<?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: Data at Sea</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/data_at_sea.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/data_at_sea.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: Jon Garfunkel</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/data_at_sea.html/comment-page-1#comment-47256</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Garfunkel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 01:29:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/data-at-sea.html#comment-47256</guid>
		<description>Love those catchy, whimsical blog posts which grab our attention, but are no more firmly anchored to the original facts as a piece of driftwood on the sea...

Google&#039;s notion for capturing the motion of the ocean -- it&#039;s not a plan, it&#039;s just a patent. It&#039;s mainly solving a technical problem (keeping servers powered and cool), not a political one. There was no suggestion that this would be &quot;free from government interference,&quot; though the article surmised that it would pay no &quot;property estate&quot; taxes.

Pulling up my standby copy of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Law of the Sea&lt;/a&gt;, I see that nations can claim sovereign rights up to 200 nautical miles out. The article suggests that the GoogleShips will be 7 miles out.

In all likelihood it would be taxed, and regulated, (and potentially litigated) to the same effect that other offshore ventures are, be they oil rigs or turbines.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Love those catchy, whimsical blog posts which grab our attention, but are no more firmly anchored to the original facts as a piece of driftwood on the sea&#8230;</p>
<p>Google&#8217;s notion for capturing the motion of the ocean &#8212; it&#8217;s not a plan, it&#8217;s just a patent. It&#8217;s mainly solving a technical problem (keeping servers powered and cool), not a political one. There was no suggestion that this would be &#8220;free from government interference,&#8221; though the article surmised that it would pay no &#8220;property estate&#8221; taxes.</p>
<p>Pulling up my standby copy of the <a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part5.htm" rel="nofollow">Law of the Sea</a>, I see that nations can claim sovereign rights up to 200 nautical miles out. The article suggests that the GoogleShips will be 7 miles out.</p>
<p>In all likelihood it would be taxed, and regulated, (and potentially litigated) to the same effect that other offshore ventures are, be they oil rigs or turbines.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Gowder</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/09/data_at_sea.html/comment-page-1#comment-47255</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Gowder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:52:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/09/data-at-sea.html#comment-47255</guid>
		<description>Remember HavenCo?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember HavenCo?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

