.mobi 3rd Sedo .mobi auction - Information please

[TheBaldOne]

Hi All,

Can anyone who took part in the fiasco that was the last Sedo .mobi auction inform me if the auction was arranged as Sedo's normal auctions are? (i.e. If a bid was placed in the last 10 minutes of the auction then the auction would be extended by 10 minutes.)

Did the above happen in the second auction of the 3rd auction?

Any help would be much appreciated.

 

[webecri]

Yes that did happen Bill.

 

[tophatter]

Yes,that is what happened. In addition to your question how amny times can sedo extend the auction ?? Sorry to post question with question.

 

[webecri]

__

This were the highest bids in the last 5 minutes of the original auction. I copied it for my dotMobiz.com website, but never used it.

games.mobi - 300,000 $US - 107 - 5m
music.mobi - 66,000 $US - 62 - 5m
juegos.mobi - 34,000 $US - 76 - 5m
sports.mobi - 31,000 $US - 12 - 5m
game.mobi - 29,500 $US - 75 - 5m
movies.mobi - 26,500 $US - 41 - 5m
videos.mobi - 15,500 $US - 31 - 5m
play.mobi - 15,000 $US - 51 - 5m
video.mobi - 11,000 $US - 19 - 5m
movie.mobi - 10,603 $US - 21 - 5m
radio.mobi - 10,603 $US - 34 - 5m
horoscopes.mobi - 10,600 $US - 34 - 5m
job.mobi - 10,100 $US - 15 - 5m
restaurant.mobi - 10,100 $US - 23 - 5m
art.mobi - 9,750 $US - 6 - 5m
Reserve not met wine.mobi - 9,000 $US - 12 - 5m
musica.mobi - 8,100 $US - 55 - 5m
vodka.mobi - 7,500 $US - 16 - 5m
spiele.mobi - 7,470 $US - 43 - 5m
jokes.mobi - 7,400 $US - 24 - 5m
sport.mobi - 6,600 $US - 20 - 5m
photos.mobi - 6,350 $US - 19 - 5m
freegames.mobi - 6,100 $US - 32 - 5m
photo.mobi - 6,100 $US - 20 - 5m
easy.mobi - 5,655 $US - 57 - 5m
dictionary.mobi - 5,600 $US - 59 - 5m
clubs.mobi - 5,200 $US - 13 - 5m
coffee.mobi - 5,200 $US - 12 - 5m
soccer.mobi - 5,200 $US - 26 - 5m
fashion.mobi - 5,125 $US - 26 - 5m
classifieds.mobi - 5,100 $US - 20 - 5m
flower.mobi - 5,100 $US - 25 - 5m
gift.mobi - 5,100 $US - 13 - 5m
Reserve not met beer.mobi - 5,000 $US - 3 - 5m
film.mobi - 5,000 $US - 16 - 5m
Reserve not met pictures.mobi - 5,000 $US - 5 - 5m
horoscope.mobi - 4,750 $US - 31 - 5m
florist.mobi - 4,307 $US - 45 - 5m
videogames.mobi - 4,150 $US - 11 - 5m
fitness.mobi - 4,000 $US - 64 - 5m
phonebook.mobi - 3,750 $US - 11 - 5m
fotos.mobi - 3,700 $US - 19 - 5m
nightclubs.mobi - 3,661 $US - 19 - 5m
funny.mobi - 3,200 $US - 23 - 5m
hiphop.mobi - 3,100 $US - 35 - 5m
entertainment... 3,050 $US - 7 - 5m
roses.mobi - 3,000 $US - 12 - 5m
club.mobi - 2,800 $US - 34 - 5m
comedy.mobi - 2,550 $US - 11 - 5m
Reserve not met careers.mobi - 2,500 $US - 2 - 5m

 

[timmaay]

Reserve not met careers.mobi - 2,500 $US - 2 - 5m

just about sums up what .mobi is all about

 

[Mobi Cheap]

Reserve not met careers.mobi - 2,500 $US - 2 - 5m

just about sums up what .mobi is all about

Not following that argument, sorry. What does it sum up or prove exactly?

