<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_10_1218231</id>
	<title>Judge Invalidates Software Patent, Citing Bilski</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247230020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://bfwa.com/" rel="nofollow">bfwebster</a> writes <i>"US District Court Judge Andrew Gilford (Central District of California) <a href="http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news\_view&amp;newsId=20090708006020&amp;newsLang=en">granted a summary judgment motion</a> in <em>DealerTrack v. Huber et al.</em>, finding DealerTrack's patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7181427">US 7,181,427</a>) &mdash; for an automated credit application processing system &mdash; invalid due to the recent <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/20/1811246&amp;tid=473">In re Bilski</a> court decision that requires a patent to either involve 'transformation' or 'a specific machine.' According to Judge Gilford's ruling, DealerTrack 'appears to concede that the claims of the '427 Patent do not meet the "transformation" prong of the Bilski test.' He then applied the 'specific machine' test and noted that, post-Bilski the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has ruled several times that 'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [Bilski] test.' Judge Gilford analyzes the claims of the '427 patent, notes that they state that the 'machine' involved could be a 'dumb terminal' and a 'personal computer,' and then concludes: 'None of the claims of the '427 Patent require the use of a "particular machine," and the patent is thus invalid under Bilski.' DealerTrack apparently plans to appeal the ruling. Interesting times ahead."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bfwebster writes " US District Court Judge Andrew Gilford ( Central District of California ) granted a summary judgment motion in DealerTrack v. Huber et al. , finding DealerTrack 's patent ( US 7,181,427 )    for an automated credit application processing system    invalid due to the recent In re Bilski court decision that requires a patent to either involve 'transformation ' or 'a specific machine .
' According to Judge Gilford 's ruling , DealerTrack 'appears to concede that the claims of the '427 Patent do not meet the " transformation " prong of the Bilski test .
' He then applied the 'specific machine ' test and noted that , post-Bilski the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has ruled several times that 'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [ Bilski ] test .
' Judge Gilford analyzes the claims of the '427 patent , notes that they state that the 'machine ' involved could be a 'dumb terminal ' and a 'personal computer, ' and then concludes : 'None of the claims of the '427 Patent require the use of a " particular machine , " and the patent is thus invalid under Bilski .
' DealerTrack apparently plans to appeal the ruling .
Interesting times ahead .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bfwebster writes "US District Court Judge Andrew Gilford (Central District of California) granted a summary judgment motion in DealerTrack v. Huber et al., finding DealerTrack's patent (US 7,181,427) — for an automated credit application processing system — invalid due to the recent In re Bilski court decision that requires a patent to either involve 'transformation' or 'a specific machine.
' According to Judge Gilford's ruling, DealerTrack 'appears to concede that the claims of the '427 Patent do not meet the "transformation" prong of the Bilski test.
' He then applied the 'specific machine' test and noted that, post-Bilski the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has ruled several times that 'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [Bilski] test.
' Judge Gilford analyzes the claims of the '427 patent, notes that they state that the 'machine' involved could be a 'dumb terminal' and a 'personal computer,' and then concludes: 'None of the claims of the '427 Patent require the use of a "particular machine," and the patent is thus invalid under Bilski.
' DealerTrack apparently plans to appeal the ruling.
Interesting times ahead.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271</id>
	<title>Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247233620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [Bilski] test.'</p></div><p>Sounds familiar to the kind of logic that Donald Knuth employs when discussing software patents.  He tried <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090603224807259" title="groklaw.net" rel="nofollow">reaching out</a> [groklaw.net] to the EU Patent Office in an effort to avoid making algorithms patentable--he feels this has been a mistake in America.  He recently sent the EU Patent Office Commissioner a 1994 letter he had originally sent to the United States Patent Office about patenting software.  His argument is simple: (1) math cannot be patented (2) all algorithms are math (3) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable.  The USPTO replied by defining non-mathematical software to be patentable while purely mathematical software is not.  Knuth sums himself up nicely: 'Basically I remain convinced that the patent policy most fair and most suitable for the world will regard mathematical ideas (such as algorithms) to be not subject to proprietary patent rights. For example, it would be terrible if somebody were to have a patent on an integer, like say 1009, so that nobody would be able to use that number "with further technical effect" without paying for a license. Although many software patents have unfortunately already been granted in the past, I hope that this practice will not continue in future. If Europe leads the way in this, I expect many Americans would want to emigrate so that they could continue to innovate in peace.'  <br> <br>

Maybe the right way to approach this was to claim that general purpose processors are only capable of executing extremely complex mathematical algorithms--which should not be patentable.  Therefor the software that runs on general purpose processors should not be patentable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [ Bilski ] test .
'Sounds familiar to the kind of logic that Donald Knuth employs when discussing software patents .
He tried reaching out [ groklaw.net ] to the EU Patent Office in an effort to avoid making algorithms patentable--he feels this has been a mistake in America .
He recently sent the EU Patent Office Commissioner a 1994 letter he had originally sent to the United States Patent Office about patenting software .
His argument is simple : ( 1 ) math can not be patented ( 2 ) all algorithms are math ( 3 ) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software can not be patentable .
The USPTO replied by defining non-mathematical software to be patentable while purely mathematical software is not .
Knuth sums himself up nicely : 'Basically I remain convinced that the patent policy most fair and most suitable for the world will regard mathematical ideas ( such as algorithms ) to be not subject to proprietary patent rights .
For example , it would be terrible if somebody were to have a patent on an integer , like say 1009 , so that nobody would be able to use that number " with further technical effect " without paying for a license .
Although many software patents have unfortunately already been granted in the past , I hope that this practice will not continue in future .
If Europe leads the way in this , I expect many Americans would want to emigrate so that they could continue to innovate in peace .
' Maybe the right way to approach this was to claim that general purpose processors are only capable of executing extremely complex mathematical algorithms--which should not be patentable .
Therefor the software that runs on general purpose processors should not be patentable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [Bilski] test.
'Sounds familiar to the kind of logic that Donald Knuth employs when discussing software patents.
He tried reaching out [groklaw.net] to the EU Patent Office in an effort to avoid making algorithms patentable--he feels this has been a mistake in America.
He recently sent the EU Patent Office Commissioner a 1994 letter he had originally sent to the United States Patent Office about patenting software.
His argument is simple: (1) math cannot be patented (2) all algorithms are math (3) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable.
The USPTO replied by defining non-mathematical software to be patentable while purely mathematical software is not.
Knuth sums himself up nicely: 'Basically I remain convinced that the patent policy most fair and most suitable for the world will regard mathematical ideas (such as algorithms) to be not subject to proprietary patent rights.
For example, it would be terrible if somebody were to have a patent on an integer, like say 1009, so that nobody would be able to use that number "with further technical effect" without paying for a license.
Although many software patents have unfortunately already been granted in the past, I hope that this practice will not continue in future.
If Europe leads the way in this, I expect many Americans would want to emigrate so that they could continue to innovate in peace.
'   

