<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Jesse J. Holland</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/jesse_j_holland/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 03:48:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court to rule whether genes can be patented</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/15/supreme_court_to_determine_if_gene_can_be_patented_ap/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/15/supreme_court_to_determine_if_gene_can_be_patented_ap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Associated Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Patent and Trademark office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13270976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The case could determine the future of U.S. medical research and the biotechnology industry]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON — DNA may be the building block of life, but can something taken from it also be the building block of a multimillion-dollar medical monopoly?</p><p>The Supreme Court grapples Monday with the question of whether human genes can be patented. Its ultimate answer could reshape U.S. medical research, the fight against diseases like breast and ovarian cancer and the multi-billion dollar medical and biotechnology business.</p><p>"The intellectual framework that comes out of the decision could have a significant impact on other patents - for antibiotics, vaccines, hormones, stem cells and diagnostics on infectious microbes that are found in nature," Robert Cook-Deegan, director for genome ethics, law &amp; policy at Duke University, said in a statement.</p><p>"This could affect agricultural biotechnology, environmental biotechnology, green-tech, the use of organisms to produce alternative fuels and other applications," he said.</p><p>The nine justices' decision will also have a profound effect on American business, with billions of dollars of investment and years of research on the line. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been awarding patents on human genes for almost 30 years.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/15/supreme_court_to_determine_if_gene_can_be_patented_ap/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/15/supreme_court_to_determine_if_gene_can_be_patented_ap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court: Calif. can&#8217;t ban violent video game sales</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/27/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/27/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video Games]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2011/06/27/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Supreme Court says governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints about graphic violence.</p><p>On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.</p><p>"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."</p><p>The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.</p><p>More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/27/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/27/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court rules against Anna Nicole Smith&#8217;s estate</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/us_supreme_court_anna_nicole_smith/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/us_supreme_court_anna_nicole_smith/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Celebrity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2011/06/23/us_supreme_court_anna_nicole_smith</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Decision marks the latest chapter in the long and convoluted legal fight over J. Howard Marshall's will]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the estate of Anna Nicole Smith in the latest chapter of the long-running saga over whether a Texas billionaire's alleged promise to give millions from his $1.6 billion estate to his young Playmate wife trumped a will that left his fortune to his son.</p><p>The high court ruled that a bankruptcy judge's decision giving millions to Smith from the estate of oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall was decided incorrectly because those judges do not have the constitutional right to reach outside of bankruptcy cases into a probate case.</p><p>Chief Justice John Roberts said in a 5-4 decision that the Constitution gives lifetime tenure to federal judges during good behavior and without diminution of salary.</p><p>Bankruptcy judges "enjoy neither tenure during good behavior nor salary protection," Roberts said. "We conclude that, although the bankruptcy court had the statutory authority to enter judgment on Vickie's counterclaim, it lacked the constitutional authority to do so." Smith's real name was Vickie Lynn Marshall.</p><p>Federal bankruptcy judges are appointed and can be removed by judges on the U.S. Appeals Court and their salaries are linked to that of federal judges. Bankruptcy judges serve 14-year terms.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/us_supreme_court_anna_nicole_smith/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/06/23/us_supreme_court_anna_nicole_smith/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kagan should have quick path to Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/05/10/us_kagan_confirmation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/05/10/us_kagan_confirmation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 12:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elena Kagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/2010/05/10/us_kagan_confirmation</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A smooth confirmation is expected if Kagan is nominated by President Obama]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barring extraordinary circumstances, Solicitor General Elena Kagan should have a relatively smooth confirmation to the Supreme Court if nominated by President Barack Obama.</p><p>The Senate will determine whether the 50-year-old Kagan will become the replacement for retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. And Democrats control the chamber with 59 votes, one short of what they would need to forestall any possibility of a nomination-killing filibuster.</p><p>Seven Republicans voted for her nomination to be solicitor general, making it unlikely the GOP can unify enough to sustain a filibuster.</p><p>If nominated, Kagan will become the third woman on the nine-member court, the highest number in the Supreme Court's history.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/05/10/us_kagan_confirmation/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/05/10/us_kagan_confirmation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
