<?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 for Berkeley Technology Law Journal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://btlj.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://btlj.org</link>
	<description>A student-run publication of the UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) focused on intellectual property, high-tech, and biotech</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 01:36:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Google and the Sherman Act or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Civil Procedure by International Authorities Tell People To Act Harmoniously But Fail To Set Example &#124; Living History</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2011/11/29/google-and-the-sherman-act-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-civil-procedure/comment-page-1/#comment-7145</link>
		<dc:creator>International Authorities Tell People To Act Harmoniously But Fail To Set Example &#124; Living History</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2012 01:36:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=1552#comment-7145</guid>
		<description>[...] Sherman Act or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Civil ProcedureThe American Position, 2011Google and the Sherman Act or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Civil Procedurelive-cycleGoogle and the Sherman Act or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Civil [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Sherman Act or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Civil ProcedureThe American Position, 2011Google and the Sherman Act or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Civil Procedurelive-cycleGoogle and the Sherman Act or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Civil [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on GPS Tracking: United States v. Jones by United States v. Jones Decided? &#124; Berkeley Technology Law Journal</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2011/11/28/gps-tracking-united-states-v-jones/comment-page-1/#comment-6886</link>
		<dc:creator>United States v. Jones Decided? &#124; Berkeley Technology Law Journal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 05:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=1556#comment-6886</guid>
		<description>[...] use of a GPS tracking device by law enforcement to track the actions of a suspected criminal. This author previously covered the D.C. Circuit’s decision and the oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court last November. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] use of a GPS tracking device by law enforcement to track the actions of a suspected criminal. This author previously covered the D.C. Circuit’s decision and the oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court last November. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on People v. Diaz: Is Your iPhone Constitutionally Protected? by reichsfuhrer jerry brown in the news - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2011/02/23/people-v-diaz-is-your-iphone-constitutionally-protected/comment-page-1/#comment-6749</link>
		<dc:creator>reichsfuhrer jerry brown in the news - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=910#comment-6749</guid>
		<description>[...] People v. Diaz   __________________   Republicans want government so small it can fit into your uterus.  Slime Life Video Presents: The Tea Party                     GA_googleFillSlot(&quot;usmb-728x90-bottom&quot;); [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] People v. Diaz   __________________   Republicans want government so small it can fit into your uterus.  Slime Life Video Presents: The Tea Party                     GA_googleFillSlot(&quot;usmb-728&#215;90-bottom&quot;); [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on People v. Diaz: Is Your iPhone Constitutionally Protected? by Captain Quirk</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2011/02/23/people-v-diaz-is-your-iphone-constitutionally-protected/comment-page-1/#comment-6713</link>
		<dc:creator>Captain Quirk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:38:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=910#comment-6713</guid>
		<description>I think the author misspoke (miswrote?) when she said, &quot;Before 1973, Courts typically applied a more NARROW application of Fourth Amendment protection to searches incidental to one’s person. This was changed in U.S. v. Robinson, where the Court determined &#039;warrantless searches of arrestees’ persons are presumptively reasonable and require no additional justification to be lawful.&#039; This BROAD application was further reinforced the following year in U.S. v. Edwards...&quot;  {emphasis added} 

What she clearly meant to say was that before 1973, courts took a BROADER (not narrower) view of the Fourth Amendment&#039;s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.  What is &quot;broad&quot; is the additional authority given to the government to conduct searches incident to arrest AFTER Robinson and Edwards.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the author misspoke (miswrote?) when she said, &#8220;Before 1973, Courts typically applied a more NARROW application of Fourth Amendment protection to searches incidental to one’s person. This was changed in U.S. v. Robinson, where the Court determined &#8216;warrantless searches of arrestees’ persons are presumptively reasonable and require no additional justification to be lawful.&#8217; This BROAD application was further reinforced the following year in U.S. v. Edwards&#8230;&#8221;  {emphasis added} </p>
<p>What she clearly meant to say was that before 1973, courts took a BROADER (not narrower) view of the Fourth Amendment&#8217;s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.  What is &#8220;broad&#8221; is the additional authority given to the government to conduct searches incident to arrest AFTER Robinson and Edwards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Copyright Principles Project/Center for Democracy and Technology Copyright Reform by Yowza</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2010/10/17/copyright-principles-projectcenter-for-democracy-and-technology-copyright-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-6703</link>
		<dc:creator>Yowza</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:10:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=404#comment-6703</guid>
		<description>Hundreds of thousands of Americans have rights of one kind of another in intellectual property but the caste system is set up to make it impossible for them to assert them. 

Not hard, impossible. Its a system of apartheid. Based on class, not race. When you hear the phrase &quot;ORPHAN works&quot; please realize that the owners of those works in many cases ARE &quot;ORPHANS&quot; or close to it.

Almost no attorneys are aware of the laws, so even people who went to lawyers looking for help, were usually told they had no rights, and are profoundly unaware they own anything, and THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY SO THEY CAN STEAL THEIR RIGHTS AWAY BEFORE THEY CAN ASSERT THEM.

Thanks to the parasite class, tax havens, politicians, lawyers, corporate crime, disinvestment in America&#039;s future, Moore&#039;s law, and a class war thats being waged on its people by the wealthy and wanna-be wealthy syncophants, jobs are going away for good, healthcare is increasingly wealth care, and inherited wealth and IP ownership are the future. (shhhh!)

