Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Google Propping Up Typosquatting Biz? 279

Posted by Zonk
from the i-love-shopping-at-amezon.com dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Google is making oodles of cash placing ads on a vast sea of otherwise vacant Web sites that do little more than capitalize on misspelled domain name names, according to a story in today's Washington Post. From the story: 'Google Inc., which runs the largest ad network on the Internet, is making millions of dollars a year by filling otherwise unused Web sites with ads. In many instances, these ad-filled pages appear when users mistype an Internet address, such as BistBuy.com. This new form of advertising is turning into a booming business that some say is cluttering the Internet and could be violating trademark rules.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Propping Up Typosquatting Biz?

Comments Filter:
  • by elwin_windleaf (643442) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:24PM (#15233028) Homepage
    Typosquatter site BistBuy.com reports record profits and an all-time high hit count.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:27PM (#15233042)
    I blame DNS.

    We should have stuck with numbers. In hex. Would have kept out all the lamers, nannies, and governments.

    Heck we should go back to uucp over dial-up connections.
  • Back in the olden days of 2004, we used to call it "cybersquatting." Kids these days and their crazy terminology. And their music.
    • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:38PM (#15233099)
      Back in the olden days of 2004, we used to call it "cybersquatting." Kids these days and their crazy terminology. And their music.

      Actually, I always thought cybersquatting was more like registering a bunch of potentially valuable domain names and doing nothing with them, until whoever would be rightfully interested in registering a name realizes it's taken and offers money to buy it back. It's a form of racket of course. Typosquatting is rather different.
      • by hackstraw (262471) * on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:11PM (#15233244)
        Actually, I always thought cybersquatting was more like registering a bunch of potentially valuable domain names and doing nothing with them, until whoever would be rightfully interested in registering a name realizes it's taken and offers money to buy it back. It's a form of racket of course. Typosquatting is rather different.

        But that was back in 1999, years before 2004 was ever imagined.

      • Ah, I gotcha. It's pure shenanigans either way, I suppose.
      • Racket? no.
        It's buying up a limited resource which you think will be valuable to someone - it's just supply and demand with total supply set at 1 (allowing the seller to name their price).
        If there were no trademarks it wouldn't be a problem.
        People deliberately buy up or stockpile limited resources to push the price up so they can sell it on at massive profit - as I understand the major diamond dealers do it, governments do it with gold, several governments do it with currency. The United States did it wi
    • by RevDobbs (313888) * on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:38PM (#15233100) Homepage

      Cybersquatting is buying a real a domain with resell value; typosquatting is buying a domain that is spelled similar to a real domain and lapping up typo-induced hits.

  • Dodgy Business (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:28PM (#15233047) Journal
    Google is defending its business practices, saying that it removes participating sites from its ad network if a trademark owner complains that those sites are confusingly similar -- even though close misspellings don't necessarily prove that a legal infringement has occurred.

    "Unless it is confusing to somebody, trademark law doesn't apply," said Rose Hagan, Google's chief trademark lawyer.
    Wouldn't it be in Google's best interest to hold the position that these parked domains are NOT confused with some registered trademark?

    I imagine very few businesses can legitimately claim that the ads on bistbuy.com would confuse anyone looking for bestbuy.com.
  • by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:30PM (#15233056) Journal
    Safari can't find the server.
    Safari can't open the page "http://www.bistbuy.com/" because it can't find the server "www.bistbuy.com".

    This is a non story. I really don't understand how anyone would hold Google culpable for this.
    • The Post claims, "Google Inc., which runs the largest ad network on the Internet, is making millions of dollars a year by filling otherwise unused Web sites with ads. In many instances, these ad-filled pages appear when users mistype an Internet address, such as 'BistBuy.com.'"

      I also couldn't open bistbuy.com --

      Here's what searching whois for bistbuy.com gave me

      Whois Server Version 1.3

      Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
      with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net]
      for detailed information.

