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.

Re:What?

[Lispy]

His name is Mike Rowe and he owns
www.mikerowesoft.com.

That's enough to call MS's lawyers into his backyard.
They offered him 10 canadian Dollars for his domain. He was not amused.
Get it now?

MS the scammer

[baseinfinity]

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.

If you don't want this to happen to you...

[Zigg]

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.

Re:What?

[Araneas]

Time to feed the trolls who won't read the article.

Mike Rowe owns the domain MikeRoweSoft.com
Microsoft objected and offered to take it off his hands for "out of pocket expenses" rather than suing him into oblivion. Given that Mike's expenses were about $10 and that he had spent time and effort building up a web presence based on his own name, he made a counter offer of $10,000.

Now Microsoft is claiming Mike Rowe is trying to domain squat for profit and bringing out the big guns.

Site died, content here

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Google Cache, www.mikerowesoft.com

[bc90021]

HERE [google.com]

Google cache of site...

[pdjohe]

I had trouble going to the website. So here is the Google cache of mikerowesoft.com [216.239.41.104].

Re:MS the scammer

[Anonymous Coward]

Mike made a mistake, he asked MS for 1,000 USD, this tantamounts to blackmail, this is when MS send him those documents of the law.

IF Mike had NOT demanded the 1,000 USD , he would have a case, now he has none.

Re:I expect M$ to win this

[evilquaker]

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.

So why hasn't Microsoft gone after support.mycrowsoft.com [mycrowsoft.com]?

Re:Sounds fishy...

[platypus]

Looky here [wipo.int] and search for mikerowesoft

Re:MS the scammer

[Hammer]

Nope He wanted to regain his costs (that is actually more than the cost of the domain)
my previous comment [slashdot.org]

Re:*Trademark* not Copyright

[ScottSpeaks!]

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.)

Re:What?

[kien]

At any rate, he is clearly infringing on the Microsoft trademark. Imagine if someone could call themselves "Gee Em" and start selling cars, or if a company adopted the name "Eye Bee Em" and started selling computers and consulting services.

I fail to see how anyone could connotate "geeem.com" with "gm.com" and "eyebeeem.com" with "ibm.com" just as much as I doubt one would confuse "mikerowesoft.com" with "microsoft.com". I suppose it might be possible for non-native English speakers using Babelfish for translation, but I doubt that US and Canadian trademark law is enforceable for every concievable worldwide possibility.

--K.

Based on the Nissan.com Case .....

[leoaugust]

"I am motivated to stick with what I believe in."

And so he should. It would seem Microsoft has no choice but to back down as, legally, it doesn't have a hope in hell of winning and there are plenty of lawyers out there who would love to get a win against Microsoft under their belt.

I think if he does get enough support, he probably should fight back. But it brings another case of the Nissan.com domain to me in which the domain name can't be used commercially.

What I thought was very interesting about the case was mentioned in the FAQ to the Nissan.com case. [ncchelp.org] It said

1. As of June 12th 2000 there are (2223) domain names registered on the Internet containing the word nissan in them. To the best of our knowledge, most of those domains are not owned by Nissan Motor Co. Click here to view a partial list of them. [domainsurfer.com]
2. Also here is another list with nissan as the first word of the domain name there are (860 ) of them Click here to view. [domainsurfer.com] If you wish to see which entity owns any particular listing, just click on the WHOIS link next to it.

In the www.MikeRoweSoft.com case the interpretion is weaker as the similarity is "phonetic" which is really quite fuzzy, compared to the actual presence of the word "nissan" in the domain name. Despite this the original owner of the Nissan.com domain could not prevail.

If you go to the website Nissan.com you see the following Notice: In compliance with a ruling issued by the United States District Court in Los Angeles on November 14, 2002, in the lawsuit of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nissan Computer Corporation, this web site has been converted to non-commercial use.

The story from the Domain Name Handbook was [domainhandbook.com]

1. Japanese automaker Nissan Motors Co., Ltd. and Nissan North America, Inc. filed suit against Nissan Computer Corp., a North Carolina-based corporation since 1991 with a registered trademark for its name.
2. Uzi Nissan, an Israeli-American born in Jerusalem, registered NISSAN.COM in 1994 to expand his computer business and NISSAN.NET two years later to expand his ISP business.
3. In August 1999, he posted a logo similar to that of Nissan Motor Corp, and began promoting automobile-related products and services.
4. The automaker filed suit for trademark dilution on December 10, 1999. The court granted a preliminary injunction and held that Mr. Nissan is trading on the automaker's goodwill and diverting potential Nissan car customers to other websites.
5. He was ordered to post a prominent disclaimer of any connection to Nissan Motor Corp and refrain from displaying any auto-related information.

