You're not seriously saying Google is a squatter, are you? When a company buys another company it's a package deal. How would you separate the value of the ___domain from the rest of the acquired IP? It's too much of a headache; remember they have to answer to their shareholders.
There's no myth, it's logic. If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal, then if I want ___domain X then it's either available or used by somebody - which I have no problem with. If you think that sitting on it, because somebody may have a good use for it in the future, provides any useful service you're fooling yourself. In that case parasites also provide a good service by regulating the ecosystem.
"When a company buys another company it's a package deal. "
They aren't using the ___domain. The company they acquired they shut down. All transition has been done.
So by the logic that many commenters here use they are squatters. Because they aren't using the ___domain.
As an aside google and many large corporations who aren't actively selling domains own domains that they have stockpiled for one reason on another (preventing competition).
Back to the ___domain in question. It doesn't go anywhere. Just because they aren't in the business of registering domains for the purpose of profit doesn't make it less so (by once again people's definitions here..) that they are squatters. And just because they got the ___domain buy acquiring a company doesn't change the facts.
"If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal,"
It seems like the thing you want to be illegal is people being in the business of buying and selling ___domain names then, am I correct? You think domains are a public trust and there should be a committee that passes judgement on who can get a ___domain and also monitors that a ___domain is used in an acceptable way and finally that a ___domain isn't sold without content. And a whole bunch of regulation to prevent people from gaming the system. Unfortunately that would hurt the internet.
Your idea isn't practical and not the way a free market works. There is nothing special about domains that requires such special protection. They aren't kidneys or liver transplants. Lastly, there are other TLD that you can register your name in. You just can't get .com or any of the mostly popular ones. If you can't get hackernews.com you can get hackernews.tld
I was around at the start when a) domains were free b) domains were then priced at $100 for 2 years and c) that price was lowered to $70 for 2 years. Then came ICANN and many registrars and domains dropped to $10 or whatever godaddy was charging at the time or Tucows etc.
I was around in the beginning when you had to fill out a long form and say what you were doing with the name. Pretty soon there were so many people wanting domains that NSI asked the NSF if they could charge per name. Then people got upset with the money they were making and we got competition. Reviewing applications for domains stopped and that was actually good. It allowed the Internet to grow quickly.
A vestige of this system exists with .edu names. Last I check (and this may have changed since I haven't attempted for years) I couldn't even get one for a University without justifying why they couldn't use their main .edu. It also exists with some sponsored TLD that you've never heard of.
Bottom line: Who is going to pay for the regulation and who is going to run that system?
There's no myth, it's logic. If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal, then if I want ___domain X then it's either available or used by somebody - which I have no problem with. If you think that sitting on it, because somebody may have a good use for it in the future, provides any useful service you're fooling yourself. In that case parasites also provide a good service by regulating the ecosystem.