4 ms·

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 Microsof

• 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...