I sincerely hope that you are being facecious and not merely looking to flamebait.
Nope dude, I'm being totally serious. I should ask the same about you -- are you even reading my posts? You must not have read the article.
He intentionally used a name that sounded like Microsoft? He used his OWN name!! How is this an attempt to capitalize on anything but his own name, given to him at BIRTH?...As for MikeRoweSoft.com, it's an amusing coincidence, but I'm willing to accept it as a coincidence and nothing else...
It's not a coincidence -- and I've been over this. Read the posts you're reponding to. According the Register article (which I've consistently quoted) -- he intentionally used a name that sounded like Microsoft. I didn't just make this up -- I'm not pulling it out of thin air. It's in the article. Do I need to quote it again, or can you manage to find it yourself?
If Mike Rowe registered the domain mikeroweweb.com or mikerowedesigns.com -- there wouldn't be an issue. If Mike Rowe had not told reporters that he intentionally used a name that sounded like the software giant, this wouldn't be an issue. This is not like that case of Uzi Nissan (see http://www.nissan.com) where a guy just used his name as you suggest. It's completely different. Regardless if whether or not he used his name, he intentionally added something to it that sounds an awful lot like a trademark...this was not a mistake -- he even said it was intentional.
I will not respond another post unless you indicate, in some way, that you're reading (and retaining) responses to you and not just firing off a bunch of trollish crap.
Not true. Mike Rowe registered his domain on 5 Aug 2003 as mikerowesoft.com presumably because mikerowe.com had been previously registered on 7 Feb 2002.
Not true? What are you talking about? According to the article (and the 5 other times I quoted it in the thread), he intentionally used a name that sounded like Microsoft! Are you presuming this because you don't like Microsoft?
He registered the domain in August because he thought it would be cool to have a site that sounded like the famous company
...and do you really believe for a second that he added soft to his mane because he couldn't get MikeRowe.com?
I'd predict that Mike Rowe doesn't stand a chance.
I agree, but for different reasons. This is not a simple case of Microsoft trying to claim ownership of MikeRowe.com. Mike Rowe intentionally registered the domain name "mikerowesoft.com" in order to use Microsoft's name. Now, I don't know what Mike Rowe intended to do with this domain -- how Microsoft will handle its case will depend on this. (Specifically, did profit or intend to profit from the use of Microsoft's name). If it's non-commercial, Mike Rowe may have a case (particularly if he dropped the 'soft' from the end). See http://www.nissan.com.
Anyway, I stand interested in the outcome -- one way or the other. However, I don't think that this case is as simple as any of the examples I've seen. There's an interesting twist to this one.
True, MS has an inherent requirement to defend its mark, but remember also that Mike Rowe has inheent rights on his own name.
However, he didn't use his own name. He intentionally modified his name to sound like Microsoft's. If you look at the entire thread, I've highlighted the part of the Register article where this was stated. I'm still not sure whether he intended to use this site for profit. If he did, the case seems pretty much open and shut to me. If not, there are a number of avenues that MSFT can explore in order to win Mike Rowe's domain (outside of a legal dispute, the ICANN agreement covering all domains states (paraphrased) that domains that can be confused with a trademark aren't allowed).
A similar thing happened in Jamaica, when McD's moved in and found that a local restaurant(owned by a fellow called McDonald) was already in business. McD's sued -- and lost. It helped that their menus didn't overlap very much... but McD's was unable to open a store in Kingston until the suit was completed, which was amusing.
While an interesting story, I'm not sure that it's really relevant in this case. In your story, McDonald's (the franchise) didn't exist in Jamaica. They had no claim to a Jamacian trademark of the name "McDonalds". I believe that Microsoft, however, has a trademark registered in the country where this kid is (England?)
No. You're making up the bit about "things that sound like it". Companies purposefully mispell common words so that they can put a trademark on them.
I don't have time to look up the verbiage...but in the eyes of the law, you're essentially correct. However, in terms of ICANN, you may not be right -- and I did not make it up (it was, however a paraphrase). Basically, from the top of my head (again, it'll be another paraphrase) anything that is meant to cause confusion between a trademark holder and your domain name is not allowed. If it goes to ICANN arbitration, I believe that MSFT will win.
In the end, if the kids and his parents don't get intimidated, common sense will prevail.
