"It helps when you have a good and simple programming environment. QT is so much easier to code in than GTK/GTK+/Glib/Bonobo that it isn't funny. Not to mention KParts."
I noticed a couple of downmods here. I was just wondering: Why is this post considered flamebait?
I ask because I don't have any NFI what QT, GTK, or Glib, or Bonobo is. Kinda wish the dude used the post button instead of a mod point.
"I seem to recall a couple of cases where big companies decided they wanted a particular domain name, and paid the holder about $10k for it. In those cases, they didn't have any trademark right to the name, so they basically paid fair market value."
I understand your point, but the problem is that this price was paid for a valuable domain name, not for a trademark infringing domain name. The difference? Mike Rowe should have to pay Microsoft for that, not the other way around. (Just so you know, I'd be singing an entirely different tune if this site were a parody.)
"In this case, Mike Rowe is taking the position that Microsoft doesn't have a right to the domain mikerowesoft.com, so he asked a fair market value price for it."
I can see him taking that position and feeling he's right, but I do not share his optimism. The key factor here is that he added 'soft' to the end of his name. It is VERY difficult to believe that he did this by accident. Even if his last name was 'rowesoft', it's still difficult to believe he chose to call himself that (as opposed to MichaelRowesoft.com or something like that) without realizing it would bunch up MS's knickers. He would not be able to register that as a trademark for his own business unless he was working in an entirely different area, such as agriculture.
"The fact that they first made an offer for it implies that they agree, and were opening a negotiation for sale of the domain, rather than taking it over via their trademark."
They offered to pay him the cost of registerring the domain. That's not an offer to buy the domain, that's a reimbursement to make up for his financial loss by this escapade. By offering to reimburse his loss, they're basically saying "We assume you didn't know there's a problem here..." They're not saying "We want to buy your valuable domain."
"The fact that he asked $10k won't automatically mean that he's *legally* trying to profit from the similarity."
I agree, it doesn't automatically mean he's trying to legally profit from the similarity. However, if his domain is really that valuable, how much of that value has to do with Microsoft's own trademark? If that particular name, based on Microsoft's name, is what's so valuable to his business, then he's got a bumpy road ahead of him. He made a big mistake by firing back that settlement.
" they approached him, and were the ones who initially suggested the domain had monetary value to them."
I need to re-emphasize: $10 is not an opening bid when dealing with domain names. It's a reimbursement. If it had been $100, I'd be more willing to accept that it was an offer to buy.
Actually I did, and provided a rebuttal, which you have completely ignored. A little too damning for ya? Can't get through my point, so you're trying to paint me as a pro-MS zealot instead? Weak.
"Well, of course. Microsoft should get to do anything it wants. To say otherwise would be against Microsoft, with your logic."
Or you could just try understanding my point, but that does require a little more thought-time. Easier to just hate Microsoft and be against anything they do, iddnt it?
Metamodded as unfair. This is not because of my sig, but rather because it is never off-topic to complain about a moderation. If you can't stand a little criticsm, then don't moderate.
"etc and then hit them with a $10,000 buyout deal, and then it's not tring to profit of the domain name as it is fair compisation for the work"
The problem is that he's only had the domain for 6 months, and it's really only the value of the domain itself, not the actual work he did. So, by claiming his domain is worth $10k, he's saying that he's dependent on Microsoft's trademark name to make $10,0000. (or something like that...)
You guys are focusing too much on how he got at that number and not enough on how ridiculous and opportunistic he sounds.
... will their 'copyright filter' detect that I have a VHS copy of a movie and simply want a digital copy to watch on my laptop during a business trip?
"Though, to be fair, there are reasons that most folks here have such a negative impression of Microsoft that they're willing to stretch so far to bash them. Microsoft *did* sell technically inferior systems, *did* use rather nasty and misleading marketing for years, *did* work rather hard to ensure product lock-in, *did* leverage monopolies to ensure that other products of theirs beat superior ones, and *did* hide a lot of internals information that their competitors were better at providing, among other things."
I agree that the actions are understandable, the problem is that irresponsible journalism is not justifiable.
