Preserved Topic: microsoft wants mikerowesoft

microsoft is suing this 17 yr old kid saying that his domain name is a copyright infringement news story




[This message has been edited by Lacuna (edited 01-18-2004).]

I can understand why MS won against the owners of microsof.com or micr0soft.com 'coz it was some clear tentative of name squatting, but in the current case the domain name does not sound alike and the syntax is quite different. Plain stupid.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-18-2004).]

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-04-2004).]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Microsoft on this point. "Mike Rowe Soft" is virtually meaningless without the parallel to "Microsoft." And this kid's already admitted he chose the name for his business exactly for the reason that it sounds like "Microsoft."

quote:

---

... in the current case the domain name does not sound alike ...

---

What do you mean they don't sound alike? They sound exactly alike.

(Incidentally, I believe this would be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.)



[This message has been edited by Wes (edited 01-18-2004).]

They do sound alike and the kid used this to create the name but it's not his fault that his real name is Mike Rowe, his mom didn't choose on purpose, because of Microsoft, so, he has the right to have a site with that name.
Screw Microsoft, Allez Mikerowesoft.

Wes:

quote:

---

What do you mean they don't sound alike? They sound exactly alike.

---

Really ? Gosh, I thought the "e" at the end of ROWE was to be pronounced. ( please excuse the froggy )
[edit] In case I'm right, even if it depends of some local accents, it makes a clear difference and avoid all confusion between the 2 domain names [/edit]

Whatever, I must admit I hadn't really take care that Mike ROWE said he also choosed that name for the similarity. Though the domain name reflects HIS real name, he should have expected to have some news from microsoft one day or another. I think he wouldn't have any problem if he had registered the mikerowe-soft.com domain name.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 01-18-2004).]

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-04-2004).]

i still think thats a bit unfair...its not microsoft.com, its mikerowesoft.com
does microsoft really has a right to shut his website down?

I think the siimple fact that he came right out and said that he thought it was cool because it had "the same phonetic sound as the famous company Microsoft" is enough to give MS what they need here.

It having his name in it helps him a bit, but....I think the connection is too obvious and too inentional for him to be able to hold on to the domain.

quote:

---

Customers of Microsoft could also be confused by the mikerowsoft Web page, the letter said.

---

Did they even look at the website? If the customers can be confused between the two sites, they should stay far, far away from any computer.

Apparently MS isn't only rich, their bored. I say just give the kid the $10,000 he asked for and find something more worth while to do, perhaps... yes, improving the software they already have.

[This message has been edited by Rooster (edited 01-18-2004).]

The kid is from Canada. Maybe, because it's in Canada, Canadians will be fairer and won't allow Microsoft to win over a Canadian kid. It's like RIAA sueing DVD Jon in Norway. RIAA lost. There will always be some bias in these cases (Thanks God!) to the local part and so it was. If DVD Jon were American being sued by RIAA in USA, he'd probably get some 20 years in prison and some hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalty. The same for this unfortunate Canadian kid.
Allez Canada, show Microsoft that they aren't God. Do like Norway did. Show USA's bad guys that there are other ways of thinking.

The website of microsoft is confusing for anyboady who wants some older articles, with diffrent styles and different subsites, it's always easy to dig up the right info. I think mike rowe is a smart kid even when he need to shut down his site he already has a lot of media attention. People will remember him because he is "the kid who was forced to shutdown his site by microsoft". If he grows to a good programmer probably SUN would hire him....

__________________________________________
"Art has to be forgotten. Beauty must be realized."
Piet Mondriaan

quote:

---

People will remember him because he is "the kid who was forced to shutdown his site by microsoft".

---

That's exactly what I think. There's no chance to take mikerowesoft.com for microsoft.com, but with the noise made by microsoft around that domain name, they are the ones who can bring the confusion, increase his rank in search engines and then add some value to his domain name. Not to say that the army of advocates hired by microsoft will probably charge them more than $1.000 or even $10.000, and that affair decrease even more the sympathy toward microsoft.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-04-2004).]

quote:

---

... it's not his fault that his real name is Mike Rowe, his mom didn't choose on purpose, because of Microsoft, so, he has the right to have a site with that name.

---

Yes, Mikerowe.com would be fine. Even Mike Rowe Enterprises or Mike Rowe Design. He can use his own name, certainly.

