How Microsoft hacked trademark law to let it secretly seize whole businesses



It didn’t really seize the business, since that would indicated posession. Rather, it prohibited business? Drove a business out of business?

I’m arguing semantics over a scurrilous practice.

I think that Microsoft was just trying to enforce “truth in advertising”… They made No-IP an accurate description.

The DNS system is badly designed.

We need something peer-to-peer, lawyer-resistant. That’s the easy part. The difficult part is to get the masses to actually adopt and use it…

1 Like

That’s a little unfair. It was rather well designed for what it was intended for, it’s just that it’s designers couldn’t possibly imagine their (now relatively) little computer project being a major component of infrastructure in a massive part of the economy.

The trouble is, you’ve got one of the worst chicken and egg problems imaginable there. It’s not the masses per-se that are the issue. For the most part, they just want to be able to get to the entities that are, say Amazon, or CNN, or whatever large entity they visit regularly, reliably. If those entities had a different system for doing so that they (the large institutions) benefitted from, you’d see switching rather rapidly. In this case though, those very entities have every motivation for a lawyer responding, centrally managed system.

The only people served by lawyer-resistant, peer to peer systems would be folks who are powerless, and, the problem with that is right in the name. It’s a bit like the IPv6 switchover issues, but, instead of apathy about changing, you’ve got outright hostility.

Since the business concerned was DNS hosting, seizing ownership of the domain names was seizing the business’s primary asset.

1 Like

It was well-designed for a smaller-scale system when it was developed. It is badly designed for the scale it is deployed now. Both our points stay.

Of which I am well-aware of. Hence the lack of hope in the post.

Very true. So the change can not go from upside down, as the “upside” has no interest in change. The motivation for the “downside” can be a result of the very actions of the “upside” - lawyering, censorship… - and the new system will have to be built above/parallel to the old one, with which it has to run together. Kind of like a local DNS resolver that queries both the official and the unofficial systems, or that delegates some TLDs to the unofficial one (like the .onion domain for Tor)…

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.