Maybe the right way to approach this was to claim that general purpose processors are only capable of executing extremely complex mathematical algorithms--which should not be patentable.
Therefor the software that runs on general purpose processors should not be patentable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28653463</id>
	<title>The question is where's the progress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247256120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents are gifts from your government rewarding progress in the Natural realm.<br>Copyrights are gifts from your government rewarding progress in the Human realm.<br>all sofware is exclusively a semantic construct, and therefore limited to the Human realm.<br>A very good test for a patent is to have an actual example, demonstrating the achieved progress, delivered with the patent application.<br>Wheather it is a specific bend of wire that grips, or a specific chemical reaction that produces a novel compound (or generic compound in a novel way) a patentable achievement is always understandable by example alone. Anything that requires a shared language, society, civilization<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,, etc is suitable only for copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents are gifts from your government rewarding progress in the Natural realm.Copyrights are gifts from your government rewarding progress in the Human realm.all sofware is exclusively a semantic construct , and therefore limited to the Human realm.A very good test for a patent is to have an actual example , demonstrating the achieved progress , delivered with the patent application.Wheather it is a specific bend of wire that grips , or a specific chemical reaction that produces a novel compound ( or generic compound in a novel way ) a patentable achievement is always understandable by example alone .
Anything that requires a shared language , society , civilization , , etc is suitable only for copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents are gifts from your government rewarding progress in the Natural realm.Copyrights are gifts from your government rewarding progress in the Human realm.all sofware is exclusively a semantic construct, and therefore limited to the Human realm.A very good test for a patent is to have an actual example, demonstrating the achieved progress, delivered with the patent application.Wheather it is a specific bend of wire that grips, or a specific chemical reaction that produces a novel compound (or generic compound in a novel way) a patentable achievement is always understandable by example alone.
Anything that requires a shared language, society, civilization ,, etc is suitable only for copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649541</id>
	<title>Re:Backward patent logic</title>
	<author>starfishsystems</author>
	<datestamp>1247239800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even supposing we had complete freedom to do so, it would be hard to formalize a clear division between patentable and non-patentable algorithms.  I agree with you, and respectfully dispute with Knuth, that some algorithms qualify as inventions.  On the other hand, some algorithms arise in such a direct consequence of fundamental mathematical properties that they qualify only as discoveries.  And then there's the hazy middle ground.
<br> <br>
It's true that, by construction, and given infinite time, it's possible to enumerate all possible algorithms.  In that sense, all algorithms naturally exist and can only be discovered.  But this sort of reduction makes itself absurd.  It's sort of like how Maxwell's Daemon was resolved in thermodynamics: the act itself of selection might not require work, but figuring out which item to select most definitely does.
<br> <br>
Only a tiny subset of algorithms are useful.  Who would want a cryptographic algorithm that occasionally yields plaintext?  So I'm afraid we have to fall back on the "obviousness" test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even supposing we had complete freedom to do so , it would be hard to formalize a clear division between patentable and non-patentable algorithms .
I agree with you , and respectfully dispute with Knuth , that some algorithms qualify as inventions .
On the other hand , some algorithms arise in such a direct consequence of fundamental mathematical properties that they qualify only as discoveries .
And then there 's the hazy middle ground .
It 's true that , by construction , and given infinite time , it 's possible to enumerate all possible algorithms .
In that sense , all algorithms naturally exist and can only be discovered .
But this sort of reduction makes itself absurd .
It 's sort of like how Maxwell 's Daemon was resolved in thermodynamics : the act itself of selection might not require work , but figuring out which item to select most definitely does .
Only a tiny subset of algorithms are useful .
Who would want a cryptographic algorithm that occasionally yields plaintext ?
So I 'm afraid we have to fall back on the " obviousness " test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even supposing we had complete freedom to do so, it would be hard to formalize a clear division between patentable and non-patentable algorithms.
I agree with you, and respectfully dispute with Knuth, that some algorithms qualify as inventions.
On the other hand, some algorithms arise in such a direct consequence of fundamental mathematical properties that they qualify only as discoveries.
And then there's the hazy middle ground.
It's true that, by construction, and given infinite time, it's possible to enumerate all possible algorithms.
In that sense, all algorithms naturally exist and can only be discovered.
But this sort of reduction makes itself absurd.
It's sort of like how Maxwell's Daemon was resolved in thermodynamics: the act itself of selection might not require work, but figuring out which item to select most definitely does.
Only a tiny subset of algorithms are useful.
Who would want a cryptographic algorithm that occasionally yields plaintext?
So I'm afraid we have to fall back on the "obviousness" test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652431</id>
	<title>For some values of "algorithm"</title>
	<author>Shin-LaC</author>
	<datestamp>1247252040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* Software IS a series of algorithms strung together (as an aside, a series of algorithms interacting is itself an algorithm)</p></div><p>Actually, that depends on what you mean by "algorithm" and "interacting". In computer science, it is common to employ a definition of "algorithm" that makes it equivalent to what a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing\_machine" title="wikipedia.org">Turing machine</a> [wikipedia.org] can compute (see the very first sentence of that article). In this sense, an algorithm is provided its input at the start of its execution, processes it deterministically, and produces its output when it terminates (<em>if</em> it terminates, of course).<br> <br>
While this is a very useful definition in many situations, it does not describe the computer and the program I'm using to write this comment right now. The reason is that this is an interactive system, engaged in ongoing communication with a human (me). This is not a batch operation that transforms input into output (the equivalent of a mathematical function, or of a Turing machine): instead, the program waits for me to provide input, and provides output itself, at several steps during its execution. (Turing would have called this an oracle machine, with me as the oracle.)<br> <br>Each keypress is processed algorithmically and an output is produced, but the combination of those algorithms in an event loop is clearly <em>not</em> an algorithm itself: it takes input and produces output at several points during its execution, and it does not even need to terminate to be useful (in fact, if the program <em>did</em> terminate while I'm writing this comment, it would be considered a failure!).<br> <br>
Therefore, there is at least one very common and useful definition of algorithm such that
</p><ul> <li>a series of interacting algorithm is not necessarily an algorithm, and</li><li>many useful and common computer programs are not in fact algorithms.</li></ul><p>
That said, I do believe that software is math and that software patents should not be considered valid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Software IS a series of algorithms strung together ( as an aside , a series of algorithms interacting is itself an algorithm ) Actually , that depends on what you mean by " algorithm " and " interacting " .
In computer science , it is common to employ a definition of " algorithm " that makes it equivalent to what a Turing machine [ wikipedia.org ] can compute ( see the very first sentence of that article ) .
In this sense , an algorithm is provided its input at the start of its execution , processes it deterministically , and produces its output when it terminates ( if it terminates , of course ) .
While this is a very useful definition in many situations , it does not describe the computer and the program I 'm using to write this comment right now .
The reason is that this is an interactive system , engaged in ongoing communication with a human ( me ) .
This is not a batch operation that transforms input into output ( the equivalent of a mathematical function , or of a Turing machine ) : instead , the program waits for me to provide input , and provides output itself , at several steps during its execution .
( Turing would have called this an oracle machine , with me as the oracle .
) Each keypress is processed algorithmically and an output is produced , but the combination of those algorithms in an event loop is clearly not an algorithm itself : it takes input and produces output at several points during its execution , and it does not even need to terminate to be useful ( in fact , if the program did terminate while I 'm writing this comment , it would be considered a failure ! ) .
Therefore , there is at least one very common and useful definition of algorithm such that a series of interacting algorithm is not necessarily an algorithm , andmany useful and common computer programs are not in fact algorithms .
That said , I do believe that software is math and that software patents should not be considered valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Software IS a series of algorithms strung together (as an aside, a series of algorithms interacting is itself an algorithm)Actually, that depends on what you mean by "algorithm" and "interacting".
In computer science, it is common to employ a definition of "algorithm" that makes it equivalent to what a Turing machine [wikipedia.org] can compute (see the very first sentence of that article).
In this sense, an algorithm is provided its input at the start of its execution, processes it deterministically, and produces its output when it terminates (if it terminates, of course).
While this is a very useful definition in many situations, it does not describe the computer and the program I'm using to write this comment right now.
The reason is that this is an interactive system, engaged in ongoing communication with a human (me).
This is not a batch operation that transforms input into output (the equivalent of a mathematical function, or of a Turing machine): instead, the program waits for me to provide input, and provides output itself, at several steps during its execution.
(Turing would have called this an oracle machine, with me as the oracle.
) Each keypress is processed algorithmically and an output is produced, but the combination of those algorithms in an event loop is clearly not an algorithm itself: it takes input and produces output at several points during its execution, and it does not even need to terminate to be useful (in fact, if the program did terminate while I'm writing this comment, it would be considered a failure!).
Therefore, there is at least one very common and useful definition of algorithm such that
 a series of interacting algorithm is not necessarily an algorithm, andmany useful and common computer programs are not in fact algorithms.
That said, I do believe that software is math and that software patents should not be considered valid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28655959</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1247227500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody ever patent a machine. Rather people patent the design of a type of machines and such a design can be said of "IS MADE UP" of physical and/or chemical laws.
</p><p> <b>All discrimination against software invention is groundless and flaw.</b> They should solve patent trolls for all types of inventions, which exists for cars (see the 2000 patents filed by Toyota for Prius.) Short of killing all patent lawyers, they could not get rid of trolls in general, and so they just take shortcut of eliminate a large category where there are more trolls; but there are more trolls in software, because it is <i>relatively</i> easy to develop software. Try develop a new compression or AI algorithms and see if all software inventions are trivial to develop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody ever patent a machine .
Rather people patent the design of a type of machines and such a design can be said of " IS MADE UP " of physical and/or chemical laws .
All discrimination against software invention is groundless and flaw .
They should solve patent trolls for all types of inventions , which exists for cars ( see the 2000 patents filed by Toyota for Prius .
) Short of killing all patent lawyers , they could not get rid of trolls in general , and so they just take shortcut of eliminate a large category where there are more trolls ; but there are more trolls in software , because it is relatively easy to develop software .
Try develop a new compression or AI algorithms and see if all software inventions are trivial to develop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody ever patent a machine.
Rather people patent the design of a type of machines and such a design can be said of "IS MADE UP" of physical and/or chemical laws.
All discrimination against software invention is groundless and flaw.
They should solve patent trolls for all types of inventions, which exists for cars (see the 2000 patents filed by Toyota for Prius.
) Short of killing all patent lawyers, they could not get rid of trolls in general, and so they just take shortcut of eliminate a large category where there are more trolls; but there are more trolls in software, because it is relatively easy to develop software.
Try develop a new compression or AI algorithms and see if all software inventions are trivial to develop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648773</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1247236620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would mathematics still be copyrightable?</p></div><p>Yes, a sufficiently large number can represent a copyrighted work. It can be represent a piece of music or a computer program. (A program is a list of instructions that describes a mathematical process in a way that a machine can carry out.) A program is copyrighted as a literary work, but the process that the program describes cannot itself be copyrighted in the United States per <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102" title="copyright.gov">17 USC 102(b)</a> [copyright.gov]. That's why some inventors have been trying to use patent law, which is <em>designed</em> to protect processes, to secure exclusive rights in algorithms.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Because any piece of music can be written down as a series of bytes</p></div><p>While we're still on the subject of musical copyright for a moment: Define the "hook" of a musical work as the first few notes of the memorable part. Then the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov\_complexity" title="wikipedia.org">Kolmogorov complexity</a> [wikipedia.org] of a hook can be estimated as having 40 bits or fewer, based on encoding each of the first eight notes in five bits: four bits for the pitch (0 to 15 relative to a standard scale), and one bit for whether the note is short or long. So there are only about a trillion musical hooks, and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday\_problem" title="wikipedia.org">birthday problem</a> [wikipedia.org] suggests that collisions start to become likely around the square root of that (a million). The music-theoretic rules of which pitches fit well together reduce the space even further. For comparison, the repertories of the major U.S. performance rights organizations, which have already surpassed 15 million (<a href="http://www.ascap.com/press/2009/0611\_orchestra\_awards.aspx" title="ascap.com">8.5 million for ASCAP</a> [ascap.com] and <a href="http://www.bmi.com/search/" title="bmi.com">6.5 million for BMI</a> [bmi.com]). So collisions such as "He's So Fine" vs. "My Sweet Lord" (<i>Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music</i>, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)) quickly become inevitable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would mathematics still be copyrightable ? Yes , a sufficiently large number can represent a copyrighted work .
It can be represent a piece of music or a computer program .
( A program is a list of instructions that describes a mathematical process in a way that a machine can carry out .
) A program is copyrighted as a literary work , but the process that the program describes can not itself be copyrighted in the United States per 17 USC 102 ( b ) [ copyright.gov ] .
That 's why some inventors have been trying to use patent law , which is designed to protect processes , to secure exclusive rights in algorithms.Because any piece of music can be written down as a series of bytesWhile we 're still on the subject of musical copyright for a moment : Define the " hook " of a musical work as the first few notes of the memorable part .
Then the Kolmogorov complexity [ wikipedia.org ] of a hook can be estimated as having 40 bits or fewer , based on encoding each of the first eight notes in five bits : four bits for the pitch ( 0 to 15 relative to a standard scale ) , and one bit for whether the note is short or long .
So there are only about a trillion musical hooks , and the birthday problem [ wikipedia.org ] suggests that collisions start to become likely around the square root of that ( a million ) .
The music-theoretic rules of which pitches fit well together reduce the space even further .
For comparison , the repertories of the major U.S. performance rights organizations , which have already surpassed 15 million ( 8.5 million for ASCAP [ ascap.com ] and 6.5 million for BMI [ bmi.com ] ) .
So collisions such as " He 's So Fine " vs. " My Sweet Lord " ( Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music , 420 F. Supp. 177 ( S.D.N.Y .
1976 ) ) quickly become inevitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would mathematics still be copyrightable?Yes, a sufficiently large number can represent a copyrighted work.
It can be represent a piece of music or a computer program.
(A program is a list of instructions that describes a mathematical process in a way that a machine can carry out.
) A program is copyrighted as a literary work, but the process that the program describes cannot itself be copyrighted in the United States per 17 USC 102(b) [copyright.gov].
That's why some inventors have been trying to use patent law, which is designed to protect processes, to secure exclusive rights in algorithms.Because any piece of music can be written down as a series of bytesWhile we're still on the subject of musical copyright for a moment: Define the "hook" of a musical work as the first few notes of the memorable part.
Then the Kolmogorov complexity [wikipedia.org] of a hook can be estimated as having 40 bits or fewer, based on encoding each of the first eight notes in five bits: four bits for the pitch (0 to 15 relative to a standard scale), and one bit for whether the note is short or long.
So there are only about a trillion musical hooks, and the birthday problem [wikipedia.org] suggests that collisions start to become likely around the square root of that (a million).
The music-theoretic rules of which pitches fit well together reduce the space even further.
For comparison, the repertories of the major U.S. performance rights organizations, which have already surpassed 15 million (8.5 million for ASCAP [ascap.com] and 6.5 million for BMI [bmi.com]).
So collisions such as "He's So Fine" vs. "My Sweet Lord" (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y.
1976)) quickly become inevitable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649981</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247241480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me turn it around the other way.  Why do clever algorithms "deserve" a patent?</p><p>Personally, I'm much happier allowing the "inventor" of an algorithm to simply productize it.  There is absolutely no need to give them a monopoly on the algorithm.  They already obfuscate the code*, so it works perfectly well as a trade secret.</p><p>If someone who discovers a clever algorithm deserves to profit from it, why does the second (or subsequent person) who discovers it not deserving of the same profit?  And if multiple people can discover the algorithm, resulting in no special profit, perhaps the algorithm wasn't so clever after all.</p><p>It's not that a test for "obviousness" is needed.  We already have it.  If I can't figure out how to implement it, then it's not obvious and doesn't need the monopoly of a patent.  If I can figure it out, then it shouldn't be patented.</p><p>* I'm a free software advocate, so I am opposed to obfuscated code.  However this is because I believe that an open source approach is more beneficial for everyone involved.  In this case patents aren't desired anyway.  So it really is the case that patents exist for obfuscated code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me turn it around the other way .
Why do clever algorithms " deserve " a patent ? Personally , I 'm much happier allowing the " inventor " of an algorithm to simply productize it .
There is absolutely no need to give them a monopoly on the algorithm .
They already obfuscate the code * , so it works perfectly well as a trade secret.If someone who discovers a clever algorithm deserves to profit from it , why does the second ( or subsequent person ) who discovers it not deserving of the same profit ?
And if multiple people can discover the algorithm , resulting in no special profit , perhaps the algorithm was n't so clever after all.It 's not that a test for " obviousness " is needed .
We already have it .
If I ca n't figure out how to implement it , then it 's not obvious and does n't need the monopoly of a patent .
If I can figure it out , then it should n't be patented .
* I 'm a free software advocate , so I am opposed to obfuscated code .
However this is because I believe that an open source approach is more beneficial for everyone involved .
In this case patents are n't desired anyway .
So it really is the case that patents exist for obfuscated code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me turn it around the other way.
Why do clever algorithms "deserve" a patent?Personally, I'm much happier allowing the "inventor" of an algorithm to simply productize it.
There is absolutely no need to give them a monopoly on the algorithm.
They already obfuscate the code*, so it works perfectly well as a trade secret.If someone who discovers a clever algorithm deserves to profit from it, why does the second (or subsequent person) who discovers it not deserving of the same profit?
And if multiple people can discover the algorithm, resulting in no special profit, perhaps the algorithm wasn't so clever after all.It's not that a test for "obviousness" is needed.
We already have it.
If I can't figure out how to implement it, then it's not obvious and doesn't need the monopoly of a patent.
If I can figure it out, then it shouldn't be patented.
* I'm a free software advocate, so I am opposed to obfuscated code.
However this is because I believe that an open source approach is more beneficial for everyone involved.
In this case patents aren't desired anyway.
So it really is the case that patents exist for obfuscated code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28654675</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247218680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with simple copyright protection is that it applies to one instance alone.  Sure, you can copyright your implementation.  But my implementation, modeled completely on your implementation is not proected.  I can copy substantial portions of your code, if I can get them, as well and there is nothing that can be done about it legally.</p><p>About the only thing copyright protects is stealing a copy of the original and redistributing it.  Independently recreating it doesn't count.  This isn't any sort of competition, this is a lot closer to theft.  But over and over again for the last 50 years or so it has been proven that copyright does not protect against this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with simple copyright protection is that it applies to one instance alone .
Sure , you can copyright your implementation .
But my implementation , modeled completely on your implementation is not proected .
I can copy substantial portions of your code , if I can get them , as well and there is nothing that can be done about it legally.About the only thing copyright protects is stealing a copy of the original and redistributing it .
Independently recreating it does n't count .
This is n't any sort of competition , this is a lot closer to theft .
But over and over again for the last 50 years or so it has been proven that copyright does not protect against this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with simple copyright protection is that it applies to one instance alone.
Sure, you can copyright your implementation.
But my implementation, modeled completely on your implementation is not proected.
I can copy substantial portions of your code, if I can get them, as well and there is nothing that can be done about it legally.About the only thing copyright protects is stealing a copy of the original and redistributing it.
Independently recreating it doesn't count.
This isn't any sort of competition, this is a lot closer to theft.
But over and over again for the last 50 years or so it has been proven that copyright does not protect against this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650631</id>
	<title>It's not really about obviousness</title>
	<author>Cajun Hell</author>
	<datestamp>1247244000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Because <em>all</em> Slashdotters (100\% of them) use the Internet.
</p><p>
Networks are about communication and interoperability.  Software patents got a lot of attention, starting in 1989 when the LZW thing came up in DDJ, because they prevent interoperability.  <em>You were not allowed</em> to implement a side of a conversation, such as decoding a GIF.
</p><p>
Quicksort can be replaced with other sorts; nobody really <em>needs</em> Quicksort to get their project working.  A Quicksort patent holder would have an <em>advantage</em> in his apps, not a monopoly.  If patents had never been applied in a way where they impacted file formats, codecs, and protocols, then hackers would see other people's patents as something that merely gave them competitive disadvantage, rather than being a complete exclusion.
</p><p>
I don't mind being told the other guy gets a leg up, especially if he was clever and deserved it.  So I'm playing with a handicap?  Fine.  <em>Bring it on!</em>  I might show the <em>other</em> guy a thing or two.
</p><p>
I do mind being told that I am simply not allowed to compete <em>at all</em>, and this will be enforced by government courts.
</p><p>
<em>My own</em> fucking government, demanding that a market not exist.  That pisses me off.  (And this is in America, of all places.  Doesn't exactly fit the Free Market stereotype, does it?  They told me the Commies <em>lost</em> the cold war, so how did I get an anti-business government?  How did it happen that the so-called "socialist" countries got this <em>right</em> when we got it wrong?  I think somebody lied to me.)
</p><p>
Competition good, monopolies bad.  That's pretty simple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept .
Because all Slashdotters ( 100 \ % of them ) use the Internet .
Networks are about communication and interoperability .
Software patents got a lot of attention , starting in 1989 when the LZW thing came up in DDJ , because they prevent interoperability .
You were not allowed to implement a side of a conversation , such as decoding a GIF .
Quicksort can be replaced with other sorts ; nobody really needs Quicksort to get their project working .
A Quicksort patent holder would have an advantage in his apps , not a monopoly .
If patents had never been applied in a way where they impacted file formats , codecs , and protocols , then hackers would see other people 's patents as something that merely gave them competitive disadvantage , rather than being a complete exclusion .
I do n't mind being told the other guy gets a leg up , especially if he was clever and deserved it .
So I 'm playing with a handicap ?
Fine. Bring it on !
I might show the other guy a thing or two .
I do mind being told that I am simply not allowed to compete at all , and this will be enforced by government courts .
My own fucking government , demanding that a market not exist .
That pisses me off .
( And this is in America , of all places .
Does n't exactly fit the Free Market stereotype , does it ?
They told me the Commies lost the cold war , so how did I get an anti-business government ?
How did it happen that the so-called " socialist " countries got this right when we got it wrong ?
I think somebody lied to me .
) Competition good , monopolies bad .
That 's pretty simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.
Because all Slashdotters (100\% of them) use the Internet.
Networks are about communication and interoperability.
Software patents got a lot of attention, starting in 1989 when the LZW thing came up in DDJ, because they prevent interoperability.
You were not allowed to implement a side of a conversation, such as decoding a GIF.
Quicksort can be replaced with other sorts; nobody really needs Quicksort to get their project working.
A Quicksort patent holder would have an advantage in his apps, not a monopoly.
If patents had never been applied in a way where they impacted file formats, codecs, and protocols, then hackers would see other people's patents as something that merely gave them competitive disadvantage, rather than being a complete exclusion.
I don't mind being told the other guy gets a leg up, especially if he was clever and deserved it.
So I'm playing with a handicap?
Fine.  Bring it on!
I might show the other guy a thing or two.
I do mind being told that I am simply not allowed to compete at all, and this will be enforced by government courts.
My own fucking government, demanding that a market not exist.
That pisses me off.
(And this is in America, of all places.
Doesn't exactly fit the Free Market stereotype, does it?
They told me the Commies lost the cold war, so how did I get an anti-business government?
How did it happen that the so-called "socialist" countries got this right when we got it wrong?
I think somebody lied to me.
)

