<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_0414226</id>
	<title>US Supreme Court Skeptical of Business Method Patents</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257858540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:delirium-slashdotNO@SPAMhackish.org" rel="nofollow">Trepidity</a> writes <i>"The US Supreme Court <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-the-lorenzo-jones-case-emerges/">held oral argument Monday</a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In\_re\_Bilski"> <em>Bilski</em>,</a> a business-methods patent case that might also have important implications <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/scotus-to-hear-bilski-may-be-huge-for-software-patents.ars">for software patents</a> (We have previously <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/02/03/1815215/Bilski-Patent-Case-Appealed-To-Supreme-Court?art\_pos=1">discussed</a> <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/11/2354200/Supreme-Court-Review-of-Bilski-Heats-Up?">the case</a> <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/02/1426208/Red-Hat-Files-Amicus-Brief-In-Bilski-Patent-Case">several times</a>). The tone of the argument appears to be good news, as the justices were very skeptical of the broad patentability claims. They even brought up a parade of absurd hypothetical patents quite similar to the ones Slashdotters tend to mention in these kinds of debates. Roberts surmised that 'buy low, sell high' might be a patentable business method, Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable, Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep, and Scalia brought up the old-time radio soap opera <a href="http://www.otrcat.com/lorenzo-jones-p-1539.html"> <em>Lorenzo Jones</em>,</a> featuring a hare-brained inventor with delusions of getting rich."</i> Patently O has good <a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/supreme-court-hears-bilski-v-kappos.html">blow-by-blow coverage</a> of the day's proceedings. <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral\_arguments/argument\_transcripts.html">Official argument transcripts</a> will be up soon, they say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trepidity writes " The US Supreme Court held oral argument Monday in Bilski , a business-methods patent case that might also have important implications for software patents ( We have previously discussed the case several times ) .
The tone of the argument appears to be good news , as the justices were very skeptical of the broad patentability claims .
They even brought up a parade of absurd hypothetical patents quite similar to the ones Slashdotters tend to mention in these kinds of debates .
Roberts surmised that 'buy low , sell high ' might be a patentable business method , Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable , Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep , and Scalia brought up the old-time radio soap opera Lorenzo Jones , featuring a hare-brained inventor with delusions of getting rich .
" Patently O has good blow-by-blow coverage of the day 's proceedings .
Official argument transcripts will be up soon , they say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trepidity writes "The US Supreme Court held oral argument Monday in  Bilski, a business-methods patent case that might also have important implications for software patents (We have previously discussed the case several times).
The tone of the argument appears to be good news, as the justices were very skeptical of the broad patentability claims.
They even brought up a parade of absurd hypothetical patents quite similar to the ones Slashdotters tend to mention in these kinds of debates.
Roberts surmised that 'buy low, sell high' might be a patentable business method, Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable, Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep, and Scalia brought up the old-time radio soap opera  Lorenzo Jones, featuring a hare-brained inventor with delusions of getting rich.
" Patently O has good blow-by-blow coverage of the day's proceedings.
Official argument transcripts will be up soon, they say.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046422</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't count on it...</title>
	<author>AvitarX</author>
	<datestamp>1257872280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think this is true of Thomas.</p><p>I think he believes this country should go back to more a wild west might makes right type of system.  I think he truly feels this though, not that he is in anyone's pocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this is true of Thomas.I think he believes this country should go back to more a wild west might makes right type of system .
I think he truly feels this though , not that he is in anyone 's pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this is true of Thomas.I think he believes this country should go back to more a wild west might makes right type of system.
I think he truly feels this though, not that he is in anyone's pocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30057848</id>
	<title>Speeddating</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1257071880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable"</p><p>Surely you mean Speed Dating(R)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable " Surely you mean Speed Dating ( R ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable"Surely you mean Speed Dating(R)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046098</id>
	<title>There goes my scheme</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1257870960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here I was ready to file a business model patent on "Receiving advertising revenue based on news stories that draw the most flames, sometimes resorting to dupes". Somehow I think there might be prior art, but I doubt the patent office would notice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here I was ready to file a business model patent on " Receiving advertising revenue based on news stories that draw the most flames , sometimes resorting to dupes " .
Somehow I think there might be prior art , but I doubt the patent office would notice ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here I was ready to file a business model patent on "Receiving advertising revenue based on news stories that draw the most flames, sometimes resorting to dupes".
Somehow I think there might be prior art, but I doubt the patent office would notice ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045790</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1257869700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business
Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?</p></div><p>People want software patents that are unspecific to be impossible to get.  I think less people would object to specific implementations with published source code so that when the patent expires the full functionality goes public domain.  In my opinion, let Microsoft choose to patent Windows and ship a copy of the source code to the patent office or rely on "trade secrets" to protect them.  I know Coca-Cola relies on trade secrets for the recipe for their flagship product and this has worked well for decades.

