<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget HD - Comments for US appellate court upholds order blocking DirecTV ads</title>
<link>http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/08/10/us-appellate-court-upholds-order-blocking-directv-ads/</link>
<description>Engadget HD Comments for US appellate court upholds order blocking DirecTV ads</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on US appellate court upholds order blocking DirecTV ads]]></title><link>http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/08/10/us-appellate-court-upholds-order-blocking-directv-ads/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/08/10/us-appellate-court-upholds-order-blocking-directv-ads/</guid><description><![CDATA[I really don't understand why the ruling went the way it did.  Were the ads factually incorrect?  Ads are usually given almost too much leeway.  I just don't see what's so improper with the ad.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[JeffDM]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Aug 11th 2007 4:17AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>