But when he incorporates his name into a business title that's intentionally meant to reflect an established trademark, that's something altogether different. That's exactly what trademark law is meant to protect us against.

A guy named John Mapple could easily create a business called Mapple Electronics. But if he called it Mapple Computer with the obvious intention of using his name's similarity to a famous registered trademark, that's infringement.

Incidentally, it doesn't really have to do with people confusing the kid with the real Microsoft. It has to do with protecting against the dilution of the trademark. Not that it's likely in Microsoft's case, but if a company does not actively defend its trademark, it can legally lose it.




[This message has been edited by Wes (edited 01-18-2004).]

I agree Poi, they should have just gave the kid the $10,000 and been done with it. Maybe they don't take him seriously because of his age, or maybe they just feel the need to crush a 17yo kid with their might, their offer of $10 was laughable.

If I were this kid I'd milk the media attention for all it was worth, if he gets enough public support, I think MS will accede to his request. I'd also go out and register my domain in .net, .us, etc. just to piss them off more.

The only mistake he made was admitting he created the name with microsoft in mind. Even so, I still think it's silly.

Next thing you know they'll be suing people for having a .net at the end of their domain.

It would be funny if he lost if he registered mikerowemedia.com



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 01-18-2004).]

But why should they have to give him any money at all? Rewarding someone for infringing on your trademark? The $10 was to reimburse him for what he paid for the domain -- an offer that was entirely unnecessary on Microsoft's part; they were just being nice.

I understand WES's opinion about the trademark/copyright infrigement due to the stated intention of the kid to keep a company name that sounded like microsoft. It can be considered like a sort of plagiarism. But I think he shouldn't loose a trial or be charged millions of bucks in penalty 'cause there's no real confusion possible ( be it in the syntax, sound, websites, means, target audience ... ).



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-04-2004).]

This kid should be paid handsomely for the domain name. With all the attention he is getting I imagine this domain is starting to generate some real traffic.

I can't help but notice www.mikeROWsoft.com is available. - Nevermind I was wrong.

Jestah

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 01-19-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 01-19-2004).]

Telephone for Mike Rotch. Has anybody seen Mike Rotch lately?

(sorry, I couldn't help it.)

[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 01-19-2004).]

Wes, I am inclined to agree with you, as that is just the way it works. Sometimes the way it works just plain sucks though.

He has stated that he had microsoft in mind when he started the domain, but because he didn't intend to barge in on their market (as if he could) why should it be a problem? His logo, marketing, and website look absolutely nothing like and have nothing to do with MS. The name is spelled differently and includes his REAL name. So, it basically comes down to the way it sounds, and that is just silly.

It kind of angers me to see a multi-billion dollar company, one of the largest in the world, DEMAND of a 17 year old kid that he shut down his site. A site that he worked very hard on and put a lot of time and thought into. And then offer so little to compensate him when he intended no harm and could have done none had he tried. I know common decency is something very rare in corporate america (aka. scum sucking bottom-feeders), but damn, don't they have anything better to do?

If I were in MS's shoes, here is what I would do to benefit all parties. Tell the kid you'll give him the money, but under the condition it is used for higher education. How's that? Everyone wins. The kid gets a little for school, and MS doesn't waste thousands of dollars, probably quite a bit more than the original 10K on lawyers. If I were Bill, I'd rather give my money to a kid with promise than to lawyers any day. MS could have also milked that for some great PR and the kid gets a head start on life.

The alternative is MS vs the 17yo, and that just sounds bad, very bad. At least to me.

MS has platoons of lawyers on retainer anyway...they wouldn't be going out and hiring for this case...they're there regardless

quote:

---

I can understand why MS won against the owners of microsof.com or micr0soft.com 'coz it was some clear tentative of name squatting...

---

Actually, poi, the Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003 applies more to those cases than any law about domain squatting since those domains do not directly reflect Microsoft Corporation. [Unless MSC has trademarked the sound of their firm's name too...]

Pretty good rant about WIPO

"The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." - L. Ron Hubbard, PTS III & Founder of the Church of Scientology.

I personally cannot see why microsoft thinks they can trade mark the phoenetic pronounciation of their name.

And if it is, as they claim, them suing him so that people can avoid confusion, why isn't everyone suing any government who has ever come up with:

1. A health care system

2. A tax system; or

3. A social security system

Becuase, as just about everyone here knows (and especially anyone who's ever had exposure to Australia's new tax system) those are about as confusing as things can get...all the little clauses ans sub-clauses, and things about how A cancels out B unless they a sub-juncture of C, yada, yada, yada.

quote:

---

I personally cannot see why microsoft thinks they can trade mark the phoenetic pronounciation of their name.