"Pet Peeve #1977832: I hate it when they use overt religious terms in scientific articles. Keep religion relegated to where it belongs and keep science scientific."
Star Trek has officially taken Genesis away as a strictly religious term.
"For someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about americans and storytelling, you seem to have a lot of problems writing in a version of english that americans can understand. "
"In this new digital age where lots of people collect every episode of their favorite TV shows we won't have to worry about this again. Long live P2P."
MST3k is living on this way. Since the Comedy Central episodes aren't being re-aired, and few of them are making it to DVD, people have taken it upon themselves to digitize whatever episodes they can get ahold of and put them on P2P. The project is called the MST3K "Digital Archive Project".
If anybody ever needed a reason to use a home-brew PC as a PVR as opposed to a TiVo, this is it.
"The old Doctor Whos were on film, not video tape. You can't record over used film. The BBC tossed them out to save space."
I have a question about that. When I was about 11 I used to borrow DW tapes from a friend of my dad's. I noticed some quality issues with the older episodes and asked about them. He said something like there was a metallic element in the film that they extracted from them for use elsewhere, which resulted in degraded quality. Was he full of shit, or was there some truth to that? Anybody know the story, if there is one, behind that? Were the old films 'recycled' in some sense?
Slashdot Mirror
"It helps when you have a good and simple programming environment. QT is so much easier to code in than GTK/GTK+/Glib/Bonobo that it isn't funny. Not to mention KParts."
I noticed a couple of downmods here. I was just wondering: Why is this post considered flamebait?
I ask because I don't have any NFI what QT, GTK, or Glib, or Bonobo is. Kinda wish the dude used the post button instead of a mod point.
"I seem to recall a couple of cases where big companies decided they wanted a particular domain name, and paid the holder about $10k for it. In those cases, they didn't have any trademark right to the name, so they basically paid fair market value."
I understand your point, but the problem is that this price was paid for a valuable domain name, not for a trademark infringing domain name. The difference? Mike Rowe should have to pay Microsoft for that, not the other way around. (Just so you know, I'd be singing an entirely different tune if this site were a parody.)
"In this case, Mike Rowe is taking the position that Microsoft doesn't have a right to the domain mikerowesoft.com, so he asked a fair market value price for it."
I can see him taking that position and feeling he's right, but I do not share his optimism. The key factor here is that he added 'soft' to the end of his name. It is VERY difficult to believe that he did this by accident. Even if his last name was 'rowesoft', it's still difficult to believe he chose to call himself that (as opposed to MichaelRowesoft.com or something like that) without realizing it would bunch up MS's knickers. He would not be able to register that as a trademark for his own business unless he was working in an entirely different area, such as agriculture.
"The fact that they first made an offer for it implies that they agree, and were opening a negotiation for sale of the domain, rather than taking it over via their trademark."
They offered to pay him the cost of registerring the domain. That's not an offer to buy the domain, that's a reimbursement to make up for his financial loss by this escapade. By offering to reimburse his loss, they're basically saying "We assume you didn't know there's a problem here..." They're not saying "We want to buy your valuable domain."
"The fact that he asked $10k won't automatically mean that he's *legally* trying to profit from the similarity."
I agree, it doesn't automatically mean he's trying to legally profit from the similarity. However, if his domain is really that valuable, how much of that value has to do with Microsoft's own trademark? If that particular name, based on Microsoft's name, is what's so valuable to his business, then he's got a bumpy road ahead of him. He made a big mistake by firing back that settlement.
" they approached him, and were the ones who initially suggested the domain had monetary value to them."
I need to re-emphasize: $10 is not an opening bid when dealing with domain names. It's a reimbursement. If it had been $100, I'd be more willing to accept that it was an offer to buy.
Actually I did, and provided a rebuttal, which you have completely ignored. A little too damning for ya? Can't get through my point, so you're trying to paint me as a pro-MS zealot instead? Weak.
"Well, of course. Microsoft should get to do anything it wants. To say otherwise would be against Microsoft, with your logic."
Or you could just try understanding my point, but that does require a little more thought-time. Easier to just hate Microsoft and be against anything they do, iddnt it?
