<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_01_2158224</id>
	<title>Supreme Court To Review "Business Method" Patents</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243854480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>xzvf alerts us to big news on the patent front: the Supreme Court decided today to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2009/tc2009061\_905686.htm?chan=top+news\_top+news+index+-+temp\_news+\%2B+analysis">review the validity of "business method" patents</a>. In particular, the Supremes will look over the "In re: Bilski" case, which we have <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/30/1959216&amp;tid=155">discussed</a> <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/1811246&amp;tid=155">before</a>. <i>"By agreeing to weigh in on the case, the high court is venturing into controversial terrain. Critics of business-method patents say it was never the intent of the law to protect such things, which in their view are often far closer to abstract concepts or mathematical algorithms rather than physical inventions. Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation in today's knowledge- and service-based economy. ... The court's decision to review the Bilski case caught many observers by surprise. The Bilski patent claims are widely viewed as vulnerable to challenge on a number of grounds, and the sense among some experts was it would make a poor test case. ... The Supreme Court won't hear arguments in Bilski until its next term, which begins in October. A ruling is likely during the first half of 2010."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>xzvf alerts us to big news on the patent front : the Supreme Court decided today to review the validity of " business method " patents .
In particular , the Supremes will look over the " In re : Bilski " case , which we have discussed before .
" By agreeing to weigh in on the case , the high court is venturing into controversial terrain .
Critics of business-method patents say it was never the intent of the law to protect such things , which in their view are often far closer to abstract concepts or mathematical algorithms rather than physical inventions .
Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation in today 's knowledge- and service-based economy .
... The court 's decision to review the Bilski case caught many observers by surprise .
The Bilski patent claims are widely viewed as vulnerable to challenge on a number of grounds , and the sense among some experts was it would make a poor test case .
... The Supreme Court wo n't hear arguments in Bilski until its next term , which begins in October .
A ruling is likely during the first half of 2010 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xzvf alerts us to big news on the patent front: the Supreme Court decided today to review the validity of "business method" patents.
In particular, the Supremes will look over the "In re: Bilski" case, which we have discussed before.
"By agreeing to weigh in on the case, the high court is venturing into controversial terrain.
Critics of business-method patents say it was never the intent of the law to protect such things, which in their view are often far closer to abstract concepts or mathematical algorithms rather than physical inventions.
Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation in today's knowledge- and service-based economy.
... The court's decision to review the Bilski case caught many observers by surprise.
The Bilski patent claims are widely viewed as vulnerable to challenge on a number of grounds, and the sense among some experts was it would make a poor test case.
... The Supreme Court won't hear arguments in Bilski until its next term, which begins in October.
A ruling is likely during the first half of 2010.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181519</id>
	<title>Re:Civilised world</title>
	<author>superwiz</author>
	<datestamp>1243955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Canada and UK are not exactly dens of innovation (compared to the US).  US economy is approximately 3 times larger than the economy of the entire European Union.  Yes, even now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada and UK are not exactly dens of innovation ( compared to the US ) .
US economy is approximately 3 times larger than the economy of the entire European Union .
Yes , even now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada and UK are not exactly dens of innovation (compared to the US).
US economy is approximately 3 times larger than the economy of the entire European Union.
Yes, even now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449</id>
	<title>That's great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243858560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What should happen: The Supreme Court rules against business method patents and manages to eliminate software patents entirely at the same time.
</p><p>What will happen: The Supreme Court rules in support of business method patents and redefines "prior art" to mean "other US patents that haven't yet expired" at the same time. Lawyers rush to patent levers, gears, buttons (electrical, mechanical, and on clothing), etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What should happen : The Supreme Court rules against business method patents and manages to eliminate software patents entirely at the same time .
What will happen : The Supreme Court rules in support of business method patents and redefines " prior art " to mean " other US patents that have n't yet expired " at the same time .
Lawyers rush to patent levers , gears , buttons ( electrical , mechanical , and on clothing ) , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What should happen: The Supreme Court rules against business method patents and manages to eliminate software patents entirely at the same time.
What will happen: The Supreme Court rules in support of business method patents and redefines "prior art" to mean "other US patents that haven't yet expired" at the same time.
Lawyers rush to patent levers, gears, buttons (electrical, mechanical, and on clothing), etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176657</id>
	<title>Re:Congress? Please?</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1243867860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be nice if Congress could send <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference\_question" title="wikipedia.org">reference questions</a> [wikipedia.org] to the court like we do here in Canada.</p><p>OTOH, I have a feeling it would turn into something like "Ok, so you say that would be blatantly unconstitutional.  We'll just pass it anyway and hope we can stack the court before a case on it gets to you."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be nice if Congress could send reference questions [ wikipedia.org ] to the court like we do here in Canada.OTOH , I have a feeling it would turn into something like " Ok , so you say that would be blatantly unconstitutional .
We 'll just pass it anyway and hope we can stack the court before a case on it gets to you .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be nice if Congress could send reference questions [wikipedia.org] to the court like we do here in Canada.OTOH, I have a feeling it would turn into something like "Ok, so you say that would be blatantly unconstitutional.
We'll just pass it anyway and hope we can stack the court before a case on it gets to you.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177987</id>
	<title>Re:What's "general purpose" vs. "particular" machi</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1243880400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, is a general purpose computer "particular" enough when loaded with specific software, or not?</p></div><p>Well I don't know how the justices will choose to interpret the matter, but if I were hearing this case then I would have to say that "no, it is not" for the following reason:</p><p>If a particular program is loaded onto a "general purpose" machine, a computer in this case, thereby rendering it fit for a particular purpose that does NOT foreclose the possibility that one may install any number of additional programs with separate purposes on the same computer, up to the limits of the storage device, such that some combination of programs, subject to processing constraints, can be executed simultaneously. If the "general purpose" machine (i.e. the computer) remains capable of executing additional and arbitrary tasks depending upon what additional software is loaded then I would have to say that the computer remains "general purpose" even after software has been loaded. Thus the computer is never, by itself, rendered "particular" enough by loading any one program or even combination of programs since more, subject to the aforementioned constraints, could still be added. It would be necessary to have the computer controlling some external physical device which was NOT "general purpose" in order to qualify for patent protection and even then it would only protect the use of the specific external device in combination with the computer as part of the <i> <b>process</b> </i> but neither, by itself, the computer nor any software running on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , is a general purpose computer " particular " enough when loaded with specific software , or not ? Well I do n't know how the justices will choose to interpret the matter , but if I were hearing this case then I would have to say that " no , it is not " for the following reason : If a particular program is loaded onto a " general purpose " machine , a computer in this case , thereby rendering it fit for a particular purpose that does NOT foreclose the possibility that one may install any number of additional programs with separate purposes on the same computer , up to the limits of the storage device , such that some combination of programs , subject to processing constraints , can be executed simultaneously .
If the " general purpose " machine ( i.e .
the computer ) remains capable of executing additional and arbitrary tasks depending upon what additional software is loaded then I would have to say that the computer remains " general purpose " even after software has been loaded .
Thus the computer is never , by itself , rendered " particular " enough by loading any one program or even combination of programs since more , subject to the aforementioned constraints , could still be added .