Two things.
1. If the kid and his parents don't get intimidated...or bankrupted.
2. I'm still not sure if common sense will prevail. I still don't know if Mike Rowe is a young consultant trying to sell his services (remember, the site is Slashdotted). If so, this isn't so open and shut. If it's just a vanity domain, well, MS will probably back off.
FBI is highly corrupt and at any given point in time, at least 10% of FBI officials work for organized criminals. This is why the FBI is hated by more Americans than any other police force in the developed liberal world
I liked your post and agreed with nost of your points -- but this one (above) kind of confuses me. Where did you read/watch/hear this? I'm an American and I've never heard these charges of corruption in the FBI (and am vigilantly suspicious of our law enforcement here).
except mockerysoft..er... Microsoft does not own the trademark MikeRoweSoft. If I was a shareholder, I'd be pissed the Microsoft was behaving in a way that is causing it ill will.
Yeah -- because profits begin and end with good will. (That was sarcastic)
IANAL, but part of my understanding of trademark law is if a campany does not vehemently protect it's trademark, the name essentially becomes public domain. It promotes Microsoft's bottom line because they want to retain the right of exclusivity over their trademark. If they lose it, and there are thousands of companies called Microsoft, they will have a hard time doing business.
First, the fact that he said 'M$' doesn't 'hurt his argument'. It may ruin the form of his argument, but what he's arguing and his points remain the same.
You may be right -- but from the first sentence, it's easy disregard his post as prejudgemental of everything Microsoft does...especially when trying to be at least a little objective. It's a fairly common occurance in/., and using M$ is neither witty nor creative.
Next, I do not believe he actually started a company here. If you would actually read the quotation you posted, you might notice it says "to have a site that sounded like a famous company". Looking at the google cache, he states:
Welcome to MikeRoweSoft Design. I finally had time to design myself a portfolio to show off all of my work so I hope you enjoy.
So it's really just his portfolio, aka, websites he's made. The site is slashdotted, so I can't be sure, but it doesn't seem like any of his designs are commercial.
Yah, the site was Slashdotted -- so I didn't get to see it. However, you make an interesting point. Being that IANAL (I said that before, right?) I do not know how the fact that he was not a commercial entity changes things. It may be argued that this was his resume, and he was an independant consultant. In any case, from what I understand of the ICANN agreement presented with most (if not every) DNS registration, Microsoft may still actually own the rights to his domain. I guess we'll see what happens when it goes to ICANN arbitration or court.
You've never actually read On the Wealth of Nations, have you? And yet here you are acting all obnoxious... what a joke.
Yep -- I read it in an American National Government and Civil Liberties class I took in high school. Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you just asserting that you're a know-it-all prick?
If I wanted to use my last name in my business name (which is Roland) - should the Roland musical instrument company be able to sue me into oblivion?
You can use your name as much as you like...however, if you start a company called Roland and sell musical equipment, Roland can and will sue you. That's the point I've been trying to make all along. Furthermore, to use your example -- if the folks in the Seattle used the name "Been and Gerry's", I think that Ben & Jerry's would have had a case to shut them down.
This guy didn't just use his own name. This isn't a case of Microsoft making this up. The kid intentionally added a modifier to his own name to make his company's name sound like Microsoft's -- and set up shop in a similar industry. If his name actually sounded like Microsoft, I would not be arguing this point. If he was just selling Ice Cream, I would not be arguing this point. In this case, it's the particulars that make this understandable...and it seems that most of the people who are arguing this can't see past the fact that it's Microsoft that we're talking about.
First and foremost, your amazingly creative use of the abbreviation M$ shows that you're already biased against Microsoft. If you want to make a concise argument and sound unbiased, it might be a good idea to stop using M$ -- it tends to hurt your argument.
Secondly, it's not like this Mike Rowe just happened to be named Mike Rowe Soft. If this was the case, he'd have a better case -- but according to the Register article that we're discussing (you read it, right?), the name of his company was specifically intended to sound like Microsoft's. See the quote below:
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. (emphasis added)
This is exactly why we have trademark law. Unless he set up his site as a satire page, you're actually making an argument for Microsoft's case.
