Net News

Launched in late September, SiteFinder has drawn widespread criticism from Internet users who complain that VeriSign has overstepped its authority. VeriSign claims that it is merely offering a value-added service.

In Popular Enterprises, LLC v. VeriSign, Inc. (6:03 CV 01352, Sept. 18, 2003), filed in federal court in the Middle District of Florida, Netster.com's parent company alleges antitrust violations, unfair competition and violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and asks the court to order the SiteFinder service shut down.

According to the lawsuit, VeriSign, the shepherd of the master list of all Web addresses ending in “.com” and “.net,” has been using its position to unfair advantage.

Netster contends that VeriSign is not only taking advantage of redirected searches, but also unfairly interfering with its SmartBrowse service and similar services offered by competitors such as America Online and Microsoft.

Typically, Internet users are shown a generic “404 – cannot be found” page when a Web address does not exist. SmartBrowse and other services display

Web sites and search options that are closely related to the original search request.

While VeriSign would not comment on the lawsuit, spokesperson Brian O'Shaughnessy defends the company's new service, saying it was helping people find Web sites instead of sending them down a digital “dead end.”

“Twenty million times a day on our network, people mistype domains and don't get what they're looking for,” he says. “Web navigation can be improved with services like SiteFinder.”

A backlash in the Web community has spawned the creation of software to allow people to circumvent the SiteFinder service.

The non-profit Internet Software Consortium (ISC) released new software that ISPs can use to block the SiteFinder service for customers, says ISC President Paul Vixie.

SiteFinder reduces the effectiveness of anti-spam programs that work by rejecting e-mail coming from non-existent Web addresses, Vixie says.

The SiteFinder service also raises privacy concerns that VeriSign will have access to log-in names and passwords that are sometimes included in Web address queries and information in e-mails sent inadvertently to non-existent Web addresses, he adds.

VeriSign's O'Shaughnessy says the company's technicians were looking into the complaint about SiteFinder thwarting anti-spam software, but says the privacy complaint was a “red herring” since the company would not keep such information.

Vixie says many people believe VeriSign should not have launched the new service without first getting permission from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization that oversees Internet policies and practices.

“If VeriSign is a caretaker (of Web addresses) then they've exceeded their authority,” Vixie says.

Mary Hewitt, a spokeswoman for ICANN, says the organization knew about SiteFinder but had not given final approval and did not know it was being activated.

In a recent decision that sent shock waves around the Internet business community, a Virginia federal district court dismissed a suit brought by U-haul against an Internet advertising company that markets through pop-up advertising.

The controversial decision in U-haul International v. WhenU.com (1:02 CV 01469, Sept. 19, 2003) stands to embolden pop-up advertisers such as WhenU and Gator Corp., who offer software that triggers pop-up ads related to Internet addresses a user visits.

The court ruled that the ads do not violate the law because WhenU's software did not copy or use U-Haul's trademark or copyright material, and because users themselves had chosen to download the pop-up software.

“While at first blush this detour in the user's Web search seems like a siphon-off of a business opportunity, the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet,” the court wrote.

U-haul claimed the ads violate its trademarks and copyrights as well as unfair competition laws.

At the heart of the debate is the pop-up software that comes packaged with free software such as screen savers. It monitors the addresses a user is visiting. When it detects a Web site like U-Haul's, the software may interrupt by displaying an offer from a rival company.

U-Haul sought both monetary damages and an injunction barring the pop-up ads running on its Web sites.

“This is a victory for consumer choice ' it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens,” WhenU chief executive Avi Naider says in a statement.

U-Haul issued a statement expressing disappointment about the ruling, but insisting that Web site owners “have the right to display their Web sites without having their sites hidden behind such invasive advertisements.”

Despite the court's acknowledgement that pop-up ads are often troublesome and annoying, it nevertheless entered summary judgment on WhenU's behalf, finding that it is ultimately the consumer's decision to trigger pop-up advertisements.

Netster.com Sues VeriSign Over Antitrust Claims

Internet search company Netster.com recently filed a $100 million antitrust lawsuit against VeriSign Inc., accusing the Web address provider of launching a new Web service that effectively redirects misspelled and unassigned Web addresses to its VeriSign's Web site.

