<?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: Samsung Pays $205K for False Environmental Claims About Keyboard</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/10/22/samsung-pays-205k-for-false-environmental-claims-about-keyboard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/10/22/samsung-pays-205k-for-false-environmental-claims-about-keyboard/</link>
	<description>Environmental Leader</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:25:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: NIGEL MORRIS</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/10/22/samsung-pays-205k-for-false-environmental-claims-about-keyboard/comment-page-1/#comment-293242</link>
		<dc:creator>NIGEL MORRIS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:55:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=26041#comment-293242</guid>
		<description>@ Carz
Why do you say that the claims were sleazy and crass?  The article provides no evidence, and does not suggest, that Samsung&#039;s claims were invalid, or that the surface used on its keyboard does not inhibit the multiplication of bacteria.  
Note that the article provides a link to an article that says that Dell makes an antimicrobial notebook with the Agion process and has registered it with the EPA.  But another article says that North Face, using the same Agion compound is potentially facing the same type of EPA litigation as Samsung, for not having the Agion process (registered for Dell) registered for use in shoe lining.

If you wish to criticise, please support with facts and reasoning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Carz<br />
Why do you say that the claims were sleazy and crass?  The article provides no evidence, and does not suggest, that Samsung&#8217;s claims were invalid, or that the surface used on its keyboard does not inhibit the multiplication of bacteria.<br />
Note that the article provides a link to an article that says that Dell makes an antimicrobial notebook with the Agion process and has registered it with the EPA.  But another article says that North Face, using the same Agion compound is potentially facing the same type of EPA litigation as Samsung, for not having the Agion process (registered for Dell) registered for use in shoe lining.</p>
<p>If you wish to criticise, please support with facts and reasoning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carz</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/10/22/samsung-pays-205k-for-false-environmental-claims-about-keyboard/comment-page-1/#comment-157759</link>
		<dc:creator>Carz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalleader.com/?p=26041#comment-157759</guid>
		<description>Couldn&#039;t they just get contented with their company&#039;s already impossibly great wealth without resulting to sleazy and crass marketing strategies like this?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Couldn&#8217;t they just get contented with their company&#8217;s already impossibly great wealth without resulting to sleazy and crass marketing strategies like this?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

