Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by fny on Monday October 12, 2020 @10:14AM (#24754513)

Can someone explain why this legal summersault is even needed to seize botnet servers?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by Bjartr on Monday October 12, 2020 @10:25AM (#24754640)

I think this is allowing a civil case to be brought by Microsoft, and therefore the ability for them to bring their significant capital and legal counsel to bear, rather than just waiting for the criminal justice system to get around to doing something about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by Ericson2314 on Monday October 12, 2020 @11:31AM (#24755437)

If Microsoft can make a civil suit and gain control of the botnet infra, rather than just get damages, can I get poisoned by a mine/factor and get equity in the factory?

What's weird is that presumably the botnet party, the natural counterparty, didn't show up in court, but MS appeals to a third party (domain registry) to get control of their assets rather than something more neutral for damages.

I'm no lawyer but this seems awfully weird.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by rlpb on Monday October 12, 2020 @11:54AM (#24755719)

The legal basis is that a court awards a remedy[1] for harm done (or being done). Often that's monetary damages, but it doesn't have to be. The courts chooses what remedy is appropriate.

I'm not sure that's relevant though. This might just be a preliminary injunction[2] rather than a final decision, whereas your "get equity in the factory" seems to be thinking about a final remedy rather than a preliminary injunction sought to minimize ongoing damage.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_remedy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by Ericson2314 on Monday October 12, 2020 @03:45PM (#24758628)

I sure hope it's a preliminary injunction! That would be like me taking temporary control of the factory smoke stack or discharge pipe. Great precedent in that case.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by xwdv on Monday October 12, 2020 @11:22AM (#24755315)

To cover their ass while they absolutely wreck Trickbots network.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by Ericson2314 on Monday October 12, 2020 @11:19AM (#24755278)

Because Microsoft is a vigilante looking for legal cover.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by reaperducer on Monday October 12, 2020 @01:00PM (#24756566)

Don't vigilantes, by definition, work outside the law?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by gowld on Monday October 12, 2020 @12:33PM (#24756205)

It's complicated. If I put up spikes to prevent people entering my garage, is that vigilantism?

Is it vigilantism to exterminate a beehive that a vandal drops on my customer's property?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet by tialaramex on Monday October 12, 2020 @01:58PM (#24757309)

If the spikes somehow lock the garage closed, that's security. If they're instead designed to impale people who force it open that's going to be illegal in most places even if trespassing is also a criminal offence there. Not least because the law may authorise people to force that garage open, and it doesn't want authorised people getting hurt, regardless of how you feel about that.

[ Parent | on HN ]