<?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>LawFont.com &#187; Contract</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawfont.com/category/law/contract/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawfont.com</link>
	<description>an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:35:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Unfair Contractual Terms in NSW</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/unfair-contractual-terms-in-nsw/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/unfair-contractual-terms-in-nsw/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 06:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eBusiness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/unfair-contractual-terms-in-nsw/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BDW has alerted me to the fact that:
&#8216;The NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice has released their final report on the inquiry into unfair terms in consumer contracts.  This is likely to have a direct impact on users of internet, mobile phone and cable television services, amongst others.  &#8230; The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/03/13/unfair-contractual-terms-in-nsw/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apple Wins Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/05/09/apple-wins-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/05/09/apple-wins-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2006 19:29:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eBusiness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And when I write &#8220;Apple&#8221;, whom do you think of? The computer maker? Thought so. Today, Mr Justice Mann found for Apple Computer, Inc. in the lawsuit between it and Apple Corps Ltd (the Beatles). My intro is possibly a little misleading, however, as the case was not directly about the classical trade mark concerns [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/05/09/apple-wins-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canadian Copyright &amp; Cash, Wikipedia, Google Subpoenas and Who Owns News</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/01/20/canadian-copyright-cash-wikipedia-google-subpoenas-and-who-owns-news/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/01/20/canadian-copyright-cash-wikipedia-google-subpoenas-and-who-owns-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eBusiness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is far too hot and sticky this morning in Melbourne to spend vast amounts of time blogging. (hmmm, theory, how does weather affect blogging? More blogging if colder and stuck inside..?).
Four interesting stories today though, on the continuing Copyright and Politics saga in Canada, on the take-down of Wikipedia Germany, on Google Subpoenas and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/01/20/canadian-copyright-cash-wikipedia-google-subpoenas-and-who-owns-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The ACCC on that tricky warranty language</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/01/05/the-accc-on-that-tricky-warranty-language/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/01/05/the-accc-on-that-tricky-warranty-language/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eBusiness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m more an IP person than a contract person, but in teaching IT law, you do often come up against that question &#8211; just how far can warranties go in excluding corporate liability?
The SMH reports that the ACCC has taken legal action in the Federal Court against LG Electronics for telling customers who bought its [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/01/05/the-accc-on-that-tricky-warranty-language/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Raymond Nimmer on Google Print</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2005/11/29/raymond-nimmer-on-google-print/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2005/11/29/raymond-nimmer-on-google-print/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:40:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=142</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve added Raymond Nimmer&#8217;s Contemporary IP Licensing and Information Law blog to our list of links. 
Ray tends to post only every other week or so, but his entries are insightful and well argued.  Those interested in the Google Print debate might be interested in reading his post on the subject, in which he [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2005/11/29/raymond-nimmer-on-google-print/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ensnaring those who would entrap: HGI v. Wetmore</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2005/10/14/ensnaring-those-who-would-entrap-hgi-v-wetmore/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2005/10/14/ensnaring-those-who-would-entrap-hgi-v-wetmore/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2005/10/14/ensnaring-those-who-would-entrap-hgi-v-wetmore/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently decided a rather fascinating case, HGI Associates v. Wetmore Printing Co.. It begins:
In this case, the Microsoft Corporation (&#8220;Microsoft&#8221;), through its subsidiary, Microsoft Licensing, Inc. (&#8220;MSLI&#8221;), and business partner, Wetmore, attempted to set an ill-conceived trap to ensnare a suspected software pirate, HGI.  The trap, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2005/10/14/ensnaring-those-who-would-entrap-hgi-v-wetmore/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
