Sell your home in Eau Claire Wisconsin and get it listed in the MLS with Agent and Realtor® Shane O'Gorman

I originally posted this in my Eau Claire Wisconsin Real Estate Blog.

Many of you are probably familiar with the not so nice perception of Microsoft. Over the years the company has by some “earned” this bad image. In fact this perception has been hurting the company especially in its competition with rival Apple. While for some reason Apple engages in many of the same business practices and yet maintains a relatively benign image. Why it hurts Microsoft and doesn't Apple remains a mystery. Perhaps time will tell but the fact remains that image can be everything, compare I-Pod to a typical mp3 player for example.

This same battle has been raging behind the scenes for Google. On the one hand we have example after example of what a great company Google is, giving away free software, free email, etc. Then on the other hand its a company that swore to maintain user anonymity and protect human rights but gave these principles up the second it had a chance to do business in China.

I just ask why Google why?

Why cant you stick to your guns (wow thats a bad saying) and be a benevolent company? You are perhaps the most powerful corporation on the planet, couldn't we have one good example of big businesses practicing ethically?

Then they go and do this:

Google may strive not to be evil, but the company works directly with typosquatters to help them—and Google—make money, according to a new class action lawsuit. The suit, filed by Harvard Business School professor Benjamin G. Edelman, says that Google and the companies that are engaging in typosquatting are taking advantage of existing trademarks and should be stopped.

For those unfamiliar with the practice of typosquatting, it occurs when when someone deliberately registers misspelled domain names that are similar to those of major companies and brands, hoping that users will view their site (and its ads) after making a couple of typos. For example, someone might accidentally type "microsokft.com" in an attempt to get to Microsoft, but instead end up at a site masquerading as a business blog. These sites serve up ads using Google AdSense, making money for the squatters.

Needless to say, typosquatters aren't exactly looked upon kindly by the web community at large. Security research company McAfee published a report in 2007 saying that the top typosquatted sites target children, some even tempting them with porn. Companies like Microsoft have tried to help users avoid these websites by launching products like HotMonkey, which scans the Internet for typosquatted domains and allows the user to block them.

Edelman believes that there are a million or more typosquatted sites on the Internet, many of which make use of Google's AdWords. Based on industry sources that say Google pays 50 to 80 percent of its advertiser revenue to partners, Google could be making between $32 and $50 million in gross revenue each year, he told the Harvard Crimson. At the same time, Edelman indicated that his estimates are conservative—there are likely many more than a million typosquatted domains, and his $25-year-year estimate for each squatter's ad revenue is probably too low.

This isn't the first time Google has been accused of aiding typosquatters and profiting from mistyped domains. Earlier this year, attorney Hal Levitte filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of "unjust enrichment" by promising high-quality ad placements and then serving a substantial portion of his ads on low-quality sites. The suit claims that it was difficult to opt out of having ads placed on such sites prior to March 2008. After that date, Google provided a way for advertisers to opt into third-party sites while excluding error sites and parked domains, but Levitte claims this option was buried "four clicks deep within [Google's] interface, where many advertisers would not notice it."

Google's Terms of Service prohibit "site promotion of incentive or fraudulent clicking," but its almost-entirely-automated site evaluation process lets most of these fly under the radar. Both Edelman's and Levitte's suits are seeking class-action status; Levitte's focuses on those who have paid for advertising while Edelman's represents trademark owners whose websites have been targeted by typosquatters. If either—or both—of these end up being approved, Google could have a world of hurt on its hands.

Search Eau Claire Wisconsin Real Estate!

Read my Eau Claire Wisconsin Real Estate Blog!