Various news organizations are reporting that in August 2003 A 17-year old 'part time software developer' named Mike Rowe registered the domain mikerowesoft.com and printed stationary. Three months later, Microsoft sent him a letter requesting that he relinquish the domain for a $10 'settlement' fee. He responded and said he worked hard on his website and would take $10,000. Microsoft returned the volley with a 25 page package explaining how Microsoft's customers could be confused between the two sites.
ZDNet UK: Microsoft accused him of setting up the site only because he had the intention to sell the domain for a large cash settlement. "This is not the case. 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," said Rowe.
He "never thought" his name would cause confusion? Let me call BS on this one. Initially I had mixed emotions on this one because after all it is his name, and he should be allowed to use it in his business, however there is more to this story when some digging around is done. I decided to visit Rowe's website and see what software he had/has developed part time. The first thing I noticed — after the trouble getting to Rowe's website (probably being overloaded with traffic because the story was breaking everywhere about this) was that he was not, in fact, a software developer, he was a designer. Why didn't he go with MikeRoweDesign.com? 
On Rowe's website he writes about receiving the Microsoft package: Yesterday, January 14, I received a package from the lawyers' office FedEx Priority Overnight. Inside I found a book over an inch thick with a 25 page letter explaining to me that I had all along had the intention to sell my domain name to Microsoft for a large cash settlement. This is not the case, 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. In this letter it explains that Microsoft's customers could get confused between my page and theirs, which doesn't make any sense since Microsoft doesn't design websites. They do, however, sell a program called Microsoft FrontPage, which they say can cause some confusion between me making websites for my customers and them selling a program to make websites to their customers. I think it is just another example of a huge corporation just trying to intimidate a small business person (and only a 17 year old student at that) to get anything they want by using lawyers and threats. It reminds me of the Starbucks thing against the little coffee shop in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
I disagree that this is an example of a huge corporation just trying to intimidate a small business person "(and only a 17 year old student at that)". Boo hoo! Please.
I'm sure that Microsoft's attorneys saw this and it was what caused them to move with the C&D letters. I didn't bother linking up Rowe's site because of the 404's, but you can see (the text anyway) in the cache of the page in Google. The other side of this is the young designer isn't all that good (yet), but with all this media exposure he'll most likely earn some job offers from those sympathetic to his situation so that he can improve his skills. I wouldn't be fooled though by the spin on this one, look at the situation objectively yourself and perhaps you'll find as I did that this story is far from David and Goliath. Microsoft is not the bad guy here. Rowe had other options to go with his name and his design business. Saying he didn't think it would be infringement seems like a very weak excuse to me. My prediction: this one will be settled out of court, Rowe will lose the domain for the $10 as originally offered and get some sort of design job somewhere to improve his skills.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mark Saleski
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!
2 - TDavid
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 ;)
3 - Mark Saleski
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.
4 - Keith
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.
5 - Mark Saleski
it reminds me of the documentary i saw about Tabasco.
they went after a street performer who called himself Captain Tabasco.
6 - Tom
I think it's fishy. I know of a compnay called Micro Enterprises, there website is somethhing like microe.com, and they are ok.
7 - TDavid
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.
8 - TDavid
An update:
9 - bhw
Ahhhh... he registered "mikerosoft.ca", not mikeROWEsoft....
Hmmmmmm.....
10 - TDavid
bhw - he registered them both. How's that for all the people who think Rowe wasn't trying to violate the trademark ... riiight.
11 - bhw
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.
12 - TDavid
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.
13 - frost
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.
14 - TDavid
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:
This retraction doesn't change my position on any of this, however. I've updated the information on my blog to reflect the correct information.
Man ... 2 different Mikes! Weird.
15 - Eric Olsen
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.
16 - Mac Diva
Microsoft has caved. However, there was a case similar to this in Portland. It was reported in Willamette Week within the last few weeks.
17 - bhw
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.
18 - Mac Diva
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.
19 - bhw
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?
20 - duane
Mike Rowe Biology
Mike Rowe Organism
Mike Rowe Brewery
21 - Mac Diva
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.
22 - BB
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.
23 - TDavid
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.
24 - TDavid
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:
Sounds reasonable to me :)
If you visit the forums section of Mike Rowe's website, there are people there on his website encouraging others to register names that sound like Microsoft. To do what I've said all along that I think he did intentionally, though he might be reported in some places incorrectly 'not knowing' this would cause trouble, I'm not buying that he was just pulling a stupid teen prank.
But I could be wrong, maybe this was just immaturity on Rowe's part.
Brand recognition in business is important, and having leeches out there -- no matter what their age is -- piggybacking off the name a company works hard to build, should be pulled off and made to work the same hard road that most all legitimate businesses have to work.
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.
Rowe's 15 minutes of fame will be over soon though, and he'll get some measure of notariety for this stunt, unfortunately.
25 - Mac Diva
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.