Well, Microsoft only acted after they got a court order.

So, it seems to me that your "real" objection, if I may presume to say, is that the Courts are giving Microsoft a lot of say as to which entities on the internet are bad actors.

But do you really want FBI agents or other federal executive-branch employees to have that say instead? Isn't it better for decisions like that to be made by organizations with greater technical competency than the executive branch of the US government?

Of course, if Microsoft starts using these court orders to hobble their competitors, then that is bad, but no one is asserting that they have started doing that; are they?

Also, if other computer companies, e.g., Google and Apple, started doing what Microsoft is, the Courts would give their expertise approximately the same amount of deference that they currently give Microsoft -- or more precisely, I have seen no signs that that is not the case.

An analogy: would you not prefer for the laws and executive-branch policies related to software patents to be decided by computer companies and software professionals rather than elected officials, their legislative aids and lobbyists? (According to Eben Moglen, current US laws and policy around software patents are largely influenced by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies who feel the need to oppose any weakening of patent "rights" in any industry.)

More precisely: if individuals and organizations without deep technical knowledge were prohibited from influencing policy on software patents, would not that be an improvement over the current situation?

> But do you really want FBI agents or other federal executive-branch employees to have that say instead?

Dear god yes. Law enforcement may need these enforcements from time to time, but you can not let a private company slap around their competitors at will using the same methods.

What competitor did Microsoft slap around?

Do you consider No-IP a competitor to Microsoft?

With Azure they are more or less in the same business.

Really? That's like saying a guy on the corner selling tourist maps is more or less in the same business as Delta Air Lines, because Delta has a brochure stand in the airport lobby. No-IP offers domain/DDNS service, Microsoft Azure is a full stack cloud service similar to Amazon's AWS, and is a small part of a much larger company. There is no competition there.

No-IP sells managed DNS, which you can get with Azure as well, so in that particular service they are direct competitors. But with an as large company as Microsoft there will be overlap with pretty much every other company on the planet, so that's not necessarily relevant.

I was speaking in a more general sense. If Microsoft could do this, other companies can. If they could do it against No-IP, they can the same thing to others.

Oh come off it

You should probably read these legal docs again. Thew US courts did not approve this, as it was an international court.

What are you talking about? It was a lawsuit filed in US District Court for the District of Nevada under state and federal laws. There is no international court with jurisdiction over such a suit.

http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order...

So you're stating that the two Pro Hac Vice applications were just pointless pieces of paper?

It was filed in accordance with state and federal law, but you'll pay attention to the fact that the notice was served in three countries, as well as via the website. You should also notice that they had the individual registrars (in other countries) execute their process. Why would those non-state parties even agree to act on the process if there was no obligation for them to do so?

None of that indicates an international court.

Attorneys in the US are licensed to practice per-state. Pro Hac Vice petitions are necessary whenever they seek to appear in a case outside the state(s) they are licensed in. In this case, two California attorneys were appearing in court in Nevada. There is nothing "international" about that.

Parties to a lawsuit, no matter where they are, have an obligation to respond under US law. If they never want to travel to or do business in the US or any other country whose courts will enforce US judgements (there are many that will), they are, of course, free to ignore the summons and/or orders (unless ICAAN says otherwise, in case of the registries).

Note also that the orders are signed by Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

This is a US court. I have no idea why you think otherwise. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.