So, I guess, I could see something like this happen. Mike Rowe may be ordered to post a prominent disclaimer of any connection to Microsoft Corp and refrain from displaying any computer-related information. IANAL.

Re:I certainly hope that MS don't get away with th

[gidds]

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.

trademark, dammit

[ajagci]

That would be a trademark violation, not a copyright violation. The two are completely different legally. Among other things, microsoft is legally obligated to defend its trademark or face losing it.

However, if Mike Rowe's use is non-commercial, Microsoft's action is unnecessary and the shouldn't prevail (but it's probably too costly to fight them).

Re:*Trademark* not Copyright

[SyntheticTruth]

Way back in the day (1996 to be exact) I called my Website a "webzine" since that is how I saw it. All was just fine for months and then one day, I recieve and e-mail from so-n-so firm of lawyers represending some NYC based company that owned the trademark to "webzine" and they wanted me to stop using that term on my site. At first, I thought the same thing, "An e-mail? This has got to be bogus."

So I called, talked to a very nice gentleman lawyer and he pointed me to references and sure enough, they did own the trademark. So I did stop using it, but I also did get the notice via e-mail.

Lessons learned

[Safety Cap]

"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.

Google Cache link

[CineK]

As Mikes' site is already slashdotted
here [google.com] goes google cache link for this.

Re:maybe they will go after

[emilymildew]

Angelfire.com used to be a free hosting place for lusers who didn't have their own domain names.

Anglefire.com, a pretty common mis-typing of Angelfire, was a hardcore porn site.

Imagine my amusement when I realized how easily people thought I was hosting porn.

M$ must be eliminating sound-alikes...

[VinceWuzHere]

A story broke about two weeks ago about http://www.mikerosoft.ca. Mike's site (a different Mike, eh) had a web presence since 1997 and delivered small bits of code, drivers and other technical tidbits. A check of his site today shows that he's redirecting traffic to a new url pending the outcome of his discussions. He does NOT want to sell out to Micro$fot according to his site.

Re:Let's just hope...

[drxenos]

She's around 60 or 70 and Com (or was it Comm?) is her married name. She was on the news awhile back. She, of course, couldn't understand what all the fuss was about with her name.

Re:They don't want the content, just the name

[swv3752]

Google Cache [216.239.57.104]

It's official.

[Futurepower(R)]

Software giant threatens mikerowesoft [zdnet.co.uk]ZDNet.co.uk,UK-8 minutes agoMicrosoft has set its lawyers onto a 17-year-old software writer from Vancouver, called Mike Rowe, because he has registered MikeRoweSoft.com, which the

Microsoft not pleased about mikerowesoft website [ananova.com]Ananova,UK-3 hours agoA Canadian teenager called Mike Rowe who added the word soft to his name for his website title, has been ordered by Microsoft to hand over the domain.

Microsoft won't go soft on Mike Rowe [canoe.ca]London Free Press,Canada-4 hours agoVANCOUVER -- Like any good fledgling businessperson, Mike Rowe knew

Microsoft lawyers threaten Mike Rowe (17) [theregister.co.uk]The Register,UK-5 hours agoIn what could easily be mistaken for an Onion story, Microsoft has unleashed the full fury of its lawyers on 17-year-old Canadian high-school student, Mike Rowe

Mike may be Rowe, but 'soft' is trouble [nwsource.com]Seattle Times,WA-7 hours agoBy The Associated Press. VANCOUVER, BC - Mike Rowe knew he needed a catchy name for his Web-site design company. But the folks

Big bully Gates targets teen [indiatimes.com]Times of India,India-8 hours agoVANCOUVER: No matter what Shakespeare said on the theme of nomenclature, Microsoft has thought it fit to sue a teenager whose domain name is a lot like the

Microsoft vs MikeRoweSoft [iol.co.za]Independent Online,South Africa-10 hours agoVancouver, British Columbia - Mike Rowe thinks it's funny that his catchy name for a website design company sounds a lot like Microsoft.

