推 corncorn:上帝保佑你 @@" 01/05 04:45
推 rainy75:這位太太~你PO上來也很花時間=.=而且怎麼可以鄉民到還沒睡 01/05 09:35
推 redscorpius:閱~ 01/05 11:30
下面是我負責翻(其中七頁)，誰來幫我回文修正一下阿...
以下是 字典+眼博士+YAHOO+自己 = 冏
[4] Verio's next argument is that it was not bound by Register's terms
because it rejected them. Even assuming Register is entitled to demand
compliance with its terms in exchange for Verio's entry into its systems to
take WHOIS data, and even acknowledging that Verio was fully aware of
Register's terms, Verio contends that it still is not bound by Register's
terms because it did not agree to be bound. In support of its claim, Verio
cites a district court case from the Central District of California,
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., No. CV99-7654, 2000 WL 1887522
(C.D.Cal. Aug.10, 2000), in which the court rejected Ticketmaster's
application for a preliminary injunction to enforce posted terms of use of
data available on its website against a regular user. Noting that the user
of Ticketmaster's web site is not required to check an "I agree" box before
proceeding, the court concluded that there was insufficient proof of
agreement to support a preliminary injunction.
Verio的下一場辯論是它不受登記的條件約束，因為它拒絕他們。即使以為記錄有權要求
花費 WHOIS數據的服從它條件交換Verio加入它系統，並且甚至承認Verio完全知道登記的
條件，Verio力辯它仍然不受登記的條件約束，因為它沒同意被約束。在支援它的要求，
Verio 引用一地區法庭案件從中部加利福尼亞，Ticketmaster Corp.
v.Tickets.com,Inc.法庭拒絕Ticketmaster的一條初步的命令的申請實施公佈的對一個固
定使用者的在它的網站上可得到的數據的使用條款。注意到那用戶的Ticketmaster的網站
不被要求檢查一" 我同意" 在進行之前的對話盒，法庭斷定有協議的不足的證據支援一條
初步的命令。
We acknowledge that the Ticketmaster decision gives Verio some support, but
not enough. In the first place, the Ticketmaster court was not making a
definitive ruling rejecting Ticketmaster's contract claim. It was rather
exercising a district court's discretion to deny a preliminary injunction
because of a doubt whether the movant had adequately shown likelihood of
success on the merits.
我們承認Ticketmaster 決定給Verio一些支援，但不是足夠。 首先，Ticketmaster法
庭沒簽訂拒絕Ticketmaster的合約索賠的決定性的裁決。 因為懷疑，它相當正運用地
方初審法院的自行處理否認一條初步的命令， movant已經足夠對優點顯示成功的可能。
But more importantly, we are not inclined to agree with the Ticketmaster
court's analysis. There is a crucial difference between the circumstances of
Specht, where we declined to enforce Netscape's specified terms against a
user of its software because of inadequate evidence that the user had seen
the terms when downloading the software, and those of Ticketmaster, where the
taker of information from Ticketmaster's site knew full well the terms on
which the information was offered but was not offered an icon marked, "I
agree," on which to click. Under the circumstances of Ticketmaster, we see
no reason why the enforceability of the offeror's terms should depend on
whether the taker states (or clicks), "I agree."
更重要，我們不傾向於與Ticketmaster法庭的分析相符。 有在施佩希特的情形之間的一
個決定性的差別，因為當下載軟體時，用戶已經看見那些條件的不適當的證據，我們拒絕
實施Netscape 的地方，對它的軟體的用戶指定條件以及Ticketmaster的，來自
Ticketmaster的場所的訊息的接受者完全了解訊息被提供的那些條件， 沒被提供標明的
一張圖示" 我同意，" 在那上面可以點選。在Ticketmaster的情況下，我們沒有看見要
約人的條件執行應該取決於是否接受者說明(還是點擊)的原因 ,"我同意。 "
We recognize that contract offers on the Internet often require the offeree
to click on an "I agree" icon. And no doubt, in many circumstances, such a
statement of agreement by the offeree is essential to the formation of a
contract. But not in all circumstances. While new commerce on the Internet
has exposed courts to many new situations, it has not fundamentally changed
the principles of contract. It is standard contract doctrine that when a
benefit is offered subject to stated conditions, and the offeree makes a
decision to take the benefit with knowledge of the terms of the offer, the
taking constitutes an acceptance of the terms, which accordingly become
binding on the offeree
我們認出，以致於那簽合約提供經常在那些網際網路上要求那些要約人點擊" 我同意"
圖示。 並且無疑地，在很多情形裡，這樣的一個要約人對協議的陳述對一份合約的形成
很重要。但不是在全部情形裡。 當在網際網路上的新商業已經把法庭暴露在很多新情勢
中時，它沒基本上改變合約的原則。 一好處被提供受規定的條件影響的是標準合約教條
，並且要約人決定用報價的條件的知識參加好處， 花費形成一接受條件，哪個照著適宜
對有約束力要約人。
Returning to the apple stand, the visitor, who sees apples offered for 50
cents apiece and takes an apple, owes 50 cents, regardless whether he did or
did not say, "I agree." The choice offered in such circumstances is to take
the apple on the known terms of the offer or not to take the apple. As we
see it, the defendant in Ticketmaster and Verio in this case had a similar
choice. Each was offered access to information subject to terms of which
they were well aware. Their choice was either to accept the offer of
contract, taking the information subject to the terms of the offer, or, if
the terms were not acceptable, to decline to take the benefits.
