<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;techcrunch&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Fark Gets Patent Troll To Settle For Nothing... Did Reddit Pay Up?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/11263115465/fark-gets-patent-troll-to-settle-nothing-did-reddit-pay-up.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/11263115465/fark-gets-patent-troll-to-settle-nothing-did-reddit-pay-up.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last summer we wrote about an absolutely ridiculous patent troll, named Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC, who holds a ridiculously broad patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=EOELAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,370,535" target="_blank">6,370,535</a>) that it claimed covered the basic concept of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/00442110286.shtml">generating a press release online</a>, which it then used to sue a bunch of companies who had been in business since way before the patent was issued.  At the beginning of this year, we noted that Gooseberry tried to expand the definition of what the patent covered, and sued <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/03334712652/reddit-digg-fark-slashdot-techcrunch-others-sued-over-ridiculous-online-press-release-patent.shtml">a bunch of tech sites you probably read</a>, including Fark, Reddit, Slashdot, TechCrunch and Digg.  As we noted at the time, as with most patent trolls, Gooseberry was just a shell company, and the real owners of the patent were a secret.  Tragically, even with the combined investigative power of those sites, no one was able to piece together who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/22252012690/still-trying-to-track-down-who-controls-patent-used-against-reddit-digg-fark-slashdot-techcrunch.shtml">really</a> owns that patent.
<br /><br />
In February, Drew from Fark explained why patent trolling is so incredibly detrimental.  Unlike most other bogus lawsuits, you <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/00380213121/fark-points-out-that-even-though-it-doesnt-come-close-to-infringing-patent-it-still-has-to-go-to-court.shtml">can't</a> just point out that the patent has absolutely nothing to do with your business and get the case dismissed.  You basically have to go to court and spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to fight it.  This is what makes patent trolling so successful.  It's cheaper to just pay up.  In fact, patent trolls totally rely on this, because going to court is expensive for them too -- and they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100924/02132911143/vast-majority-of-software-patents-in-lawsuits-lose.shtml">almost always lose</a>.  So they have just as much incentive to avoid court as the folks being sued, in many cases.
<br /><br />
So it's awesome to hear that Drew <a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/blog235" target="_blank">stared down Gooseberry and got them to agree to "settle" for absolutely nothing</a>.  Even more amazing is that he convinced them to wipe out the "standard" NDA on a patent troll settlement.  Almost every settlement includes an ironclad non-disclosure agreement which says you can't say what the amount of the settlement was.  This means that even if you pay nothing, they still tell the world that you "settled" and imply it was for millions and talk up how this proves their patent is valid.  Not in this case:
<blockquote><i>
Their patent had nothing to do with Fark. The patent troll realized we were going to fight them instead of settle, so they asked for our best offer. I said how about you get nothing and drop the lawsuit? They accepted.
<br /><br />
Normally, we wouldn't be able to talk about any of the details. Terms of patent lawsuit settlements are usually bound by ironclad nondisclosure agreements. NDAs allow patent trolls to extract maximum settlements from each entity they've filed lawsuits against - as a result no one knows who paid what. In the last round of settlement negotiations we asked to strike the NDA provision. They agreed (and to the attorneys out there reading this, I'm as baffled as you are).
