<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (josephholsten)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:josephholsten/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from josephholsten</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.riverturn.com/blog/?p=455"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="http://www.riverturn.com/blog/?p=455">
    <title>There’s No App for That</title>
    <dc:date>2009-07-30T18:04:03+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.riverturn.com/blog/?p=455</link>
    <dc:creator>josephholsten</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Riverturn shares the conversation with Apple where their app is rejected ostensibly for duplicating features. Unfortunately the Apple representative couldn't give a lick of detail about exactly what features, or if there was any way for the app to be changed to comply. Sounds like a potentially unenforcable contract to me.]]></description>
<dc:subject>law licensing apple app-store iphone static</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:josephholsten/b:9b80ed965d74/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:josephholsten/t:law"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:josephholsten/t:licensing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:josephholsten/t:apple"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:josephholsten/t:app-store"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:josephholsten/t:iphone"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:josephholsten/t:static"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>