Microsoft takes on teen [news.com.au]NEWS.com.au,Australia-10 hours agoMIKE Rowe thinks it is funny that his catchy name for a Web site design company sounds a lot like Microsoft. "Since my name is Mike

Langford student battles tech giant over use of his domain name: [canada.com]Canada.com,Canada-Jan 17, 2004Mike Rowe, a Langford high school student who does Web site design part-time, is locked in a legal battle with one of the world's biggest companies.

Microsoft vs. Mike Rowe Soft [wistv.com]WIS,SC-47 minutes ago(Vancouver, British Columbia-AP) Jan. 19, 2004 - It's Microsoft versus Mike Rowe-soft. Mike Rowe, 17, wanted a catchy name for his Web site design company.

Support CD Baby [p2pnet.net]p2pnet.net,Canada-1 hour agoBecause Mike, who lives in Victoria on Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada (and a short drive from p2pnet.net's thriving central base : ) makes a

Microsoft Talk Legal to 17 Year-Old Owner of MikeRoweSoft Domain [shortnews.com]ShortNews.com-2 hours agoMike Rowe, 17, from British Columbia, Canada decided to start up a small web business and called his domain MikeRoweSoft. Smart

Microsoft Corporation vs MikeRoweSoft [officialspin.com]OfficialSpin-3 hours agoVictoria, British Columbia -- (OfficialSpin) -- 19/01/04 -- A 17 year-old high school student, Mike Rowe, who just so happens to earn a few extra bucks...

Microsoft demands teen to give up domain name [statesmanjournal.com]Salem Statesman Journal,OR-7 hours agoVANCOUVER, British Columbia - Mike Rowe knew that he needed

Re:MS the scammer

[TekZen]

It is not a trademark issue because of the capitalization MikeRoweSoft as opposed to MicroSoft.

I know this because I own a retail franchise that sells teenage clothing (Plato's Closet of Cool Springs [platostn.com]).

We are allowed to use other brand names like GAP and OLD NAVY in our advertising, but we must use all capital letters so that we are referencing a brand and not violating a trademark.

From my understanding, Mike Rowe was neither referencing their brand nor using their trademark. And since the capitalization is different he is not violating their trademark.

However, none of this means a damn since the lawsuit is for copyright infringement. I am not quite sure how they made that leap.

-Jackson

Re:Illogical argument

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an automatic phonetic algorithm. They look for the most common phonetic matches to uncommon words. For example, if I search for AlGoreithm, it asks me if I mean algorithm.

Re:MS the scammer

[R.Caley]

Capitalism is supposed to be about a willing exchange between entities for the benefit of both.

No, that is a free market. Capitalism is about a person with resources being allowed to exploit those resources and gain the benefits. The two are often in conflict (eg free markets are damaged by monopolies, but a capitalist would often be best served by trying to create one, similarly for trade barriers and protectionism).

Traditional liberal economics basicly consists of trying to create the environment for capitalism to work, but forcing it to work within a free market.

(at which point I suppose I have to point out that liberal economics is not related to what US politicians and media have redefined the word to mean. I suspect the average /.er grew up with `liberal' meaning `illiberal')

Re:*Trademark* not Copyright

[Ironica]

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.

Yes, yes, yes... but then the laws in Canada, where Mike Rowe lives, are a little different. For example:

A trade-mark is registrable if it is not:

(a) a word that is primarily merely the name or the surname of an individual who is living or has died within the preceding thirty years (unless it has been so used in Canada by the applicant or his predecessor in title as to have become distinctive at the date of filing an application for its registration);
.
.
.
"Distinctive", in relation to a trade-mark, means a trade-mark that actually distinguishes the wares or services in association with which it is used by its owner, from the wares or services of others, or is adapted so to distinguish them.

So you see, they might have a bit of a problem claiming that a name which, primarily, is the guy's first and last name, without any funny spelling or anything, is trademark infringement... since that name isn't trademarkable unless it's already distinctive. On that they could have a claim, but they may actually have an easier time getting their way under Canadian copyright law, which I'm not nearly as familiar with as US copyright law... are you?

WOW...Now that's just spooky

[MrFreshly]

My post from a week ago [slashdot.org]...I was joking! These bozos are serious!