Competition good, monopolies bad.
That's pretty simple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649915</id>
	<title>Mathematicians don't need patents.</title>
	<author>Xenographic</author>
	<datestamp>1247241240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I often see the opinion that "mathematical software" should not be patentable, but "non-mathematical software" should be. I appreciate the theoretical arguments on this subject, but the practical ones seem to point the other way.</p><p>What does "mathematical" mean to you, exactly?  Seems like you think it means that the software has to use a lot of math you've never heard of to do something complex.  Now, I can at least respect the argument that very innovative new processes might merit legal protection, though I think it's a terrible idea because it's unnecessary and it carries a high cost for society.  Mathematicians can also make life difficult for you.  If I create an equivalence relation between something patented and something not patented, what does the patent control?  Have I destroyed the utility of the patent, or does the patent swallow up my "invention" too?</p><p>But back to the original point, the division between "mathematical" and "non-mathematical" software is the result of fuzzy-headed thinking by people who don't know what math is.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curry\%E2\%80\%93Howard\_correspondence&amp;oldid=298061780" title="wikipedia.org">Software is equivalent to math</a> [wikipedia.org] and that link describes how you turn programs into math (and vice versa).  There's no such thing as non-mathematical software because there's no such thing as non-mathematical math.</p><p>Now I know there are some people, especially that guy at IP Watchdog who was in the news quite a while ago, who think that because they can do a few fancy integrals, partial derivatives, and linear algebra, they know all there is to know about math.  But they totally ignore the stuff that's relevant here and probably don't even know what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Type\_system&amp;oldid=299237038" title="wikipedia.org">type systems</a> [wikipedia.org] or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proof\_calculus&amp;oldid=297276433" title="wikipedia.org">proof calculi</a> [wikipedia.org] are.  Suffice it to say that anyone who thinks they know all there is to know about math is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I often see the opinion that " mathematical software " should not be patentable , but " non-mathematical software " should be .
I appreciate the theoretical arguments on this subject , but the practical ones seem to point the other way.What does " mathematical " mean to you , exactly ?
Seems like you think it means that the software has to use a lot of math you 've never heard of to do something complex .
Now , I can at least respect the argument that very innovative new processes might merit legal protection , though I think it 's a terrible idea because it 's unnecessary and it carries a high cost for society .
Mathematicians can also make life difficult for you .
If I create an equivalence relation between something patented and something not patented , what does the patent control ?
Have I destroyed the utility of the patent , or does the patent swallow up my " invention " too ? But back to the original point , the division between " mathematical " and " non-mathematical " software is the result of fuzzy-headed thinking by people who do n't know what math is .
Software is equivalent to math [ wikipedia.org ] and that link describes how you turn programs into math ( and vice versa ) .
There 's no such thing as non-mathematical software because there 's no such thing as non-mathematical math.Now I know there are some people , especially that guy at IP Watchdog who was in the news quite a while ago , who think that because they can do a few fancy integrals , partial derivatives , and linear algebra , they know all there is to know about math .
But they totally ignore the stuff that 's relevant here and probably do n't even know what type systems [ wikipedia.org ] or proof calculi [ wikipedia.org ] are .
Suffice it to say that anyone who thinks they know all there is to know about math is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I often see the opinion that "mathematical software" should not be patentable, but "non-mathematical software" should be.
I appreciate the theoretical arguments on this subject, but the practical ones seem to point the other way.What does "mathematical" mean to you, exactly?
Seems like you think it means that the software has to use a lot of math you've never heard of to do something complex.
Now, I can at least respect the argument that very innovative new processes might merit legal protection, though I think it's a terrible idea because it's unnecessary and it carries a high cost for society.
Mathematicians can also make life difficult for you.
If I create an equivalence relation between something patented and something not patented, what does the patent control?
Have I destroyed the utility of the patent, or does the patent swallow up my "invention" too?But back to the original point, the division between "mathematical" and "non-mathematical" software is the result of fuzzy-headed thinking by people who don't know what math is.
Software is equivalent to math [wikipedia.org] and that link describes how you turn programs into math (and vice versa).
There's no such thing as non-mathematical software because there's no such thing as non-mathematical math.Now I know there are some people, especially that guy at IP Watchdog who was in the news quite a while ago, who think that because they can do a few fancy integrals, partial derivatives, and linear algebra, they know all there is to know about math.
But they totally ignore the stuff that's relevant here and probably don't even know what type systems [wikipedia.org] or proof calculi [wikipedia.org] are.
Suffice it to say that anyone who thinks they know all there is to know about math is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651149</id>
	<title>Re:Backward patent logic</title>
	<author>eiderman</author>
	<datestamp>1247246100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In general, I agree with this sentiment: a clever, elegant, non-obvious way to transform data should have some protections.   However, I imagine that copyright law would provide enough.  A short amount of code only has so many unique representations (assuming we define the same logic in java and perl to be 1 representation).  Since most of these will be effectively identical, the inventor ideally has some good protection right there.

When someone creates a new and hopefully better way to perform the same task, then that code should be separate with its own protection.

It ends up being a balanced way to protect things since it encourages algorithmic innovation and makes it really difficult to protect something that has a dozen different ways of being implemented (like a one-click patent).

The downside is that it requires access to competitors source code in court and various methods for deconstructing any language to its logic for comparison purposes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In general , I agree with this sentiment : a clever , elegant , non-obvious way to transform data should have some protections .
However , I imagine that copyright law would provide enough .
A short amount of code only has so many unique representations ( assuming we define the same logic in java and perl to be 1 representation ) .
Since most of these will be effectively identical , the inventor ideally has some good protection right there .
When someone creates a new and hopefully better way to perform the same task , then that code should be separate with its own protection .
It ends up being a balanced way to protect things since it encourages algorithmic innovation and makes it really difficult to protect something that has a dozen different ways of being implemented ( like a one-click patent ) .
The downside is that it requires access to competitors source code in court and various methods for deconstructing any language to its logic for comparison purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general, I agree with this sentiment: a clever, elegant, non-obvious way to transform data should have some protections.
However, I imagine that copyright law would provide enough.
A short amount of code only has so many unique representations (assuming we define the same logic in java and perl to be 1 representation).
Since most of these will be effectively identical, the inventor ideally has some good protection right there.
When someone creates a new and hopefully better way to perform the same task, then that code should be separate with its own protection.
It ends up being a balanced way to protect things since it encourages algorithmic innovation and makes it really difficult to protect something that has a dozen different ways of being implemented (like a one-click patent).
The downside is that it requires access to competitors source code in court and various methods for deconstructing any language to its logic for comparison purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651293</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Darth</author>
	<datestamp>1247246760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a combination of algorithms is also an algorithm. if the algorithms that make it up are math, then the algorithm they are as subset of is also math. If math is not patentable, then that algorithm is not patentable.</p><p><i>I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.</i></p><p>this is not the same thing. Atoms would be analogous to numbers in this argument. They are both items. Math is what you do with numbers. Algorithms are sets of mathematical instructions to achieve a goal.</p><p>Since what you build with atoms is patentable, given constraints about novelty and obviousness, what you build with things made of atoms can be patentable.</p><p>In my opinion, it actually highlights the accuracy of his argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a combination of algorithms is also an algorithm .
if the algorithms that make it up are math , then the algorithm they are as subset of is also math .
If math is not patentable , then that algorithm is not patentable.I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next / .
'er , but the above struck me as aking to A ) atoms can not be patented , B ) all machines are made of one or more atoms , ergo machines can not be patented.this is not the same thing .
Atoms would be analogous to numbers in this argument .
They are both items .
Math is what you do with numbers .
Algorithms are sets of mathematical instructions to achieve a goal.Since what you build with atoms is patentable , given constraints about novelty and obviousness , what you build with things made of atoms can be patentable.In my opinion , it actually highlights the accuracy of his argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a combination of algorithms is also an algorithm.
if the algorithms that make it up are math, then the algorithm they are as subset of is also math.
If math is not patentable, then that algorithm is not patentable.I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next /.
'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.this is not the same thing.
Atoms would be analogous to numbers in this argument.
They are both items.
Math is what you do with numbers.
Algorithms are sets of mathematical instructions to achieve a goal.Since what you build with atoms is patentable, given constraints about novelty and obviousness, what you build with things made of atoms can be patentable.In my opinion, it actually highlights the accuracy of his argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649009</id>
	<title>Decision Text Here</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1247237640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Summary points to a press release. The actual decision is available here: <a href="http://bfwa.com/docs/dealertrack.pdf" title="bfwa.com">http://bfwa.com/docs/dealertrack.pdf</a> [bfwa.com] (7 page pdf)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary points to a press release .
The actual decision is available here : http : //bfwa.com/docs/dealertrack.pdf [ bfwa.com ] ( 7 page pdf )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary points to a press release.
The actual decision is available here: http://bfwa.com/docs/dealertrack.pdf [bfwa.com] (7 page pdf)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847</id>
	<title>Backward patent logic</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1247236920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I often see the opinion that "mathematical software" should not be patentable, but "non-mathematical software" should be.  I appreciate the theoretical arguments on this subject, but the practical ones seem to point the other way.</p><p>When <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil\_Katz" title="wikipedia.org">Phil Katz</a> [wikipedia.org] invented a compression algorithm, he patented it.  It seems to me, to be a fair thing to do.  He invented the algorithm, he should deserve the credit and (if he chose to commercialize a product), the resulting profits.  Same thing with encryption algorithms - if I created a new super-encryption algorithm, I should be able to commercialize it.</p><p>The problematic software patents are not mathematical.  They are things like one-click shopping and auctions done over the internet, or really all of the something done over the internet patents.  These are lame and should be eliminated.  But a new algorithm seems like truly inventive to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I often see the opinion that " mathematical software " should not be patentable , but " non-mathematical software " should be .
I appreciate the theoretical arguments on this subject , but the practical ones seem to point the other way.When Phil Katz [ wikipedia.org ] invented a compression algorithm , he patented it .
It seems to me , to be a fair thing to do .
He invented the algorithm , he should deserve the credit and ( if he chose to commercialize a product ) , the resulting profits .
Same thing with encryption algorithms - if I created a new super-encryption algorithm , I should be able to commercialize it.The problematic software patents are not mathematical .
They are things like one-click shopping and auctions done over the internet , or really all of the something done over the internet patents .
These are lame and should be eliminated .
But a new algorithm seems like truly inventive to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I often see the opinion that "mathematical software" should not be patentable, but "non-mathematical software" should be.
I appreciate the theoretical arguments on this subject, but the practical ones seem to point the other way.When Phil Katz [wikipedia.org] invented a compression algorithm, he patented it.
It seems to me, to be a fair thing to do.
He invented the algorithm, he should deserve the credit and (if he chose to commercialize a product), the resulting profits.
Same thing with encryption algorithms - if I created a new super-encryption algorithm, I should be able to commercialize it.The problematic software patents are not mathematical.
They are things like one-click shopping and auctions done over the internet, or really all of the something done over the internet patents.
These are lame and should be eliminated.
But a new algorithm seems like truly inventive to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650309</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1247242740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd point out that software is covered under copyright.  If I make a great new program and you copy it, I can sue under existing copyright laws.  Giving that program patent protection "protects" it twice which isn't needed and merely reduces competition.  Instead of you needing to write, from scratch, your own competitor to my "great new program," you're locked out of the market because it is patented.</p><p>Add to that the vast number of patents that are too vague, aren't enforced until a technology becomes popular (aka patent trolls), or just cover some mundane thing done "over the Internet" or "using a computer," and you can see why people don't like software patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd point out that software is covered under copyright .
If I make a great new program and you copy it , I can sue under existing copyright laws .
Giving that program patent protection " protects " it twice which is n't needed and merely reduces competition .
Instead of you needing to write , from scratch , your own competitor to my " great new program , " you 're locked out of the market because it is patented.Add to that the vast number of patents that are too vague , are n't enforced until a technology becomes popular ( aka patent trolls ) , or just cover some mundane thing done " over the Internet " or " using a computer , " and you can see why people do n't like software patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd point out that software is covered under copyright.
If I make a great new program and you copy it, I can sue under existing copyright laws.
Giving that program patent protection "protects" it twice which isn't needed and merely reduces competition.
Instead of you needing to write, from scratch, your own competitor to my "great new program," you're locked out of the market because it is patented.Add to that the vast number of patents that are too vague, aren't enforced until a technology becomes popular (aka patent trolls), or just cover some mundane thing done "over the Internet" or "using a computer," and you can see why people don't like software patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648981</id>
	<title>Multi-touch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247237520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this will open the door to multi-touch for Android and other non-Apple devices...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this will open the door to multi-touch for Android and other non-Apple devices.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this will open the door to multi-touch for Android and other non-Apple devices...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648449</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247234760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His logic isn't very good in my opinion.</p><p>There is no concept in any patent law be it US or EU that would allow a claim to an integer by itself of the form "Claim 1, the integer 1009". I don't really see the point of his argument by saying that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His logic is n't very good in my opinion.There is no concept in any patent law be it US or EU that would allow a claim to an integer by itself of the form " Claim 1 , the integer 1009 " .
I do n't really see the point of his argument by saying that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His logic isn't very good in my opinion.There is no concept in any patent law be it US or EU that would allow a claim to an integer by itself of the form "Claim 1, the integer 1009".
I don't really see the point of his argument by saying that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649393</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247239200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of proofs are non-obvious and novel combinations of other proofs, but we still don't allow them to be patented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of proofs are non-obvious and novel combinations of other proofs , but we still do n't allow them to be patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of proofs are non-obvious and novel combinations of other proofs, but we still don't allow them to be patented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650283</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1247242620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept. To my mind, the problem has been that the "non-obvious" requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless."</p><p>I think your second sentence answered your first<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>In any case, what's the useful purpose of having a patent on something that is copyrighted?  Especially due to the permanence of copyright.</p><p>Aside from stifling innovation, of course...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept .
To my mind , the problem has been that the " non-obvious " requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless .
" I think your second sentence answered your first : ) In any case , what 's the useful purpose of having a patent on something that is copyrighted ?
Especially due to the permanence of copyright.Aside from stifling innovation , of course.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.
To my mind, the problem has been that the "non-obvious" requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless.
"I think your second sentence answered your first :)In any case, what's the useful purpose of having a patent on something that is copyrighted?
Especially due to the permanence of copyright.Aside from stifling innovation, of course...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>MenThal</author>
	<datestamp>1247235060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His argument is simple: (1) math cannot be patented (2) all algorithms are math (3) all software <b>is one or more</b> algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable.</p> </div><p>While I agree with the sentiment, this isn't good logic. Since software is a combination of algorithms, the combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel.</p><p>I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His argument is simple : ( 1 ) math can not be patented ( 2 ) all algorithms are math ( 3 ) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software can not be patentable .
While I agree with the sentiment , this is n't good logic .
Since software is a combination of algorithms , the combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel.I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next / .
'er , but the above struck me as aking to A ) atoms can not be patented , B ) all machines are made of one or more atoms , ergo machines can not be patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His argument is simple: (1) math cannot be patented (2) all algorithms are math (3) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable.
While I agree with the sentiment, this isn't good logic.
Since software is a combination of algorithms, the combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel.I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next /.
'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650297</id>
	<title>Re:Backward patent logic</title>
	<author>rgarbacz</author>
	<datestamp>1247242680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like you are not aware of the fact that the copyright law covers things as algorithms, books, music, etc. Simply the "patent law" is designed for different things.<br> <br>
Rewording a creator/inventor is one thing, and using the patent law to enforce it is another thing. In the case of algorithms it is simply not the right tool. People like it because is simpler to prove (when provable) in a court, but because is not adequate makes a lot of mess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like you are not aware of the fact that the copyright law covers things as algorithms , books , music , etc .
Simply the " patent law " is designed for different things .
Rewording a creator/inventor is one thing , and using the patent law to enforce it is another thing .
In the case of algorithms it is simply not the right tool .
People like it because is simpler to prove ( when provable ) in a court , but because is not adequate makes a lot of mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like you are not aware of the fact that the copyright law covers things as algorithms, books, music, etc.
Simply the "patent law" is designed for different things.
Rewording a creator/inventor is one thing, and using the patent law to enforce it is another thing.
In the case of algorithms it is simply not the right tool.
People like it because is simpler to prove (when provable) in a court, but because is not adequate makes a lot of mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648363</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247234220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A first post that isn't a troll, flamebait, gnaa related, anti-semitic or jammed full over over-used, over-rated memes!  Excellent, now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. let us see if we can keep this up.  Please.  For the love of all that is shiny, please!<br> <br>