            Domain Name: BISTBUY.COM
            Registrar: DOMAINDOORMAN, LLC
            Whois Server: whois.domaindoorman.com
            Referral URL: http://www.domaindoorman.com/ [domaindoorman.com]
            Name Server: NS1.12GF6.COM
            Name Server: NS2.12GF6.COM
            Name Server: NS3.12GF6.COM
            Status: REDEMPTIONPERIOD
            Updated Date: 29-apr-2006
            Creation Date: 22-nov-2005
            Expiration Date: 22-nov-2006


      Nothing appears to link bistbuy.com (if it ever was a valid destination) to Google.

      I'm not convinced yet that this story is a smear job, but very little of their story appears to check out.
      • Updated Date: 29-apr-2006
         
        The date of the story was what, the 30th? Cut them some slack.
        • Updated Date: 29-apr-2006

          The date of the story was what, the 30th? Cut them some slack.


          I saw that- domaindoorman could have pulled the domain if they got wind of the story before it was published. Ideally the Post would have used archive.org to spider the page before they even wrote the story.

          However, I don't think we need cut a national newspaper much slack if they run what could be considered a smear job (they single out Google as somehow 'behind' this practice, which is an odd and vague allegation) and t
      • It's not stating that Google runs bistbuy.com. It is stating that the people who do run the site use Google Ads to make money, which makes Google money. And since Google must accept your use of their ad service, Google is promoting this sort of behavior.
        • It's not stating that Google runs bistbuy.com. It is stating that the people who do run the site use Google Ads to make money, which makes Google money. And since Google must accept your use of their ad service, Google is promoting this sort of behavior.

          My apologize if my meaning was a bit vague in saying "Nothing appears to link bistbuy.com (if it ever was a valid destination) to Google." I didn't mean to imply Google ran bistbuy.com, but that the Post's reporting was subpar, for the two reasons mentioned
      • Nothing appears to link bistbuy.com (if it ever was a valid destination) to Google.

        It's doubtful anything would. Bist sounds like Best, but it's highly unlikely to be a typo (the keys are too far apart). It's really talking about sites like Nest Buy [nestbuy.com] or Beat Buy.
      • Two points: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by thepotoo (829391)
        #1: They used bistbuy.com as a hypothetical example, so the millions of slashdotters trying to go there wouldn't make google revenue.

        #2: Thanks to you posting on /. to inform everyone about this, some troll will have registered the site to go to goatse.

      • You've misread/notread the article. Google provides a specialised scheme for parking domains with ads.

        http://www.google.com/domainpark/ [google.com]

        which would *seem* like they're encouraging cybersquatting. Personally I don't can't think of what content-based website would get over 750k page visits and need to park their domain...

        just like godaddy and tons of other domain registrars, its adverts on unused domains. except it's google, so it's more newsworthy.
    • This is all from GoDaddy's website

      Registry Status: REDEMPTIONPERIOD
      Registry Status: redemptionPeriod

      Domain Name: BISTBUY.COM
      Registrar: DOMAINDOORMAN, LLC
      Whois Server: whois.domaindoorman.com
      Referral URL: http://www.domaindoorman.com/ [domaindoorman.com]
      Name Server: NS3.12GF6.COM
      Name Server: NS2.12GF6.COM
      Name Server: NS1.12GF6.COM
      Status: REDEMPTIONPERIOD
      EPP Status: redemptionPeriod
      Updated Date: 29-Apr-2006
      Creation Date: 21-Nov-2005
      Expiration Date: 21-Nov-2006

      >>> Last update of whois database: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 15:46:50
    • This is a non story. I really don't understand how anyone would hold Google culpable for this.

