
Duck.com (not the search engine you might expect) - romland
http://www.duck.com
======
rglover
I get _how_ this could be confusing (after all, a lot of people access URLs by
googling them first). Regardless, this isn't Google being evil but rather,
taking advantage of a fortunate coincidence. They acquired a company in the
past that owned a domain. Ironically, that domain happens to be similar to a
competitor in the present. They have no immediate use for the domain, but why
not redirect it to Google (just in case someone was trying to get to their
competitor)? That's not evil, that's business. If DDG is that concerned about
it, make an offer to Google for the domain name.

~~~
tensafefrogs
I don't think Google is doing anything evil here at all. The purchase of On2
(where the domain came from) very clearly had nothing at all to do with
duckduckgo.

That said, if they wanted to be more neighborly they could put up a landing
page like this one instead: <http://omnisio.com/> (also a company that was
acquired by google/youtube).

~~~
notahacker
In all honesty, that "neighbourly" action would be even less helpful since you
can't even find DDG from a basic landing page which might cause the same
confused users to think DDG was one of the assets that Google acquired.

Of course, Google could provide a disambiguation link to DDG on that page, but
I can't honestly see any reason why they would or should provide a competitor
with free advertising. They could sell the domain, but I can't see any reason
why they would or should set an affordable price for a highly-brandable
generic four letter domain name.

------
epi0Bauqu
Backstory: <https://duck.co/topic/duck-com-redirects-to-google>

tl;dr no reason (IMHO) it should point to Google search -- it's just confusing
people.

~~~
artursapek
Does it seem to violate their "Don't be evil" mantra to anybody else? This was
clearly a conscious decision to confuse people.

~~~
notatoad
please, for the love of god, stop with the "google is evil" crap. every single
post about google, there's at least a couple comments saying google is
violating their don't be evil principle. it's really fucking annoying. can't
you find a criticism that's at least a little bit more original?

~~~
artursapek
You shouldn't dismiss my question just because it reminds you of things others
have said. I'm not those other people, I have no idea what you've read. I'm
sorry my question isn't "original" enough for you. Google is a huge tech
company and anyone who reads tech news hears a good amount of criticism about
them. You don't find it weird that they changed duck.com to point to their
domain when DuckDuckGo's founder inquired about it? It seems more likely that
you didn't even think about it because I brought up their slogan.

------
unreal37
How is this "confusing"? The other search engine is not called Duck is it? No
one uses the term Duck to refer to it?

And when people enter duck.com and go to Google, are people thinking they are
at DDG? Doubtful. Anyone who uses DDG knows they went to the wrong site by
mistake.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
It's more about the people who don't use DDG but do know there is a search
engine called duck... Something. What those people aren't looking for is
Google search. Google should redirect it somewhere, anywhere, other than their
main search page

~~~
zimbu668
DDG is the first result if you google: duck search engine

------
jmilkbal
I'd like to think that the evil chocolate factory is so scared of DDG such
that they would buy up a related domain name, but the domain was owned by On2
technologies which, as you may recall, was bought by Google for their video
codec. Of course, Google may be undermining competition in other ways. I'm
sure they are.

They should just donate the domain to DuckDuckGo if only to squash conspiracy
theorists.

~~~
nknight
> _They should just donate the domain to DuckDuckGo if only to squash
> conspiracy theorists._

No, it should go to Black Duck Software. Or perhaps Duck Records. Actually, it
should go to Disney. Duck Guides Inc.? How about Automatic Duck Inc.? Or
perhaps redirect to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck> ? There's a Flying
Duck Inc. in Berkeley, heaven only knows what they do, but they've existed
since 1998, why don't they get the domain?

~~~
hobin
I have seen ducks in my garden. Why don't _I_ get the domain?

------
nikcub
I had no idea what was being referred to here, and I am a DDG user. I thought
duck.com was a search engine in the 90s, or something

------
zyglobe
Unicorn.com (not the technology solution you might expect)

~~~
loceng
Fun domain to own.. what a waste.

------
kjhughes
googlegooglego.com is available as of the moment.

~~~
j_col
I sense a parody site coming on ;-)

------
arb99
all in google's details (and same registrar as their main domain)

    
    
       Domain Name: DUCK.COM
       Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.
       Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com
       Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com
       Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
       Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
       Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
       Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
       Status: clientDeleteProhibited
       Status: clientTransferProhibited
       Status: clientUpdateProhibited
       Updated Date: 19-nov-2010
       Creation Date: 23-feb-1995
       Expiration Date: 24-feb-2015
    
    

edit : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2027691>

------
edanhewitt
I thought duck.com would redirect to the Cyberduck application, at
cyberduck.ch Which is now nag free: <http://isharefil.es/Dm9C>

------
TomGullen
Doesn't this qualify as domain squatting?

~~~
nash
By duckduckgo or google?

------
tsieling
I guess Google isn't so much into helping people find what they might be
looking for. Or they are, so long as what you're looking for is Google.

------
mcritz
Dick move, google.