It would be necessary to have the computer controlling some external physical device which was NOT " general purpose " in order to qualify for patent protection and even then it would only protect the use of the specific external device in combination with the computer as part of the process but neither , by itself , the computer nor any software running on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, is a general purpose computer "particular" enough when loaded with specific software, or not?Well I don't know how the justices will choose to interpret the matter, but if I were hearing this case then I would have to say that "no, it is not" for the following reason:If a particular program is loaded onto a "general purpose" machine, a computer in this case, thereby rendering it fit for a particular purpose that does NOT foreclose the possibility that one may install any number of additional programs with separate purposes on the same computer, up to the limits of the storage device, such that some combination of programs, subject to processing constraints, can be executed simultaneously.
If the "general purpose" machine (i.e.
the computer) remains capable of executing additional and arbitrary tasks depending upon what additional software is loaded then I would have to say that the computer remains "general purpose" even after software has been loaded.
Thus the computer is never, by itself, rendered "particular" enough by loading any one program or even combination of programs since more, subject to the aforementioned constraints, could still be added.
It would be necessary to have the computer controlling some external physical device which was NOT "general purpose" in order to qualify for patent protection and even then it would only protect the use of the specific external device in combination with the computer as part of the  process  but neither, by itself, the computer nor any software running on it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177255</id>
	<title>Re:That's great</title>
	<author>greensoap</author>
	<datestamp>1243872900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This may be a trivial point, but <i>KSR</i> did not raise the bar for obviousness.  Most would argue that it lowered the bar required to show obviousness, by removing the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine requirement from the analysis.  Although, there is still a requirement to show some reason to combine, so it really isn't as much of a change as everyone thought.  If you talk to litigators, they still drum up reasons why a person of skill in the art would combine two references, even after <i>KSR</i>.
--
As the author states, I am not giving legal advice. I am not a lawyer nor am I trying to be a lawyer.  Do not rely on my posts to support your legal conclusions, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction and get real advice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be a trivial point , but KSR did not raise the bar for obviousness .
Most would argue that it lowered the bar required to show obviousness , by removing the teaching , suggestion , or motivation to combine requirement from the analysis .
Although , there is still a requirement to show some reason to combine , so it really is n't as much of a change as everyone thought .
If you talk to litigators , they still drum up reasons why a person of skill in the art would combine two references , even after KSR .
-- As the author states , I am not giving legal advice .
I am not a lawyer nor am I trying to be a lawyer .
Do not rely on my posts to support your legal conclusions , consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction and get real advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be a trivial point, but KSR did not raise the bar for obviousness.
Most would argue that it lowered the bar required to show obviousness, by removing the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine requirement from the analysis.
Although, there is still a requirement to show some reason to combine, so it really isn't as much of a change as everyone thought.
If you talk to litigators, they still drum up reasons why a person of skill in the art would combine two references, even after KSR.
--
As the author states, I am not giving legal advice.
I am not a lawyer nor am I trying to be a lawyer.
Do not rely on my posts to support your legal conclusions, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction and get real advice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177435</id>
	<title>Re:Civilised world</title>
	<author>artor3</author>
	<datestamp>1243874460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we here in the civili<b>Z</b>ed world have our own way of doing things, if you hadn't noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we here in the civiliZed world have our own way of doing things , if you had n't noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we here in the civiliZed world have our own way of doing things, if you hadn't noticed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177159</id>
	<title>Re:What's "general purpose" vs. "particular" machi</title>
	<author>jwilty</author>
	<datestamp>1243872060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that it is difficult to write a general rule to determine if a method patent should be granted, but in today's technological world there is a big difference between the concept of performing an action and implementing that action.  <a href="http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/39556res20090512.html" title="aclu.org" rel="nofollow">Myriad's patent</a> [aclu.org] of the BRCA genes is a perfect example.  It is fine to grant them a patent on a METHOD for detecting a mutation in the target gene but ridiculous to say that they should hold the rights to all methods that could possibly perform the same function (even if that method has yet to be invented).  To me that is like someone discovering the internal combustion engine and being granted a patent for any process that turns fossil fuels into energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that it is difficult to write a general rule to determine if a method patent should be granted , but in today 's technological world there is a big difference between the concept of performing an action and implementing that action .
Myriad 's patent [ aclu.org ] of the BRCA genes is a perfect example .
It is fine to grant them a patent on a METHOD for detecting a mutation in the target gene but ridiculous to say that they should hold the rights to all methods that could possibly perform the same function ( even if that method has yet to be invented ) .
To me that is like someone discovering the internal combustion engine and being granted a patent for any process that turns fossil fuels into energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that it is difficult to write a general rule to determine if a method patent should be granted, but in today's technological world there is a big difference between the concept of performing an action and implementing that action.
Myriad's patent [aclu.org] of the BRCA genes is a perfect example.
It is fine to grant them a patent on a METHOD for detecting a mutation in the target gene but ridiculous to say that they should hold the rights to all methods that could possibly perform the same function (even if that method has yet to be invented).
To me that is like someone discovering the internal combustion engine and being granted a patent for any process that turns fossil fuels into energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28189943</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation</title>
	<author>inviolet</author>
	<datestamp>1243947660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> laugh every time I read this absurd argument. Patents are not about promoting innovation, they are about protecting intellectual property, even if that term is far younger than the patent concept. They are about creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition.</p></div></blockquote><p>"creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition" <i>is</i> "promoting innovation".  The micro-monopoly enables a researcher to monetize his or her data.  This legality is necessary because data cannot otherwise be controlled -- not like, say, real estate can.
</p><p>Well, data can always be <i>kept secret</i>... but that is almost certainly worse for society than the alternatives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>laugh every time I read this absurd argument .
Patents are not about promoting innovation , they are about protecting intellectual property , even if that term is far younger than the patent concept .
They are about creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition .
" creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition " is " promoting innovation " .
The micro-monopoly enables a researcher to monetize his or her data .
This legality is necessary because data can not otherwise be controlled -- not like , say , real estate can .
Well , data can always be kept secret... but that is almost certainly worse for society than the alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> laugh every time I read this absurd argument.
Patents are not about promoting innovation, they are about protecting intellectual property, even if that term is far younger than the patent concept.
They are about creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition.
"creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition" is "promoting innovation".
The micro-monopoly enables a researcher to monetize his or her data.
This legality is necessary because data cannot otherwise be controlled -- not like, say, real estate can.
Well, data can always be kept secret... but that is almost certainly worse for society than the alternatives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28183933</id>
	<title>Re:Civilised world</title>
	<author>satorical</author>
	<datestamp>1243963800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks a lot.  You realize the surest way to talk to the US out of anything is to point out that all the reasonable people are doing it.  Thanks to you the court will probably issue a decision finding that "holing up in a bunker with my guns, beer and Ann Coulter poster" is now a patentable business method.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks a lot .
You realize the surest way to talk to the US out of anything is to point out that all the reasonable people are doing it .
Thanks to you the court will probably issue a decision finding that " holing up in a bunker with my guns , beer and Ann Coulter poster " is now a patentable business method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks a lot.
You realize the surest way to talk to the US out of anything is to point out that all the reasonable people are doing it.