Back on topic - I'm just not seeing why this would have been patent worthy in the first place and I am looking forward to the outcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A first post that is n't a troll , flamebait , gnaa related , anti-semitic or jammed full over over-used , over-rated memes !
Excellent , now / .
let us see if we can keep this up .
Please. For the love of all that is shiny , please !
Back on topic - I 'm just not seeing why this would have been patent worthy in the first place and I am looking forward to the outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A first post that isn't a troll, flamebait, gnaa related, anti-semitic or jammed full over over-used, over-rated memes!
Excellent, now /.
let us see if we can keep this up.
Please.  For the love of all that is shiny, please!
Back on topic - I'm just not seeing why this would have been patent worthy in the first place and I am looking forward to the outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649607</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247240040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.</p></div><p>There is a distinct difference between Knuth's logical progression and yours.  It's a matter of a few words, which may seem nit-picky, but what manner of logic doesn't boil down to pure semantics?</p><p>Knuth's "software cannot be patented" argument:<br>* Math cannot be patented.<br>* Algorithms ARE math.<br>* Software IS a series of algorithms strung together (as an aside, a series of algorithms interacting is itself an algorithm)<br>* Ergo, software cannot be patented</p><p>Your counter-argument via analogy:<br>* Atoms cannot be patented<br>* Machines ARE MADE OF one or more atoms strung together<br>* Ergo, machines cannot be patented</p><p>Note the emphasized words: ARE versus ARE MADE OF.  Math is not a tangible object, so there is no concept of "is made of" in that context.  Atoms are tangible, albeit on a microscopic scale.  Still, that's enough to say that a machine IS MADE OF specific atoms.  However, you cannot say that a machine IS an atom.  You can say that a machine IS a group of atoms, but that's not enough to warrant a patent; a machine is more than that.  The group of atoms is crafted into unique and complex shapes, and those shapes are put together and mechanical force is applied to make it accomplish a task.  That is what warrants a patent.</p><p>I know exactly what you are about to think: aren't you doing the same thing to the series of algorithms?  The answer is no.  Math cannot be "crafted" into a "shape".  It can describe a shape, but it is intangible.  No mechanical force can act on math, and a solid object cannot be "made of math".  An algorithm, quite simply, IS math; no more, no less.  You can string together as many algorithms as you like, but all that does is create one larger algorithm.  The same cannot be said about a physical object consisting of multiple atoms strung together.</p><p>The end result of a software may fall under another system, like copyright or trademark.  But the underlying logic is all math, and that cannot and should not fall under patent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next / .
'er , but the above struck me as aking to A ) atoms can not be patented , B ) all machines are made of one or more atoms , ergo machines can not be patented.There is a distinct difference between Knuth 's logical progression and yours .
It 's a matter of a few words , which may seem nit-picky , but what manner of logic does n't boil down to pure semantics ? Knuth 's " software can not be patented " argument : * Math can not be patented .
* Algorithms ARE math .
* Software IS a series of algorithms strung together ( as an aside , a series of algorithms interacting is itself an algorithm ) * Ergo , software can not be patentedYour counter-argument via analogy : * Atoms can not be patented * Machines ARE MADE OF one or more atoms strung together * Ergo , machines can not be patentedNote the emphasized words : ARE versus ARE MADE OF .
Math is not a tangible object , so there is no concept of " is made of " in that context .
Atoms are tangible , albeit on a microscopic scale .
Still , that 's enough to say that a machine IS MADE OF specific atoms .
However , you can not say that a machine IS an atom .
You can say that a machine IS a group of atoms , but that 's not enough to warrant a patent ; a machine is more than that .
The group of atoms is crafted into unique and complex shapes , and those shapes are put together and mechanical force is applied to make it accomplish a task .
That is what warrants a patent.I know exactly what you are about to think : are n't you doing the same thing to the series of algorithms ?
The answer is no .
Math can not be " crafted " into a " shape " .
It can describe a shape , but it is intangible .
No mechanical force can act on math , and a solid object can not be " made of math " .
An algorithm , quite simply , IS math ; no more , no less .
You can string together as many algorithms as you like , but all that does is create one larger algorithm .
The same can not be said about a physical object consisting of multiple atoms strung together.The end result of a software may fall under another system , like copyright or trademark .
But the underlying logic is all math , and that can not and should not fall under patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next /.
'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.There is a distinct difference between Knuth's logical progression and yours.
It's a matter of a few words, which may seem nit-picky, but what manner of logic doesn't boil down to pure semantics?Knuth's "software cannot be patented" argument:* Math cannot be patented.
* Algorithms ARE math.
* Software IS a series of algorithms strung together (as an aside, a series of algorithms interacting is itself an algorithm)* Ergo, software cannot be patentedYour counter-argument via analogy:* Atoms cannot be patented* Machines ARE MADE OF one or more atoms strung together* Ergo, machines cannot be patentedNote the emphasized words: ARE versus ARE MADE OF.
Math is not a tangible object, so there is no concept of "is made of" in that context.
Atoms are tangible, albeit on a microscopic scale.
Still, that's enough to say that a machine IS MADE OF specific atoms.
However, you cannot say that a machine IS an atom.
You can say that a machine IS a group of atoms, but that's not enough to warrant a patent; a machine is more than that.
The group of atoms is crafted into unique and complex shapes, and those shapes are put together and mechanical force is applied to make it accomplish a task.
That is what warrants a patent.I know exactly what you are about to think: aren't you doing the same thing to the series of algorithms?
The answer is no.
Math cannot be "crafted" into a "shape".
It can describe a shape, but it is intangible.
No mechanical force can act on math, and a solid object cannot be "made of math".
An algorithm, quite simply, IS math; no more, no less.
You can string together as many algorithms as you like, but all that does is create one larger algorithm.
The same cannot be said about a physical object consisting of multiple atoms strung together.The end result of a software may fall under another system, like copyright or trademark.
But the underlying logic is all math, and that cannot and should not fall under patent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649171</id>
	<title>I wonder..</title>
	<author>Pvt\_Ryan</author>
	<datestamp>1247238420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would the judge be willing to go to the patent office and starting look for all MS patents and then rule on each of them?
<br> <br>
Once finished he could then move onto other patents and clear the whole place up..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would the judge be willing to go to the patent office and starting look for all MS patents and then rule on each of them ?
Once finished he could then move onto other patents and clear the whole place up. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would the judge be willing to go to the patent office and starting look for all MS patents and then rule on each of them?
Once finished he could then move onto other patents and clear the whole place up..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650157</id>
	<title>Re:Backward patent logic</title>
	<author>es0vyr4fVY9LD8ub</author>
	<datestamp>1247242080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't you confusing patents with licensing? GPL'ed code isn't patented but it is has a license.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't you confusing patents with licensing ?
GPL'ed code is n't patented but it is has a license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't you confusing patents with licensing?
GPL'ed code isn't patented but it is has a license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</id>
	<title>Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>McGregorMortis</author>
	<datestamp>1247237160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not entirely comfortable with Bilski.  I think the Bilski test has thrown out the baby with the bathwater.</p><p>Not, in the case at hand... this patent sounds like 100\% pure unadulterated bathwater.  But nevertheless...</p><p>I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.  To my mind, the problem has been that the "non-obvious" requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless.</p><p>There are some really clever algorithms out there, though.  Algorithms that are not at all obvious, and really advance the state of the art.  If Quicksort was invented today, wouldn't it deserve a patent?</p><p>But if the bath water is going to include such notorious crap patents as 1-Click, Desire2Learn, NTP, and many others, then I would have to say that the bathwater is so rank and disgusting that it's not too high a price to pay to lose a handful of babies, as Bilski does.</p><p>But can't we do better?  Can't we find an "obviousness" test that works?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not entirely comfortable with Bilski .
I think the Bilski test has thrown out the baby with the bathwater.Not , in the case at hand... this patent sounds like 100 \ % pure unadulterated bathwater .
But nevertheless...I 'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept .
To my mind , the problem has been that the " non-obvious " requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless.There are some really clever algorithms out there , though .
Algorithms that are not at all obvious , and really advance the state of the art .
If Quicksort was invented today , would n't it deserve a patent ? But if the bath water is going to include such notorious crap patents as 1-Click , Desire2Learn , NTP , and many others , then I would have to say that the bathwater is so rank and disgusting that it 's not too high a price to pay to lose a handful of babies , as Bilski does.But ca n't we do better ?
Ca n't we find an " obviousness " test that works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not entirely comfortable with Bilski.
I think the Bilski test has thrown out the baby with the bathwater.Not, in the case at hand... this patent sounds like 100\% pure unadulterated bathwater.
But nevertheless...I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.
To my mind, the problem has been that the "non-obvious" requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless.There are some really clever algorithms out there, though.
Algorithms that are not at all obvious, and really advance the state of the art.
If Quicksort was invented today, wouldn't it deserve a patent?But if the bath water is going to include such notorious crap patents as 1-Click, Desire2Learn, NTP, and many others, then I would have to say that the bathwater is so rank and disgusting that it's not too high a price to pay to lose a handful of babies, as Bilski does.But can't we do better?
Can't we find an "obviousness" test that works?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649469</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1247239440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept. To my mind, the problem has been that the "non-obvious" requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless.</p></div><p>Patents are based on the idea that you have a person who is an Inventor, and needs to have special privileges to be able to invent new things. Historically what seems to happen is that lots of people will be experimenting in the same area and possibly sharing notes, and will all converge on an invention.</p><p>Patents are fundamentally based on the assumption that Inventors are uniquely special, and a particular Invention is unique to a particular Inventor. This is not correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept .
To my mind , the problem has been that the " non-obvious " requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless.Patents are based on the idea that you have a person who is an Inventor , and needs to have special privileges to be able to invent new things .
Historically what seems to happen is that lots of people will be experimenting in the same area and possibly sharing notes , and will all converge on an invention.Patents are fundamentally based on the assumption that Inventors are uniquely special , and a particular Invention is unique to a particular Inventor .
This is not correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.
To my mind, the problem has been that the "non-obvious" requirement has been ignored or interpretted in such a way as to render it meaningless.Patents are based on the idea that you have a person who is an Inventor, and needs to have special privileges to be able to invent new things.
Historically what seems to happen is that lots of people will be experimenting in the same area and possibly sharing notes, and will all converge on an invention.Patents are fundamentally based on the assumption that Inventors are uniquely special, and a particular Invention is unique to a particular Inventor.
This is not correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651955</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1247250420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bilski does not address obviousness; it addresses patentable subject matter. You cannot patent scientific laws like gravity. By extension, you cannot patent mathematical rules or algorithms. You can patent machines that make use of algorithms to control it, such as a rubber-curing device that calculates when to turn off the heat, but software is arguably a pure algorithm because it's tied to ANY machine and not any machine in particular. Thus, regardless of how novel or non-obvious the software, it is not patentable under Bilski because it cannot be patented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bilski does not address obviousness ; it addresses patentable subject matter .
You can not patent scientific laws like gravity .
By extension , you can not patent mathematical rules or algorithms .
You can patent machines that make use of algorithms to control it , such as a rubber-curing device that calculates when to turn off the heat , but software is arguably a pure algorithm because it 's tied to ANY machine and not any machine in particular .
Thus , regardless of how novel or non-obvious the software , it is not patentable under Bilski because it can not be patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bilski does not address obviousness; it addresses patentable subject matter.
You cannot patent scientific laws like gravity.
By extension, you cannot patent mathematical rules or algorithms.
You can patent machines that make use of algorithms to control it, such as a rubber-curing device that calculates when to turn off the heat, but software is arguably a pure algorithm because it's tied to ANY machine and not any machine in particular.
Thus, regardless of how novel or non-obvious the software, it is not patentable under Bilski because it cannot be patented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650737</id>
	<title>Hardware implementation of CODEC, yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247244360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not software.</p><p>You can't patent the moving of household items.</p><p>Yet people still pay other people to help them move house.</p><p>If there had been no digital video compression, there would have been no DVD and the reduction in cost by the use of this format instead of laserdisc or tape would not have been realised. Therefore, MPEG compression would have been paid for by the movie industry to reduce their costs and that renumeration would have been enough to get the compression they were willing to pay for done.</p><p>All that would have been needed was a contract to perform a job "create a movie compression so a 720p digital movie would fit in 2GB/hour or less". No patent needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not software.You ca n't patent the moving of household items.Yet people still pay other people to help them move house.If there had been no digital video compression , there would have been no DVD and the reduction in cost by the use of this format instead of laserdisc or tape would not have been realised .
Therefore , MPEG compression would have been paid for by the movie industry to reduce their costs and that renumeration would have been enough to get the compression they were willing to pay for done.All that would have been needed was a contract to perform a job " create a movie compression so a 720p digital movie would fit in 2GB/hour or less " .
No patent needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not software.You can't patent the moving of household items.Yet people still pay other people to help them move house.If there had been no digital video compression, there would have been no DVD and the reduction in cost by the use of this format instead of laserdisc or tape would not have been realised.
Therefore, MPEG compression would have been paid for by the movie industry to reduce their costs and that renumeration would have been enough to get the compression they were willing to pay for done.All that would have been needed was a contract to perform a job "create a movie compression so a 720p digital movie would fit in 2GB/hour or less".
No patent needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649407</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1247239260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The position is pretty explicit.  The past law was such that if it were a business process or describing an algorithm in the traditional sense (the bulk of software patents do this...) then it wasn't patentable- same goes for that which resides in nature.  Bilski puts it back to where it was prior to all the fun and games when it was thought that it was a "good idea" to allow patenting damned near anything.  It's not throwing the baby out with the bath water- it's fixing part of what's been broken for a while now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The position is pretty explicit .
The past law was such that if it were a business process or describing an algorithm in the traditional sense ( the bulk of software patents do this... ) then it was n't patentable- same goes for that which resides in nature .
Bilski puts it back to where it was prior to all the fun and games when it was thought that it was a " good idea " to allow patenting damned near anything .
It 's not throwing the baby out with the bath water- it 's fixing part of what 's been broken for a while now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The position is pretty explicit.
The past law was such that if it were a business process or describing an algorithm in the traditional sense (the bulk of software patents do this...) then it wasn't patentable- same goes for that which resides in nature.
Bilski puts it back to where it was prior to all the fun and games when it was thought that it was a "good idea" to allow patenting damned near anything.
It's not throwing the baby out with the bath water- it's fixing part of what's been broken for a while now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650849</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1247244780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>His argument is simple: (1) math cannot be patented (2) all algorithms are math (3) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
While I agree with the sentiment, this isn't good logic. Since software is a combination of algorithms, the combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel.

