Lazarus
Part of the furniture
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,874
You looked at the site? I haven't looked to deeply but I cannot find one place where any normal person would mistake this site for an official microsoft site. The only way you would get confused is if you were told about the site verbally.yaruar said:the fact that he creates the site specifically to profit from using the microsoft trademarked name is the classic bit. he has no legs to stand on. I hope they suell the smug git's arse off.
Doh_boy said:You looked at the site? I haven't looked to deeply but I cannot find one place where any normal person would mistake this site for an official microsoft site. The only way you would get confused is if you were told about the site verbally.
Weird dead links all over the place mind. Which for a web-designer on his own page is a bit silly.
How can you support the richest company in the world who are sueing a 17 year old? Next you'll be telling me that the RIAA was totally correct to sue a 12 year old girl for file sharing, and should have put her in jail for her crimes against humanity*.yaruar said:the fact that he creates the site specifically to profit from using the microsoft trademarked name is the classic bit. he has no legs to stand on. I hope they suell the smug git's arse off.
Do i read this right?yaruar said:He specifically said he added the "soft" part to his name to get more hits to show off his skills as a web developer to get more work.
Trademark law is very specific, if you don't defend your trademark you lose it.
Mike Rowe was specifically using the microsoft trademark for personal gain. What he was doing with the content itself is irrelevant in this case.
He knew what he was doing. I'd be suprised if he didn't actually do it specifically to be caught so he could make himself famous. Everyone in the IT industry knows just how hard microsoft come down on infringers....
My point is that the url www.mikerowesoft.com isn't close enough for any person with passable eye-sight to www.microsoft.com to be an infringement of copyright. Also microsoft should loose because it's the gentlemans name. See the Budwiser(Us) Vs Budwiser[Budvar](Cz) case.yaruar said:He knew what he was doing. I'd be suprised if he didn't actually do it specifically to be caught so he could make himself famous. Everyone in the IT industry knows just how hard microsoft come down on infringers....
Will said:How can you support the richest company in the world who are sueing a 17 year old? Next you'll be telling me that the RIAA was totally correct to sue a 12 year old girl for file sharing, and should have put her in jail for her crimes against humanity*.
Doh_boy said:My point is that the url www.mikerowesoft.com isn't close enough for any person with passable eye-sight to www.microsoft.com to be an infringement of copyright. Also microsoft should loose because it's the gentlemans name. See the Budwiser(Us) Vs Budwiser[Budvar](Cz) case.
Scouse said:Yaruar. You miss the point completely.
Anway - 'cause my cursory glance at this pointless argument hasn't turned up the register's story on it have a look here. It's quite an informative read
Scouse said:Mike Rowe.
It's his fucking NAME. Geddit?? I'd LOVE them to try it on in court.
yaruar said:his name isn't mike rowe-soft though.
he readily admits the allusion to microsoft was deliberate. he just wants his moment of glory and the adoration of a million virgin linux weenies anyway.
Doh_boy said:My point, which you seem to be ignoring, is that the inclusion of soft at the end doesn't mean the url is a close mirepresentation of microsoft.com. It's not theft, copyright or any other because the url isn't close enough to the original to create "confusion of the customer". Also, as you said, he isn't a software company and it's obvious from the outset so confusion is avoided there as well. The only level on which mike rowe relies on the microsoft name is to make a very weak joke. To win a lawsuit they would need to prove that the site could be confused with microsoft.com by a normal person. It wouldn't and that's not what microsoft are going for. The link posted shows that microsoft are using a foible of domain name arbitration where asking for money automatically invalidates any claim to a domain*. Anyone can see the case wouldn't stand up in court.
*According to my interpretation of the inquirer article.
yaruar said:I'm not an expert.
Munkey said:I'd be insulted after being offered just 10 dollars. They started the monetary repirations, if they both offer outrageous amounts of sum then its both their faults.
nath said:Why does it make him a squatter, they made him an offer and he said that it wouldn't be enough and told them what it'd take for him to move. That's how settlements work, isn't it? Obviously he didn't expect to be paid, and surely that works in his favour?
wow, very astute addition to the thread....~Yuckfou~ said:Correct McFly !!
$10000 is what he claims the site is worth to him, in terms of hours put into it and so forth. We don't know if there's actually any maths behind that.Lazarus said:would probably determine how his lawyer "argued" his case.
whether it was an estimate of the monetary value of the work he had already put into the site, perchance?
Scouse said:The biggest problem is that Microsoft are a massive company using bullying tactics for a very dubious purpose.
It may well be about protecting their copyright for them - but to have lawyers use such tactics when they know very well that what they want is nothing that they can legally ask for is taking the piss.