nah, microsoft is not satan.

microsoft is a very large software development and services organization specializing in rolling out monopolistic business practices and incredibly mediocre software.

dats it!

I don't entirely disagree with you, Mark, but can you honestly tell me that Rowe didn't know what he was doing? And asking Microsoft to pay him 10 grand for that website.

What about all the time he supposedly spent on the website? Looks to me like he spent a couple minutes. Maybe he even used FrontPage to design it, who knows ;)

oh, i was just making a commentary in microsoft and was in no way backing up rowe.

it wasn't the smartest move the kid ever made.

Seems to me, that he brought it upon himself. He obviously knew there was a huge company named "Microsoft", and his domain name would make a mockery of that, offending said company.

Lesson we can learn: Don't offend huge multinational corporations.

it reminds me of the documentary i saw about Tabasco.

they went after a street performer who called himself Captain Tabasco.

I think it's fishy. I know of a compnay called Micro Enterprises, there website is somethhing like microe.com, and they are ok.

It is fishy, Tom, fishy that Rowe would try something obvious and then make a spectacle of his situation instead of focusing on his business and clients.

Look at the screenshot above for how many times he mentions all the publicity he is getting from this and how this is his area of focus, not his part time design business that he feels is worth $10,000 for the website name that he just registered in Aug of 2003.

He should be telling folks how good his design work is and putting the energy into running his business, not focusing on being a victim of the big bad wolf.

But it's a certainity that he'll find sympathetic fools to follow his cause. I noticed that CNN and a few other media outlets have correctly described him as a 'web designer' which is more in line than 'software developer' because that would have been more of an argument if he really had been a software developer. So that's good, at least, to see that some of the major media reporters are actually starting to report on the situation.

Unfortunately for Rowe in this situation, as a graphic designer, it appears all too much like was just trying to whore off a well known trademark.

What annoys me is that there are so many other talented, serious web designers who won't get one iota of the exposure that Rowe is getting. I'm not a web designer, but if I was, I'd be pissed, not annoyed, by this.

An update:

Since the news hit Rowe has been unable to keep his site online due to visitors wishing to give Rowe their support. This morning the website has the following info:

After further discussion with my lawyer regarding recent contact with Microsoft Corporation I have decided to temporarily take www.mikerosoft.ca offline and move the site to www.onlinemike.com. Until the situation has been resolved one way or another this appears to be the best course of action at the present time.

Ahhhh... he registered "mikerosoft.ca", not mikeROWEsoft....

Hmmmmmm.....

bhw - he registered them both. How's that for all the people who think Rowe wasn't trying to violate the trademark ... riiight.

I didn't realize that he registered both names. Had he done just the one with ROWE in it, I'd say he had a case. But with both of them, particularly the RO name, I'm thinkin' he knew what he was doing.

Yeah. Just reading his original quotes didn't pass the smell test:

He said: "I never thought my name would cause Microsoft to take this course of action against me. I just thought it was a good name for my small part-time business."

'Never thought'?! LOL That still cracks me up.

I know there are a lot of Microsoft-bashers, many of which are willing to latch onto anything that is negative from the Redmond camp, but this dog just doesn't hunt.

I personally would love to have mikerowesoft.com as a domain... well, if my name was mike rowe. I don't think he is smart enough to 'cash in' on Microsoft, but probably just being a stupid 17 year old kid.

Another update: there are *2* Mike Rowe's! Geek.com (the source of the link below) made a mistake and misreported the site. Apparently this isn't the first case of Microsoft-phonetic mishaps. Reader Upchuck stopped by makeyougohmm.com to point me to the clarification:

There are 2 (two) Mikes. There is Mike Morris (late of http://www.Mikerosoft.ca , now of mikeonline.com), distributer of software, mostly video drivers AND there is Mike Rowe ( still of http://www.MikeRoweSoft.com ), 17 year old designer of web sites. Sheesh! I blame the banning of Phonics in school for the production of two such illiterate geeks. Whole word, HA!

In the original story I saw and reported, he said he "thought it would be funny to add 'soft' to the end of it" - that sounds very much like a 17 year-old kid, and is probably the real motivation.

Microsoft has caved. However, there was a case similar to this in Portland. It was reported in Willamette Week within the last few weeks.

Yeah, now that we're back to just MikeRoweSoft, I'm back on the kid's side. He's 17, for heaven's sake.

I think the problem is one of precedent for Microsoft, though. If you don't fight to protect trademarks, you can lose them, I believe. [Diva, do you know if this is true? I think it was the angle Faux News tried with Al Franken.] So the company still might have to buy the domain name from him or do something to "protect" their trademark.

