Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

en.mercopress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#111

Post by cj »

stainforth wrote: post #107
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #54

I recently sold cryptocomicbook.com and decided to list some additional domains for sale, at the exact time I listed them a handful of ua.(TLDs) got listed for sale including ua.com and whoever listed them must have done it in bulk and given them all the same price ($76). So I bought the ua.com for $76, at that point the seller must have realized what happened and immediately changed the sales price of all the other…

Why should I believe in markets when transactions can just be reversed like this?

If you walked into a car dealership and saw a price tag of $100 on a car that normally sells for $250,000, would you also lose faith in the dealership when they return your $100 and tell you the car was not meant to be priced at $100?

If anything, the example should boost your confidence in the marketplace. Marketplaces exist to provide a fair experience to both the buyer and the seller. Not just the buyer.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#112

Post by cj »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #98
codezero wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They reversed it because it was an honest mistake and most people like to know that if they make the same mistake it can be undone.

Maybe...I tested your theory and asked them to reverse my recent sale of cryptocomicbook.com on the same basis and my request was declined. In either case there is both contract law and state federal law (unfair trade practices) that would support my claim in the courts if I were so inclined.

> I tested your theory and asked them to reverse my recent sale

Was your recent sale grossly and clearly mispriced with evidence such as similar domains selling for many orders of magnitude more?

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#113

Post by AussieWog93 »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #100
masswerk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be worth noting that in most countries a contract essentially is established by the consensus of wills by the parties involved. An error in objecto ("I didn't mean the thing I accidentally said or listed") is a legitimate excuse and nullifies a contract. (The consensus didn't exist and thus the contract had never been established in the first place). (This is also a reason why marketplaces, where things "just…

It can be a defense in the US but not likely the case here, the remedy wouldn’t be specific performance (ie give me the domain) but damages for a fair market value of what I paid for, specific performance is very rare in the US. There would also be claims against the marketplace (despite their terms of service indemnifying them) other laws apply that can’t be waived under both federal and state law such as fair trade…

I mean, that's what judicial discretion is for. Good luck convincing a judge that the seller honestly intended to sell his domain for 1000x lower than market value.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#114

Post by JoshTriplett »

bootloop wrote: post #106
JoshTriplett wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> names are not a scarcity and can be shared Domain names cannot be effectively shared between non-cooperating entities. Someone has to own the DNS A/AAAA/CNAME/etc records, and be able to change them at will. They have to point to someone's server. It doesn't matter what technological implementation underpins name resolution, it's a fundamentally important property that it must be possible to have exclusive ownershi…

.com is shared, and .apple.com can be shared across multiple subdomains in the same way. We already have that eg. co, gov etc. The registrar would have to maintain the link lists and host them on apple.com for you to choose. You would get a subdomain which you can manage.

com isn't "shared"; it points exclusively to the .com registrar, who determine the ownership of names under .com.

It would certainly be possible to treat "apple.com" the same way, but then, who decides who gets "records.apple.com" and who gets "computer.apple.com"? Does "records.apple.com" go to Apple Records, the music label, or to Apple Records, a hypothetical bookkeeping ("record-keeping") company, as one of many possible conflicts?

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#115

Post by throwaway_kufu »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #113
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be a defense in the US but not likely the case here, the remedy wouldn’t be specific performance (ie give me the domain) but damages for a fair market value of what I paid for, specific performance is very rare in the US. There would also be claims against the marketplace (despite their terms of service indemnifying them) other laws apply that can’t be waived under both federal and state law such as fair trade…

I mean, that's what judicial discretion is for. Good luck convincing a judge that the seller honestly intended to sell his domain for 1000x lower than market value.

No that isn’t what judicial discretion is. In contract law judges are not permitted to unilaterally interject their understanding of a contracting party’s intent and revise the terms of a contract, try looking up the “4 corners of a contract”.

I’ll give a specific example of a buddy of mine who in 2008 (during housing bubble) used to buy foreclosed homes at auction. There was a $2-3M home foreclosed Miami Beach home on auction, he put in a bid for about $200k, then the clerk of court website crashed, he didn’t think much of it, come to find out it crashed for everyone locking in his bid, the bank moved to set aside the sale on the basis of uncontrollable 3rd party error, my friend showed up single handedly with a few cases printed up in support of his position and the court denied the banks motion and my friend received title to the house. If the bank had any remedy it was for damages against the courts system that caused the damage not against the contractual winner of the auction.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#116

Post by matheusmoreira »

cj wrote: post #111
stainforth wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I believe in markets when transactions can just be reversed like this?

