A good argument to defend "typosquatting"

[grcorp]

While I firmly believe that typos of one's intellectual property are still their intellectual property, this guy puts up a pretty good argument...

"It's just like if you were to buy some property next to Disneyland. Put a hotel on it, you should not be able to get sued for 'property squatting,'" he said. "It basically means that one is taking advantage of a situation where people who, prior to getting to the Disneyland Hotel, bump into this hotel that is offering a competing rate."

I'll always make the comparison between domain names and real estate when the legitimacy of my hobby is questioned... but this takes the similarity to a whole other level.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/198358.asp

My question is... how many people using a Hotmail account are able to afford a $14,615 exercise machine?

 

[randomo]

No, the hotel analogy isn't good. Typosquatting is as if you set up a little amusement park next to Disneyland and called it Dinseyland, then tried to coax visitors to pay admission to see Mikey Mouse and Cidnerella's Castle.