Thanks to you the court will probably issue a decision finding that "holing up in a bunker with my guns, beer and Ann Coulter poster" is now a patentable business method.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177515</id>
	<title>Re:What's "general purpose" vs. "particular" machi</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243875120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>not ALL method patents are bad. Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing, things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval. The trick is in writing a rule that filters out crap from patents that actually do make public policy sense. It's harder than you might think to come up with a blanket rule that threads this needle.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Maybe we must simply accept that some forms of innovation cannot be encouraged in this manner, due to the amount of stagnation this manner simultaneously spawns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>not ALL method patents are bad .
Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing , things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval .
The trick is in writing a rule that filters out crap from patents that actually do make public policy sense .
It 's harder than you might think to come up with a blanket rule that threads this needle .
Maybe we must simply accept that some forms of innovation can not be encouraged in this manner , due to the amount of stagnation this manner simultaneously spawns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not ALL method patents are bad.
Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing, things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval.
The trick is in writing a rule that filters out crap from patents that actually do make public policy sense.
It's harder than you might think to come up with a blanket rule that threads this needle.
Maybe we must simply accept that some forms of innovation cannot be encouraged in this manner, due to the amount of stagnation this manner simultaneously spawns.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175799</id>
	<title>I didn't read the article of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243861020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But had I heard the summary as an argument in passing I would have stopped and simply interjected:</p><p>"Sole rights to a particular business model should not equate to business success but the quality of implementation and service of a particular instance of that model should."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But had I heard the summary as an argument in passing I would have stopped and simply interjected : " Sole rights to a particular business model should not equate to business success but the quality of implementation and service of a particular instance of that model should .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But had I heard the summary as an argument in passing I would have stopped and simply interjected:"Sole rights to a particular business model should not equate to business success but the quality of implementation and service of a particular instance of that model should.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175995</id>
	<title>They should totally do this!</title>
	<author>vampire\_baozi</author>
	<datestamp>1243862280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then I can patent accepting money, goods or other services in payment for other goods or services.  We can even patent "profit maximizing"!  Truly, this will finally allow people to stop emulating and perfecting business models, allowing me to reign supreme!</p><p>Next up, patenting human bodily functions.  Everytime you breathe, your heart beats, or you fart, you owe me a quarter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then I can patent accepting money , goods or other services in payment for other goods or services .
We can even patent " profit maximizing " !
Truly , this will finally allow people to stop emulating and perfecting business models , allowing me to reign supreme ! Next up , patenting human bodily functions .
Everytime you breathe , your heart beats , or you fart , you owe me a quarter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then I can patent accepting money, goods or other services in payment for other goods or services.
We can even patent "profit maximizing"!
Truly, this will finally allow people to stop emulating and perfecting business models, allowing me to reign supreme!Next up, patenting human bodily functions.
Everytime you breathe, your heart beats, or you fart, you owe me a quarter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176325</id>
	<title>Re:What's "general purpose" vs. "particular" machi</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1243865100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a key difference between a software and a non-software patent should be a test to the effect: <b>Can this be implemented with any computer purchased at the local Buy More?</b>  If the patent application can be implemented with commodity, off-the-shelf components, then the unique element in the patent must be software.  If the unique element is software, then the patent is a software patent.  The nice thing about the commodity, off-the-shelf component test, is that it extends nicely into business method patents.  If the patent optimizes the method of exchanging sheets of paper in an office, then it quickly becomes obvious when someone is trying to patent something very abstract.
</p><p>Now someone could claim that the combination of hardware mentioned in the patent is somehow special.  I don't care about this.  As long as the patent doesn't disallow large sections of software running on essentially any old hardware, then the author may have a valid hardware patent.
</p><p>Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, and as such my opinion is worthless.  Still I can hope the Supreme Court agrees with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a key difference between a software and a non-software patent should be a test to the effect : Can this be implemented with any computer purchased at the local Buy More ?
If the patent application can be implemented with commodity , off-the-shelf components , then the unique element in the patent must be software .
If the unique element is software , then the patent is a software patent .
The nice thing about the commodity , off-the-shelf component test , is that it extends nicely into business method patents .
If the patent optimizes the method of exchanging sheets of paper in an office , then it quickly becomes obvious when someone is trying to patent something very abstract .
Now someone could claim that the combination of hardware mentioned in the patent is somehow special .
I do n't care about this .
As long as the patent does n't disallow large sections of software running on essentially any old hardware , then the author may have a valid hardware patent .
Unfortunately , I 'm not a lawyer , and as such my opinion is worthless .
Still I can hope the Supreme Court agrees with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a key difference between a software and a non-software patent should be a test to the effect: Can this be implemented with any computer purchased at the local Buy More?
If the patent application can be implemented with commodity, off-the-shelf components, then the unique element in the patent must be software.
If the unique element is software, then the patent is a software patent.
The nice thing about the commodity, off-the-shelf component test, is that it extends nicely into business method patents.
If the patent optimizes the method of exchanging sheets of paper in an office, then it quickly becomes obvious when someone is trying to patent something very abstract.
Now someone could claim that the combination of hardware mentioned in the patent is somehow special.
I don't care about this.
As long as the patent doesn't disallow large sections of software running on essentially any old hardware, then the author may have a valid hardware patent.
Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, and as such my opinion is worthless.
Still I can hope the Supreme Court agrees with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175359</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243858140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lick my ballsack you homos!</htmltext>
<tokenext>lick my ballsack you homos !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lick my ballsack you homos!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28179223</id>
	<title>Re:Let's hope Sotomayor isn't confirmed</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1243937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I challenge you to prove that Sotomayor favors F5 Networks customers.</p><p>(Hey come on, news for nerds, someone had to bring it back...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I challenge you to prove that Sotomayor favors F5 Networks customers .
( Hey come on , news for nerds , someone had to bring it back... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I challenge you to prove that Sotomayor favors F5 Networks customers.
(Hey come on, news for nerds, someone had to bring it back...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176947</id>
	<title>Knowledge and Service Based?</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1243870020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that what you call it when you go into massive debt to pay others to do your work for you?<br><br>News flash!  This is not a model for a real economy, it's a model for an imaginary one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that what you call it when you go into massive debt to pay others to do your work for you ? News flash !
This is not a model for a real economy , it 's a model for an imaginary one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that what you call it when you go into massive debt to pay others to do your work for you?News flash!
This is not a model for a real economy, it's a model for an imaginary one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195</id>
	<title>Innovation</title>
	<author>Dracos</author>
	<datestamp>1243863900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation</p></div></blockquote><p>I laugh every time I read this absurd argument.  Patents are not about promoting innovation, they are about protecting intellectual property, even if that term is far younger than the patent concept.  They are about creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition.</p><p>Patents aren't bad, but they have been allowed to get out of hand (Bezos, I'm looking at you).  Business method, software, and DNA patents are abuses of the patent concept.  Furthermore, the pace of technological advancement is faster now than it ever has been, and will only get faster; patent duration must be shortened appropriately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovationI laugh every time I read this absurd argument .
Patents are not about promoting innovation , they are about protecting intellectual property , even if that term is far younger than the patent concept .
They are about creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition.Patents are n't bad , but they have been allowed to get out of hand ( Bezos , I 'm looking at you ) .
Business method , software , and DNA patents are abuses of the patent concept .
