Most pointless lawsuit buy microsoft evah!

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

http://www.mikerowesoft.com/

:BillyGatesisafkinggeniusitellsye:

[IncubusGod]

Hmmm,clearly microsoft are bastards but the guy is inexperienced and he may be on shakey ground. Some 17 year old kid against a couple of million dollars worth of lawyers.
I dont fancy his chances much.

[CjC]

Actually the reason this guy got MS bothered is because they wanted to buy the domain for the domain price (£10) and Mr Rowe made an offer to MS of £10,000 for his site. MS jumped on this and are now accusing him of cybersquatting rather than just using the site for his work.

[wu_trax]

what does microsoft want with customers who misspell their company name that badly anyways?

[Deciduous]

Originally Posted by CjC

Actually the reason this guy got MS bothered is because they wanted to buy the domain for the domain price (£10) and Mr Rowe made an offer to MS of £10,000 for his site. MS jumped on this and are now accusing him of cybersquatting rather than just using the site for his work.

The 10k he asked for wasn't just to cover the name of the site, but all the work he's invested in the business thus far with the existing branding and reputation that goes with it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by CjC

Mr Rowe made an offer to MS of £10,000 for his site.

I don't understand why this is considered unreasonable. They have lots of money, they want his domain, he offers 10k. What's the prob?

[lokken]

So does that mean that anyone called 'Mike Rowe' can't form his own software company, and name it after himself?

Yes, let's allow a multinational corporation remove the right of a person to establish a company in his own name!

On the face of it MS's claims seem so inconsistent it hurts.

[Grimble v2.0]

Your thread title makes no sense

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't understand why this is considered unreasonable. They have lots of money, they want his domain, he offers 10k. What's the prob?

Quickly offering to sell it (assuming he did), might suggest he has no real use for it and is just domain squatting.

[NEWSBOT3]

he didnt offer to sell it though
they said

'give it us now'

he said 'no'

they said '$10?'

he said, 'lol, no, i've spent a lot of time on this etc, i'td have to be liek 10k to cover me'

they started court proceedings.

[Evergreen]

Which is why whenever a corporation contacts you, you say, let me contact my lawyer first before I answer any of your requests or questions. With regards to you having something they want.

[NEWSBOT3]

unless your 17, and have no idea that that is what you should do.

[IncubusGod]

I wonder do they hand out the black hearts made of pure evil after you graduate from Law School or when your enroll?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Quickly offering to sell it (assuming he did), might suggest he has no real use for it and is just domain squatting.

If only we had this attitude with land law

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

unless your 17, and have no idea that that is what you should do.

If you can use the internet and develop websites at the age of 17 then you should be ****ing responsible enough to prepare for said situations.

If you can decide if you want to have sex by that age then you can decide to make sure you don't get ****ed in the ass by corporation by that age too.

If you are incapable of one I reckon you should be incapable of the other.

[queball]

(presumably this is an independent law firm only loosely associated with
MS as in similar cases, I haven't looked into it though)

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Quickly offering to sell it (assuming he did), might suggest he has no real use for it and is just domain squatting.

I don't understand what you are saying at all. I would sell you this laptop for £1000 without a moment's thought. Doesn't mean I don't use it.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Which is why whenever a corporation contacts you, you say, let me contact my lawyer first before I answer any of your requests or questions. With regards to you having something they want.

Who here 'has' a lawyer?
I don't

[skiddy]

Heh lawyers rock.

(Either do I)

[lokken]

Surely the issue here is whether people have the right to call companies in their own name, rather than anyone domain squatting. To allow this case to be successful would effectively allow a trademark to own any names similar sounding to that trademark and restrict person's rights as to creating a business.

Although in my view he isn't domain squatting, as his business grew a reputation from quality and his hard work, and the value of the domain went up as a result of the work he put in. At the very worst he should be made to put a disclaimer on his site saying he is not 'Microsoft' and a link redirecting the persons there. Such a compromise would remedy the problem, prevent needless costs, and he'd probably comply as it wouldn't cost him anything and he wouldn't want to take on the might of Microsoft.

The problem is that he fed MS a line, and they will take it all the way to court and probably win unless he can get himself a decent enough lawyer to get him out of the mess he's put himself in.