Despite all of this talk of name dilution and trademarks, I would think that whitehouse.com would have changed hands long before this kid Mike Rowe got sued. Microsoft whines "But this kid's site sorta sounds like our company name". The white house replies "The.com version of our.gov site is a porn site. Deal with it!" Maybe if Mike Rowe set up a porn site at mikerowesoft, no one would bother him because they didn't want to draw attention to it.
You're forgetting something really important here. First of all, the name White House is not trademarked by be the federal government. If you don't believe me -- check!
Secondly, the federal government is not a commercial entity (although it's probably the largest employer in the country and has insanely high revenues). The federal government has no responsibility to its shareholders and it has no trademarks to protect.
Finally, the fact that Mike Rowe is setting up a web design firm to sell consulting services (in an industry directly related to that which Microsoft does business in) rather than a porn site is the crux of the issue. They feel that he's diluting their trademark. What if I sold a soda called Caouk-ah-Coula? Still sounds just like Coke-a-cola, and a vendor at the ball game yells the same thing out loud, regardless of which product he's selling.
Like I said in my earlier post. I don't necessarily agree with what MSFT is doing, but I can certainly understand.
We agree MS owns the trademark to "Microsoft", we disagree over whether that extends to "things that sound like it or are spelled like it". If we were discussing this topic in Chineese, if might be difficult to make the argument that "Microsoft" and "Mike Rowe soft" are spelled in a similar way.
I'm not saying that I agree with MSFT here, but what I'm saying is that I understand where they're coming from.
A true Capitalist would be outraged at the thought that someone engaged in a transaction to sell property for money and didn't walk away happy. Capitalism is supposed to be about a willing exchange between entities for the benefit of both. Your example demonstrates that Microsoft is corrupting the capitalistic process; using the threat of a lawsuit (or the costs involved in settling one) to fulfill an "obligation to their shareholders".
Naaw, I don't really agree that a true capitalist would be outraged. Capitalism is (in part) a system of creative destruction in that (for example) one company is created, and its competition fails because they can't keep up for some reason. The company that fails may have to sell their inventory (at a huge loss) to the new competitor. The company who is liquidating will not walk away happy. It's a cut-throat system, and doing business in it is not always a win-win.
Furthermore, my example is not a corruption of the capitalistic process. It seems that every time a large company uses their (huge) bankroll to hire a law firm, people feel that it's abusing its power. While accurate in some cases, I feel that the facts are being distorted here. MSFT may have a right to sue here...I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with what they're doing -- but they have a right to go after this kid. To make it more fair, should they have the same legal budget as Mike Rowe? Wouldn't that be penalizing MSFT for being successful? Wouldn't this be more anti-capitalist than anything you suggest? Don't get me wrong, I can think up a number of situations where large companies use their legal budgets to bully smaller companies (or even consumers) around that are just horrible. I don't believe that this is one of them...and frankly, I'd be pretty surprised if this wasn't settled out of court anyway.
No. The system designed so that the shareholders are able to benefit from the profits generated by the businesses. Capitalism can be considered democratic only as long as each individual has the opportunity to choose (through becomming a shareholder, for example) which businesses represent their interests, which is to say, so long as the system remains true to capitalistic principles of willing buyers and sellers (a fair market.) When the system is corrupted (as has happened in this case) it's no longer about Capitalism, and therefore no longer democratic.
And the money that the shareholderes make -- this is part of our economy, correct? It strengthens the dollar with relation to the world economy, no? Those capital gains are (heavily) taxed and those taxes go back into society (civil services, etc)? I disagree with your ideal that the shareholders are the only ones to profit. It's cynical and without merit. With regard to the corruption of the capitalist system by a monopoly, I completely agree. However, to say that this is an example of that corruption is simply false -- any other company would handle this in a similar manner. While I think it's silly to think that anyone would confuse Mikerowesoft with the software monopoly, I can still understand where Microsoft's responsibilities lie.
The system used to be designed as you suggest: in order for a business to get a charter to serve it's shareholder's interests, it would have to prove it was also serving the greater interests of Society. We seem to have forgotten that recently. Nowadays, a business need only prove it's actions are not
Certainly they have a right to microsoft.xxx and sites that could perhaps easily be confused with belonging to the company.