I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I regretfully agree with the parent post. One problem with Knuth's reasoning is that it's so broad that it would seem to say that algorithms and numbers shouldn't be <i>copyrightable</i> either. Here's an example that clearly should be copyrightable if it Shakespeare wrote it today:
</p><p>
printf("To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?");
</p><p>
Knuth also says it would be terrible to allow a patent on a number like 1009, and that part of his argument is also so broad that it would apply to copyright as well. But if I take the "To be, or not to be..." string above and encode it into some big integer, it's clearly something that should be copyrightable.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His argument is simple : ( 1 ) math can not be patented ( 2 ) all algorithms are math ( 3 ) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software can not be patentable .
While I agree with the sentiment , this is n't good logic .
Since software is a combination of algorithms , the combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel .
I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next / .
'er , but the above struck me as aking to A ) atoms can not be patented , B ) all machines are made of one or more atoms , ergo machines can not be patented .
I regretfully agree with the parent post .
One problem with Knuth 's reasoning is that it 's so broad that it would seem to say that algorithms and numbers should n't be copyrightable either .
Here 's an example that clearly should be copyrightable if it Shakespeare wrote it today : printf ( " To be , or not to be : that is the question : Whether 't is nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune , Or to take arms against a sea of troubles , And by opposing end them ?
" ) ; Knuth also says it would be terrible to allow a patent on a number like 1009 , and that part of his argument is also so broad that it would apply to copyright as well .
But if I take the " To be , or not to be... " string above and encode it into some big integer , it 's clearly something that should be copyrightable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His argument is simple: (1) math cannot be patented (2) all algorithms are math (3) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable.
While I agree with the sentiment, this isn't good logic.
Since software is a combination of algorithms, the combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel.
I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next /.
'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.
I regretfully agree with the parent post.
One problem with Knuth's reasoning is that it's so broad that it would seem to say that algorithms and numbers shouldn't be copyrightable either.
Here's an example that clearly should be copyrightable if it Shakespeare wrote it today:

printf("To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
");

