<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blogger sued for trade libel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/blogger_sued_fo.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/blogger_sued_fo.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: brand propecia</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/blogger_sued_fo.html/comment-page-1#comment-59245</link>
		<dc:creator>brand propecia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/blogger-sued-for-trade-libel.html#comment-59245</guid>
		<description>&lt;a&gt; brand propecia &lt;/a&gt;.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a> brand propecia </a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Valkor</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/blogger_sued_fo.html/comment-page-1#comment-59244</link>
		<dc:creator>Valkor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 22:14:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/blogger-sued-for-trade-libel.html#comment-59244</guid>
		<description>The guy&#039;s blog is named in the story. Go there for a great play-by-play of the whole mess. Fortunately, the whole thing has been dropped because of the embarrassment it caused for the suing parties.

This advertising company pulled out the two biggest, clumsiest hammers in its legal tool box, defamation and copyright infringement, and tried to smash the guy. That&#039;s the problem with those two accusations. They can be thrown around so easily, and no little guy can count on a reasonable judge to dismiss the case or free aid from something like the EFF. The problem with defamation suits will probably have to be fixed with the courts, but the copyright laws can and should be changed to make it obvious that an infringement charge in a situation like this is just ridiculous.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The guy&#8217;s blog is named in the story. Go there for a great play-by-play of the whole mess. Fortunately, the whole thing has been dropped because of the embarrassment it caused for the suing parties.</p>
<p>This advertising company pulled out the two biggest, clumsiest hammers in its legal tool box, defamation and copyright infringement, and tried to smash the guy. That&#8217;s the problem with those two accusations. They can be thrown around so easily, and no little guy can count on a reasonable judge to dismiss the case or free aid from something like the EFF. The problem with defamation suits will probably have to be fixed with the courts, but the copyright laws can and should be changed to make it obvious that an infringement charge in a situation like this is just ridiculous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Risch</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/04/blogger_sued_fo.html/comment-page-1#comment-59243</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Risch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 18:51:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/04/blogger-sued-for-trade-libel.html#comment-59243</guid>
		<description>Too bad this isn&#039;t in California - this would make for a great anti-SLAPP motion.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Too bad this isn&#8217;t in California &#8211; this would make for a great anti-SLAPP motion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

