RSS
May
05
6

Typosquatting? Gimme a break.

Over the last few days, Google (and even Yahoo) have been taking flack for profiting off of unsavory websites. The first case was one of Google and Yahoo ads being served on typosquatting pages (domains that are similar to a more well-known one, i.e., bistbuy.com), which obviously make money for them.

Now, spyware was also an issue in the Yahoo suit - and the articles are not clear as to whether Google’s service Oingo actually owns the domains or simply serves ads to them, but I seriously doubt that any consumer would become legitimately confused by a parked domain lwoes.com as opposed to lowes.com. If they do then they should not be using the internet.

Sure, parked domains are annoying, but you don’t file a lawsuit when something annoys you. In the case of the spyware being installed, then sure, go for it, but it takes all of 2 seconds to correct a typo and get off the parked domain.

Now, another case against Google, which is along the same lines but infinitely more ridiculous, is the allegation that Google is profiting from child porn by having purveyors advertise on its AdSense service. If I ran a network like that, it would be completely laizzes-faire, and I know Google removes obscene content once it is made aware of it, according to their policy. The allegation that Google “intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public” is patently ridiculous.

This is just another case of someone trying to exploit the legal system for a quick buck. Why on earth should Google pay the prosecutors if they lose? The prosecutors were not harmed even slightly more than the general public, so if anything, it should be a public debt. The fact that they are seeking “unspecified monetary damages to be determined at trial” doesn’t help their case any in my mind.







 Comment