Microsoft Lawyers Threaten 17-year old Mike Rowe

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theregister.com/content/6/34955.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theregister.com/content/6/34955.html</a><br /><br /></div>"In 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, demanding the handover of his Internet domain. The domain? MikeRoweSoft.com. No, seriously. Victoria-based Mike is currently studying maths and chemistry and plans to study computer science at Victoria University next year. 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..."<br /><br />I'm a pretty big fan of Microsoft, and I dislike the mindless Microsoft bashing I often see, but this is utterly insane and Microsoft Canada should be ashamed of what they're doing. :devilboy:

[Jeff Rutledge]

That is insane. It's not like he's squatting.

I agree with you completely that Microsoft should be ashamed. Who decides this stuff?!?!

[dmacburry2003]

Doesn't it have to be the EXACT name to violate copyright?

[Jonathan1]

What?!!? Didn't you hear? Its open season on suing everyone and their mother. Jason you'll be hearing from my lawyer because your name starts with J as does mine. coincidence? I think NOT! ;)

Oh and add me to the insane vote.
Seriously. What did you expect? This is the same company that went after Lindows for their name. :roll: Admittedly different ballpark. Same game. Then again there was the Palm Inc domain name slapdown a few years ago so....

[dmacburry2003]

I'm going to invent a laundry detergent called MightySoft and clean Microsoft's act up with it :lol:

Edit: And I won't give a crap if the sue me :twisted:

Edit: Or my momma :wink:

[Jonathon Watkins]

Doesn't it have to be the EXACT name to violate copyright?

Not really - there are many cases of 'near spellings' trying to pass off for the real thing. Copyright is a difffernt matter from Domain disputes.

Lindows is differnt. Come on - don't tell me they aren't *trying* to make the connection with Windows. :roll:

[Dave Beauvais]

I think the worst thing is that when huge corporations such as Microsoft go after the "little guy," they will almost always win by default. Who really has the money to fight a serious legal battle against Microsoft. If I had to choose giving up a domain name or going bankrupt fighting in the court system with Microsoft's highly-paid legal team, I'd have no choice but to give them what they want. I think the only thing this Mike Rowe has going for him is the outpouring of public support. It's really sad that it's often not who's right, but who has the most money.

[jeasher]

Go Mike go!

[guinness]

Microsoft would be better off spending that money on fixing the WM2003 alarm bug rather than on lawyers.

[dmacburry2003]

Totally agree with guinness!



Oh, watch out, that World Records company might try to sue you :roll:

[MaximumPDA]

I don’t think he would have to go bankrupt; do you really have to have a lawyer? Just some basic advice and call for a bunch of continuances to drag it on. I am sure there must be a dummies guide on how to drag out a lawsuit. Basically make MS spend a bunch of money and get as much press as possible, even if he looses he would only be out minimal money and some lost time but have the satisfaction of them spending thousands on their lawyers and the bad press.


--Bill

[szamot]

I am sure there is an army of blood suckers just lining up at Mike’s doors trying to sink their teeth into MS just to say that they did and could put it on their resume willing to work pro bono. I don't think Mike will have to spend a dime, well perhaps on a new suit, no pun intended, to look suitable in court if it gets that far.

[ctmagnus]

Hasn't the site in question been in use for a really, really long time now? IIRC, I first heard about it over a year ago. But a quick whois indicates the domain was (re)registered August 5 of last year, which is still over six months.

[Gerard]

When I heard about this yesterday on CBC Radio, they asked straight up what Microsoft were offering him. The answer? $10. Canadian dollars. That's like $7.50 US, or less. Come on Microsoft, no domain name goes that cheap, no matter how stupid the name. And since this kid's obviously intending a fairly deep involvement with software what with the university specialty upcoming and all, I'd say adding 'soft' to the end of his VERY OWN LEGAL NAME is perfectly legitimate.
This strikes me as rather similar in mass-unappeal to the discontinuity of 98/98SE and eventually ME support this year. Enough people offered Microsoft a big ol' raspberry for the sheer audacity of the megacorp, and they backed right off making excuses and talking as though it was really in the plans all along, and it fit with their normal support scheduling anyway, and...... good grief.