Yes, it is true. Lack of protection can be interpreted to be acquiescence. But, Microsoft is much too aggressive. What's next, a demand no one be named Mike Rowe?

Y'all might want to check out this pickle regarding Apple Computer. (Have to say 'y'all' occassionally to get back to the Tarheel roots.) I don't believe this would have occurred had not Apple Computer ventured into music territory in a comparatively big way. Apple Corps can't take that sitting down.

How about Mike Rowe Chip? Mike Rowe Wave? Mike Rowe Scope? Mike Rowe Your Boat Ashore?

The "pickle" link is broken. I get a directory list instead of a blog entry. But are you referring to the Apple records problem?

Mike Rowe Biology
Mike Rowe Organism
Mike Rowe Brewery

My apologies for the bad link. Here's a fix, I hope. The interesting thing is the parties were playing nicely together until Apple 2 decided to poach on Apple 1's turf (from Apple 1's perspective). If I were representing Apple Computer, I would be tempted to say it has preempted the Beatle's connection to the name Apple. We, in our 30s and 40s see the likely derivation, but the music world is fueled by youths, who probably don't.

Shakespeare said it best. This was a case of "much a do about nothing".

The fact that MS caved only proves my point. Cases like this are all about the big guy intimidating the little guy. It's not about right or wrong and MS couldn't take the heat from all the negative media attention. Shame on you Billy.

Microsoft hasn't 'caved'. I don't know what news reports you are all reading, but I haven't read anywhere that Mike Rowe is going to be able to keep the domain.

The article that was linked says that Microsoft is softening their stance -- which doesn't mean that they are going to let Mike keep the domain and continue on with this facade. My point remains: he is not a software developer. Never appeared to be. And doesn't look like he wants to be. He's a designer. He does graphics. There is a huge difference between graphic designers and software developers.

If he was a true software developer like the other Mike (Morris at onlinemike.com) well, then that's a whole different discussion from my point of view. I might be able to see a point in all this if his work was actually in the software industry. Instead, as Eric pointed out above, he was trying to get attention by adding the 'soft' to his name.

He hit a jackpot there. I just don't have a sucker tatoo like too many folks out there seem to have. There's too many other sound places to attack Microsoft on and this just isn't one of them.

BTW I should have added that once Microsoft lets him actually keep his domain and continue to run on with this farce, then I'll be happy to go along with Microsoft having 'caved' description.

Here's what Microsoft actually said in the article linked:

"We are currently in the process of resolving this matter in a way that will be fair to him and satisfy our obligations under trademark law."

Typically far Right piffle: Microsoft is big, powerful and rich, so it should get its way. (But then, this is the same person who defended Sam Vaknin's fraudulent website as a 'business blog' on another thread. Never mind that Vaknin doesn't even have a blog.)

Rowe has something far Right windbags don't -- a sense of humor. I don't see that as grounds to belittle him. In fact, I don't perceive anything nefarious about his behavior at all.

In law, a win is when a client comes out in no worse or better shape than he was in when an episode began. Rowe will be doing just that. If Microsoft pays him to alter his website's name, he will have 'won.'

As for grown men who go crazy sneering at kids with ability, that's pathetic and reveals their own feelings of inadequacy.

My fundamental problem with Mike Rowe is that he is attempting to short circuit the process. There are other hard working web designers who are serious about their business and would rather let their work and client references speak for themselves.

Dude, he's 17! How many client references could he have?

Whether it's a prank or an attempt to garner attention, who cares? Give the kid a break and some credit for succeeding in getting the attention.

Sorry TD but from a legal standpoint I have to agree with MD on this one (personal digs aside). Although I can appreciate your impassioned view it seems you are arguing semantics here. Would you have been happier if he named it MikeRoweDesign? And if that is the case since when did MS own the trademark for the word "soft" (or is it "micro")? I mean really this is quite ridiculous when you think of it, and with all due respect MS' recent olive branch certainly is an indication of caving in to media pressure. For crying out loud the kid is just using his own name. Maybe the kid should change his birth certificate? Would that make Bill happy? And as far as "piggybacking off the name a company works hard to build", please tell that to Steve Jobs (i.e. ripping off Apple's code to make Windows) and everyone else that MS has borrowed from from its inception.

