<?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: Another Win for Firefox Users</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:12:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank T</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/comment-page-1/#comment-19992</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank T</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 21:48:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/#comment-19992</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m glad that Google did this.  However, I think it&#039;s pretty naive to claim they are doing this &quot;because it&#039;s the right thing to do&quot;.  It&#039;s more likely that, in this case, the interests of shareholders and users coincide.

Why would shareholders care about fraudulent URLs?  Because it&#039;s fraud!  I&#039;m not a lawyer, but I suspect that this move was suggested by one.  Getting taken to court for fraud is not good for the bottom line.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad that Google did this.  However, I think it&#8217;s pretty naive to claim they are doing this &#8220;because it&#8217;s the right thing to do&#8221;.  It&#8217;s more likely that, in this case, the interests of shareholders and users coincide.</p>
<p>Why would shareholders care about fraudulent URLs?  Because it&#8217;s fraud!  I&#8217;m not a lawyer, but I suspect that this move was suggested by one.  Getting taken to court for fraud is not good for the bottom line.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kkovash</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/comment-page-1/#comment-13997</link>
		<dc:creator>kkovash</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/#comment-13997</guid>
		<description>Jesse: good question.  The new policy applies to all *new* ads.  So, if another advertiser has previously been using something like mozilla.com as their display URL, they can continue to do so.  We are currently going through the trademark process with AdWords to resolve further issues such as this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jesse: good question.  The new policy applies to all *new* ads.  So, if another advertiser has previously been using something like mozilla.com as their display URL, they can continue to do so.  We are currently going through the trademark process with AdWords to resolve further issues such as this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amsterdammer</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/comment-page-1/#comment-13440</link>
		<dc:creator>Amsterdammer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/#comment-13440</guid>
		<description>Try different national Google searchplugins from http://mycroft.mozdev.org/, and u will get still ads (for instance Dutch Google searchplugin).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Try different national Google searchplugins from <a href="http://mycroft.mozdev.org/" rel="nofollow">http://mycroft.mozdev.org/</a>, and u will get still ads (for instance Dutch Google searchplugin).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Wood (Callek)</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/comment-page-1/#comment-13408</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Wood (Callek)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/#comment-13408</guid>
		<description>&quot;It’s always enlightening to see a company put the interest of users ahead of the interest of shareholders.&quot;

I agree with the whole of your post, but assuming google is publically traded (I think it is), don&#039;t they have a *legal* obligation to put the interests of their shareholders first?

Though I would hate to see them go back on this move here, perhaps they do see it as beneficial to their shareholders (more people might use adsense on their sites if the integrity of the ads is better too).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It’s always enlightening to see a company put the interest of users ahead of the interest of shareholders.&#8221;</p>
<p>I agree with the whole of your post, but assuming google is publically traded (I think it is), don&#8217;t they have a *legal* obligation to put the interests of their shareholders first?</p>
<p>Though I would hate to see them go back on this move here, perhaps they do see it as beneficial to their shareholders (more people might use adsense on their sites if the integrity of the ads is better too).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse Ruderman</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/comment-page-1/#comment-13399</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/#comment-13399</guid>
		<description>I just searched Google for &quot;firefox&quot; and got an ad going to www.spread-firefox3.com but labeled as going to mozilla.com.  Is this policy not yet being enforced properly?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just searched Google for &#8220;firefox&#8221; and got an ad going to <a href="http://www.spread-firefox3.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.spread-firefox3.com</a> but labeled as going to mozilla.com.  Is this policy not yet being enforced properly?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tomer Cohen</title>
		<link>http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/comment-page-1/#comment-13343</link>
		<dc:creator>Tomer Cohen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2008/04/11/another-win-for-firefox-users/#comment-13343</guid>
		<description>Well, I guess Google did put that enforcement because users have complain too much about websites pretends to be others. I must admit I have filed the complain form for some times in order to get rid of these sites pretending to be official Mozilla websites.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I guess Google did put that enforcement because users have complain too much about websites pretends to be others. I must admit I have filed the complain form for some times in order to get rid of these sites pretending to be official Mozilla websites.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

