<?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; Judgments</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lawfont.com/category/law/judgments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lawfont.com</link>
	<description>an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 08:57:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The French Republic v Weiler: further details</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/the-french-republic-v-weiler-further-details/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/the-french-republic-v-weiler-further-details/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor Joseph Weiler has now written about the judgment in the criminal libel case brought against him in a French court. A decision was handed down by the Tribunal de Grand Instance de Paris on 3 March 2011. The details of the matter are outlined in an earlier post. In short, Professor Weiler was sued [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/the-french-republic-v-weiler-further-details/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Journal editor wins defamation action in French court</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/journal-editor-wins-defamation-action-in-french-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/journal-editor-wins-defamation-action-in-french-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 23:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=935</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor Joseph Weiler has won the defamation action brought against him in a French court, which I discussed last month here. So far I have not been able to find any more details about the ruling, but once I do will write a longer post.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2011/03/04/journal-editor-wins-defamation-action-in-french-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s not safe out there, especially on your own Facebook page</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/12/18/its-not-safe-out-there-especially-on-your-own-facebook-page/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/12/18/its-not-safe-out-there-especially-on-your-own-facebook-page/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sarah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is certainly a value to social networking websites. Some serve professional networking purposes (such as LinkedIn). And others, like Facebook, have proved to be an effective means of connecting with old friends (for me, including ones I&#8217;d lost touch with completely). It&#8217;s not news that we use these websites at our own peril. But [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2008/12/18/its-not-safe-out-there-especially-on-your-own-facebook-page/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>C7 judgment handed down this afternoon&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/07/27/c7-judgment-handed-down-this-afternoon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/07/27/c7-judgment-handed-down-this-afternoon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:58:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>susanne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadcasting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2007/07/27/c7-judgment-handed-down-this-afternoon/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The much anticipated judgment in the C7 matter has been handed down today&#8230;it&#8217;s a wopping 1230 pages/7MB. Get it here. In a very small nutshell, Channel 7 did not prove its pleaded case and was thus unsuccessful. The issue of costs is still to be worked out. His Honour Justice Sackville estimates costs in excess [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/07/27/c7-judgment-handed-down-this-afternoon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Authorisation Liability doesn&#8217;t go to the High Court</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/06/15/authorisation-liability-doesnt-go-to-the-high-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/06/15/authorisation-liability-doesnt-go-to-the-high-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Mark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2007/06/15/authorisation-liability-doesnt-go-to-the-high-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, well, well: those of us who, in the fine tradition of lawyers everywhere thinking their own area is sexy, had decided that the High Court would take any old IP case that sounded vaguely interesting, will have to revise their views. Not only did the High Court refuse special leave in the BP colour [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/06/15/authorisation-liability-doesnt-go-to-the-high-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Life Clickwrap Agreement unenforceable</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/06/10/second-life-clickwrap-agreement-unenforceable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/06/10/second-life-clickwrap-agreement-unenforceable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 08:59:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2007/06/10/second-life-clickwrap-agreement-unenforceable/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judge Eduardo Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has handed down a very interesting judgment dismissing two motions by Linden Labs (the makers of Second Life) in a lawsuit brought by lawyer Marc Bragg. Bragg signed up to Second Life in 2005. He said he was induced into [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2007/06/10/second-life-clickwrap-agreement-unenforceable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reactions to the Cooper judgment</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/19/reactions-to-the-cooper-judgment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/19/reactions-to-the-cooper-judgment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:31:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[p2p]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/19/reactions-to-the-cooper-judgment/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Various reactions to the linking is authorisation&#8217; Cooper decision handed down yesterday by the Full Federal Court: I commented yesterday (summary? &#8216;troubling&#8217;. &#8216;Have we, or have we not just had a very extended debate about copyright law in Australia? Was not one of the memes in that debate the idea that copyright ought to &#8216;work&#8217; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/19/reactions-to-the-cooper-judgment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Cooper case: how linking in Australia can land you in hot legal water</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/18/the-cooper-case-how-linking-in-australia-can-land-you-in-hot-legal-water/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/18/the-cooper-case-how-linking-in-australia-can-land-you-in-hot-legal-water/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:51:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[p2p]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/18/the-cooper-case-how-linking-in-australia-can-land-you-in-hot-legal-water/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I anticipated on Friday, and noted earlier today: the Full Federal Court judgment in the Cooper case has been handed down. This is a significant, appeal judgment on the scope of secondary liability in copyright law: that is, when can one person be responsible for the infringing activities of another? In this case, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/18/the-cooper-case-how-linking-in-australia-can-land-you-in-hot-legal-water/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cooper judgment is out</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/18/cooper-judgment-is-out/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/18/cooper-judgment-is-out/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kim</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/18/cooper-judgment-is-out/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judgments (2 of them) are here. Helpdesk employee wins; Cooper and the ISP lose. Enjoy! More when I&#8217;ve read it. Hat tip: Starkoff again, naturally.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/12/18/cooper-judgment-is-out/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Copyrighting &#8230; a fragrance?</title>
		<link>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/08/01/copyrighting-a-fragrance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/08/01/copyrighting-a-fragrance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawfont.com/?p=360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today&#8217;s funny moment is from The Australian, which is carrying a story that French cosmetic company L&#8217;Oreal has won a copyright suit against a Dutch company for copying a perfume. The story appears to have originated in The Times, but does not as yet appear to have been widely syndicated. The bizarre thing, of course, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawfont.com/2006/08/01/copyrighting-a-fragrance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

