<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>From Vegas To Legal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reguligence.biz/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reguligence.biz</link>
	<description>Your update on intellectual property, information technology and regulatory matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:27:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<cloud domain='reguligence.biz' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://reguligence.biz/osd.xml" title="From Vegas To Legal" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://reguligence.biz/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Spam</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/09/spam/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/09/spam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[encheva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[junk e-mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spam]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I guess every Internet and e-mail user has at least once received a spam, scam or any other sort of a junk mail in their inbox. So far, the system admins at my employer have always managed to filter such undesired messages. Yesterday, however, I received an e-mail that has apparently succeeded to overcome the [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=439&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/09/spam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>German Constitutional Court abrogates provisions on data retention</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/03/german-constitutional-court-abrogates-provisions-on-data-retention/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/03/german-constitutional-court-abrogates-provisions-on-data-retention/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bundesverfassungsgericht]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BVerfG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data retention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[german constitutional court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unconstitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hear ye, hear ye, you all supporters of the fundamental right of privacy &#8211; 7 out of 8 German Constitutional Justices voted to declare the data retention provisions as applied in the Telecommunications Act and in the Code on Criminal Procedure null and void!
Enough of enthusiasm, however, we can go on observing the facts some [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=424&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/03/german-constitutional-court-abrogates-provisions-on-data-retention/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook granted a dubious patent</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/26/facebook-granted-a-dubious-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/26/facebook-granted-a-dubious-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[#7669123]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multiply.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newsfeed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obvious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The readers of the Reguligence Weblog are familiar with the fact that I am not a supporter of software and business method patents. Moreover, I am rather a doubter as to those patents&#8217; furtherance to the Information Technology at all. Nevertheless, I should be grateful to Facebook for giving me an occasion to have another [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=415&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/26/facebook-granted-a-dubious-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the Austrian gambling monopoly coming to an end?</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/23/is-the-austrian-gambling-monopoly-coming-to-an-end/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/23/is-the-austrian-gambling-monopoly-coming-to-an-end/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:42:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[gambling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocate general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[austria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casinos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Engelmann]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[game of chance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gaming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Landesgericht Linz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mazak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regional Court Linz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The subject matter of this post is not necessarily related to Information Technology or Intellectual Property. Arguably, it could be deemed to be somewhere in the orbit of regulatory matters, but&#8230;&#8221;wait a moment&#8221; &#8211; might some of you ask &#8211; &#8220;what is the name of this guy&#8217;s blog again?&#8221;, and that is true &#8211; it [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=399&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/23/is-the-austrian-gambling-monopoly-coming-to-an-end/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Templates designed to capture a physician-patient encounter are not copyrightable</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/20/templates-designed-to-capture-a-physician-patient-encounter-are-not-copyrightable/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/20/templates-designed-to-capture-a-physician-patient-encounter-are-not-copyrightable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 23:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clarks Checks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[convey information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyrightability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eleventh circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feist vs Rural]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[informative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kregos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[originality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[templates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=384</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case of Utopia Provider Systems vs Pro-Med Clinical Systems was recently referred to the United States Court of Appeal for the eleventh Circuit. The claimant Utopia had developed paper templates to capture a physician-patient encounter, and had obtained a Certificate of Registration as &#8220;compilation of terms&#8221; with the US Copyright Office. The claimant had [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=384&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/20/templates-designed-to-capture-a-physician-patient-encounter-are-not-copyrightable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Verizon adopt a &#8220;three strikes and you are out&#8221; policy?</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/13/will-verizon-adopt-a-three-strikes-and-you-are-out-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/13/will-verizon-adopt-a-three-strikes-and-you-are-out-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:44:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RIAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[three strikes and you are out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verizon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Verizon was once acclaimed for its firm standing in opposing copyright holders&#8217; attempts to access the personal data of subscribers who had allegedly infringed copyrights by means of peer-to-peer file sharing platforms. That was 2003 and, no doubt, everything flows, but same company&#8217;s newer policy nearly condemns those glory days to oblivion.
CNET as well as [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=371&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/13/will-verizon-adopt-a-three-strikes-and-you-are-out-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>German court discharges family accused for file sharing</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/12/german-court-discharges-family-accused-for-file-sharing/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/12/german-court-discharges-family-accused-for-file-sharing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:51:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AG Mainz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[file-sharing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in dubio pro reo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The District Court of Mainz has recently dismissed phonorecord producers&#8217; charges against a family although their subscriber line was provenly used to access, download and make music files available on a file sharing platform. The Court&#8217;s ruling bears the file reference 24.9.2009 &#8211; 2050 Js 16878/07.408ECs and has been published in the German journal Multimedia [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=360&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/12/german-court-discharges-family-accused-for-file-sharing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do not post on Facebook while wanted</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/10/do-not-post-on-facebook-while-wanted/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/10/do-not-post-on-facebook-while-wanted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communication to the public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crego]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Imagine you are wanted by law enforcement officers who, upon discovery, would imprison you without any delay. What would you do? I bet you would hide and keep beneath surface. Moreover, you would very likely think twice before using social media, whereby proudly communicating your wanted poster to the public. No, you would not? Your [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=355&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/10/do-not-post-on-facebook-while-wanted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACTA &#8211; a much ado about nothing or a real menace to our digital freedom?</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/03/acta-a-much-ado-about-nothing-or-a-real-menace-to-our-digital-freedom/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/03/acta-a-much-ado-about-nothing-or-a-real-menace-to-our-digital-freedom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet denial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[menace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[much ado about nothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[three strikes and you are out]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the last couple of weeks I have been confronted with numerous and contradictory information on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), its ongoing negotiation rounds, and &#8211; of course &#8211; its possible impacts on our digitised society.
Curiously enough, the information flow appears to be largely one-sided, as it originates from critics of the planned agreement [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=336&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/03/acta-a-much-ado-about-nothing-or-a-real-menace-to-our-digital-freedom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whose iPad is it anyway?</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/29/whose-ipad-is-it-anyway/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/29/whose-ipad-is-it-anyway/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fujitsu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OHIM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[padded bras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relative ground for refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You have certainly heard, seen or otherwise perceived (by the way who hasn&#8217;t?) that couple of days ago Apple presented its iPad to the public. However surprisingly, the fancy product name &#8220;iPad&#8221; that seems to perfectly fit into the iFamily of &#8220;iBook&#8221;, &#8220;iPod&#8221; and &#8220;iPhone&#8221;, could now enter the hostile territory of trade mark infringement.
It [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=329&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/29/whose-ipad-is-it-anyway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>