BB - part of your post suggests that you didn't read anything I've posted above in detail. I already specifically mentioned in my blog entry that I thought he should have used mikerowedesign.com. Didn't you read that part? It was even bolded :)

Mac Diva - again you rant on without presenting facts and that is your undoing in most of the comments you make here. Please link up the direct, specific comment and thread here at Blogcritics where I "defended Sam Vaknin's fraudulent website as a 'business blog'".

If you are going to make accusations towards me or others, as you constantly tend to do to people here, then at least link up when and where these accusations have any bearing on reality. I don't remember defending Mr. Vaknin, but I'd sure like to read where you feel that this was my attention. Go back to calling me a racist, that is about as credible.

I'm not an attorney, I'm a legitimate business person, and I am not pretending to be an attorney here. So I am not sure how the legal situation will play out. And then there is the whole matter of international law since Rowe is from Canada. I can't debate legal facts on this because I am unaware of the legalities here. I'm speaking purely from what I feel is common sense and ethical behavior.

So, from that standpoint, as for letting a 17 year old prank a serious company? Please. It isn't like he is 12, he is 1 year away, maybe closer I don't know, from having to be a man in a legal sense. It's silly to treat him like an innocent child playing a prank at this juncture. If he was my son I'd be ashamed, but maybe you, BB, would be proud of him for doing this? Yes/no?

The problem with too many kids in this world today is parenting and if you want to move this into a parenting discussion, please do. I have three sons and I can speak from experience there ;)

On one hand Rowe says he 'worked hard on his website' but if you look at his website it looks like it could have been done in 30 minutes. Maybe he even used FrontPage, I don't know. Wouldn't that be something? LOL

If I've offended someone who doesn't have kids, then too bad. But if you have kids and think that this is a cool thing for your teen to do, then go ahead and use this forum and make your voice heard.

Sorry, that was bhw, not BB, that I was referring to in the comment: If he was my son I'd be ashamed, but maybe you, BB, would be proud of him for doing this? Yes/no? Doh!

I should add that I don't feel that common sense is simply semantics. That taking one's business serious is so bad. If more business owners did that, they might have better businesses. My comment about client references wasn't for Rowe, it was for the people out there doing a serious web design business, and not doing it as 'something to do for fun'. If that's Mike Rowe's business plan to do it for the hell of it, then so be it. Just don't piss in the water of people who are serious is all I'm saying.

And Mac Diva if you think that I'm the type of person that is always going to take Microsoft's side just because they are a big business then you are so far off base it isn't even funny and you certainly have read that much of my commentary or articles that I've written or listened to the 350+ hours of radio I've done where I've often criticized them for things they've done.

I'm a small independent business owner, why would you think I'd ever be 'pro big business'?

You just don't get it -- as much from a just folks perspective as from a legal one. Mike Rowe, someone who can't even be sued effectively because he is a minor, and not to mention judgment proof, is a David in regard to Microsoft's Goliath status. He is no real threat to the megacorp. The play on words in MikeRoweCorp would not for a moment lead any reasonable person to believe he is doing business with Microsoft. Furthermore, the business may well have gone the way of youthful enthusiasms with no strongarm tactics applied. And, last but far from least because this is what has gotten the boy attention and support: Rowe has a sense of humor. Normal people like that. What this all adds up to is an extreme overreaction by Microsoft's legal team.

You made the remark I allude to not very long ago on Brian's 'Are conservatives stupid?' thread. Its irony struck me because you have tried to drive me away from this site for writing about civil rights issues. Your message: Equality = bad. Anything related to business, including fraud = good. Your ability to remember what you say seems to be very selective.

TD.. yes I read your bolded "mikerowedesign.com" comment and that is why I mentioned it. BTW it is also the title of his web page. Please don't get me wrong and I'm not attacking you. Like I said I can appreciate your impassioned position and I agree with much of what you say, BUT (you were waiting for that weren't you) I was being sarcastic to make a legal point. That being the difficulty in trademarking a generic name like Microsoft. Any TM lawyer will tell you that and MS gets away with it only because of its dominance and the megabucks it can afford to retain high priced lawyers to intimidate kids like Mr. Rowe. I was also pointing out the hypocrisy of Microsoft given that it is a knockoff outfit that is not really an innovator of anything original, and yet it viciously protects its so-called intellectual property with extreme prejudice.

As I figured, you couldn't find any link with a specific quote from me, Mac Diva. Why not? Certainly if you were disrupted by something I said you should have easily been able to recall it?

Whenever I challenge you on facts, you too often tend to ignore my post, try to divert/deflect the discussion back onto me (or others when you disagree with them), or provide information that only asks more questions.

