<?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: Google&#8217;s Bet-the-Company Case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://madisonian.net/2005/09/21/googles-bet-the-company-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://madisonian.net/2005/09/21/googles-bet-the-company-case/</link>
	<description>a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:22:44 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: madisonian.net &#187; Google Print II</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2005/09/21/googles-bet-the-company-case/comment-page-1/#comment-20343</link>
		<dc:creator>madisonian.net &#187; Google Print II</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/?p=346#comment-20343</guid>
		<description>[...] Among all the many sources for news about the latest lawsuit challenging Google Print, I&#8217;ll link to this one over at Conglomerate, not only because Gordon Smith links to my post there on Google Print I, but because Gordon includes the quote that Mark Lemley (Stanford Law School) gave the Wall Street Journal: &#8220;The consequences of a loss for Google are enormous. If the publishers were to actually prevail in this lawsuit, I think it would be essentially impossible to maintain a search engine.&#8221; That confirms and extends my earlier view: This is not only bet-the-company litigation, it&#8217;s bet-the-Internet litigation. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Among all the many sources for news about the latest lawsuit challenging Google Print, I&#8217;ll link to this one over at Conglomerate, not only because Gordon Smith links to my post there on Google Print I, but because Gordon includes the quote that Mark Lemley (Stanford Law School) gave the Wall Street Journal: &#8220;The consequences of a loss for Google are enormous. If the publishers were to actually prevail in this lawsuit, I think it would be essentially impossible to maintain a search engine.&#8221; That confirms and extends my earlier view: This is not only bet-the-company litigation, it&#8217;s bet-the-Internet litigation. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SIVACRACY.NET: Opinions, Rants, and Obsessions of Siva Vaidhyanathan and his Friends and Family</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2005/09/21/googles-bet-the-company-case/comment-page-1/#comment-15988</link>
		<dc:creator>SIVACRACY.NET: Opinions, Rants, and Obsessions of Siva Vaidhyanathan and his Friends and Family</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:47:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/?p=346#comment-15988</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Google: Betting the Company&lt;/strong&gt;

Michael Madison gets it exactly right when he explains that this showdown over Google Print Library is aBet-the-Company Case: Since Google Print is in many copyright-related ways indistinguishable from Google&#039;s core search functionality, Eric Goldman ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Google: Betting the Company</strong></p>
<p>Michael Madison gets it exactly right when he explains that this showdown over Google Print Library is aBet-the-Company Case: Since Google Print is in many copyright-related ways indistinguishable from Google&#8217;s core search functionality, Eric Goldman &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
