<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_23_2238206</id>
	<title>Boingo Awarded a Patent For Hotspot Access</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245755940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Boingo has scored a <a href="http://www.muniwireless.com/2009/06/23/boingo-awarded-patent-for-hotspot-access/">patent for accessing a Wi-Fi hotspot by a mobile device</a>. The patent, no. <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,483,984.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,483,984&amp;RS=PN/7,483,984">7,483,984</a>, was issued in January, but Boingo only started talking about it recently. The patent application was filed in December 2002. According to the company, the methods covered by the patent include: <i>"...accessing wireless carrier networks by mobile computing devices, where a client software application hosted by the device accesses carrier networks using wireless access points. For example, when a computer &mdash; or netbook, smartphone or any other Wi-Fi-enabled device &mdash; is in a location where there are multiple signals, the patented technology looks at each signal and alerts the user which signal will work, showing the signal as an understandable name and ID for the user.The patent covers all wireless technologies and spectrums, as well as any mobile device that access wireless hotspots."</i> The company is not saying anything about whether or how they will attempt to wield this patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boingo has scored a patent for accessing a Wi-Fi hotspot by a mobile device .
The patent , no .
7,483,984 , was issued in January , but Boingo only started talking about it recently .
The patent application was filed in December 2002 .
According to the company , the methods covered by the patent include : " ...accessing wireless carrier networks by mobile computing devices , where a client software application hosted by the device accesses carrier networks using wireless access points .
For example , when a computer    or netbook , smartphone or any other Wi-Fi-enabled device    is in a location where there are multiple signals , the patented technology looks at each signal and alerts the user which signal will work , showing the signal as an understandable name and ID for the user.The patent covers all wireless technologies and spectrums , as well as any mobile device that access wireless hotspots .
" The company is not saying anything about whether or how they will attempt to wield this patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boingo has scored a patent for accessing a Wi-Fi hotspot by a mobile device.
The patent, no.
7,483,984, was issued in January, but Boingo only started talking about it recently.
The patent application was filed in December 2002.
According to the company, the methods covered by the patent include: "...accessing wireless carrier networks by mobile computing devices, where a client software application hosted by the device accesses carrier networks using wireless access points.
For example, when a computer — or netbook, smartphone or any other Wi-Fi-enabled device — is in a location where there are multiple signals, the patented technology looks at each signal and alerts the user which signal will work, showing the signal as an understandable name and ID for the user.The patent covers all wireless technologies and spectrums, as well as any mobile device that access wireless hotspots.
" The company is not saying anything about whether or how they will attempt to wield this patent.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449185</id>
	<title>Re:The key element of the claims</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1245779700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"In short, the list of networks must include whether or not the client is authorized to access each network."</p></div></blockquote><p>So in other words, they patented the impossible.  At best they could say that you are authorized to be prompted by a username and password.  Since the system doesn't know if I know the password, nor could it ever know if I know and remember my password, it can never work.   I am not authorized until I successfully enter my password during the authorization process. The very best it can do is verify if I am authorized to attempt to gain authorization from the system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In short , the list of networks must include whether or not the client is authorized to access each network .
" So in other words , they patented the impossible .
At best they could say that you are authorized to be prompted by a username and password .
Since the system does n't know if I know the password , nor could it ever know if I know and remember my password , it can never work .
I am not authorized until I successfully enter my password during the authorization process .
The very best it can do is verify if I am authorized to attempt to gain authorization from the system ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In short, the list of networks must include whether or not the client is authorized to access each network.
"So in other words, they patented the impossible.
At best they could say that you are authorized to be prompted by a username and password.
Since the system doesn't know if I know the password, nor could it ever know if I know and remember my password, it can never work.
I am not authorized until I successfully enter my password during the authorization process.
The very best it can do is verify if I am authorized to attempt to gain authorization from the system ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449021</id>
	<title>Did anyone actually read the patent?</title>
	<author>Logos</author>
	<datestamp>1245777540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes I know, this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and no one read the article, let alone the actual patent - however the article (and the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. excerpt) are very misleading about what was patented. Reading the <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=7,483,984.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,483,984&amp;RS=PN/7,483,984" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">actual</a> [uspto.gov] patent, it appears that the patent was granted on a method for the user to create an account with the patent-holder and then use the patent-holders software to access any number of various for-pay and other wifi hotspots without having to manage the individual credentialing, network configuration and associated billing.

I am not a lawyer, or a patent attorney -- and I'm not a big fan of software patents in general -- but this doesn't sound anything like: "patenting wifi hotspot access". More like: "patenting an integrated, account-managed, token passing, billing system for accessing multiple diverse wifi-hotspot vendor systems". I.e. Much narrower and a based on a product built on basic wifi access.

In short: Boingo was granted a patent on their software that makes it easier to manage all those wifi accounts you have to set up if you travel a lot and use a bunch of different carriers. Not wifi access in general.

The editors should consider amending the front page summary because its very misleading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I know , this is / .
and no one read the article , let alone the actual patent - however the article ( and the / .
excerpt ) are very misleading about what was patented .
Reading the actual [ uspto.gov ] patent , it appears that the patent was granted on a method for the user to create an account with the patent-holder and then use the patent-holders software to access any number of various for-pay and other wifi hotspots without having to manage the individual credentialing , network configuration and associated billing .
I am not a lawyer , or a patent attorney -- and I 'm not a big fan of software patents in general -- but this does n't sound anything like : " patenting wifi hotspot access " .
More like : " patenting an integrated , account-managed , token passing , billing system for accessing multiple diverse wifi-hotspot vendor systems " .
I.e. Much narrower and a based on a product built on basic wifi access .
In short : Boingo was granted a patent on their software that makes it easier to manage all those wifi accounts you have to set up if you travel a lot and use a bunch of different carriers .
Not wifi access in general .
The editors should consider amending the front page summary because its very misleading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I know, this is /.
and no one read the article, let alone the actual patent - however the article (and the /.
excerpt) are very misleading about what was patented.
Reading the actual [uspto.gov] patent, it appears that the patent was granted on a method for the user to create an account with the patent-holder and then use the patent-holders software to access any number of various for-pay and other wifi hotspots without having to manage the individual credentialing, network configuration and associated billing.
I am not a lawyer, or a patent attorney -- and I'm not a big fan of software patents in general -- but this doesn't sound anything like: "patenting wifi hotspot access".
More like: "patenting an integrated, account-managed, token passing, billing system for accessing multiple diverse wifi-hotspot vendor systems".
I.e. Much narrower and a based on a product built on basic wifi access.
In short: Boingo was granted a patent on their software that makes it easier to manage all those wifi accounts you have to set up if you travel a lot and use a bunch of different carriers.
Not wifi access in general.
The editors should consider amending the front page summary because its very misleading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448735</id>
	<title>Re:Dead on arrival...</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1245774900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, but you have to understand that none of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors knows anything about patents, which is why summaries on patent-related stories always cite completely irrelevant information that has nothing at all to do with what is actually patented. This despite nearly a decade of people who DO know something about patents pointing it out.</p></div></blockquote><p>What people who claim to know something about patents "point out" is contradicted by the actual prosecution of patent violations, where the claims are construed rather more broadly than patent fans would imply.</p><p>In any case, that limitation is not significant.  You could argue that aggregating multiple access points within the same ESSID covers it.  But even if it doesn't, there's nothing patent-worthy about abstracting carrier information to present a higher-level summary to the user.  Even if it hasn't been done in exactly this scenario (which is apparently what the patent office thinks is "novel"), similar things have been done often enough that it's certainly not patent-worthy... that is, it's obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but you have to understand that none of the / .
editors knows anything about patents , which is why summaries on patent-related stories always cite completely irrelevant information that has nothing at all to do with what is actually patented .
This despite nearly a decade of people who DO know something about patents pointing it out.What people who claim to know something about patents " point out " is contradicted by the actual prosecution of patent violations , where the claims are construed rather more broadly than patent fans would imply.In any case , that limitation is not significant .
You could argue that aggregating multiple access points within the same ESSID covers it .
But even if it does n't , there 's nothing patent-worthy about abstracting carrier information to present a higher-level summary to the user .
Even if it has n't been done in exactly this scenario ( which is apparently what the patent office thinks is " novel " ) , similar things have been done often enough that it 's certainly not patent-worthy... that is , it 's obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but you have to understand that none of the /.
editors knows anything about patents, which is why summaries on patent-related stories always cite completely irrelevant information that has nothing at all to do with what is actually patented.
This despite nearly a decade of people who DO know something about patents pointing it out.What people who claim to know something about patents "point out" is contradicted by the actual prosecution of patent violations, where the claims are construed rather more broadly than patent fans would imply.In any case, that limitation is not significant.
You could argue that aggregating multiple access points within the same ESSID covers it.
But even if it doesn't, there's nothing patent-worthy about abstracting carrier information to present a higher-level summary to the user.