Knuth also says it would be terrible to allow a patent on a number like 1009, and that part of his argument is also so broad that it would apply to copyright as well.
But if I take the "To be, or not to be..." string above and encode it into some big integer, it's clearly something that should be copyrightable.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650825</id>
	<title>Re:Double Edge</title>
	<author>rgarbacz</author>
	<datestamp>1247244720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am sorry for poking a stick into an ant mound, but isn't it better to talk about the "copyright" instead of "intellectual property". The latter sounds sort of like the "new speech" from 1984. How can something intellectual be a property, e.g. a "car" is a property, but an "idea"? How can one "show" his idea to someone and say, now give it back, because I need it to go home.<br> <br>
But still, am not a native English speaker, there are different words for a property as a "car", and e.g. an "intellectual property" as an "intelligence" in my native language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sorry for poking a stick into an ant mound , but is n't it better to talk about the " copyright " instead of " intellectual property " .
The latter sounds sort of like the " new speech " from 1984 .
How can something intellectual be a property , e.g .
a " car " is a property , but an " idea " ?
How can one " show " his idea to someone and say , now give it back , because I need it to go home .
But still , am not a native English speaker , there are different words for a property as a " car " , and e.g .
an " intellectual property " as an " intelligence " in my native language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sorry for poking a stick into an ant mound, but isn't it better to talk about the "copyright" instead of "intellectual property".
The latter sounds sort of like the "new speech" from 1984.
How can something intellectual be a property, e.g.
a "car" is a property, but an "idea"?
How can one "show" his idea to someone and say, now give it back, because I need it to go home.
But still, am not a native English speaker, there are different words for a property as a "car", and e.g.
an "intellectual property" as an "intelligence" in my native language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28667007</id>
	<title>But the PTO says Bilski doesn't apply to software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247409960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/2007-1130uspto\_opposition\_to\_certiorari.pdf</p><p>The above link is a document submitted to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office in regard to Bilski.  It begs the court not to look behind the curtain at the nonesense in Bilski.</p><p>Page 14 includes the following, I highlight the portions to which I would draw your attention thusly : --portion--.</p><p>In any event, --the court of appeals emphasized that its decision in this case --does not-- address the application of the machine-or-transformation test to --computer software--, data-manipulation techniques, or other such technologies not involved in petitioners&#226;(TM) risk-hedging claim.<br>See, e.g., Pet. App. 25a n.23 (&#226;oe[T]he process claim at issue in this appeal is not, in any event, a software claim. Thus, the facts here would be largely unhelpful in illuminating<br>the distinctions between those software claims<br>that are patent-eligible and those that are not.&#226;); id. at 28a (&#226;oeWe leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or<br>when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine.&#226;); id. at 29a (indicating that the court will take &#226;oea measured approach&#226; in applying the machine-or-transformation test to electronically<br>manipulated data).<br>Thus, even if petitioners&#226;(TM) policy arguments had merit, they are essentially irrelevant to the proper disposition of this case because petitioners&#226;(TM) patent application involves none of the frontier technologies on which the petition dwells. Indeed, the abstract market-hedging<br>scheme that petitioners seek to patent is ineligible under any conventional understanding of Section 101. This case accordingly provides no opportunity for the Court to address the problems that may arise in applying Sec</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Accordingly, even the pro Bilski decision PTO says Bilski doesn't apply to software and it would follow that the discussed court decision is wrong.  Therefore, you should all expect this decision to be overturned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/2007-1130uspto \ _opposition \ _to \ _certiorari.pdfThe above link is a document submitted to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office in regard to Bilski .
It begs the court not to look behind the curtain at the nonesense in Bilski.Page 14 includes the following , I highlight the portions to which I would draw your attention thusly : --portion--.In any event , --the court of appeals emphasized that its decision in this case --does not-- address the application of the machine-or-transformation test to --computer software-- , data-manipulation techniques , or other such technologies not involved in petitioners   ( TM ) risk-hedging claim.See , e.g. , Pet .
App. 25a n.23 (   oe [ T ] he process claim at issue in this appeal is not , in any event , a software claim .
Thus , the facts here would be largely unhelpful in illuminatingthe distinctions between those software claimsthat are patent-eligible and those that are not.   ) ; id .
at 28a (   oeWe leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation , as well as the answers to particular questions , such as whether orwhen recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine.   ) ; id .
at 29a ( indicating that the court will take   oea measured approach   in applying the machine-or-transformation test to electronicallymanipulated data ) .Thus , even if petitioners   ( TM ) policy arguments had merit , they are essentially irrelevant to the proper disposition of this case because petitioners   ( TM ) patent application involves none of the frontier technologies on which the petition dwells .
Indeed , the abstract market-hedgingscheme that petitioners seek to patent is ineligible under any conventional understanding of Section 101 .
This case accordingly provides no opportunity for the Court to address the problems that may arise in applying Sec           Accordingly , even the pro Bilski decision PTO says Bilski does n't apply to software and it would follow that the discussed court decision is wrong .
Therefore , you should all expect this decision to be overturned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/2007-1130uspto\_opposition\_to\_certiorari.pdfThe above link is a document submitted to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office in regard to Bilski.
It begs the court not to look behind the curtain at the nonesense in Bilski.Page 14 includes the following, I highlight the portions to which I would draw your attention thusly : --portion--.In any event, --the court of appeals emphasized that its decision in this case --does not-- address the application of the machine-or-transformation test to --computer software--, data-manipulation techniques, or other such technologies not involved in petitionersâ(TM) risk-hedging claim.See, e.g., Pet.
App. 25a n.23 (âoe[T]he process claim at issue in this appeal is not, in any event, a software claim.
Thus, the facts here would be largely unhelpful in illuminatingthe distinctions between those software claimsthat are patent-eligible and those that are not.â); id.
at 28a (âoeWe leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether orwhen recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine.â); id.
at 29a (indicating that the court will take âoea measured approachâ in applying the machine-or-transformation test to electronicallymanipulated data).Thus, even if petitionersâ(TM) policy arguments had merit, they are essentially irrelevant to the proper disposition of this case because petitionersâ(TM) patent application involves none of the frontier technologies on which the petition dwells.
Indeed, the abstract market-hedgingscheme that petitioners seek to patent is ineligible under any conventional understanding of Section 101.
This case accordingly provides no opportunity for the Court to address the problems that may arise in applying Sec
          Accordingly, even the pro Bilski decision PTO says Bilski doesn't apply to software and it would follow that the discussed court decision is wrong.
Therefore, you should all expect this decision to be overturned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28672749</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247422020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps a better argument from him would have been something like:</p><p>X=1009</p><p>In a computer language that algorithm equates to setting a memory location - here represented by the variable 'X' - to 1009.</p><p>From Wikipedia, "In mathematics, computing, linguistics, and related subjects, an algorithm is a finite sequence of instructions, an explicit, step-by-step procedure for solving a problem"...</p><p>According to patent attorneys, "X=1009" could be patented under the right conditions (perhaps explaining that the number 1009 has some special mathematical properties associated with a given problem - and by setting a variable to the value, you can utilize that number to solve the unique problem).</p><p>The key point here is where is the line drawn between what is a mathematical algorithm, and what is instead, patentable intellectual property?  Since all software, by definition is a mathematical algorithm, then it makes perfect sense that it is not patentable - regardless of the complexity or lack thereof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps a better argument from him would have been something like : X = 1009In a computer language that algorithm equates to setting a memory location - here represented by the variable 'X ' - to 1009.From Wikipedia , " In mathematics , computing , linguistics , and related subjects , an algorithm is a finite sequence of instructions , an explicit , step-by-step procedure for solving a problem " ...According to patent attorneys , " X = 1009 " could be patented under the right conditions ( perhaps explaining that the number 1009 has some special mathematical properties associated with a given problem - and by setting a variable to the value , you can utilize that number to solve the unique problem ) .The key point here is where is the line drawn between what is a mathematical algorithm , and what is instead , patentable intellectual property ?
Since all software , by definition is a mathematical algorithm , then it makes perfect sense that it is not patentable - regardless of the complexity or lack thereof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps a better argument from him would have been something like:X=1009In a computer language that algorithm equates to setting a memory location - here represented by the variable 'X' - to 1009.From Wikipedia, "In mathematics, computing, linguistics, and related subjects, an algorithm is a finite sequence of instructions, an explicit, step-by-step procedure for solving a problem"...According to patent attorneys, "X=1009" could be patented under the right conditions (perhaps explaining that the number 1009 has some special mathematical properties associated with a given problem - and by setting a variable to the value, you can utilize that number to solve the unique problem).The key point here is where is the line drawn between what is a mathematical algorithm, and what is instead, patentable intellectual property?
Since all software, by definition is a mathematical algorithm, then it makes perfect sense that it is not patentable - regardless of the complexity or lack thereof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650145</id>
	<title>Bilski not such a big problem for software patents</title>
	<author>JamesBarger</author>
	<datestamp>1247242080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An article by a U.S. patent attorney says Bilski doesn't really present an obstacle to software patents, if the patent attorney understands software the way a programmer does. <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/29/how-to-patent-software-in-a-post-bilski-era/id=4311/" title="ipwatchdog.com" rel="nofollow">The article</a> [ipwatchdog.com] explains that one of the keys is to "define the process as it is done by a computer." You just can't refer to it as "software." And, you need to "protect software in an indirect manner by protecting the computer itself, and by protecting a computer implemented process." This is why the patent law world needs more former programmers with law degrees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An article by a U.S. patent attorney says Bilski does n't really present an obstacle to software patents , if the patent attorney understands software the way a programmer does .
The article [ ipwatchdog.com ] explains that one of the keys is to " define the process as it is done by a computer .
" You just ca n't refer to it as " software .
" And , you need to " protect software in an indirect manner by protecting the computer itself , and by protecting a computer implemented process .
" This is why the patent law world needs more former programmers with law degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article by a U.S. patent attorney says Bilski doesn't really present an obstacle to software patents, if the patent attorney understands software the way a programmer does.
The article [ipwatchdog.com] explains that one of the keys is to "define the process as it is done by a computer.
" You just can't refer to it as "software.
" And, you need to "protect software in an indirect manner by protecting the computer itself, and by protecting a computer implemented process.
" This is why the patent law world needs more former programmers with law degrees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651625</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247248740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All software is made of algorithms | All algorithms are combination of other algorithms | Any algorithm is math QED All software is math. Math is not patentable therefore all software isn't patentable. Software like books is copyrightable</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All software is made of algorithms | All algorithms are combination of other algorithms | Any algorithm is math QED All software is math .
Math is not patentable therefore all software is n't patentable .
Software like books is copyrightable</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All software is made of algorithms | All algorithms are combination of other algorithms | Any algorithm is math QED All software is math.
Math is not patentable therefore all software isn't patentable.
Software like books is copyrightable</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649579</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247239920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.</p><p>It is the stifling and encumbering effect of the patents that shows to be the majority of the problem (software and non-software patents). The patents are granted to specific code or implementation and then applied to a broad base, infringing is usually less about using the patented code and more about the concept having been used.</p><p>Add to that the duration of a patent and you've managed to stifle innovation for a long time. A patent is to give an inventor a chance to make money from his invention. How long is long enough or how much money should an inventor make before a patent expires and becomes public?</p><blockquote><div><p>But can't we do better? Can't we find an "obviousness" test that works?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, and it has been proposed and, for the most part, ignored. Patents are reviewed and granted by non-practicioners and this is the problem (software and otherwise). While a software algorithm may or may not be obvious to a software programmer it isn't obvious in most cases to a patent office worker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.It is the stifling and encumbering effect of the patents that shows to be the majority of the problem ( software and non-software patents ) .
The patents are granted to specific code or implementation and then applied to a broad base , infringing is usually less about using the patented code and more about the concept having been used.Add to that the duration of a patent and you 've managed to stifle innovation for a long time .
A patent is to give an inventor a chance to make money from his invention .
How long is long enough or how much money should an inventor make before a patent expires and becomes public ? But ca n't we do better ?
Ca n't we find an " obviousness " test that works ? Yes , and it has been proposed and , for the most part , ignored .
Patents are reviewed and granted by non-practicioners and this is the problem ( software and otherwise ) .
While a software algorithm may or may not be obvious to a software programmer it is n't obvious in most cases to a patent office worker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why so many Slashdotters are so opposed to software patents as a concept.It is the stifling and encumbering effect of the patents that shows to be the majority of the problem (software and non-software patents).
The patents are granted to specific code or implementation and then applied to a broad base, infringing is usually less about using the patented code and more about the concept having been used.Add to that the duration of a patent and you've managed to stifle innovation for a long time.
A patent is to give an inventor a chance to make money from his invention.
How long is long enough or how much money should an inventor make before a patent expires and becomes public?But can't we do better?
Can't we find an "obviousness" test that works?Yes, and it has been proposed and, for the most part, ignored.
Patents are reviewed and granted by non-practicioners and this is the problem (software and otherwise).
While a software algorithm may or may not be obvious to a software programmer it isn't obvious in most cases to a patent office worker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28680679</id>
	<title>Re:Double Edge</title>
	<author>Dread\_ed</author>
	<datestamp>1247514780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"In the case of Dealer Track, I think that computer based credit application is simply an evolution of computer based forms processing. There is nothing new or non-obvious here."</i></p><p>Dealertrack essentially copied interface components and functionality already developed and in long use by automobile manufacturer's banks(GMAC, Honda financial services, BMWFS, etc.)  The main differences I see with Dealertrack and say BMW's Infobahn website is Dealertrack displays the credit information and allows the user to send it to many different banks instead of just one.</p><p>I think the strength of their market share is directly proportional to the striking similarity of their system to what dealership finance personnel have been using for years through their captive finance sources.  Prior art, anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In the case of Dealer Track , I think that computer based credit application is simply an evolution of computer based forms processing .
There is nothing new or non-obvious here .
" Dealertrack essentially copied interface components and functionality already developed and in long use by automobile manufacturer 's banks ( GMAC , Honda financial services , BMWFS , etc .
) The main differences I see with Dealertrack and say BMW 's Infobahn website is Dealertrack displays the credit information and allows the user to send it to many different banks instead of just one.I think the strength of their market share is directly proportional to the striking similarity of their system to what dealership finance personnel have been using for years through their captive finance sources .
Prior art , anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In the case of Dealer Track, I think that computer based credit application is simply an evolution of computer based forms processing.
There is nothing new or non-obvious here.
"Dealertrack essentially copied interface components and functionality already developed and in long use by automobile manufacturer's banks(GMAC, Honda financial services, BMWFS, etc.
)  The main differences I see with Dealertrack and say BMW's Infobahn website is Dealertrack displays the credit information and allows the user to send it to many different banks instead of just one.I think the strength of their market share is directly proportional to the striking similarity of their system to what dealership finance personnel have been using for years through their captive finance sources.
Prior art, anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28656303</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247230500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The protections are different. If I patented the "Spreadsheet" someone else could not create a spreadsheet program without violating my patent. However if it was only copyright protected and there was no patent. You are free to create you're own spreadsheet using code as long as you didn't "copy" any my code.</p><p>Huge difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The protections are different .
If I patented the " Spreadsheet " someone else could not create a spreadsheet program without violating my patent .
However if it was only copyright protected and there was no patent .
You are free to create you 're own spreadsheet using code as long as you did n't " copy " any my code.Huge difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The protections are different.
If I patented the "Spreadsheet" someone else could not create a spreadsheet program without violating my patent.
However if it was only copyright protected and there was no patent.
You are free to create you're own spreadsheet using code as long as you didn't "copy" any my code.Huge difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652371</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Androclese</author>
	<datestamp>1247251800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The part that is being left out of this discussion is the Copyright aspect of this.  You should not be able to patent software, buy you should be able to copyright it.  The algorithms you use might not be unique by themselves, but the way you combine them might be.  THAT is the part that you should be able to protect for a period of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The part that is being left out of this discussion is the Copyright aspect of this .
You should not be able to patent software , buy you should be able to copyright it .
The algorithms you use might not be unique by themselves , but the way you combine them might be .
THAT is the part that you should be able to protect for a period of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part that is being left out of this discussion is the Copyright aspect of this.
You should not be able to patent software, buy you should be able to copyright it.
The algorithms you use might not be unique by themselves, but the way you combine them might be.
THAT is the part that you should be able to protect for a period of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28664075</id>
	<title>Software is math, but it is not only math.</title>
	<author>radarsat1</author>
	<datestamp>1247314080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not for software patents, but I hate to see specious arguments being made.  An argument being made in many posts here is that software is math, and thus not patentable.</p><p>I'd just like to look at that argument.  Is there no difference between software and math?  Math is purely thought.  Software is executed on a machine, and communicates with the world through input and output peripherals.  It seems to me that this makes a huge difference.</p><p>Maybe this argument is equating "software" with "algorithm".  The latter is math.  The former is a machine.  That is to say, for any software, there is an equivalent hardware machine that can execute the same algorithm.</p><p>Since hardware can be patented, isn't it specious to claim that software cannot be, since software can be implemented in hardware?</p><p>Software ceases to be "just math" as soon as an interface between the algorithm and its environment is constructed. (Peripherals.)</p><p>For example, I spend a lot of my time writing algorithms for robotic equipment.  So, I do math.  I write algorithms.  But these algorithms, while interesting in themselves, are only useful when connected to sensors and actuators.  It becomes part of the machine.  The machine does something completely different if I change the software.  The machine and the software depend on each other, you can't change one or the other without changing things drastically.</p><p>The machine by itself does nothing.  When programmed, it becomes a useful machine.  I am tempted to claim that the machine is not really a machine until it has software.  Thus, the software is an inherent part of the machine.  In fact the expression of the algorithm as software, instead of building it into the machine as hardware, is merely for convenience.  Its existance as software (math) as opposed to hardware (real material thing), is not fundamentally necessary.</p><p>Looking at this from the perspective of mechanics.  Mechanical engineers don't only work in the shop.  They spend a great deal of time figuring out the logic of how a machine will work before building it.  This depends a great deal on physics.  They must take into account hydrodynamics, friction, rigid body mechanics, etc.  They figure this all out on paper, conceptualize a good design, and then build it to test their idea in the real world.  They might even simulated it in software beforehand.</p><p>This is <em>math</em>.  But they are building a physical, real machine!  They are not programmers!  What is the difference between software programming, and mechanical design?  They share so many concepts.</p><p>So.</p><p>I think there are other perfectly good reasons for claiming that software should not be patented.  But to claim is because software = math is not reasonable or convincing.  Everything is math.  Most things are not only math, if they also <em>do</em> something and interact with the world.  This includes software programs running on a computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not for software patents , but I hate to see specious arguments being made .
An argument being made in many posts here is that software is math , and thus not patentable.I 'd just like to look at that argument .
Is there no difference between software and math ?
Math is purely thought .
Software is executed on a machine , and communicates with the world through input and output peripherals .
It seems to me that this makes a huge difference.Maybe this argument is equating " software " with " algorithm " .
The latter is math .
The former is a machine .
That is to say , for any software , there is an equivalent hardware machine that can execute the same algorithm.Since hardware can be patented , is n't it specious to claim that software can not be , since software can be implemented in hardware ? Software ceases to be " just math " as soon as an interface between the algorithm and its environment is constructed .
( Peripherals. ) For example , I spend a lot of my time writing algorithms for robotic equipment .
So , I do math .
I write algorithms .
But these algorithms , while interesting in themselves , are only useful when connected to sensors and actuators .
It becomes part of the machine .
The machine does something completely different if I change the software .
The machine and the software depend on each other , you ca n't change one or the other without changing things drastically.The machine by itself does nothing .
When programmed , it becomes a useful machine .
I am tempted to claim that the machine is not really a machine until it has software .
Thus , the software is an inherent part of the machine .
In fact the expression of the algorithm as software , instead of building it into the machine as hardware , is merely for convenience .
Its existance as software ( math ) as opposed to hardware ( real material thing ) , is not fundamentally necessary.Looking at this from the perspective of mechanics .
Mechanical engineers do n't only work in the shop .
They spend a great deal of time figuring out the logic of how a machine will work before building it .
This depends a great deal on physics .
They must take into account hydrodynamics , friction , rigid body mechanics , etc .
They figure this all out on paper , conceptualize a good design , and then build it to test their idea in the real world .
They might even simulated it in software beforehand.This is math .
But they are building a physical , real machine !
They are not programmers !
What is the difference between software programming , and mechanical design ?
They share so many concepts.So.I think there are other perfectly good reasons for claiming that software should not be patented .
But to claim is because software = math is not reasonable or convincing .
Everything is math .
Most things are not only math , if they also do something and interact with the world .
This includes software programs running on a computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not for software patents, but I hate to see specious arguments being made.
An argument being made in many posts here is that software is math, and thus not patentable.I'd just like to look at that argument.
Is there no difference between software and math?
Math is purely thought.
Software is executed on a machine, and communicates with the world through input and output peripherals.
It seems to me that this makes a huge difference.Maybe this argument is equating "software" with "algorithm".
The latter is math.
The former is a machine.
That is to say, for any software, there is an equivalent hardware machine that can execute the same algorithm.Since hardware can be patented, isn't it specious to claim that software cannot be, since software can be implemented in hardware?Software ceases to be "just math" as soon as an interface between the algorithm and its environment is constructed.
(Peripherals.)For example, I spend a lot of my time writing algorithms for robotic equipment.
So, I do math.
I write algorithms.
But these algorithms, while interesting in themselves, are only useful when connected to sensors and actuators.
It becomes part of the machine.
The machine does something completely different if I change the software.
The machine and the software depend on each other, you can't change one or the other without changing things drastically.The machine by itself does nothing.
When programmed, it becomes a useful machine.
I am tempted to claim that the machine is not really a machine until it has software.
Thus, the software is an inherent part of the machine.
In fact the expression of the algorithm as software, instead of building it into the machine as hardware, is merely for convenience.
Its existance as software (math) as opposed to hardware (real material thing), is not fundamentally necessary.Looking at this from the perspective of mechanics.
Mechanical engineers don't only work in the shop.
They spend a great deal of time figuring out the logic of how a machine will work before building it.
This depends a great deal on physics.
They must take into account hydrodynamics, friction, rigid body mechanics, etc.
They figure this all out on paper, conceptualize a good design, and then build it to test their idea in the real world.
They might even simulated it in software beforehand.This is math.
But they are building a physical, real machine!
They are not programmers!
What is the difference between software programming, and mechanical design?
They share so many concepts.So.I think there are other perfectly good reasons for claiming that software should not be patented.
But to claim is because software = math is not reasonable or convincing.
Everything is math.
Most things are not only math, if they also do something and interact with the world.
This includes software programs running on a computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650901</id>
	<title>Re:Backward patent logic</title>
	<author>Wolfbone</author>
	<datestamp>1247245020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "it's all maths / it's not all maths" arguments are indeed bogus - but so are the "it's truly inventive, it deserves a patent" arguments. Credit should be given and easily can be without also entailing powerful monopoly exclusion rights; your ability to commercialise some invention is not dependent on its being patentable and is not something which can be guaranteed by patents anyway; furthermore, third party patents can and often do work in exactly the opposite direction!; the patent offices never have attempted to distinguish at examination time between the truly inventive and the run-of-the-mill and for obvious reasons cannot be expected to ever be able to do so (at least not reliably, fairly and at reasonable cost); the moralistic "it deserves a patent" sort of argument falls apart when independent (re-)invention is taken into account;...</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...To cut a long story short, the only arguments that really stand up in the end are the economic arguments. The fundamental economic question is this: Does granting patents in some field or industry significantly promote progress, innovation and overall economic and social welfare? If not, that field or industry certainly shouldn't be burdened with the considerable weight of negative effects that are an inevitable consequence of patent eligibility. As Fritz Machlup wrote in his 1958 Economic Review of the Patent System:</p><blockquote><div><p>If one does not know whether a system "as a whole" (in contrast to certain features of it) is good or bad, the safest "policy conclusion" is to "muddle through - either with it, if one has long lived with it, or without it, if one has lived without it. If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it. This last statement refers to a country such as the United States of America-not to a small country and not a predominantly nonindustrial country, where a different weight of argument might well suggest another conclusion.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; While the student of the economics of the patent system must, provisionally, disqualify himself on the question of the effects of the system as a whole on a large industrial economy, he need not disqualify himself as a judge of proposed changes in the existing system. While economic analysis does not yet provide a basis for choosing between "all or nothing," it does provide a sufficiently firm basis for decisions about "a little more or a little less" of various ingredients of the patent system. Factual data of various kinds may be needed even before some of these decisions can be made with confidence. But a team of well-trained economic researchers and analysts should be able to obtain enough information to reach competent conclusions on questions of patent reform.</p></div></blockquote><p>Here is some of that research and analysis: <a href="http://researchoninnovation.org/" title="researchoninnovation.org">http://researchoninnovation.org/</a> [researchoninnovation.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " it 's all maths / it 's not all maths " arguments are indeed bogus - but so are the " it 's truly inventive , it deserves a patent " arguments .
Credit should be given and easily can be without also entailing powerful monopoly exclusion rights ; your ability to commercialise some invention is not dependent on its being patentable and is not something which can be guaranteed by patents anyway ; furthermore , third party patents can and often do work in exactly the opposite direction !
; the patent offices never have attempted to distinguish at examination time between the truly inventive and the run-of-the-mill and for obvious reasons can not be expected to ever be able to do so ( at least not reliably , fairly and at reasonable cost ) ; the moralistic " it deserves a patent " sort of argument falls apart when independent ( re- ) invention is taken into account ; ... ...To cut a long story short , the only arguments that really stand up in the end are the economic arguments .
The fundamental economic question is this : Does granting patents in some field or industry significantly promote progress , innovation and overall economic and social welfare ?
If not , that field or industry certainly should n't be burdened with the considerable weight of negative effects that are an inevitable consequence of patent eligibility .
As Fritz Machlup wrote in his 1958 Economic Review of the Patent System : If one does not know whether a system " as a whole " ( in contrast to certain features of it ) is good or bad , the safest " policy conclusion " is to " muddle through - either with it , if one has long lived with it , or without it , if one has lived without it .
If we did not have a patent system , it would be irresponsible , on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences , to recommend instituting one .
But since we have had a patent system for a long time , it would be irresponsible , on the basis of our present knowledge , to recommend abolishing it .
This last statement refers to a country such as the United States of America-not to a small country and not a predominantly nonindustrial country , where a different weight of argument might well suggest another conclusion .
      While the student of the economics of the patent system must , provisionally , disqualify himself on the question of the effects of the system as a whole on a large industrial economy , he need not disqualify himself as a judge of proposed changes in the existing system .
While economic analysis does not yet provide a basis for choosing between " all or nothing , " it does provide a sufficiently firm basis for decisions about " a little more or a little less " of various ingredients of the patent system .
Factual data of various kinds may be needed even before some of these decisions can be made with confidence .
But a team of well-trained economic researchers and analysts should be able to obtain enough information to reach competent conclusions on questions of patent reform.Here is some of that research and analysis : http : //researchoninnovation.org/ [ researchoninnovation.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "it's all maths / it's not all maths" arguments are indeed bogus - but so are the "it's truly inventive, it deserves a patent" arguments.
Credit should be given and easily can be without also entailing powerful monopoly exclusion rights; your ability to commercialise some invention is not dependent on its being patentable and is not something which can be guaranteed by patents anyway; furthermore, third party patents can and often do work in exactly the opposite direction!
; the patent offices never have attempted to distinguish at examination time between the truly inventive and the run-of-the-mill and for obvious reasons cannot be expected to ever be able to do so (at least not reliably, fairly and at reasonable cost); the moralistic "it deserves a patent" sort of argument falls apart when independent (re-)invention is taken into account;... ...To cut a long story short, the only arguments that really stand up in the end are the economic arguments.
The fundamental economic question is this: Does granting patents in some field or industry significantly promote progress, innovation and overall economic and social welfare?
If not, that field or industry certainly shouldn't be burdened with the considerable weight of negative effects that are an inevitable consequence of patent eligibility.
As Fritz Machlup wrote in his 1958 Economic Review of the Patent System:If one does not know whether a system "as a whole" (in contrast to certain features of it) is good or bad, the safest "policy conclusion" is to "muddle through - either with it, if one has long lived with it, or without it, if one has lived without it.
If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one.
But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it.
This last statement refers to a country such as the United States of America-not to a small country and not a predominantly nonindustrial country, where a different weight of argument might well suggest another conclusion.
      While the student of the economics of the patent system must, provisionally, disqualify himself on the question of the effects of the system as a whole on a large industrial economy, he need not disqualify himself as a judge of proposed changes in the existing system.
While economic analysis does not yet provide a basis for choosing between "all or nothing," it does provide a sufficiently firm basis for decisions about "a little more or a little less" of various ingredients of the patent system.
Factual data of various kinds may be needed even before some of these decisions can be made with confidence.
But a team of well-trained economic researchers and analysts should be able to obtain enough information to reach competent conclusions on questions of patent reform.Here is some of that research and analysis: http://researchoninnovation.org/ [researchoninnovation.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652711</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>cyberfunkr</author>
	<datestamp>1247253180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That leads into the asahat theory that "I'm not patenting the code, because that's math and that's intangable. I'm patenting the unique formation of electronic bits that when read by a computer cause the computer to perform actions that would useful to the operator in need of a spreadsheet. Due to the random storage abilities of various media, this patent must include not just a single continuous string of these bits, but the string broken up into smaller discontinuous strings."</p><p>Or something like that...</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That leads into the asahat theory that " I 'm not patenting the code , because that 's math and that 's intangable .
I 'm patenting the unique formation of electronic bits that when read by a computer cause the computer to perform actions that would useful to the operator in need of a spreadsheet .
Due to the random storage abilities of various media , this patent must include not just a single continuous string of these bits , but the string broken up into smaller discontinuous strings .
" Or something like that.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>That leads into the asahat theory that "I'm not patenting the code, because that's math and that's intangable.
I'm patenting the unique formation of electronic bits that when read by a computer cause the computer to perform actions that would useful to the operator in need of a spreadsheet.
Due to the random storage abilities of various media, this patent must include not just a single continuous string of these bits, but the string broken up into smaller discontinuous strings.
"Or something like that...
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648395</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247234400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would mathematics still be copyrightable?<br>Because any piece of music can be written down as a series of bytes, which chained together can be written as a large integer.<br>In other words, I'm not so sure whether this logic can be followed, rigorously, without upsetting a lot of people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would mathematics still be copyrightable ? Because any piece of music can be written down as a series of bytes , which chained together can be written as a large integer.In other words , I 'm not so sure whether this logic can be followed , rigorously , without upsetting a lot of people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would mathematics still be copyrightable?Because any piece of music can be written down as a series of bytes, which chained together can be written as a large integer.In other words, I'm not so sure whether this logic can be followed, rigorously, without upsetting a lot of people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649909</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Perf</author>
	<datestamp>1247241240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.</p></div><p>One could argue that oil paintings are a collection of pigments that filter and reflect various wavelengths of light.  The art is in the selection and arrangement of the pigments.  Or that music is a sequence of tones.  But some sequences sound better than others.</p><p>Programming is not pure science, it is a mix of science and art, like architecture.</p><p>(I also agree that something is terribly flawed with the software patent system.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next / .
'er , but the above struck me as aking to A ) atoms can not be patented , B ) all machines are made of one or more atoms , ergo machines can not be patented.One could argue that oil paintings are a collection of pigments that filter and reflect various wavelengths of light .
The art is in the selection and arrangement of the pigments .
Or that music is a sequence of tones .
But some sequences sound better than others.Programming is not pure science , it is a mix of science and art , like architecture .
( I also agree that something is terribly flawed with the software patent system .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want SW-patents to go the way of the dodo as much as the next /.
'er, but the above struck me as aking to A) atoms cannot be patented, B) all machines are made of one or more atoms, ergo machines cannot be patented.One could argue that oil paintings are a collection of pigments that filter and reflect various wavelengths of light.
The art is in the selection and arrangement of the pigments.
Or that music is a sequence of tones.
But some sequences sound better than others.Programming is not pure science, it is a mix of science and art, like architecture.
(I also agree that something is terribly flawed with the software patent system.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28653067</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1247254500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There are some really clever algorithms out there, though. Algorithms that are not at all obvious, and really advance the state of the art. If Quicksort was invented today, wouldn't it deserve a patent?"</p><p>That is akin to asking, if I invented calculus today, wouldn't it deserve a patent?</p><p>We've all agreed that algorithms are not patentable.  Implementations are however protected under copyright, so if I come up with a particularly clever implementation of quicksort then it's covered, but someone else can implement it a different way.</p><p>I think this is actually similar to patenting physical objects...you don't patent a "machine to do X", you patent this specific machine to do X, consisting of these parts, that operates in this way.  Someone else is free to come up with a different way to accomplish the same end goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There are some really clever algorithms out there , though .
Algorithms that are not at all obvious , and really advance the state of the art .
If Quicksort was invented today , would n't it deserve a patent ?
" That is akin to asking , if I invented calculus today , would n't it deserve a patent ? We 've all agreed that algorithms are not patentable .
Implementations are however protected under copyright , so if I come up with a particularly clever implementation of quicksort then it 's covered , but someone else can implement it a different way.I think this is actually similar to patenting physical objects...you do n't patent a " machine to do X " , you patent this specific machine to do X , consisting of these parts , that operates in this way .
Someone else is free to come up with a different way to accomplish the same end goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There are some really clever algorithms out there, though.
Algorithms that are not at all obvious, and really advance the state of the art.
If Quicksort was invented today, wouldn't it deserve a patent?
"That is akin to asking, if I invented calculus today, wouldn't it deserve a patent?We've all agreed that algorithms are not patentable.
Implementations are however protected under copyright, so if I come up with a particularly clever implementation of quicksort then it's covered, but someone else can implement it a different way.I think this is actually similar to patenting physical objects...you don't patent a "machine to do X", you patent this specific machine to do X, consisting of these parts, that operates in this way.
Someone else is free to come up with a different way to accomplish the same end goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650069</id>
	<title>Anon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247241840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>software is akin to a book.</p><p>no you cant patent math, just like you cant patent words or sentences, but write a book-worth of those and you can copyright it.</p><p>the same seems to be logical to apply to software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>software is akin to a book.no you cant patent math , just like you cant patent words or sentences , but write a book-worth of those and you can copyright it.the same seems to be logical to apply to software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>software is akin to a book.no you cant patent math, just like you cant patent words or sentences, but write a book-worth of those and you can copyright it.the same seems to be logical to apply to software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649245</id>
	<title>Re:Backward patent logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247238660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He invented the algorithm, he should deserve the credit and (if he chose to commercialize a product), the resulting profits. Same thing with encryption algorithms - if I created a new super-encryption algorithm, I should be able to commercialize it.</p></div><p>One of the things that really bothers me about software patents is that the patent holders are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.<br> <br>