I'm not sure Microsoft actually cares whether or not they win. What they're doing is ensuring that their trademark is not diluted. If they win, great for them. If they lose, it doesn't really matter. IANAL, but if MSFT doesn't go after this guy, my understanding is that their trademark could be open for interpretation.
IMO, this kid should do his best to negotiate before going to court, because this will clean him out.
Anyone really interested in promoting Capitalism would acknowledge that Mike Rowe owns the domain name, and is not under any obligation to sell it, or name a price, or even justify why such a named price is warranted.
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.
I'm not sure that the author of the story really discusses the give and take of patching an old codebase, vs a complete rewrite. Instead, he focuses on a negative that isn't really there.
As soon as I read the headline, the first apps that sprang to mind were Sendmail, and WuFTPD. Both have been historically full of holes, and a complete mess. I haven't really looked at Sendmail code, but having to configure each option with regular expressions, while powerful, is just lame (IMO). The WuFTPD code is a mess. It's been passed on and passed on, and patched and patched. It eventually became a total whore that nobody really wanted to touch on any level.
Now, both of these (AFAIK) were not rewritten from scratch, and suitable replacements have been produced all over the place. However, would it have been so bad to rewrite those from scratch, while still maintaining the older versions? How would it be any different from, say, the Linux kernel. I run 2.4.x on my production machines. 2.6 is out, but I'm not going to run it until it's proven itself elsewhere (and is integrated into a mainstream distribution). 2.4 will be maintained for a long, long time -- and it's not eve na complete rewrite (AFAIK). Usually code rewrites are adopted by the public...not right away, but eventually.
Finally, his gripe about Mozilla/Netscape are interresting, but not really warranted (and he does acknowledge this). The applications became more bloated as system resources became more plentiful. Software tends to do this -- it has to do with greater layers of abstraction as hardware gets better. But furthermore, it's because Mozilla had to be able to "compete" with the latest greatest from Microsoft...which MSFT will always be updating as new standards are added.
The point is, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't do a disservice one way or the other, and since much of the software we're talking about is Free Software, it matters even less, since the code it out there -- if there are enough people using the older versions, there will always be someone to maintain it.
I disagree. The USA has some of the highest prison populations in the world, made up of mostly drug related offenses. Three strikes and your out, and all that.
Yeah -- I hear where you're coming from. Our prison population (per capita) is an outrage and is the highest in the world. Many states still have draconian drug laws (like NYS's Rockafeller laws). Anyway -- you're totally right, the drug war is absolutely deplorable, brought upon by the moralists who consistently confuse ethics with their relegious morality (the former can be legislated, IMO, the latter cannot). Even worse are the ratios of prison population among certain ethic/racial groups as well as by economic class. That's not ok. I wouldn't argue this point for a minute.
However, I've worked with a company who provides essential services to prisons for several years, and I'm beginning to understand a little about how different prison systems work here (each state is completely different from the next). Believe it or not, the standards that US prisons have to live up to are probably some of the highest in the world. Also, although the definition may have detiorated, we are still guaranteed due process. This goes a long way towards making a pretty fair system (innocent until proven guilty, trial by a jury of your peers, Miranda rights -- including the right to an attourney...even the 8th amendment). Now, it's not completely fair, but the rights we're granted (altogether) are unique -- and it is one of the fairest in the world (setting aside, for a moment, the racial bias in our prisons).
My point about the drug laws not being that bad can be argued either way...however, for possession of cannabis (in most states, anyway) attitudes are changing -- it's even being dropped from a simple misdemeanor to a civil citation...like a traffic ticket, walk away from the cop, pay the fine via mail. More importantly, when comparing the laws in general -- you have to look at what the penalties really are. What's worse, a year in a Chinese prison (hell, even countries like Isreal are hardcore), or a 3-year stretch in an American prison? I believe that the 1-year in China is far harder time. American inmates really do have far more rights, and the quality of life is way higher. Did you know that the only Americans who are guaranteed mental health care are those who are incarcerated? Just a small example of the myriad of rights granted to American inmates that most other countries just don't have.
