<?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>Loren Data Corp</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ld.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ld.com</link>
	<description> EDI Messaging Network with the Programmable Edge</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:32:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>State of the GXS Case</title>
		<link>http://www.ld.com/state-of-the-gxs-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ld.com/state-of-the-gxs-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:43:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Todd Gould</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Interconnects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President's Letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GXS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ld.com/?p=1035</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you may know, we heard from the Appellate Court on December 26th that our appeal was denied. Going over the unpublished opinion of the court, it seemed that the problem was not on the points of law that we had brought up, but the difficulty the courts have had to date understanding the nature of the EDI market and the nature of competition within the market. As the problem was primarily a misapprehension of the facts and not on the application of the law, we have chosen to request a rehearing by the same panel rather than petitioning a &#8230; <a href="http://www.ld.com/state-of-the-gxs-case/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ld.com/state-of-the-gxs-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canonical EDI: Standardizing the Standard for the 99%</title>
		<link>http://www.ld.com/canonical-edi-standardizing-the-standard-for-the-99/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ld.com/canonical-edi-standardizing-the-standard-for-the-99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:26:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Todd Gould</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECGridOS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EDI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canonical EDI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hubs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Implementation Guides]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spokes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ld.com/?p=1029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mike Dietzen at the Brady Corporation started a discussion on LinkedIn regarding a new way to think about EDI. In the comment thread it moved in to a discussion of Canonical EDI, a concept that is near and dear to my heart. Can we as professionals agree to a new way of doing EDI? I would like to shift the thinking of how EDI maps are designed. If the receiving systems set the mapping specifications, then trading partners can ensure the documents load efficiently. This requires a change from the customer driven mapping specification of today. Though most maps can &#8230; <a href="http://www.ld.com/canonical-edi-standardizing-the-standard-for-the-99/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ld.com/canonical-edi-standardizing-the-standard-for-the-99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ECGridOS Going Mainstream</title>
		<link>http://www.ld.com/ecgridos-going-mainstream/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ld.com/ecgridos-going-mainstream/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:39:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Todd Gould</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECGridOS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EDI]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ld.com/?p=1022</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is always a tipping point where the game changes. ECGridOS is now there. After years of grunt work, visioning, coding, evangelizing, ECGridOS has risen above the noise. Recently, there have been contracting opportunities popping up for ECGridOS Developers and future ECGridOS Developers are seeking us out to see how they can jump on the next IT wave. Here is a link from Elance: https://www.elance.com/j/develop-middleware-solution-push-pull-data-using-web-services/34750174/ We are building an EDI application based on ECGridOS from Loren Data Corp. The initial phase of this project requires the development of a solution that will call API&#8217;s provided by the ECGridOS which will push/pull &#8230; <a href="http://www.ld.com/ecgridos-going-mainstream/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ld.com/ecgridos-going-mainstream/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competitors or Competition</title>
		<link>http://www.ld.com/competitors-or-competition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ld.com/competitors-or-competition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 20:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Todd Gould</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EDI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President's Letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VANs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GXS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ld.com/?p=1004</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of Loren Data Corp. v. GXS, Inc. there is less disagreement over facts than there is over context. GXS represents the facts of the case as simply two competitors in the market, battling for market share; while Loren Data represents the facts as a carefully orchestrated plan by GXS to corner a market and unlawfully restrict competition. I will cover the following points, which clearly show illegal behavior in this market: The GXS lead group boycott is not only of Loren Data, but of all EDI Service Providers Interfering with competition within the EDI market directly interferes &#8230; <a href="http://www.ld.com/competitors-or-competition/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ld.com/competitors-or-competition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I Built That!</title>
		<link>http://www.ld.com/i-built-that/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ld.com/i-built-that/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Todd Gould</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ECGridOS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EDI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VANs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECGridAS2]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ld.com/?p=998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the most common search terms we have hitting our web site is “How do I become a VAN?” Great question. There is no off-the-shelf VAN software. Each and every VAN has built their own system, designed to handle standard (X12, EDIFACT, TRADACOM, etc.) and non-standard EDI data. And for the sake of this argument I will also include EDI Service Providers, who built their own systems and are only not considered VANs because they don’t “Interconnect” directly with VANs (See US Court of Appeals Follow-Up). Each of us has built our own VAN to target a certain market. &#8230; <a href="http://www.ld.com/i-built-that/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ld.com/i-built-that/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Update on Antitrust Suit Against GXS</title>
		<link>http://www.ld.com/update-on-antitrust-suit-against-gxs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ld.com/update-on-antitrust-suit-against-gxs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:26:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Todd Gould</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[President's Letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GXS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interconnects]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ld.com/?p=989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It has been a year since the initial filing of our appeal. Next Thursday (9/20/2012) oral arguments will be heard in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA. The court is to determine if the lower court made a mistake in applying various legal standards to the evaluation of our case. Appeals are not on the facts of the case, but how the lower court considered the facts (for you financial types who don’t get it, it is a like a derivatives market for lawyers). Lower courts apply the facts to law while appellate courts interpret the laws &#8230; <a href="http://www.ld.com/update-on-antitrust-suit-against-gxs/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ld.com/update-on-antitrust-suit-against-gxs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.273 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2013-05-22 20:26:09 -->

<!-- Compression = gzip -->