Even if it hasn't been done in exactly this scenario (which is apparently what the patent office thinks is "novel"), similar things have been done often enough that it's certainly not patent-worthy... that is, it's obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447361</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bring back real patent examiners now?</title>
	<author>rminsk</author>
	<datestamp>1245761460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For complete context here is the <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=OfwkAAAAEBAJ" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Method of exercising a cat</a> [google.com] patent.
<br> <br>A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For complete context here is the Method of exercising a cat [ google.com ] patent .
A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat , then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats , and to any other animal with a chase instinct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For complete context here is the Method of exercising a cat [google.com] patent.
A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448189</id>
	<title>Re:Boingo.</title>
	<author>$pace6host</author>
	<datestamp>1245768480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was traveling a bit recently, and a lot of the WiFi hotspots in airports, restaurants and hotels were free (or included with whatever purchase you were already making). Most of the ones that weren't could be accessed with Boingo, so I looked into it a little. It seems that their "innovation" is that they are a network of networks. The actual WiFi service provider that you use might be AT&amp;T or Wayport, but a Boingo subscription gets you access to all of them. I think the patent is intended to cover their method of identifying Boingo-member networks and listing those. They have special software you can download for that, though you don't need it. You can simply use the advertised SSIDs of the WiFi hotspots themselves. Their "innovation" is looking up the SSIDs in the network database for you, to automatically identify which networks are part of Boingo, consolidating the list, and then letting you have preferences as to which networks show up on the top of the list. I prefer open standards myself. I also prefer to places that offer their WiFi for free - so I decided not to subscribe and they can keep their patented technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was traveling a bit recently , and a lot of the WiFi hotspots in airports , restaurants and hotels were free ( or included with whatever purchase you were already making ) .
Most of the ones that were n't could be accessed with Boingo , so I looked into it a little .
It seems that their " innovation " is that they are a network of networks .
The actual WiFi service provider that you use might be AT&amp;T or Wayport , but a Boingo subscription gets you access to all of them .
I think the patent is intended to cover their method of identifying Boingo-member networks and listing those .
They have special software you can download for that , though you do n't need it .
You can simply use the advertised SSIDs of the WiFi hotspots themselves .
Their " innovation " is looking up the SSIDs in the network database for you , to automatically identify which networks are part of Boingo , consolidating the list , and then letting you have preferences as to which networks show up on the top of the list .
I prefer open standards myself .
I also prefer to places that offer their WiFi for free - so I decided not to subscribe and they can keep their patented technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was traveling a bit recently, and a lot of the WiFi hotspots in airports, restaurants and hotels were free (or included with whatever purchase you were already making).
Most of the ones that weren't could be accessed with Boingo, so I looked into it a little.
It seems that their "innovation" is that they are a network of networks.
The actual WiFi service provider that you use might be AT&amp;T or Wayport, but a Boingo subscription gets you access to all of them.
I think the patent is intended to cover their method of identifying Boingo-member networks and listing those.
They have special software you can download for that, though you don't need it.
You can simply use the advertised SSIDs of the WiFi hotspots themselves.
Their "innovation" is looking up the SSIDs in the network database for you, to automatically identify which networks are part of Boingo, consolidating the list, and then letting you have preferences as to which networks show up on the top of the list.
I prefer open standards myself.
I also prefer to places that offer their WiFi for free - so I decided not to subscribe and they can keep their patented technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28454587</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible</title>
	<author>DeskLazer</author>
	<datestamp>1245866280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can you please put this in a car analogy for some of us?  this is slashdot after all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>can you please put this in a car analogy for some of us ?
this is slashdot after all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can you please put this in a car analogy for some of us?
this is slashdot after all...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450371</id>
	<title>Re:The key element of the claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is software which displays whether you have a password for given network stored or if you had connected with it in the past.</p><p>But I doubt I'm authorized to access 90\% of the networks I have on my list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is software which displays whether you have a password for given network stored or if you had connected with it in the past.But I doubt I 'm authorized to access 90 \ % of the networks I have on my list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is software which displays whether you have a password for given network stored or if you had connected with it in the past.But I doubt I'm authorized to access 90\% of the networks I have on my list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447423</id>
	<title>May it fuse to their arm as -4 to hit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245761820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"whether or how they will attempt to wield this patent."</p><p>And I hope they don't have a "Remove Curse" scroll either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" whether or how they will attempt to wield this patent .
" And I hope they do n't have a " Remove Curse " scroll either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"whether or how they will attempt to wield this patent.
"And I hope they don't have a "Remove Curse" scroll either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451177</id>
	<title>Re:The key element of the claims</title>
	<author>cbiltcliffe</author>
	<datestamp>1245850500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I open my laptop in a dense AP area, and check for wireless networks, I see:</p><p>linksys     Automatic<br>Unsecured wireless network</p><p>dlink   Automatic<br>Unsecured Wireless network</p><p>store348<br>Security Enabled wireless network</p><p>shop<br>Security Enabled wireless network (WPA)</p><p>Your security sucks<br>Unsecured wireless network</p><p>My Business Network   Automatic<br>Security Enabled wireless network (WPA)</p><p>See those three "Automatic" labels?  That's displayed by checking a database to see if I'm authorized to access that network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I open my laptop in a dense AP area , and check for wireless networks , I see : linksys AutomaticUnsecured wireless networkdlink AutomaticUnsecured Wireless networkstore348Security Enabled wireless networkshopSecurity Enabled wireless network ( WPA ) Your security sucksUnsecured wireless networkMy Business Network AutomaticSecurity Enabled wireless network ( WPA ) See those three " Automatic " labels ?
That 's displayed by checking a database to see if I 'm authorized to access that network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I open my laptop in a dense AP area, and check for wireless networks, I see:linksys     AutomaticUnsecured wireless networkdlink   AutomaticUnsecured Wireless networkstore348Security Enabled wireless networkshopSecurity Enabled wireless network (WPA)Your security sucksUnsecured wireless networkMy Business Network   AutomaticSecurity Enabled wireless network (WPA)See those three "Automatic" labels?
That's displayed by checking a database to see if I'm authorized to access that network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447087</id>
	<title>First post god strikes again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245759600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>4 times in 5 days. Suck it up baby!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 times in 5 days .
Suck it up baby !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4 times in 5 days.
Suck it up baby!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448621</id>
	<title>Re:20080270152</title>
	<author>roemcke</author>
	<datestamp>1245773460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they get this patent and start going after patent trolls. Often pantents are aquired for defensive purposes, so that you can countersue if somebody sues you. Normally patent trolls doesn't produce any products, so there is no way to sue them for patent infrigment to protect yourself, except if you own a patent for abusing the patent system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they get this patent and start going after patent trolls .
Often pantents are aquired for defensive purposes , so that you can countersue if somebody sues you .
Normally patent trolls does n't produce any products , so there is no way to sue them for patent infrigment to protect yourself , except if you own a patent for abusing the patent system : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they get this patent and start going after patent trolls.
Often pantents are aquired for defensive purposes, so that you can countersue if somebody sues you.
Normally patent trolls doesn't produce any products, so there is no way to sue them for patent infrigment to protect yourself, except if you own a patent for abusing the patent system :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447535</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bring back real patent examiners now?</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1245762540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess without looking up the prosecution history on Public PAIR (which anyone could do when the system is up) is that the key limitation here is that you have to get carrier network information from an access point database using the carrier network identifiers as a key.</p><p>Unfortunately, some internal databases at the USPTO have been down all day today, and that includes the databases that supply data to Public PAIR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess without looking up the prosecution history on Public PAIR ( which anyone could do when the system is up ) is that the key limitation here is that you have to get carrier network information from an access point database using the carrier network identifiers as a key.Unfortunately , some internal databases at the USPTO have been down all day today , and that includes the databases that supply data to Public PAIR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess without looking up the prosecution history on Public PAIR (which anyone could do when the system is up) is that the key limitation here is that you have to get carrier network information from an access point database using the carrier network identifiers as a key.Unfortunately, some internal databases at the USPTO have been down all day today, and that includes the databases that supply data to Public PAIR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447189</id>
	<title>They Mention Wi-Fi In Their Patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245760200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they mention Wi-Fi in their patent doesn't the patent invalidate itself by itself referring to prior art?<br>--<br><a href="http://www.adaptiveapp.com/jobfrenzy" title="adaptiveapp.com" rel="nofollow">Job Frenzy</a> [adaptiveapp.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they mention Wi-Fi in their patent does n't the patent invalidate itself by itself referring to prior art ? --Job Frenzy [ adaptiveapp.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they mention Wi-Fi in their patent doesn't the patent invalidate itself by itself referring to prior art?--Job Frenzy [adaptiveapp.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28456885</id>
	<title>Re:The key element of the claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of software from mobility network aggregators has knowledge of whether or not it can connect an authenticate to a network using cached credentials. of course the creds could be expired and the network could reject, but they still know.  Look up iPass and Fiberlink</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of software from mobility network aggregators has knowledge of whether or not it can connect an authenticate to a network using cached credentials .
of course the creds could be expired and the network could reject , but they still know .