People at large are just going to get even more irrationally hateful towards Microsoft if they keep this up. Sure, they're a great company in a ton of ways, offering opportunities for a host of pure research teams to spend Redmond money like crazy, giving tons of people jobs (though too many in third-party support which owes to the various OS releases being so buggy), and lots of other great things they bring to the world. But that attitude, it's got to go. If they want to be perceived thoroughly as the hip outfit they plainly want to be seen as, that is.

[gohtor]

heh yeah kinda funny to see a local guy just decide to setup a domain name only to find he gets slapped by a notice to surrender the name. Funny enough if he really wanted to set up a BC incorporation company his name probably would have passed without notice =)

[gohtor]

Doesn't it have to be the EXACT name to violate copyright?

trademarking a catch phrase allows one to sue on the grounds that it is similar or alike in nature. I think f*ckedcompany.com had their share of lawsuits when titling articles with altered catch phrases.

[Master O'Mayhem]

I just registered www.PoquetPeeCeeThots.com :P :P :P

i think that we should all refer to the big giant as mikeRoweSoft from now on .

[jeasher]

I just registered www.PoquetPeeCeeThots.com :P :P :P

i think that we should all refer to the big giant as mikeRoweSoft from now on .

Exactly. I think that young man should sue the corporation because they are using his name without consent.

[Duncan]

This reminds me of the attempt by McDonalds to sue a McDonald's Restaurant in Scotland - completely missing the point that it was a restaurant actually owned by a family called McDonald that had been in business for years before McDonalds the fast food chain had even been thought of...!

In the end people have the right to use their names and generic terms in the names of their businesses - even if it matches or sounds like another business.

[Oleander]

Theese kind af lawsuits can backfire....

http://www.mcspotlight.org/

[hamishmacdonald]

Funny off-topic follow-up to the McDonald's restatuant story: apparently the defendants in the case had on their side the current head of the clan MacDonald! He said in court words to the effect of, "Actually, it's you who should be asking me for permission to use the name!"

[nGage]

Anyone want to rush out and register www.MyCrowSoft.com for a laugh... :wink:

[felixdd]

I think the worst thing is that when huge corporations such as Microsoft go after the "little guy," they will almost always win by default.

Not really -- MS has been smackdown-ed before. Read Microsoft Vs. Eolas (just search it up on google). Granted, I find Eolas' motivation for the suit ridiculous and I'm on MS's side.

But not this time.

And the register, MS was "offering" $10 for a reason -- they wanted to lure the kid to return with a higher price (and he did -- 10,000). Then they lay the smackdown -- because Mike offered to sell at a price, then MS can argue that he really didn't want to keep it....

As he now knows, Mike had unwittingly slipped into the classic trap set by companies in order to get hold of domain names - the creation of a “bad faith” use of the domain. By offering to sell the domain for profit (even if sparked by the offer of payment by the other party), according to the bent logic of domain dispute arbitrators, it shows the owner had no legitimate interest in the domain and so it should be handed over.

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34955.html

[Ken Mattern]

in 1984 our friend William Gibson wrote Neuromancer and in 1988 he wrote Mona Lisa Overdrive. Gibson coined the term "Cyberspace". In those books he also used the term "microsofts" to describe human implantable memory chips to facilitate jacking into cyberspace. Did he coin the term "web" also?

How come Microsoft has not troubled Mr. Gibson for using a name that is almost identical to their own to describe what might be a competing product (so to speak). :wink: Maybe back then the ten year old company didn't have the clout, or maybe they felt it enhanced them.

Either way today they are just a big bully. :devilboy:

Maybe those lawyers should read "How to Win Friends and Influence People". This book has a much more positive look.

[wigglesworth]

This is really sad! what a disgrace on the behalf of Microsoft, sorry Microsoft but in this case it has to be said,.....your being way to ANAL! :bad-words:

[Craig Horlacher]

This is just another reason for me to continue my support of open source software!

Have you tried OpenOffice 1.1? It has built in support for the pocket pc word and excel formats! You don't need activesync to read/write the files! It's kind of funny that MS Office can't do this. Oh, and it also can write PDF's!