返回蘋果忍受，看見蘋果被每個50分提供並且花費一個蘋果的參觀者， 欠50分，不加理
會他做還是沒說，" 我同意。 " 在這樣的情形裡提供的選擇是在報價的知名的條件上吃
蘋果或者不吃蘋果。因為我們看見它在Ticketmaster 和在這例案件裡的Verio裡的被告有
相似的選擇。 他們好意識到的學期為條件提供訊息的入口。他們的選擇是接受合約的報
價的兩者中任何一個，花費訊息須經報價的條件，或者，如果那些條件不可接受，拒絕參
加好處。
We find that the district court was within its discretion in concluding that
Register showed likelihood of success on the merits of its contract claim.
我們發現地方法院在它斷定露出顯示的成功在它的合約索賠的優點上的可能的審慎內。
(c) Irreparable harm
(c) 不能修補的危害
Verio contends that an injunction is not appropriate to enforce the terms of
a contract. It is true that specific relief is not the conventional remedy
for breach of contract, but there is certainly no ironclad rule against its
use. Specific relief may be awarded in certain circumstances.
Verio 力辯這條命令不合適實施一份合約的條件。 可以確信具體的減輕不是違約的常用
的治療法，但是當然沒有對它的使用的防禦規章。具體的減輕可能被某些情形裡授予。
[5] If an injury can be appropriately compensated by an award of monetary
damages, then an adequate remedy at law exists, and no irreparable injury may
be found to justify specific relief.. But,irreparable harm may be found
where damages are difficult to establish and measure. . We have found, for
example, that injunctive relief is appropriate where it would be "very
difficult to calculate monetary damages that would successfully redress the
loss of a relationship with a client that would produce an indeterminate
amount of business in years to come."
[5]如果一項貨幣賠償的獎可能恰當補償一個傷， 然後在法律的足夠的治療法存在，並
且沒有不能修補的傷可能被發現證明具體的減輕是正確的。但是，不能修補的危害可能在
損害難建立並且測量的地方被找到。我們發現，命令減輕適當" 非常難計算貨幣損害，
將成功與在未來歲月中將生產一個不確定的貿易周轉額的一位客戶糾正一種關係的損失。
"
The district court found it impossible to estimate "with any precision the
amount of the monetary loss which has resulted and which would result in the
future from the loss of Register.com's relationships with customers and
co-brand partners," by reason of Verio's actions. In our view, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, unless specific relief
were granted, Verio's actions would cause Register irreparable harm through
loss of reputation, good will, and business opportunities.
地方法院發現估計是不可能的 " 由於任何精密貨幣損失的數量，已經產生和從與用戶和
共同品牌的合伙人的Register.com的關係的損失將來會產生，" 由於Verio的行動。在我
們看來，地方法院沒在找到那過程中虐待它的審慎，具體減輕。除非，Verio行動將引起
註冊不能修補危害透過名聲，善意和商機的損失。
(d) Trespass to chattels
(d) 非法侵入到動產
Verio also attacks the grant of the preliminary injunction against its
accessing Register's computers by automated software programs performing
multiple successive queries. This prong of the injunction was premised on
Register's claim of trespass to chattels. Verio contends the ruling was in
error because Register failed to establish that Verio's conduct resulted in
harm to Register's servers and because Verio's robot access to the WHOIS
database through Register was "not unauthorized." We believe the district
court's findings were within the range of its permissible discretion.
Verio也攻擊反對它訪問的登記計算機這筆津貼的這初步命令以使軟體程式自動化執行多
連續質問。命令的這把叉是動產的關於登記的非法侵入的索賠的premised。 Verio力辯規
則是錯誤的， 記錄不能建立Verio 引導導致的危害給登記伺服器和Verio 機器人進入在
WHOIS 數據庫透過登記" 不未被授權。 " 我們相信地方法院的結論在它的可允許的審慎
範圍內。
[7]"A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally ... using or
intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another , where "the
chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value,
[7]"對一件動產的非法侵入可能被透過故意承諾 ... 使用或者用一件為另一個所有的動
產管閒事，" ,在那裡" 動產被關於它的狀態，質量或者價值削弱，"
[8] The district court found that Verio's use of search robots, consisting of
software programs performing multiple automated successive queries, consumed
a significant portion of the capacity of Register's computer systems. While
Verio's robots alone would not incapacitate Register's systems, the court
found that if Verio were permitted to continue to access Register's computers
through such robots, it was "highly probable" that other Internet service
providers would devise similar programs to access Register's data, and that
the system would be overtaxed and would crash. We cannot say these findings
were unreasonable. Nor is there merit to Verio's contention that it cannot be
engaged in trespass when Register had never instructed it not to use its
robot programs. As the district court noted, Register's complaint
sufficiently advised Verio that its use of robots was not authorized and,
according to Register's contentions, would cause harm to Register's systems.