We all are orphans, in a way. We have to speak up, or well see slavery as a better option than corporatism. In the past, slaves were healthier and more likely to survive than indentured servants. Slaves were an investment, but an indenture was lucky to live out his seven years, many didn&#039;t, they were worked to death. 

Just like John Henry. A man for our time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hundreds of thousands of Americans have rights of one kind of another in intellectual property but the caste system is set up to make it impossible for them to assert them. </p>
<p>Not hard, impossible. Its a system of apartheid. Based on class, not race. When you hear the phrase &#8220;ORPHAN works&#8221; please realize that the owners of those works in many cases ARE &#8220;ORPHANS&#8221; or close to it.</p>
<p>Almost no attorneys are aware of the laws, so even people who went to lawyers looking for help, were usually told they had no rights, and are profoundly unaware they own anything, and THESE PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP IT THAT WAY SO THEY CAN STEAL THEIR RIGHTS AWAY BEFORE THEY CAN ASSERT THEM.</p>
<p>Thanks to the parasite class, tax havens, politicians, lawyers, corporate crime, disinvestment in America&#8217;s future, Moore&#8217;s law, and a class war thats being waged on its people by the wealthy and wanna-be wealthy syncophants, jobs are going away for good, healthcare is increasingly wealth care, and inherited wealth and IP ownership are the future. (shhhh!)</p>
<p>We all are orphans, in a way. We have to speak up, or well see slavery as a better option than corporatism. In the past, slaves were healthier and more likely to survive than indentured servants. Slaves were an investment, but an indenture was lucky to live out his seven years, many didn&#8217;t, they were worked to death. </p>
<p>Just like John Henry. A man for our time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Spring 2012 Writing Competition by Amy</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-6607</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:19:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=1658#comment-6607</guid>
		<description>Is this only for US students?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this only for US students?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Spring 2012 Writing Competition by The DOCKET &#187; Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2012 Writing Competition</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/comment-page-1/#comment-6510</link>
		<dc:creator>The DOCKET &#187; Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2012 Writing Competition</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=1658#comment-6510</guid>
		<description>[...] For eligibility, rules, and contact information, please visit the source: http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] For eligibility, rules, and contact information, please visit the source: <a href="http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/" rel="nofollow">http://btlj.org/2012/01/17/spring-2012-writing-competition/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Internet &#8220;Kill Switch&#8221; Legislation: Can Obama Turn Off the Internet? by Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2011/03/09/internet-kill-switch-legislation-can-obama-turn-off-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-3928</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=1100#comment-3928</guid>
		<description>[...] of time before &quot;National Security Purposes&quot; allows the Executive branch to employ the Kill Switch.  Remember when the Patriot Act was interpreted to mean &quot;if you buy illegal drugs, you are [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of time before &quot;National Security Purposes&quot; allows the Executive branch to employ the Kill Switch.  Remember when the Patriot Act was interpreted to mean &quot;if you buy illegal drugs, you are [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on  U.S. v. Aleynikov: Source Code as a Stolen “Good” in a Case of Interstate Economic Espionage by frank rhame</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2011/10/24/u-s-v-aleynikov-source-code-as-a-stolen-%e2%80%9cgood%e2%80%9d-in-a-case-of-interstate-economic-espionage/comment-page-1/#comment-3571</link>
		<dc:creator>frank rhame</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:55:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=1491#comment-3571</guid>
		<description>Excellent review.  

I wonder if Teza still has the source code and how it might be gotten back or how Teza might now be kept from using it. 

I also wonder how Agrawal stole code without it ever crossing state lines.  That must have taken some effort and avoided ever crossing the Hudson with a relevant thumb drive or emailing anything (surely one packet would have left NY)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent review.  </p>
<p>I wonder if Teza still has the source code and how it might be gotten back or how Teza might now be kept from using it. </p>
<p>I also wonder how Agrawal stole code without it ever crossing state lines.  That must have taken some effort and avoided ever crossing the Hudson with a relevant thumb drive or emailing anything (surely one packet would have left NY)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.: A Radical Change in the Legal Standard of Inequitable Conduct by Stent Wars: Cordis Corp v. Boston Scientific Corp., Fed. Cir. (2011) &#124; Berkeley Technology Law Journal</title>
		<link>http://btlj.org/2011/06/22/therasense-inc-v-becton-dickinson-and-co-a-radical-change-in-the-legal-standard-of-inequitable-conduct/comment-page-1/#comment-3392</link>
		<dc:creator>Stent Wars: Cordis Corp v. Boston Scientific Corp., Fed. Cir. (2011) &#124; Berkeley Technology Law Journal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://btlj.org/?p=1290#comment-3392</guid>
		<description>[...] The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (&#8220;CAFC&#8221;) decision in Cordis Corp v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2011 (“Cordis”), is the latest episode in the ongoing Stent Wars, and provides an example of CAFC review of JMOL verdicts  and review of the intent prong of inequitable conduct under the new standard in Therasense. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (&#8220;CAFC&#8221;) decision in Cordis Corp v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2011 (“Cordis”), is the latest episode in the ongoing Stent Wars, and provides an example of CAFC review of JMOL verdicts  and review of the intent prong of inequitable conduct under the new standard in Therasense. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

