5 ms·

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

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?
  - drunkcatsdgaf 12y ago
    You can make it sound like he has no idea what hes talking about, but theres no reason why microsoft is playing FBI.
- moe 12y ago
  Practically every instance of malware runs on Microsoft Windows. If the stated goal is to defeat malware then windowsupdate.microsoft.com should be seized and routed to a non-interactive Windows Uninstaller.
  - ntakasaki 12y ago
    Except all the malware on Android. But who's counting? https://www.google.com/search?&q=android+malware&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=android+malware&safe=off&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?&q=android+malware&ie=UTF-8&oe...
    - moe 12y ago
      I'm pretty sure virtually none of the spam mails in my spamfilter were sent from a phone. Nor do phones have the bandwidth to carry out DDoS attacks or host phishing sites. Nor do many people do onlinebanking on their phone (though that number is certainly on the rise). So yes, while malware exists on android, I doubt the total damages caused by it are more than a drop in the bucket when compared to windows malware.
      - ntakasaki 12y ago
        Your original statement was: >Practically every instance of malware runs on Microsoft Windows. Even according to Google, about 5 million Android devices are infected with malware. http://bgr.com/2014/06/26/google-on-android-malware-and-security/ http://bgr.com/2014/06/26/google-on-android-malware-and-secu... I would suppose that your statements aren't support by fact, but the HN downvotes have got me thinking.
        moe 12y ago
        If "5 million" sounds like a large number to you then this may help to put it into perspective; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet#Historical_list_of_botnets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet#Historical_list_of_botne...
wfjackson 12y ago
Edit: Looks like Microsoft filed for and got a emergency temporary restraining order against all the defendants including No-IP. http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order%20-%20flattened.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order... Also this is No-IPs response to Cisco's previous accusations. http://www.noip.com/blog/2014/02/12/cisco-malware-report/ http://www.noip.com/blog/2014/02/12/cisco-malware-report/ They did have lot of chances to contest. Apart from Microsoft's notices, the court sent a notice to No-IP which they didn't respond to. They cleary state that ex-parte decision will be taken if they don't respond. Maybe federal courts don't like it very much if you act like they don't exist. http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Summons%20for%20Vitalwerks.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Summons%20for%20Vitalwer...
- dlgeek 12y ago
  The plaintiff (Microsoft) is responsible for serving that summons, not the court (The court just issues it). The court didn't even certify the summons until 6/19, and there's no record of service, so we don't know when Microsoft served No-Ip. That summons also says they have 21 days to respond, which, even if they were served on 6/19, hasn't elapsed yet. EDIT: mikeryan's post above mine is even more clear - it looks like as soon as they opened the suit, they petitioned for the TRO without notifying NoIP and the court specifically granted them the right to not notify until after the TRO was served.
- legutierr 12y ago
  Did you read that document that you linked to? There are two things about it that you may want to look at: - First, it says "Within 21 days after service of this summons on you...you must serve on the plaintiff an answer.." - Second, it is dated 06/19/2014 21 days from 06/19/2014 is July 10, 2014, a date which is still in the future. Do you have any other evidence that they didn't respond? Because the document you linked to is anything but evidence that they didn't respond.
  - us0r 12y ago
    "Second, it is dated 06/19/2014" but signed on 6/26.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

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?
- drunkcatsdgaf 12y ago
  You can make it sound like he has no idea what hes talking about, but theres no reason why microsoft is playing FBI.
moe 12y ago
Practically every instance of malware runs on Microsoft Windows. If the stated goal is to defeat malware then windowsupdate.microsoft.com should be seized and routed to a non-interactive Windows Uninstaller.
- ntakasaki 12y ago
  Except all the malware on Android. But who's counting? https://www.google.com/search?&q=android+malware&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=android+malware&safe=off&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/search?&q=android+malware&ie=UTF-8&oe...
  - moe 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure virtually none of the spam mails in my spamfilter were sent from a phone. Nor do phones have the bandwidth to carry out DDoS attacks or host phishing sites. Nor do many people do onlinebanking on their phone (though that number is certainly on the rise). So yes, while malware exists on android, I doubt the total damages caused by it are more than a drop in the bucket when compared to windows malware.
    - ntakasaki 12y ago
      Your original statement was: >Practically every instance of malware runs on Microsoft Windows. Even according to Google, about 5 million Android devices are infected with malware. http://bgr.com/2014/06/26/google-on-android-malware-and-security/ http://bgr.com/2014/06/26/google-on-android-malware-and-secu... I would suppose that your statements aren't support by fact, but the HN downvotes have got me thinking.
      - moe 12y ago
        If "5 million" sounds like a large number to you then this may help to put it into perspective; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet#Historical_list_of_botnets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet#Historical_list_of_botne...

wfjackson 12y ago

Edit: Looks like Microsoft filed for and got a emergency temporary restraining order against all the defendants including No-IP. http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order%20-%20flattened.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order... Also this is No-IPs response to Cisco's previous accusations. http://www.noip.com/blog/2014/02/12/cisco-malware-report/ http://www.noip.com/blog/2014/02/12/cisco-malware-report/ They did have lot of chances to contest. Apart from Microsoft's notices, the court sent a notice to No-IP which they didn't respond to. They cleary state that ex-parte decision will be taken if they don't respond. Maybe federal courts don't like it very much if you act like they don't exist. http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Summons%20for%20Vitalwerks.pdf http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Summons%20for%20Vitalwer...

dlgeek 12y ago
The plaintiff (Microsoft) is responsible for serving that summons, not the court (The court just issues it). The court didn't even certify the summons until 6/19, and there's no record of service, so we don't know when Microsoft served No-Ip. That summons also says they have 21 days to respond, which, even if they were served on 6/19, hasn't elapsed yet. EDIT: mikeryan's post above mine is even more clear - it looks like as soon as they opened the suit, they petitioned for the TRO without notifying NoIP and the court specifically granted them the right to not notify until after the TRO was served.
legutierr 12y ago
Did you read that document that you linked to? There are two things about it that you may want to look at: - First, it says "Within 21 days after service of this summons on you...you must serve on the plaintiff an answer.." - Second, it is dated 06/19/2014 21 days from 06/19/2014 is July 10, 2014, a date which is still in the future. Do you have any other evidence that they didn't respond? Because the document you linked to is anything but evidence that they didn't respond.
- us0r 12y ago
  "Second, it is dated 06/19/2014" but signed on 6/26.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]