[mv]

Microsoft would be better off spending that money on fixing the WM2003 alarm bug rather than on lawyers.

And they ask themselves why so many people hate them. Here´s why. I have no loyalty to MS from a long time ago; like most people, i´m just waiting for something better.

[Steven Cedrone]

On the other side of this...

If Microsoft would allow this person to use the name without going after him, does it set a precident for future trade mark/name disputes that the company does not want to open itself up to???

Steve

[jeasher]

On the other side of this...

If Microsoft would allow this person to use the name without going after him, does it set a precident for future trade mark/name disputes that the company does not want to open itself up to???

Steve

You mean letting him use his own name and likeness?

[Jeff Rutledge]

On the other side of this...

If Microsoft would allow this person to use the name without going after him, does it set a precident for future trade mark/name disputes that the company does not want to open itself up to???

Steve

I do see your point here Steve and would agree with it if someone was using a domain for no other reason than to cash in on Microsoft's name. But this is his own name. The worst thing he's done is been clever. That's what makes this such a bad call by M$, IMO.

[Phoenix]

I could see this lawsuit as ridiculous, which it very well may be. But maybe one of the concerns that Microsoft has, is that if they let this guy have his site, then they may have to let everyone else, who chooses to put up a site with alternate Microsoft spellings, keep their sites, too. And some of those would very easily end up becoming slanderous, anti-MS sites which after awhile would totally get out of control. How many alternate spellings could we come up with?

MikeRoweSoft
MyCrowSoft
MykeRoSoft
MykRowSopht
MieKrowSawft
MyeChroSoftt

And on and on and on... There could be a hundred different spellings, and this could become a trend and lead to some serious marketing and business issues for Microsoft. Microsoft may be large, but they are a business nonetheless and no other business would put up with that or chance what I suggested could happen.

Just another perspective.

[Jeff Rutledge]

I could see this lawsuit as ridiculous, which it very well may be. But maybe one of the concerns that Microsoft has, is that if they let this guy have his site, then they may have to let everyone who chooses to put up a site with alternate Microsoft spellings, to keep their sites, too. And some of those would very easily end up becoming slanderous, anti-MS sites which after awhile would totally get out of control. How many alternate spellings could we come up with?

MikeRoweSoft
MyCrowSoft
MykeRoSoft
MykRowSopht
MieKrowSawft
MyeChroSoftt

And on and on and on... There could be a hundred different spellings, and this could become a trend and lead to some serious marketing and business issues for Microsoft. Microsoft may be large, but they are a business nonetheless and no other business would put up with that or chance what I suggested could happen.

Just another perspective.

Again, I agree with this point totally, but this is his own name. If my name was Tom Cruise and I registered www.tomcruise.com before the actor did, tough beans! If I registered www.tomcruise.com, I'd have no good reason and then I could see the justification for the lawsuit.

[Steven Cedrone]

But...

He didn't use MichaelRowe.com did he???

I'm no lawyer, but I can see why Microsoft would have to go after him...

Steve

[Phoenix]

I could see this lawsuit as ridiculous, which it very well may be. But maybe one of the concerns that Microsoft has, is that if they let this guy have his site, then they may have to let everyone who chooses to put up a site with alternate Microsoft spellings, to keep their sites, too. And some of those would very easily end up becoming slanderous, anti-MS sites which after awhile would totally get out of control. How many alternate spellings could we come up with?

MikeRoweSoft
MyCrowSoft
MykeRoSoft
MykRowSopht
MieKrowSawft
MyeChroSoftt

And on and on and on... There could be a hundred different spellings, and this could become a trend and lead to some serious marketing and business issues for Microsoft. Microsoft may be large, but they are a business nonetheless and no other business would put up with that or chance what I suggested could happen.

Just another perspective.

Again, I agree with this point totally, but this is his own name. If my name was Tom Cruise and I registered www.tomcruise.com before the actor did, tough beans! If I registered www.tomcruise.com, I'd have no good reason and then I could see the justification for the lawsuit.

