<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Venkat Balasubramani &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Venkat Balasubramani on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-06-17T14:37:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> MySpace Wins Big Against Richter? (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/86173_myspace_against_richter_spam</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/86173_myspace_against_richter_spam</link>
			<description><![CDATA[News rumblings are that MySpace is celebrating its $6mm award against Scott Richter and his entities... Who Won? ...I'm not sure what MySpace asked for (their complaint is probably not a reliable barometer) but the overall tone of the document written by the arbitrator is that Richter's companies shouldn't be held entirely liable for all damages to MySpace. (In fact, the arbitrator's decision takes pains to show both sides of Richter. Some would say this is typical in arbitration.) <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/86173_myspace_against_richter_spam">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-06-17T14:37:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Virginia Supreme Court Rejects First Amendment Challenge to Spam Statute (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/82293_virginia_court_first_amendment_spam_jaynes</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/82293_virginia_court_first_amendment_spam_jaynes</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks to Prof. Goldman I see that the Virginia Supreme Court issued its opinion in Jaynes, the state-law criminal spam case that has wound its way through the courts there. It affirms the conviction and rejects the various challenges to Virginia's spam statute... As a side note I should say that it's not often one is actually excited to read an order in a case you're not involved with. This is definitely one of those instances where the excitement is palpable... The news reports billed the case as the first felony conviction for sending spam. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/82293_virginia_court_first_amendment_spam_jaynes">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-02-29T14:59:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Defendants Convicted in 1st Criminal CAN-SPAM Trial (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/791017_first_criminal_can_spam_act_trial</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/791017_first_criminal_can_spam_act_trial</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In what seems to be the 1st criminal trial under CAN-SPAM, the defendants were convicted in June on a variety of counts. The court rejected defendants' motion for acquittal or new trial. Defendants challenged the conviction in the trial court (where proceedings are ongoing) and the court issued an order rejecting that challenge. It's tough to figure out what's earthshattering about the case. After reading the court's reasonably detailed opinion recounting the evidence, you're left with the feeling that the government did a thorough job in assembling evidence, and defendants engaged in a variety of questionable conduct. Put these two together (and the fact that cooperating defendants testified), and the conviction does not seem surprising. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/791017_first_criminal_can_spam_act_trial">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-09-10T17:23:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>