×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Files Dispute Against Current Owner of XboxOne.com

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the what's-in-a-name? dept.

Microsoft 381

MojoKid writes "Microsoft might have one of the most talked-about products at the moment with the Xbox One, but would you believe it doesn't own the rights to the most obvious domain name to accompany it? Domain squatting is a real issue for companies about to launch a new product. If they register a domain before the official launch, people can find that and subsequently ruin the company's surprise. This particular case is different, however. The domain name wasn't registered just the other day. Instead, a UK resident registered the name XboxOne.com in December of 2011, long before Microsoft itself even likely had a definitive name for its upcoming console. So, what can a company do in this instance? File a dispute with the National Arbitration Forum, an ICANN-approved organization that specializes in dealing with these sorts of matters."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

381 comments

Xbox One? Oh my! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830241)

They's better change that ridiculous name instead.

Ask any McDonald about mcdonalds.com domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830299)

Go ask any of the McDonalds, whose great-great-great-grandpa 200 years ago proudly called himself "Mr. McDonald", how he or she feels about the mcdonalds.com domain

Re:Ask any McDonald about mcdonalds.com domain (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830331)

That's different. The current owners of xboxone.com registered the name two years ago, and were obviously trying to leverage the existing market for Microsoft's Xbox.

Re:Ask any McDonald about mcdonalds.com domain (2, Insightful)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about a year ago | (#43830575)

were they? that is to say were they obviously trying to leverage that market? To an extent that's no different than say.. PS3Blog.net (a site I frequent and very very rarely write for) which leverages Sony's PS brand. Having not seen the site I would like to know what's on there? Are they impersonating MS? Or did the guy just pick a name that sounded like it would relate to MS to advertise his website that has to do with the MS Xbox console

Re:Ask any McDonald about mcdonalds.com domain (5, Interesting)

dotancohen (1015143) | about a year ago | (#43830699)

Go ask any of the McDonalds, whose great-great-great-grandpa 200 years ago proudly called himself "Mr. McDonald", how he or she feels about the mcdonalds.com domain

Go ask Uzi Nissan what Nissan Motor Corporation did (is doing) to him over the name that he registered circa 1996. Uzi Nissan, having a computer shop, bought the domain name of his last name. Never mind that he _also_ had a car dealership called Nissan Motors in the 1970s, when Nissan Motor Corporation was still called Datsun.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830303)

They's better change that ridiculous name instead.

Not a chance.

You see, TFA needs to be fixed to say "Microsoft might have one of the most heavily astroturfed products at the moment with the Xbox One..."

they've spent a lot of money on fake "problems" like this.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830649)

Yeah. But changing name is yet another chance to hit the news!

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43830403)

You'd think they'd at least do a quick type-it-into-their-browser before the launch.

Get some ideas for names, do the searches (including for other products, as well as domains), throw out any problem names, pick the best of what's left, then file for trademark and domain names and announce the product all on the same day.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830467)

They probably did that and yielded no results with Bing...

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43830603)

You'd think they'd at least do a quick type-it-into-their-browser before the launch.

Well even searching for a name can trigger registrations of that name. I've had this happen to me while
searching for a name for a customer, I checked several registrars to be sure the name was free. Made the
mistake of doing this over a couple of weeks, and by the time they gave me the go-ahead it was snapped up
by some guy in a spanish speaking country. (The domain only made sense in english).
Sure enough he would sell it for $1000. (Actually he wanted the equivalent in Mexican Pesos.)

In fact the article says:

XboxOne.com isn't being used for anything, so it's in effect a squat

So no matter how long ago he registered it he probably had inside information or results from domain name searches.

That long in advance does seem a little odd, because tacking ONE on the end of stuff only became popular
recently, the Nexus One was the first big example that comes to mind. I wonder how many other names
this guy registered.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (1)

Vhann (1862350) | about a year ago | (#43830633)

In this case, I don't think it is squatting per se. As the comments on TFA point out, it seems more like the guy registered a domain relating to the first-gen Xbox (xbox one like Play Station 1, Iron Man 1, Gears of War 1, Halo 1, what-have-you-single-title-turned-into-a-franchise 1).