<br /><br />
Striking the NDA was crucial because I wanted to be able to tell everyone what really happened: we didn't pay them a single dime
</i></blockquote>
Unfortunately, Drew also notes that Conde Nast (the owners of Reddit) also "settled" this week, which probably means they paid something (not much), though I wonder if they were able to ditch the NDA as well.  It sounds like TechCrunch/AOL is still fighting this (and hopefully will be emboldened by Drew talking publicly about getting them to back down).  Still, the bigger point is how much of a toll this kind of thing takes on businesses.  Fark is quite successful, but this kind of thing could have destroyed it.  As someone who is too often threatened by completely bogus lawsuit threats, I certainly can understand the <i>emotional</i> impact these things can take on someone, which Drew discusses as well:
<blockquote><i>
At any rate, this bullshiat is finally over. It was a nightmare. Imagine someone breaking into your home, then being forced to sit on the couch while their lawyers file motions over how much stuff they can take. My wife Heather said my first draft of this post sounded too angry, probably due to the fact that every third word was an f-bomb (among other things I paraphrased our best one-time settlement offer as "how about jack sh*t and go f*ck yourself", which may be a more accurate depiction of how I really felt at the time). I won't lie though, I was angry and I am still. Too much money was wasted on this, too many sleepless nights, too many hours away from running Fark, and all this because someone else decided that suing companies for bearing a vague resemblance to their patent (patents they don't even appear to use themselves) is a good business model. We're short a full-time employee thanks to these douchebags.
</i></blockquote>
People who cheer on trolls and bogus lawsuits have no idea what a massive emotional impact such bogus lawsuits have on legitimate businesses.  Kudos to Drew for not just standing up to one and winning in pretty much every conceivable way, but also being willing to express just what kind of emotional impact these kinds of bullshit lawsuits have on people.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/11263115465/fark-gets-patent-troll-to-settle-nothing-did-reddit-pay-up.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/11263115465/fark-gets-patent-troll-to-settle-nothing-did-reddit-pay-up.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110810/11263115465/fark-gets-patent-troll-to-settle-nothing-did-reddit-pay-up.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-feed-the-trolls</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110810/11263115465</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:02:57 PST</pubDate>
<title>Reddit, Digg, Fark, Slashdot, TechCrunch &amp; Others Sued Over Ridiculous 'Online Press Release' Patent</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/03334712652/reddit-digg-fark-slashdot-techcrunch-others-sued-over-ridiculous-online-press-release-patent.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/03334712652/reddit-digg-fark-slashdot-techcrunch-others-sued-over-ridiculous-online-press-release-patent.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last summer, you may recall, we wrote about the ridiculous situation of a company called "Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC," which held a ridiculous broad patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=EOELAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,370,535" target="_blank">6,370,535</a>) that it claimed covered the basic concept of generating a press release online.  The company had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100720/00442110286.shtml">sued a bunch</a> of (usually small) online press release services -- some of whom were really struggling to fight the lawsuit.  And, to make matters worse, it was not clear who <i>really</i> owned the patent, as there appeared to be a series of shell companies to hide the actual patent holder.
<br><br>
Apparently whoever is behind Gooseberry got tired of simply trying to demand cash from mom-and-pop press release services, and has now decided to sue a bunch of online services, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/12/gooseberry-natural-resources-are-huge-assholes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: Techcrunch (TechCrunch)&utm_content=Google Reader" target="_blank">Digg, Reddit, Fark, TechCrunch, and others</a>.  What do any of those companies have to do with generating press releases online?  You've got me.  Of course, some of those sites are pretty good at teaming up and doing good deeds.  So, perhaps the Reddit crew might be able to figure out who really holds this patent?
<br><br>
The whole thing looks pretty ridiculous.  For example, this is the section on how it claims Reddit violates the patent:
<blockquote><i>
Plaintiff is informed and believes that Advance owns, operates, advertises, controls, sells, and otherwise provides hardware, software and websites for "news and press release services" including via the reddit.com website ("the Advance system", available at www.reddit.com).  Upon information and belief, Advance has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '535 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling (directly or through intermediaries), in this district and elsewhere in the United States, systems and methods for entering and providing structured news and press releases.  More particularly, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Advance has and/or require and/or directs users to access and/or interact with a system that receives and stores separately specified portions of a new or press release and that assembles a news or press release in a predetermined format.