Furthermore , the pace of technological advancement is faster now than it ever has been , and will only get faster ; patent duration must be shortened appropriately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovationI laugh every time I read this absurd argument.
Patents are not about promoting innovation, they are about protecting intellectual property, even if that term is far younger than the patent concept.
They are about creating a limited time micro-monopoly in order to stifle competition.Patents aren't bad, but they have been allowed to get out of hand (Bezos, I'm looking at you).
Business method, software, and DNA patents are abuses of the patent concept.
Furthermore, the pace of technological advancement is faster now than it ever has been, and will only get faster; patent duration must be shortened appropriately.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176203</id>
	<title>Promoting innovation</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1243863960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similarly to another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.-er's fantasy, I imagine the world when *I* become an overlord and hire my own army of clowns to would slap politicians who say things like:</p><p>"Promoting innovation" - SLAP!</p><p>"For the sake of the children!" - SLAP!</p><p>"Free markets" "The GNP"  - SLAP</p><p>"It's the Jews" "It's the communists" "It's the Arabs" "It's teh tehrorists!" - SLAP!</p><p>"For your safety" - SLAP, KICK, SLAP!</p><p>Thanks, Bozo, I needed that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similarly to another /.-er 's fantasy , I imagine the world when * I * become an overlord and hire my own army of clowns to would slap politicians who say things like : " Promoting innovation " - SLAP !
" For the sake of the children !
" - SLAP !
" Free markets " " The GNP " - SLAP " It 's the Jews " " It 's the communists " " It 's the Arabs " " It 's teh tehrorists !
" - SLAP !
" For your safety " - SLAP , KICK , SLAP ! Thanks , Bozo , I needed that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similarly to another /.-er's fantasy, I imagine the world when *I* become an overlord and hire my own army of clowns to would slap politicians who say things like:"Promoting innovation" - SLAP!
"For the sake of the children!
" - SLAP!
"Free markets" "The GNP"  - SLAP"It's the Jews" "It's the communists" "It's the Arabs" "It's teh tehrorists!
" - SLAP!
"For your safety" - SLAP, KICK, SLAP!Thanks, Bozo, I needed that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175531</id>
	<title>As time moves on</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1243859160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And more and more things become patentable- we may well have a ministry of silly walks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And more and more things become patentable- we may well have a ministry of silly walks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And more and more things become patentable- we may well have a ministry of silly walks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176217</id>
	<title>Re:Civilised world</title>
	<author>mcnellis</author>
	<datestamp>1243864140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes and no. yes it would make sense to do that, but no it wouldn't make sense for the US to do that. Why would the US follow the rest of the civilised world?! That would go against everything the US has ever stood for in the past 100 years!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
yes it would make sense to do that , but no it would n't make sense for the US to do that .
Why would the US follow the rest of the civilised world ? !
That would go against everything the US has ever stood for in the past 100 years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
yes it would make sense to do that, but no it wouldn't make sense for the US to do that.
Why would the US follow the rest of the civilised world?!
That would go against everything the US has ever stood for in the past 100 years!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180799</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1243951320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could see it going either way. On the one hand, a company may have more incentive to research a patentable product, if they know they can get the R&amp;D investment back from a short-term monopoly.</p><p>But on the other hand, this makes the decision to place R&amp;D on a project a much more risky one. If the company knew they would be able to sell their product, once they got it perfected, then they might be ok with the notion that they will never have a monopoly, and thye might see the R&amp;D as just a necessary part of acquiring the knowledge needed to get a new product to market.</p><p>Of course that's just speculation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could see it going either way .
On the one hand , a company may have more incentive to research a patentable product , if they know they can get the R&amp;D investment back from a short-term monopoly.But on the other hand , this makes the decision to place R&amp;D on a project a much more risky one .
If the company knew they would be able to sell their product , once they got it perfected , then they might be ok with the notion that they will never have a monopoly , and thye might see the R&amp;D as just a necessary part of acquiring the knowledge needed to get a new product to market.Of course that 's just speculation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could see it going either way.
On the one hand, a company may have more incentive to research a patentable product, if they know they can get the R&amp;D investment back from a short-term monopoly.But on the other hand, this makes the decision to place R&amp;D on a project a much more risky one.
If the company knew they would be able to sell their product, once they got it perfected, then they might be ok with the notion that they will never have a monopoly, and thye might see the R&amp;D as just a necessary part of acquiring the knowledge needed to get a new product to market.Of course that's just speculation...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177951</id>
	<title>Re:What's "general purpose" vs. "particular" machi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243880040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally believe that a "specific machine" should contain some patentable element in hardware.  I.E. they put some novel piece of hardware in it that's essential to its function.</p><p>Anyhow, I know about the craziness over when is a transformation "real" and I wish they could find a better way to do that.</p><p>Actually, it might just be simpler if Congress just passed a law saying that computer software is not patentable.  I know that that opens up a can of worms in and of itself, but I think that they should think of it this way:  if you ignore all the claims talking about software, would the things its doing still be patentable?  If so, you can have the patent.  But it doesn't cover software.  So I have to duplicate some other part of the things claimed in the patent in order to infringe.</p><p>But I bet clever enough lawyers would find some crazy way to complicate that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally believe that a " specific machine " should contain some patentable element in hardware .
I.E. they put some novel piece of hardware in it that 's essential to its function.Anyhow , I know about the craziness over when is a transformation " real " and I wish they could find a better way to do that.Actually , it might just be simpler if Congress just passed a law saying that computer software is not patentable .
I know that that opens up a can of worms in and of itself , but I think that they should think of it this way : if you ignore all the claims talking about software , would the things its doing still be patentable ?
If so , you can have the patent .
But it does n't cover software .
So I have to duplicate some other part of the things claimed in the patent in order to infringe.But I bet clever enough lawyers would find some crazy way to complicate that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally believe that a "specific machine" should contain some patentable element in hardware.
I.E. they put some novel piece of hardware in it that's essential to its function.Anyhow, I know about the craziness over when is a transformation "real" and I wish they could find a better way to do that.Actually, it might just be simpler if Congress just passed a law saying that computer software is not patentable.
I know that that opens up a can of worms in and of itself, but I think that they should think of it this way:  if you ignore all the claims talking about software, would the things its doing still be patentable?
If so, you can have the patent.
But it doesn't cover software.
So I have to duplicate some other part of the things claimed in the patent in order to infringe.But I bet clever enough lawyers would find some crazy way to complicate that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001</id>
	<title>What's "general purpose" vs. "particular" machine?</title>
	<author>ActusReus</author>
	<datestamp>1243862280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the Federal Circuit opinion below, they held that a method patent must be tied to a particular "machine" or involve a "transformation" of some physical article.  The "transformation" prong of that test left some interesting loopholes open for software patents, because they held that transforming REPRESENTATIONS of physical articles is good enough.  When going through old cases, the court noted that a patent for x-ray medical software was okay because the data represented physical objects (i.e. human bones).  However, patents for financial systems weren't patentable because dollars and cents aren't tangible articles.</p><p>However, the <i>most</i> interesting parts of the Federal Circuit's decision was that they almost completely declined to discuss the "machine" prong of the test at that time.  It will be interesting to see what (if anything) the SCOTUS does with this.  Specifically, the Federal Circuit said that a patent must be tied to a "particular" machine (so that the method could still be practiced on machines other than the one described).  However, we don't really know much about what constitutes a "particular" machine.  Up until Bilski, the Federal Circuit relied on "In Re Alappat"... which held that loading particular software onto a "general purpose" MAKES it a "particular" computer.  The Bilski holding said that Alappat was now reversed... but in the discussion, they only talk about how <i>other parts</i> of that case were wrong.</p><p>So, is a general purpose computer "particular" enough when loaded with specific software, or not?  That would be a very interesting question for the SCOTUS to answer.</p><p>Just as an aside... I know this is blasphemy on Slashdot, but not ALL method patents are bad.  Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing, things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval.  The trick is in writing a rule that filters out crap from patents that actually do make public policy sense.  It's harder than you might think to come up with a blanket rule that threads this needle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Federal Circuit opinion below , they held that a method patent must be tied to a particular " machine " or involve a " transformation " of some physical article .
