>Someone sends a court order to essentially handicap your business, putting it at risk for the sake of malevolent users.
"Someone" in this is case is a federal district court which did that because there was no communication from No-IP. MS does not have the power to send court orders. The court ordered No-IP to send a response and looks like there was no response.
> "...which did that because there was no communication from No-IP ... The court ordered No-IP to send a response and looks like there was no response."
That's absolutely false. Microsoft explicitly asked the court to allow them to file the entire case under seal, and to obtain ex parte emergency relief without notifying the defendants.
The TRO states: “...good cause and the interest of justice require that this Order be Granted without prior notice to Defendants, and accordingly, Microsoft is relieved of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of Microsoft’s motion.”
The judge signed that. No-IP did not receive any advance warning or service by Microsoft's own admission, and No-IP's blog post confirms they weren't served until today.
Sorry I worded that incorrectly. Someone requests for a court order to essentially handicap your business. It's not that No-IP didn't respond, it's that they don't continuously respond. Arguably No-IP does cater for these types of users who pay using gift cards bought with cash and generally only last a few weeks before signing up under another alias..
"Someone" in this is case is a federal district court which did that because there was no communication from No-IP. MS does not have the power to send court orders. The court ordered No-IP to send a response and looks like there was no response.
>If I was No-IP, I'd be out for blood.
Who's blood?