Metamodded as unfair. This is not because of my sig, but rather because it is never off-topic to complain about a moderation. If you can't stand a little criticsm, then don't moderate.
"etc and then hit them with a $10,000 buyout deal, and then it's not tring to profit of the domain name as it is fair compisation for the work"
The problem is that he's only had the domain for 6 months, and it's really only the value of the domain itself, not the actual work he did. So, by claiming his domain is worth $10k, he's saying that he's dependent on Microsoft's trademark name to make $10,0000. (or something like that...)
You guys are focusing too much on how he got at that number and not enough on how ridiculous and opportunistic he sounds.
"IANAL but this sounds like a slam dunk for Mr Rowe."
Not to me. He didn't pick his domain name by accident.
"He's not an idiot unless MS can prove that the "Soft" part of the domain name implies a connection to the Microsoft corporation."
Say his name +'soft' out loud. There's your connection. Considering this happened long after Microsoft went after Lindows, yes he was quite the idiot.
Face facts, you all are against this because you're against Microsoft.
Allow me to edit #2 for ya there:
2.) put another few letters on the end, thus ensuring that the name sounds like a trademark, then put dot com after it.
... will their 'copyright filter' detect that I have a VHS copy of a movie and simply want a digital copy to watch on my laptop during a business trip?
"Yikes! I'm not sure Johnny Depp is worth $140!"
Most guys feel the same way.
"Why not just sell these pre-programmed with Britney Spears..."
Only if it has a mute feature.
Hopefully you understand why I now metamod all negative moderations as unfair.
"Though, to be fair, there are reasons that most folks here have such a negative impression of Microsoft that they're willing to stretch so far to bash them. Microsoft *did* sell technically inferior systems, *did* use rather nasty and misleading marketing for years, *did* work rather hard to ensure product lock-in, *did* leverage monopolies to ensure that other products of theirs beat superior ones, and *did* hide a lot of internals information that their competitors were better at providing, among other things."
I agree that the actions are understandable, the problem is that irresponsible journalism is not justifiable.
"I have never seen a compelling economic argument for manned exploration of Mars, at least in the short and medium term."
Because it's there and Russia isn't.
"Pet Peeve #1977832: I hate it when they use overt religious terms in scientific articles. Keep religion relegated to where it belongs and keep science scientific."
Star Trek has officially taken Genesis away as a strictly religious term.
Slashdot: We promote Linux and Mozilla, and we bash Microsoft in every way we can, even if it involves writing award winning fiction.
"Because neither Apple nor YOU are monopolies."
Apple is a monopoly, just not as big of one.
"Security is a job for all of us, not just Microsoft."
:(
But we get precious few opportunities to use our pitchforks.
"For someone who claims to be so knowledgeable about americans and storytelling, you seem to have a lot of problems writing in a version of english that americans can understand. "
A criticism of one's grammar is not a rebuttal.
"Dr Who? I'm not familiar with this show. "
Doh. Who let the jock in?
"I, for one, welcome our rediscovered Dalek overlords."
I hope this joke runs out of regenerations.
"In this new digital age where lots of people collect every episode of their favorite TV shows we won't have to worry about this again. Long live P2P."
MST3k is living on this way. Since the Comedy Central episodes aren't being re-aired, and few of them are making it to DVD, people have taken it upon themselves to digitize whatever episodes they can get ahold of and put them on P2P. The project is called the MST3K "Digital Archive Project".
If anybody ever needed a reason to use a home-brew PC as a PVR as opposed to a TiVo, this is it.
"The old Doctor Whos were on film, not video tape. You can't record over used film. The BBC tossed them out to save space."
I have a question about that. When I was about 11 I used to borrow DW tapes from a friend of my dad's. I noticed some quality issues with the older episodes and asked about them. He said something like there was a metallic element in the film that they extracted from them for use elsewhere, which resulted in degraded quality. Was he full of shit, or was there some truth to that? Anybody know the story, if there is one, behind that? Were the old films 'recycled' in some sense?
"My mom is a HUGE Doctor Who fan..."
Sounds like she should have stopped at taco #99.