<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Film Esq.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.filmesq.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.filmesq.com</link>
	<description>Legal perspectives on movies, video games, and comics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:40:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Superman Copyright Trial Raises Corporate Alter-Ego Questions by The Fight For Justice&#8230; Er- Ownership &#171; ComicEconomic</title>
		<link>http://www.filmesq.com/2009/01/superman-copyright-trial-raises-corporate-alter-ego-questions/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>The Fight For Justice&#8230; Er- Ownership &#171; ComicEconomic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmesq.com/?p=36#comment-4</guid>
		<description>[...] usually benefits Time Warner, except in the case of Superman, where it served to add one more complication to the insanity that is the Superman copyright battle. Time Warner argued that the Siegel and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] usually benefits Time Warner, except in the case of Superman, where it served to add one more complication to the insanity that is the Superman copyright battle. Time Warner argued that the Siegel and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Patent Wars Expand to DVDs and Blu-Rays by New Patent Harbor Suits Part of a Broader Assault on the Film Industry &#124; Film Esq.</title>
		<link>http://www.filmesq.com/2011/10/patent-wars-dvd-and-blu-ray/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>New Patent Harbor Suits Part of a Broader Assault on the Film Industry &#124; Film Esq.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:16:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.filmesq.com/?p=146#comment-2</guid>
		<description>[...] Yesterday&#8217;s post about a wave of patent suits against film companies is actually part of a broader assault by Patent Harbor, LLC . Additional research shows that Patent Harbor, LLC filed a complaint entitled Patent Harbor, LLC v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc, et al on May 9, 2011. The complaint contains claims against 41 (!) film companies, including various CBS Films, After Dark Films, Focus Features, HBO, and Miramax. The source of the claims is the same: U.S. Patent No. 5,684,514 ( “Apparatus and Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video.”) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Yesterday&#8217;s post about a wave of patent suits against film companies is actually part of a broader assault by Patent Harbor, LLC . Additional research shows that Patent Harbor, LLC filed a complaint entitled Patent Harbor, LLC v. Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc, et al on May 9, 2011. The complaint contains claims against 41 (!) film companies, including various CBS Films, After Dark Films, Focus Features, HBO, and Miramax. The source of the claims is the same: U.S. Patent No. 5,684,514 ( “Apparatus and Method for Assembling Content Addressable Video.”) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

