MikeRoweSoft was a legal dispute between Microsoft and a Canadian. Of the phonetic pun by adding the word 'soft' to the end of his name. It said that it was pursuing the case in the courts because the supermarket had stopped Icelandic companies from using the word 'Iceland' to.
< Talk:Microsoft v. MikeRoweSoft (Redirected from Talk:Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft/GA1)
GA Review[edit]
Article(edit | visual edit | history)·Article talk(edit | history)·Watch
Comments[edit]
- GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Suggestions
In General:- In which court did Microsoft file the law suit? I understand it might not have ever progressed to the point where it received ::a docket number, but we should know in which Canadian court the suit was filed.
- Place all footnotes at the end of sentences.
- For the most part, you don't need multiple citations for these sentences, one will suffice.
- Wikilinking 12th grade is unnecessary.
- The first sentence is a comma splice, or something like it.
- 'He is reported as choosing' is an awkward construction.
- Change 'fun' in the 2nd sentence to 'funny' to match the quote
- The sentence with the semi-colon is ungainly. Too much info for 1 sentence. Try making it 2 sentences.
- Change 'replied back, offering' to 'responded with an offer'
- Is 'spanning 25 pages' really necessary? I imagine many cease and desist orders are longer than that
- Change 'and the offer' to 'and an offer' since the offeror is indeterminate.
- In 'The case, portrayed as a David versus Goliath struggle, characterised' to show who was doing the characterizing. Here, I assume it was the media.
- Change 'the money that had been given to him for a legal defence' to 'his legal defence fund'
- Hyphenate 'pre approved'
- Change 'Initially during the case Microsoft emphasised' to 'Microsoft initially emphasized'
- In 'It has since been suggested,' who is doing the suggesting? Make sure this is someone knowledgeable.
- Break up the last sentence.
- Maybe flesh out and clarify the last sentence. It seems that after raising the issue of the trademark, had Microsoft dropped the claim, it might have weakened their hold on the trademark.
- I am pretty sure that the use of the Microsoft logo here is improper. Even if it is true that the logo is not copyrightable, it is still trademarked. Someone with more expertise will have to look at this.
Thanks for the thorough review, I've been through the article and tried to make all of the grammatical and style corrections and improvements that you've suggested. You may have noticed one of the new sentences is started with the word 'however' and whilst classically disallowed I'm pretty sure this is now an accepted practise as long as it is followed by a comma. I am a bit reluctant to remove the '25 page' comment as it was mentioned in pretty much every reliable source and I think makes clearer Microsoft's reaction to the situation. Regarding the excess of footnotes I have made sure that they are all at the ends of sentences and removed those which were superfluous. In some instances (about one third) there are still two footnotes rather than one (although there are no longer any with more than two) this is largely because some figures and dates are only available from one source but that source does not necessarily describe the larger context of what is talked about in the sentence. After your initial comment about where the case was filed I've reread the sources and tried to do some more research and have come to the conclusion that nothing was ever actually filed. The original text was probably a combination of an artefact from the article before work was done to improve it and my own assumptions. It should have been checked on before submission for good article status and I apologise. On this basis I have also moved the article from 'Microsoft v. MikeRoweSoft' to 'Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft' since there was no actual case I think that using the convention for legal cases could be potentially confusing and in the media it was most often described with the 's' included (see [1], [2], [3], [4]). I am going to post a message on the media copyright questions noticeboard to confirm whether or not the current image can be used in the article. Guest9999 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Message posted. Guest9999 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- As Slashdot and other websites are not in quotations, then 'MikeRoweSoft.com' should not be in quotes.
- Microsoft should not be in quotes as a company name.
- If Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft is the name of a court case, as is strongly implied by the format, then it should be in italics. If it is not the name of a court case, I suggest you change the name of the article as then it violates court-case naming precedents and will lead persons to seek out the court transcript and other information under that case name.
- The 'however' is unnecessary in 'However, Microsoft saw the name as trademark...'
- Use of the Microsoft logo is probably not justified by Fair use.
- It is an interesting little article but I have not checked it through thoroughly. I copy edited some obvious MoS errors. --Mattisse (Talk) 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The trademark of the Microsoft logo is irrelevant here: we're not trying to pass ourselves off as Microsoft, so trademark infringement doesn't apply. I think the Microsoft logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree naming could be an issue however court cases on Wikipedia are usually styled with 'v.' not 'vs.' (see Colegrove v. Green, Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Roe v. Wade, etc.). Other non-legal events are styled with 'vs.' such as boxing matches (see Floyd Mayweather vs. Ricky Hatton, Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson, Jack Dempsey vs. Luis Ángel Firpo, etc.). This article was initially titled 'Mike Rowe (student)' and was focussed on the student at the heart of the event I changed the focus to the event (per WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E) and this was the only name I could find that seemed appropriate (generally it's the terminology that the media used to refer to the event (see [5], [6], [7], [8])). So far I haven't been able to come up with a reasonable alternative supported by sources but off the top of my head 'MikeRoweSoft.com naming dispute' might be a possibility.
