
Google Profiting From Typo Squatting, Report Charges  - makimaki
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/google-profitin.html
======
qhoxie
No way this will stand up legally.

Who is losing out in this situation? I think many of us have seen enough
usability tests to know that a 404 could stop a user dead in their tracks.
Instead, though, we have a proper site suggestion that is clear and directs
the user where they meant to go. If BofA was really upset at all this, they
could take it up with site owners, or stop buying into Google's ads, but they
know better.

Aside: It's pretty depressing that Harvard professors are spending research
money on things like typo-squatting and publishing papers on it.

~~~
josefresco
"Instead, though, we have a proper site suggestion that is clear and directs
the user where they meant to go"

Not what the article is about. Domain squatters are registering commonly
misspelled domains and filling them with Google ads. The point is whether or
not they should be allowed to own these domains (copyright), and whether or
not Google should be allowed to profit from them. I don't think anyone is
advocating a different way of 404 handling (another huge area for potential
profit, see NSI/FF etc.)

~~~
wmeredith
So when you register the copyright on bankofamerica.com you also gets rights
to all misspellings of that term? This seems unlikely to me.

------
Jasber
Google has been doing this for over 3 years. They do this more for unused
domains and not so much mis-typed domains--but I'm sure many do slip through.

That being said you need a lot of traffic to get into their program. The type
of people with high-traffic unused domains are typically domain squatters.

See: <http://www.google.com/domainpark/>

------
petergroverman
reminds me of the sex.com case.