</p><p>But without published sources, I can't begin to imagine how Company A can claim Company B has "infringed" on their patent by "implementing a method to purchase a product through an internet connection utilizing a Single-Click action", because there are dozens of ways of implementing this (Java or Perl?  Cookies or Server-side Database?  Credit or Debit charge?  Fat (like AOL) or Thin (via Firefox) Client?).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
How is it technically feasible , if at all , to make a ruling on the Business Methods case without influencing whether software can or can not be patented ? People want software patents that are unspecific to be impossible to get .
I think less people would object to specific implementations with published source code so that when the patent expires the full functionality goes public domain .
In my opinion , let Microsoft choose to patent Windows and ship a copy of the source code to the patent office or rely on " trade secrets " to protect them .
I know Coca-Cola relies on trade secrets for the recipe for their flagship product and this has worked well for decades .
But without published sources , I ca n't begin to imagine how Company A can claim Company B has " infringed " on their patent by " implementing a method to purchase a product through an internet connection utilizing a Single-Click action " , because there are dozens of ways of implementing this ( Java or Perl ?
Cookies or Server-side Database ?
Credit or Debit charge ?
Fat ( like AOL ) or Thin ( via Firefox ) Client ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business
Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?People want software patents that are unspecific to be impossible to get.
I think less people would object to specific implementations with published source code so that when the patent expires the full functionality goes public domain.
In my opinion, let Microsoft choose to patent Windows and ship a copy of the source code to the patent office or rely on "trade secrets" to protect them.
I know Coca-Cola relies on trade secrets for the recipe for their flagship product and this has worked well for decades.
But without published sources, I can't begin to imagine how Company A can claim Company B has "infringed" on their patent by "implementing a method to purchase a product through an internet connection utilizing a Single-Click action", because there are dozens of ways of implementing this (Java or Perl?
Cookies or Server-side Database?
Credit or Debit charge?
Fat (like AOL) or Thin (via Firefox) Client?
).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048396</id>
	<title>Re:Damn. This sucks.</title>
	<author>Shagg</author>
	<datestamp>1257878940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious</p></div><p>Really?  Since when?</p><p>Yeah, that's the theory, but in reality it doesn't work that way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , first they have to invent it , which means it has to be new and nonobviousReally ?
Since when ? Yeah , that 's the theory , but in reality it does n't work that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobviousReally?
Since when?Yeah, that's the theory, but in reality it doesn't work that way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046732</id>
	<title>Comments following TFA</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1257873540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was one I found very interesting, from someone who was apparently present</p><p>"Oh you woulda loved where that sht was going. After several places in this part of the discussion there was a noticable shift in the audience as the ramifications of the fact that at least 2 justices were, from the mannerisms they were definitely using, and exasperation they were expressing, pretty fin pissed about software. And when I say "pretty fin pissed" well, you're just going to have to trust me if you weren't there. Some of the other justices on the other hand were just chillin in their chair, all bouncing around n stuff, not engaged hardly what so ever."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was one I found very interesting , from someone who was apparently present " Oh you woulda loved where that sht was going .
After several places in this part of the discussion there was a noticable shift in the audience as the ramifications of the fact that at least 2 justices were , from the mannerisms they were definitely using , and exasperation they were expressing , pretty fin pissed about software .
And when I say " pretty fin pissed " well , you 're just going to have to trust me if you were n't there .
Some of the other justices on the other hand were just chillin in their chair , all bouncing around n stuff , not engaged hardly what so ever .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was one I found very interesting, from someone who was apparently present"Oh you woulda loved where that sht was going.
After several places in this part of the discussion there was a noticable shift in the audience as the ramifications of the fact that at least 2 justices were, from the mannerisms they were definitely using, and exasperation they were expressing, pretty fin pissed about software.
And when I say "pretty fin pissed" well, you're just going to have to trust me if you weren't there.
Some of the other justices on the other hand were just chillin in their chair, all bouncing around n stuff, not engaged hardly what so ever.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047764</id>
	<title>Re:Hope</title>
	<author>sqldr</author>
	<datestamp>1257876960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm two steps ahead of these guys.  I already have a patent on making a patent on making a patent on making a parade of patents in a patent lawsuit, then I patented the process.  That makes me good for the next 3 iterations of suggested slashdot patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm two steps ahead of these guys .
I already have a patent on making a patent on making a patent on making a parade of patents in a patent lawsuit , then I patented the process .
That makes me good for the next 3 iterations of suggested slashdot patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm two steps ahead of these guys.
I already have a patent on making a patent on making a patent on making a parade of patents in a patent lawsuit, then I patented the process.