[LHC]

I'm usually against the 'lol m$ suxxxxxxx' crew, but that is really gay.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

what does microsoft want with customers who misspell their company name that badly anyways?

are you serious? since when has microsoft's target audience been intelligent people? or indeed, since when has bill gates not let out a quiet cheer every time a moron buys his products?*







*metaphorically speaking

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If only we had this attitude with land law

I'm not against domain squatting but neither am I against trademarks. The law (US anyway, dunno about other country's) says trademarks trump domains, so to the extent that mikerowesoft infringes on microsoft (it's clearly a homonym, but I'm not a lawyer) then Microsoft might have a case.

Originally Posted by lokken

Surely the issue here is whether people have the right to call companies in their own name, rather than anyone domain squatting. To allow this case to be successful would effectively allow a trademark to own any names similar sounding to that trademark and restrict person's rights as to creating a business.

Well, isn't that pretty much the whole point of trademarks? Otherwise, anyone with the name 'McDonald' could open their own hamburger stand and call it "McDonald's" (and of course, anyone could legally change their name to McDonald) so basically trademarks would cease to exist if anyone could call a company by their (current) name.

[LHC]

This guy is called Mike Rowe though, not Micro.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Well, isn't that pretty much the whole point of trademarks? Otherwise, anyone with the name 'McDonald' could open their own hamburger stand and call it "McDonald's" (and of course, anyone could legally change their name to McDonald) so basically trademarks would cease to exist if anyone could call a company by their (current) name.

"This guy is called Mike Rowe though, not Micro." In the situation you describe it would be obviously who got there first, because that's the most practical way of dealing with things. It would also have to be in direct competition with whoever got there first to be in violation of any trademark, as to stop a mr.mcdonald setting up any non-hamburger business in his own name would be a silly idea.

You can't extend a trademark to 'anything that sounds phonetically like it' as then you get more than than you paid for. Extending a trademark beyond referring to the business and trade it specifically refers to impinges other's rights, when it should only serve to protect the person who owns the trademark, a shield not a sword if you will.

[LHC]

I'm going to paypal him a dollar when I get one

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by lokken

"This guy is called Mike Rowe though, not Micro."

And "Pepsi" <> "Pepci", but if you tried to market a soft drink called Pepci I think you would find Pepsi's lawyers on your case PDQ.

You can't extend a trademark to 'anything that sounds phonetically like it' as then you get more than than you paid for.

A trademark isn't simply a collection of letters (in the case of symbols, like the Nike swoosh, it's not any letters at all). If you can stop someone using a symbol that looks like your trademark then it doesn't seem impossible that you could stop them from using one that sounds like your trademark.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

And "Pepsi" <> "Pepci", but if you tried to market a soft drink called Pepci I think you would find Pepsi's lawyers on your case PDQ.
.

Pepsi and Pepci are two single words with a single letter change. Mike Rowe is nothing like Micro other than in the phoenetic sense of the words

[KraKto$is8]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

it's clearly a homonym, but I'm not a lawyer

Don't you mean homophone?

Firstly, Mike's site doesn't say anything about Microsoft, except the news updates. The similarity is purely phonetic, and only when spoken by an English speaker. Also, "Mike Rowe" and "Micro" are pronounced differently, one is (if you'll excuse my phonetic spelling) [maik.ro] and the other [mai.kro]. So while Microsoft have a case, to win they must prove that Mike bought the domain with the intent of selling it on: which he didn't (or so he says).

[Evergreen]

Heh I saw a D&D decorators yesterday.

[KoeN]

i've been invited to a lawsuit for 22 march, the twat who hit me has been sued heh....looking forward to it already...

[Dante Hicks]

I don't support the idea of trademarks, it seems like a silly idea to protect particularly business models.

[Evergreen]

You know all we have to do is start using microsoft as part of language.

Much like how we call any vacuum cleaner a hoover, once it becomes part of the language they can no longer trademark it.

I would bring up relevent urls expressing my point better but I can't be arsed atm and I'd hope most of you would know what I'm talking about here.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by KoeN

i've been invited to a lawsuit for 22 march, the twat who hit me has been sued heh....looking forward to it already...

I hope he punches you again except puts the bridge of your nose through your brain so you stop posting irrelevant shit in threads like this.

Especially when you keep raising this fact like you won the ****ing lottery whereever you can. We stopped caring after your thread about this died.

Now let it die or you die whichever is best.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by KraKto$is8

Don't you mean homophone?

I think either works in this case, if one believes dictionary.com.