      How about this little artifact: Google AdSense for Parked Domains [google.com]
    • I don't know what's funnier here... a website so crappy that it can't even run scripts to make Adsense survive a slashdotting, or the fact that slashdotters all went to go see a big ol' page of blank forgetting that Firefox was already blocking all of that nonsense (and typing it in manually at that).
  • salshdot.org (Score:5, Informative)

    by hankwang (413283) * on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:31PM (#15233062) Homepage
    Just tried some misspellings of slashdot.org...
    • salshdot [salshdot.org] has a frame redirect to slashdot. Does not seem to be affiliated.
    • .com [slashdot.com] redirects to .org.
    • slsahdot [slsahdot.org] is a misspelling counter. :-)
    • lsashdot.org, slashodt.org, slashdto.org, slashdot.net, slashdot.info, slshdot.org slshdot.org, slahdot.org, slasdot.org, slashot.org, slashdt.org, slashdo.org, salshdot.com - these are all typosquatters.
    • slashdot.biz - is registered but hasn't even a domain parking site
    • Typosquatters pay attention: slashdot.eu is not yet taken!
    • My most common mispelling is slashdot.rog. I have that in my hosts file.
    • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

      by Fruny (194844) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:12PM (#15233248)
      * Typosquatters pay attention: slashdot.eu is not yet taken!
      In the European Union, typosquatter slashdot.eu.
      • You are wrong.

        Name slashdot
        Status REGISTERED
        Registered 07 April 2006
        Last update 11 April 2006 10:07
        Registrant
        Name Caller Robin
        Organisation Goallover
        Language English
        Address address
        Phone phone
        Fax fax
        Email email
        Registrar technical contacts
        Name Fredrik Sandgren
        Organisation Onwards Sideways Sweden AB
        Language English
        Address Körsbärsvägen 1
        51350 Sparsör
        Sweden
        Phone +46.708808525
        Fax +46.708808525
        Email frsa@yr.se
        Registrar
        Organ
  • by Statecraftsman (718862) * on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:32PM (#15233067) Homepage
    I think the biggest problem with typo-sqauatting and the nastier problem(for web developers) of domain-squatting is that it wastes people's time. It's like traffic when you're on the highway. Wouldn't it be great if you could just make traffic illegal one day? I understand the problem...how can you tell if someone is typo-squatting or doing an original website?

    It's actually quite easy. It should be based on content. If all you see is a list of search categories and lots of ads, it's typo-squatting. If you see original articles and compelling content, it's legit.

  • BistBuy.com? (Score:4, Informative)

    by NynexNinja (379583) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:34PM (#15233073)
    Hmm... bistbuy.com doesnt resolve. Also, the only reference on archive.org from bistbuy.com was in Apr 06, 2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20040406094329/http://w ww.bistbuy.com/ [archive.org] ... Not sure where they are getting their information from... Their two other examples, rearthlink.net and dearthlink.net, also don't resolve. At least their pages at archive.org offer a little more evidence: http://web.archive.org/web/20040331061435/http://w ww.dearthlink.net/ [archive.org]
  • Possible motivation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rufus211 (221883) <rufus-slashdot&hackish,org> on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:35PM (#15233077) Homepage
    This could be an instance of "if you can't beat them, join them." There's going to be typosquatting no matter what. Since it's not going away Google might as well a) make some money off of it, and b) know where all these fake sites are to remove them from their listings.

    Not saying it's the right thing to do, just an idea.
  • by 9mm Censor (705379) * on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:37PM (#15233096) Homepage
    I feel that people are confusing "evil" with profit. Google went public. Google is a business. Google now aims (moreso at least) to generate profit for its owners. But doing something that makes money for a company does not make it evil? Who does this hurt?
    • by hackstraw (262471) * on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:08PM (#15233229)
      I feel that people are confusing "evil" with profit. Google went public. Google is a business. Google now aims (moreso at least) to generate profit for its owners. But doing something that makes money for a company does not make it evil? Who does this hurt?

      Answer me that question once you go to a drugstore on Sunday morning, and you're tying to get rid of that hangover before doing your Sunday church appearance. With a splitting headache, then go to the pain relief isle, but B4Y3R aspirin, that looks just like BAYER aspirin minus the chemicals that relieve pain. But, you forgive the company because its now owned by Google and they owe it to their stockholders to put such products on the shelf.

