<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Godfread Law Firm - Intellectual Property and Business Law &#187; e-commerce</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/category/e-commerce/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com</link>
	<description>A Minneapolis-St. Paul law firm practicing trademark, copyright, technology and business law.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 17:40:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>FTC Moves Towards &#8220;Do Not Track&#8221; List</title>
		<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/ftc-moves-towards-do-not-track-list</link>
		<comments>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/ftc-moves-towards-do-not-track-list#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[consumer law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[behavioral advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[do not track]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.godfreadlaw.com/?p=619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The FTC recently testified before Congress that there should be a function in browsers to allow a &#8220;Do Not Track&#8221; option.  I am a bit cynical about how effective this might be considering I get robo-calls offering to lower my interest despite the &#8220;Do Not Call&#8221; list and I still get spam despite CAN-SPAM [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The FTC recently testified before Congress that there should be a function in browsers to allow a &#8220;Do Not Track&#8221; option.  I am a bit cynical about how effective this might be considering I get robo-calls offering to lower my interest despite the &#8220;Do Not Call&#8221; list and I still get spam despite CAN-SPAM and other legislation.  But as always, details matter.  Is this going to work or cripple the free ad-supported Internet we have grown to love and loathe?  I offer for your consideration a links:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/12/dnttestimony.shtm">FTC&#8217;s Statement</a><br />
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/02/technology/ftc_do_not_track/index.htm">CNN&#8217;s &#8220;Do Not Track Would Cripple Web Giants&#8221;</a><br />
<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/ftcs-privacy-report-calls-attention-privacy">Statement from the EFF</a><br />
<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ftc-do-not-track-advertising">How Would Do Not Track Work?</a>  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/ftc-moves-towards-do-not-track-list/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Libel Online Going Away?</title>
		<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/is-libel-online-going-away</link>
		<comments>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/is-libel-online-going-away#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:11:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[e-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["officer bubbles"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[youtube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.godfreadlaw.com/?p=553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I found two interesting articles this weekend on the topic of libel online.  The first is a post by Daniel Solove  talking about the slow demise of privacy torts as well as libel and slander.  The most interesting point to me was that the New York Times currently does not have any [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found two interesting articles this weekend on the topic of libel online.  The first is a <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/10/the-slow-demise-of-defamation-and-the-privacy-torts.html">post by Daniel Solove </a> talking about the slow demise of privacy torts as well as libel and slander.  The most interesting point to me was that the New York Times currently does not have any libel cases pending right now, whereas they used to have several at any given time.  </p>
<p>Is Libel really going away?  The next post made me think not.  <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/officer-bubbles-launches-suit-against-youtube/article1760214/">This one</a> is a story of police officer is suing YouTube over parody videos of him.  Apparently he was caught on video being particularly aggressive with a protester armed with bubbles.  Yes, bubbles.  He isn&#8217;t a public figure, but I don&#8217;t think any of the videos were doing anything beyond commenting on the reasonableness of his behavior.</p>
<p>I won&#8217;t comment on the merits of the case but I think its probably more representative of a growing type of libel case and why the lack of libel suits against the NYT probably doesn&#8217;t mean that libel is going away.  With more people publishing there is more nasty stuff published, and probably more lawsuits.  Professor Solove&#8217;s broader point was that we still should have access to justice for libel.  I think we will, but the nature of the likely defendant is probably changing. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/is-libel-online-going-away/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wall Street Journal Adds Digital Privacy Series</title>
		<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/new-york-times-adds-digital-privacy-series</link>
		<comments>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/new-york-times-adds-digital-privacy-series#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[consumer law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.godfreadlaw.com/?p=542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal has added a investigative series to their blog titled What They Know.  Sounds sufficiently scary. 
I think this is noteworthy for two reasons.  First, its a sign that the intersection of privacy and marketing is no longer an issue just for law geeks.  Second, the blog seems to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Wall Street Journal has added a investigative series to their blog titled <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk/">What They Know</a>.  Sounds sufficiently scary. </p>
<p>I think this is noteworthy for two reasons.  First, its a sign that the intersection of privacy and marketing is no longer an issue just for law geeks.  Second, the blog seems to have done a fairly good job of visualizing how data is used by third parties.  </p>
<p>It will probably surprise many to see that something as seemingly innocuous as online dictionaries can be used to collect so much information about people.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/new-york-times-adds-digital-privacy-series/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dot Anything?</title>
		<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/dot-anything</link>
		<comments>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/dot-anything#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[e-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[icann]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.godfreadlaw.com/?p=330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) are .com, .edu, .org  and so forth.  There have been proposals before ICANN for a few years now to allow new gTLDs to be just about anything people want, such as .godfread.  There are of course trademark and other intellectual property concerns and its not entirely clear [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) are .com, .edu, .org  and so forth.  There have been proposals before ICANN for a few years now to allow new gTLDs to be just about anything people want, such as .godfread.  There are of course trademark and other intellectual property concerns and its not entirely clear how ICANN will address resolving the disputes that might arise when two parties both claim rights in a new gTLD.  Nevertheless, it seems as though sometime in the not to distant future, we may see a whole new universe of domain names.<br />
<a href="http://www.comlaude.com/new-gtlds-for-2010.html">http://www.comlaude.com/new-gtlds-for-2010.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/related-en.htm">ICANN New gTLD Information Page</a></p>
<p>HT to Martin Schwimmer at the Trademark Blog</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/dot-anything/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yelp! sued in class action over extortion</title>
		<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/yelp-sued-in-class-action-over-extortion</link>
		<comments>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/yelp-sued-in-class-action-over-extortion#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:48:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.godfreadlaw.com/?p=298</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There&#8217;s even a blog about it.  I use Yelp! only occasionally but I do rely on reviews on Google and elsewhere.  This can be a touchy subject for many small business owners as they can and do find customers through online reviews.I found my barber through those reviews and I know he takes [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s even a blog about it.  I use Yelp! only occasionally but I do rely on reviews on Google and elsewhere.  This can be a touchy subject for many small business owners as they can and do find customers through online reviews.I found my barber through those reviews and I know he takes those online reviews pretty seriously.  Its also ripe for abuse as small businesses may be tempted to put as many five star reviews up as the can.  What this lawsuit alleges though is that Yelp! asked for money to make the bad reviews go away.  Yelp! denies this and states that they only remove reviews that they believe are illegitimate. </p>
<p>http://yelpclassaction.wordpress.com/</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/yelp-sued-in-class-action-over-extortion/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