Not exactly. He's not just using his name. He's turning it into something else, which he even admitted to. If it were just www.mikerowe.com, that would be one thing. But he's using www.mikerowesoft.com which is something else altogether. It can't be compared to having the same name as another individual, because a lot of people have the same first AND last names in this world and that's life and we can't sue each other for having the same names. But in business, when it comes to names, it's another story altogether. Businesses CAN sue each other for rights to a given name - of course, whether they choose to sue or not is another story, too.

What you're talking about regarding Tom Cruise in essence explains what this guy is doing - it's just that he thinks he has a loophole because his name can cleverly be applied via alternate spelling to the URL. A lot is going to boil down to what is at stake in terms of Microsoft's business. If Mike Rowe loses his site to Microsoft, his life will still continue and he can always register www.mikerowe.com or some other spelling if it's available and accomplish the same thing in terms of promoting himself. But if he is allowed to keep his site, it could open up doors to a lot of extra trouble for a company that has enough to juggle already. So who would have the most to lose? Well, Microsoft, of course. And this carries a lot of weight. Who will be taken more seriously under these specific circumstances and with all that I mentioned in mind? A 17 year-old kid, or a huge corporation that 50,000 grown adults work at and depend on to make their living in order to support their families, which now results in many, many adults potentially being affected. Anyone can argue all they want about how much these employees would actually be affected by a potential trend that got out of control and who might be affected the most, but the bottom line is, when the company suffers, all the employees suffer. This is how it will be looked at in part.

I don't think this kid stands a chance.

[possmann]

Hmm - the kid asked for $10K for the site name - How much has Microsoft spent on principle by sickin their legal team after him? Bad business decision...

[Steven Cedrone]

Hmm - the kid asked for $10K for the site name - How much has Microsoft spent on principle by sickin their legal team after him? Bad business decision...

I would imagine that the "legal team" gets paid whether they are used to go after this "kid" or not...

Steve

[Phoenix]

Hmm - the kid asked for $10K for the site name - How much has Microsoft spent on principle by sickin their legal team after him? Bad business decision...

I would imagine that the "legal team" gets paid whether they are used to go after this "kid" or not...

Steve

They are. That's how most big businesses do it. Attorneys are just regular employees - and most likely in this case MS employees - like everyone else there and who get regular salaries like everyone else there. If the attorneys had nothing to do, they'd still get paid anyway. But of course, they always have something to do. A business like Microsoft is a major target for every retarded lawsuit on the planet and business in general especially at that level is one giant law-landscape so attorneys are needed just like management or any other staff member.

There are always additional court costs beyond attorneys' salaries, but apparently MS feels there is enough at stake to justify the cost, otherwise they wouldn't waste their time.

[Jeff Rutledge]

A lot is going to boil down to what is at stake in terms of Microsoft's business. If Mike Rowe loses his site to Microsoft, his life will still continue and he can always register www.mikerowe.com or some other spelling if it's available and accomplish the same thing in terms of promoting himself. But if he is allowed to keep his site, it could open up doors to a lot of extra trouble for a company that has enough to juggle already.

I don't believe this should be decided on who would be more inconvenienced.

So who would have the most to lose? Well, Microsoft, of course. And this carries a lot of weight. Who will be taken more seriously under these specific circumstances and with all that I mentioned in mind? A 17 year-old kid, or a huge corporation that 50,000 grown adults work at and depend on to make their living in order to support their families, which now results in many, many adults potentially being affected. Anyone can argue all they want about how much these employees would actually be affected by a potential trend that got out of control and who might be affected the most, but the bottom line is, when the company suffers, all the employees suffer. This is how it will be looked at in part.

Again, I don't think this should be the basis of a judgement. Also, can someone explain to me how this kid's website threatens Microsoft's ability to do business???

I don't think this kid stands a chance.

I hope you're wrong. If he does lose, I expect it will be because he tried to bargain with them.

[Phoenix]

I don't believe this should be decided on who would be more inconvenienced.

Perhaps it ends up having no impact on the final decision, but it has to be at least considered because in business, it is an issue which could potentially impact the bottom line, and that carries weight in a courtroom.

...can someone explain to me how this kid's website threatens Microsoft's ability to do business???