      Why is it that common sense and reality go out the window when a computer is involved (patent pending)?

      Things with direct analogies to life like email forwarding vs snail mail forwarding don't make sense to people, but things like popup/under advertisements and typosquating makes sense. In the future, will businesses open on 212 Madison Ave when a known company is at 212 Madison St just in case someone gets lost?

      Reminds me of when the only people that really profited off of the gold rush were shovel salesmen and prostitutes.

      • They are just serving them ads.

        Answer me that question once you go to a drugstore on Sunday morning, and you're tying to get rid of that hangover before doing your Sunday church appearance. With a splitting headache, then go to the pain relief isle, but B4Y3R aspirin, that looks just like BAYER aspirin minus the chemicals that relieve pain. But, you forgive the company because its now owned by Google and they owe it to their stockholders to put such products on the shelf.

        Allow me to fix your analogy.
      • Maybe you should drink less before going to church.

    • Actually, Google doesn't try to make money for its owners. It may have gone public, but the way the stock is set up, the profits aren't split. The only reason to buy Google stock is in order to sell Google stock.

      So I guess what Google tries to do is whatever the hell it feels like.

    • I feel that people are confusing "evil" with profit.

      Actually, if I am not mistaken, there is something in the Bible against profiteering and gathering wealth in general, but since I'm not an expert in the subject other than the profit taking, I'm not about to make dogmatic suggestions on to the validity of Google's evilness or not ;)
    • Who does this hurt? The flip side of Google encouraging this kind of speculation is mentioned in the story for all of you slashdorks fixated on this bistbuy.com example: "Of the 30 million dot-com names registered worldwide last month, more than 90 percent were dropped, according to domain name registrar GoDaddy.com. As a whole, the Internet has only 54 million active .com and .net addresses, according to VeriSign Inc." Tons of people each day who run a small web site or business online find their sites s
  • Missing link (Score:5, Insightful)

    by broothal (186066) <christian@fabel.dk> on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:42PM (#15233118) Homepage Journal
    This link should have been in the article: http://www.google.com/domainpark/ [google.com]
  • Millions? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jamesmacaulay (875797) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:42PM (#15233122)
    The article claims a vague "millions" of dollars at stake, but I'd be interested to know the actual numbers: I know that when I find myself at one of these pages, I am least likely to click on an ad.
  • I think the reporter needs to do a little more research. If your a company who advertises on google, you have control over what kinds of searches match your add. If you find that a certain search term brings up your company more then you'd like, you can simply append a "-[search term]" to your access control list. Problem solved. The reporter uses BistBuy.com as a example. Could Best Buy be heading this report? Maybe Best Buy has some incompitent employees? Nooo, couldn't be ;)
  • by SetupWeasel (54062) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:46PM (#15233141) Homepage
    If they don't do anything illegal with their site, it should be their right to whatever name they want. Are you going to tell me that no one can open a restaurant near a McDonalds? It's the same deal. It may feel shady. Some may be shady, but it is only fair as long as they are not stealing or commiting other crime with it.

    It's a logical progression of this thought that allows corporations to force people off their legal sites because they have the same name. You don't like EToy suing etoy? Deal with the "typosquatters."
    • It's not like opening a restaurant near McDonald's, it's like opening a restaurant near McDonald's and naming it MacDonald's and hoping people won't know the difference.
      • It's not like opening a restaurant near McDonald's, it's like opening a restaurant near McDonald's and naming it MacDonald's and hoping people won't know the difference.

        Um, no. It's like opening a store next to McDonalds (with the golden arches) named MacDonalds (with big green letters on a blue background) and selling lawn and garden supplies. This is only illegal if they also swipe the look and feel of McDonald's logos, such as to encourage people to think that they are in some way affiliated with the f
    • Are you going to tell me that no one can open a restaurant near a McDonalds? It's the same deal.