- The image of the Microsoft logo is from Commons, images from which are normally acceptable for use on Wikipedia. I agree that if it is classified as unfree by Wikipedia's standards then it's use probably can't be justified under the non-free content criteria (specifically criterion 8 'significance'). However because the image itself is not eligible for copyright (simple text) it is the trademark that is the issue. I believe (although I am by no means an expert) that the trademark is for the word 'Microsoft' which is obviously used thousands of times throughout Wikipedia and for that reason I don't think that trademarks of this sort are generally governed in the same way as copyrightable content. Having said that considering the level of uncertainty that there is about the issue I have asked for someone at the media copyright questions noticeboard with the relevant expertise to clarify the situation. Guest9999 (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ironic that an article about a trademark dispute has sparked this discussion on how we can use the very trademark that was the subject of the dispute. Guest9999 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image of the Microsoft logo is from Commons, images from which are normally acceptable for use on Wikipedia. I agree that if it is classified as unfree by Wikipedia's standards then it's use probably can't be justified under the non-free content criteria (specifically criterion 8 'significance'). However because the image itself is not eligible for copyright (simple text) it is the trademark that is the issue. I believe (although I am by no means an expert) that the trademark is for the word 'Microsoft' which is obviously used thousands of times throughout Wikipedia and for that reason I don't think that trademarks of this sort are generally governed in the same way as copyrightable content. Having said that considering the level of uncertainty that there is about the issue I have asked for someone at the media copyright questions noticeboard with the relevant expertise to clarify the situation. Guest9999 (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, the image doesn't add much to the article and probably should be removed. Trademark can be applied to a logo or a word, and it is the word 'Microsoft' that the company was suing to protect, not the logo image. Mike Rowe wasn't infringing on the logo image-just the word. So, really, the image logo displayed has nothing to do with this case. I suggest removing it altogether.
Also, I will do a final source and grammar check tomorrow.--HoboJones (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I'll pass. Good work.--HoboJones (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft/GA1&oldid=853485413'
Microsoft v. MikeRoweSoft was a legal dispute between Microsoft and a CanadianBelmont High School student named Mike Rowe over the domain name 'MikeRoweSoft.com'.[1] Microsoft argued that their trademark had been infringed because of the phonetic resemblance between 'Microsoft' and 'MikeRoweSoft'.[2]
The case received international press attention following Microsoft's perceived heavy-handed approach to a 12th grade student's part-time web design business and the subsequent support that Rowe received from the online community.[3] A settlement was eventually reached, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in exchange for an Xbox and additional compensation.[4]
Background[edit]
Since my name is Mike Rowe, I thought it would be funny to add 'soft' to the end of it.
– Mike Rowe[5]
The domain name MikeRoweSoft.com was initially registered by Canadian student Mike Rowe in August 2003.[1] Rowe set up the site as a part-time web design business, choosing the domain because of the phonetic pun by adding the word 'soft' to the end of his name.[6][7] Microsoft saw the name as trademarkinfringement because of its phonetic resemblance to their trademarked corporate name and demanded that he give up the domain.[2][8] After receiving a letter from Microsoft's Canadian legal representatives Smart & Biggar on January 14, 2004, Rowe replied asking to be compensated for giving up the domain.[5][9]
Microsoft offered to pay Rowe's out-of-pocket expenses of $10, the original cost of registering the domain name.[10] Rowe countered asking instead for $10,000, later claiming that he did this because he was 'mad at' Microsoft for their initial $10 offer.[5] Microsoft declined the offer and sent a cease and desist letter spanning 25 pages. Microsoft accused Rowe of setting up the site in order to try to force them into a large financial settlement, a practice known as cybersquatting.[1]
Press coverage and settlement[edit]
Rowe went to the press, creating publicity for the case and garnering support for his cause, including donations of over $6,000 and an offer of free advice from a lawyer.[5][11] At one point Rowe was forced to take down his site after it was overwhelmed by around 250,000 page views over a period of twelve hours, only managing to get the site back up after changing to a service provider with a higher capacity.[12] The case, portrayed as a David versus Goliath struggle by the media, characterized Microsoft in a negative light. The resulting bad publicity was later described as a 'public relations mess.'[11][13] The public showing of support that Rowe received was credited with 'softening Microsoft's stance,' leading to an eventual settlement.[2]
In late January 2004, it was revealed that the two parties had come to an out of court settlement, with Microsoft taking control of the domain.[14] In return Microsoft agreed to pay all of the expenses that Rowe had incurred including setting up a new site at and redirecting traffic to MikeRoweforums.com.[15] Additionally, Microsoft provided Rowe with a subscription to the Microsoft Developer Network, an all expenses paid trip for him and his family to the Microsoft Research Tech Fest at their headquarters in Redmond, Washington, training for Microsoft certification and an Xbox with a selection of games.[10] Following an online poll, Rowe donated most of his legal defense fund to a children's hospital and used the remaining money for his future university education.[16][17]
Further developments[edit]
We take our trademark seriously, but in this case maybe a little too seriously.
– Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler[12]
After settling the dispute with Microsoft, Rowe attempted to auction off the documentation he had received on the on-line auction site eBay, describing it as 'a piece of Internet history'.[9] The materials included one copy of the original 25 page cease and desist letter as well as an inch-thick WIPO book containing copies of trademarks, web pages and e-mails between him and Microsoft.[9] The auction received more than half a million page views and bidding rose to more than $200,000.[9] The high bids turned out to be fraudulent and the auction was restricted to pre-approved bidders.[9] After restarting from the reserve price of $500, the documents eventually sold for $1,037.[18]
Microsoft later admitted that they may have been too aggressive in their defense of the 'Microsoft' trademark.[15][19] Following the case it was suggested by Struan Robertson – editor of Out-Law.com – that Microsoft had little choice but to pursue the issue once it had come to light or they would have risked weakening their trademark.[19] This view was also espoused by ZDNet, who noted that had Microsoft knowingly ignored Rowe's site, the company would have risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements.[20] Robertson opined that – had legal proceedings ensued – Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and was not claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft.[19]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ abcKotadia, Munir (2004-01-19). 'Software giant threatens mikerowesoft'. ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2009-04-12. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^ abcSieberg, Daniel (2004-01-20). 'Teen fights to keep MikeRoweSoft.com'. CNN. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^Barker, Gary (2004-01-21). 'Teenager takes on a corporate monster'. The Age. Melbourne. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^'Boy swaps MikeRoweSoft for Xbox'. BBC News. 2004-01-26. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^ abcdKOMO Staff & News Services (2004-01-18). 'Microsoft vs. Mikerowesoft'. KOMO News. Retrieved 2016-07-19.
- ^'Microsoft Not Soft On Mike Rowe'. CBS News. 2004-01-20. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^'Microsoft takes on teen over domain name'. USA Today. 2004-01-19. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
- ^'Microsoft takes on teen's site MikeRoweSoft.com'. CNN. 2004-01-20. Archived from the original on May 27, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^ abcdeFesta, Paul (2004-02-02). 'MikeRoweSoft sell-off bids going, going...down'. CNET. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^ abKotadia, Munir (2004-01-26). 'MikeRoweSoft settles for an Xbox'. CNET. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^ abCarmichael, Amy (2004-02-05). 'Microsoft vs. mikeRowesoft ends amicably'. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^ ab'Microsoft lightens up on teen's mikerowesoft site'. USA Today. 2004-01-20. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^Bishop, Todd (2004-01-21). 'Mikerowesoft vs. Microsoft: The saga continues'. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^'Microsoft to take over MikeRoweSoft.com'. CNN. 2004-01-26. Archived from the original on February 24, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^ ab'MikeRoweSoft Names His Price'. Wired News. 2004-01-26. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^Sjöberg, Lore (2004-03-24). 'Anti-MS Fund Goes to Charity'. Wired News. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^'Teen who battled Microsoft donates defense fund to charity'. USA Today. 2004-03-25. Retrieved 2008-10-03.
- ^'Sued teen sells letter from Microsoft'. Taipei Times. 2004-02-09. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^ abcKotadia, Munir (2004-01-20). 'Microsoft: We took MikeRoweSoft too seriously'. ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2009-04-10. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
- ^Kotadia, Munir (2004-01-20). 'MikeRoweSoft garners funds to fight back'. ZDNet. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
External links[edit]
- MikeRoweSoft.com – it now redirects to Microsoft.com.
- Reddit.com - AMA with Mike Rowe
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft&oldid=932460510'