tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post9110516750271399123..comments2024-03-18T09:13:19.346+00:00Comments on panGloss: Burning Chromepanglosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-71362293293959898222008-09-04T18:28:00.000+01:002008-09-04T18:28:00.000+01:00This is really an interesting view especially in t...This is really an interesting view especially in the era of over-inflation of certain legal issues. Nonetheless, I do think that if Google did not amend the provisions, it would have led to a number of problems in the future including third party (ie non-Chrome users) right owners who may be bugged by use of their content by Google. You might find my posts (available at http://cyberpanda-cyberpanda.blogspot.com/) on the subject interesting.CyberPandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08911634703098206243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-46632581278967573212008-09-03T22:01:00.000+01:002008-09-03T22:01:00.000+01:00I'm not a practicing Ip layer - I'm an academic It...I'm not a practicing Ip layer - I'm an academic It lawyer. But this seems to me the common sense interpretation of this term. The comments to the El Reg article are ludicrous.<BR/><BR/>Without prejudice..panglosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-75132622569127916542008-09-03T19:41:00.000+01:002008-09-03T19:41:00.000+01:00Interesting and balanced view, if I may say so. O...Interesting and balanced view, if I may say so. Others may take a different view. I am not an IP specialist (I get by) but interesting issues of contractual construction arise - and I think you have hit that nail on the head four square. Construing the clause properly gives the result, in contract, that you state.<BR/><BR/>Useful to have a professional IP view on it. Thanks for posting about this so quickly!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com