Referring back to when Microsoft seized No-IP domains (it did then reinstate them) boing boing brings us the tale of interpretive law - How Microsoft hacked trademark law to let it secretly seize whole businesses:
The company expanded the "ex parte temporary restraining order" so it could stage one-sided, sealed proceedings to take away rival businesses' domains, sometimes knocking thousands of legit servers offline.
Most famously, Microsoft used the power against No-IP, a company that provided dynamic DNS to thousands of customers
This is covered by Wired in: How Microsoft Appointed Itself Sheriff of the Internet.
Related Stories
AnonTechie, RhubarbSin, and others write in to tell us:
Millions of legitimate servers that rely on dynamic domain name services from No-IP.com suffered outages on Monday after Microsoft seized 22 domain names it said were being abused in malware-related crimes against Windows users. Thus proving once again that when you are the proverbial 800lb gorilla, you need to be damn careful where you sit.
Microsoft enforced a federal court order making the company the domain IP resolver for the No-IP domains. Microsoft said the objective of the seizure was to identify and reroute traffic associated with two malware families that abused No-IP services.
Forbes reports that, following Microsoft's heavy-handed seizure of 23 domains belonging to DDNS service No-IP in order to deal with the NJrat and NJw0rm botnets, the domains have been returned to the control of their original owner. Whether this was the original plan all along is unclear, but Microsoft has so far not made any explanation of the move or responded to the criticism leveled at it by No-IP service users, both free and paid, all over the Internet:
"Microsoft's move ... to cut off cybercriminal control of the Bladabindi (NJrat) and Jenxcus (NJw0rm) malware also saw millions of legitimate websites shuttered as they were using the same infrastructure as thousands of domains being used to manage the malicious software. The Redmond giant was subsequently told to cease "policing" the internet. At around 8pm BST today, No-IP started reporting a number of domains were back online, whilst records on the Domain Name System showed Microsoft had relinquished its control of many of the sites it wiped off the internet. One wonders if this was Microsoft giving up its anti-malware operation or if it's simply part of the process. There is another possibility, as suggested by a noted security researcher today: the court may have reversed its decision to allow Microsoft to take control of the 23 domains it seized."
No-IP said more than 1.8 million "legitimate customers" were taken out by Microsoft's seizure, affecting roughly 4 million hostnames. Though a digital issue there have been some potentially dangerous physical results from Microsoft's action, according to Goguen, as it may have stopped people receiving medicines or caring for their children. "We have received many calls from customers who use our service to monitor cameras for elderly relatives, small children and even pets," she added. "We have even had a customer from a medical dispatch company go down because of this. Over the past two days they have not been able to dispatch medics to elderly patients and it is very troubling to them."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @03:40AM
Had he registered his names with a non-US registrar, M$ would have had it more difficult to seize his domains.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday October 17 2014, @04:10AM
The article makes it seem that Microsoft did this all by itself.
Somewhere there had to be a friendly Judge, and probably some federal authorities that were in on the deal.
Microsoft is not so dumb that they didn't know that no-Ip served hundreds of thousands of users. They didn't go after them for the reasons stated, and they probably didn't go after them on their own. Probably the FBI, still stinging from the DOTCOM fiasco needed someone to ride point, and Microsoft got something in return for taking the flak as part of their anti-piracy program.
Have you noticed how little of this has stuck to Microsoft? Has No-IP even sought damages? If not, why not?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:03AM
Typical Frojack know-nothing fare.
The article makes it seem that Microsoft did this all by itself.
Somewhere there had to be a friendly Judge, and probably some federal authorities that were in on the deal.
Just because some judge and the feds are in MS's pocket does not mitigate the blame on microsoft one iota.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
Have you noticed how little of this has stuck to Microsoft? Has No-IP even sought damages? If not, why not?
MS settled with No-IP. [threatpost.com] Details are confidential but No-IP is "extremely pleased with the settlement terms."
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 17 2014, @07:47AM
Typical Frojack know-nothing fare.
The article makes it seem that Microsoft did this all by itself.
Somewhere there had to be a friendly Judge, and probably some federal authorities that were in on the deal.
Typical Frojack? There is not such thing! But the "know-nothing" might stick. There was a group, or a political party, that went by that name.
So, it is not the article that makes it seem that Microsoft did this all by itself, that would be Microsoft doing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @05:51AM
https://web.archive.org/web/20120605103241/http://www.msversus.org/ [archive.org]
And that's too old to include the OOXML fiasco and the restricted boot abuse.
(Score: 2) by Marneus68 on Friday October 17 2014, @09:25AM
> Microsoft hacked trademark law
Okay, am I the only one to think that headline sounds incredibly retarded? Finding flaws in the law is precisely what a lawyer is for. Then again, what do I know, maybe their lawyer teams are required to wear cargo pants and hoods like this [experts-exchange.com].
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Friday October 17 2014, @03:06PM
to "Hack" is to find a new, or forgotten use for some preexisting equipment, or "technology"
Poetry an Prose are "Hacks" of written communication.
Omlettes are "hacks" of scrambled eggs.
the abuse of the law by Microsoft (and IP trolls and other companies) are "Hacks" of Law just like any other reinterpretation.