Firstly, Mike's site doesn't say anything about Microsoft, except the news updates.

Not sure how relevant that is.

The similarity is purely phonetic, and only when spoken by an English speaker. Also, "Mike Rowe" and "Micro" are pronounced differently, one is (if you'll excuse my phonetic spelling) [maik.ro] and the other [mai.kro].

They sound identical to me, as I pronounce them.

So while Microsoft have a case, to win they must prove that Mike bought the domain with the intent of selling it on: which he didn't (or so he says).

If it ever actually goes to court...

[KoeN]

hi sunday when are you leaving to canada?
ps book tickets at flash airlines, they're cheap.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

And "Pepsi" <> "Pepci", but if you tried to market a soft drink called Pepci I think you would find Pepsi's lawyers on your case PDQ.

A trademark isn't simply a collection of letters (in the case of symbols, like the Nike swoosh, it's not any letters at all). If you can stop someone using a symbol that looks like your trademark then it doesn't seem impossible that you could stop them from using one that sounds like your trademark.

But this is his name, he has the right to use it. If trademarks are denying the fundamental right to something as basic as a name and for its use in making your business, then the whole world has truly gone to piss. He has the right to call his webdesign company Mike Rowe Soft, as long as he doesn't claim to be anything to do with Microsoft or is approved by Microsoft.

My main argument here is that allowing Microsoft to win here would be flagrant breach of human rights/civil liberties without reasonable justification. As you say, a trademark exists to protect rights. I agree that trademarks are there to protect the rights of a brand - but should they go so far as to be used to impinge fundamental rights such as use of a name because of its (possibly phonetical) similarities?

If that name is flagrantly living off the brand (e.g. Mr McDonald and his hamburger stand - I'm not sure if Pepci is a name, as you have some odd names in the US, I suspect it isn't) and that a reasonable person could take one as the other, quite possibly. Otherwise, certainly not - 'Mike Rowe Soft' bares no comparison to 'microsoft', doesn't claim to be like microsoft, nor does it provide the service that Microsoft provide; it designs pages for you rather than giving you a program to design the pages. As i've said above, a disclaimer would probably sort this out quite nicely, as Mr.Rowe seems to be acting with good intentions, nor does he claim to or have anything to do with microsoft.

[queball]

Whether or not it's your name doesn't matter at all.
It is important that trademarks look and sound different.
Is your argument that when you put two principles together they no longer hold?


And I doubt this is a serious case, but we'll see.

[Tactitus]

Crisis averted!

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

what does microsoft want with customers who misspell their company name that badly anyways?

Its their average user??

[Ebany]

A while back KFC tried to sue a place called 'Kents Tuck-In Fried Chicken'.

I don't know who won. That was more of a blatant 'trying-to-make-it-sound-the-same' though.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Whether or not it's your name doesn't matter at all.

If you are John Smith and set up a Mike-Rowe-Soft site then there's that much more evidence you have done this merely as a domain-squatting attempt. So it does matter.

[CjC]

My point was that Microsoft could Spin (T&F you were right, but Im not a pheasant - thats a bird) the situation when he offered to sell the site for 10k, they clearly were using his quick reaction as a reason to sue.

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

Originally Posted by Mike Rowe

“They responded to this email by offering to give me all of my out-of-pocket expenses in return for the domain name. This came out to be $10; the amount I paid for the domain. This made me feel insulted. I had spent a lot of time building up my site and I had only been offered $10 for my work. I responded by asking for $10,000, which I regret doing now, for my work and domain name.”

I guess MS have revoked this now.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35012.html

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If you are John Smith and set up a Mike-Rowe-Soft site then there's that much more evidence you have done this merely as a domain-squatting attempt. So it does matter.

Well if your names John Smith you set up a beer company and avoid law suits...

[CjC]

Didnt Ronald Macdonald win a law suit to stop Mcdonalds closing his cafe.

[KraKto$is8]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Not sure how relevant that is.

Well, if Mike had put up loads of Microsoft-style stuff on his website, in a way Whitehouse.org used to be, then he'd be "impersonating" microsoft.com (I don't know legal lingo) and thus Microsoft'd have a case.
But it looks like they've dropped it, so I think sanity is restored.

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

what does microsoft want with customers who misspell their company name that badly anyways?

Advice on how to improve the spellchecker on Word ?

Vaio