[8]地方法院找到那Verio的使用搜尋機器人， 使連續的質問自動化，消耗登記的電腦系
統的能力的重要的部分，由軟體程式組成進行倍數。當只有Verio的機器人將不使登記的
系統喪失能力時， 法庭發現Verio 允許繼續訪問登記計算機透過這樣機器人如果" 非常
可能" 那其他互聯網服務供應商將想出相似計畫訪問登記的數據，並且系統將負擔過重
並且將催毀。我們不能說這些結論是不合理的。也不在那裡給Verio 值得爭論它不能被從
事到那時登記決不教它不要使用機器人程式的非法侵入的那個。 因為地方法院注意到，
登記抱怨足夠建議Verio它機器人的使用不批准和根據登記競爭，將引起給登記系統的危
害。
(e) Lanham Act
(e) 拉納姆行動
On Register's claim for trademark infringement and unfair competition under
the Lanham Act, the district court enjoined Verio from using Register's
marks, including "Register.com" and "first step on the web," as well as from
committing acts "calculated to or ... likely to cause third parties to
believe that Verio" is sponsored, endorsed or approved by Register. By
letter submitted after oral argument, Register agreed to the deletion of the
prohibition concerning use of "first step on the web." See Letter from
William Patry, Counsel for Register, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (May 22, 2001). We accordingly direct the district court to
modify the preliminary injunction by deleting the prohibition of use of
"first step on the web."
關於登記的商標侵犯行為和不公平競爭的索賠在拉納姆下行動，地方法院禁止Verio使用
登記的標記，包括" Register.com" 並且" 第一個台階在網上，" 以及從犯行動" 計算對
或者 ... 可能引起第三者相信那Verio" 發起，因為登記被簽署或者批准。以信提交在之
後口頭辯論，記錄同意刪除的關於使用的那些禁止" 在網上的第一個台階。 " 看見威廉
Patry，登記的律師來的信，到美國第2條電路(2001年5月22日)的上訴法院 . 我們照著直
接地方法院透過刪除禁止的用途修改這初步命令" 在網上的第一個台階。 "
Verio contends there was no adequate basis for the portion of the injunction
based on the Lanham Act. We disagree. In our view, the injunction was within
the scope of the court's permitted discretion.
Verio 力辯沒有基於拉納姆的命令的部分的足夠的基礎行動。 我們不同意。 在我們
看來，命令在法庭允許的審慎範圍內。
The district court found two bases for the injunction. The first was that in
its early calls to recent registrants to solicit the sale of web site
development services, Verio explicitly referred to the registrant's
registration with Register. The evidence showed that a number of registrants
believed the caller was affiliated with Register. The evidence further
showed that Verio's marketers, calling registrants almost immediately
following their registration, left messages saying they were calling
"regarding your recently registered domain name," and asked to be called
back. The district court found that the script was misleading. It noted
that Verio in fact was not calling "regarding the recently registered domain
name," but was rather calling regarding the registrant's establishment of a
web site for which Verio wanted to offer services. Evidence presented to the
district court showed that registrants who received such calls were prompted
to call back immediately because the message led them to believe the call
indicated some problem with Register's registration of the domain name, and
that they assumed from the nature of the message that the entity calling was
affiliated with Register.
地方法院為命令建立兩個基礎。在它盡快電話給向網站發展服務徵求銷售的新近的註冊人
內，Verio明確地用登記指註冊人的登記。證據顯示許多註冊人相信呼喊者附屬於登記。
證據更進一步顯示繼他們的登記，讓消息說他們正打電話"之後，Verio的銷售商，幾乎立
即叫註冊人 關於你的最近記錄的域名，"並且要求被叫回。地方法院發現書寫是使人誤解
的。 它指出Verio實際上沒有" 關於最近記錄的域名，" 但是當然正關於註冊人建立
Verio 想要提供服務的一個網站。 收到這樣的電話的註冊人被促使立即回電話的到顯
示的地方法院提出的證據， 因為消息使他們相信電話用登記的域名的登記表明一些問題
， 他們從叫的實體附屬於登記的消息的自然那裡以為。
[9] We believe Register has shown an adequate basis to support the district
court's exercise of discretion in issuing the injunction. Verio's use of
Register's name alone was sufficient basis for the injunction.