Then again that is pure speculation on my part and I have no proof to back up my claim.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (1)

hutsell (1228828) | about a year ago | (#43830503)

They's better change that ridiculous name instead.

And strangely, nobody has yet to register the xboxwon.com domain -- their advertising's double entendre for the XBox One.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (2)

hutsell (1228828) | about a year ago | (#43830523)

They's better change that ridiculous name instead.

And strangely, nobody has yet to register the xboxwon.com domain -- their advertising's double entendre for the XBox One.

Nevermind. It's gone.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#43830585)

I always thought exploiting domain name front-running [wikipedia.org] would be a clever way to have an argument—possibly with some kind of "you automatically lose the argument if the WHOIS returns a hit" rule, sort of like Godwin's Law.

WhatDoYouWant.com?
ImJustSayingItsNotFairThatsAll.com
NobodyWantsToGoThereWithYou.com
GoWhere.com?
*bzzt*

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830539)

You know why they call it an XBox One? Because you take one look at it, do a 360 and walk right away.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830595)

540 or 180?

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#43830559)

Xbox One's successor will obviously be Xbox A.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43830609)

Xbox One's successor will obviously be Xbox A.

Shouldn't XBoxOne be actually named XBox4Pi to suggest an evolution?

(damn'd: it mid-2013 already and /. still doesn't support Unicode!)

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830617)

They went from Xbox 360 to Xbox one. The next Xbox will be Xbox -358.

Re:Xbox One? Oh my! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830623)

Followed by Xboxiac and then Hail to the Xbox, right?

Something witty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830243)

See above

What's there to dispute? (5, Insightful)

wbane (12572) | about a year ago | (#43830251)

Fork over some money, Micro$oft, if you want it that bad...

Re:What's there to dispute? (4, Informative)

Squiddie (1942230) | about a year ago | (#43830277)

I kind of agree. They could have saved up all those lawyer fees and just paid the guy off. I'd take Microsoft money any day.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830295)

Pretty much this. As long as they aren't posing as MS, this really is clear cut. Either use a different domain or pay off the owner. Simple as that really.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

muphin (842524) | about a year ago | (#43830317)

considering it costs $1400 USD to file complaint, its more likely the cheapest option, and with big companies like microsoft (who buy thousands of domains) and considering the domain isnt in use, its most likely will be given to microsoft due to "Trademark" issues.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43830361)

considering it costs $1400 USD to file complaint, its more likely the cheapest option

They could have offered to buy the domain from the current owner for $1000, and saved 20% off the cost of the complaint fee, and avoided the costs that will be incurred for the legal representation altogether.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830429)

They could have offered to buy the domain from the current owner for $1000, and saved 20% off the cost of the complaint fee, and avoided the costs that will be incurred for the legal representation altogether.

maybe they did.

Re:What's there to dispute? (4, Insightful)

MishgoDog (909105) | about a year ago | (#43830479)

They could have offered to buy the domain from the current owner for $1000, and saved 20% off the cost of the complaint fee, and avoided the costs that will be incurred for the legal representation altogether.

Except:

a) Creates a precedent - much better to encourage people to think there's no money in domain squatting against MS
b) $400 is - literally - nothing to a company like this. They would consider the costs to be equivalent, and immaterial, and go for the one which has a better strategic flavour (be it PR, precedent, etc)

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about a year ago | (#43830583)

i was thinking the same thing but to MS I'd have to think $3-4k is also pretty much nothing and yet they took the file complaint route rather than pay twice that for the domain. (assuming they didn't even try) They really could have offered quite a bit of money to make a single person happy and it would be a drop in the bucket for them. Which makes me think they didn't try. Who would turn that down?

Re:What's there to dispute? (3, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year ago | (#43830663)

The problem is not the money here, it is the bad precedent it sets, Domain Squatting is a plague that needs to be stamped out, not rewarded. If however it is a fan site or such that was created with a legitimate purpose THEN and only then should MS be paying off the site owner.