 

[qO_Op]

I'm pretty sure it is bids placed within the last 5 minutes that extends the auction for 10 more minutes...but then when a bid is placed after that it extends a further 10 mins even if it is at 9 mins...

Can anyone confirm this? I may be wrong.

 

[Keith]

Here we go again...

 

[TheBaldOne]

Thank you all.

From Sedo statements it seems that they had bids (proxy bids) placed during the period of the auction, the seven days it ran, and did not place these bids into the auction. This would suggest that they were being purposefully held so as to extend the auction by placing them within the auction in the last few minutes.

I would ask here for those representing the plaintiffs in this matter to consider the full legal implications of Sedo not placing these bids as and when they were made. If it is felt that these bids were to be used in a manipulative way to possibly coerce other bidders to increase their bids then my understanding is that this could put those involved in something other than just a civil dispute. The existance of, timing of, and evidence of these proxy bids must now be disclosed as well as the identities of the proxy bidders. Now they are saaying that mTLD have the right to void the auction, but I have published on this forum the contract, no where does the contract give mTLD that right.

The puzzling thing through all of this has been why did Sedo/mTLD 'extend the auction' (run the unlawful second auction) for 3 hours instead of just the 5/7/8 minutes that they say the server was down for?

The situation has so far been that Sedo/mTLD entered into binding contracts with winners of the first auction. Then Sedo/mTLD ran an unlawful second auction. After this auction they insisted that it was lawful and the winners of this unlawful second auction were the rightful winners. Sedo/mTLD then are given legal argument by the plaintiffs from the first auction and changed their minds knowing that in law they would have more chance of finding a snowball in hell than Sedo/mTLD winning their case in the courts. Now they are trying to run a third auction (unlawfully) by voiding both previous auctions.

But witholding bids in the first auction opens up a whole new aspect.

Webcri, well done copying that info, it will be invaluable in proving that the so-called higher proxy bids had not been put into play with only 5 minutes to go. Well done again.

 

[allnicksgone]

Thank you all.

From Sedo statements it seems that they had bids (proxy bids) placed during the period of the auction, the seven days it ran, and did not place these bids into the auction. This would suggest that they were being purposefully held so as to extend the auction by placing them within the auction in the last few minutes.

I would ask here for those representing the plaintiffs in this matter to consider the full legal implications of Sedo not placing these bids as and when they were made. If it is felt that these bids were to be used in a manipulative way to possibly coerce other bidders to increase their bids then my understanding is that this could put those involved in something other than just a civil dispute. The existance of, timing of, and evidence of these proxy bids must now be disclosed as well as the identities of the proxy bidders.

The puzzling thing through all of this has been why did Sedo/mTLD 'extend the auction' (run the unlawful second auction) for 3 hours instead of just the 5/7/8 minutes that they say the server was down for?

The situation has so far been that Sedo/mTLD entered into binding contracts with winners of the first auction. Then Sedo/mTLD ran an unlawful second auction. After this auction they insisted that it was lawful and the winners of this unlawful second auction were the rightful winners. Sedo/mTLD then are given legal argument by the plaintiffs from the first auction and change their minds knowing that in law you would have more chance of finding a snowball in hell than Sedo/mTLD winning their case in the courts.

You are on to something here. I believe this also proves that Sedo/mTLD were the second shooters in the grassy knoll and probably had a hand in the cover up at Area 51.

 

[Mobi Cheap]

Thank you all.

From Sedo statements it seems that they had bids (proxy bids) placed during the period of the auction, the seven days it ran, and did not place these bids into the auction. This would suggest that they were being purposefully held so as to extend the auction by placing them within the auction in the last few minutes.

I would ask here for those representing the plaintiffs in this matter to consider the full legal implications of Sedo not placing these bids as and when they were made. If it is felt that these bids were to be used in a manipulative way to possibly coerce other bidders to increase their bids then my understanding is that this could put those involved in something other than just a civil dispute. The existance of, timing of, and evidence of these proxy bids must now be disclosed as well as the identities of the proxy bidders.

The puzzling thing through all of this has been why did Sedo/mTLD 'extend the auction' (run the unlawful second auction) for 3 hours instead of just the 5/7/8 minutes that they say the server was down for?

