Check out this article, M$ suing 17yrs old boy!!!

[Deagle]

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/19/offbeat.mike.rowe.soft.ap/index.html)

[Abbadon]

:rolleyes: ugh, disgusting. You'd think they'd be happy with this kind of free advertising.

[jeeza]

They do have a sense of humor. They offered the boy 10US$ for his domain name !
Of course, he didn't think that was funny, so he is asking them 10,000US$ !
Why does MS feel threatened by that site ?
For lazy visitors : www.MikeRowesoft.com
It is not a rip-off, he didn't steal anything from them, it's his own name.
So they feel threatened by some hidden intention behind it.

[jcnoernberg]

they should have said $1,000, not even a drop in the bucket... err... ocean for MS, and what 17 y/o wouldn't take that?

[jcnoernberg]

it's his own name.
So they feel threatened by some hidden intention behind it.

maybe the real threat is the parents who named their kid Mike Rowe!

[classicsoftware]

The problem is:

In the United States, you must Protect your trademark in order to keep it. If you fail, it goes to the public domain. Did you ever go to a restaurant and order Coke and the staff says we only have Pepsi? That's because if Coke finds out they will sue the restaurant. They actively protect the name Coke. Just like Kleenex. It is in the public domain, When you say Kleenex, you are not asking for a brand, you are asking for a tissue. Kleenex failed to protect their trademark and they lost it....

Microsoft is doing the same thing. I admit they should have offered more than $10.00. But they must protect the name. We are a society of laws.


p.s. I hate being the resident defender of M$ on the forums.....

[jcnoernberg]

are you saying coke doesn't have a trademark on their product? i believe it's more of a licensing situation... some places have one or the other, some have both.

[pop pop]

As goofy as it sounds, I think Classic is right here--and it happens to be an area of law that I'm familiar with. It not only applies to tradmarks, slogans, and articles in collective bargainig agreements (union contracts--the specific area of my experience), it also applies to land--believe it or not.

The specific term is "implicit agreement" or "implied permission".

I'll give you two real world examples. I was once a union executive back, in the 80s. We had a collective bargaining agreement (contract) with General Electric. We learned--the hard way--that if we allowed GE to violate a term of the contract--say hiring non-union workers to do union work--and we neither said nor did anything to protest or stop them though we knew of the violation, after a period of time there would be nothing we could do about it. Let's say we allowed GE to do this for an extended period--maybe a year--and then all of a sudden we cried foul and took them to court. We would lose (unless we never knew of any of the violations). The judge would say, wait, you knew they were doing this in violation of your contract but did nothing, repeatedly. He would also state that although there is a contract in place that is legally binding on both parties, both parties, by their actions over the year in question, "implicitly agreed" to nullify that section of the contract from that time onward. There's lots of case law on this very thing.

Next is land...Let's say you own a nice piece of property and there's something people want or need to get to on the other side of it, maybe a public park or something. Over the years, people cut across the corner of your property, wearing down a path to the park. Now, one day, you're in a bad mood and decide to put up a fence to specifically cut off the path that people have been taking to the park for years. So next a group of people who have been using that path--bird watchers, skateboarders, whatever--take you to court to make you remove the fence blocking "their" path. Guess what? You lose. You gave up the "right of way" by implicitly allowing everyone to use your property for years. Lots of case law there too.

My beefs with M$ are well known. In this case, and any like it, they have to protect their "name" and anything that sounds like it or intrudes upon it. If not, they risk losing the rights to it.

[hockey man]

Umm guys, this thread is form Jan. '04.

[pop pop]

Responding to a one year old Jan 04 thread:o
Embarrassing.

M$ Bashing...
Timeless ;)

[hockey man]

Responding to a one year old Jan 04 thread:o
Embarrassing.

M$ Bashing...
Timeless ;)


Actually it is two years old. . .but still. . .It is priceless to shoot MS :) .

[Cavalier90]

But what happened to the original case? Two years on we should know the result. Did he get more than $10? The link posted to www.MikeRoweSoft.com actually takes you to www.mrstudios.net. I guess this is Mike Rowe's Studio, and I guess he retained the domain name.

[bassman]

2 years old or not, I see this as one that could be further explored.
For starters, HERE (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html) is a link to the US Trademark office web site. Lot’s to read there.
This one (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html#_Toc52344065) and and this one (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmlaw2.html#_Toc52344083) give a little more info on how Trademark law works. Basically, if you keep your registration up, it is yours. No need to fight for your right ;)

I just dropped Mr. Rowe an e-mail to see if he would drop by and set us straight ;)

As for “Right of way” cases, I will not disagree with you Pop Pop as you seem to have experienced this first hand but, I know first hand, the amount of information, history, and verification that a plaintiff in such a case would have to produce and get a judge to believe is necessary to someone’s quality of life, is so overwhelming that most cases never get across the desk of the public defender. Those that do, typically end up in the form of a small settlement generally involving some level of community service.