What is your problem with specifics and links with folks, Mac Diva? Bring the facts, the actual words said and the place they were said, or shut up with the flames, will ya?

Give me a specific link and a specific quote to your blanket assertion about me in #25 about Mr. Vaknin (who I barely remember reading that many posts from here, so I am not sure why I would bother 'defending him' so staunchly on anything) or go play lawyer in some other thread.

I ask you about Vaknin and you bring up a recent thread (still not linked with no specific comments) with Brian Flemming. Huh?

Nowhere anywhere here did I say Mike Rowe could/should/would be legally charged as a minor. In fact I very clearly admitted that I don't know the legal angle of this situation period [#28] (nor am I all that interested in the international legal mumbo jumbo). I was saying that his age was close to 18 and inferred that his parents should be helping him be serious about doing serious things like consider what college he wants to attend or if his web design biz is the plan, then helping him put something serious together.

Pranking Microsoft, however, doesn't seem like a good plan for the future. Do you disagree?

So what I do understand is the business and parental angle of this. These are two things I have specific knowledge in/about and can address with some measure of professional experience and am willing to continue discussing at length if you -- or any other parent or business owner feels so inclined. If you are neither of these (parent or business owner) then thank you for your opinion and have a nice day. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Peoples opinions often change when they have their feet in the fire as opposed to seeing the smoke in the distance.

Oh, and as for me trying to drive you away from the site, Mac Diva? That's laughable and totally false. I think every time you've brought up this silly issue I remind you of the fact that I was one of the few people here who said that you should NOT go away when you threw that juvenile tizzy in August/Sept last year and deleted your posts here and cried about needing to make an exodus.

In fact, I'm glad that you decided to stay and defend your point of view so passionately. Despite how many times you attack other people, including me, I still feel you have a right to be here just as much as anybody else that takes time to voice their opinion, read and enjoy the site, etc., does.

Whether I agree or disagree with your point of view, which obviously most of the time I don't, I strongly believe in freedom of speech and all our individual rights, including you, to voice our opinions freely and openly without censoring. Now since this site is owned by a private party, that party maintains the right to publish what he wants on the site. There are some things he would have to remove and censor and I also understand and respect that.

Thankfully, Eric lets a lot of this stuff go through. He seems to appreciate and respect this freedom, while at the same time taking heat for those who sometimes seem more interested in stirring trouble than having civil discussions.

I'm sure you appreciate this freedom also, so quit with the 'everybody is out to get me' spiel. The only thing I'm out to get from you is your honest opinion and when and if you choose to attack, than I'm going to request that you be factual and specific with me. I think that's more than fair, as I try to do the same thing myself. You are welcome and encouraged to hold me to the same standard. I think a lot of others just choose to ignore you and I'd probably be better off if I did that, but I like the fact that you support this site. And for that reason, I'm willing to expend a little time sparring with you. Maybe someday we'll be able to have more civil discussions. I'm a Libra and Libras love balance, so I imagine I'll not give up too soon.

Thank you, again, for your comments. They are appreciated, even though it sounds like once again we are worlds apart :) No sarcasm or malice intended when I say this, I do mean this sincerely.

Have a nice night ;)

BB - there's only one person who attacked me in this thread and it's not the first time she has done that. I'm getting use to the abuse, though. With each attack, it only weakens the voice further ;)

I think where you and I are failing to connect here, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that I'm not saying that Mike Rowe is going to hurt Microsoft, no I think he was using Microsoft. Could I be wrong on this perspective? Absolutely.

Is this legal for him to do what he did? Maybe it is. I already said that I don't know for sure and that I'm not all that much interested in that angle because frankly, legal stuff gets complicated and becomes so technical that it can give people with common sense a headache. I regularly stare at insurance contracts and that's plenty of legal material to review for me.

I just didn't like the fact that Mike Rowe played it off like he didn't think it would be a problem -- his own words -- and now he is milking the publicity for all its worth. This just smells very bad to me. I could be wrong, I could be seeing something that isn't there and maybe Mike is just a fun loving good natured teen who made a bonehead move. His direct quotes and his actions though are very suspect to me. That's what I'm challenging. I don't know Mike Rowe as a person, I only know him through what the media has reported, what they say he said and did and his own words and actions on his website.

Taking all these and putting them together and I'm not getting a picture that I find attractive. Apparently others, many others, do like this guy and think it's totally cool that he's trying to stick it to Microsoft.

People over at his site encouraging others to register fake names just to spite Big Ol' Evil Microsoft. Yeah, that's pretty funny, isn't it? Of course I realize Microsoft cannot be financially hurt by some nobody kid in Canada and his little part time web design site. That's not even the issue from my point of view.

