Interesting that the claim they didn't get any notice, this is what Microsoft has to say in their complaint.
>...United States, including those located in the state of Nevada and the city of Las Vegas. Defendant
has a contractual obligation to take reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond to reports
of Internet or computer abuse, and the company has also made representations to the public that it
has an “abuse team” to police and take action against such malicious activity. Yet Defèndant has
failed to take sufficient action to stop, prevent, or effectively control this malicious conduct in
breach of its contractual obligations and best practices of the industry, causing further harm to
Nevada and Las Vegas residents.
We assume that this is on-going (No-IP was the go-to since 2004) and Microsoft has finally decided they'd be able to take it over. Unfortunately they didn't plan enough to anticipate the amount of traffic they'd receive. If I was No-IP, I'd be out for blood.
Someone sends a court order to essentially handicap your business, putting it at risk for the sake of malevolent users. This was a situation where No-IP's "resolution" process should have been reported (ie they cater to criminals for profit), and not man-handled by a separate law and business body.
>Someone sends a court order to essentially handicap your business, putting it at risk for the sake of malevolent users.
"Someone" in this is case is a federal district court which did that because there was no communication from No-IP. MS does not have the power to send court orders. The court ordered No-IP to send a response and looks like there was no response.
> "...which did that because there was no communication from No-IP ... The court ordered No-IP to send a response and looks like there was no response."
That's absolutely false. Microsoft explicitly asked the court to allow them to file the entire case under seal, and to obtain ex parte emergency relief without notifying the defendants.
The TRO states: “...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.”
The judge signed that. No-IP did not receive any advance warning or service by Microsoft's own admission, and No-IP's blog post confirms they weren't served until today.
Sorry I worded that incorrectly. Someone requests for a court order to essentially handicap your business. It's not that No-IP didn't respond, it's that they don't continuously respond. Arguably No-IP does cater for these types of users who pay using gift cards bought with cash and generally only last a few weeks before signing up under another alias..
>...United States, including those located in the state of Nevada and the city of Las Vegas. Defendant has a contractual obligation to take reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond to reports of Internet or computer abuse, and the company has also made representations to the public that it has an “abuse team” to police and take action against such malicious activity. Yet Defèndant has failed to take sufficient action to stop, prevent, or effectively control this malicious conduct in breach of its contractual obligations and best practices of the industry, causing further harm to Nevada and Las Vegas residents.