Look up iPass and Fiberlink</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of software from mobility network aggregators has knowledge of whether or not it can connect an authenticate to a network using cached credentials.
of course the creds could be expired and the network could reject, but they still know.
Look up iPass and Fiberlink</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447889</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245765480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The significance is apparently that one is presumably charging for access to a specific hot spot rather than to the other ones in the area. Doesn't make it any more valid, but it does appear to mean commercial services rather than unprotected WAP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The significance is apparently that one is presumably charging for access to a specific hot spot rather than to the other ones in the area .
Does n't make it any more valid , but it does appear to mean commercial services rather than unprotected WAP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The significance is apparently that one is presumably charging for access to a specific hot spot rather than to the other ones in the area.
Doesn't make it any more valid, but it does appear to mean commercial services rather than unprotected WAP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305</id>
	<title>Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245761040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent seems to be related to the mobile device <i>specifically</i> accessing a "hot-spot".  Just how the heck are they supposed to license this and make money?</p><p>Any mobile device can connect up to wireless that does not necessarily qualify as a hotspot.  So how can you force a mobile phone manufacturer, a netbook manufacturer, a laptop manufacturer, etc. to pay royalties when there is no guarantee that the device will <i>ever</i> be used to access a hotspot?  I understand they have a patent, but I don't find that reasonable.</p><p>To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim, "well it could be used to juice oranges".</p><p>They could go after the people hosting wireless hotspots that the devices would be accessing or the access point manufacturers, but the claim is on the client device......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent seems to be related to the mobile device specifically accessing a " hot-spot " .
Just how the heck are they supposed to license this and make money ? Any mobile device can connect up to wireless that does not necessarily qualify as a hotspot .
So how can you force a mobile phone manufacturer , a netbook manufacturer , a laptop manufacturer , etc .
to pay royalties when there is no guarantee that the device will ever be used to access a hotspot ?
I understand they have a patent , but I do n't find that reasonable.To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim , " well it could be used to juice oranges " .They could go after the people hosting wireless hotspots that the devices would be accessing or the access point manufacturers , but the claim is on the client device..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent seems to be related to the mobile device specifically accessing a "hot-spot".
Just how the heck are they supposed to license this and make money?Any mobile device can connect up to wireless that does not necessarily qualify as a hotspot.
So how can you force a mobile phone manufacturer, a netbook manufacturer, a laptop manufacturer, etc.
to pay royalties when there is no guarantee that the device will ever be used to access a hotspot?
I understand they have a patent, but I don't find that reasonable.To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim, "well it could be used to juice oranges".They could go after the people hosting wireless hotspots that the devices would be accessing or the access point manufacturers, but the claim is on the client device......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451637</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bring back real patent examiners now?</title>
	<author>PsiCTO</author>
	<datestamp>1245854220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, not before my application for the indexing of data volumes (with a preferred embodiment based on vegetable dyes stamped onto processed cellulose sheets) such that information such as authorship, data category, repository location, publication date, publisher, and such is presented in an index consisting of cards (see later preferred embodiments) arranged in stacks contained by sliding card-holding racks (see later preferred embodiments for examples in wood and steel). Said racks are located in a central repository and locatable via instructions presented by a second invention (referenced therein) with preferred embodiments including signs, help desk brochures, verbal instruction from repository custodians, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , not before my application for the indexing of data volumes ( with a preferred embodiment based on vegetable dyes stamped onto processed cellulose sheets ) such that information such as authorship , data category , repository location , publication date , publisher , and such is presented in an index consisting of cards ( see later preferred embodiments ) arranged in stacks contained by sliding card-holding racks ( see later preferred embodiments for examples in wood and steel ) .
Said racks are located in a central repository and locatable via instructions presented by a second invention ( referenced therein ) with preferred embodiments including signs , help desk brochures , verbal instruction from repository custodians , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, not before my application for the indexing of data volumes (with a preferred embodiment based on vegetable dyes stamped onto processed cellulose sheets) such that information such as authorship, data category, repository location, publication date, publisher, and such is presented in an index consisting of cards (see later preferred embodiments) arranged in stacks contained by sliding card-holding racks (see later preferred embodiments for examples in wood and steel).
Said racks are located in a central repository and locatable via instructions presented by a second invention (referenced therein) with preferred embodiments including signs, help desk brochures, verbal instruction from repository custodians, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169</id>
	<title>Can we bring back real patent examiners now?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1245760080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This patent is beyond the Patent Office's usual idiocy and right up there with "method for playing with a cat with a laser".  I mean really, displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This patent is beyond the Patent Office 's usual idiocy and right up there with " method for playing with a cat with a laser " .
I mean really , displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This patent is beyond the Patent Office's usual idiocy and right up there with "method for playing with a cat with a laser".
I mean really, displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447163</id>
	<title>Wiki says FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245760080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifi\_hotspot</p><p>Publicly proposed in 1993.<br>Widely deployed by 1996.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifi \ _hotspotPublicly proposed in 1993.Widely deployed by 1996 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wifi\_hotspotPublicly proposed in 1993.Widely deployed by 1996.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28454519</id>
	<title>Re:Dead on arrival...</title>
	<author>DeskLazer</author>
	<datestamp>1245866040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wait a minute, are you that asshole that keeps parking in front of my apartment building with your laptop out and looking for an unsecured network?  our router is password protected.  get off our lawn!</htmltext>
<tokenext>wait a minute , are you that asshole that keeps parking in front of my apartment building with your laptop out and looking for an unsecured network ?
our router is password protected .
get off our lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait a minute, are you that asshole that keeps parking in front of my apartment building with your laptop out and looking for an unsecured network?
our router is password protected.
get off our lawn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449323</id>
	<title>RIP IP3 Networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245781380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"As you may be aware, we have been in litigation with Nomadix for over 18 months, and the financial and operational pressures of continuing that litigation have made it impossible for us to continue to operate. We have done everything in our power to avoid this step, but we have now run out of time, money and any viable alternatives."</p><p>Killed by Nomadix's patents: http://www.ip3.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" As you may be aware , we have been in litigation with Nomadix for over 18 months , and the financial and operational pressures of continuing that litigation have made it impossible for us to continue to operate .
We have done everything in our power to avoid this step , but we have now run out of time , money and any viable alternatives .
" Killed by Nomadix 's patents : http : //www.ip3.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As you may be aware, we have been in litigation with Nomadix for over 18 months, and the financial and operational pressures of continuing that litigation have made it impossible for us to continue to operate.
We have done everything in our power to avoid this step, but we have now run out of time, money and any viable alternatives.
"Killed by Nomadix's patents: http://www.ip3.com/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28472699</id>
	<title>DO NOT USE BOINGO, IT'S A SCAM - READ MY STORY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245925560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ask me Boingo sucks. I was pissed too, they did the same thing to me and refused to refund the extra charges. I live in FL, but Bogus Boingo Wireless is based in South Santa Monica, California. I wrote the attorney general there and asked him to investigate Boingo business practices. I have also filed a complaint with the FL state attorney and the CA Better Business Bureau. That is not all, I am on a mission. I bought ihateboingoDOTcom I am currently working on the website. Boingo needs to be exposed, they are conducting the same business practices that Blockbuster had attempted and looked where it took Blockbuster. If you do a search online, you&#226;(TM)ll see people complaining about fraudulent charges from all over the world. They will give you access alright as long as you give them unlimited access to your bank account. Here is my story</p><p>I was on vacation flying from ATL (Atlanta) to CDG (France). Since I was going to arrive to France late, I needed to contact my hotel and the car rental agency to let them know that I would arrive late. Unfortunately I had no way to call, my only option was through the Internet. When I fired up my browser, one of the option was Boingo - Bogus. I thought I sign up for just a month &#226;" a month later I was charged for another month. When I called to cancel the service, I was on hold for almost half hour. When I finally reached someone from customer service, she was very unhappy with me because I was canceling the service. The last monthly charge was on 6-15-09. I had sent an email to them instructing them to cancel the account and refund the $9.95. I got an email back saying please call customer service to cancel. To make a long story short customer service failed to refund me the $9.95 even though I have only used their service once. Boingo just made the biggest mistake because I will let the world know how sucks their service is. I enjoy demolishing greedy companies like Boingo. I was a big advocate when Blockbuster decided to sell movies to customers if they didn&#226;(TM)t return them without making customers aware of the charge beforehand &#226;" that has resulted blockbustervictimsDOTcom . I predict that Boingo will go out of business pretty soon if they continue on this path. The service itself is a mith, they are doing the same greedy things that several companies have tried and continue to do until someone like Math and others say enough is enough. It&#226;(TM)s good that they monitor blogs, but I don&#226;(TM)t think they&#226;(TM)ll be able to keep up &#226;" soon the internet will be flooded with hating Boingo Wireless website and I&#226;(TM)ll be the first one to put one up and report them. Bogus Boingo, you are in for a fight &#226;" see you on ihateboingoDOTcom and how about Bogusboingo.com GREED MY FRIEND, IT WILL TAKE YOU NOWHERE</p><p>A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IS NEXT - LOOKING FOR A LAWYER THAT WILL TAKE THE CASE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask me Boingo sucks .