The situation has so far been that Sedo/mTLD entered into binding contracts with winners of the first auction. Then Sedo/mTLD ran an unlawful second auction. After this auction they insisted that it was lawful and the winners of this unlawful second auction were the rightful winners. Sedo/mTLD then are given legal argument by the plaintiffs from the first auction and change their minds knowing that in law you would have more chance of finding a snowball in hell than Sedo/mTLD winning their case in the courts.

TBO, you do realize don't you that proxy bids are only triggered by new competing orders - if one of the servers didn't register a competing order then the system wouldn't have triggered the relevant proxy bids.

At least that's what I can imagine based on experience. I may be totally wrong.

 

[Keith]

Thank you all.

From Sedo statements it seems that they had bids (proxy bids) placed during the period of the auction, the seven days it ran, and did not place these bids into the auction. This would suggest that they were being purposefully held so as to extend the auction by placing them within the auction in the last few minutes.

I would ask here for those representing the plaintiffs in this matter to consider the full legal implications of Sedo not placing these bids as and when they were made. If it is felt that these bids were to be used in a manipulative way to possibly coerce other bidders to increase their bids then my understanding is that this could put those involved in something other than just a civil dispute. The existance of, timing of, and evidence of these proxy bids must now be disclosed as well as the identities of the proxy bidders.

The puzzling thing through all of this has been why did Sedo/mTLD 'extend the auction' (run the unlawful second auction) for 3 hours instead of just the 5/7/8 minutes that they say the server was down for?

The situation has so far been that Sedo/mTLD entered into binding contracts with winners of the first auction. Then Sedo/mTLD ran an unlawful second auction. After this auction they insisted that it was lawful and the winners of this unlawful second auction were the rightful winners. Sedo/mTLD then are given legal argument by the plaintiffs from the first auction and change their minds knowing that in law you would have more chance of finding a snowball in hell than Sedo/mTLD winning their case in the courts.

Just curious, how would a proxy bid be held? It is set to trigger the second a higher bid comes in. There were most likely loads of proxy bids put in place by many different bidders and these would go off as bidding went up. In the case of an auction like this, most bidding takes place in the last seconds as not to drive prices up. When the site went down so did the proxy bids that were already put in place. That does'nt seem to farfetched to me.

If mtld and sedo were acting shady in this auction to drive prices up then why did'nt they do it in the first 2 auctions? I'll go out on a limb and say that absolutely did not happen.

 

[TheBaldOne]

Right then.

I put a proxy bid in of 10,000 apples and hold the current highest bid of 1,000 apples when I place it. Someone else places a bid of 1.050 apples, their bid automatically registers and triggers my proxy placed bid of 1.100 apples, thus I am still the highest bidder. Therefore the proxy bids would be the highest bids.

What Sedo is saying is that the proxy bids on the computer were not being triggered by competing bids during the last 5 minutes or so, but we know that many of the highest bids were placed long before this last 5 minutes. Therefore the 'server meltdown/crash/slowdown' had nothing to do with the proxy bids not being registered in the last 5 minutes!

Although 'conspiracy theories' are detested by most sane people, and especially the courts, there does seem ample evidence here from Sedo's own words and actions to suggest that something was amiss in the 'running of the auction/s'.

By the way Keithmt you never did answer my questions on the other thread, you know about what right had mTLD to void the auction? I published the contract for you to examine and show us all where such a right is given.

Allnicksgone, I accept your flippancy, after all you have no logical argument to give obviously. Make your point logically and debate it, it is that simple.

 

[Keith]

Right then.

I put a proxy bid in of 10,000 apples and hold the current highest bid of 1,000 apples when I place it. Someone else places a bid of 1.050 apples, their bid automatically registers and triggers my proxy placed bid of 1.100 apples, thus I am still the highest bidder.

What Sedo is saying is that the proxy bids on the computer were not being triggered by competing bids during the last 5 minutes or so, but we know that many of the highest bids were placed long before this last 5 minutes. Therefore the 'server meltdown/crash/slowdown' had nothing to do with the proxy bids not being registered in the last 5 minutes!

Although 'conspiracy theories' are detested by most sane people, and especially the courts, there does seem ample evidence here from Sedo's own words and actions to suggest that something was amiss in the 'running of the auction/s'.

