4 ms·

Edit: Looks like Microsoft filed for and got a emergency temporary restraining order against all the defendants including No-IP. http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com

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.
mikeryan 12y ago
I'm not sure they did, the order has this statement (emphasis mine); 8. Microsoft’s request for this emergency ex parte relief is not the result of any lack of diligence on Microsoft’s part, but instead based upon the nature of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. Therefore, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-5, good cause and the interest of justice require that this Order be Granted without prior notice to Defendants, and accordingly, Microsoft is relieved of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of Microsoft’s motion. I should note my laymans reading is that Microsoft proved exigent circumstances that negated the need for prior notice.
- legutierr 12y ago
  Here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. So, if all of this is considered a "temporary restraining order", then it must be based on these rules, which also seem to provide certain protections to the affected party, including requiring the plaintiff to put up security to reimburse the affected party for any damages they may suffer as a result of the order. I hope that a lawyer can chime in here and give a decent opinion as to whether this is kosher, and also to answer whether it seems correct to effectively transfer control over property such as domain names through this mechanism.
  - dlgeek 12y ago
    Later in the order they required Microsoft to post a $200,000 bond. Not sure if that actually covers the potential damages.
tonywebster 12y ago
That's not true. On June 19, Microsoft filed the Complaint, Motion to Seal, and Ex Parte TRO Application all at the same time. The TRO actually says: “...good cause and the interest of justice require that this Order be Granted without prior notice to Defendants, and accordingly, Microsoft is relieved of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of Microsoft’s motion.” It says that because Microsoft wanted it to say that; Microsoft used that language in their proposed TRO for the judge to sign, and the judge apparently agreed. The Summons has nothing to do with this. The court issued the Summons, but the court doesn't do anything with it. It's the plaintiff's obligation to serve a summons on a defendant, and they have 120 days to do so before the Court would require the plaintiff dismiss the case without prejudice. The plaintiff could serve them the same day, or they could take their time. Corporations with registered agents are much easier to serve than an individual that dodges a process server. There's often a good chance a defendant will receive a solicitation from an attorney (who searches court records for new cases) to represent them before they actually get served with the summons and complaint. However, nothing would come up in court records in this case because the entire docket is sealed. There's no way Vitalwerks/No-IP would have known about this, and it sounds like they weren't served until today, after Microsoft's action. I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft wanted to ensure that nobody, including No-IP, knew about the case until they were able to strike.

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.

mikeryan 12y ago

I'm not sure they did, the order has this statement (emphasis mine); 8. Microsoft’s request for this emergency ex parte relief is not the result of any lack of diligence on Microsoft’s part, but instead based upon the nature of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. Therefore, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-5, good cause and the interest of justice require that this Order be Granted without prior notice to Defendants, and accordingly, Microsoft is relieved of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of Microsoft’s motion. I should note my laymans reading is that Microsoft proved exigent circumstances that negated the need for prior notice.

legutierr 12y ago
Here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 (1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. So, if all of this is considered a "temporary restraining order", then it must be based on these rules, which also seem to provide certain protections to the affected party, including requiring the plaintiff to put up security to reimburse the affected party for any damages they may suffer as a result of the order. I hope that a lawyer can chime in here and give a decent opinion as to whether this is kosher, and also to answer whether it seems correct to effectively transfer control over property such as domain names through this mechanism.
- dlgeek 12y ago
  Later in the order they required Microsoft to post a $200,000 bond. Not sure if that actually covers the potential damages.

tonywebster 12y ago

That's not true. On June 19, Microsoft filed the Complaint, Motion to Seal, and Ex Parte TRO Application all at the same time. The TRO actually says: “...good cause and the interest of justice require that this Order be Granted without prior notice to Defendants, and accordingly, Microsoft is relieved of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of Microsoft’s motion.” It says that because Microsoft wanted it to say that; Microsoft used that language in their proposed TRO for the judge to sign, and the judge apparently agreed. The Summons has nothing to do with this. The court issued the Summons, but the court doesn't do anything with it. It's the plaintiff's obligation to serve a summons on a defendant, and they have 120 days to do so before the Court would require the plaintiff dismiss the case without prejudice. The plaintiff could serve them the same day, or they could take their time. Corporations with registered agents are much easier to serve than an individual that dodges a process server. There's often a good chance a defendant will receive a solicitation from an attorney (who searches court records for new cases) to represent them before they actually get served with the summons and complaint. However, nothing would come up in court records in this case because the entire docket is sealed. There's no way Vitalwerks/No-IP would have known about this, and it sounds like they weren't served until today, after Microsoft's action. I think it's pretty clear that Microsoft wanted to ensure that nobody, including No-IP, knew about the case until they were able to strike.