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...
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!!
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
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!
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?
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.