I couldn't agree more. Every once in a while, I'll see something interesting linked at wired.com, and I'll think, hey, they have some cool stuff. Then I'll subscribe via Reader and most of the articles will be utter crap, junk about internet dildos and whatnot. The print version isn't any better, either.
That's why I used that example. It's funny (to me) that people accept all kinds of goods being delivered on different schedules, but when it comes to their internet packets, they want the government to come in and fine companies $2 million for doing the same thing.
To me, that's why what Google did with Verizon was evil. Not the fact that they agree that wireless should be exempt from net neutrality, but that the government should control and fine private networks for operating as they see fit.
Time and time again, the market has defeated closed networks. See AOL for the best example. I don't believe that networks should be tiered, but that's up to the network operators to decide. If I choose to subscribe to an ISP that had tiered access, then that is my choice, and the government fining them $2 million isn't going to help me. What exactly would the government do with that money anyways? Besides the fact that it would come out of the customers pockets (it's not like the CEO would pay it), the money would probably be giving back to the ISP to pay for broadband or phone access for hillbilly's that live in the Ozarks and can't afford satellite (in other words, more government intervention to distort the market). Or maybe they'd just funnel it directly into the bank accounts of Goldman Sachs.
I'm wondering if it is actually designed to mislead. It could simply be an attempt to make it obvious to investors that the ETF's match the categories of the S&P's ETF's.
I don't work in the stock market, but maybe to somebody who does, it would be completely obvious that they are two different sets of funds, after all, they are from different companies, and stock tickers use a short sequence of letters, which means that you could run out of combinations after a while.
The more important question to me is, did the suing company (the S&P or its affiliate or whatever it is) even bother to request that the defendant change the symbols, or did they just head straight for court? Knowing how the lawyers operate, I'd be willing to wager that they didn't.