I was pissed too , they did the same thing to me and refused to refund the extra charges .
I live in FL , but Bogus Boingo Wireless is based in South Santa Monica , California .
I wrote the attorney general there and asked him to investigate Boingo business practices .
I have also filed a complaint with the FL state attorney and the CA Better Business Bureau .
That is not all , I am on a mission .
I bought ihateboingoDOTcom I am currently working on the website .
Boingo needs to be exposed , they are conducting the same business practices that Blockbuster had attempted and looked where it took Blockbuster .
If you do a search online , you   ( TM ) ll see people complaining about fraudulent charges from all over the world .
They will give you access alright as long as you give them unlimited access to your bank account .
Here is my storyI was on vacation flying from ATL ( Atlanta ) to CDG ( France ) .
Since I was going to arrive to France late , I needed to contact my hotel and the car rental agency to let them know that I would arrive late .
Unfortunately I had no way to call , my only option was through the Internet .
When I fired up my browser , one of the option was Boingo - Bogus .
I thought I sign up for just a month   " a month later I was charged for another month .
When I called to cancel the service , I was on hold for almost half hour .
When I finally reached someone from customer service , she was very unhappy with me because I was canceling the service .
The last monthly charge was on 6-15-09 .
I had sent an email to them instructing them to cancel the account and refund the $ 9.95 .
I got an email back saying please call customer service to cancel .
To make a long story short customer service failed to refund me the $ 9.95 even though I have only used their service once .
Boingo just made the biggest mistake because I will let the world know how sucks their service is .
I enjoy demolishing greedy companies like Boingo .
I was a big advocate when Blockbuster decided to sell movies to customers if they didn   ( TM ) t return them without making customers aware of the charge beforehand   " that has resulted blockbustervictimsDOTcom .
I predict that Boingo will go out of business pretty soon if they continue on this path .
The service itself is a mith , they are doing the same greedy things that several companies have tried and continue to do until someone like Math and others say enough is enough .
It   ( TM ) s good that they monitor blogs , but I don   ( TM ) t think they   ( TM ) ll be able to keep up   " soon the internet will be flooded with hating Boingo Wireless website and I   ( TM ) ll be the first one to put one up and report them .
Bogus Boingo , you are in for a fight   " see you on ihateboingoDOTcom and how about Bogusboingo.com GREED MY FRIEND , IT WILL TAKE YOU NOWHEREA CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IS NEXT - LOOKING FOR A LAWYER THAT WILL TAKE THE CASE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask me Boingo sucks.
I was pissed too, they did the same thing to me and refused to refund the extra charges.
I live in FL, but Bogus Boingo Wireless is based in South Santa Monica, California.
I wrote the attorney general there and asked him to investigate Boingo business practices.
I have also filed a complaint with the FL state attorney and the CA Better Business Bureau.
That is not all, I am on a mission.
I bought ihateboingoDOTcom I am currently working on the website.
Boingo needs to be exposed, they are conducting the same business practices that Blockbuster had attempted and looked where it took Blockbuster.
If you do a search online, youâ(TM)ll see people complaining about fraudulent charges from all over the world.
They will give you access alright as long as you give them unlimited access to your bank account.
Here is my storyI was on vacation flying from ATL (Atlanta) to CDG (France).
Since I was going to arrive to France late, I needed to contact my hotel and the car rental agency to let them know that I would arrive late.
Unfortunately I had no way to call, my only option was through the Internet.
When I fired up my browser, one of the option was Boingo - Bogus.
I thought I sign up for just a month â" a month later I was charged for another month.
When I called to cancel the service, I was on hold for almost half hour.
When I finally reached someone from customer service, she was very unhappy with me because I was canceling the service.
The last monthly charge was on 6-15-09.
I had sent an email to them instructing them to cancel the account and refund the $9.95.
I got an email back saying please call customer service to cancel.
To make a long story short customer service failed to refund me the $9.95 even though I have only used their service once.
Boingo just made the biggest mistake because I will let the world know how sucks their service is.
I enjoy demolishing greedy companies like Boingo.
I was a big advocate when Blockbuster decided to sell movies to customers if they didnâ(TM)t return them without making customers aware of the charge beforehand â" that has resulted blockbustervictimsDOTcom .
I predict that Boingo will go out of business pretty soon if they continue on this path.
The service itself is a mith, they are doing the same greedy things that several companies have tried and continue to do until someone like Math and others say enough is enough.
Itâ(TM)s good that they monitor blogs, but I donâ(TM)t think theyâ(TM)ll be able to keep up â" soon the internet will be flooded with hating Boingo Wireless website and Iâ(TM)ll be the first one to put one up and report them.
Bogus Boingo, you are in for a fight â" see you on ihateboingoDOTcom and how about Bogusboingo.com GREED MY FRIEND, IT WILL TAKE YOU NOWHEREA CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IS NEXT - LOOKING FOR A LAWYER THAT WILL TAKE THE CASE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447293</id>
	<title>Can I just point out that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245760980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I just point out that a mobile phone is in itself a mobile computing device (even without the ability to "run" your app of choice or a command shell.
Even the "bricks" that people carried around circa 1985 had more CPU power than most computers.

This patent is invalid right from the get go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I just point out that a mobile phone is in itself a mobile computing device ( even without the ability to " run " your app of choice or a command shell .
Even the " bricks " that people carried around circa 1985 had more CPU power than most computers .
This patent is invalid right from the get go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I just point out that a mobile phone is in itself a mobile computing device (even without the ability to "run" your app of choice or a command shell.
Even the "bricks" that people carried around circa 1985 had more CPU power than most computers.
This patent is invalid right from the get go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450217</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245835320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The retailer of the software which displays the list of SSIDs and allows the mobile device to connect to the hotspot will be charged with royalties. The device manufacture is only responsible for the driver which falls outside this patent</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The retailer of the software which displays the list of SSIDs and allows the mobile device to connect to the hotspot will be charged with royalties .
The device manufacture is only responsible for the driver which falls outside this patent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The retailer of the software which displays the list of SSIDs and allows the mobile device to connect to the hotspot will be charged with royalties.
The device manufacture is only responsible for the driver which falls outside this patent</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448085</id>
	<title>Re:Tear it down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245767340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It serves it's purpose.</p><p>revenue generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It serves it 's purpose.revenue generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It serves it's purpose.revenue generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447677</id>
	<title>Please tell me I am misunderstanding this</title>
	<author>FunPika</author>
	<datestamp>1245763800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So basically Boingo can file patent infringement lawsuits against any company that makes Wi-Fi products which show a list of access points within range.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically Boingo can file patent infringement lawsuits against any company that makes Wi-Fi products which show a list of access points within range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically Boingo can file patent infringement lawsuits against any company that makes Wi-Fi products which show a list of access points within range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447105</id>
	<title>How interesting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245759720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard Hitler was awarded a patent for his Jew Hotspot technology.  Today we know it as the convection oven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard Hitler was awarded a patent for his Jew Hotspot technology .
Today we know it as the convection oven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard Hitler was awarded a patent for his Jew Hotspot technology.
Today we know it as the convection oven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447609</id>
	<title>This is not innovation</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1245763140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if no one had thought of this before (which is not really true), this is the kind of thing that once a need presents itself, hundreds or thousands of people would think up how to do this.  This is nowhere near the kind of thing that justifies the patent system concepts (of taking the rights away from possible other inventors because it is a concept that was not likely to have other inventors).  The patent system is supposed to reward the inventor for creating something that we would otherwise have not had.  But this is a case of something we most certainly would have almost as soon as the need is first experienced.  The only advantage of a prior-to-the-need invention in this case is a few weeks lead time on the initial development, at most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if no one had thought of this before ( which is not really true ) , this is the kind of thing that once a need presents itself , hundreds or thousands of people would think up how to do this .
This is nowhere near the kind of thing that justifies the patent system concepts ( of taking the rights away from possible other inventors because it is a concept that was not likely to have other inventors ) .
The patent system is supposed to reward the inventor for creating something that we would otherwise have not had .
But this is a case of something we most certainly would have almost as soon as the need is first experienced .