</i></blockquote>
This is basically the same basic language used against all the sites sued.  It's basically a ridiculous attack on lots of well-known tech blogs and news aggregator sites, claiming they somehow infringe on this ridiculous patent.  I find it especially amusing that they've included Slashdot in this attack, seeing as Slashdot's system (which really hasn't changed that much over the years) predates the patent filing by a few years.  Seems like the prior art on this one is likely to be pretty strong.  Of course, fighting a patent infringement lawsuit, no matter how bogus, can be quite expensive.  Hopefully these sites are willing to team up and pool resources.  Thankfully, most of the sites involved are owned by much larger companies who can (and hopefully will) fight this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/03334712652/reddit-digg-fark-slashdot-techcrunch-others-sued-over-ridiculous-online-press-release-patent.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/03334712652/reddit-digg-fark-slashdot-techcrunch-others-sued-over-ridiculous-online-press-release-patent.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/03334712652/reddit-digg-fark-slashdot-techcrunch-others-sued-over-ridiculous-online-press-release-patent.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>like-that-will-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110113/03334712652</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:11:02 PST</pubDate>
<title>Virtual Goods, Scams, Investigative Reporting And The Media</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/1122426850.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/1122426850.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061114/181724.shtml">quite skeptical</a> of any business model in virtual worlds/social networks that rely on "buying virtual goods."  That's because these are all based on artificial scarcities, and as we all know (hopefully, by now), relying on artificial scarcities for a business model is incredibly risky, especially once people realize the scarcities are artificial.  And yet, over the past few years, a number of businesses have been built on this very premise.  In fact, Silicon Valley is crawling these days with businesses built on selling virtual goods, and if you talk to many VCs about it, you'll quickly note that they're positively giddy over the fact that people are paying for this stuff.  What they don't seem to realize is that it's unlikely to last.
<br /><br />
In the last couple weeks, Mike Arrington, over at TechCrunch, did an amazing job calling attention to the widely known, but rarely discussed in polite company, dark underbelly to most of those business models: <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming-ecosystem-of-hell/" target="_blank">quite a large part of their revenue is based on scammy offers</a> that effectively trick unsophisticated purchasers (often kids) into signing up for expensive subscriptions to things they don't want.  I was at an investor "roundtable" a couple months ago, which was mostly bankers in suits, and they were laughing about just how gullible people are on these things, and it's great to see TechCrunch exposing them, and pushing the worst abusers to clean up their act.  Of course, even when some, like Zynga, <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/02/zynga-takes-steps-to-remove-scams-from-games/" target="_blank">claim to be</a> cleaning up their act, Arrington was able to dig up a video where Zynga's CEO <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus-faceboo/" target="_blank">proudly talked about the scammy tactics he used</a> -- and then noted that these same scammy tactics <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/07/horrible-things-slink-back-into-zynga/" target="_blank">showed right back up on Zynga</a>, after the company promised they were gone.  Those who use these kinds of tactics may find that while they "bring revenue now," it may be short-lived.  Companies that focus on such abusive tactics live to regret it (just ask RealNetworks).
<br /><br />
But, the really amazing thing, as pointed out by Dan Lyons/Fake Steve Jobs, in an amazingly un-Fake-Steve-Jobs-like rant, is <a href="http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/11/why-mainstream-media-is-dying.html" target="_blank">to compare the series of writeups by Arrington</a> with the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/technology/internet/07virtual.html?ref=technology" target="_blank">love letter to Zynga and other "virtual goods" companies in the NY Times</a>, which came out after most of Arrington's posts, and makes no mention of them at all.  As Lyons/FSJ notes:
<blockquote><i>
So: they walked into this shit-storm and somehow, by some miracle, managed not to notice the fecal matter flying all around them. It's like covering a football game that took place in the middle of the blizzard and neglecting to mention the weather.<br /><br />Now, maybe they did all the reporting before Arrington's stuff broke. In which case they should have gone back and updated their info. Or maybe, just maybe, Zynga's PR people teed up a Times story as a kind of rebuttal to what Arrington was reporting. Either way, that's what ended up happening: Zynga used the Times to deflect the bad shit flying at them from Arrington. They need good press because they're hoping to cash out by going public next year. That story in the Times will be worth millions. Many millions.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Arrington, still digging, <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/07/horrible-things-slink-back-into-zynga/">blasted again</a> on Saturday night, reporting that sleazy ads had popped up again on Zynga, despite promises that they would be taken down.<br /><br />Um, New York Times? If you guys are still wondering why people are dropping their subscriptions and getting their news from blogs instead of you -- </i><i>this is why</i>.
