> the word “apples" for instance ought not to result in a match for “Apple”

Well Google has a really easy solution available for that: case-sensitive indexing.

AltaVista got it right: a search for "apple" will match "Apple" and "apple", but a search for "Apple" will only match "apple". (Singulars and Plurals are orthogonal to this.)

It is like comparing apples to oranges here. >wink< {-;

If only there was a way that Google could recognize the companies in a search result that are legit and not frauds or wannabees.

Sounds like the script for a thriller movie here – For Just a Few Dollars More sounds like a good title. Shall we make a billion on this one?

This is why Google is where it is now because it's predecessor like Yahoo and AltaVista couldn't do what Google did. More I read about their algorithms, more interest I get. I wish they write a book about how they do it! =/

Yep, Brian, Google did more things better:
http://web-owls.com/2006/05/09/how-google-overtook-altavista/

However, there were just a few things that AltaVista did better. Not enough to make up for it becoming a portal though. Case-sensitive searching was one. Partial word matches was another (e.g. you could write encyclo* to search for encyclopedia, encyclopedic etc). The "NEAR" operator was another, although Google now implements that by default which is even better.

I should also mention that the modern AltaVista no longer allows these things. They changed their indexing technology a few years back.

"I wish they write a book about how they do it!"

Can't you read the USPTO litterature related to Google?