<?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/"
	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>Comments on: Israel Patent Office Refuses Revival Of Design Applications, But So What?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2010/01/04/israel-patent-office-refuses-revival-of-design-applications-but-so-what/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2010/01/04/israel-patent-office-refuses-revival-of-design-applications-but-so-what/</link>
	<description>Opinionated Intellectual Property News Blog with an Israel Slant</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:47:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Factor</title>
		<link>http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2010/01/04/israel-patent-office-refuses-revival-of-design-applications-but-so-what/#comment-51135</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Factor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/?p=1786#comment-51135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I do indeed have a problem with Unjust Enrichment being used in IP cases, but mostly regarding patents not design, and note that the text of the amendment for automatic publication at 18 months (second reading) wants to do away with it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do indeed have a problem with Unjust Enrichment being used in IP cases, but mostly regarding patents not design, and note that the text of the amendment for automatic publication at 18 months (second reading) wants to do away with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Rutman</title>
		<link>http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2010/01/04/israel-patent-office-refuses-revival-of-design-applications-but-so-what/#comment-51115</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeremy Rutman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/?p=1786#comment-51115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You probably agree that the problem here is the unjust enrichment rulings, not the rejection on technical grounds.  Unjust enrichment rulings like that you mention endanger the whole IP edifice, which notwithstanding its various problems has been carefully honed for hundreds of years and at this point has truly international scope.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You probably agree that the problem here is the unjust enrichment rulings, not the rejection on technical grounds.  Unjust enrichment rulings like that you mention endanger the whole IP edifice, which notwithstanding its various problems has been carefully honed for hundreds of years and at this point has truly international scope.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