Re: What's there to dispute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830691)

Someone who upped the price to $100k or even $1 million when he realized that Microsoft was the buyer.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43830355)

Except the only content of XboxOne.com is advertising; as in domain parking, apparently.

That will give Microsoft a pretty clear victory, due to the special rules regarding cybersquatting about domains only being used to serve ads and not content.

Things would have been harder for Microsoft, if the domain was both in active use and used to serve content of commercial value, and for one reason or another was not a violation of trademark (E.g. legitimate parodies, companies in other markets businesses the field of industry their mark was granted for, etc).

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year ago | (#43830385)

Actually in this case, I hope Microsoft gets it free and clear.

I DESPISE "domain parking". If you're not using it, give it up and let someone else use it.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1, Insightful)

fatalwall (873645) | about a year ago | (#43830515)

just because port the base domain or port 80 goes to a parked page does not mean the domain is not in use. Before claiming that someone is not using the domain please at least check the DNS and MX records. Your ID is low enough where you should know web pages are no the only use for a domain.

Re:What's there to dispute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830553)

> Your ID is low enough where you should know web pages are no the only use for a domain.

Why do you think a /. ID has any bearing on knowledge, intelligence, or carefactor? More importantly an alternate use for a DNS resolution, really doesn't help the case to retain it.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year ago | (#43830643)

Why do you think a /. ID has any bearing on knowledge,...?

Maybe because these issues have repeatedly surfaced on Slashdot over the decade+ that ZorinLynx has been a member. I first joined in 2001 or so, and my /. id was over 400,000. So ZL joined long before then.

Re:What's there to dispute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830673)

Maybe because

There's your bias.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Vhann (1862350) | about a year ago | (#43830685)

Why do you think a /. ID has any bearing on knowledge, intelligence, or carefactor?

In fatalwall's defense, a low Slashdot ID means the person registered with Slashdot a long time ago which means they should be somewhat knowledgeable about stuff Slashdot talks about. I think it is a reasonable assumption on fatalwall's part.

More importantly an alternate use for a DNS resolution, really doesn't help the case to retain it.

Why not? Why can't I use my domain primarily as a nameserver, a mail exchanger or simply to connect to the machine it resolves to for any other activity than Web? This is a genuine question by the way as I am unaware of the rules regarding domain name disputes and squatting.

Re:What's there to dispute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830713)

Forget about this ignorant asshole. He really thinks, that guy who bought Xbox domain would know anything about any other protocol but HTTP.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about a year ago | (#43830469)

domains only being used to serve ads and not content.

Ads are content... just ask any advertising agency, magazine/newspaper publisher, or Slashvertisment poster ;)

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about a year ago | (#43830587)

Except the only content of XboxOne.com is advertising; as in domain parking, apparently.

ok.. sure then that's some news I hadn't heard before because i'm far too lazy to look up the site. If it's just advertising and the guy isn't using the email or anything then yeah MS's got this in the bag

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | about a year ago | (#43830343)

Microsoft has staff lawyers that won't cost them anything other than the fee to file the dispute. Since the domain just goes to some GoDaddy parking page filled with ads it's more likely to go in Microsoft's favor. I'm sure their lawyers are aware of this.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43830615)

I kind of agree. They could have saved up all those lawyer fees and just paid the guy off. I'd take Microsoft money any day.

They just filed a dispute, not like they are going to court.

And we have no idea if they tried to get a hold of the person, or if they couldn't, or if the person said, sure, for 1 Million pounds.

What I don't understand is why people treat domain squatting like it's a bad thing. Free market and all that? The website name is property, and as far as I know there isn't a law saying you have to use your property or someone else can have it.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Horshu (2754893) | about a year ago | (#43830335)

The (current) owner *is* using MS' trademark in the domain name, so they've got a decent case.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43830373)

The (current) owner *is* using MS' trademark in the domain name, so they've got a decent case.

Did MS have it trademarked at the time the domain was acquired? If not, I would think MS was the one that has a problem.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Horshu (2754893) | about a year ago | (#43830389)

I'm talking about "Xbox", which MS has had for over a decade.

