<?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 on: Google Outside Counsel Clearly Well-Prepared for FTC Fight Over Apple Board Seat&#8211;See This Internal Doc</title>
	<atom:link href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/</link>
	<description>by John Paczkowski</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:03:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Schmidt won&#8217;t quit Apple directorship &#124; Regulation Authority for World News!</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-7022</link>
		<dc:creator>Schmidt won&#8217;t quit Apple directorship &#124; Regulation Authority for World News!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 08:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-7022</guid>
		<description>[...] should at least be getting some informed advice on the subject: yesterday Digital Daily dug up a juicy little staff training session on the specific laws being investigated by the FTC, conducted by Google&#8217;s lawyers, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] should at least be getting some informed advice on the subject: yesterday Digital Daily dug up a juicy little staff training session on the specific laws being investigated by the FTC, conducted by Google&#8217;s lawyers, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is Google Heading For an Antitrust Trainwreck? &#124; ExclusiveRumors.com</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-7021</link>
		<dc:creator>Is Google Heading For an Antitrust Trainwreck? &#124; ExclusiveRumors.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 07:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-7021</guid>
		<description>[...] of collusion. When John Paczkowzki of AllThingsD called to ask questions about it, the document got yanked off of Wilson&#8217;s website, and deleted from Google&#8217;s cache curiously fast. Conveniently, Microsoft, which has hired the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of collusion. When John Paczkowzki of AllThingsD called to ask questions about it, the document got yanked off of Wilson&#8217;s website, and deleted from Google&#8217;s cache curiously fast. Conveniently, Microsoft, which has hired the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Schmidt won&#8217;t quit Apple directorship &#124; SupaFeed</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-7020</link>
		<dc:creator>Schmidt won&#8217;t quit Apple directorship &#124; SupaFeed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 07:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-7020</guid>
		<description>[...] should at least be getting some informed advice on the subject: yesterday Digital Daily dug up a juicy little staff training session on the specific laws being investigated by the FTC, conducted by Google&#8217;s lawyers, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] should at least be getting some informed advice on the subject: yesterday Digital Daily dug up a juicy little staff training session on the specific laws being investigated by the FTC, conducted by Google&#8217;s lawyers, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Schmidt won&#8217;t quit Apple directorship &#124; RSS For Gadgets</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-6976</link>
		<dc:creator>Schmidt won&#8217;t quit Apple directorship &#124; RSS For Gadgets</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 14:41:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-6976</guid>
		<description>[...] should at least be getting some informed advice on the subject: yesterday Digital Daily dug up a juicy little staff training session on the specific laws being investigated by the FTC, conducted by Google&#8217;s lawyers, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] should at least be getting some informed advice on the subject: yesterday Digital Daily dug up a juicy little staff training session on the specific laws being investigated by the FTC, conducted by Google&#8217;s lawyers, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google und Apple, Antitrustuntersuchung: Man war vorbereitet</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-6967</link>
		<dc:creator>Google und Apple, Antitrustuntersuchung: Man war vorbereitet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 08:05:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-6967</guid>
		<description>[...] Verknüpfung in den beiden Firmenvorständen problematisch sein könnte, war den Beteiligten offenbar bewusst, denn eine Präsentation der Google-Kanzlei Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati beschäftigte sich [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Verknüpfung in den beiden Firmenvorständen problematisch sein könnte, war den Beteiligten offenbar bewusst, denn eine Präsentation der Google-Kanzlei Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati beschäftigte sich [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is Google Heading For an Antitrust Trainwreck? &#171; Famous Celebrity News</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-6945</link>
		<dc:creator>Is Google Heading For an Antitrust Trainwreck? &#171; Famous Celebrity News</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 20:33:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-6945</guid>
		<description>[...] of collusion. When John Paczkowzki of AllThingsD called to ask questions about it, the document got yanked off of Wilson&#8217;s website, and deleted from Google&#8217;s cache curiously fast. Conveniently, Microsoft, which has hired the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of collusion. When John Paczkowzki of AllThingsD called to ask questions about it, the document got yanked off of Wilson&#8217;s website, and deleted from Google&#8217;s cache curiously fast. Conveniently, Microsoft, which has hired the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danny Sullivan</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-6912</link>
		<dc:creator>Danny Sullivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 02:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-6912</guid>
		<description>Cached copy is now gone, too. And that’s weird. There’s no reason Google would have recrawled that page so quickly and dropped it. They might have filed an emergency removal request
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=61062

 But that’s a 3-5 day promised turnaround. In real life, I’d expect at least 24 hours for it to happen. This got yanked in less than 8 hours.

