Microsoft is not "providing" access in Marymoor Park.
The county provides the access, and some companies, including Microsoft, have gotten "naming rights" by providing sponsorship that defrays the county's maintenance and operations costs. There's no indication that Microsoft controls the access or gains any value beyond the name recognition and advertising.
That said, the sponsorship is coming from the MSN business unit, and the naming rights include the MSN logo, which seems likely to be misinterpreted as being "on" MSN when you use the county-provided service.
If you could find a bunch of businesses who did things like locating themselves at 123 Marple Street expressly and solely for the purpose of gaining business from all the people who incorrectly wrote down "123 Maple Street", then maybe you could formulate a valid argument.
The goal is a legal system that works in the real world, not a theoretical, contrived, non-existent one.
I wonder if all the *sucks.com domains will be determined to be typos (therefore illegal)
Very unlikely. Reading through the appeal decision, which quoted from the cyberpiracy act, it was pretty clear to me that the intention is to prevent people from taking advantage of confusion or benign human error. You couldn't reasonably argue that somebody meant to type "joecartoon" but accidentally typed "joecartoonsucks". Also, the Act differentiates sites which have a relationship to the similar (original) site. *sucks certainly has something to with the original, but porn sites or banners that generate revenue per clickthrough obviously don't. A protest site like *sucks will be protected as free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is not "providing" access in Marymoor Park.
The county provides the access, and some companies, including Microsoft, have gotten "naming rights" by providing sponsorship that defrays the county's maintenance and operations costs. There's no indication that Microsoft controls the access or gains any value beyond the name recognition and advertising.
That said, the sponsorship is coming from the MSN business unit, and the naming rights include the MSN logo, which seems likely to be misinterpreted as being "on" MSN when you use the county-provided service.
If you could find a bunch of businesses who did things like locating themselves at 123 Marple Street expressly and solely for the purpose of gaining business from all the people who incorrectly wrote down "123 Maple Street", then maybe you could formulate a valid argument. The goal is a legal system that works in the real world, not a theoretical, contrived, non-existent one.
Very unlikely. Reading through the appeal decision, which quoted from the cyberpiracy act, it was pretty clear to me that the intention is to prevent people from taking advantage of confusion or benign human error. You couldn't reasonably argue that somebody meant to type "joecartoon" but accidentally typed "joecartoonsucks". Also, the Act differentiates sites which have a relationship to the similar (original) site. *sucks certainly has something to with the original, but porn sites or banners that generate revenue per clickthrough obviously don't. A protest site like *sucks will be protected as free speech.