</blockquote>
After which, Lyons/FSJ notes:
<blockquote><i>
And to all those people who go around wringing their hands and saying what are we going to do when the "real newspapers" all die and we have to get our news from Gawker and HuffPo and TechCrunch? Friends, I think we're going to be just fine.... What really cracks me up is how often I still hear people say that bloggers are mere "aggregators" and the "real journalism" gets done at places like the Times.  Because time after time, blogs are simply beating the shit out of the newspapers. They're the ones who still dare to go for the throat, while their counterparts at big newspapers just keep reaching for the shrimp cocktail.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, there's just a <i>bit</i> of irony in noting that Dan Lyons wrote one of the quintessential <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051027/2017228_F.shtml" target="_blank">blog bashing articles</a> four years ago, when he was writing for Forbes, at one point suggesting that blogger "journalists" were no different than notorious (NY Times) maker-up-of-stories, Jayson Blair.  Nice to see he's coming around to recognizing things perhaps aren't so bad in the blog world.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/1122426850.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/1122426850.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091108/1122426850.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>all-in-one-package</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091108/1122426850</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:51:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Patent Lawsuit Silly Season: TechCrunch Sued For Patent Infringement After Critical Blog Post</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081009/0117112499.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081009/0117112499.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are different levels of ridiculousness when it comes to patent lawsuits, with the lowest of the low being patent lawsuits based more on spite than on any legitimate claim.  For a while, it seemed like Ray Niro's use of the infamous JPG patent, to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071205/025243.shtml">sue</a> a bunch companies he just didn't like, was perhaps alone in that category.  But, it appears that we now have a new entrant.  Apparently, some company (who we won't even name, since there's a good chance it's doing this just to get press attention) <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/03/earthcomber-cries-patent-infringement-against-loopt/">sued a more well-known competitor</a> for patent infringement, over a location-based services patent.  Looking over the <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=fo56AAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,071,842">patent itself</a> it's difficult to see how it was approved.  People were talking about location-based profile matching a decade ago, let alone five years ago when this patent was filed.
<br /><br />
TechCrunch wrote a post <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/03/earthcomber-cries-patent-infringement-against-loopt/">mocking the lawsuit</a> as a weak attempt to get press coverage (it worked!), while noting that TechCrunch itself was partnered with the sued company to provide a "co-branded community."  This apparently caused the patent holder to <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/10/lawsuit-against.html" target="_new">amend the lawsuit and include TechCrunch as a defendant</a>.  Apparently, there were no threats or notification (though, the guy claims he tried to call TechCrunch).  This will likely get tossed out incredibly quickly, as any judge will recognize that TechCrunch is just licensing its brand, not supplying the technology (and also hopefully question the validity of the patent itself).  Already, though, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington is planning to countersue, so this could get fun.
<br /><br />
The patent holder claims that adding TechCrunch to the lawsuit had nothing to do with the original post, but that's rather difficult to believe.  There's also this somewhat amusing quote from the patent holder:
<blockquote><i>
"TechCrunch can say whatever they want, and I applaud them.  But no one has the right to infringe on a patent that I worked very, very hard for many years to bring about -- not just on paper but in reality."