The only advantage of a prior-to-the-need invention in this case is a few weeks lead time on the initial development , at most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if no one had thought of this before (which is not really true), this is the kind of thing that once a need presents itself, hundreds or thousands of people would think up how to do this.
This is nowhere near the kind of thing that justifies the patent system concepts (of taking the rights away from possible other inventors because it is a concept that was not likely to have other inventors).
The patent system is supposed to reward the inventor for creating something that we would otherwise have not had.
But this is a case of something we most certainly would have almost as soon as the need is first experienced.
The only advantage of a prior-to-the-need invention in this case is a few weeks lead time on the initial development, at most.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28452135</id>
	<title>Re:Boingo.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And now some idiot mod thinks that somehow talking about Boingo in an article about Boingo is offtopic? Slashdot is full of retards now.</p><p>REPEAT AFTER ME: MODERATION IS NOT USED TO CENSOR THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And now some idiot mod thinks that somehow talking about Boingo in an article about Boingo is offtopic ?
Slashdot is full of retards now.REPEAT AFTER ME : MODERATION IS NOT USED TO CENSOR THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now some idiot mod thinks that somehow talking about Boingo in an article about Boingo is offtopic?
Slashdot is full of retards now.REPEAT AFTER ME: MODERATION IS NOT USED TO CENSOR THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451711</id>
	<title>Re:Tear it down</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1245854640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US Patent Office should be eliminated. It doesn't serve its intended purpose, and the way patents are reviewed indicates that the people examining them either don't often have a clue on what is obvious or non-obvious, or that there is massive corruption and the finances of the examiners need forensic investigation.</p></div><p>So, since you're such an expert, please tell us - what is "obvious"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Patent Office should be eliminated .
It does n't serve its intended purpose , and the way patents are reviewed indicates that the people examining them either do n't often have a clue on what is obvious or non-obvious , or that there is massive corruption and the finances of the examiners need forensic investigation.So , since you 're such an expert , please tell us - what is " obvious " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Patent Office should be eliminated.
It doesn't serve its intended purpose, and the way patents are reviewed indicates that the people examining them either don't often have a clue on what is obvious or non-obvious, or that there is massive corruption and the finances of the examiners need forensic investigation.So, since you're such an expert, please tell us - what is "obvious"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449755</id>
	<title>Re:WTF!</title>
	<author>Gresyth</author>
	<datestamp>1245786060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As of 5-19-2009 Haliburton filed a request for reconsideration of their patent application being rejected on 2-19-2009. <a href="http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA\_1\_0\_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FUWRR4H6PPOPPY4&amp;lang=DINO" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA\_1\_0\_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FUWRR4H6PPOPPY4&amp;lang=DINO</a> [uspto.gov]

The NON-Final rejection of all claims, 53 page pdf <a href="http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA\_1\_0\_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FRDIGQCZPPOPPY5&amp;lang=DINO" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA\_1\_0\_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FRDIGQCZPPOPPY5&amp;lang=DINO</a> [uspto.gov] I would think for this nonsense they could have just skipped straight to the FINAL rejection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As of 5-19-2009 Haliburton filed a request for reconsideration of their patent application being rejected on 2-19-2009. http : //portal.uspto.gov/external/PA \ _1 \ _0 \ _15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet ? objectId = FUWRR4H6PPOPPY4&amp;lang = DINO [ uspto.gov ] The NON-Final rejection of all claims , 53 page pdf http : //portal.uspto.gov/external/PA \ _1 \ _0 \ _15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet ? objectId = FRDIGQCZPPOPPY5&amp;lang = DINO [ uspto.gov ] I would think for this nonsense they could have just skipped straight to the FINAL rejection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of 5-19-2009 Haliburton filed a request for reconsideration of their patent application being rejected on 2-19-2009. http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA\_1\_0\_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FUWRR4H6PPOPPY4&amp;lang=DINO [uspto.gov]

The NON-Final rejection of all claims, 53 page pdf http://portal.uspto.gov/external/PA\_1\_0\_15H/view/BrowsePdfServlet?objectId=FRDIGQCZPPOPPY5&amp;lang=DINO [uspto.gov] I would think for this nonsense they could have just skipped straight to the FINAL rejection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211</id>
	<title>Dead on arrival...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245760380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The independent claims contain the key limitation:
<p>wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list
</p><p>so if you see multiple Starbucks SSIDS, you just display one on the list to pick from.
</p><p>it would seem, therefore, that if you do not perform this step of aggregating the two or more network identifiers associated with a common network system, you've avoided this patent.
</p><p>HINT: show 'em all, even if it means showing multiple Starbucks.
</p><p>My favourite carrier when I'm on the road? LINKSYS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The independent claims contain the key limitation : wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list so if you see multiple Starbucks SSIDS , you just display one on the list to pick from .
it would seem , therefore , that if you do not perform this step of aggregating the two or more network identifiers associated with a common network system , you 've avoided this patent .
HINT : show 'em all , even if it means showing multiple Starbucks .
My favourite carrier when I 'm on the road ?
LINKSYS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The independent claims contain the key limitation:
wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list
so if you see multiple Starbucks SSIDS, you just display one on the list to pick from.
it would seem, therefore, that if you do not perform this step of aggregating the two or more network identifiers associated with a common network system, you've avoided this patent.
HINT: show 'em all, even if it means showing multiple Starbucks.
My favourite carrier when I'm on the road?
LINKSYS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448555</id>
	<title>Re:Dead on arrival...</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1245772860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the common carrier can be simply construed as the internet as proxied by ISPs. Identifiers can simply be IP addresses - when viewed as a tuple (ap, ip) the ips are unique. Note that it does not logically matter which ap or isp is chosen for a network connection. My laptop certainly maintains a list (database) of access points, and attendant information (passwords).</p><p>I can pick one from the list, or one will be automatically chosen.</p><p>The iPhone is even more interesting here; it even switches between cellular and wifi.</p><p>As far as I can tell, this patent locks up everything currently in play for wifi - Linux NetworkManager conflicts, as does the iPhone, and, I believe Windows.</p><p>iwconfig and ifconfig in Linux would NOT conflict, but, outside of some techies, no one uses that layer directly. Private networks are also not affected.</p><p>The most interesting question is: who should pay? The invention doesn't come together until a number of elements are combined - the ap, a common network, a connection list. Remove any one of these elements, and (from my read) the invention ceases to exist. We won't be getting rid of the common network, so it will be "client side" payouts -- either on the aps, or the software that remembers aps. aps themselves don't infringe, so the only item left is the software that maintains and manages the connection list. NetworkManager.</p><p>My response to that? They would be serious asshats to actually USE this patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the common carrier can be simply construed as the internet as proxied by ISPs .
Identifiers can simply be IP addresses - when viewed as a tuple ( ap , ip ) the ips are unique .
Note that it does not logically matter which ap or isp is chosen for a network connection .
My laptop certainly maintains a list ( database ) of access points , and attendant information ( passwords ) .I can pick one from the list , or one will be automatically chosen.The iPhone is even more interesting here ; it even switches between cellular and wifi.As far as I can tell , this patent locks up everything currently in play for wifi - Linux NetworkManager conflicts , as does the iPhone , and , I believe Windows.iwconfig and ifconfig in Linux would NOT conflict , but , outside of some techies , no one uses that layer directly .
Private networks are also not affected.The most interesting question is : who should pay ?
The invention does n't come together until a number of elements are combined - the ap , a common network , a connection list .
Remove any one of these elements , and ( from my read ) the invention ceases to exist .
We wo n't be getting rid of the common network , so it will be " client side " payouts -- either on the aps , or the software that remembers aps .
aps themselves do n't infringe , so the only item left is the software that maintains and manages the connection list .
NetworkManager.My response to that ?
They would be serious asshats to actually USE this patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the common carrier can be simply construed as the internet as proxied by ISPs.
Identifiers can simply be IP addresses - when viewed as a tuple (ap, ip) the ips are unique.
Note that it does not logically matter which ap or isp is chosen for a network connection.
My laptop certainly maintains a list (database) of access points, and attendant information (passwords).I can pick one from the list, or one will be automatically chosen.The iPhone is even more interesting here; it even switches between cellular and wifi.As far as I can tell, this patent locks up everything currently in play for wifi - Linux NetworkManager conflicts, as does the iPhone, and, I believe Windows.iwconfig and ifconfig in Linux would NOT conflict, but, outside of some techies, no one uses that layer directly.
Private networks are also not affected.The most interesting question is: who should pay?
The invention doesn't come together until a number of elements are combined - the ap, a common network, a connection list.
Remove any one of these elements, and (from my read) the invention ceases to exist.
We won't be getting rid of the common network, so it will be "client side" payouts -- either on the aps, or the software that remembers aps.
aps themselves don't infringe, so the only item left is the software that maintains and manages the connection list.
NetworkManager.My response to that?