It's not just that this kid's website alone could create trouble perchance, but what allowing him to keep it could potentially open the doors to... read my previous posts. It's easier and less expensive to take preemptive steps to avoid trouble, than to wait until it's too late and then try to clean up the mess.

I hope you're wrong. If he does lose, I expect it will be because he tried to bargain with them.

If the bottom line is at stake, there is no bargaining.

[Kati Compton]

I hope you're wrong. If he does lose, I expect it will be because he tried to bargain with them.

If the bottom line is at stake, there is no bargaining.
Yeah, but it sounds like the initial $10 offer on the part of Microsoft was intended to instigate bargaining on his part, either for the purposes of settling quickly or to win in court because he bargained.

[Steven Cedrone]

Yeah, but it sounds like the initial $10 offer on the part of Microsoft was intended to instigate bargaining on his part, either for the purposes of settling quickly or to win in court because he bargained.

I would venture to say, the latter. This is not the first time Microsoft has had to deal with "problems" like this, and I'm sure this is the easiest way for them to win the case...

Steve

[Kati Compton]

Yeah, but it sounds like the initial $10 offer on the part of Microsoft was intended to instigate bargaining on his part, either for the purposes of settling quickly or to win in court because he bargained.
I would venture to say, the latter. This is not the first time Microsoft has had to deal with "problems" like this, and I'm sure this is the easiest way for them to win the case...
Yeah - I was just saying that even if you give MS the benefit of the doubt on that one, it doesn't sound like the kid ran up to them and said "give me $10K".

[Jeff Rutledge]

It's not just that this kid's website alone could create trouble perchance, but what allowing him to keep it could potentially open the doors to... read my previous posts. It's easier and less expensive to take preemptive steps to avoid trouble, than to wait until it's too late and then try to clean up the mess.

I just don't like this idea of suing someone to prevent someone else from possibly doing something similar. Basically Microsoft is saying "We don't have any particular problem with your site, but someone else might copy you and we may have a problem with theirs so we're going to have to sue you."

This drives me nuts - the fact that everybody sues now. It's ridiculous. The onus should be on Microsoft to prove that he registered this site with the intention of making Microsoft pay for it. To me, his name alone casts all the doubt you could want.

To me, this is just Microsoft having a temper tantrum and acting spoiled. I hope the judge sees it this way and gives them a kick in the pants.

[Kati Compton]

This drives me nuts - the fact that everybody sues now. It's ridiculous. The onus should be on Microsoft to prove that he registered this site with the intention of making Microsoft pay for it. To me, his name alone casts all the doubt you could want.
Well, I don't like that people can't make anti-fan sites about companies using similar names anymore. I may or may not agree with those sites, but I don't see why they can't exist, and can't use a similar parody name. Remember parody? Sigh. But that's neither here nor there.

[wizardmaster2k]

i hope mike rowe doesnt get screwed. i mean, big deal, i dont see how it is hurting microsoft anyways?? and 10 dollars, right.....

*** Edited by moderator KC 20-Jan-04 for language.

[aroma]

Here's where I think the kid's problem is. In some of the interviews and arcticles I've read about him, Mike openly addmited to using that domain name because of similiarities to Microsofts. He's specificly picked MikeRoweSoft in order to capilize (although maybe just a tiny bit) off of the well known company's name. It wasn't like he just picked that name at random because that's what he wanted to use for his company's name. He specifically picked that name because of the association. Obviously I don't think he intended nor would have caused any harm. However I think this might be where he crossed the legal line.

- Aaron

[Kati Compton]

Here's where I think the kid's problem is. In some of the interviews and arcticles I've read about him, Mike openly addmited to using that domain name because of similiarities to Microsofts. He's specificly picked MikeRoweSoft in order to capilize (although maybe just a tiny bit) off of the well known company's name. It wasn't like he just picked that name at random because that's what he wanted to use for his company's name. He specifically picked that name because of the association. Obviously I don't think he intended nor would have caused any harm. However I think this might be where he crossed the legal line.
Yeah, but if it was an "Oh, that's FUNNY!" reason, or just for the joy of punning, then what's the problem? I don't think anyone will mistake his site for the real one. And he's not trying to "steal" customers by tricking them, or making people think he's MS-endorsed...