Re:What's there to dispute? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#43830421)

I'm talking about "Xbox", which MS has had for over a decade.

Yeah, I figured that out while I was posting something else.

Do they tolerate domains like "xboxclub.org", etc? If not, they might still have a problem.

AIUI, you *have* to complain against people who use your trademark, or else you lose it. If that's the case, they should have complained about this a long time ago. (Though finding everything with "xbox" in it might be recognized as an intractable problem.)

Re:What's there to dispute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830543)

Good one. Next you'll be telling Microsoft to pay their honest fair share of taxes.

Suggestion for Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830253)

If you had a sensible naming scheme, this kind of shit wouldn't happen. Either make a unique name, or go the tried an tested 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., method. Xbox -> Xbox 360 -> Xbox One -> Xbox e^(i*pi) is starting to piss people off.

Re:Suggestion for Microsoft (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43830353)

If you had a sensible naming scheme, this kind of shit wouldn't happen. Either make a unique name, or go the tried an tested 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., method. Xbox -> Xbox 360 -> Xbox One -> Xbox e^(i*pi) is starting to piss people off.

Whew. That was a close one. I have a y=1/(1+e^(-wx)) tatoo (well, the equivalent anyway). I hope to hell they don't use that naming scheme, I'm not ready to upgrade to the next chassis series just yet...

Completely offtopic, but you tickled my curiousity (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830533)

y=1/(1+e^(-wx))

Isn't that the solution to the equation commonly used to model depletion of a finite resource ( say oil reserves )?

dQ(t)/Q(t)=Q(t)*(1-Q(t))

Or put another way, the rate with which you can deplete a resource is proportional to how much resource you have got times how much resource is left, where unity is all of it.

(The derivative of the depletion curve is the depletion rate curve and looks a lot like a gaussian bell curve, extending from negative infinity to positive infinity, peaking at 0.25, and having a total area under the curve of exactly 1; that is... all of it. )

I only wish more people understood the gravity of these equations.... ignoring their prophecy is going to be our undoing.

You impress me greatly by posting it.

I will post AC as I know this is completely offtopic, but I did want you to know there are others out there who have great respect for that little piece of math you just brought up.

anubi

Microshaft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830265)

First in is best dressed.

Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830275)

So, what can a company do in this instance?

Maybe come up with more original names for their products?

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830297)

It is an original name, there is no other product called 'xbox one' and the domain xboxone.com is just parked domain with nothing associated with it.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830579)

> It is an original name

No, it is not. For years (even before the announcement of the development of the xbox360) the original Xbox has been called Xbox1.

reminds me of RonPaul.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830279)

There should be an arbitrated resolution to these kinds of disputes which reflects both the rights of the copyright holders (i.e. Ron Paul and Microsoft), and the sweat equity put in by the siteholders (assuming there was some... if they were just squatting on the DNS name, then the ruling should be easy). The arbitrator shouldn't propose a windfall for the domain name holder, but instead a realistic settlement that would cover marketing and publicity costs of moving their work to a different site, including the costs of registering the new site.

There is no value to preserve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830321)

There is no value to preserve here. Go there. It is a standard godaddy site.

Re:There is no value to preserve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830359)

You're right. If I were the judge I'd award it to MS without compensation. That's just squatting against copyright.

Re:There is no value to preserve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830401)

You're right. If I were the judge I'd award it to MS without compensation. That's just squatting against copyright.

No copyright involved. Trademark, maybe, but that has different rules.

Gotta keep your Imaginary Property terms straight.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830287)

maybe they shouldn't have named the third edition of their product line after their first?

Two things (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830289)

Fire the product manager who didn't check on the domain and secondly, cut the lucky boy a cheque.

Same as real estate (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43830293)

Use a straw purchaser. Probably someone with a track record of domain squatting. So when people see them buying yet one more domain name, they'll think nothing of it.

Yes, that's going to cost money. But in the overall product marketing scheme, its a minor cost.