      We're talking name recognition here. And as it happens, you picked the perfect example of that issue: when was the last time you saw a restaurant, other than McDonalds, that had "Mc" or "Mac" in its name? McDonalds claims that any such operation is "potentially confusing" with theirs. You might claim that they're abusing the law, and if you did I'd agree with you. But the fact remains that nobody finds it wort

  • by postbigbang (761081) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:48PM (#15233147)
    First, there was the highly enlightening 404, if there was a resolution at all. Then there was the typosquatters. My fav was Micros0ft.com.

    But all of those are better than intercepts, which are surprisingly common these days in 'walled gardens'. I'll take a squatter, and if google can make some $$ on them, so much the better.

    DNS is primitive, insecure, rife for diddling, and as goofy as SMTP. Yes, these were all good in their day. And yes, they were made out of brittle plastic, not visionary armor. So, google makes a few bucks. Ho fracking hum. More power to them. If I get a wrong phone #, does someone give me a list of alternatives? No, but they're often helpful as in "oh, that's a 6 not a 9" or something. With DNS you get a squat, not found, or a typosquat. How droll.
  • Fat Fingers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nickgrieve (87668) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @02:53PM (#15233175) Journal
    Someone must have some big fat fingers if they hit the "i" when going for the "e"...

    nit pick :)
    • Yeah, uh.. Lesson 1.

      place your hands on the keyboard now in the 'home' position, that is relaxed with your index fingers on the f and j buttons and the other fingers on the keys alongside. Feel the little dimple or whatever there is there. Caress it, yeah.

      Now, use the longest finger on the left hand (whats that called, the 'fuck you' finger?) and extend it slightly until it sits on the top row. Thats right, its on the e button!

      Now here is the clever bit.. Stretch the 'fuck you' finger of the right han

  • Now you know... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:00PM (#15233197)
    Now you know why Microsoft is working hard on a set of tools that prevent typosquatting.

    However in this case, Google is pretty obviously doing *evil* by the very definition of the word, and that definitely speaks bad of it.

    Google specifically has tools and offers for filling vacant domains with ads... WHO would use that except domains of generic words and typosquatters? No excuses this time, Google.
  • by dominion (3153) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:03PM (#15233206) Homepage
    Has anybody thought to add a feature to firefox (or maybe an extension) whereby if a user misspells a domain name, it gives the option to correct the spelling?
    • How do you define "misspelled"? It may be obvious to you that "bistbuy.com" is phony, but to a browser it's just another — valid — domain name.
      • Anything hosted on a list of about half a dozen parking servers? 90+% of the typosqats I see are exactly the same type of page.
        • So instead of just sending me to the page, the browser will compute the IP number, then check it against a blacklist. I guess that would work, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble — it's not that hard to recognize a typosquatter! Also, blacklists are too easily abused, as the anti-spam crusaders have thoroughly demonstrated.
    • by Bogtha (906264) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:30PM (#15233309)

      How do you determine what's a mistake and what's a legitimate domain? I don't want my browser to go to flicker.com when I typed flickr.com, and I don't want my browser to go to dig.com when I typed digg.com.

      • chances are you go visit a half-dozen sites regulary.
        When you mistype one of these (for example, you type www.slashdoty.org), it redirects you.

        Unless, of course, you are holding down an override key, similar to firewalls and pop-up blockers.

        So if I actually wanted to go to slashdoty.org, I'd hold down the shift key, and it doesn't redirect me.

        The extention would just keep track of the most visited sites and create redirects for them.

        You can manually add and remove sites from the list, and it will redirect y

    • "Google" is itself a misspelling - so should all requests for Google [google.com] go to Googol [googol.com]?

      Another example - "slashdot" is not a real word - so should Slashdot.org [slashdot.org] go to Slashers.org [slashers.org]? :)

    • Has anybody thought to add a feature to firefox (or maybe an extension) whereby if a user misspells a domain name, it gives the option to correct the spelling?