Now that this is going in another direction……. :D :D ;)

[classicsoftware]

Please read this. (http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm) You will understand public domain. What I was speaking about was copyright and not trademark, my bad.

The reasons that the work is not protected include:
(1) the term of copyright for the work has expired; (2) the author failed to satisfy statutory formalities to perfect the copyright or (3) the work is a work of the U.S. Government.

This is why J&J calls their Product "Band-Aid" brand to protect their trademark name. Common names of products that were put into the public domain eventhogh they were trademarked are escalator and mimeograph. Aspirin was forced into the public domain by the allies to punish Germany after WWI even though Bayer owned the trademark.

This is a classic example of M$ protecting their name in the market place.

[Rick]

In the case of trade marks
it also can and does apply across state and federal lines.

IE: A company who has a registered trademark in One state can be ruled against and force to stop using a name by a company that has a federal trade mark of that name

For example
Learning Tree Software and or BBS
It was a group of linked BBS's some years ago who did nothing but distribute shareware and public domain software and a few message bases

Once the National Company
Learning Tree Inc
Who before that Never sold any software
Decided it wanted the BBS group to stop using it's nationally trade marked name

Forced the BBS group to Change it's name
The Group had a Registered Name/Trademark BUT In their Home state only and didn’t have the Money to fight for it’s use

Apply this to a world wide network and it’s gets harder to control

BTW..
It took a lawyer to do a trademark name search to find a new name that was free and clear of any trademark’s

[bassman]

What I was speaking about was copyright and not trademark, my bad.
Two completely different subjects with two completely different sets of laws.
Copyrighted (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html ) work is a body of work you create and own the rights to publish and distribute, for a profit if desired.
Trademark is a device you use in the advertising and brand recognition of your copyrighted work.
The sections of the copyright laws being used here, although interesting and important to know, are completely irrelevant to this case as they apply to copyrights secured prior to Jan 1 1978, more specifically, copyrights secured under the statutes of the 1909 laws that required registration and then publication (which included simple distribution).
The idea that a company uses their trademark in advertising to maintain their ownership of said trademarks is funny to me. I thought they used their trademarks because that was part of advertising ;)

I would love to hear from young Master Rowe on this as the actual definition of the outcome of the case would certainly shed some light on our curiosity. It would also define what MS is capable of doing.

:rolleyes: Something just occurred to me as I finish this. We are discussing US law and this case was presented in Canadian court.

[FrankSG]

I think the offer of only $10 was a real insult. I think I would have told M$ to use the $10 to help pay for their high priced lawyers and see what they could do. In my opinion, it's not so much that they wanted the domain name, but the fact that they only offered this young man a mere $10 was an insult to his intelligence. Right now, it makes me wonder about the intelligence of those who made the offer. Maybe the young man is brighter than they are. I think M$ ought to hire him!

[YODA74]

Next is land...Let's say you own a nice piece of property and there's something people want or need to get to on the other side of it, maybe a public park or something. Over the years, people cut across the corner of your property, wearing down a path to the park. Now, one day, you're in a bad mood and decide to put up a fence to specifically cut off the path that people have been taking to the park for years. So next a group of people who have been using that path--bird watchers, skateboarders, whatever--take you to court to make you remove the fence blocking "their" path. Guess what? You lose. You gave up the "right of way" by implicitly allowing everyone to use your property for years. Lots of case law there too.





Not nessessarily so... In order for them to make that path legaly acessable you would have to make improvments to the land for the time of ten years without the land owners knowledge....Just because the land owner knew there was a path doesn't mean he has to put up a fence to try and stop people from crossing nor does he have to block or hang a sign or sit there with a shotgun to try and stop the illegal use of his property. The 5th amendment of the constitution provides that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.. Each state has there own set preference on that law No matter what laws the morons in DC pass. North Carolina is one that does not allow for taking of private land for the good of the public. one example when they built the stadium for the Carolina panthers there is a small plot of land that a man ownes and he refused to sell and give any access across it or thru it.And there is nothi9ng that the state or the city can do...They even tried to take it under eminent domain and that was a NO GO. There are regulations about private interest condemnation Again no matter what laws the morons in DC pass.