They would be serious asshats to actually USE this patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347</id>
	<title>The key element of the claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245761280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is one key element of the claims that no OS or device that I'm familiar with implements.  Specifically, the list of wireless networks presented to the user must include "getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers, wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network..."  In short, the list of networks must include whether or not the client is authorized to access each network.</p><p>To my knowledge, no OS or device does this inherently.  They may show that the network is encrypted or that it requires a username and password,   but those say nothing about whether the client is authorized (i.e., allowed or permitted) to access the network.  Even software that shows that a user is currently connected to a network that requires authentication only implies authorization and then only to that network, not any others.</p><p>So, as I read the patent, most existing software does not seem to infringe.  One possible infringer might be the Easy Wi-Fi app for the iPhone, but it has been made obsolete by iPhone OS 3, which auto-authenticates with AT&amp;T hotspots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one key element of the claims that no OS or device that I 'm familiar with implements .
Specifically , the list of wireless networks presented to the user must include " getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers , wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network... " In short , the list of networks must include whether or not the client is authorized to access each network.To my knowledge , no OS or device does this inherently .
They may show that the network is encrypted or that it requires a username and password , but those say nothing about whether the client is authorized ( i.e. , allowed or permitted ) to access the network .
Even software that shows that a user is currently connected to a network that requires authentication only implies authorization and then only to that network , not any others.So , as I read the patent , most existing software does not seem to infringe .
One possible infringer might be the Easy Wi-Fi app for the iPhone , but it has been made obsolete by iPhone OS 3 , which auto-authenticates with AT&amp;T hotspots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one key element of the claims that no OS or device that I'm familiar with implements.
Specifically, the list of wireless networks presented to the user must include "getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers, wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network..."  In short, the list of networks must include whether or not the client is authorized to access each network.To my knowledge, no OS or device does this inherently.
They may show that the network is encrypted or that it requires a username and password,   but those say nothing about whether the client is authorized (i.e., allowed or permitted) to access the network.
Even software that shows that a user is currently connected to a network that requires authentication only implies authorization and then only to that network, not any others.So, as I read the patent, most existing software does not seem to infringe.
One possible infringer might be the Easy Wi-Fi app for the iPhone, but it has been made obsolete by iPhone OS 3, which auto-authenticates with AT&amp;T hotspots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447661</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bring back real patent examiners now?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1245763560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry. Someone already filed an application on "Method for replacing chimpanzees weilding 'APPROVED' stamps with human examiners".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry .
Someone already filed an application on " Method for replacing chimpanzees weilding 'APPROVED ' stamps with human examiners " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry.
Someone already filed an application on "Method for replacing chimpanzees weilding 'APPROVED' stamps with human examiners".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447829</id>
	<title>Re:Dead on arrival...</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1245765000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The independent claims contain the key limitation</i></p><p>Yeah, but you have to understand that none of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors knows anything about patents, which is why summaries on patent-related stories always cite completely irrelevant information that has nothing at all to do with what is actually patented.  This despite nearly a decade of people who DO know something about patents pointing it out.</p><p>It's kind of sad, really.  Nerds are supposed to be all up on the facts, but as patent stories on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. make clear, the editors and most of the readership don't care about facts at all, which is why they insist on treating totally unrelated information, like the patent abstract, as if it had something to do with what is actually being patented.  It doesn't, and anyone who knows anything about patents knows that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The independent claims contain the key limitationYeah , but you have to understand that none of the / .
editors knows anything about patents , which is why summaries on patent-related stories always cite completely irrelevant information that has nothing at all to do with what is actually patented .
This despite nearly a decade of people who DO know something about patents pointing it out.It 's kind of sad , really .
Nerds are supposed to be all up on the facts , but as patent stories on / .
make clear , the editors and most of the readership do n't care about facts at all , which is why they insist on treating totally unrelated information , like the patent abstract , as if it had something to do with what is actually being patented .
It does n't , and anyone who knows anything about patents knows that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The independent claims contain the key limitationYeah, but you have to understand that none of the /.
editors knows anything about patents, which is why summaries on patent-related stories always cite completely irrelevant information that has nothing at all to do with what is actually patented.
This despite nearly a decade of people who DO know something about patents pointing it out.It's kind of sad, really.
Nerds are supposed to be all up on the facts, but as patent stories on /.
make clear, the editors and most of the readership don't care about facts at all, which is why they insist on treating totally unrelated information, like the patent abstract, as if it had something to do with what is actually being patented.
It doesn't, and anyone who knows anything about patents knows that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447137</id>
	<title>WTF!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245759900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Halliburton patented this tactic back in 2008: <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/10/1651236&amp;from=rss" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/10/1651236&amp;from=rss</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Boingo is infringing another corporation's intellectual property!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Halliburton patented this tactic back in 2008 : http : //yro.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/11/10/1651236&amp;from = rss [ slashdot.org ] Boingo is infringing another corporation 's intellectual property !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Halliburton patented this tactic back in 2008: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/10/1651236&amp;from=rss [slashdot.org]Boingo is infringing another corporation's intellectual property!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447797</id>
	<title>Unbelievable</title>
	<author>EmmDashNine</author>
	<datestamp>1245764760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is patent trolling at the worst.  While they may have a product that actually uses the technology covered by the patent, the patent will end up serving them more by allowing them to squeeze others for existing products.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent\_troll" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Patent\_troll</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is patent trolling at the worst .
While they may have a product that actually uses the technology covered by the patent , the patent will end up serving them more by allowing them to squeeze others for existing products .
Patent \ _troll [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is patent trolling at the worst.
While they may have a product that actually uses the technology covered by the patent, the patent will end up serving them more by allowing them to squeeze others for existing products.
Patent\_troll [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447787</id>
	<title>Boingo.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245764700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boingo is a company that was founded by the founder of Earthlink, Sky Dayton, back in 2001. His idea was to create a nationwide (and later global) network of hotspots, much like Wayport provides. It never took off. The USPTO is slow. Big deal, this isn't a patent troll company. It's a legitimate business that provides a very large network of hotspots. But of course this is Slashdot where nobody actually reads the article or researches what is being talked about and just jumps to conclusions.</p><p>Hell, he rented a house from my family out in California when he was starting this company and we got free Internet access from him in exchange for beta testing his service. Wayport has been around longer than Boingo, but didn't get into the wireless hotspot business until 2004. I really don't know what to make of this patent though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boingo is a company that was founded by the founder of Earthlink , Sky Dayton , back in 2001 .
His idea was to create a nationwide ( and later global ) network of hotspots , much like Wayport provides .
It never took off .
The USPTO is slow .
Big deal , this is n't a patent troll company .
It 's a legitimate business that provides a very large network of hotspots .
But of course this is Slashdot where nobody actually reads the article or researches what is being talked about and just jumps to conclusions.Hell , he rented a house from my family out in California when he was starting this company and we got free Internet access from him in exchange for beta testing his service .
Wayport has been around longer than Boingo , but did n't get into the wireless hotspot business until 2004 .
I really do n't know what to make of this patent though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boingo is a company that was founded by the founder of Earthlink, Sky Dayton, back in 2001.
His idea was to create a nationwide (and later global) network of hotspots, much like Wayport provides.
It never took off.
The USPTO is slow.
Big deal, this isn't a patent troll company.
It's a legitimate business that provides a very large network of hotspots.
But of course this is Slashdot where nobody actually reads the article or researches what is being talked about and just jumps to conclusions.Hell, he rented a house from my family out in California when he was starting this company and we got free Internet access from him in exchange for beta testing his service.
Wayport has been around longer than Boingo, but didn't get into the wireless hotspot business until 2004.
I really don't know what to make of this patent though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577</id>
	<title>Tear it down</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1245762960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US Patent Office should be eliminated. It doesn't serve its intended purpose, and the way patents are reviewed indicates that the people examining them either don't often have a clue on what is obvious or non-obvious, or that there is massive corruption and the finances of the examiners need forensic investigation.</p><p>I think there are way to many lawsuits out there, usually motivated by greed, but is it possible for people to launch a class action lawsuit to simply stop an entity from operating?</p><p>It seems like the concept of free market economy and all-encompassing corporate patents are at opposite ends of the spectrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US Patent Office should be eliminated .
It does n't serve its intended purpose , and the way patents are reviewed indicates that the people examining them either do n't often have a clue on what is obvious or non-obvious , or that there is massive corruption and the finances of the examiners need forensic investigation.I think there are way to many lawsuits out there , usually motivated by greed , but is it possible for people to launch a class action lawsuit to simply stop an entity from operating ? It seems like the concept of free market economy and all-encompassing corporate patents are at opposite ends of the spectrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US Patent Office should be eliminated.
