Argentine version of Google falls into “wrong” hands

Post by mitchdoogle » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 12:28 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #86

yosito wrote: post #51

Meanwhile, I can't even figure out how to buy domains with my name in them from people who just buy them and sit on them.

The internet's implementation of name resolving is wrong. If you type "apple.com" you should get a disambiguation page saying "Did you mean the grocery store, the record company, or the computer company?" and from there you can reach the desired website. Somewhat like how it works in Wikipedia. Unlike land, names are not a scarcity and can be shared. So why pretend they are like land?

Post by throwaway_kufu » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 12:41 AM UTC

codezero wrote: post #117

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 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 19…

Post by seriousquestion » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 12:43 AM UTC

jordanmoconnor wrote: post #29

HowardStark wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Took a quick glance and noticed that this article is claiming "duck.com" is owned by Google, even though it redirects to DuckDuckGo. That domain has Namecheap's Whois Guard enabled, so there's no registrant information. However, I'm still inclined to think that it isn't Google's domain since the NS records for "duck.com" point to "nsXX.quack-dns.com"...

Wouldn't it be funny if DDG was actually Google.

Post by admax88q » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 12:45 AM UTC

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…

Post by throwaway_kufu » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 1:00 AM UTC

nmfisher wrote: post #124

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's not a contractual mistake though, is it? It was an auction, meaning anyone could bid, and he put a genuine bid for $200k. Just because the system crashed doesn't mean anyone actually made a representation they didn't intend to. A more realistic example would be the wrong house getting listed for auction due to clerical error (but one still owned by the bank). I'm fairly sure that would be set aside.