VeriSign's new SiteFinder service commandeers searches for “.com” and “.net” Web addresses that are not spelled correctly or have not yet been registered and redirects them to a VeriSign Web page that includes options and pay-for-placement links.

Launched in late September, SiteFinder has drawn widespread criticism from Internet users who complain that VeriSign has overstepped its authority. VeriSign claims that it is merely offering a value-added service.

In Popular Enterprises, LLC v. VeriSign, Inc. (6:03 CV 01352, Sept. 18, 2003), filed in federal court in the Middle District of Florida, Netster.com's parent company alleges antitrust violations, unfair competition and violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and asks the court to order the SiteFinder service shut down.

According to the lawsuit, VeriSign, the shepherd of the master list of all Web addresses ending in “.com” and “.net,” has been using its position to unfair advantage.

Netster contends that VeriSign is not only taking advantage of redirected searches, but also unfairly interfering with its SmartBrowse service and similar services offered by competitors such as America Online and Microsoft.

Typically, Internet users are shown a generic “404 – cannot be found” page when a Web address does not exist. SmartBrowse and other services display

Web sites and search options that are closely related to the original search request.

While VeriSign would not comment on the lawsuit, spokesperson Brian O'Shaughnessy defends the company's new service, saying it was helping people find Web sites instead of sending them down a digital “dead end.”

“Twenty million times a day on our network, people mistype domains and don't get what they're looking for,” he says. “Web navigation can be improved with services like SiteFinder.”

A backlash in the Web community has spawned the creation of software to allow people to circumvent the SiteFinder service.

The non-profit Internet Software Consortium (ISC) released new software that ISPs can use to block the SiteFinder service for customers, says ISC President Paul Vixie.

SiteFinder reduces the effectiveness of anti-spam programs that work by rejecting e-mail coming from non-existent Web addresses, Vixie says.

The SiteFinder service also raises privacy concerns that VeriSign will have access to log-in names and passwords that are sometimes included in Web address queries and information in e-mails sent inadvertently to non-existent Web addresses, he adds.

VeriSign's O'Shaughnessy says the company's technicians were looking into the complaint about SiteFinder thwarting anti-spam software, but says the privacy complaint was a “red herring” since the company would not keep such information.

Vixie says many people believe VeriSign should not have launched the new service without first getting permission from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization that oversees Internet policies and practices.

“If VeriSign is a caretaker (of Web addresses) then they've exceeded their authority,” Vixie says.

Mary Hewitt, a spokeswoman for ICANN, says the organization knew about SiteFinder but had not given final approval and did not know it was being activated.

In a recent decision that sent shock waves around the Internet business community, a Virginia federal district court dismissed a suit brought by U-haul against an Internet advertising company that markets through pop-up advertising.

The controversial decision in U-haul International v. WhenU.com (1:02 CV 01469, Sept. 19, 2003) stands to embolden pop-up advertisers such as WhenU and Gator Corp., who offer software that triggers pop-up ads related to Internet addresses a user visits.

The court ruled that the ads do not violate the law because WhenU's software did not copy or use U-Haul's trademark or copyright material, and because users themselves had chosen to download the pop-up software.

“While at first blush this detour in the user's Web search seems like a siphon-off of a business opportunity, the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet,” the court wrote.

U-haul claimed the ads violate its trademarks and copyrights as well as unfair competition laws.

At the heart of the debate is the pop-up software that comes packaged with free software such as screen savers. It monitors the addresses a user is visiting. When it detects a Web site like U-Haul's, the software may interrupt by displaying an offer from a rival company.

U-Haul sought both monetary damages and an injunction barring the pop-up ads running on its Web sites.

“This is a victory for consumer choice ' it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens,” WhenU chief executive Avi Naider says in a statement.

U-Haul issued a statement expressing disappointment about the ruling, but insisting that Web site owners “have the right to display their Web sites without having their sites hidden behind such invasive advertisements.”

Despite the court's acknowledgement that pop-up ads are often troublesome and annoying, it nevertheless entered summary judgment on WhenU's behalf, finding that it is ultimately the consumer's decision to trigger pop-up advertisements.