Notwithstanding that Verio had agreed, prior to the initiation of the suit,
to cease using Register's name, Verio had previously used Register's mark in
its solicitation calls. The fact that it had agreed to cease doing so was a
factor that might have led the court to decline to issue the injunction, but
it did not prevent the court from considering Verio's previous infringing
behavior as a justification for the injunction.
[9]我們相信記錄顯示一足夠基礎支援地方法院發行命令的審慎的練習。單單Verio對登記
的名字的使用是命令的足夠的基礎。儘管Verio已經同意，在衣服的開始之前， 為了停止
使用登記名字，Verio 以前使用登記馬克在它的懇求內叫。 它已經同意停止如此做的
事實是可能領導法庭拒絕發布命令的一個原素，但是它沒阻止法庭認為Verio的以前的破
壞的行為為命令的理由。
The district court was also within its discretion in concluding that Verio's
script for the solicitation calls was misleading. Verio's calls, while
prompted by the recent registration of the domain name, were not "regarding
your recently registered domain name." Verio's interest was not in the
domain name but in the opportunity to offer web services to the owner of a
new site. The district court was within its discretion in finding that the
reference to the recently registered domain name misleadingly induced
registrants to call back, believing the registration of their domain name
had encountered a problem, and that the calling party was affiliated with the
registration. Verio could easily change the text of its message so as to
avoid the misleading implication, without detriment to its legitimate efforts
to solicit business. We conclude that there was adequate basis for the
issuance of the injunction
地方法院也在它斷定Verio的懇求的書寫叫的審慎內是使人誤解的。Verio的電話，當以域
名的新近的登記促使時，不" 關於你的最近記錄的域名。 " Verio的興趣不在域名方面而
是在給一個新站點的擁有人提供Web服務的機會裡。地方法院是在在發現提到最近記錄的
域名引入歧途促使註冊人回電話過程中的它的自行處理內，相信他們的域名的登記已經遇
到一個問題，並且叫的聚會附屬於登記。 以便沒有損害它的合法的努力避免使人誤解暗
示懇求生意Verio能容易兌換它消息的正文。我們斷定對於命令的發行有足夠的基礎。
Nor does the mere fact that Verio's representatives identified themselves as
"calling from Verio" preclude a finding of misleading practice. The
statement that the solicitor was "calling from Verio" did not prevent
customers from assuming that Verio was connected with the registrar of their
domain names.
Verio的代表證實他們自己是"的事實也不 從Verio 叫" 排除誤導實踐發現。 律師是"
陳述 從Verio 叫" 不要阻止用戶以為Verio與他們的域名的註冊員有關係。
We reject Verio's contention that the district court had no adequate basis
for the Lanham Act injunction.
我們拒絕Verio地方法院沒有拉納姆的足夠的基礎的論點扮演命令。
(f) Other claims
(f) 其他索賠
The rulings outlined above justify the affirmance of the preliminary
injunction, without need to discuss the other contentions raised.
略述的統治在上面證明初步的命令的affirmance是正確的，沒有需要討論提升的其它競
爭。
CONCLUSION
The ruling of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED, with the exception that
the court is directed to delete the reference to "first step on the web" from
paragraph one of its order.
結論
地方法院的裁決被特此肯定， 除了法庭告訴刪除提到" 網頁上的第一步 " 從它的指令
的第一段落。
APPENDIX
附錄
Defendant-Appellant, Verio, Inc. ("Verio") appeals from the December 11,
order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Barbara S. Jones, Judge ) granting the motion of Plaintiff-Appellee
Register.com, Inc. ("Register.com") for a preliminary injunction enjoining
Verio from (1) using Register.com's trademarks; (2) representing or
otherwise suggesting to third parties that Verio's services have the
sponsorship, endorsement, or approval of Register.com; (3) accessing
Register.com's computers in any manner, except in compliance with
Register.com's terms and conditions; and (4) using data obtained from
Register.com's database for marketing activities. In its complaint,
Register.com alleged Lanham Act violations, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
("CFAA") violations, and unfair competition in violation of New York
statutory law, along with trespass to chattels, breach of contract, tortious
interference with contract, and tortious interference with potential business
relations in violation of New York common law. After extensive briefing,
including an amicus brief from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers ("ICANN") , and a hearing on Register.com's motion, the district
court concluded that Register.com had demonstrated both a likelihood of
success on the merits and the potential for irreparable harm with respect to
its breach of contract, CFAA, trespass to chattels, and Lanham Act claims.
On appeal, Verio challenges the district court's conclusions regarding each
of these claims.
