"...it's better to just shrug it off than filing a lawsuit, drawing a lot more attention to the mean things... and anything else that might get attention" which of course is particularly true when you might be drawing attention to the facts that a) apparently you don't know your own business very well and b) you appear to be stupid.
This is only an opinion, though; nothing actionable here. Move along now, there's nothing more to see here.
If I know that the only way I could see the weekend specials at Kohl's in Boston was to go to Boston.com, you can bet I would go to Boston.com to get to it. The newspapers have clearly not learned how to sell the local viewers they draw to advertisers; instead I have to go to the print version to see the Kohl's ad. Someday they'll figure this stuff out but meanwhile there is far too much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Back when they were their own company and not owned by someone else, WordPerfect used to sue anyone using "perfect" in their business name and having any conceivable connection to a computer or using words. As I recall it got pretty ludicrous but like many of these cases, the deep pocket will nearly always beat common sense, because it just costs too much money to defend against these types of ridiculous claims.
I can't speak for all of these post-9/11 agencies, but I can tell you the "cyber-warriors" of the Department of Homeland Security spend a huge amount of time focused on something that is COMPLETELY outside their mission and makes ZERO contribution to the security of the United States: child porn. Don't get me wrong: child porn is of the worst crimes there is and offenders deserve to be hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (and maybe even castrated). But it is not the job of HOMELAND SECURITY to do this!!! In their case, this is nothing but a distraction from their primary mission! OK, I'm done venting.
Having spent a fair amount of time in Singapore, I can tell you that anything negative written about the government of Singapore by the press anywhere outside of Singapore is considered to be "external interference in the political process of Singapore". They will block distribution of any publication that has committed this offense; in the 80's I saw them do this to Time Magazine. The NY Times may view this market as important enough to preserve their distribution rights by an apology.
That makes as much sense to me as allowing people to patent genes. How can anyone possibly claim any proprietary rights over something naturally occurring in nature? If I held the patent on eagles, then when native American want to use eagle feathers in their rituals, they will not only have to get the necessary permits from the federal government, they will have to pay me a license fee, because hey, I OWN THE PATENT. If anyone can come up with a really good way to get this by the patent examiner I'll go halves with you on it.
Naperville, Illinois had nearly 70,000 people attend the party for the release of the final novel in the Harry Potter series. The previous book release party had been named "Muggle Madness" but Warner Brothers blocked any use of "Harry Potter" or associated trademarks in Naperville's next celebration--notably, it was not Scholastic, who published the book in the U.S. So what did Anderson Books and the Downtown Naperville Alliance do? They just named it "The Party That Shall Not Be Named" and went right ahead. My son repainted his Yoda ears and went as Dobby, and everyone had a great time DESPITE the Warner Brothers boneheads, who obviously don't recognize the value of free promotion when it bites them in the butt.
I actually still subscribe to the on-paper edition of a "major metropolitan newspaper". If these folks think I'm going to pay for online access when I'm ALREADY paying once, they'll find that I will drop my physical subscription like a hot potato--and then not pay a penny to their paywall. On top of that, I'll still be able to read their online content; I'll just go through my municipal or university library account, as both of them are ALREADY paying for the "privilege" of access to current and archived articles. Michael is right; these people are deluded, and self-delusion is the hardest kind to break.