      The WP article is a complete troll. Google does more to help people find sites than any other search engine. Only a person with a crippled browser who also hates Google would try to find any site by typing the name as a URL anymore. Google also helps a lot of small sites earn money. Blaming them for the actions of dishonest people who take advan

  • Seriously, if you misspell, Google will spot it and suggest the right spelling and URL in most cases. Why bother typing in the URL?

    Beyond that, isn't it time that web browsers reached the point where they could spot and fix obvious typing errors like "ww" instead of "www" or missing periods like "wwwbestbuy.com" instead of "www.bestbuy.com?"

    Surely this would be an easy and useful improvement.
    • I'm right there with you on this - and if I hadn't replied, I'd have modded you up ;-) I don't see why Firefox can't look for say wwwsomesite.com first, then if nothing, try www.somesite.com. Same with the ww. typos. I'll sometimes bang in a URL too quickly and typo like that, then realise and click on the URL bar - which in Firefox hilights the whole URL, annoyingly, then click again, then the browser tells me it can't find the site and resets the caret to the end of the damned URL as I'm typing!

      I know, I
  • Trademark confusion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jdwclemson (953895) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:09PM (#15233233)
    One of the biggest problems with the internet and legal issues like this is that lack of ability for people to use analogy to see how inconsistant the laws and regulations can be. Imagine if everytime a new book came out, somebody put out a crappy one with an almost identical name. Go to the book store to get a present for your mother and you come back with "The DiVinco Code". Such there are lots of weasels who would clain they are not the same, but clearly this is a NO value added knockoff. If somebody wants to create sites that show advertisements, they should either pay advertising for other web sites, or add value in a way that brings people in and spreads the word. Not only is the networking traffic created by this a loss, there is also the loss in time for those people who have to evaluate the squatter and determine if it is the desired site. Trademarks allow organizations to be referenced to, and develop a reputation. Think of companies like NewEgg, benchmarks like Anandtech, articles like Slashdot. If you tell people to visit slashdot for news on technology(like I have many times) it hurts Slashdot AND the viewer when they mistakingly go to slushdot, or sashdot and this devalues the ability of organizations to build a name based upon their trademarks. If my friends go to Neweg(by mistake) and gets faulty video card from a lousy organization, this hurts my friends, Newegg, and everybody else who is duped into making a purchase from an undeserving company. I realize that money will be a driving factor in this chaos, but I think it would be interesting if there was a project(maybe firefox or DNS based) where people could register all of the squatter scam sites and keep an updated database so that when such mistakes were made, the correction was made before any harm could be done. Anybody up for it?
    • There is a big difference between what most of these ad sites do and your newegg example. Trademark is all about preventing consumers from being confused. Most typo-squatting sites are clearly such -- no reasonable consumer could mistake them for the site that they're trying to reach.

      If, on the other hand, somebody were to go to neweg.com and get another vendor of computer hardware, that might actually cause confusion and there would be an action for trademark infringement.

      There was a famous case in the U
    • Imagine if everytime a new book came out, somebody put out a crappy one with an almost identical name. Go to the book store to get a present for your mother and you come back with "The DiVinco Code".

      You do realize that this is fully legal, right? It's allowed as parody at least, and titles aren't generally copyrightable, IIRC. Song titles, for example, are definately not. I can advertise my singing of "yellow submarine" and sing somethingi you won't recognize at all. Of course, in my case that'd be true
  • Perspectives (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Comatose51 (687974) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:10PM (#15233235) Homepage
    Google Inc., which runs the largest ad network on the Internet, is making millions of dollars a year by filling otherwise unused Web sites with ads.

    Google [google.com] made 2.253 billion USD in one quarter. While the article was vague how many millions it really is, "millions" instead of "tens of millions" or "hundreds of millions" still seems like a drop in the bucket. It goes on to imply that it's quite a bit by quoting Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google:

    Google won't disclose how much revenue it is earning from ads on these types of sites, but chief executive Eric Schmidt said in an interview last week, "It's a lot of money."

