You need a paper licence to link to the Royal Mail website

I would like to see this tried with a server in Britain...

I believe this is simply to protect them from unauthorized radio broadcasts of their games.

The Royal Mail is one of those things that the average Briton will take for granted, moan about and generally dismiss as an ancient, outdated monstrosity, but sorely miss it after moving abroad.

See also: the NHS, EU consumer law and the BBC.

Backward? Never. This is the company that changed its name to Consignia and ditched the Crown for a random second-rate swooshy circle thingy.

A link is text, a link does not cause any computer to perform any action, a link does not even "connect" to any computer. It's static data.

With proper software "activating" e.g. clicking on a link to uk mail's website may or may not cause one of their computers to perform some function.

If anything you'd need a license to click links, not make them. Unless there's even crazier "contributory computer performance" language in that Legislative Misuse Act of 1990

If I were representing an accused linker, I'd be inclined to argue (among other things) that in view of longstanding, worldwide custom and usage:

1. Anyone who puts up a Web page is implicitly authorizing, nay inviting, all comers to access the page via normal protocols;

2. As a matter of law, the only way the implicit authorization can be negated is to deny access to the page, for example, by putting the page behind a password wall -- simply putting up a terms-and-conditions notice, that you don't even see before getting to the page, isn't enough (that's pretty much what the courts have held, at least in the US);

3. Therefore, any notice on the Web page that said "thou shalt not link to this page [or site]" would be of no legal significance.

A site that said "you can't link to me, even though I'm out here in the public square, so to speak," would be like a company that decided to hold a confidential business meeting at an outdoor restaurant table, put up a sign on the table saying "thou shalt not listen in," and then sued people who eavesdropped from the next table over.

Wait, are you saying I can't create a law by making a web page? Damn...

We do have a Television License but it is effectively a tax on any household that views television. The charge is £142.50 per year, which pays for the BBC, a broadcaster which is funded by, but independent of, the state. Our broadcast media is regulated rather differently than most. Compared to the US media we have incredibly liberal standards of taste and decency, especially past the 9pm watershed. All broadcasters have a legal duty to act with fairness and accuracy, a duty that is quite strictly enforced. The BBC has strict legal responsibilities regarding quality, which many believe leads to a positive halo effect in the broadcast media.

Although it is a contentious policy, especially amongst the tabloid press, the system works extremely well. The license fee is guaranteed to the BBC and ensures that they are immune from government interference. The BBC Trust regulates the actions of the BBC and ensures that they act in the public interest. Although I would not wish to cast aspersions, I can say that having scrutinised the broadcast media of most of the developed world I am personally quite happy with our system.

You can do that under UK law (probably elsewhere too). If your brand identity has a strong, identifiable colour scheme you can register it. I can't remember if it's a trademark or a designmark, but it falls under trademark law.

See also Orange, who have registered their shade of orange. The "Easy" brand (easyJet, easyEverything etc.) use a similar shade of orange across their brands. But Orange were there first and when easyMobile was started it wasn't allowed to use the traditional orange-coloured branding.

... but in a new and amusing way?

This is another nice example of what happens when people who don't understand technology make rules about how you use technology.