[PetiteFlower]

Sad as it may be, MS kind of DOES have to go after this kid. If a company does not "vigorously defend" their copyrights and trademarks, then that weakens their ability to keep them. They don't have to win, but they do have to find these types of infringements and attempt to shut them down. Whether this is a legitimate infringement or not is for the courts to decide; but if MS knows about it, they HAVE to act or it opens them up to all sorts of other exploitations in the future.

Now that's not saying I think they're right. And the way they tried to trick him into asking for money I don't think will hold up in court, I think that would fall into the category of bad faith. If he's been maintaining a site about himself from the time he registered the name, having nothing to do with the MS corporation, that is not a parody of them or openly trying to affiliate with MS at all, then that's a big point in his favor. In fact if it was a parody site he'd have an even better chance since parody is protected under Fair Use. But if the only thing that would make someone think of Microsoft is the name of the site, I don't think MS will win this. At most they might be able to make him put up a disclaimer saying he's not affiliated with the Microsoft Corporation. They can't say that anyone would end up at his site when they were trying to get to the REAL microsoft site.....

[Duncan]

I don't think anyone will mistake his site for the real one. And he's not trying to "steal" customers by tricking them, or making people think he's MS-endorsed...

Which is his best chance of winning. MS will need to prove that customers could get confused in order to convince a judge that MikeRoweSoft is a problem. Mike Rowe's actual intentions are a secondary consideration.

As for his 'own goal' of offering to sell for £10,000 - in law every body of work, skill etc. has a monetary value and all Mike Rowe did was name the price of his. To suggest, as some have, that MS can use this to prove that Rowe intended to extort money from them... well that could only work IF Rowe hadn't actively used his site AND already given a valid reason (a 'joke') for the choice of domain name. In short he will need to be before a very lazy/stupid and/or corrupt judge for this argument to work.

Also - to suggest that MS *had* to go after Rowe to protect their trademark - no, they did not. If I registered 'Mikrosoft.com' in an attempt to extort money from MS they would be justified in going after me. IF I cited 'MikeRoweSoft' as a precendent I would fail as MS would be able to show that there was no need to go after them as there was no intent to extort and a valid reason justification for the name.

[jornadaholic]

like a 17 year old kid could ever do damadge to the mighty microsoft he could do more damdge to ms by downloading kazaa and getting free copies of all their software

[Jeff Rutledge]

An Update:


"We appreciate that Mike Rowe is a young entrepreneur who came up with a creative domain name. We take our trademark seriously, but maybe a little too seriously in this case."

See the entire article here (http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-5143614.html?tag=nefd_top).

[JustinGTP]

This is ridiculous - I am not even going to start ranting.

[Don Tolson]

Switching gears completely... I noticed from the various articles that, depending upon how carefully the reporter checks his geography, Mike is either from Vancouver or Victoria. I LOVE how the rest of North America can't figure out the difference between the two....

and how articles written in the US are very careful to include the COUNTRY (Canada) from which the story hales...Oh well... let's not start a rant about teaching US kids some basic geography about PROVINCES in CANADA and STATES in MEXICO...

[Duncan]

Switching gears completely... I noticed from the various articles that, depending upon how carefully the reporter checks his geography, Mike is either from Vancouver or Victoria. I LOVE how the rest of North America can't figure out the difference between the two....

and how articles written in the US are very careful to include the COUNTRY (Canada) from which the story hales...Oh well... let's not start a rant about teaching US kids some basic geography about PROVINCES in CANADA and STATES in MEXICO...

Ummm... this story was written by a London (the real one in the UK!) based reporter!

[felixdd]

Ummm... this story was written by a London (the real one in the UK!) based reporter!

Umm...
....various articles....

Obviously The Reg isn't the only one covering this story.