I did think it was a bit odd that he wasn't a software developer and early media reports suggested that he was, thus making his case against Microsoft look more credible than it actually was. But that wasn't Mike Rowe's fault, that was the reporter's fault who didn't do his/her homework. Same goes for the editor at geek.com who printed the wrong domain name and made it look like Mike Rowe had registered two domains and hence making me look stupid and incompetent for blogging about a falsehood. It is weird that there are two Mikes in this same predicament, but at least it shows that Microsoft's legal team isn't playing any favorites.

I think that the whole act of registering the domain on pretense was wrong and because he continues to allow this third party behavior -- and basically by allowing he is authorizing and condoning this activity (hey, let's screw Microsoft over and register bogus domains! Yippie!) -- he is spitting in the face of a company that is actually helping him. Shame on him for not doing the harder thing which is the right thing: saying 'stop this'. I didn't view every thread at his messageboard so maybe he has come out and done this by now and if so, it would change my opinion of him dramatically.

If he had done this to some no name software company, we would never even know who he or they were and his web counter would have barely budged. The media grabbed the story because it would make Microsoft look bad, not Mike Rowe. A web host stepped in to grab some great free press in exchange for a little dirt cheap bandwith. An attorney stepped in to counsel Rowe pro bono (?). The wheel turns.

But the truth for me anyway is that it didn't make Microsoft look bad, it made Mike Rowe and his parents, friends and family that condoned this activity -- and continue to do so -- look bad.

Can he change his name? Should he? Of course not. But he shouldn't continue to insult the very place that is bringing him notariety. When caught if he had said: "yeah, they got me, I was trying to get some extra business off the name" then at least he'd have his integrity and honesty in tact.

Parents should try and teach their children things like this that matter. Children of today are making the rules when we are seniors tomorrow. I'm more than a bit disturbed by this reality.

Why aren't his parents exercising some restraint on his website? There is a great opportunity here to stand up and show some good, wholesome parenting. Does anybody here agree with me when I say that as a parent this is shameful activity? And I can't believe that his attorney hasn't encouraged him to tone the activity down on the website. Here on one hand you are trying to settle with Microsoft and quiet things down and on another there is a pack of frenzied netizens wanting to anarchy over this.

Then again, maybe this is the society we are in today. What's wrong and right is ruled out by the almighty dollar sign. Hard working people getting screwed while people who scam, use, lie and cheat rise to the top.

Some will say but hey, what's good for the goose is ... and Microsoft certainly doesn't wear white gloves. I just think on this one they didn't do anything wrong.

When they fuck up -- and they will -- I'll be there to acknowledge that they did, so I'm not playing favorites here either. I wish the Linux community would really get a stronger following, it's growing and maybe someday Microsoft won't be the dominant force.

But that's a story for another day. Today, I remain disappointed by what I believe is a misguided youth.

I think you make some good points TD and I also appreciate your candor. My opinions are based on the bottom line but I can't argue the moral issues. You've got me there and no hard feeling bro.

It isn't like he is 12, he is 1 year away, maybe closer I don't know, from having to be a man in a legal sense. It's silly to treat him like an innocent child playing a prank at this juncture.

Here's what I was doing when I was 17:

--Going to h.s. football games.
--Drinking beer.
--Driving my parents' car with a ton of other teenagers in it.
--Drinking beer while driving my parents' car with a ton of other teenagers in it.
--Drinking beer while driving my parents' car -- with a ton of other teenagers in it -- on the way to and from h.s. football games.

At least Mike Rowe is using his brain and nobody is likely to get hurt or killed. He [and his parents] will have to suffer any legal consequences of his actions, if there are any.

If he was my son I'd be ashamed, but maybe you, BB, would be proud of him for doing this? Yes/no?

Yes, I would, for two reasons. One, for starting the business in the first place. It shows a lot of initiative. Two, for being willing to give it a shot against Microsoft. I would not have stopped him from buying that domain name.

If he was hacking into web sites or destroying other people's property, I'd have a problem. If he's being cute with his domain name, no problem. If he ultimately has to give it up, so be it.

Let's not forget that his name is, in fact, Mike Rowe.

My point, I suppose, is that it's really not a big deal, nor do I think it reveals some flaw in Mike Rowe's character [or that of his parents]. I think good parenting includes giving your kids enough freedom to try things and fail and even for supporting some of their perhaps not-so-ideal ideas.

Now, if they'd been allowing him to swap music files on the Internet ....