The " transformation " prong of that test left some interesting loopholes open for software patents , because they held that transforming REPRESENTATIONS of physical articles is good enough .
When going through old cases , the court noted that a patent for x-ray medical software was okay because the data represented physical objects ( i.e .
human bones ) .
However , patents for financial systems were n't patentable because dollars and cents are n't tangible articles.However , the most interesting parts of the Federal Circuit 's decision was that they almost completely declined to discuss the " machine " prong of the test at that time .
It will be interesting to see what ( if anything ) the SCOTUS does with this .
Specifically , the Federal Circuit said that a patent must be tied to a " particular " machine ( so that the method could still be practiced on machines other than the one described ) .
However , we do n't really know much about what constitutes a " particular " machine .
Up until Bilski , the Federal Circuit relied on " In Re Alappat " ... which held that loading particular software onto a " general purpose " MAKES it a " particular " computer .
The Bilski holding said that Alappat was now reversed... but in the discussion , they only talk about how other parts of that case were wrong.So , is a general purpose computer " particular " enough when loaded with specific software , or not ?
That would be a very interesting question for the SCOTUS to answer.Just as an aside... I know this is blasphemy on Slashdot , but not ALL method patents are bad .
Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing , things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval .
The trick is in writing a rule that filters out crap from patents that actually do make public policy sense .
It 's harder than you might think to come up with a blanket rule that threads this needle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Federal Circuit opinion below, they held that a method patent must be tied to a particular "machine" or involve a "transformation" of some physical article.
The "transformation" prong of that test left some interesting loopholes open for software patents, because they held that transforming REPRESENTATIONS of physical articles is good enough.
When going through old cases, the court noted that a patent for x-ray medical software was okay because the data represented physical objects (i.e.
human bones).
However, patents for financial systems weren't patentable because dollars and cents aren't tangible articles.However, the most interesting parts of the Federal Circuit's decision was that they almost completely declined to discuss the "machine" prong of the test at that time.
It will be interesting to see what (if anything) the SCOTUS does with this.
Specifically, the Federal Circuit said that a patent must be tied to a "particular" machine (so that the method could still be practiced on machines other than the one described).
However, we don't really know much about what constitutes a "particular" machine.
Up until Bilski, the Federal Circuit relied on "In Re Alappat"... which held that loading particular software onto a "general purpose" MAKES it a "particular" computer.
The Bilski holding said that Alappat was now reversed... but in the discussion, they only talk about how other parts of that case were wrong.So, is a general purpose computer "particular" enough when loaded with specific software, or not?
That would be a very interesting question for the SCOTUS to answer.Just as an aside... I know this is blasphemy on Slashdot, but not ALL method patents are bad.
Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing, things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval.
The trick is in writing a rule that filters out crap from patents that actually do make public policy sense.
It's harder than you might think to come up with a blanket rule that threads this needle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176897</id>
	<title>Re:That's great</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1243869660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when do slashdotters need to be informed in order to espouse opinions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when do slashdotters need to be informed in order to espouse opinions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when do slashdotters need to be informed in order to espouse opinions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181273</id>
	<title>Re:Good News</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1243953900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[maniacal laughter followed by gentle sobbing]</p><p>Poor guy.  The first part of recovery is admitting you have a problem.  So say it with me:</p><p>"Bush beat Gore."</p><p>That wasn't so hard now, was it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ maniacal laughter followed by gentle sobbing ] Poor guy .
The first part of recovery is admitting you have a problem .
So say it with me : " Bush beat Gore .
" That was n't so hard now , was it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[maniacal laughter followed by gentle sobbing]Poor guy.
The first part of recovery is admitting you have a problem.
So say it with me:"Bush beat Gore.
"That wasn't so hard now, was it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181221</id>
	<title>Re:Promoting innovation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243953660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's the Jews"</p><p>Huh? When's the last time a congressman said that? I <b>have</b> wanted to slap pundits for saying "judeoChristian" when they mean "Christian" but want to sound tolerant and diverse. Can you send your clown to Bill O'Reilly's house?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's the Jews " Huh ?
When 's the last time a congressman said that ?
I have wanted to slap pundits for saying " judeoChristian " when they mean " Christian " but want to sound tolerant and diverse .
Can you send your clown to Bill O'Reilly 's house ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's the Jews"Huh?
When's the last time a congressman said that?
I have wanted to slap pundits for saying "judeoChristian" when they mean "Christian" but want to sound tolerant and diverse.
Can you send your clown to Bill O'Reilly's house?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177471</id>
	<title>Re:Good News</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243874700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm confident the interests of the American people will be of the highest priority during deliberations.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Corporations are people too!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confident the interests of the American people will be of the highest priority during deliberations .
Corporations are people too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confident the interests of the American people will be of the highest priority during deliberations.
Corporations are people too!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175639</id>
	<title>algorithms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243859880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, since you can patent computer algorithms there's no reason why this shouldn't be allowed too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since you can patent computer algorithms there 's no reason why this should n't be allowed too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since you can patent computer algorithms there's no reason why this shouldn't be allowed too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599</id>
	<title>Re:That's great</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1243859580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that this Court will be nearly identical to the one that decided <em>KSR</em>, which raised the bar for obviousness, don't you?  And honestly, <em>Bilski</em>  was not a well-written decision, even if you agree with the conclusion.  In fact, one of the criticisms of <em>Bilski</em> is that it was just a poorly-reasoned knee-jerk reaction to the Supreme Court continuing to smack down on the CAFC.  I won't pretend to know exactly how the Supreme Court is going to come down on this, but I guarantee it will not end up with the Supreme Court making section 101 <em>broader</em> than it was pre-Bilski.  Still, don't let that get in the way of your complaining.</p><p>[NOTE:  If you need to google KSR, CAFC and section 101 before you respond to this post, that's a good clue that you're fighting a battle you don't understand]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that this Court will be nearly identical to the one that decided KSR , which raised the bar for obviousness , do n't you ?
And honestly , Bilski was not a well-written decision , even if you agree with the conclusion .
In fact , one of the criticisms of Bilski is that it was just a poorly-reasoned knee-jerk reaction to the Supreme Court continuing to smack down on the CAFC .
I wo n't pretend to know exactly how the Supreme Court is going to come down on this , but I guarantee it will not end up with the Supreme Court making section 101 broader than it was pre-Bilski .
Still , do n't let that get in the way of your complaining .