[Tom W.M.]

and how articles written in the US are very careful to include the COUNTRY (Canada) from which the story hales...Oh well... let's not start a rant about teaching US kids some basic geography about PROVINCES in CANADA and STATES in MEXICO...
US "kids" are taught about Canadian Provinces. I can attest that they're sure a hell of a lot easier to remember than the 50 US states. Writing IN ALL CAPS is just ASKING to be corrected. It screams, “ARGUE WITH ME!”

As for the topic, &lt;:grumble:> stupid Microsoft paranoid ba$tards. They'd BETTER regret this, the stupid, arrogant a$$es. &lt;/:grumble:> It's his name, so they shouldn't have any right to the domain. The whole case is ridiculous, and I'm glad MS has realized it.

[jlp]

Note that MyCrowsoft.com has been registered (plus the co.uk, ca, de, net & org!!); Most probably domain squatters. I wonder what will happen with them.

Also note that MikeRowe.com is already taken too.

[Steven Cedrone]

It's his name, so they shouldn't have any right to the domain. The whole case is ridiculous, and I'm glad MS has realized it.

Regardless of whether or not it is ridiculous, this quote from the article is what many here have been talking about:

"Under the law, Microsoft is required to take action to protect its trademark against widespread infringement. Struan Robertson, editor of Out-Law.com, a Web site that covers legal issues affecting information technology, explained that if a holder does not take action to protect its trademark whenever it is aware of a potential infringement, it risks losing that protection. "

Steve

[Phoenix]

It's his name, so they shouldn't have any right to the domain. The whole case is ridiculous, and I'm glad MS has realized it.

Regardless of whether or not it is ridiculous, this quote from the article is what many here have been talking about:

"Under the law, Microsoft is required to take action to protect its trademark against widespread infringement. Struan Robertson, editor of Out-Law.com, a Web site that covers legal issues affecting information technology, explained that if a holder does not take action to protect its trademark whenever it is aware of a potential infringement, it risks losing that protection. "

Steve

That was also my point from the beginning. But I guess like anything else, time will tell what will happen with all of this.

[Palmguy]

Oh well... let's not start a rant about teaching US kids some basic geography about PROVINCES in CANADA and STATES in MEXICO...

:roll:

[the sneak]

like a 17 year old kid could ever do damadge to the mighty microsoft he could do more damdge to ms by downloading kazaa and getting free copies of all their software

havent you seen the movie antitrust? :roll:

[bobyeo]

Hang on there Mike!

One more reason why I should not buy Microsoft Products!

Those guys got too much dollars and too little sense.

:devilboy:

[Philip Colmer]

In case no-one else has caught the latest on this, Mike Rowe has agreed to transfer ownership of the domain to Microsoft, and is setting up a new domain.

His price? A trip to Redmond, an X-box game and MSDN membership.

--Philip

[Jason Dunn]

And the latest twist:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3382073018&category=2312

Good for him I say - if he can get some $$$ from someone who wants to own a legal document, why not. :lol:

[Delta737]

8O 8O 8O 8O Does he really get $115,600 for such a document??? Microsoft, send me one! :lol:

[Steven Cedrone]

8O 8O 8O 8O Does he really get $115,600 for such a document??? Microsoft, send me one! :lol:

Wow, yesterday it was only 50K!

Steve

[ctmagnus]

US $200,100.00! 8O

I may have to change my name!

[Janak Parekh]

US $200,100.00! 8O
That's gotta be BS. Either that, or Mike is already one of the most brilliant businessmen that ever lived. ;)

--janak

[Jacob]

Heck, I'm gonna start a new web site called www.eyebm.com darn it!

This is worth getting sued.

[Janak Parekh]

Heck, I'm gonna start a new web site called www.eyebm.com darn it!
It's been taken since 1996. ;)

--janak

[Kati Compton]

Heck, I'm gonna start a new web site called www.eyebm.com darn it!
I'd be REALLY afraid to visit a site with that URL. 8O

[JustinGTP]

It is kind of sad how he transferred it over to Microsoft.

He should have standed his ground... :roll:

[Steven Cedrone]

It is kind of sad how he transferred it over to Microsoft.

He should have standed his ground... :roll:

Why? He was in a "no win" situation. He already lost and he knew it. Why not make some "realistic" demands and enjoy. It's easy to judge when you are not the one under the gun...