---

I was wondering the same thing.

Later,

C:\


~Binary is best~

I here yah Skaarjj. Reminds me how late I am with my tax this, errr last year. Crap. Probably going to incur a fee for it now, damn it.

Although, I can understand M$'s actions. If the kid profits in any way from this you'll have Mike Roe's all around the US signing up domains trying to milk some money out of the company. So, unless MS wants to deal with cases like this over and over again, I believe they've done the right thing. He should have taken the $10 and called it a day.

Skaarjj: Remember that nearly only Western nations have intellectual property laws. Other cultures are more... erm... "American-Indianish" when it comes to intellectual property. For example, information is shared industry-wide in Japan... at least in big business.

quote:

---

I personally cannot see why microsoft thinks they can trade mark the phoenetic pronounciation of their name.

---

If you can copyright songs, you can copyright the sound of names... I think. Perhaps "Microsoft" may become public domain in the future. Either way, it's unimportant.

quote:

---

And if it is, as they claim, them suing him so that people can avoid confusion, why isn't everyone suing any government who has ever come up with:

1. A health care system

2. A tax system; or

3. A social security system

---

Why? That's public domain.

quote:

---

Customers of Microsoft could also be confused by the mikerowsoft Web page, the letter said.

---

If the judge is rational, he'll be on the Rowe's side, because this is a weak case for Microsoft Corp. Have any of you checked out Mike Rowe's site? You'd have to be blind to confuse microsoft.com with mikerowesoft.com. Honestly, I think Mike should stop his business right now, and go take some business courses and read some books on marketing and design. He has testimonials in his portfolio, a poor quality portfolio, and a poor pricing structure. I think Microsoft Corp.'s lawyers made a random mistake by going after Rowe. Total waste of time indeed.

I was reading a thread regarding this topic on another forum and came across a side discussion about www.nissan.com. This is the first I've heard about any lawsuit with the Nissian Motor Company, but I found it to be similar, although far, far, far, worse than Mike Rowe; I thought I might share... You can read more about the story here, if you haven't already.

[This message has been edited by Rooster (edited 01-20-2004).]

One thing I thought I'd point out is... Why the hell didn't Microsoft already have this domain? They are willing to spend thousands if not more suing this kid but they won't spend $400-800 to buy 50-100 domains? Seems awfully stupid to me.

quote:

---

If you can copyright songs, you can copyright the sound of names... I think. Perhaps "Microsoft" may become public domain in the future. Either way, it's unimportant.

quote:

---

And if it is, as they claim, them suing him so that people can avoid confusion, why isn't everyone suing any government who has ever come up with:

1. A health care system

2. A tax system; or

3. A social security system

---

e]

Why? That's public domain.

---

I'm sorry metahuman, but what little world are you living in? Go and check your copyright laws. You cannot copyright or trandemark a sound. Intellectual Property only applies if it is a song or melody, and in this case I don't think people are exactly going around singing 'microsoft'. When, after all, was the last time you heard 'The Windows XP Blues' on the radio (sung, of course, by Bill Gates and the Sweaty Developers). So the phoenetic sound of the word Microsoft cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, therefore anyone who wants to do something with that sound, and not with the same spelling is free to do so, because they're making use of the sound, not the word. If he was doing a comedic spoof, try to actually make his site look like Microsoft's, then they may have a case on the 'confusion' grounds, but no...not in this case.

And to the whole 'public domain' thing...You honestly think that a tax system, or a healthcare system, or a social security system, rigidly controlled by the government (and every government does rigidly control it) is in any way public domain? That the public actually have any say in how it's run? It's policies and the decisions made about it?

I don't think so. Just becuase something is governmental is in no way an indication that it's public domain. The public have no say in the matter. Oh, you may bring up the whole 'but the public can vote out the government who's doing the things they don't like' isue, but such is not the case:

1. You have to wait until the next election time, which coud be between 4-7 years away, depending on where you live.

2. Political parties will say just about anything to get you to vote for them, promise you anything you want, but rarely, if ever, do they make good on these promises. I'm sure in an ideal world they would, but this is not an ideal world.

quote:

---

I'm sorry metahuman, but what little world are you living in?
Earth. Where are you?