Anyway, it's an intersting argument, because (like I said) I could really argue it either way. But fundamentally, (and here comes my hardcore outspoken opinion that will surely incite flames) I still believe that so-called "soft" drugs should be legal and sold on a market regulated similarly to alcohol and tobacco, while "hard", addictive drugs should be subsidized by the government and given away to addicts (violent drug-related crimes will drop to nil, while these people will be able to actually hold down a real job while maintaining their habit). Our drug policy is so horribly misdirected and so anti-freedom, I'm actively participating in the movement to change it. It's long overdue.
I don't know about that. The war on drug users has been going on for decades. If there's a more essential liberty than the right to control ones own body chemistry, I don't know what it is.
Not to mention all of the liberties taken away from Americans in the name of the "War on Drugs". But then again, American drug laws (and prisons) are less harsh than most other countries.
But let's not forget world's attitudes and drug policies came from urging and strategic policy meetings from America's first drug czar, Harry Anslinger in the 20's and 30's...as well as his moralist croanies. It's an easy scapegoat, and an easy way to pass restrictive laws, remove civil liberties, and gain further funding and appreciation for police departments. I hate that fucking Anslinger guy.
I'm guessing that war driving will get *really* easy after this... It will probably increase the number of "war walkers" as well, and I'd bet we'd even start to see "war sitters" on the curbs!;)
I know that your post was meant to be funny, but it brings up some interesting anonymity issues. If anyone with a laptop -- anywhere in the UK can have Internet access without accountability, does this open new doors for British crackers?
Photoshop loads the image, calls is_image_ok(img); from the API that was given to them and checks whether that function returns true or false.
Well -- ideally, yes, this is the case. But since I don't know anyhting about either code base, there's no way for me to tell whether or not the integration is trivial. I don't even know (for sure) what language(s) the two are written in (I'm sure that this is publicly available, but I don't care that much). Also, how is the bool handled? There's gotta be some code to deal with this. (Probably also trivial, but I don't know who is coding for Adobe. Is it a fair to assume that they've got great dev's, as well as a modern, streamlined codebase?)
One way or the other, it has potential to adds serious development time/costs. It can add to both initial development costs (design spec[s], engineering spec[s], and even QA test plans/regression etc) as well as post-development cycle costs. Again, QA being a large cost factor when executed. The whole point I was trying to make is that the coding itself is not the beginning and end of development -- that's why, in my experience, there is a large team working on software projects which consists of people who are not all developers. A small feature that Adobe didn't even write isn't just free.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope dude, I'm being totally serious. I should ask the same about you -- are you even reading my posts? You must not have read the article.
It's not a coincidence -- and I've been over this. Read the posts you're reponding to. According the Register article (which I've consistently quoted) -- he intentionally used a name that sounded like Microsoft. I didn't just make this up -- I'm not pulling it out of thin air. It's in the article. Do I need to quote it again, or can you manage to find it yourself?
If Mike Rowe registered the domain mikeroweweb.com or mikerowedesigns.com -- there wouldn't be an issue. If Mike Rowe had not told reporters that he intentionally used a name that sounded like the software giant, this wouldn't be an issue. This is not like that case of Uzi Nissan (see http://www.nissan.com) where a guy just used his name as you suggest. It's completely different. Regardless if whether or not he used his name, he intentionally added something to it that sounds an awful lot like a trademark...this was not a mistake -- he even said it was intentional.
I will not respond another post unless you indicate, in some way, that you're reading (and retaining) responses to you and not just firing off a bunch of trollish crap.
Buh? Was that directed at me? All I did was politely ask where that information came from.
Your post is confusing -- perhaps you should proof-read. I'm not a grammar freak, but in your case punctuation will help.
Not true? What are you talking about? According to the article (and the 5 other times I quoted it in the thread), he intentionally used a name that sounded like Microsoft! Are you presuming this because you don't like Microsoft?
I agree, but for different reasons. This is not a simple case of Microsoft trying to claim ownership of MikeRowe.com. Mike Rowe intentionally registered the domain name "mikerowesoft.com" in order to use Microsoft's name. Now, I don't know what Mike Rowe intended to do with this domain -- how Microsoft will handle its case will depend on this. (Specifically, did profit or intend to profit from the use of Microsoft's name). If it's non-commercial, Mike Rowe may have a case (particularly if he dropped the 'soft' from the end). See http://www.nissan.com.
Anyway, I stand interested in the outcome -- one way or the other. However, I don't think that this case is as simple as any of the examples I've seen. There's an interesting twist to this one.