The purpose of the public offering patent protection to individuals/companies is that the public reaps the benefits of having the details of the patented technology opened. In the case of software, for that to be realized, I would think that a software patent would need to be accompanied by the full source-code to a specific implementation of the patented algorithm.<br> <br>

The problem is that people who try to patent things like a new encryption algorithm are taking advantage of triple protection: the protection of the patent on the method, the protection of copyright law on the binary, and the protection of obfuscation since they don't even release the source-code.<br> <br>

If software patents are to be allowed, then a viable implementation needs to accompany the patent, and that code should be free-and-clear (including no copyright restriction) after the patent protection elapses. Of course that's only one argument against software patents. The other arguments (it's just math, high likelihood of independent discovery, etc.) also sink the whole notion...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He invented the algorithm , he should deserve the credit and ( if he chose to commercialize a product ) , the resulting profits .
Same thing with encryption algorithms - if I created a new super-encryption algorithm , I should be able to commercialize it.One of the things that really bothers me about software patents is that the patent holders are trying to have their cake and eat it , too .
The purpose of the public offering patent protection to individuals/companies is that the public reaps the benefits of having the details of the patented technology opened .
In the case of software , for that to be realized , I would think that a software patent would need to be accompanied by the full source-code to a specific implementation of the patented algorithm .
The problem is that people who try to patent things like a new encryption algorithm are taking advantage of triple protection : the protection of the patent on the method , the protection of copyright law on the binary , and the protection of obfuscation since they do n't even release the source-code .
If software patents are to be allowed , then a viable implementation needs to accompany the patent , and that code should be free-and-clear ( including no copyright restriction ) after the patent protection elapses .
Of course that 's only one argument against software patents .
The other arguments ( it 's just math , high likelihood of independent discovery , etc .
) also sink the whole notion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He invented the algorithm, he should deserve the credit and (if he chose to commercialize a product), the resulting profits.
Same thing with encryption algorithms - if I created a new super-encryption algorithm, I should be able to commercialize it.One of the things that really bothers me about software patents is that the patent holders are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
The purpose of the public offering patent protection to individuals/companies is that the public reaps the benefits of having the details of the patented technology opened.
In the case of software, for that to be realized, I would think that a software patent would need to be accompanied by the full source-code to a specific implementation of the patented algorithm.
The problem is that people who try to patent things like a new encryption algorithm are taking advantage of triple protection: the protection of the patent on the method, the protection of copyright law on the binary, and the protection of obfuscation since they don't even release the source-code.
If software patents are to be allowed, then a viable implementation needs to accompany the patent, and that code should be free-and-clear (including no copyright restriction) after the patent protection elapses.
Of course that's only one argument against software patents.
The other arguments (it's just math, high likelihood of independent discovery, etc.
) also sink the whole notion...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28655581</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1247224860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel.</i></p><p>True, but irrelevant. The one algorithm in the first place could have have been non-obvious and novel. That does not make it patentable. Trying to combine two or more algorithms cannot produce anything other than just another algorithm.</p><p>You could be the first person to write down some non-obvious, novel, and extremely useful three hundred digit number. However a number is not an "invention" in any patentable sense, calculus was once novel and non-obvious and definitely useful, but calculus is not an "invention" in any patentable sense. No matter how novel or non-obvious or useful an algorithm may be, it cannot be an "invention" in the patentable sense. The US Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that algorithms must be treated as a "familiar part of prior art" for patent purposes. Software is nothing more than a form of math algorithm, and as such no possible software can ever qualify as novel or non-obvious as far as patentability is concerned.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel.True , but irrelevant .
The one algorithm in the first place could have have been non-obvious and novel .
That does not make it patentable .
Trying to combine two or more algorithms can not produce anything other than just another algorithm.You could be the first person to write down some non-obvious , novel , and extremely useful three hundred digit number .
However a number is not an " invention " in any patentable sense , calculus was once novel and non-obvious and definitely useful , but calculus is not an " invention " in any patentable sense .
No matter how novel or non-obvious or useful an algorithm may be , it can not be an " invention " in the patentable sense .
The US Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that algorithms must be treated as a " familiar part of prior art " for patent purposes .
Software is nothing more than a form of math algorithm , and as such no possible software can ever qualify as novel or non-obvious as far as patentability is concerned.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>combination of those algorithms may be non-obvious and novel.True, but irrelevant.
The one algorithm in the first place could have have been non-obvious and novel.
That does not make it patentable.
Trying to combine two or more algorithms cannot produce anything other than just another algorithm.You could be the first person to write down some non-obvious, novel, and extremely useful three hundred digit number.
However a number is not an "invention" in any patentable sense, calculus was once novel and non-obvious and definitely useful, but calculus is not an "invention" in any patentable sense.
No matter how novel or non-obvious or useful an algorithm may be, it cannot be an "invention" in the patentable sense.
The US Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that algorithms must be treated as a "familiar part of prior art" for patent purposes.
Software is nothing more than a form of math algorithm, and as such no possible software can ever qualify as novel or non-obvious as far as patentability is concerned.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649601</id>
	<title>He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247239980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone that understands how a computer works will realize that at the machine code level, everything that a computer does is binary math.  Since all programming languages have to be translated (compiled) into machine code at some point, there ARE NO PROGRAMS that are not based on binary math.</p><p>Besides, computer programs are much more like a book than a physical product or device, therefore should not be patentable.  The whole patent/copyright thing has been grossly and extremely distorted to protect corporate profits and stifle innovation, the exact opposite of what patents and copyrights were originally intended to do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone that understands how a computer works will realize that at the machine code level , everything that a computer does is binary math .
Since all programming languages have to be translated ( compiled ) into machine code at some point , there ARE NO PROGRAMS that are not based on binary math.Besides , computer programs are much more like a book than a physical product or device , therefore should not be patentable .
The whole patent/copyright thing has been grossly and extremely distorted to protect corporate profits and stifle innovation , the exact opposite of what patents and copyrights were originally intended to do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone that understands how a computer works will realize that at the machine code level, everything that a computer does is binary math.
Since all programming languages have to be translated (compiled) into machine code at some point, there ARE NO PROGRAMS that are not based on binary math.Besides, computer programs are much more like a book than a physical product or device, therefore should not be patentable.
The whole patent/copyright thing has been grossly and extremely distorted to protect corporate profits and stifle innovation, the exact opposite of what patents and copyrights were originally intended to do!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650311</id>
	<title>The case</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1247242740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is actually Judge <b>Guilford</b> (not "gilford") of the Central District Court of California.</p><p>The case number is 2:06-cv-02335-AG-FMO.</p><p>Full text of the order granting summary judgment below:</p><p>---</p><p>UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT<br>FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA<br>DEALERTRACK, INC.,    )    CASE NO. CV 06-2335 AG (FMOx)<br>)<br>Plaintiff,    )<br>)    ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR<br>v.    )    SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF<br>)    INVALIDITY OF '427 PATENT<br>DAVID L. HUBER; FINANCE    )<br>EXPRESS, LLC; JOHN DOE    )<br>DEALERS,    )<br>)<br>Defendants.    )<br>
     )<br>Defendants Finance Express, LLC ("Finance Express") and RouteOne, LLC ("RouteOne") (collectively, "Defendants") have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity as to U.S. Patent 7,181,427 ("Motion"). Because the Court finds that the '427 Patent is directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C.  101 and the recent case of In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.<br>BACKGROUND<br>Plaintiff DealerTrack, Inc. ("DealerTrack") asserts that Finance Express and RouteOne</p><p>have infringed three of DealerTrack's patents, including U.S. Patent 7,181,427 (the "'427 Patent"). The '427 Patent, which was issued on February 20, 2007, is entitled "Automated Credit Application System." According to the Abstract, the patent is directed to a "computer based credit application processing system [that] provides a graphical user interface, automatic software update downloading, lender to lender routing of credit applications, and integration with in-house finance and insurance systems and third party data entry facilities, among other features." The background section of the patent explains that before the '427 Patent, most processes for obtaining credit and financing of major consumer purchases had been done manually. (Hadley Decl. Ex. 1 at 1:23-25.) With the invention of the '427 Patent, the "entire indirect loan application processing, routing, and funding" is placed in an environment with graphical user interfaces. (Id. at 1:48-2:56.)<br>DealerTrack asserts that Defendants have infringed on claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '427 Patent. Claim 1, an independent claim, recites a "computer aided method" of managing a credit application, consisting of the following steps:<br>[A]    receiving credit application data from a remote application entry and display device;<br>[B]    selectively forwarding the credit application data to remote<br>funding source terminal devices;<br>[C]    forwarding funding decision data from at least one of the remote funding source terminal devices to the remote application entry and display device;<br>[D]    wherein the selectively forwarding the credit application data step further comprises:<br>[E]    sending at least a portion of a credit application to more than<br>one of said remote funding sources substantially at the same time;<br>[F]    sending at least a portion of a credit application to more than</p><p>one of said remote funding sources sequentially until a finding [sic] source returns a positive funding decision;<br>[G]    sending . . . a credit application . . . after a predetermined time . . . ; or;<br>[H]    sending the credit application from a first remote funding source to a second remote finding [sic] source . . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>Claim 3 recites the method of Claim 1, with the additional steps of "aggregating data for a dealer having a plurality of dealerships located at different locations" and "providing the dealer with a consolidated report using the aggregated data." Claim 4 recites the method of Claim 1, with the additional step of "obtaining credit report data from at least one remote credit bureau terminal device."<br>Defendants now seek summary judgment that the '427 Patent is invalid based on a recent Federal Circuit decision.<br>LEGAL STANDARD<br>Claims of an issued United States patent are presumed valid. 35 U.S.C.  282. "A party seeking to establish that particular claims are invalid must overcome the presumption of validity in 35</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is actually Judge Guilford ( not " gilford " ) of the Central District Court of California.The case number is 2 : 06-cv-02335-AG-FMO.Full text of the order granting summary judgment below : ---UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADEALERTRACK , INC. , ) CASE NO .
CV 06-2335 AG ( FMOx ) ) Plaintiff , ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FORv .
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ) INVALIDITY OF '427 PATENTDAVID L. HUBER ; FINANCE ) EXPRESS , LLC ; JOHN DOE ) DEALERS , ) ) Defendants .
) ) Defendants Finance Express , LLC ( " Finance Express " ) and RouteOne , LLC ( " RouteOne " ) ( collectively , " Defendants " ) have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity as to U.S. Patent 7,181,427 ( " Motion " ) .
Because the Court finds that the '427 Patent is directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C .
101 and the recent case of In re Bilski , 545 F.3d 943 ( Fed .
Cir. 2008 ) , Defendants ' Motion is GRANTED.BACKGROUNDPlaintiff DealerTrack , Inc. ( " DealerTrack " ) asserts that Finance Express and RouteOnehave infringed three of DealerTrack 's patents , including U.S. Patent 7,181,427 ( the " '427 Patent " ) .
The '427 Patent , which was issued on February 20 , 2007 , is entitled " Automated Credit Application System .
" According to the Abstract , the patent is directed to a " computer based credit application processing system [ that ] provides a graphical user interface , automatic software update downloading , lender to lender routing of credit applications , and integration with in-house finance and insurance systems and third party data entry facilities , among other features .
" The background section of the patent explains that before the '427 Patent , most processes for obtaining credit and financing of major consumer purchases had been done manually .
( Hadley Decl .
Ex. 1 at 1 : 23-25 .
) With the invention of the '427 Patent , the " entire indirect loan application processing , routing , and funding " is placed in an environment with graphical user interfaces .
( Id. at 1 : 48-2 : 56 .
) DealerTrack asserts that Defendants have infringed on claims 1 , 3 , and 4 of the '427 Patent .
Claim 1 , an independent claim , recites a " computer aided method " of managing a credit application , consisting of the following steps : [ A ] receiving credit application data from a remote application entry and display device ; [ B ] selectively forwarding the credit application data to remotefunding source terminal devices ; [ C ] forwarding funding decision data from at least one of the remote funding source terminal devices to the remote application entry and display device ; [ D ] wherein the selectively forwarding the credit application data step further comprises : [ E ] sending at least a portion of a credit application to more thanone of said remote funding sources substantially at the same time ; [ F ] sending at least a portion of a credit application to more thanone of said remote funding sources sequentially until a finding [ sic ] source returns a positive funding decision ; [ G ] sending .
. .
a credit application .
. .
after a predetermined time .
. .
; or ; [ H ] sending the credit application from a first remote funding source to a second remote finding [ sic ] source .
. .
.Claim 3 recites the method of Claim 1 , with the additional steps of " aggregating data for a dealer having a plurality of dealerships located at different locations " and " providing the dealer with a consolidated report using the aggregated data .
" Claim 4 recites the method of Claim 1 , with the additional step of " obtaining credit report data from at least one remote credit bureau terminal device .
" Defendants now seek summary judgment that the '427 Patent is invalid based on a recent Federal Circuit decision.LEGAL STANDARDClaims of an issued United States patent are presumed valid .
35 U.S.C .
282. " A party seeking to establish that particular claims are invalid must overcome the presumption of validity in 35</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is actually Judge Guilford (not "gilford") of the Central District Court of California.The case number is 2:06-cv-02335-AG-FMO.Full text of the order granting summary judgment below:---UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADEALERTRACK, INC.,    )    CASE NO.
CV 06-2335 AG (FMOx))Plaintiff,    ))    ORDER GRANTING MOTION FORv.
)    SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF)    INVALIDITY OF '427 PATENTDAVID L. HUBER; FINANCE    )EXPRESS, LLC; JOHN DOE    )DEALERS,    ))Defendants.
)
     )Defendants Finance Express, LLC ("Finance Express") and RouteOne, LLC ("RouteOne") (collectively, "Defendants") have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity as to U.S. Patent 7,181,427 ("Motion").
Because the Court finds that the '427 Patent is directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
101 and the recent case of In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed.
Cir. 2008), Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.BACKGROUNDPlaintiff DealerTrack, Inc. ("DealerTrack") asserts that Finance Express and RouteOnehave infringed three of DealerTrack's patents, including U.S. Patent 7,181,427 (the "'427 Patent").
The '427 Patent, which was issued on February 20, 2007, is entitled "Automated Credit Application System.
" According to the Abstract, the patent is directed to a "computer based credit application processing system [that] provides a graphical user interface, automatic software update downloading, lender to lender routing of credit applications, and integration with in-house finance and insurance systems and third party data entry facilities, among other features.
" The background section of the patent explains that before the '427 Patent, most processes for obtaining credit and financing of major consumer purchases had been done manually.
(Hadley Decl.
Ex. 1 at 1:23-25.
) With the invention of the '427 Patent, the "entire indirect loan application processing, routing, and funding" is placed in an environment with graphical user interfaces.
(Id. at 1:48-2:56.
)DealerTrack asserts that Defendants have infringed on claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '427 Patent.
Claim 1, an independent claim, recites a "computer aided method" of managing a credit application, consisting of the following steps:[A]    receiving credit application data from a remote application entry and display device;[B]    selectively forwarding the credit application data to remotefunding source terminal devices;[C]    forwarding funding decision data from at least one of the remote funding source terminal devices to the remote application entry and display device;[D]    wherein the selectively forwarding the credit application data step further comprises:[E]    sending at least a portion of a credit application to more thanone of said remote funding sources substantially at the same time;[F]    sending at least a portion of a credit application to more thanone of said remote funding sources sequentially until a finding [sic] source returns a positive funding decision;[G]    sending .
. .
a credit application .
. .
after a predetermined time .
. .
; or;[H]    sending the credit application from a first remote funding source to a second remote finding [sic] source .
. .
.Claim 3 recites the method of Claim 1, with the additional steps of "aggregating data for a dealer having a plurality of dealerships located at different locations" and "providing the dealer with a consolidated report using the aggregated data.
" Claim 4 recites the method of Claim 1, with the additional step of "obtaining credit report data from at least one remote credit bureau terminal device.
"Defendants now seek summary judgment that the '427 Patent is invalid based on a recent Federal Circuit decision.LEGAL STANDARDClaims of an issued United States patent are presumed valid.
35 U.S.C.
282. "A party seeking to establish that particular claims are invalid must overcome the presumption of validity in 35</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648907</id>
	<title>Double Edge</title>
	<author>duanes1967</author>
	<datestamp>1247237160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is really a tough situation.  Consider the CODEC.  It is primarily a series of mathematical algorithms, but is quite complex and provides a function never before found.  This is the brunt of intellectual property.  We have moved beyond mechanical devices to the point that the device is not unique, but it's application is.  On the other hand, what if the patent on a pencil covered the output from the pencil?