If you walked into a car dealership and saw a price tag of $100 on a car that normally sells for $250,000, would you also lose faith in the dealership when they return your $100 and tell you the car was not meant to be priced at $100? If anything, the example should boost your confidence in the marketplace. Marketplaces exist to provide a fair experience to both the buyer and the seller. Not just the buyer.

> would you also lose faith in the dealership when they return your $100 and tell you the car was not meant to be priced at $100

Yes.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#117

Post by codezero »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #98
codezero wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They reversed it because it was an honest mistake and most people like to know that if they make the same mistake it can be undone.

Maybe...I tested your theory and asked them to reverse my recent sale of cryptocomicbook.com on the same basis and my request was declined. In either case there is both contract law and state federal law (unfair trade practices) that would support my claim in the courts if I were so inclined.

I don’t think you tested this. And it’s not a theory. If you are a large customer of your domain registrar you will get special treatment. The same is true when you have large financial stake in many things.

I say this as someone who had their domain auctioned off when I was unemployed because I was too depressed to read my email and didn’t see the notice until I was out from my cave, losing a domain I owned since 1996.

I’m not in the side of the registrar, but no reasonable observer would think you should be able to buy ua.com for $78, so you haven’t done much in the way of “testing” by not being a high value customer, and by selling a domain that’s not valuable.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#118

Post by wlonkly »

ro_bit wrote: post #103

How much does Google pay MarkMonitor for this to happen?

MarkMonitor is surprisingly affordable (at scale). Their minimum buy is not cheap, but within that individual domains are, well, not retail price, but not far off either.

They "make it up in volume" by giving you an incentive to keep your entire domain portfolio together, even when you really only care about MarkMonitor levels of care for a subset of them.

Advanced features like registry lock and local presence are also affordable-but-not-cheap.

(A lot of their more proactive brand and trademark management has been spun off to other divisions of Clarivate who acquired them some years ago.)

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#119

Post by throwaway_kufu »

cj wrote: post #112
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe...I tested your theory and asked them to reverse my recent sale of cryptocomicbook.com on the same basis and my request was declined. In either case there is both contract law and state federal law (unfair trade practices) that would support my claim in the courts if I were so inclined.

> I tested your theory and asked them to reverse my recent sale Was your recent sale grossly and clearly mispriced with evidence such as similar domains selling for many orders of magnitude more?

Who is supposed to make that determination? It was below the marketplaces own valuation is that’s not enough and must use an ambiguous word like “grossly” essentially meaning in the sole discretion of the marketplace? In any case it’s neither in their terms or service nor supported by case law.

Who ever listed it agreed to the terms of service/contract multiple times and verified the price multiple times, it’s not incumbent on a buyer to point out to a seller their price is below market value (and that come directly from the case law for contracts). If there was an error (either by the lister or maybe a bug in the marketplace software) believe it or not the claim would be against them and not me, and presumably they would both also be covered by insurance specifically for those kinds of damages.

Im not saying I will take legal action, for example I offered them to just put my domains on their “premium listing page”. But I’m also not here to debate the legal merit of contract law.

Re: Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

#120

Post by codezero »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #119
cj wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tested your theory and asked them to reverse my recent sale Was your recent sale grossly and clearly mispriced with evidence such as similar domains selling for many orders of magnitude more?

Who is supposed to make that determination? It was below the marketplaces own valuation is that’s not enough and must use an ambiguous word like “grossly” essentially meaning in the sole discretion of the marketplace? In any case it’s neither in their terms or service nor supported by case law. Who ever listed it agreed to the terms of service/contract multiple times and verified the price multiple times, it’s not in…

You can't know that the person who listed it doesn't have a special MSA (service agreement) with their vendor that gives them premium support and or protections not offered to "normal" end-users, and you seem to believe there is some sort of clear black and white with how business may make decisions when there are incidents on their platforms.

As a person who misses a lot of flights, I can tell you that they can always reroute you, usually for free, and sometimes get you home faster, but if you're an asshole and constantly talk about how you've been wronged, you get to wait for the next flight.

Post reply on HN