[ NOTE : If you need to google KSR , CAFC and section 101 before you respond to this post , that 's a good clue that you 're fighting a battle you do n't understand ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that this Court will be nearly identical to the one that decided KSR, which raised the bar for obviousness, don't you?
And honestly, Bilski  was not a well-written decision, even if you agree with the conclusion.
In fact, one of the criticisms of Bilski is that it was just a poorly-reasoned knee-jerk reaction to the Supreme Court continuing to smack down on the CAFC.
I won't pretend to know exactly how the Supreme Court is going to come down on this, but I guarantee it will not end up with the Supreme Court making section 101 broader than it was pre-Bilski.
Still, don't let that get in the way of your complaining.
[NOTE:  If you need to google KSR, CAFC and section 101 before you respond to this post, that's a good clue that you're fighting a battle you don't understand]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177569</id>
	<title>fuc4er</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243875660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">anyo=ne that t hinks</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>anyo = ne that t hinks [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyo=ne that t hinks [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175629</id>
	<title>Oh my.</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1243859820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To you, my most esteemed collection of pigeons, please permit me to introduce my cat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To you , my most esteemed collection of pigeons , please permit me to introduce my cat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To you, my most esteemed collection of pigeons, please permit me to introduce my cat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177051</id>
	<title>Promote Innovation</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1243870860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because if I think of a better way of running my business, I won't implement it unless the government gives me a patent. I'll just stand here, stamping my little feet, holding my breath until I turn blue. And someone else will use the idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if I think of a better way of running my business , I wo n't implement it unless the government gives me a patent .
I 'll just stand here , stamping my little feet , holding my breath until I turn blue .
And someone else will use the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if I think of a better way of running my business, I won't implement it unless the government gives me a patent.
I'll just stand here, stamping my little feet, holding my breath until I turn blue.
And someone else will use the idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177363</id>
	<title>Re:As time moves on</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1243873860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never thought this may qualify as informative: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZlBUglE6Hc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZlBUglE6Hc</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never thought this may qualify as informative : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 9ZlBUglE6Hc [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never thought this may qualify as informative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZlBUglE6Hc [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175759</id>
	<title>Privately right to complain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243860780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>private business\_method()<br>{<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* insert comment here */</p><p>S.S.O.O.;<br>S.S.T.M.;<br>end of debate;</p><p>}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>private business \ _method ( ) { / * insert comment here * /S.S.O.O. ; S.S.T.M .
; end of debate ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>private business\_method(){ /* insert comment here */S.S.O.O.;S.S.T.M.
;end of debate;}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177647</id>
	<title>Economy, the new excuse for broken laws?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243876620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation in today's knowledge- and service-based economy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I wonder if  "think of the economy!" will find itself alongside the well-worn excuses "think of the children!" and "think of the terrorists!" for ramming broken laws through.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation in today 's knowledge- and service-based economy .
I wonder if " think of the economy !
" will find itself alongside the well-worn excuses " think of the children !
" and " think of the terrorists !
" for ramming broken laws through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation in today's knowledge- and service-based economy.
I wonder if  "think of the economy!
" will find itself alongside the well-worn excuses "think of the children!
" and "think of the terrorists!
" for ramming broken laws through.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180097</id>
	<title>A note for others</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243946760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>KSR v. Teleflex:  Supreme Court's ruling which expanded the scope of 35 USC 103, the statute controlling the obviousness standard in patents.</p><p>Specifically, the KSR expanded the Teaching, Standard, &amp; Motivation Test adopted by the CAFC to include other possible avenues by which statutory obviousness may be shown.</p><p>CAFC:  Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Significant because they are the court of appeals on cases of patent law(the pipeline to the supreme court goes up through them)  For the periods where SCOTUS review of their decisions were scant, their rulings effectively dictated the courses of patent law for many years.</p><p>101:   35 USC 101, details the statutory classes of inventions that are patentable.  i.e. this is the class which dictates whether something (a living organism, genetic code, software) is patentable or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>KSR v. Teleflex : Supreme Court 's ruling which expanded the scope of 35 USC 103 , the statute controlling the obviousness standard in patents.Specifically , the KSR expanded the Teaching , Standard , &amp; Motivation Test adopted by the CAFC to include other possible avenues by which statutory obviousness may be shown.CAFC : Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit .
Significant because they are the court of appeals on cases of patent law ( the pipeline to the supreme court goes up through them ) For the periods where SCOTUS review of their decisions were scant , their rulings effectively dictated the courses of patent law for many years.101 : 35 USC 101 , details the statutory classes of inventions that are patentable .
i.e. this is the class which dictates whether something ( a living organism , genetic code , software ) is patentable or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KSR v. Teleflex:  Supreme Court's ruling which expanded the scope of 35 USC 103, the statute controlling the obviousness standard in patents.Specifically, the KSR expanded the Teaching, Standard, &amp; Motivation Test adopted by the CAFC to include other possible avenues by which statutory obviousness may be shown.CAFC:  Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Significant because they are the court of appeals on cases of patent law(the pipeline to the supreme court goes up through them)  For the periods where SCOTUS review of their decisions were scant, their rulings effectively dictated the courses of patent law for many years.101:   35 USC 101, details the statutory classes of inventions that are patentable.
i.e. this is the class which dictates whether something (a living organism, genetic code, software) is patentable or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177487</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243874880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents are absolutely about promoting innovation.  There's no reason to share a design with other companies unless you can be sure they'll pay you for it.  Without patents, they could just take the idea and run.  Companies would become reliant on trade secrets, and *that* would stifle innovation.</p><p>Disclaimer:  Business method and software patents, as well as a few other types, are an abuse of the system, I hope the court rules against them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents are absolutely about promoting innovation .
There 's no reason to share a design with other companies unless you can be sure they 'll pay you for it .
Without patents , they could just take the idea and run .
Companies would become reliant on trade secrets , and * that * would stifle innovation.Disclaimer : Business method and software patents , as well as a few other types , are an abuse of the system , I hope the court rules against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents are absolutely about promoting innovation.
There's no reason to share a design with other companies unless you can be sure they'll pay you for it.
Without patents, they could just take the idea and run.
Companies would become reliant on trade secrets, and *that* would stifle innovation.Disclaimer:  Business method and software patents, as well as a few other types, are an abuse of the system, I hope the court rules against them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180559</id>
	<title>Re:Congress? Please?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243949820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason is that Congress is supposed to consider Constitutionality itself. BTW, the Constitution doesn't actually give the Courts the authority to decide on the Constitutionality of a law. That is a power that the Supreme Court gave itself. Since many (if not most) of the framers of the Constitution were still alive when the SC made this ruling and I have not come across any references to them complaining about this ruling, it seems that they found it acceptable. <br>
Personally, I find it terrible that there have been times when Congressmen have voted for and Presidents have signed into law bills that they acknowledged that they believed to be unconstitutional, counting on the courts to overturn them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason is that Congress is supposed to consider Constitutionality itself .
BTW , the Constitution does n't actually give the Courts the authority to decide on the Constitutionality of a law .
That is a power that the Supreme Court gave itself .
Since many ( if not most ) of the framers of the Constitution were still alive when the SC made this ruling and I have not come across any references to them complaining about this ruling , it seems that they found it acceptable .