My interpretation of sedos comments are different from yours. If the proxys that were in place did not fire because of a meltdown then a redo should take place. You are suggesting that sedo can read the future and knew higher bids would be placed in the last minutes. I doubt they would release a statement about proxy bids not firing based on an assumption like that.

To add to this, we do not know that the high bids were in place before the last 5 minutes because most of us could not access the site to witness when the bids were placed.

 

[TheBaldOne]

Keithmt, do you not see that the supposed 'meltdown' had nothing to do with the proxy bids not being triggered. They would have been triggered as soon as a competing bid had been made, whether that be 6 or 10 or 30 minutes prior or even hours before the supposed 'meltdown'.

As to your assumption that they (Sedo/mTLD) would not make such a statement if it were not so, please oh please, all they have done is come out with contradicting statements since this blew up in their faces!

 

[Mobi Cheap]

...
I put a proxy bid in of 10,000 apples and hold the current highest bid of 1,000 apples when I place it. Someone else places a bid of 1.050 apples, their bid automatically registers and triggers my proxy placed bid of 1.100 apples, thus I am still the highest bidder. Therefore the proxy bids would be the highest bids.
...

Correct, as long as the 1.050 appleas order did get registered by the server. If it wasn't (as may have been the case on Dec 5) then the last bid displayed by the system would be 1,000 and nobody externally would even know tht there was a higher bid - proxy or otherwise.

With that caveat, the quoted paragraph seems OK.

Now the one following it I couldn't follow at all.

Could you possibly quote the exact part(s) of the statement(s) by Sedo that you're referencing?

 

[allnicksgone]

Allnicksgone, I accept your flippancy, after all you have no logical argument to give obviously. Make your point logically and debate it, it is that simple.

Sedo and their computers malfunctioned, plain and simple. No conspiracy. Did they handle the situation the best way at the time? No, probably not.

I will not debate this any further with you. You just keep repeating the same things over and over. It doesn't make it any more true with repetition.

I would rather argue with those that have "evidence" the moon landings never happened, but were staged in a television studio.

 

[Keith]

Keithmt, do you not see that the supposed 'meltdown' had nothing to do with the proxy bids not being triggered. They would have been triggered as soon as a competing bid had been made, whether that be 6 or 10 or 30 minutes prior or even hours before the supposed 'meltdown'.

Correction. Lets say the bid on games was $10 with 30 minutes to go and I am the high bidder. I have a proxy bid of $100. With 6 minutes left you bid $20 but at that instant the server crashes and does not trigger my proxy. That is what I read into sedos comment. You are technically the high bidder at the moment it crashes but my bid should have ultimately been placed.

 

[TheBaldOne]

MobiC,

If the 1,050 apples bid did not get registered then I would still be the highest with a bid of 1,000 apples!

Now then,

"Could you possibly quote the exact part(s) of the statement(s) by Sedo that you're referencing?"

What post is that from please?

Keithmt,

To take your line of argument, yes we might all accept that this would happen on one name, but not for all the names or even more than one name. However Sedo's TOS specifically apply here that should anything like this happen it does not alter the formation of a contract at the end of the auction.


MobiC,

Now I realise the above was a question.

Please see Keithmt's post, #10 I think it is, for clarification on this point.

 

[Mobi Cheap]

MobiC,

If the 1,050 apples bid did not get registered then I would still be the highest with a bid of 1,000 apples!

Now then,

"Could you possibly quote the exact part(s) of the statement(s) by Sedo that you're referencing?"

What post is that from please?

...

That's what the system would have shown, yes - even if somebody had placed a much higher order that didn't get registered by the server in the last few minutes.

So the system clock strikes the end time, system checks for bids in the last x minutes to decide whether to extend automatically as it should, finds none (even though in reality there were some) and therefore decides the auction is over - so it immediately sends you the automated invoice at your last registered price as the winning bidder, plus an automatic email 'signed' by a Sedo rep so you know who to talk to.

Is the true market price reflected in your "winning" order at $1,000?


In response to your question, I was referring to the quoted post (post 13, paragraph 3), the one that starts: "What Sedo is saying is that the proxy bids on the computer were not being triggered by competing bids during the last 5 minutes or so..."