However, he didn't use his own name. He intentionally modified his name to sound like Microsoft's. If you look at the entire thread, I've highlighted the part of the Register article where this was stated. I'm still not sure whether he intended to use this site for profit. If he did, the case seems pretty much open and shut to me. If not, there are a number of avenues that MSFT can explore in order to win Mike Rowe's domain (outside of a legal dispute, the ICANN agreement covering all domains states (paraphrased) that domains that can be confused with a trademark aren't allowed).
While an interesting story, I'm not sure that it's really relevant in this case. In your story, McDonald's (the franchise) didn't exist in Jamaica. They had no claim to a Jamacian trademark of the name "McDonalds". I believe that Microsoft, however, has a trademark registered in the country where this kid is (England?)
I don't have time to look up the verbiage...but in the eyes of the law, you're essentially correct. However, in terms of ICANN, you may not be right -- and I did not make it up (it was, however a paraphrase). Basically, from the top of my head (again, it'll be another paraphrase) anything that is meant to cause confusion between a trademark holder and your domain name is not allowed. If it goes to ICANN arbitration, I believe that MSFT will win.
Two things.
1. If the kid and his parents don't get intimidated...or bankrupted.
2. I'm still not sure if common sense will prevail. I still don't know if Mike Rowe is a young consultant trying to sell his services (remember, the site is Slashdotted). If so, this isn't so open and shut. If it's just a vanity domain, well, MS will probably back off.
I liked your post and agreed with nost of your points -- but this one (above) kind of confuses me. Where did you read/watch/hear this? I'm an American and I've never heard these charges of corruption in the FBI (and am vigilantly suspicious of our law enforcement here).
ThanksYeah -- because profits begin and end with good will. (That was sarcastic)
IANAL, but part of my understanding of trademark law is if a campany does not vehemently protect it's trademark, the name essentially becomes public domain. It promotes Microsoft's bottom line because they want to retain the right of exclusivity over their trademark. If they lose it, and there are thousands of companies called Microsoft, they will have a hard time doing business.
You may be right -- but from the first sentence, it's easy disregard his post as prejudgemental of everything Microsoft does...especially when trying to be at least a little objective. It's a fairly common occurance in /., and using M$ is neither witty nor creative.
Yah, the site was Slashdotted -- so I didn't get to see it. However, you make an interesting point. Being that IANAL (I said that before, right?) I do not know how the fact that he was not a commercial entity changes things. It may be argued that this was his resume, and he was an independant consultant. In any case, from what I understand of the ICANN agreement presented with most (if not every) DNS registration, Microsoft may still actually own the rights to his domain. I guess we'll see what happens when it goes to ICANN arbitration or court.
It should be alright -- becuase he's not clearly trying to cash in on Microsoft's name. He's using his own name.
Yep -- I read it in an American National Government and Civil Liberties class I took in high school. Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you just asserting that you're a know-it-all prick?
You can use your name as much as you like...however, if you start a company called Roland and sell musical equipment, Roland can and will sue you. That's the point I've been trying to make all along. Furthermore, to use your example -- if the folks in the Seattle used the name "Been and Gerry's", I think that Ben & Jerry's would have had a case to shut them down.
This guy didn't just use his own name. This isn't a case of Microsoft making this up. The kid intentionally added a modifier to his own name to make his company's name sound like Microsoft's -- and set up shop in a similar industry. If his name actually sounded like Microsoft, I would not be arguing this point. If he was just selling Ice Cream, I would not be arguing this point. In this case, it's the particulars that make this understandable...and it seems that most of the people who are arguing this can't see past the fact that it's Microsoft that we're talking about.
Yah, it was a total shot in the dark. My bad.
First and foremost, your amazingly creative use of the abbreviation M$ shows that you're already biased against Microsoft. If you want to make a concise argument and sound unbiased, it might be a good idea to stop using M$ -- it tends to hurt your argument.
Secondly, it's not like this Mike Rowe just happened to be named Mike Rowe Soft. If this was the case, he'd have a better case -- but according to the Register article that we're discussing (you read it, right?), the name of his company was specifically intended to sound like Microsoft's. See the quote below:
This is exactly why we have trademark law. Unless he set up his site as a satire page, you're actually making an argument for Microsoft's case.
