Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft to sue Mike Rowe for Copyrights

An anonymous reader was among a host of submittors noting that a 17 year old named Mike Rowe has been sued by Microsoft for copyright infringment of their name.

6 of 1,009 comments (clear)

  1. MS the scammer by baseinfinity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently they pulled this rather common scam of offering him a rediculously low amount ($10) for the domain. Then when the target flips out and says it's worth at least $xxx, they sue their asses for trying to profit off of a domain name.

  2. If you don't want this to happen to you... by Zigg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't make them an offer. It seems that the big catch here is that Mike made a $10,000 offer to Microsoft ('s lawyers?), and that single act essentially made their case that it was a bad-faith registration.

  3. Site died, content here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Obviously the site died right away. I was able to copy Mike's message when the topic was still in red.
    I don't think he saw the /. rampage coming :)

    Wow, all of this exposure is starting to overwhelm me. I appreciate all of the emails I have been getting recently. If I don't respond to you that doesn't mean I don't appreciate it, I have been getting flooded and I am only responding to the ones I see fit. I am starting to get coverage all over the world. I have heard I have been on the news in the UK. That really surprised me. Anyways, thanks for visiting my site. I will keep you updated on everything that is happening.

    And on 15 jan 2004:

    I received an email from Smart & Biggar, Microsoft's Canadian lawyers, informing me that I have been committing copyright infringement against Microsoft. They told me that I must transfer my domain name over to Microsoft as soon as possible. I was baffled by this email, yet thought it was funny at the same time. Microsoft was going after a 17 year olds part time business that he put a lot of time into just because it has the same phonetic sound as their company.

    I responded to this email saying that I was not ready to give up my domain name since I had put so much time and effort into establishing my name, getting my business cards out and posting my services on the Internet. If I were to give up my domain, I would lose all the time and effort I had put into it. I requested that they offer me a settlement of some sort to help with me losing my business. A few days later I received an email back from them telling me that they would give me all of my out-of-pocket expenses for the domain name, which came to be $10USD. I was surprised that they would offer such a little amount of money to persuade me to hand my domain over to Microsoft. In response to this recent email, I sent one back to them describing how much work I have put into my business and that the domain was worth at least $10000. They refused to give me anything more than $10USD so I proceeded to ignore their most recent email. I didn't hear anything from them after their last email.

    Yesterday, January 14, I received a package from the lawyers' office FedEx Priority Overnight. Inside I found a book over an inch thick with a 25 page letter explaining to me that I had all along had the intention to sell my domain name to Microsoft for a large cash settlement. This is not the case, I never thought my name would cause Microsoft to take this course of action against me. I just thought it was a good name for my small part-time business. In this letter it explains that Microsoft's customers could get confused between my page and theirs, which doesn't make any sense since Microsoft doesn't design websites. They do, however, sell a program called Microsoft FrontPage, which they say can cause some confusion between me making websites for my customers and them selling a program to make websites to their customers. I think it is just another example of a huge corporation just trying to intimidate a small business person (and only a 17 year old student at that) to get anything they want by using lawyers and threats. It reminds me of the Starbucks thing against the little coffee shop in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

  4. Re:*Trademark* not Copyright by ScottSpeaks! · · Score: 5, Informative
    The difference between trademark and copyright (and let's not forget patents) is a topic covered in the first week of Intellectual Property 101, and anyone with a stake in IP (like users or developers of open-source software) needs to understand which is which. Saying "copyright" when you're talking about a "trademark" is like typing "rm" when you mean "ls": it's your own fault if the shell misunderstands you.

    Copyright - literally "the right to copy" - Covers a particular creative expression of an idea, such as a song, a movie, a poem, or a C++ program. Currently lasts longer than any of us will live.

    Trademark - literally "a mark used in trade" - Covers names, slogans, logos, and such when used in the packaging and marketing of a product or service. Lasts as long and only as long as it's in active use.

    Patent - literally "openly disclosed" - Gives temporary exclusive rights to a invention [insert debate over definition of "invention" here] in exchange for publishing the details of how it works. Currently lasts longer than the technology is likely to be useful.

    (The so-called fourth kind of IP is a trade secret, which is the opposite of a patent: instead of publishing a how-to, the inventor keeps it private, so they can try to keep exclusivity indefinitely.)

  5. Re:I certainly hope that MS don't get away with th by gidds · · Score: 5, Informative
    Microsoft, who has de facto dominance over the desktop, and thus are evil according to the tinfoil-crowd

    No, they're not evil because they dominate the desktop.

    They are evil because they use that monopoly unfairly, to illegally (attempt to) dominate other areas. They are evil because of their unethical and illegal business practices: buying out or crushing all competition, secret agreements with vendors, spreading lies, putting profits over user experience and security, doing their utmost to prevent interoperability with other software and systems, continually breaking the spirit and the letter of anti-trust agreements, and much more.

    Microsoft are evil, not because they dominate the desktop, but because, thanks to them, most people (think they) have no alternative.

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  6. Lessons learned by Safety+Cap · · Score: 5, Informative
    "They [Microsoft Laywers] responded to this email by offering to give me all of my out-of-pocket expenses in return for the domain name. ~. I responded by asking for $10,000, which I regret doing now ~."
    Here is a tip: if you receive a letter from a Lawyer, and want to respond, always have your own laywer vet your response.
    --
    Yeah, right.