~~~
phzbOx
_duck_ move.

------
electic
I think this is great for DuckDuckGo. Brings more awareness.

------
danielsiders
If they did move it intentionally it's a stupid move. It can't be winning them
users and someone will mention it and depose staff about it the next time
antitrust proceedings are brought against google.

They should offload the domain to DDG, redirect it while maintaining
ownership, or start a service named duck something that's unrelated to search
and use it for that.

------
jorgem
It is domain squatting. DuckDuckGo could consider hiring lawyer for UDRP --
could probably win the domain.

~~~
jorgem
Sigh, The grounds for an ICANN UDRP complaint require:

(1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
and

(2) why the Respondent (domain-name holder) should be considered as having no
rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that is/are
the subject of the complaint; and

(3) why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered and
being used in bad faith

Domain squatting has nothing to do with who had it first.

You may not like it, but downvoting me doesn't change it.

EDIT: Really, only #2 is questionable in this case. That is why UDRP
arbitration might be worthwhile.

~~~
nknight
> _(1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly
> similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
> and_

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry>

> _(2) why the Respondent (domain-name holder) should be considered as having
> no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that
> is/are the subject of the complaint; and_

They were called Duck. Their early codecs were often referred to as Duck.
Assorted patents are still assigned to The Duck Corporation. Why did DDG
decide to infringe on their trademark?

> _(3) why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered
> and being used in bad faith_

It was registered by The Duck Corporation, and pointed to their home page.
That corporation has eventually wound up as part of Google, and the domain now
points to Google's home page. Seems pretty straightforward.

> _Domain squatting has nothing to do with who had it first._

Trademarks have a lot to do with it. By the way, why is DuckDuckGo infringing
on the trademark of the Oregon Ducks? What about Duck® Brand duct tape?

~~~
jorgem
You don't infringe on a trademark by using the same name -- you infringe if
you use the same name (or confusingly similar name) in the the same type of
business. Or, if you use a similar name to intentionally confuse.

In addition, UDRP is separate from trademarks (mostly), and is just useful
when someone is abusing a domain name to confuse your customers.

------
moocow01
I'm sure Google knows what they are doing. They have a competitor and were
able to obtain a domain name that in some cases will direct people away from
DuckDuckGo and to Google. Yes its seemingly evil but its competition. Yes, yes
but its Google and they are 'not evil'. BS - they aren't evil or nice - they
are a corporation. They will do whatever helps their profit machine. If you
don't like this particular action raise awareness around it and maybe someone
at Google will reconsider that this move may put them in a negative light that
impacts their profits in other ways.

Lastly it makes me somewhat sad that people seem so shocked when Google does
something seemingly evil. You're personifying something that despite all the
marketing is by its nature setup solely to most efficiently make money.
Google's "don't be evil" is just marketing in that their products inherently
require the public's trust to be profitable. I would actually argue that by
the nature of their business plan and profits, Google has to be one of the
most responsive to scrutiny by the public. In other words, in comparison to
other corporations, Google should be one of the easiest to get to change
'evil' actions.

~~~
Terretta
Google's "WebM" video codec is derived from work by a company they acquired,
On2, which was formerly Duck, with a codec called TrueMotion[1].

Duck.com belonged to that company, which Google bought.

This Duck.com[2] is from long before DDG existed.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueMotion_S>

2\.
[http://web.archive.org/web/19970209085620/http://www.duck.co...](http://web.archive.org/web/19970209085620/http://www.duck.com/)

~~~
moocow01
Thats fine but I think many are misinterpreting what occurs upon acquirement
of a company. The assets get broken up and each asset is analyzed to decipher
how it should be put to use or disposed of for the company. Some person or
work group made a decision to point the duck.com new domain name at search.
Its not like when they acquire the domain names they just automatically all
switch to Google.com.

I actually don't find it to be incredibly evil. There are a number of teams at
Google that try to best understand how to best put these domains and assets to
use in the interest of Google. They pointed it at search and continue to do so
because they have gotten some benefit from it.

Additionally, if Google wasn't getting benefit from this wouldn't it make more
sense to point this domain at something WebM related for customer transition?

~~~
Terretta
In my opinion, just like landing pages, it makes most sense to point unused
domain names to the place that makes you the most money.

Pointing On2 at company info makes sense. People typing it would be looking
for that company info. People typing "duck" are very unlikely to be looking
for anything about the old company called Duck so it should go to the money
page.

~~~
underwater
This is obviously a deliberate poking-of-tongues at DDG. <http://www.on2.com/>
was apparently owned by the same company but leads to an page with information
about the buyout.

~~~
Terretta
I just said that about On2, and explained why the two domains would be handled
differently.