Wow...and with that, we're entirely in agreement.
Cheers!You're forgetting something really important here. First of all, the name White House is not trademarked by be the federal government. If you don't believe me -- check!
Secondly, the federal government is not a commercial entity (although it's probably the largest employer in the country and has insanely high revenues). The federal government has no responsibility to its shareholders and it has no trademarks to protect.
Finally, the fact that Mike Rowe is setting up a web design firm to sell consulting services (in an industry directly related to that which Microsoft does business in) rather than a porn site is the crux of the issue. They feel that he's diluting their trademark. What if I sold a soda called Caouk-ah-Coula? Still sounds just like Coke-a-cola, and a vendor at the ball game yells the same thing out loud, regardless of which product he's selling.
Like I said in my earlier post. I don't necessarily agree with what MSFT is doing, but I can certainly understand.
I'm not saying that I agree with MSFT here, but what I'm saying is that I understand where they're coming from.
Naaw, I don't really agree that a true capitalist would be outraged. Capitalism is (in part) a system of creative destruction in that (for example) one company is created, and its competition fails because they can't keep up for some reason. The company that fails may have to sell their inventory (at a huge loss) to the new competitor. The company who is liquidating will not walk away happy. It's a cut-throat system, and doing business in it is not always a win-win.
Furthermore, my example is not a corruption of the capitalistic process. It seems that every time a large company uses their (huge) bankroll to hire a law firm, people feel that it's abusing its power. While accurate in some cases, I feel that the facts are being distorted here. MSFT may have a right to sue here...I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with what they're doing -- but they have a right to go after this kid. To make it more fair, should they have the same legal budget as Mike Rowe? Wouldn't that be penalizing MSFT for being successful? Wouldn't this be more anti-capitalist than anything you suggest? Don't get me wrong, I can think up a number of situations where large companies use their legal budgets to bully smaller companies (or even consumers) around that are just horrible. I don't believe that this is one of them...and frankly, I'd be pretty surprised if this wasn't settled out of court anyway.
And the money that the shareholderes make -- this is part of our economy, correct? It strengthens the dollar with relation to the world economy, no? Those capital gains are (heavily) taxed and those taxes go back into society (civil services, etc)? I disagree with your ideal that the shareholders are the only ones to profit. It's cynical and without merit. With regard to the corruption of the capitalist system by a monopoly, I completely agree. However, to say that this is an example of that corruption is simply false -- any other company would handle this in a similar manner. While I think it's silly to think that anyone would confuse Mikerowesoft with the software monopoly, I can still understand where Microsoft's responsibilities lie.
I'm not sure Microsoft actually cares whether or not they win. What they're doing is ensuring that their trademark is not diluted. If they win, great for them. If they lose, it doesn't really matter. IANAL, but if MSFT doesn't go after this guy, my understanding is that their trademark could be open for interpretation.
IMO, this kid should do his best to negotiate before going to court, because this will clean him out.
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.
I'm not sure that the author of the story really discusses the give and take of patching an old codebase, vs a complete rewrite. Instead, he focuses on a negative that isn't really there.
As soon as I read the headline, the first apps that sprang to mind were Sendmail, and WuFTPD. Both have been historically full of holes, and a complete mess. I haven't really looked at Sendmail code, but having to configure each option with regular expressions, while powerful, is just lame (IMO). The WuFTPD code is a mess. It's been passed on and passed on, and patched and patched. It eventually became a total whore that nobody really wanted to touch on any level.
Now, both of these (AFAIK) were not rewritten from scratch, and suitable replacements have been produced all over the place. However, would it have been so bad to rewrite those from scratch, while still maintaining the older versions? How would it be any different from, say, the Linux kernel. I run 2.4.x on my production machines. 2.6 is out, but I'm not going to run it until it's proven itself elsewhere (and is integrated into a mainstream distribution). 2.4 will be maintained for a long, long time -- and it's not eve na complete rewrite (AFAIK). Usually code rewrites are adopted by the public...not right away, but eventually.
Finally, his gripe about Mozilla/Netscape are interresting, but not really warranted (and he does acknowledge this). The applications became more bloated as system resources became more plentiful. Software tends to do this -- it has to do with greater layers of abstraction as hardware gets better. But furthermore, it's because Mozilla had to be able to "compete" with the latest greatest from Microsoft...which MSFT will always be updating as new standards are added.
