<?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: Happy Talk?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://madisonian.net/2006/01/09/happy-talk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://madisonian.net/2006/01/09/happy-talk/</link>
	<description>a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:06:26 -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; More Supreme Court Patent Law</title>
		<link>http://madisonian.net/2006/01/09/happy-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-21113</link>
		<dc:creator>madisonian.net &#187; More Supreme Court Patent Law</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://madisonian.net/?p=490#comment-21113</guid>
		<description>[...] As I&#8217;ve indicated before, the Supreme Court has an appetite for patent law not seen since the 1960s. With the three cases heard on the merits this term (Independent Ink, Metabolite, and eBay), and the three cases on which the Court has called for the views of the Solicitor General (KSR, SmithKline, and another I can&#8217;t remember at the moment), the MedImmune case rings in lucky number 7.    Trackback URL: http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/02/21/more-supreme-court-patent-law/trackback/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] As I&#8217;ve indicated before, the Supreme Court has an appetite for patent law not seen since the 1960s. With the three cases heard on the merits this term (Independent Ink, Metabolite, and eBay), and the three cases on which the Court has called for the views of the Solicitor General (KSR, SmithKline, and another I can&#8217;t remember at the moment), the MedImmune case rings in lucky number 7.    Trackback URL: <a href="http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/02/21/more-supreme-court-patent-law/trackback/" rel="nofollow" >http://madisonian.net/archives/2006/02/21/more-supreme-court-patent-law/trackback/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