It doesn't serve its intended purpose, and the way patents are reviewed indicates that the people examining them either don't often have a clue on what is obvious or non-obvious, or that there is massive corruption and the finances of the examiners need forensic investigation.I think there are way to many lawsuits out there, usually motivated by greed, but is it possible for people to launch a class action lawsuit to simply stop an entity from operating?It seems like the concept of free market economy and all-encompassing corporate patents are at opposite ends of the spectrum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449899</id>
	<title>Re:Dead on arrival...</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1245874320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list</p><p>so if you see multiple Starbucks SSIDS, you just display one on the list to pick from.</p><p>it would seem, therefore, that if you do not perform this step of aggregating the two or more network identifiers associated with a common network system, you've avoided this patent.</p></div></blockquote><p>Group multiple entries as being equivalent and only displaying one. Who could ever have thought of that novel concept!!???</p><p>Now I'm really convinced that current IP laws do indeed promote the creation and dissemination of new ideas!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable listso if you see multiple Starbucks SSIDS , you just display one on the list to pick from.it would seem , therefore , that if you do not perform this step of aggregating the two or more network identifiers associated with a common network system , you 've avoided this patent.Group multiple entries as being equivalent and only displaying one .
Who could ever have thought of that novel concept ! ! ? ?
? Now I 'm really convinced that current IP laws do indeed promote the creation and dissemination of new ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable listso if you see multiple Starbucks SSIDS, you just display one on the list to pick from.it would seem, therefore, that if you do not perform this step of aggregating the two or more network identifiers associated with a common network system, you've avoided this patent.Group multiple entries as being equivalent and only displaying one.
Who could ever have thought of that novel concept!!??
?Now I'm really convinced that current IP laws do indeed promote the creation and dissemination of new ideas!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450419</id>
	<title>In this one particular case...</title>
	<author>hotdiggity</author>
	<datestamp>1245839040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I'm okay with this superfluous patent. </p><p>Normally, I'd be outraged (okay, maybe just irritated) with patenting something this silly. But if the end result is the prevention of somebody reproducing Boingo's client, we all win. </p><p>The Boingo client is just another resident program that adds <i>nothing useful</i> to the desktop environment. It just delays my boot up time, takes up memory, and occasionally crashes or updates itself. If I wanted that, I'd get Adobe Reader, thanks. </p><p>When I rush through an airport and want Wifi, I <i>don't</i> want to have to install a client. Windows may not get everything right, but it has a perfectly good wifi selection system that other hotspot providers are okay with. Maybe this patent will prevent OS's from incorporating this marginally useful feature, and that might be a shame (if anyone really cares). But I don't want hotspot-specific software on my computer, doubtlessly pushing advertising and God knows what else upon me. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'm okay with this superfluous patent .
Normally , I 'd be outraged ( okay , maybe just irritated ) with patenting something this silly .
But if the end result is the prevention of somebody reproducing Boingo 's client , we all win .
The Boingo client is just another resident program that adds nothing useful to the desktop environment .
It just delays my boot up time , takes up memory , and occasionally crashes or updates itself .
If I wanted that , I 'd get Adobe Reader , thanks .
When I rush through an airport and want Wifi , I do n't want to have to install a client .
Windows may not get everything right , but it has a perfectly good wifi selection system that other hotspot providers are okay with .
Maybe this patent will prevent OS 's from incorporating this marginally useful feature , and that might be a shame ( if anyone really cares ) .
But I do n't want hotspot-specific software on my computer , doubtlessly pushing advertising and God knows what else upon me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'm okay with this superfluous patent.
Normally, I'd be outraged (okay, maybe just irritated) with patenting something this silly.
But if the end result is the prevention of somebody reproducing Boingo's client, we all win.
The Boingo client is just another resident program that adds nothing useful to the desktop environment.
It just delays my boot up time, takes up memory, and occasionally crashes or updates itself.
If I wanted that, I'd get Adobe Reader, thanks.
When I rush through an airport and want Wifi, I don't want to have to install a client.
Windows may not get everything right, but it has a perfectly good wifi selection system that other hotspot providers are okay with.
Maybe this patent will prevent OS's from incorporating this marginally useful feature, and that might be a shame (if anyone really cares).
But I don't want hotspot-specific software on my computer, doubtlessly pushing advertising and God knows what else upon me. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447631</id>
	<title>US Patent Office</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1245763320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Poster Child for PATHETIC!!!!  Speechless, simply speechless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Poster Child for PATHETIC ! ! ! !
Speechless , simply speechless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poster Child for PATHETIC!!!!
Speechless, simply speechless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448267</id>
	<title>I can see the civil suit now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245769380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boingo Inc. vs. 35:42:11:AA:EA:03, 432 US. 666.</p><p>Lawyer: You connected to a wireless network in Starbucks?<br>Defendant: Yes, that's correct.<br>Lawyer: No further questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boingo Inc. vs. 35 : 42 : 11 : AA : EA : 03 , 432 US .
666.Lawyer : You connected to a wireless network in Starbucks ? Defendant : Yes , that 's correct.Lawyer : No further questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boingo Inc. vs. 35:42:11:AA:EA:03, 432 US.
666.Lawyer: You connected to a wireless network in Starbucks?Defendant: Yes, that's correct.Lawyer: No further questions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447767</id>
	<title>Re:20080270152</title>
	<author>\_ivy\_ivy\_</author>
	<datestamp>1245764580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But wait!</p><p>I've applied for a patent for the method of patenting the process of abusing the patent system!</p><p> Too bad it's patently obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But wait ! I 've applied for a patent for the method of patenting the process of abusing the patent system !
Too bad it 's patently obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But wait!I've applied for a patent for the method of patenting the process of abusing the patent system!
Too bad it's patently obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450335</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bring back real patent examiners now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... directing a beam of <i>visible</i> light<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>
There, fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... directing a beam of visible light .. . There , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... directing a beam of visible light ...
There, fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28456035</id>
	<title>Tired of this crap...</title>
	<author>decompiler</author>
	<datestamp>1245870960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't people just find an *honest* way to earn a living any more?  F'ing losers...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't people just find an * honest * way to earn a living any more ?
F'ing losers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't people just find an *honest* way to earn a living any more?
F'ing losers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447323</id>
	<title>The must be more to the patent</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245761160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>otherwise this won't last for very long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>otherwise this wo n't last for very long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>otherwise this won't last for very long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447369</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245761520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't the fact that WiFi hot spots exist in the first place count as prima facia evidence that there are already in existence methods of selecting and connecting to them? There would be no mobile hot spots if clients couldn't connect!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the fact that WiFi hot spots exist in the first place count as prima facia evidence that there are already in existence methods of selecting and connecting to them ?
There would be no mobile hot spots if clients could n't connect !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't the fact that WiFi hot spots exist in the first place count as prima facia evidence that there are already in existence methods of selecting and connecting to them?
There would be no mobile hot spots if clients couldn't connect!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447481</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1245762240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim, "well it could be used to juice oranges".</p></div><p>Or going after the recordable media manufacturers and  demanding royalties because "it <b>could</b> be used to record copyrighted media."  I have complete faith that such things would never come to pass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim , " well it could be used to juice oranges " .Or going after the recordable media manufacturers and demanding royalties because " it could be used to record copyrighted media .
" I have complete faith that such things would never come to pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me it would be the same as getting a patent on the act of juicing oranges and then asking royalties from every single juice machine manufacturer with the claim, "well it could be used to juice oranges".Or going after the recordable media manufacturers and  demanding royalties because "it could be used to record copyrighted media.
"  I have complete faith that such things would never come to pass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448145</id>
	<title>This makes me sad</title>
	<author>hampton</author>
	<datestamp>1245768000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sad enough to use a <a href="http://despair.com/frownonthis.html" title="despair.com">frowny</a> [despair.com].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(  (TM)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad enough to use a frowny [ despair.com ] .
: - ( ( TM )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad enough to use a frowny [despair.com].
:-(  (TM)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447737</id>
	<title>pointless</title>
	<author>Kebis</author>
	<datestamp>1245764340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me of McDonald's "how to make a sandwich" patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of McDonald 's " how to make a sandwich " patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of McDonald's "how to make a sandwich" patent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447135</id>
	<title>Re:First post god strikes again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245759900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;sarcasm&gt;Truly, there is no better way for you to win the hearts and minds of the ladies.  I salute you, and the epic amounts of pussy you are about to score.&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truly , there is no better way for you to win the hearts and minds of the ladies .
I salute you , and the epic amounts of pussy you are about to score .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truly, there is no better way for you to win the hearts and minds of the ladies.
I salute you, and the epic amounts of pussy you are about to score.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447087</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448121</id>
	<title>Re:20080270152</title>
	<author>laughingcoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1245767640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought you were kidding until I saw the link, even then I didn't really think it would link to a patent application for that...</p><p>In any case, though, I'm sorry to inform Halliburton that there's a <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1153299926232" title="law.com">bit of prior art</a> [law.com] on patent trolling. Though I'd almost hope they get it, if for no other reason than to see the irony of a patent troll getting sued for patent infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought you were kidding until I saw the link , even then I did n't really think it would link to a patent application for that...In any case , though , I 'm sorry to inform Halliburton that there 's a bit of prior art [ law.com ] on patent trolling .