被告上訴人，Verio股份有限公司 ( " Verio" ) 從11 12月，美國地方初審法院適合紐
約的南的地區的命令那裡請求(巴巴拉。瓊斯法官) 准許原告被控訴者Register.com股份
有限公司的提議 ( " Register.com" ) 對於一條初步的命令禁止Verio來說 ( 1 )使用
Register.com的商標；(2)描述或者相反向第三者建議Verio的服務有發起，背書或者
Register.com的贊成；(3)除按照Register.com的條款之外，以任何形式訪問
Register.com的計算機； 並且 ( 4 ) 使用數據從Register.com的銷售活動的數據庫獲得
。 在它的抱怨，聲稱的Register.com拉納姆內行動破壞，計算機舞弊並且虐待行動("
CFAA" ) 破壞， 以及違反紐約法定法律的不公平競爭，跟對動產的非法侵入一起，違反
紐約普通法的違約，侵害干涉合約和侵害干涉潛在的貿易關係。在廣大簡要介紹之後，包
括從這網際網路公司簡短的amicus適合分發名字和數目(" ICANN" ) ,以及在
Register.com的運動上的聽力，地方法院斷定Register.com已經證明兩可能對優點的成功
和與它的違約有關的不能修補的危害的潛能，CFAA，非法侵入到動產，並且拉納姆扮演索
賠。在呼籲時，Verio挑戰地方法院的關於這些索賠中的每個的結論。
We affirm the district court on the trespass to chattels claim but find that
the district court committed various errors in assessing Register.com's
likelihood of success on the merits of its CFAA claim and the propriety of
injunctive relief on Register.com's contract claim. With respect to the
contract claim, we conclude that (1) Register.com cannot demonstrate the
potential for irreparable harm necessary for an injunction, (2) Register.com
has not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits because
a contract may not have been formed between Verio and Register.com, (3)
granting an equitable remedy preventing Verio from using the WHOIS
information under these circumstances would be inappropriate, therefore
Register.com is not entitled to a preliminary injunction on its contract
claim.
我們肯定在對動產的非法侵入上的地方法院聲稱但是找到那 地方初審法院犯在確定
Register.com 成功在它CFAA的優點上的可能的各種各樣錯誤聲稱和命令減輕的正當在
Register.com的合約索賠上。關於合約索賠，我們結束那
( 1 ) Register.com不能為為一條命令必要的不能修補的危害證明潛能，
( 2 ) Register.com沒對優點證明成功的足夠的可能，因為一份合約不可能在Verio 和
Register.com之間形成，( 3 )假如防止Verio使用WHOIS在這些情形下的訊息的公平的治
療法將是不適當的，因此Register.com沒有資格得到關於它的合約索賠的一條初步的命令
。
訟。
With respect to the CFAA claims, we find it unlikely that Register.com could
show that Verio's use of Register.com's computer systems resulted in monetary
damages of $5,000 or more as required to maintain a civil action under the
CFAA. Finally, with respect to Register.com's trademark claims, we find moot
Verio's appeal of the district court's grant of preliminary injunctive relief
concerning Verio's use of Register.com's marks because (1) Verio has agreed
by letter sent to Register.com not to use the "register.com" mark (or any
similar mark) and (2) Register.com has agreed by letter submitted to this
Court to allow the reference to the "first on the web" mark to be stricken
from the first paragraph of the preliminary injunction. We also find that
the district court erred in its assessment of Register.com's likelihood of
success on the merits of its trademark claim pertaining to Verio's
solicitations to Register.com's customers, which did not involve the use of
Register.com's marks, because the court failed to identify "actionable
conduct" on Verio's behalf. Accordingly, we affirm in part, dismiss the
appeal in part as moot, and vacate and remand the judgment of the district
court.
關於CFAA 聲稱， 我們發現它為不太可能的那Register.com 能顯示Register.com的電腦
系統的Verio的使用導致5，000 美元的貨幣損害或者非常象要求在CFAA下保持一次民事訴
訟。 最後， 關於Register.com的商標聲稱， 我們發現討論Verio地方法院初步命令減
輕關於Verio Register.com的的使用的津貼的呼籲標明因為 ( 1 ) Verio 同意以寄給的
信給Register.com不要使用" register.com" 標明(或者任何相似的標記) 並且 ( 2 )
Register.com 以提交的信同意這法庭允許提到" 首先在網上" 標明被從初步的命令的
前段落那裡遇難。 我們也發現地方法院對優點在它的成功的Register.com的可能的評
價過程中犯錯誤它商標個中，聲稱屬於Verio 懇求給Register.com 用戶，哪個不與有關
Register.com的的使用標明，因為法庭不能鑑定" 可控告行為" 代表Verio。 因此，
我們肯定，作為討論部分駁回那些呼籲，並且騰出和還押判決的地方法院。
I. BACKGROUND
This appeal raises a number of important issues that require us to look
carefully at the context within which the dispute between Register.com and
Verio has arisen. To briefly explain, the dispute between Register.com and
Verio arises from Verio's use of information obtained by Verio by accessing
Register.com's database. Register.com is a "registrar" of domain names on
the Internet. As a registrar, Register.com secures on behalf of end-users
(i.e., individuals, corporate entities, etc.) exclusive rights over the use
of domain names to designate the "location" of end-users' on-line
information. Register.com also provides additional services to end-users who
have registered a domain name, such as web site hosting and development.