Steve

[Fishie]

That and he is making several hunderd k on ebay right now.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3382073018

[Fishie]

Oops sorry, was linked to already.

[Pat Logsdon]

He should have standed his ground... :roll:

"Standed''?

Why is it sad? Microsoft admitted that they made a mistake, and then they were kind of cool about the whole thing. Did you read what he said on his site? In a nutshell, he said that he was 17 and had better things to do with his life than fight Microsoft over something that started out as a joke.

Sounds like a reasonable, mature decision to me...

[Jeff Rutledge]

He should have standed his ground... :roll:

"Standed''?

Why is it sad? Microsoft admitted that they made a mistake, and then they were kind of cool about the whole thing. Did you read what he said on his site? In a nutshell, he said that he was 17 and had better things to do with his life than fight Microsoft over something that started out as a joke.

Sounds like a reasonable, mature decision to me...

I agree. I felt from the beginning that if Microsoft had called him up and offered him "Lunch with Bill" or something equally creative this wouldn't have been an issue.

[Jacob]

Okay, two days ago this auction was at $200,000.

Now it's at $20,560,300.00 8O

I think Mike Rowe can retire at 17 years old!

[Pat Logsdon]

Okay, two days ago this auction was at $200,000.

Now it's at $20,560,300.00 8O

I think Mike Rowe can retire at 17 years old!
That's hilarious! I checked out the current high bidder's recent purchases, and I'm sorry, but someone who buys "14 Hard To Find Arby's Buy 1 Get 1 Free Coupons (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31411&item=2961811863)" on EBAY is probably not going to cough up 20.5 mil...

:mrgreen:

[Steven Cedrone]

That's hilarious! I checked out the current high bidder's recent purchases, and I'm sorry, but someone who buys "14 Hard To Find Arby's Buy 1 Get 1 Free Coupons (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31411&item=2961811863)" on EBAY is probably not going to cough up 20.5 mil...

Maybe he's a millionaire with a "Fast Food Coupon Collection" :wink: :lol:

Steve

[Jeff Rutledge]

Maybe he's a millionaire with a "Fast Food Coupon Collection" :wink: :lol:

Steve

Maybe he's a millionaire because of Fast Food coupons...

(something to think about...)

[ctmagnus]

Down to $8300

That was a disappointing loss. :(

[Steven Cedrone]

Wow, they really cleaned up that auction. I guess it stinks when you are trying to auction something off and it gets treated like a joke. Since he is now only accepting pre-approved bids that amount is now genuine.

Steve

[Jeff Rutledge]

Wow, they really cleaned up that auction. I guess it stinks when you are trying to auction something off and it gets treated like a joke. Since he is now only accepting pre-approved bids that amount is now genuine.

Steve

Still, you gotta be impressed. I'd be pretty happy with $8K.

[Steven Cedrone]

Still, you gotta be impressed. I'd be pretty happy with $8K.

I'd be happy to get 8K myself! :wink:

Steve

[Pat Logsdon]

Looks like it's down to ~$5k now... hang on, let me check my wallet...yup, I'd be happy with that, too! :mrgreen:

[ctmagnus]

Whoa... back down to zero bids.

Note: This listing is restricted to pre-approved bidders or buyers only.

Email the seller to be placed on the pre-approved bidder/buyer list.

[JustinGTP]

He should have standed his ground... :roll:

"Standed''?

Why is it sad? Microsoft admitted that they made a mistake, and then they were kind of cool about the whole thing. Did you read what he said on his site? In a nutshell, he said that he was 17 and had better things to do with his life than fight Microsoft over something that started out as a joke.

Sounds like a reasonable, mature decision to me...

Surgical, you forgot to end off your ellipses (...) with a period because it is at the end of the sentence.

Really, come on. Stop spell checking my posts, this isn't a resume. I think we have had this conversation before.

Oh, and there is one bid at $500.00 USD.

-Justin.

[Jason Dunn]

Heck, I'm gonna start a new web site called www.eyebm.com darn it! This is worth getting sued.

Register poketpeeseethots.com and I'll sue you, then we'll split the profits of the publicity... ;-)