The point is, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't do a disservice one way or the other, and since much of the software we're talking about is Free Software, it matters even less, since the code it out there -- if there are enough people using the older versions, there will always be someone to maintain it.
Yeah -- I hear where you're coming from. Our prison population (per capita) is an outrage and is the highest in the world. Many states still have draconian drug laws (like NYS's Rockafeller laws). Anyway -- you're totally right, the drug war is absolutely deplorable, brought upon by the moralists who consistently confuse ethics with their relegious morality (the former can be legislated, IMO, the latter cannot). Even worse are the ratios of prison population among certain ethic/racial groups as well as by economic class. That's not ok. I wouldn't argue this point for a minute.
However, I've worked with a company who provides essential services to prisons for several years, and I'm beginning to understand a little about how different prison systems work here (each state is completely different from the next). Believe it or not, the standards that US prisons have to live up to are probably some of the highest in the world. Also, although the definition may have detiorated, we are still guaranteed due process. This goes a long way towards making a pretty fair system (innocent until proven guilty, trial by a jury of your peers, Miranda rights -- including the right to an attourney...even the 8th amendment). Now, it's not completely fair, but the rights we're granted (altogether) are unique -- and it is one of the fairest in the world (setting aside, for a moment, the racial bias in our prisons).
My point about the drug laws not being that bad can be argued either way...however, for possession of cannabis (in most states, anyway) attitudes are changing -- it's even being dropped from a simple misdemeanor to a civil citation...like a traffic ticket, walk away from the cop, pay the fine via mail. More importantly, when comparing the laws in general -- you have to look at what the penalties really are. What's worse, a year in a Chinese prison (hell, even countries like Isreal are hardcore), or a 3-year stretch in an American prison? I believe that the 1-year in China is far harder time. American inmates really do have far more rights, and the quality of life is way higher. Did you know that the only Americans who are guaranteed mental health care are those who are incarcerated? Just a small example of the myriad of rights granted to American inmates that most other countries just don't have.
Anyway, it's an intersting argument, because (like I said) I could really argue it either way. But fundamentally, (and here comes my hardcore outspoken opinion that will surely incite flames) I still believe that so-called "soft" drugs should be legal and sold on a market regulated similarly to alcohol and tobacco, while "hard", addictive drugs should be subsidized by the government and given away to addicts (violent drug-related crimes will drop to nil, while these people will be able to actually hold down a real job while maintaining their habit). Our drug policy is so horribly misdirected and so anti-freedom, I'm actively participating in the movement to change it. It's long overdue.
Not to mention all of the liberties taken away from Americans in the name of the "War on Drugs". But then again, American drug laws (and prisons) are less harsh than most other countries.
But let's not forget world's attitudes and drug policies came from urging and strategic policy meetings from America's first drug czar, Harry Anslinger in the 20's and 30's...as well as his moralist croanies. It's an easy scapegoat, and an easy way to pass restrictive laws, remove civil liberties, and gain further funding and appreciation for police departments. I hate that fucking Anslinger guy.
I know that your post was meant to be funny, but it brings up some interesting anonymity issues. If anyone with a laptop -- anywhere in the UK can have Internet access without accountability, does this open new doors for British crackers?
Well -- ideally, yes, this is the case. But since I don't know anyhting about either code base, there's no way for me to tell whether or not the integration is trivial. I don't even know (for sure) what language(s) the two are written in (I'm sure that this is publicly available, but I don't care that much). Also, how is the bool handled? There's gotta be some code to deal with this. (Probably also trivial, but I don't know who is coding for Adobe. Is it a fair to assume that they've got great dev's, as well as a modern, streamlined codebase?)
One way or the other, it has potential to adds serious development time/costs. It can add to both initial development costs (design spec[s], engineering spec[s], and even QA test plans/regression etc) as well as post-development cycle costs. Again, QA being a large cost factor when executed. The whole point I was trying to make is that the coding itself is not the beginning and end of development -- that's why, in my experience, there is a large team working on software projects which consists of people who are not all developers. A small feature that Adobe didn't even write isn't just free.