 So my guess is that while this was for “training purposes,” someone at Google’s outside firm got someone at Google to pull it without a formal request being filed, and that kind of indicates that Google is indeed really sensitive to the document.

 FYI, Microsoft still has it :)
http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=%22http+www+wsgr+com+pdfsearch+compton102308+pdf%22&amp;d=75907310308171&amp;mkt=en-US&amp;setlang=en-US&amp;w=c96d0a91,51ab7a40

 Also note that while the cached copy is pulled, Google does still report a link to it:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=www.wsgr.com%2FPDFSearch%2Fcompton102308.pdf&amp;btnG=Search

 That’s kind of weird. See, if you did file a request, it would be to remove the page itself – which would show no listing at all. Sometimes people file a request to remove only the cached version – they’ve changed the page, and still want the page listed, but for whatever reason, they don’t want the old version still up or don’t want a cached copy to be available at all.

 I can’t recall any case where a listing stays up for a dead page but only the cached copy gets removed.


cheers,

danny

 
------------------------------------------------

Danny Sullivan 

Editor-In-Chief, Search Engine Land</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cached copy is now gone, too. And that’s weird. There’s no reason Google would have recrawled that page so quickly and dropped it. They might have filed an emergency removal request<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=61062" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/support/.....swer=61062</a></p>
<p> But that’s a 3-5 day promised turnaround. In real life, I’d expect at least 24 hours for it to happen. This got yanked in less than 8 hours.</p>
<p> So my guess is that while this was for “training purposes,” someone at Google’s outside firm got someone at Google to pull it without a formal request being filed, and that kind of indicates that Google is indeed really sensitive to the document.</p>
<p> FYI, Microsoft still has it :)<br />
<a href="http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=%22http+www+wsgr+com+pdfsearch+compton102308+pdf%22&#038;d=75907310308171&#038;mkt=en-US&#038;setlang=en-US&#038;w=c96d0a91,51ab7a40" rel="nofollow">http://cc.msnscache.com/cache......1,51ab7a40</a></p>
<p> Also note that while the cached copy is pulled, Google does still report a link to it:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&#038;q=www.wsgr.com%2FPDFSearch%2Fcompton102308.pdf&#038;btnG=Search" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?h.....tnG=Search</a></p>
<p> That’s kind of weird. See, if you did file a request, it would be to remove the page itself – which would show no listing at all. Sometimes people file a request to remove only the cached version – they’ve changed the page, and still want the page listed, but for whatever reason, they don’t want the old version still up or don’t want a cached copy to be available at all.</p>
<p> I can’t recall any case where a listing stays up for a dead page but only the cached copy gets removed.</p>
<p>cheers,</p>
<p>danny</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;</p>
<p>Danny Sullivan </p>
<p>Editor-In-Chief, Search Engine Land</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheTradingReport &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Google&#8217;s Lawyers On Schmidt-Apple Collusion (Leaked Documents)</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-6861</link>
		<dc:creator>TheTradingReport &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Google&#8217;s Lawyers On Schmidt-Apple Collusion (Leaked Documents)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 20:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-6861</guid>
		<description>[...] outside lawfirm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, is prepared. AllthingsD landed a copy of the PowerPoint it uses to train new lawyers on the law in question, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. We&#8217;ve [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] outside lawfirm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, is prepared. AllthingsD landed a copy of the PowerPoint it uses to train new lawyers on the law in question, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. We&#8217;ve [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Finance Geek » Google&#8217;s Lawyers On Schmidt-Apple Collusion (Leaked Documents)</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090506/google-outside-counsel-clearly-well-prepared-for-ftc-confrontation-over-apple-board-seat/comment-page-1/#comment-6857</link>
		<dc:creator>Finance Geek » Google&#8217;s Lawyers On Schmidt-Apple Collusion (Leaked Documents)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 19:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=17029#comment-6857</guid>
		<description>[...] outside lawfirm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, is prepared. AllthingsD landed a copy of the PowerPoint it uses to train new lawyers on the law in question, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. We&#8217;ve [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] outside lawfirm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, is prepared. AllthingsD landed a copy of the PowerPoint it uses to train new lawyers on the law in question, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. We&#8217;ve [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

