I'm not sure if you saw the portion of our article that develops the estimate and presents the methodology for the estimate. If not, that might be of interest.

As you say, it's hard to make a precise estimate. There are important pieces of data uniquely within Google's custody, and Google isn't talking. But in these circumstances, I do feel it's appropriate to make a good-faith estimate. If you think our numbers are in error, feel free to identify which specific numbers you think are off, in which direction, and for what reason. But realize that for every number you think is too high, there is likely to be another that might be too low. (We discuss some of these complications in the page linked above.) I don't think it's clear from first principles that our estimate is biased in one way or the other.

Surely it's not Google's fault that some people misspell. But our study shos that typosquatters register more domains targeting companies in sectors with high PPC prices. That tells us that PPC funding is *causing* and *exacerbating* typosquatting. Without PPC payments, there would be fewer typosquatting registrations -- much less reason for squatters to register these domains. Google's payments put the system in motion; squatters register domains exactly in anticipation of getting paid by Google. Google knows where it's showing ads. (Example: Google shows Expedia ads if you misspell Expedia, but Travelocity ads if you misspell Travelocity!) So it's natural to look to Google for resolution of these problems.

Incidentally, the federal ACPA statute is squarely on point: Your elected congressmen chose to prohibit not just "register[ing]" domains but also "us[ing]" domains. Showing ads on domains is surely a kind of "use."

So is Google "just offering an ad service"? No! Google analyzes a user's request, assess what domain the user was trying to reach, and selects ads accordingly. Google bills advertisers for each click and passes payment on to the typosquatters. These are proper reasons for the concerned public to demand more of Google.

Specks, you're right that merchants generally won't be able to figure this out merely from inspecting users' traffic or web server log files.

Instead, in my experience, the only robust enforcement strategy is testing: Get copies of the spyware, browse the web on infected test PCs, and see what happens. If an affiliate's link is invoked wrongfully and unexpectedly, then investigate and take appropriate action.

Is this trivially easy? Well, no. But it's the only clear way forward. And arguably it's appropriate: Any merchant paying out $$$$$ of affiliate commissions ought to put forth reasonable effort to confirm who they're paying and what they're paying for. In few other contexts would a company have as many suppliesr, subject to as little vetting (ex ante) and supervision (ex post), as in Internet advertising.

For me, I think (if I ever actually start doing it), I think it would be a good place to have my bookmarks. I don't care about the sharing, I just use a lot of computers and would like to be able to remember all those sites that I forget on a daily basis.

Agreed. I have been enjoying using A9 from Amazon. I primarily use it for research. Although it is not set up for sharing, it easily allows the addition of bookmarks, a search history, and is useful when you use a lot of computers.

Agreed. Aside from the challenge of conducting such an exercise, is there any advantage to this port? While perhaps an interesting project, I am more impressed with the efforts to utilize Linux on the X-Box.

I certainly will not put anyone down for having the ability to facilitate such a port however. My hat off to them.