Another fine example:
I know a lady that does hair cutting where she had cars park was not her land she put down gravel and made it look like she owned the property and used it for 15 years. well the real owner didn't live on the property nor did he check on it he just paid the taxes and held on to it for future re-sale, the day came and he sold it to a developer and they litteraly put this women out of buisness and she had to pay one hefty fine for trying to steal a portion of this mans land knowing darn well that she didn't own it..

So the notion of even thinking that you can take a mans land for a public use path is waaayyy false....Just because I let my neighbor cut hay or drive thru my feild with or without my knowledge doesn't by any means make it his or anyone else's nor does it give them the right to take it. Duke power cannot even drive or access my land without MY permission to work on their power pole in my yard it is considered an airial right of way Not a Ground right of way.

[jlreich]

Very interesting. Here in Ohio I know someone that used to live right next door to a parking lot for a paint store. Well for years they used the lot to drive up to their house and park their cars in the far corner of the lot. One day the paint store decided to put up a fence, which meant they could no longer use the parking lot to park their cars.

They took the paint store to court. The court ruled the store could not block access to their house since they had used it for so long, and blocked building the fence.

BTW the street they lived on was a one way street with no parking, and going through the store parking lot was by far the easiest way to get to their house.

I guess it all depends on local law.

[YODA74]

Well I'll say the paint store had a pretty lowsy lawyer.. or I would say the judge is a moron...the paint store has every right to put up a fence even if it were for security reasons The people had street access to their house and did not have a legal right of way across the paint stores property unless there was an access right of way on the Land deed..Or the only way to get to their house was thru the parking lot and then again there would have to be a right of way specified in the land deed which would prevent a LandLock. Example:

If I bought a piece of land in the middle of field which didn't have an access road to the land . the seller would have to provide a road frontage access to the said property whether I bought the access or not.. It's illegal in any state to sell unexcessable land and it sounds like the paint store had a landlock claus and didn't know about it...Or part of the parking lot is on public right of way???

[jlreich]

The street at the front of the house is 'one way' with a no parking sign. It's a narrow street that sits parallel to a highway with no other houses on the other side of the street. But there is an alley they could use to get to the house so it wasn't that big a deal.

It's been probably 15 years and I haven't kept in contact with the people. But there was a 80 some year old lady that lived there as well, so they may have played the old lady card. :p

They of course could have put the fence up, just as long as it didn't impede access to their house. So they didn't bother because it wouldn't have served the purpose of security they were going to put it up for in the first place.

I agree though. They had every right in my mind to put up a fence and not let them use the lot anymore. I don't care if they had been doing it for over 20 years. It's their property and they had access to their house through the alley. Also they could have put in a driveway at the front of the house if they really wanted to get in that way.

[FrankSG]

Very interesting.
I guess it all depends on local law.
Yes, it does. I guess it also depends on the goodness of the land owner. What I'm saying is that if a person owns a parking lot which makes it easier for a person to get to his property if he crosses the lot, how is it going to hurt the owner of the lot if a person crosses it. Why not be kind-hearted and let him go? Now, if that would hurt his business or harm him in some other way, than that's a different story. I would then see some justification in trying to stop it.

[jlreich]

Well in this case they were trying to protect their business in a not so good area of town by putting up a fence around the parking lot.

What's messed up is after I thought about it for awhile, I seem to remember they actually put the fence up, and was ordered to take it down. Yeah I remember going over there and having to go through the alley for a few months.

Hmm, maybe I will try to look up the court records later tonight. Court dockets from 15 years ago are probably not viewable online though.

[YODA74]

I guess it also depends on the goodness of the land owner.

Have to agree with you FrankSG, I don't see a problem in them getting to there house that way either.. But when it is private property then you have insurance problems. Someone gets hurt on your property YOU are responsable even if you have the property posted... And then there is the person that don't want to wait for a red light or stop sign that just cannot wait to speed thru your parking lot to beat the light... Around here at some they put in metal polls to stop such actions. Ya never know when you may have someone walking thru your lot and then some idiot wants to cut thru in a hurry and end up running them down well needless to say you could be facing a liable suit.. lowes or homedepoet or any place of buisness can bar you from stepping onto there property so the judge in this case was way off base with his ruleing...

[FrankSG]

But when it is private property then you have insurance problems. Someone gets hurt on your property YOU are responsable even if you have the property posted... And then there is the person that don't want to wait for a red light or stop sign that just cannot wait to speed thru your parking lot to beat the light... Good point!

[classicsoftware]

I am not at all familiar with property law except for intellectual property. Companies have to protect their trademarks or they loose them.

Here (http://ivanhoffman.com/trademark.html) is an excellent article on Trademarks and their enforcement.