I swear).
- outside1234 12y ago
  Microsoft would respond. No-ip.com didn't respond.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    >No-ip.com didn't respond. // Presumably you have a link where we can see the notarised documentation and proof of delivery of that which was sent to No-IP that they failed to respond to?
- ntakasaki 12y ago
  A good start would be to actually read the legal documents behind the case instead of assuming a lot from someone's comments with cherrypicked facts. http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/index.htm http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/index.htm
  - legutierr 12y ago
    I am still looking through these files, but everything that I have read points to insufficient, or zero notice having been given to the defendants prior to this order. For instance, the complaint itself... http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Revised_Final%20No-IP%20Complaint.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Revised_Final%20No-IP%20... ...is dated June 19, 2014. And from the order itself... http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order%20-%20flattened.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order... ...we see the following instruction: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) that the Defendants shall appear before this Court on July 10, 2014, at 3:00 p.m., in LV Courtroom 7D to show cause, if there is any, why this Court should not enter a Preliminary Injunction, pending final ruling on the Complaint against the Defendants, enjoining them from the conduct temporarily restrained by the preceding provisions of this Order." Of course, July 1 is tomorrow. In this document, Microsoft seems to be requesting that all of this stuff be sealed until it is ready to disclose the existence of the lawsuit to the defendant, presumably after it has completed its seizure the domains: http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Final%20Motion%20to%20Seal.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Final%20Motion%20to%20Se... The facts of this seem pretty clear from your link. What I am wondering is if there is any precedence for this, and if this is really considered due process?

gcb0 12y ago

A competitor no less! no-ip and such are a required service for people to host their own "cloud" solutions from their home connections. Microsoft makes money with their own "cloud" offering. which does not require such services. So by closing down on those services (or using the redirect to collect data) they are making their offering more attractive. Obligatory car analogy: This is very well like Ford closing down all of Teslas charging stations because someone sold weed on one of them.

CHY872 12y ago
Nah, not really. A closer analogy is Ford shutting down all of Tesla's charging stations because the chargers had a nasty habit of attempting to bazooka any Ford cars that drove past. The competition from no-ip to Microsoft from this is virtually zero. Any serious hoster will have a static IP, or own their own domain.
- gcb0 12y ago
  more like ford closing all charger stations because a few fords left unlocked got the stereos stolen. (how could i forgot the analogy windows=car left unlocked)
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  I think we can improve on that: Ford shutting down all of Tesla's charging stations because the original chargers were replaced by mean people with new ones that had a nasty habit of attempting to bazooka any Ford charging station that were withing shooting distance. Those charger were installed by any customers who happened to be within earshot of a sleazy sales guy that had a solution to cure their cars for non-existent problems by smooth talking them about "did you know internet explorer could run 200% faster" even though their car ran firefox or chrome.

us0r 12y ago

Nope. Now that they have been served they can basically get a hearing immediately and get it lifted though (assuming they have any form of response). This is nothing new. Here is one a porn company got against a file locker service: http://www.xbiz.com/docs/xbiz/news/150302_oron062212.pdf http://www.xbiz.com/docs/xbiz/news/150302_oron062212.pdf. They eventually parlayed this into an asset freeze in Hong Kong.