Although the defendant in this case, Verio, is not a registrar, it competes
with Register.com in the provision of these additional "downstream" services.
As a registrar, Register.com has a competitive advantage over non-registrars
in marketing these downstream services because it has contact with and
obtains information about potential customers as an integral part of the
registration process. In order to compete effectively with Register.com,
Verio first collects the contact information ("WHOIS" information) of the
end-users who have registered new domain names with Register.com and other
registrars, and then markets its services directly to those end-users. Verio
utilizes a software program to automate the process of collecting WHOIS
information. This program sends numerous queries to Register.com's WHOIS
database on a daily basis. Register.com alleges in this suit that Verio's
use of WHOIS information gained in these daily electronic explorations of
Register.com's database to market Verio's own downstream services violates
terms of use that Register.com imposed on the information, giving rise to the
host of claims noted above.
這次呼籲提出要求我們仔細地看著在Register.com和Verio之間的爭論已經出現的上下文
的許多重要的問題。為了短暫解釋，在Register.com 和Verio之間的爭論起因於Verio的
使用透過訪問Register.com的數據庫Verio 獲得的訊息。Register.com一" 註冊員" 在網
際網路上的域名。作為一個註冊員，Register.com代表最終用戶獲得(即，個人，公司個
體，等等) 專有在正上方使用域名對指定" 位置"最終用戶的線上訊息。Register.com也
對最終用戶，其已經記錄一個域名，例如舉辦的網站和發展提供另外服務。雖然被告在這
箱，Verio內，不同註冊員，它同競爭在另外的這些的供應內的Register.com" 順流" 服
務。作為一個註冊員，Register.com在銷售這些下游的服務上超過非註冊員有一種競爭優
勢，它與關於準客戶的訊息有聯繫並且獲得作為登記過程的組成部分。 與Register.com
一起為了有效競爭，Verio首先收集這聯繫訊息(" WHOIS" 訊息) 已經向Register.com
和其他註冊員提出新域名的那些最終用戶，然後向那些最終用戶直接銷售它的服務。
Verio利用一個軟體程式使收集WHOIS 訊息的過程自動化。這個程式在一個每日的基礎上
把許多疑問號送到Register.com的WHOIS 數據庫。Register.com披這所謂"聲稱"的衣服，
在這些每日的電子探索增強的那Verio的使用WHOIS 訊息 Verio 市場的Register.com的數
據庫承認下游的服務違犯使用條款施加於訊息的Register.com，引起在上面注意到的索賠
的主人。
This dispute raises several thorny issues concerning the extent to which an
entity such as Register.com may gain a competitive advantage over others by
restricting access to and / or use of the information obtained during the
registration process. The complexity of the dispute is increased by the
nature of WHOIS information and the obligations imposed on Register.com by
virtue of its contractual relationship with ICANN.
這爭論舉起幾關於範圍的棘手的問題， Register.com那樣的實體越過其它人獲得競爭優
勢可能以限制的入口和/或者使用的在這登記過程期間獲得的那些訊息。 爭論的複雜性
WHOIS 訊息的自然增加和義務施加於Register.com 依靠它合約的關係與ICANN一起。
Basically, WHOIS information is public information that no one owns . Free
public access to WHOIS information serves two important public policies:
first, it facilitates the resolution of trademark, cybersquatting, and other
domain name-related disputes; and second, it facilitates competition among
downstream service providers such as Register.com and Verio. ICANN, a
quasi-governmental entity created to take over significant responsibilities
from the federal government as part of the privatization of the domain name
system ("DNS"),requires Register.com, like every other registrar, to maintain
and provide free public access to its WHOIS database. ICANN also limits the
types of restrictions that Register.com, and every other registrar, may place
on the use of WHOIS information. Because of these underlying complexities, we
must grapple with the workings of the DNS, its privatization, the creation of
ICANN and its role in DNS governance, and the relationships between ICANN,
Register.com, and Verio in order to analyze the equitable issues related to
the contract claim, as well as the trespass to chattels and CFAA claims
presented to us on appeal. Our treatment of these background issues is
limited in purpose to putting this particular dispute between Register.com
and Verio in context and is by no means a comprehensive history.
Furthermore, we need not and therefore do not reach legal questions related
to the propriety of the privatization process or ICANN's operations.