Notify GoDaddy (2)

gaelfx (1111115) | about a year ago | (#43830309)

Am I the only one that gets the GoDaddy.com spiel when I try to go to xboxone.com? Seems shenannigansy.

Re:Notify GoDaddy (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43830329)

Seems shenannigansy.

Not really. You can register a domain through them. If you don't configure the name to point to an actual site, it just stays 'parked' at GoDaddy with such a page.

Re:Notify GoDaddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830627)

So if a domain is registered and there's no website, it must be unused?

Sorry I thought this was Slashdot...

I could never defend a cyber squatter (4, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about a year ago | (#43830333)

If the domain owner had actually been using the name (rather than just to show a default launch page) then I might have some sympathy for them. But those people who speculatively register thousands of domains just to extort money from legitimate users deserve to be sued.

Nobody should ever reward the bad practices of those douchebags. They are the equivalent of patent trolls.

Re:I could never defend a cyber squatter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830447)

Then again, there's more to the internet than websites.

Re:I could never defend a cyber squatter (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about a year ago | (#43830489)

Not having a web page would make it potentially legitimate. Having an ad parking page makes it a squatting troll.

Re:I could never defend a cyber squatter (1)

grahammm (9083) | about a year ago | (#43830715)

Does that not depend on the company with which the domain is registered? Some will automatically create a default web page advertising the registrar. Then, if the domain is only used for mail or only sub-domains are used ,,,

Re:I could never defend a cyber squatter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830531)

yeah this. I have a domain I use soley for email. Why would that make someone a douche-bag equivalent of patent troll? Perhaps I should pretend I'm such a beautiful unique flower that I need a wordpress blog for my musings and CV all over my personal domain, but it seems douche-y.

You know what might be an easy way to make sure you have a domain for a new product? come up with a few options, then register them. If someone else owns one you prefer, try and buy it from them. Who gives a shit if someone finds out what your next gen product that's already well known to be in development might be called at release? there's absolutely no real reason to delay as the summary suggests.

Either way someone should tell microsoft they already released an xbox one, in 2001, it became referred to as xbox one the day they released a new one because xbox wasn't sufficient to differentiate anymore. Calling their third xbox the xbox one is just stupidly confusing.

So no... Microsoft absolutely doesn't deserve any sympathy in this case (or ever really).

Re:I could never defend a cyber squatter (5, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | about a year ago | (#43830597)

If the domain owner had actually been using the name (rather than just to show a default launch page) then I might have some sympathy for them. But those people who speculatively register thousands of domains just to extort money from legitimate users deserve to be sued.

Nobody should ever reward the bad practices of those douchebags. They are the equivalent of patent trolls.

I don't agree. Sure, it sucks, but the name is property. People buy up property cheap all the time with the hopes that the area might become developed and the property will go up in price.

Just because MS wants it doesn't mean they should get it. Just because the person hasn't done anything with his website doesn't mean MS should get it. This is mostly just catering to the corporations.

MS should of bought all the Xbox* names they could of back when they released the original xbox. They didn't, tough shit, imo.

And why do you need a new website name for a new console? Why not just have Xbox.com show the new console? It's not like they are going to keep selling and advertising the Xbox 360 after the Xbox One is released.

How do you know? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830337)

At the moment, XboxOne.com isn't being used for anything, so it's in effect a squat.

You mean they don't have an active website. That doesn't mean the domain name isn't being used for anything. It has A and MX records. Even scanning the ports on the A records and finding nothing doesn't mean it's not being used. It may not respond to any except certain IP addresses.

Now I agree it's likely it's not being used for anything, but as the registrant of several domains which do not have websites associated with them (but DO have email and other services) I call nonsense (if not straight up libel) calling it "in effect a squat."

Re:How do you know? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#43830379)

You mean they don't have an active website. That doesn't mean the domain name isn't being used for anything. It has A and MX records.

Even if they have other hidden uses; under the anti cybersquatting rules, they will most likely lose the dispute BECAUSE of the website with just ads on it; which is treated similarly as making an offer to sell the domain for more than they paid.

The web page with only ads is likely to result in Microsoft winning the UDRP dispute.