Go and check your copyright laws. You cannot copyright or trandemark a sound. Intellectual Property only applies if it is a song or melody, and in this case I don't think people are exactly going around singing 'microsoft'. When, after all, was the last time you heard 'The Windows XP Blues' on the radio (sung, of course, by Bill Gates and the Sweaty Developers). So the phoenetic sound of the word Microsoft cannot be copyrighted or trademarked, therefore anyone who wants to do something with that sound, and not with the same spelling is free to do so, because they're making use of the sound, not the word.
Mrmm. Not exactly. http://www.copyright.gov/register/sound.html

And to the whole 'public domain' thing...You honestly think that a tax system, or a healthcare system, or a social security system, rigidly controlled by the government (and every government does rigidly control it) is in any way public domain? That the public actually have any say in how it's run? It's policies and the decisions made about it?

I don't think so. Just becuase something is governmental is in no way an indication that it's public domain. The public have no say in the matter. Oh, you may bring up the whole 'but the public can vote out the government who's doing the things they don't like' isue, but such is not the case:

1. You have to wait until the next election time, which coud be between 4-7 years away, depending on where you live.

2. Political parties will say just about anything to get you to vote for them, promise you anything you want, but rarely, if ever, do they make good on these promises. I'm sure in an ideal world they would, but this is not an ideal world.

The government, at least the USG, is for the people by the people. The people can crush the government any time they want, but no matter how shitty a job our outdated system does, the people are generally too afraid to stand up and speak out. You should read up on the term "public domain" and perhaps even "open source."

---

Whenever there's a problem with U.S. Copyright Law, blame it on Mickey! It all comes down to Mickey Mouse. That's right. You read that right. Mickey Mouse. Why? Disney loves Mickey Mouse, and they have and will do anything to secure their ownership of the black rat. If not for Disney, many of the copyrights would have expired and went into public domain.

Turns out this young fella lives not too far from me. 10-15 min drive. He's all over the front page todays paper. Had to take down his site....couldn't afford the bandwidth from 250k hits. But he's been getting all sorts of job offers for web design.

HOLD ON A MINUTE.... I hate it when my brain works like this BUT.... I think there's a good chance this fella is one of us. I can't remember the nic he used and I've just spent quite some time going thru the complete membership list but nothing twigged.

I'm also reasonably sure he posted his site in 'site reviews.' The reason this stands out, in what's left of my mind, is that he's from "Langford"....which is about a 15 minute drive from where I live. At about the same time 'sexylyon' showed up (sept 01) and she lives in Victoria (all this in BC Canada btw)... and Victoria is about a 40 minute drive (lived there for 30 years before moving to Sooke, 'the land of one headlite on.'

The more I think about it...the more sure I am. Yup I'd bet a beer or 2 on it. And I just see now he's on tv news tonite.

Too funny. =)

It appears as if Bill has had a change of heart?
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=4170302&section=news

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

"A government for the people, by the people"

Scuse me a moment:

Aaahhhhahahahahahaha..

*Ahem*

Thankyou for that.

Now, as for your link, three things wrong with that:

1. That's US copyright laws, not international copyright laws. If Mr. Rowe lived in the US, thne these would apply, but internation copyright only applies here. He lives in Canada which is not, as much as some Americans (note: I am not deliberatly including anyone on this board in this 'some) may think it is or wish it was. It is an independant country...a British colony in fact.

2. I'm not seeing anywhere on that page that says that says that a trademarked business's name's sound can be copyrighted. I can see stage play, screen play, song or other audio recording, but no phoenetic pronunciation.

We are, essentially, still talking about trademarking, becuase you cannot copyright a business name. It can be trademarked so no one can use that exact spelling for their business name, but that isn't what's happening here. The spelling of MikeRoweSoft isn't even remotely similar to Microsoft, except for the 'soft' part, and that isn't enough to violate trademark.

Now, back to the government thing.

What government are you thinking of when you say that a people can crush their goernment if they're doing things they don't like. It's certainly not a democracy. Democracy still involves an elected goernment that is in power for a set term. If you can point out to me a point in a democracy's history where the government was, as you put it, 'crushed' by their populace becuase they were doing things the population didn't like, and that country remained a democracy and didn't turn into a miliary or other type of dictatorship, please, go ahead, I would be quite interested in reading it.

Well, the USG is effectively an elected dictatorship not a true democracy, but we won't get into that.