</i></blockquote>
Yes, and thanks to a broken patent system, you now get to dump a totally frivolous lawsuit on a site that clearly did not infringe on your highly questionable patent.  Just like Thomas Jefferson intended.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081009/0117112499.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081009/0117112499.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081009/0117112499.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-will-end-badly</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081009/0117112499</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:55:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>AP Quotes Blogger In Discussing Bloggers Quoting AP; Hilarity Ensues</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2203451460.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2203451460.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The ongoing ridiculous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080617/0740561432.shtml">situation</a> brewing between bloggers and the Associated Press has now taken a turn towards the enjoyably hilarious.  We had already mentioned the fact that, despite the AP's complaints that bloggers quoting less than 100 words were violating fair use, the AP had a long history of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080617/2052581436.shtml">quoting</a> more than 100 words from bloggers -- and not even linking back to the original blog.  Now, in a bit of ultimate irony, the AP's <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AP_BLOGGERS?SITE=WIJAN&#038;SECTION=HOME&#038;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">own article</a> <i>about</i> this brouhaha quoted (without linking) twenty-two words from TechCrunch.  That's 18 words more than the supposed four word "limit" the AP has suggested.  With an ironic chance that wide, TechCrunch's Michael Arrington couldn't resist, and asked his lawyer <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/19/the-ap-has-violated-my-copyright-and-i-demand-justice/" target="_new">to send a DMCA takedown notice to the Associated Press</a>, along with a bill for $12.50 (directly off the AP's own pricing schedule).  He admits that it's ridiculous, but that's what his actions are designed to present.  By law, the AP should be required to takedown the content before filing a response -- though, since it's filing the response to itself, then perhaps it won't need to takedown the content.  Either way, this helps illustrate the insanity of the entire situation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2203451460.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2203451460.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080619/2203451460.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-want-my-$12.50</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080619/2203451460</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:02:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Before You Threaten To Sue Someone Over Their Website, You Might Want To Understand The Web</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/194057.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/194057.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We get to see ridiculous legal threats all the time.  Sometimes we get such legal threats directly (my favorite was the big name analyst firm that once threatened to sue us because we linked to their own press release), but more often we hear about the ridiculous legal threats made to others.  However, in all the bizarre and ridiculous legal threats, it would appear that Mike Arrington over at TechCrunch may have just won the award for both the most ridiculous and the most persistently wrong threatener.  Arrington shares on his site how he received an email <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/11/being-stupid-and-litigious-is-no-way-to-go-through-life/">demanding $150,000 for a photo of the actor Ashton Kutcher</a> that TechCrunch was using "to generate traffic and revenue."  The guy sending the email claimed to represent the interests of the photographer of the photograph -- and said that if Arrington didn't pay up quickly (and quietly), he would file a suit for $1.5 million.  It's hard to start on what's wrong with the lawsuit, but the obvious place is the simple fact that TechCrunch <i>never</i> hosted the picture in question.  Instead, someone in the comments once <i>linked</i> to a website that hosted the picture, and if you did a search in Google for Kutcher's name, the photo showed up connected to TechCrunch because of that link.
<br /><br />
Even ignoring the ridiculous amount being asked for and the clear confusion over how Google and the web work, what's even more bizarre about this is that when this was pointed out to the guy, rather than understanding what happened, he just became even more defensive.  He somehow thought that it was TechCrunch's responsibility to get the photo taken off Google.  He then started <i>calling</i> TechCrunch's advertisers and threatening <i>them</i> saying that they would be a part of the lawsuit that he was intending to file.  Arrington wrote up a detailed explanation of this... and then the guy started posting a series of poorly spelled <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/11/being-stupid-and-litigious-is-no-way-to-go-through-life/#comment-1670799">comments</a> trying to defend his position -- insisting that the photographer was "robed" and that it was clear TechCrunch had something to do with it.  Congratulations, Mike, you've won the award for the most bizarre and persistently ridiculous legal threat we've seen.  And that's saying a lot.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/194057.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/194057.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071011/194057.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-little-suggestion</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071011/194057</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>