基本上，WHOIS 訊息是沒有人擁有的公開訊息。免費公開WHOIS 訊息的入口服務於兩個重
要的國家政策︰首先，它使商標，cybersquatting 和其他有關域名的爭論的決定變得容
易；其次是，它在順流象Register.com 和Verio那樣的服務提供商中使競爭變得容易。
ICANN，類似政府實體創造接管聯邦政府的重要的責任為部分的私營化的網域命名系統("
DNS" ),要求Register.com，象一樣每隔註冊員，保持並且提供免費公眾參與它的WHOIS
數據庫。 ICANN也限Register.com 和其它的註冊員，可能放在使用WHOIS 訊息上的這類
型限制。 因為這些基礎的複雜性， 我們必須克服DNS，它的私營化，在DNS 統治過程中
的創造ICANN和它的角色的運轉， 以及在ICANN，Register.com之間的關係，以及為了分
析公平的問題與合約索賠有關的Verio，以及非法侵入在動產和CFAA 聲稱在呼籲上給我們
。 我們對這些背景問題的處理對用上下文把這特別的爭論放在Register.com 和Verio之
間在目的方面受限制絕不是綜合的歷史。而且，我們不必因此沒到達正當的那些私營化處
理的與有關的問題合法或者ICANN的經營。
A. The Domain Name System ("DNS")
1. What the domain name system is and how it works
A . 網域命名系統(" DNS" )
1. 網域命名系統是什麼和它怎樣使用
The Internet is comprised of numerous interconnected communications and
computer networks connecting a wide range of end-users to each other.
Every end-user's computer that is connected to the Internet is assigned a
unique Internet Protocol number ("IP address"), such as 123.456.78.90, that
identifies its location (i.e., a particular computer-to-network connection)
and serves as the routing address for email, pictures, requests to view a web
page, and other data sent across the Internet from other end-users. This IP
address routing system is essential to the basic functionality of the
Internet, in a similar fashion as mailing addresses and telephone numbers are
essential to the functionality of the postal service and telecommunications
system.
網際網路包括很多相互連接的通訊和計算機網把大範圍最終用戶和彼此連結起來。 每終
端用戶計算機連接那些網際網路被分發獨特網際協議號碼(" IP 位址" ),像
123.456.78.90那樣，那鑑定(即，一個特別的計算機對網路的連接)的它的位置 並且為
電子郵件，照片作為鋪設的位址，請求觀看一個網頁，並且其他數據從其他最終用戶穿過
網際網路送。 這個IP位址布線系統對網際網路的基本的功能性很重要，用相似模式像郵
寄位址的那樣和電話號碼對郵政服務和電信系統的功能性很重要。
A "domain name" is an alphanumeric text representation (often a word) that
identifies a numerical IP address, thus making it easier to remember. While
every end-user's computer connected to the Internet is assigned an IP
address, not every IP address has a corresponding domain name. Instead, a
domain name is associated with a particular IP address (or group of IP
addresses) only when an end-user registers the domain name. The primary
purpose of domain names is to "make it easier for users to navigate the
Internet; the real networking is done through the IP numbers. Domain names
consist of various segments separated by periods, such that "the
left-to-right string of name components proceeds from the most specific to
the most general, that is, the root of the tree, ..., is on the right." Rony
& Rony, The Domain Name Handbook, at 105 . The "Top Level Domain" ("TLD")
refers to the final segment of the name . There are three-letter, general
purpose TLDs ("gTLDs"), such as ".com," " .edu," ".gov," and ".org," as well
as two-letter country-code TLDs ("ccTLDs") that are available to end-users in
particular geographic/political locations. The "Second Level Domain" ("SLD")
refers to the second-to-last segment of the web address and generally
corresponds to an organization. These segments each indicate a particular
level within a hierarchical database. This hierarchical database, which maps
domain names to IP addresses, is distributed across multiple computers that
manage particular parts (or "zones") of the database and are openly
accessible via the Internet. database and are openly accessible via the
Internet.
" 網域名" 是文字數字的正文表現(經常是一句話) 那鑑定數字IP 位址，因此使記得更
容易。當連接網際網路的每台最終用戶的計算機被分發IP 位址時，不是每IP 位址有一個
相應網域名。相反，一個網域名與特別的IP 位址(或者IP 位址的組織)有關 只有一個最
終用戶記錄域名。預選目的網域名對" 使用戶駕駛網際網路更容易； 真正的聯網被透過
IP 數目做。網域名由組成各種各樣部分分開以時期，因此" 名字零部件的左到右線起源
於最僅限於最一般的的，即，樹的根， ...,在右邊。 " 羅尼&羅尼，網域名手冊，在105
。 " 高水準的領土" ( " TLD" ) 參考名字的最後的部分。多功能TLDs(" gTLDs" ),例
如" .com，" " .edu，" ".gov，" 並且" .org，" 以及二信國家代碼TLDs("
ccTLDs" ) 那尤其對最終用戶是可提供的地理/ 政治位置。 " 第二個水準領土" ( "
SLD" ) 參考第2 給上個部分這個網址和一般相當於組織。 這些部分各自在分級的數據庫
內注明特別的水準。 分級的這數據庫，哪個地圖網域名兌一IP 位址，被分佈過管理特
別部分的多台計算機(或者" 區域" ) 數據庫和公開可達到透過網際網路。
The information maintained by each of these computers is stored in what is
commonly referred to as the "zone file." Generally, Internet service
providers ("ISPs") utilize "domain name servers" to translate domain names
into numerical IP addresses, based on (1) queries to Root, TLD and SLD "name
servers," or (2) cached data obtained from those servers, which is typically
kept for the web sites requested most frequently by their end-users.