1a. http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/ and http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/regulations/99143%2De.html
Canada's copright office declares that "sound recordings" can be copyrighted. If the Microsoft name was recorded, it could have been copyrighted.

2b. "Sound recordings are ?works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.?" -- U.S. Copyright Office. Trademarked/Registered business names can be recorded and copyrighted in the U.S.

We are not talking about trademarks. Notice that Microsoft Corp. is charging for copyright infringement not trademark infringement.

quote:

---

What government are you thinking of when you say that a people can crush their goernment if they're doing things they don't like. It's certainly not a democracy. Democracy still involves an elected goernment that is in power for a set term. If you can point out to me a point in a democracy's history where the government was, as you put it, 'crushed' by their populace becuase they were doing things the population didn't like, and that country remained a democracy and didn't turn into a miliary or other type of dictatorship, please, go ahead, I would be quite interested in reading it.

---

So am I to presume that you think only past actions are possible in the future? That is definitely a belief void of all reason.

quote:

---

But he's been getting all sorts of job offers for web design.

---

Damn, I need to think of a scheme like that. I have a bachelors and can't even get a friggin' full time job, hell I can't even get a damn interview lately. heh

Good on him. I bet he is compensated now too, with money for school. Mark my words.

/me is not supportive.

I'm not sure if you are telling me you are not supportive of me or Mike Rowe. I don't care if you're supportive of me , but you should support Mike Rowe just because of who he is up against. It's nice to see the little guy come out on top once in a while.

Why would I support some kid who builds his brand on such antics? [ It would be like voting for G. W. Bush because he can "fly" onto the deck of a carrier, carry a fake turkey, or use a dead civil liberties leader for a photo opportunity. ] Likewise, it's unlikely that he's even thinking of his brand. His very website shows that he knows little about marketing. Would you stake your business on someone who isn't a knowledgeable businessperson whether it's about marketing or the skill that they're selling? I know I would not. Mike Rowe is behaving unethically, unintelligently, and childishly. I am definitely unsupportive of Mike Rowe.

microwesoft.net microwesoft.org mikrowsoft.net mikrowsoft.org owned by p-i.
Fux you M$.
;-p.

quote:

---

but you should support Mike Rowe just because of who he is up against

---

That is absolute ignorance.

If he is wrong, he's wrong - regardless of who he is "up against".

With that sort of reasoning, you should support Bill Gates, because of who he was up against when he started out. You should support the fat bastards suing McDonalds for making them fat. We should support Osama Bin Laden because of who he is "up agaiinst". He's the "little guy" too. We should support Kim Jeong Il (spelling...?) because of who he is up against. Etc, etc, etc...

I don't understand copyright or trademark law well enough to know if the pronunciation of the name is covered. To me, it would seem silly for it not to be, since the pronunciation is at least as important as the spelling...

For my part, I don't support anyone based on size, power, or whatever.
I have opinions based on my principles.
In this case, the guy has the right for that domain because it's his real name. Period.
Adding "soft" to the end of it is a trick that many people and companies do, even Bill Gates did, with microsoft and it's not a copyrighted idea. So, why can't Mike Rowe do the same?
Microsoft is stupid in this case.
The guy also seems to be somewhat a stupid guy because he's acting like a teenager blinded by sudden fame.
Anyway, he's indeed a teenager, so, it's understandable.

DL: Thanks for the insult. The only reason I said that was because my opinion is that he is NOT IN THE WRONG. I think he is RIGHT and do support him because of that and WHO he is up against (that being a large corporation with virtually unlimited resources.)

If I believed he were wrong, I would not support him just because of who he is up against. Damn.

Insult? Nope. Simply pointing out the ignorance in the statement. If you find that insulting, my apologies - but you shouldn't take it personally.

I can't infer that you mean one thing when you say another - you said that we should support him "just because of who he is up against".

So that's what I responded to.

quote:

---

I can't infer that you mean one thing when you say another - you said that we should support him "just because of who he is up against".

---

True. I guess I should have been more clear on that. Let me reiterate that statement:

I support him because I believe he is not in the wrong and because of who he is up against. OK?

Take it personally, no. I could see how that could be interpreted as ignorant.

well, it's settled...
m$ gets the domain.... and the kid gets an x-box, new domain and a paid trip for him and his family to m$ headquarters

Seattle Times Story

Stupid teenager.