Personally , I find it terrible that there have been times when Congressmen have voted for and Presidents have signed into law bills that they acknowledged that they believed to be unconstitutional , counting on the courts to overturn them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason is that Congress is supposed to consider Constitutionality itself.
BTW, the Constitution doesn't actually give the Courts the authority to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.
That is a power that the Supreme Court gave itself.
Since many (if not most) of the framers of the Constitution were still alive when the SC made this ruling and I have not come across any references to them complaining about this ruling, it seems that they found it acceptable.
Personally, I find it terrible that there have been times when Congressmen have voted for and Presidents have signed into law bills that they acknowledged that they believed to be unconstitutional, counting on the courts to overturn them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175967</id>
	<title>Congress? Please?</title>
	<author>Kerrigann</author>
	<datestamp>1243862040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>COPA, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Software Patents, Eminent Domain, Copyright term limits, Privacy Issues/Search and Seizure... does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature?</p><p>I'm sure everyone else can think of more examples.</p><p>More and more the only hope I ever have of bad laws being fixed is that one day it will go before the Supreme Court.  I mean, COPA is a "success story", if you can call it that, but just once I want *Congress* to fix these things.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>COPA , Abortion , Gay Marriage , Software Patents , Eminent Domain , Copyright term limits , Privacy Issues/Search and Seizure... does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature ? I 'm sure everyone else can think of more examples.More and more the only hope I ever have of bad laws being fixed is that one day it will go before the Supreme Court .
I mean , COPA is a " success story " , if you can call it that , but just once I want * Congress * to fix these things .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COPA, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Software Patents, Eminent Domain, Copyright term limits, Privacy Issues/Search and Seizure... does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature?I'm sure everyone else can think of more examples.More and more the only hope I ever have of bad laws being fixed is that one day it will go before the Supreme Court.
I mean, COPA is a "success story", if you can call it that, but just once I want *Congress* to fix these things.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176695</id>
	<title>Re:Congress? Please?</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1243868160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature?</p></div><p>That's because judges generally don't have to worry about making decisions that might piss off the religious zealots or super-hippies and cost them the next election.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature ? That 's because judges generally do n't have to worry about making decisions that might piss off the religious zealots or super-hippies and cost them the next election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature?That's because judges generally don't have to worry about making decisions that might piss off the religious zealots or super-hippies and cost them the next election.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177591</id>
	<title>Re:Civilised world</title>
	<author>Tuoqui</author>
	<datestamp>1243875900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>knowledge- and service-based economy</p></div><p>Translation: We dont actually make anything any more therefore business-methods and software patents are all we can make anymore. Stop shipping the god damn jobs to China or India and make things in North America.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly...knowledge- and service-based economyTranslation : We dont actually make anything any more therefore business-methods and software patents are all we can make anymore .
Stop shipping the god damn jobs to China or India and make things in North America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly...knowledge- and service-based economyTranslation: We dont actually make anything any more therefore business-methods and software patents are all we can make anymore.
Stop shipping the god damn jobs to China or India and make things in North America.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176793</id>
	<title>Innovation?  That's a point *against* here.</title>
	<author>mokus000</author>
	<datestamp>1243869060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovation</p></div><p>Wait, wait, wait, wait, WAIT!</p><p>We're gonna promote innovation of business practices by restricting their application?  Last I checked, a successful business practice is its own reward.  If these proponents are gonna make this argument, they need to be slapped down with the fact that at least in this case, the only reasonable conclusion derivable from that premise is that this type of patent should be forbidden.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovationWait , wait , wait , wait , WAIT ! We 're gon na promote innovation of business practices by restricting their application ?
Last I checked , a successful business practice is its own reward .
If these proponents are gon na make this argument , they need to be slapped down with the fact that at least in this case , the only reasonable conclusion derivable from that premise is that this type of patent should be forbidden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proponents say they are key to promoting innovationWait, wait, wait, wait, WAIT!We're gonna promote innovation of business practices by restricting their application?
Last I checked, a successful business practice is its own reward.
If these proponents are gonna make this argument, they need to be slapped down with the fact that at least in this case, the only reasonable conclusion derivable from that premise is that this type of patent should be forbidden.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176637</id>
	<title>Re:That's great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243867680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not even close.  The supreme court will invalidate all patents since there aren't enough minority patent holders.  At least that's what Sonia Sotomayor would do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even close .
The supreme court will invalidate all patents since there are n't enough minority patent holders .
At least that 's what Sonia Sotomayor would do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even close.
The supreme court will invalidate all patents since there aren't enough minority patent holders.
At least that's what Sonia Sotomayor would do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178675</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation</title>
	<author>Sudline</author>
	<datestamp>1243974360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From zero to infinite, patent promotes innovation in proportion with development time and effort.

The more investments are required to create something, the more patents will help.

And of course, patent on ideas, concepts, methods and so one do not promote innovation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From zero to infinite , patent promotes innovation in proportion with development time and effort .
The more investments are required to create something , the more patents will help .
And of course , patent on ideas , concepts , methods and so one do not promote innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From zero to infinite, patent promotes innovation in proportion with development time and effort.
The more investments are required to create something, the more patents will help.
And of course, patent on ideas, concepts, methods and so one do not promote innovation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178837</id>
	<title>Teh Inrarwebz</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1243933200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>[NOTE: If you need to google KSR, CAFC and section 101 before you respond to this post, that's a good clue that you're fighting a battle you don't understand]</i>
<br> <br>
This is teh Intarweb, since when do you have to know what you are talking about to share your opinion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ NOTE : If you need to google KSR , CAFC and section 101 before you respond to this post , that 's a good clue that you 're fighting a battle you do n't understand ] This is teh Intarweb , since when do you have to know what you are talking about to share your opinion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[NOTE: If you need to google KSR, CAFC and section 101 before you respond to this post, that's a good clue that you're fighting a battle you don't understand]
 
This is teh Intarweb, since when do you have to know what you are talking about to share your opinion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176241</id>
	<title>Stop patenting stupid crap.</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1243864320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to patent something, go invent a machine. Leave abstract concepts, math, my DNA, the way in which a window opens on my computer and the like the hell out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to patent something , go invent a machine .
Leave abstract concepts , math , my DNA , the way in which a window opens on my computer and the like the hell out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to patent something, go invent a machine.
Leave abstract concepts, math, my DNA, the way in which a window opens on my computer and the like the hell out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521</id>
	<title>Civilised world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243859040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada and the UK have both denied business method and software patents, as have the EC (attempts by that corporate lackey Charlie McCreevy notwithstanding). Now that the civilised world has invalidated these types of patents, wouldn't it make sense for the US to follow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada and the UK have both denied business method and software patents , as have the EC ( attempts by that corporate lackey Charlie McCreevy notwithstanding ) .
Now that the civilised world has invalidated these types of patents , would n't it make sense for the US to follow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada and the UK have both denied business method and software patents, as have the EC (attempts by that corporate lackey Charlie McCreevy notwithstanding).