In my opinion, a codec is definitely a process that is non-obvious, while Amazon one-click purchasing is a natural evolution.  I have a device and software that I want to patent that falls into between "Duh-Why didn't I think of that" and "Holy Sh#$, that's awesome".  While not obvious, it is not rocket science but no one has come up with anything like it yet.  It is not merely and extension of current ideas.  The device itself is only required in some situations in which an adequate general processor is not available (ie, stand alone operation).

In the case of Dealer Track, I think that computer based credit application is simply an evolution of computer based forms processing.  There is nothing new or non-obvious here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really a tough situation .
Consider the CODEC .
It is primarily a series of mathematical algorithms , but is quite complex and provides a function never before found .
This is the brunt of intellectual property .
We have moved beyond mechanical devices to the point that the device is not unique , but it 's application is .
On the other hand , what if the patent on a pencil covered the output from the pencil ?
In my opinion , a codec is definitely a process that is non-obvious , while Amazon one-click purchasing is a natural evolution .
I have a device and software that I want to patent that falls into between " Duh-Why did n't I think of that " and " Holy Sh # $ , that 's awesome " .
While not obvious , it is not rocket science but no one has come up with anything like it yet .
It is not merely and extension of current ideas .
The device itself is only required in some situations in which an adequate general processor is not available ( ie , stand alone operation ) .
In the case of Dealer Track , I think that computer based credit application is simply an evolution of computer based forms processing .
There is nothing new or non-obvious here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really a tough situation.
Consider the CODEC.
It is primarily a series of mathematical algorithms, but is quite complex and provides a function never before found.
This is the brunt of intellectual property.
We have moved beyond mechanical devices to the point that the device is not unique, but it's application is.
On the other hand, what if the patent on a pencil covered the output from the pencil?
In my opinion, a codec is definitely a process that is non-obvious, while Amazon one-click purchasing is a natural evolution.
I have a device and software that I want to patent that falls into between "Duh-Why didn't I think of that" and "Holy Sh#$, that's awesome".
While not obvious, it is not rocket science but no one has come up with anything like it yet.
It is not merely and extension of current ideas.
The device itself is only required in some situations in which an adequate general processor is not available (ie, stand alone operation).
In the case of Dealer Track, I think that computer based credit application is simply an evolution of computer based forms processing.
There is nothing new or non-obvious here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649023</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247237700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An algorithm may or may not be novel, it still may not be patented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An algorithm may or may not be novel , it still may not be patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An algorithm may or may not be novel, it still may not be patented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648929</id>
	<title>Not so fast Software Patent Haters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247237220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before all you software patent haters get all excited (oooops too late for that) you should know that the reasoning of the judge referenced in the original post is flawed.  For example, The BPAI just found this claim patentable:</p><p>23. A computerized method for identifying a solution to address exposed performance gaps of a company in a specific industry, comprising:</p><p>first identifying a plurality of operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the operational metrics includes a factor used to measure health or viability of a generic company in the specific industry, wherein the specific industry is a grocery store industry, wherein the operational metrics include at least one of a rate of inventory turnover and a number of customers per day;</p><p>assembling a set of solutions for application by the specific industry, wherein the set includes one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service;</p><p>assessing impacts of application of the set of solutions on the operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the assessing includes determining which of the set of solutions has a negative impact on an operational metric and determining which of the set of solutions has a positive impact on the operational metric;</p><p>after identifying, assembling, and assessing, then comparing a current operational performance of the company to an operational performance of another company within the specific industry to obtain at least one performance gap, wherein the operational performance includes a performance of a company based upon the operational metric for the specific industry;</p><p>identifying a solution based upon the impacts to address the exposed performance gaps, wherein the solution is at least one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service that impacts a problem in a positive manner; and</p><p>outputting the solution from the computer system.</p><p>http://www.1201tuesday.com/1201\_tuesday/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before all you software patent haters get all excited ( oooops too late for that ) you should know that the reasoning of the judge referenced in the original post is flawed .
For example , The BPAI just found this claim patentable : 23 .
A computerized method for identifying a solution to address exposed performance gaps of a company in a specific industry , comprising : first identifying a plurality of operational metrics for the specific industry , wherein the operational metrics includes a factor used to measure health or viability of a generic company in the specific industry , wherein the specific industry is a grocery store industry , wherein the operational metrics include at least one of a rate of inventory turnover and a number of customers per day ; assembling a set of solutions for application by the specific industry , wherein the set includes one of a decision , an action , a product , and a service ; assessing impacts of application of the set of solutions on the operational metrics for the specific industry , wherein the assessing includes determining which of the set of solutions has a negative impact on an operational metric and determining which of the set of solutions has a positive impact on the operational metric ; after identifying , assembling , and assessing , then comparing a current operational performance of the company to an operational performance of another company within the specific industry to obtain at least one performance gap , wherein the operational performance includes a performance of a company based upon the operational metric for the specific industry ; identifying a solution based upon the impacts to address the exposed performance gaps , wherein the solution is at least one of a decision , an action , a product , and a service that impacts a problem in a positive manner ; andoutputting the solution from the computer system.http : //www.1201tuesday.com/1201 \ _tuesday/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before all you software patent haters get all excited (oooops too late for that) you should know that the reasoning of the judge referenced in the original post is flawed.
For example, The BPAI just found this claim patentable:23.
A computerized method for identifying a solution to address exposed performance gaps of a company in a specific industry, comprising:first identifying a plurality of operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the operational metrics includes a factor used to measure health or viability of a generic company in the specific industry, wherein the specific industry is a grocery store industry, wherein the operational metrics include at least one of a rate of inventory turnover and a number of customers per day;assembling a set of solutions for application by the specific industry, wherein the set includes one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service;assessing impacts of application of the set of solutions on the operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the assessing includes determining which of the set of solutions has a negative impact on an operational metric and determining which of the set of solutions has a positive impact on the operational metric;after identifying, assembling, and assessing, then comparing a current operational performance of the company to an operational performance of another company within the specific industry to obtain at least one performance gap, wherein the operational performance includes a performance of a company based upon the operational metric for the specific industry;identifying a solution based upon the impacts to address the exposed performance gaps, wherein the solution is at least one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service that impacts a problem in a positive manner; andoutputting the solution from the computer system.http://www.1201tuesday.com/1201\_tuesday/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28653271</id>
	<title>Re:Babies and bathwater</title>
	<author>AceofSpades19</author>
	<datestamp>1247255340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason inventions in the real world can be patented is because you can't copyright a physical object, for example, you can't copyright a car, you can trademark the name of the car, but you can't copyright the actual car. Software, on the other hand, can be patented and you can copyright it, which I think is too much. I think we should just be able to copyright software, not patent it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason inventions in the real world can be patented is because you ca n't copyright a physical object , for example , you ca n't copyright a car , you can trademark the name of the car , but you ca n't copyright the actual car .
Software , on the other hand , can be patented and you can copyright it , which I think is too much .
I think we should just be able to copyright software , not patent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason inventions in the real world can be patented is because you can't copyright a physical object, for example, you can't copyright a car, you can trademark the name of the car, but you can't copyright the actual car.
Software, on the other hand, can be patented and you can copyright it, which I think is too much.
I think we should just be able to copyright software, not patent it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649137</id>
	<title>Re:Similar to Donald Knuth's Logic</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1247238240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A mathematical theorem that combines several lemmas in a non-obvious and novel way is still not patentable.  Combinations of abstract mathematical concepts leave you with another abstract mathematical concept -- a combination of algorithms is no less abstract or mathematical than a single algorithm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A mathematical theorem that combines several lemmas in a non-obvious and novel way is still not patentable .
Combinations of abstract mathematical concepts leave you with another abstract mathematical concept -- a combination of algorithms is no less abstract or mathematical than a single algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mathematical theorem that combines several lemmas in a non-obvious and novel way is still not patentable.
Combinations of abstract mathematical concepts leave you with another abstract mathematical concept -- a combination of algorithms is no less abstract or mathematical than a single algorithm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28656303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28655959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28653271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28655581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28672749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28680679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28654675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_1218231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28653067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1218231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1218231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28680679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1218231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649607
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28655959
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652711
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649023
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28652371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28655581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28672749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_1218231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28648901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28653067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28656303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28654675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28653271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28650283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28651955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_1218231.28649469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
