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.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The Register should know better.
Shouldn't that be "trademark" infringement? I didn't know Microsoft had exclusive distribution rights to the series of sounds in their name.
I'd bet a nickel the reporter who wrote the first story and editor never looked up the difference between "copyright infringement" and "trademark infringement," and then the story was duplicated to other news services without anyone bothering to double-check it.
The phoenetic similarity may not be evident to someone that doesn't speak english natively...
Except this time the 'target' is a minor. I bet they didn't check that part. Now they're going to get raked over the coals for picking on a kid. :P
Ah well. Any bad press for Microsoft has to be a good thing.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Phonenitics similarities aside, every time I speak "Microsoft" aloud versus "MikeRoweSoft" there is a difference in the phonetic spacing. Though that could just be because I want to find a difference. Personally, I serously doubt that anyone could possibly get the two companies confused. Though honestly I agree that his biggest mistake was to say that his domain was worth $X. Even thoug Mirosoft supposedly said they were willing to cover out of pocket expenses for the domain. Personally I'd like to see copies of these emails and letters.
Bork Bork Bork!!
"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."
The point is that it's not really down to the lawyers to decide, and it's going to have a hell of an uphill struggle trying to explain that 'Mike Rowe' was trying to use his chance grouping of syllables in his own name in 'bad faith', although he might've shot himself in the foot by admitting that he'd already thought about it.
However, now I'm thinking about names to register because a $10 cheque from Microsoft would be worth framing.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
From the article:
He registered the domain in August because he thought it would be cool to have a site that sounded like the famous company to show his Web designing skills.
Well, that's exactly what a trademark is supposed to protect against; someone else using your brand-name for their own purposes. And because the way the trademark law works, Microsoft has to defend their trademarks; writing letters, suing; or else they risk the trademark being generic; free for anyone to use.
Microsoft may be an evil corporation, but I can't blame them for protecting their main trademark.
That the defendants name is Mike Rowe is interesting, but I personally think it is clear that mikerowesoft is intended to look alike and benefit from the name recognition of "microsoft". Mike Rowe can easily invent another domain name that includes his name and build his own brand name without leeching on Microsoft.
)9TSS
It was still dumb to send a counter-offer if one had no intention of selling it. (Though if I thought for a minute that one of my domains was worth that much to someone...)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
As far as I understand he was not willing to sell, but if he had to he estimated that his cost for business cards, marketing, creating web presense etc was "at least worth $10000".
So he would consider selling the domain if M$ helped him regain that cost. IANAL but this sounds like a slam dunk for Mr Rowe.
I own maybe 7 domain names for various reasons. None of them were purchased with bad faith (eg, they're not designed to be similar to other companies or names, and as far as I know, none are). However, if someone came to me and claimed that I was infringing on their trademark, and offered me $10,000 for it, none of them are important enough to me that I wouldn't take it.
Likewise, if they came and offered me an absurd fee such as $10, it'd be a natural conclusion for me to counter offer something that I *would* be willing to sell it for. I'd say that there are few privately held domain names that there isn't some purchasing price for. Even corporately held domain names would come with a purchase price, though that price might lump in the corporation. Eg, if I offered Adobe $700 billion, I'm guessing I'd come away with a shiny new domain name, and probably a new office building filled with employees to go with it.
My point is that just because the kid *was* willing to sell the domain doesn't make it a bad faith offering. None of mine are bad faith, and I'd easily sell any of them for 10 grand.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
The first and most important rule in ANY case where somebody is threatening legal action:
SHUT UP AND GET A LAWYER!
The second most important rule:
UNTIL YOU HAVE A LAYWER, STAY SHUT UP.
Suppose somebody contacts you and says:
"You are in violation of our copyright [sic] on our site - give us the domain or we'll sue!"
The proper response is something like:
"Very interesting - OK, please give me the contact information for your law firm, and I'll have my attourney contact your attourney. I prefer to have all furthur contact through my attourney, so please route everything through your legal group."
If they persist in contacting you directly, inform them firmly that all furthur contact should go through their attourney to yours, and any direct contact is harrassment.
In a case like this one, where you ARE being contacted by the other side's legal department, then you should GET AN ATTOURNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN YOUR AREA. First thing. Then route all contact through him.
Otherwise, shut up - say nothing to the other side. While it may be a civil matter rather than a criminal matter, remind yourself that "Everything I say will be used against me in court."
www.eFax.com are spammers
Seriously though. I didn't get the lawsuit until I actually read in the article that the supposed infraction was mearly phonetic. How many people pronouce things online?
And seeing as this Mike Rowe has ownership over his name and plans to study computer science and makes no mentions to MS on his site, the case seems pretty clear to me. It usually takes a lot for WIPO to overturn ownership on a website, and I don't see any clear evidence that Mike Rowe was cybersquating. Come on, phonetic spelling in a written medium? And I'd just like to know how MS found his site in the first place. Do they have a phonetical analyzer?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Their point is that he could just register a new domain name, change the URLs, and keep all the work he put into the content.
They don't want the content, he can take that with him.
It's like parking next to a fire hydrant, they are saying move along, take your car.
And all you flamers who don't read very carefully, note that I make no mention of whether M$ is doing the smart thing, the right thing, the correct thing, or anything.
Infuriate left and right
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.
Wow, there are already 3 or more +5 comments regurgitating this crap from the article. I don't buy this for a minute. Everyone has their price, and it shouldn't be an act of "bad faith" to name it.
Take slashdot for example. I doubt I could buy the domain for $10, but I bet valinux would be perfectly happy to sell it to me for 1 billion dollars. That's the reality of the situation. I fail to see how stating that reality is an act of "bad faith".
The only reason arguments like this work is because the other side doesn't have the resouces to fight them. It has basically nothing to do with the validity of the actual claim.
Life is too short to proofread.
Microsoft made an offer; Mr. Rowe simply made a (perfectly legal) counter-offer. If Mr. Rowe had written microsoft and said "I'll sell you my domain for $10K", it would be evidence of a bad faith registration. Instead, Microsoft initiated the transaction by sending an offer letter, so any response or negotiation related to that initial offer is in good faith.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
You also have to recgonize that Microsoft owns the trademark rights to the name "Microsoft" (or things that sound like it or are spelled like it).
Right or wrong, like it or not -- Microsoft has an obligation to their shareholders (you know -- the quarter million or so people who actually own the company) to protect its trademark from dilution. If MSFT loses, legal/management can say "fuck it, at least we can tell our shareholders that we did our best to protect their best interests".
Their offer to buy mikerowesoft.com out (for peanuts) was just a way to sidestep the trememdous costs associated with a lawsuit. Say after a lenghty lawsuit MS buys this kid's domain for $10,000. Is Mike Rowe really going to walk away happy after a half million in legal fees? That leaves him with a loss of $490,000.
BTW -- how is this about Microsoft promoting their power? By power, do you mean their bottom line? And since when have capitalists ever been driven by promoting capitalism itself? I'm a bit boggled by your logic. Capitalists are greedy and self serving...that's the point of capitalism. The system is designed so that society is able to benefit from the profits generated by the businesses (thus harnessing the power of individual/collective greed). Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...perhaps you should elaborate.
-Turkey