Essentially, when an end-user types a domain name into her browser, for
example, her ISP receives it and, after translating it through the domain
name server, forwards a request for data to the IP address corresponding to
the domain name the end-user typed in. The recipient of that request may then
respond by sending the requested data to the requestor's IP address.
那些訊息以這幾次電腦中的每個保持被儲存，在其方面通常被稱為"區域檔案" 通常，網
路服務供應商(" ISP" ) 利用" 網域名伺服器" 為了把網域名翻譯成為數字IP 位址，基
於 ( 1 ) 對根的質問，TLD和SLD" 名稱伺服器，" 或者 ( 2 ) 隱藏從那些伺服器獲得
的數據，被通常儲存網站被他們的終端用戶最經常請求。 基本上，當一個終端用戶列
印一個網域名進她的瀏覽器時，例如，她的ISP 收到它，在透過網域名伺服器翻譯它之後
，把一項對數據的要求寄到相當於終端用戶鍵入的域名的IP 位址。那接受者請求可能然
後以寄給請求數據隨著請求者IP 位址回答。
2. Privatization of the DNS
2. DNS的私營化
As did many other components of the Internet infrastructure, the DNS
originated under government grants. In the Internet's infancy, a unique,
authoritative list of IP addresses and their corresponding hosts was
maintained by the late Dr. Jon Postel. Under government contract, Postel
began managing the list as a graduate student at UCLA in the 1970s and
continued to do so at the University of Southern California's Information
Science Institute ("USC-ISI") after obtaining his Ph.D. Id. "In October 1983,
Postel and his colleague, Joyce Reynolds, authored RFC 920, 'an official
policy statement' of the Internet Architecture Board (a private Internet
standards body) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
This official policy of the government and the Internet standards body
defined most of the TLDs in use to this day." Over the next ten years, Postel
and colleagues were intimately involved in the development and management of
the DNS, although formal responsibility for the system was allocated to
different entities through a series of government contracts.
如網際網路基礎設施很多其他組成部分一樣，DNS在政府支援下面發起。在網際網路的嬰
兒期，一個IP位址和他們的相應主人的獨特，權威的目錄被前博士保持 喬恩‧波斯特爾
。在政府合約下，波斯特爾開始管理目錄作為在20世紀70年代的在UCLA 的一個研究生，
在南加州大學訊息科學研究所如此繼續做("USC-ISI" ) 獲得他的博士後。"在1983年10月
，波斯特爾和他的同事，喬伊絲‧雷諾茲，發起RFC 920， Internet體系架構委員會(一
個私人網際網路標準)的'一份正式的政策聲明' 以及防禦發展研究計畫機構(DARPA) .
政府的這個官方的政策和直到今天，網際網路標準身體確定大多數使用中的TLDs。"在今
後10 年裡， 波斯特爾和同事親密涉及DNS的發展和管理， 雖然系統的正式的責任被透過
一系列政府合約分發到不同的實體。
Pursuant to authority granted to it by the 1991 High-Performance Computing
Act, the National Science Foundation ("NSF") "assumed responsibility for
coordinating and funding the management of the non-military portion of the
Internet infrastructure," including responsibility for the registration of
domain names in 1991. In late 1992, the NSF entered into an exclusive
five-year cooperative agreement with Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") for the
registration of new domain names. Thereafter, NSI performed "key
registration, coordination, and maintenance functions of the Internet domain
system," including registering domain names in the generic TLDs, such as
.com, .edu, etc., on a first come, first served basis, and "operating the 'A'
root server, which maintains the authoritative root database and replicates
changes to the other root servers on a daily basis." NSI also maintained the
authoritative database of Internet registrations , called the WHOIS database.
以這1991種高性能按照權力給它的計算行動，國家科學基金會(" NSF" ) "對協調和為網
際網路基礎設施的非軍事部分的管理提供資金網際網路基礎設施的非軍事部分的管理負責
，" 包括在1991年的對網域名的登記的責任。 在1992年後期，NSF 參加專有的5 歲
的合作的與網路解決辦法股份有限公司的協議 ( " NSI" ) 對於新網域名的登記來說。
此後，NSI 作秀" 關鍵登記，協調和網際網路領土系統的維修功能，" 包括註冊在這
一般TLDs內的網域名，例如.edu，等等，以先到先服務的原則，.com，和" 經營根伺服器
，哪個保持威權根數據庫並且複製換乘其它根伺服器關於一個每日的基礎。 " NSI也堅
持網際網路登記的威權的數據庫，叫WHOIS 數據庫。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.229.29.165
※ 編輯: FantasyNova 來自: 61.229.29.165 (01/05 04:35)