If there was no web page with only ads, but active A records and NS records, the domain holder could have been better off -- they could be able to show legitimate use, and there would be nothing that the rules have deemed prima facie evidence of cybersquatting

Re:How do you know? (4, Interesting)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year ago | (#43830529)

Be careful, though. Part of what you see for a given domain name depends on your ISP. For instance, if you're on Cox's cable Internet service and try going to "nonexistent.silverglass.org" (a name which definitively does not exist in the zonefile), you'll get a Web site filled with ads. A Web site I never created and have no part of. If you look at the URL bar, you'll see that Cox has resolved that name (that should've gotten an NXDOMAIN result) to the IP address of one of their servers and redirected you to one of their Web sites. Cox at least does a redirect, some ISPs simply serve up the page as if it came from the server name you used leaving you no clue that the domain owner isn't the one running that site.

It looks from my side like the site's just parked at GoDaddy, and what you're getting is the generic site GoDaddy serves up to every parked domain. The only ad is the button GoDaddy puts there to see about buying the domain, which is there whether the domain owner is interested in selling or not.

Re:How do you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830415)

Dude you're overthinking. If it looks, walks, and quacks like a domain squatter then it's a domain squatter with 99.9 percent certainty, which exceeds the 'clear and convincing proof' legal standard.

Re:How do you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830555)

And that is why the law fucks up so bad so often when dealing with technical shit.

Re:How do you know? (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year ago | (#43830417)

Seconded. For nearly a decade I had a domain that had no Web sites in it and in fact no e-mail service (no MX records). But it was very definitely in use. I used it to hold A records for hosts I needed convenient names for that didn't have names of their own (or not names I could resolve from my home network anyway). It was especially convenient for dynamic names, where the IP address changed regularly but I still needed a way to access the machine remotely. And most of those machines would look dead to anyone probing them, because the firewalls were designed to prevent probing and to restrict remote access to (more or less) SSH from specific networks so attackers would have a harder time gaining access. You wouldn't even get an error, my firewall policy on unauthorized packets was "Drop 'em down a black hole, let gravity (or client-side timeouts) sort 'em out. If they aren't authorized then they're Not My Problem.".

The domain owner here may well be a squatter, but just because the domain doesn't appear to be active to an outsider doesn't mean it's not active. It just means that J. Random Internet Passerby isn't being allowed to see any activity.

f... squatter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830351)

I checked website at xboxone.com -- it is an obvious squatter. Send him to hell along with patent trolls.

Look at the site (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year ago | (#43830409)

...it's not even in use. It's just the godaddy placeholder.

Normally, I tend to side with the 'little guy' like MikeRoweSoft - he was actually USING the domain.

In this case, the guy's just squatting. Give him some token fund for "good guess what we'd call it" like $1000 and give MS the domain.

Re:Look at the site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830613)

So the domain points to a default website and you jump to the conclusion the ENTIRE the domain is inactive? My god man, are you really that dense?

domain name speculating (4, Interesting)

Chirs (87576) | about a year ago | (#43830675)

People buy real estate all the time in the hopes that it gains in value...why should domain names be treated specially?

Buy it in advance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830413)

I don't know why companies don't just buy the name in advance. They could just use a different register than they normally do, and private registration, don't move it to their normal name servers and people would have no idea who bought it. They could even buy up a few dozen fakes so people would still have no idea what the product will be called. Xboxzune.com xboxhd.com whatever

Re:Buy it in advance (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about a year ago | (#43830509)

Then they'd potentially be violating cybersquatting regulations themselves of which they're accusing the current owner of this domain.

Re:Buy it in advance (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year ago | (#43830527)

And in reality, no one alive would have thought "XBox One" would follow the Xbox360, if given a set of about 16 reasonable choices.

Re:Buy it in advance (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year ago | (#43830697)

however what you see occurring with cyber squatting nowadays is they aren't just registering 1 or 16 addresses, they are registering 1000's of addresses in every conceivable and many inconceivable combinations that they can come up with. I just went through the agony of trying to register a domain for myself and it took me days and days to find an acceptable combination of words and 90% of what I tried wasn't even a real website, just scumbag cybersquatters who I refuse to pay a cent too.