Now that the civilised world has invalidated these types of patents, wouldn't it make sense for the US to follow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178627</id>
	<title>Re:Civilised world</title>
	<author>Sudline</author>
	<datestamp>1243974060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes this is why BBC patented hyperlink in *** USA ***

(And by the way UK is ruled by EU laws).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes this is why BBC patented hyperlink in * * * USA * * * ( And by the way UK is ruled by EU laws ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes this is why BBC patented hyperlink in *** USA ***

(And by the way UK is ruled by EU laws).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176561</id>
	<title>Let's hope Sotomayor isn't confirmed</title>
	<author>Quila</author>
	<datestamp>1243867020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She tends to side with the big IP holders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She tends to side with the big IP holders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She tends to side with the big IP holders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176743</id>
	<title>Re:What's "general purpose" vs. "particular" machi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243868580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really believe the SC will leave any shred of the "machine or transformation" test intact?  Before in re Bilski, this test had never been heard of before.  It has no basis in statute, prior SC decisions, or prior Federal Circuit decisions.</p><p>I think it is far more likely that we get a KSR type result, which will completely throw out the newly created "machine or transformation" test and restore the previous test which is based on an actual statute that Congress actually wrote.</p><p>Whether or not the Bilski patent will survive or not, I have no idea.  But I think the "machine or transformation" test is dead dead dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really believe the SC will leave any shred of the " machine or transformation " test intact ?
Before in re Bilski , this test had never been heard of before .
It has no basis in statute , prior SC decisions , or prior Federal Circuit decisions.I think it is far more likely that we get a KSR type result , which will completely throw out the newly created " machine or transformation " test and restore the previous test which is based on an actual statute that Congress actually wrote.Whether or not the Bilski patent will survive or not , I have no idea .
But I think the " machine or transformation " test is dead dead dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really believe the SC will leave any shred of the "machine or transformation" test intact?
Before in re Bilski, this test had never been heard of before.
It has no basis in statute, prior SC decisions, or prior Federal Circuit decisions.I think it is far more likely that we get a KSR type result, which will completely throw out the newly created "machine or transformation" test and restore the previous test which is based on an actual statute that Congress actually wrote.Whether or not the Bilski patent will survive or not, I have no idea.
But I think the "machine or transformation" test is dead dead dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175399</id>
	<title>About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243858380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they throw out all the process patents but it'll be very long if ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they throw out all the process patents but it 'll be very long if ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they throw out all the process patents but it'll be very long if ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178061</id>
	<title>kdawson is a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243881480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Critics of business-method patents say it was never the intent of the law to protect such things, which in their view are often far closer to abstract concepts or mathematical algorithms rather than physical inventions.</p></div><p>And, naturally, as a mathematician I will once again point out that mathematical algorithms should patentable.  No reason why mathematicians should live on donations (aka grants) and not be able to negotiate the product of their minds' work (by owning it through patents).  Of course, most of slashdot will disagree because most people think everyone else's work should be free except theirs.  Arguments will be brought up pointing out that if I had my way, we'd still be paying to use Calculus -- arguments which completely ignore the fact that patents do (and should) be issued for a limited term after which they expire.  Blah, blah, blah.  We've all gone through motions.  I refuse to work on my best and most useful ideas until I can profit from them <i>at my choosing</i>.  Good luck regurgitating the ideas you get from 30-year-old publicly-available research.  I'll keep working on papers that are in useless esoteric fields.  But hey, you have your "rights".  Enjoy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Critics of business-method patents say it was never the intent of the law to protect such things , which in their view are often far closer to abstract concepts or mathematical algorithms rather than physical inventions.And , naturally , as a mathematician I will once again point out that mathematical algorithms should patentable .
No reason why mathematicians should live on donations ( aka grants ) and not be able to negotiate the product of their minds ' work ( by owning it through patents ) .
Of course , most of slashdot will disagree because most people think everyone else 's work should be free except theirs .
Arguments will be brought up pointing out that if I had my way , we 'd still be paying to use Calculus -- arguments which completely ignore the fact that patents do ( and should ) be issued for a limited term after which they expire .
Blah , blah , blah .
We 've all gone through motions .
I refuse to work on my best and most useful ideas until I can profit from them at my choosing .
Good luck regurgitating the ideas you get from 30-year-old publicly-available research .
I 'll keep working on papers that are in useless esoteric fields .
But hey , you have your " rights " .
Enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Critics of business-method patents say it was never the intent of the law to protect such things, which in their view are often far closer to abstract concepts or mathematical algorithms rather than physical inventions.And, naturally, as a mathematician I will once again point out that mathematical algorithms should patentable.
No reason why mathematicians should live on donations (aka grants) and not be able to negotiate the product of their minds' work (by owning it through patents).
Of course, most of slashdot will disagree because most people think everyone else's work should be free except theirs.
Arguments will be brought up pointing out that if I had my way, we'd still be paying to use Calculus -- arguments which completely ignore the fact that patents do (and should) be issued for a limited term after which they expire.
Blah, blah, blah.
We've all gone through motions.
I refuse to work on my best and most useful ideas until I can profit from them at my choosing.
Good luck regurgitating the ideas you get from 30-year-old publicly-available research.
I'll keep working on papers that are in useless esoteric fields.
But hey, you have your "rights".
Enjoy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176609</id>
	<title>Re:What's "general purpose" vs. "particular" machi</title>
	<author>darjen</author>
	<datestamp>1243867500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I know this is blasphemy on Slashdot, but not ALL method patents are bad. Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing, things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hmm, still not convinced. I still believe business method patents are bad for society. IP in general stifles innovation. It practically removes any possibility of incremental improvement in other people's work. No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to own an idea. I hope the court rules against it, and perhaps it could eventually land a real blow to the whole concept of intellectual property.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is blasphemy on Slashdot , but not ALL method patents are bad .
Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing , things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval.Hmm , still not convinced .
I still believe business method patents are bad for society .
IP in general stifles innovation .
It practically removes any possibility of incremental improvement in other people 's work .
No matter how hard you try , it is impossible to own an idea .
I hope the court rules against it , and perhaps it could eventually land a real blow to the whole concept of intellectual property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is blasphemy on Slashdot, but not ALL method patents are bad.
Method patents traditionally cover things like industrial processes and medical testing, things that actually do require innovation and/or substantial investment in FDA approval.Hmm, still not convinced.
I still believe business method patents are bad for society.
IP in general stifles innovation.
It practically removes any possibility of incremental improvement in other people's work.
No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to own an idea.
I hope the court rules against it, and perhaps it could eventually land a real blow to the whole concept of intellectual property.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175413</id>
	<title>That'd be "Bilski", not Bilsky.</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1243858440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's even spelled correctly elsewhere in the summary. But what else to expect from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. "editor" kdawson?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even spelled correctly elsewhere in the summary .
But what else to expect from / .
" editor " kdawson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even spelled correctly elsewhere in the summary.
But what else to expect from /.
"editor" kdawson?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175435</id>
	<title>Good News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243858500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm confident the interests of the American people will be of the highest priority during deliberations.<br> <br>[maniacal laughter followed by gentle sobbing]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confident the interests of the American people will be of the highest priority during deliberations .
[ maniacal laughter followed by gentle sobbing ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confident the interests of the American people will be of the highest priority during deliberations.
[maniacal laughter followed by gentle sobbing]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28189943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28179223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28183933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_01_2158224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28189943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28179223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175599
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28180097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28175521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28177435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28181519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28183933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28178627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_01_2158224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_01_2158224.28176793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