Though I 'd almost hope they get it , if for no other reason than to see the irony of a patent troll getting sued for patent infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought you were kidding until I saw the link, even then I didn't really think it would link to a patent application for that...In any case, though, I'm sorry to inform Halliburton that there's a bit of prior art [law.com] on patent trolling.
Though I'd almost hope they get it, if for no other reason than to see the irony of a patent troll getting sued for patent infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28452731</id>
	<title>Re:Dead on arrival...</title>
	<author>saxmanb</author>
	<datestamp>1245859740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree more.  *flame on*  Most of the slashdotters just wave their hands and say "oh this is SOOOO obvious..blah blah blah" but hardly any try to actually find something that teaches the "obvious" invention (that published before the filing date).  It's always "oh everyone knows that".  Well, if everyone knows it then it shouldn't take but a few seconds on google, should it?</p><p>I'm all for the patent statutes being amended and the system being overhauled, but geez, don't bash the examining corp for following the current law.  If you think a patent is invalid and is threatening your business or innovation FILE A REEXAM OF THE PATENT. It's cheaper than litigation and if you think the patent is "bad" then supply the art and invalidate the thing.  Geez.  *flame off*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
* flame on * Most of the slashdotters just wave their hands and say " oh this is SOOOO obvious..blah blah blah " but hardly any try to actually find something that teaches the " obvious " invention ( that published before the filing date ) .
It 's always " oh everyone knows that " .
Well , if everyone knows it then it should n't take but a few seconds on google , should it ? I 'm all for the patent statutes being amended and the system being overhauled , but geez , do n't bash the examining corp for following the current law .
If you think a patent is invalid and is threatening your business or innovation FILE A REEXAM OF THE PATENT .
It 's cheaper than litigation and if you think the patent is " bad " then supply the art and invalidate the thing .
Geez. * flame off * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
*flame on*  Most of the slashdotters just wave their hands and say "oh this is SOOOO obvious..blah blah blah" but hardly any try to actually find something that teaches the "obvious" invention (that published before the filing date).
It's always "oh everyone knows that".
Well, if everyone knows it then it shouldn't take but a few seconds on google, should it?I'm all for the patent statutes being amended and the system being overhauled, but geez, don't bash the examining corp for following the current law.
If you think a patent is invalid and is threatening your business or innovation FILE A REEXAM OF THE PATENT.
It's cheaper than litigation and if you think the patent is "bad" then supply the art and invalidate the thing.
Geez.  *flame off*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28464805</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bring back real patent examiners now?</title>
	<author>psxndc</author>
	<datestamp>1245934800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This patent is beyond the Patent Office's usual idiocy and right up there with "method for playing with a cat with a laser".  I mean really, displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques?</p></div><p>And yet you - like every other slashdotter - will base you opinion on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'s summary and not the claims themselves.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>1. A method of displaying to a user a list of carrier networks available for access, comprising:</p><p>(a) detecting carrier network signals by an access client transmitted from a plurality of carrier networks;</p><p>(b) determining carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network signals;</p><p>(c) getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers, wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network of the plurality of carrier networks; and</p><p>(d) generating a user selectable list of carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network information,</p><p>(e) wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>(letters added for your reference). Steps c - getting it from an access point database? - and e - where 2 carrier newtork identifiers are aggregated? - don't seem like the normal way of picking a wifi spot.  Add in that these are carrier networks, not the hotspots themselves, and it seems a little less obvious and a lot more specific. You can all put down your torches and pitchforks now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This patent is beyond the Patent Office 's usual idiocy and right up there with " method for playing with a cat with a laser " .
I mean really , displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques ? And yet you - like every other slashdotter - will base you opinion on / .
's summary and not the claims themselves .
  1 .
A method of displaying to a user a list of carrier networks available for access , comprising : ( a ) detecting carrier network signals by an access client transmitted from a plurality of carrier networks ; ( b ) determining carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network signals ; ( c ) getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers , wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network of the plurality of carrier networks ; and ( d ) generating a user selectable list of carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network information , ( e ) wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list .
  ( letters added for your reference ) .
Steps c - getting it from an access point database ?
- and e - where 2 carrier newtork identifiers are aggregated ?
- do n't seem like the normal way of picking a wifi spot .
Add in that these are carrier networks , not the hotspots themselves , and it seems a little less obvious and a lot more specific .
You can all put down your torches and pitchforks now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This patent is beyond the Patent Office's usual idiocy and right up there with "method for playing with a cat with a laser".
I mean really, displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques?And yet you - like every other slashdotter - will base you opinion on /.
's summary and not the claims themselves.
  1.
A method of displaying to a user a list of carrier networks available for access, comprising:(a) detecting carrier network signals by an access client transmitted from a plurality of carrier networks;(b) determining carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network signals;(c) getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers, wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network of the plurality of carrier networks; and(d) generating a user selectable list of carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network information,(e) wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list.
  (letters added for your reference).
Steps c - getting it from an access point database?
- and e - where 2 carrier newtork identifiers are aggregated?
- don't seem like the normal way of picking a wifi spot.
Add in that these are carrier networks, not the hotspots themselves, and it seems a little less obvious and a lot more specific.
You can all put down your torches and pitchforks now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448387</id>
	<title>Re:Can we bring back real patent examiners now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245771120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  Patent Examiner are idiots.  Yet none of the "experts" on slashdot have found any art to invalidate this patent.</p><p>If you think the patent is invalid, show me some art.  If you can't, shut the fuck up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Patent Examiner are idiots .
Yet none of the " experts " on slashdot have found any art to invalidate this patent.If you think the patent is invalid , show me some art .
If you ca n't , shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Patent Examiner are idiots.
Yet none of the "experts" on slashdot have found any art to invalidate this patent.If you think the patent is invalid, show me some art.
If you can't, shut the fuck up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448115</id>
	<title>Re:Tear it down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245767580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you could always get yourself elected to Congress.  That's sort of like a lawsuit, except well, a bit more upfront costs.</p><p>There's 435 spots in the House open, and 36 in the Senate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you could always get yourself elected to Congress .
That 's sort of like a lawsuit , except well , a bit more upfront costs.There 's 435 spots in the House open , and 36 in the Senate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you could always get yourself elected to Congress.
That's sort of like a lawsuit, except well, a bit more upfront costs.There's 435 spots in the House open, and 36 in the Senate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447153</id>
	<title>20080270152</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245760020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20080270152&amp;OS=20080270152&amp;RS=20080270152" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20080270152&amp;OS=20080270152&amp;RS=20080270152</a> [uspto.gov]</p><p>Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party</p><p>Abstract</p><p>Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party. The methods sometime include attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser ? Sect1 = PTO2&amp;Sect2 = HITOFF&amp;p = 1&amp;u = /netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r = 1&amp;f = G&amp;l = 50&amp;co1 = AND&amp;d = PG01&amp;s1 = 20080270152&amp;OS = 20080270152&amp;RS = 20080270152 [ uspto.gov ] Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a ( Non-Inventor ) First Party Against a Second PartyAbstractMethods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed .
The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property .
The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property .
The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect .
The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office .
The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim .
The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim .
The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim , where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party .
The methods sometime include attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PG01&amp;s1=20080270152&amp;OS=20080270152&amp;RS=20080270152 [uspto.gov]Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second PartyAbstractMethods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed.
The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property.
The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property.
The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect.
The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office.
The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim.
The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim.
The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party.
The methods sometime include attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447969</id>
	<title>Re:Tear it down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245766140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, let's destroy everything that doesn't work correctly, because this proves that its original intent is unimportant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , let 's destroy everything that does n't work correctly , because this proves that its original intent is unimportant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, let's destroy everything that doesn't work correctly, because this proves that its original intent is unimportant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448329</id>
	<title>So much for PTO's</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1245770280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>promise to be more responsible. This patent is ridiculous. It doesn't pass the obviousness test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>promise to be more responsible .
This patent is ridiculous .
It does n't pass the obviousness test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>promise to be more responsible.
This patent is ridiculous.
It doesn't pass the obviousness test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447297</id>
	<title>Dr Boingo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245760980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pinky against corner of mouth, "I want one million dollars for accessing WiFi hotspots". Clue evil laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pinky against corner of mouth , " I want one million dollars for accessing WiFi hotspots " .
Clue evil laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pinky against corner of mouth, "I want one million dollars for accessing WiFi hotspots".
Clue evil laugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28464805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28452135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28452731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28454587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28454519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28456885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_2238206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28456885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28454587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28464805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28450335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448387
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28454519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28449899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28452731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28451711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28448189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28452135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_2238206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_2238206.28447609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