    Did he mean that Google makes a lot of money from ads in general or from ads on typo sites? I can't tell because the article doesn't give me the source of that quote. However, I find it doubtful that Schmidt would be so explicit about Google making money off of typos, even if they did.

    In any case, the issue is not as clean-cut as the article implies. Whose responsibility is it to police trademark infringements? Hasn't it always been the holder of the trademark? Google making money off of it does suggest some kind of responsbility on their part as well though. However, Google does provide an avenue for these people to complain and have the affliates delisted from their ad program.

  • Google isn't making the pages itself, it is just serving up the ads. As far as google is concerned, these pages are just like any other customers, except that (as stated in the article) google goes out of its way to remove sites from its ad program if there is a suspicion of trademark infringment.
  • Bistbuy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Peyna (14792) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @03:22PM (#15233281) Homepage
    I'm sorry, but "Bistbuy" is not a "typo," it's a horrible and awful misspelling that a 3 year old wouldn't make.
    • What's the difference? Who decides how close is a valid infringement on a copyright? The courts?

      Issues like this are going to be the downfall of our current trademark/patent/copyright/Intellectual Property system. Courts bogged down deciding if bistbuy, bastbuy brstbuy or whatever is a trademark infringement. I'm guessing about every word you can imagine has been part of some trademark and many many domain names could be considered a trademark violation. How can we possibly maintain a system that ha
  • by v1 (525388)
    In many instances, these ad-filled pages appear when users mistype an Internet address, such as BistBuy.com.

    "bistbuy.com" does not resolve. (or did we slashdot them? THAT would be justice) Appears to be parked but not assigned by verisign?
  • by panic911 (224370) *
    i dont see anything wrong with what theyre doing. these people have these domains anyway, if google can make an extra million or more with it, then they have plenty of reason to allow domain squaters to use their ad service. these pages would probably exist still without the ads, so who cares.
  • by MourningBlade (182180) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @04:30PM (#15233569) Homepage

    In further news, mathematicians allege The Count is cluttering up the domain of natural numbers.

    "It's a travesty, I tell you! One? Two? Three? Where does it all stop? Pretty soon there'll be none left at all!"

    The Count recently purchased 9111 and 4040 - "numosquatting" two popular numbers. Numosquatting is a technique of buying numbers near or around more famous numbers, so that people who mistype the intended number get the "numosquatted" number instead.

    When asked for comment, The Count said "There are a lot of numbers out there. So many I cannot even count them! Me! Oh, but let me try: one! two! three! four!"

    Several hours later, The Count was reached again for comment. "Anyways, the point is that there are a lot of numbers out there. These whiny people wouldn't be happy even if we went over to the Real numbers. I mean, let's say I buy 405, right? They'll say it's 'too close to 404!' - look, there's a whole lot of numbers in between! But no, that's their special number and they can't have anything even infinitely far away from it."

    "Look, if they want to make it to where no one can have any number near their special number, they should buy those numbers up too - they're asking for their single-number purchase to be equal to ten, a hundred, a million of mine!" continued The Count, "A hundred million! A billion! Ten billion! One hundred billion!" At which point this reporter's cell phone died.

    When asked for rebuttal, the owner of 404 stated "that just, like, your opinion, man."

  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Sunday April 30, 2006 @05:38PM (#15233849)
    As long as typesquatters do not have an really simialr page to the original, or a porn site, I don't see anything wrong with typesquatting at all. How can you call it "cluttering the internet" when no-one sees it except by mistake? Let these typosquatters spend money registering a doamin that almost no-one will see...

    I have to believe typosquatting has got less profitable since browsers started trying to complete what you type.
  • Squatters (Score:4, Informative)

    by Decimal (154606) on Sunday April 30, 2006 @05:45PM (#15233876) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I've been wondering why Google hasn't taken a bite out of squatters that sit on the obvious name of it's own services. Take a wander over to googlenews.com or googlecalendar.com.

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.

Working...