Subdomain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830483)

>So, what can a company do in this instance?
They use the DNS zone they already own to make a subdomain one.xbox.com. and not create hundred of records for their products in the .com. zone?

Playing with fire, even if legit ... (3, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | about a year ago | (#43830491)

Even if the registration was legitimate, they still used a Microsoft trademark as a portion of the domain name. That is going to cause problems for the domain's owner even if the trademark XBox One didn't exist at the time of registration.

For what it's worth, I pulled up on archive.org and it was some sort of xbox fan site in the past. Depending upon the trail of registrations since then, it is doubtful that a domain squatter owns it.

Who knew the name would be Xbox one anyway? (2, Interesting)

MindPrison (864299) | about a year ago | (#43830505)

C'mon guys, this guy just won the lottery.

I for one, wouldn't have guessed it'd be Xbox One, especially not 2 years ago. I Microsoft really wants this name, it's not difficult for them to pony up the dough. Even at 1.000.000$, for MS this would have been a good deal. Going the lawsuit way for someone as powerful as MS, is stupid, they're most likely just going to have haters against them etc.

On the other hand, I don't side with Cybersquatters or people who just purchase 10000 random domain names just because they want to prey on any-company-dot-com, but business is business, if you don't make it your own - it'll be someone else. That's the hard facts of life.

Start covering the number line . . . (2)

kabdib (81955) | about a year ago | (#43830547)

I just bought xboxminusone.com -- wonder if they'll want that, too?

Re:Start covering the number line . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830637)

I'd go after xboxtwominusone.com or maybe xboxminusonesquared.com or xboxabsolutevalueofminusone (although you may run afoul of a vodka supplier with that one too)

Re:Start covering the number line . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830645)

You can have that one negative number, I'll take every positive with XBoxInfinity.com

Just let companies register custom TLDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830577)

Just open up TLDs for registration.

A TLD should cost $1,000,000

xboxone.microsoft

If Ron Paul can't get his then Microsoft can't (1)

Cito (1725214) | about a year ago | (#43830629)

my opinion similar situation to ronpaul.com, it was registered long before he retired and wanted his domain. He lost when he tried to take the legit established route to acquire the domain.

Microsoft should also lose this case.

But it won't Microsoft will of course win cause Corporations rule the world

Re:If Ron Paul can't get his then Microsoft can't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830709)

This is a case of cyber squatting pure and simple and as such it is not comparable to ronpaul.com. In this case the cyber squatter SHOULD and most likely will lose. Companies like MS with the resources behind them should stand up to these filth, Cyber Squatters are just like Patent Trolls, paying them off only encouraging this bad behavior.

How does MS own xboxtwo but NOT xboxone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830665)

This doesn't add up (not even to 'xboxthree.com', itself registered just 5 days ago). 'xboxone.com' has been registered less than 18 months, by someone other than Microsoft, yet MS has owned 'xboxtwo.com' for nearly eight years:

$ whois xboxone.com
      Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
      Domain Name: XBOXONE.COM
            Created on: 29-Dec-11
            Expires on: 29-Dec-16
            Last Updated on: 29-Dec-11
$ whois xboxtwo.com
      Domain Name: xboxtwo.com
            Created on..............: Sun, Sep 11, 2005
            Expires on..............: Wed, Sep 11, 2013
            Record last updated on..: Sat, Sep 08, 2012
      Administrative Contact:
            Microsoft Corporation
            Domain Administrator
            One Microsoft Way
            Redmond, WA 98052
            US
            Phone: +1.4258828080
            Email: domains@microsoft.com
$ whois slashdot.org
Created On:05-Oct-1997 04:00:00 UTC
Registrant ID:tuM6kJEQXujRSska
Admin ID:tuKBNSJC6uhbcDHm
Tech ID:tuDs9f0G6e3VfKZ2
$

I suppose they are going to ignore xbox1.com? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43830669)

xbox1.com is taken too.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...