That makes me good for the next 3 iterations of suggested slashdot patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044792</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257864360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's a Supreme Court justice.  He doesn't talk about cars, and to make any pop culture reference at all is notable.  What are you saying, because he doesn't watch TV that he's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak?  <p>When talking of references, whenever anyone says "Professor Farnsworth" I think of the inventor of TV, not the funny cartoon character.  But anyone who thinks different from you is weird and wrong, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a Supreme Court justice .
He does n't talk about cars , and to make any pop culture reference at all is notable .
What are you saying , because he does n't watch TV that he 's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak ?
When talking of references , whenever anyone says " Professor Farnsworth " I think of the inventor of TV , not the funny cartoon character .
But anyone who thinks different from you is weird and wrong , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a Supreme Court justice.
He doesn't talk about cars, and to make any pop culture reference at all is notable.
What are you saying, because he doesn't watch TV that he's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak?
When talking of references, whenever anyone says "Professor Farnsworth" I think of the inventor of TV, not the funny cartoon character.
But anyone who thinks different from you is weird and wrong, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051510</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1257847920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1. Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now<br>that a golden opportunity has been presented?<br></i></p><p>For a large part of US history the judicial branch has stopped being a co-equal branch of government.  Keyword: 'judicial deference'.  It's a really big problem for people who enjoy a constitutional republic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Why the govt .
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents , nowthat a golden opportunity has been presented ? For a large part of US history the judicial branch has stopped being a co-equal branch of government .
Keyword : 'judicial deference' .
It 's a really big problem for people who enjoy a constitutional republic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Why the govt.
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, nowthat a golden opportunity has been presented?For a large part of US history the judicial branch has stopped being a co-equal branch of government.
Keyword: 'judicial deference'.
It's a really big problem for people who enjoy a constitutional republic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047020</id>
	<title>Does number of steps make something patentable?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257874500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And to forestall your answer "but all software could be performed with a pen, paper, and slide rule", the relevant word is feasible. Go decode a PGP message with a pen, paper and slide rule and come back when you're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.</p></div><p>RSA with a shorter key can be done with paper and pencil. Did you mean that increasing key length makes an unpatentable algorithm patentable? This appears to imply that execution time determines patentability: there exists a value <i>n</i> such that any novel algorithm that requires more than <i>n</i> operations is patentable and any algorithm that requires fewer is not. So what is <i>n</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And to forestall your answer " but all software could be performed with a pen , paper , and slide rule " , the relevant word is feasible .
Go decode a PGP message with a pen , paper and slide rule and come back when you 're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.RSA with a shorter key can be done with paper and pencil .
Did you mean that increasing key length makes an unpatentable algorithm patentable ?
This appears to imply that execution time determines patentability : there exists a value n such that any novel algorithm that requires more than n operations is patentable and any algorithm that requires fewer is not .
So what is n ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to forestall your answer "but all software could be performed with a pen, paper, and slide rule", the relevant word is feasible.
Go decode a PGP message with a pen, paper and slide rule and come back when you're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.RSA with a shorter key can be done with paper and pencil.
Did you mean that increasing key length makes an unpatentable algorithm patentable?
This appears to imply that execution time determines patentability: there exists a value n such that any novel algorithm that requires more than n operations is patentable and any algorithm that requires fewer is not.
So what is n?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046372</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't count on it...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1257872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.</p></div><p>Please explain how having worked a mere two years as a corporate lawyer in the 1970's indicates that he is in the tank for them? Or do you have some other evidence that he is in the tank for them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents ( e.x .
Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents ) , and I 'm sure the other ones can be bought.Please explain how having worked a mere two years as a corporate lawyer in the 1970 's indicates that he is in the tank for them ?
Or do you have some other evidence that he is in the tank for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x.
Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.Please explain how having worked a mere two years as a corporate lawyer in the 1970's indicates that he is in the tank for them?
Or do you have some other evidence that he is in the tank for them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049426</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Nick Novitski</author>
	<datestamp>1257882720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some software patents are really business method patents (how someone navigates this page, or which button they press).  Some software patents *may be* technological patents and should be measured as such.  Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and oranges.</p></div><p>Apples which sometimes "are really" oranges perhaps should be given a closer comparative examination.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some software patents are really business method patents ( how someone navigates this page , or which button they press ) .
Some software patents * may be * technological patents and should be measured as such .
Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and oranges.Apples which sometimes " are really " oranges perhaps should be given a closer comparative examination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some software patents are really business method patents (how someone navigates this page, or which button they press).
Some software patents *may be* technological patents and should be measured as such.
Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and oranges.Apples which sometimes "are really" oranges perhaps should be given a closer comparative examination.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1257867840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone explain to me:</p><p>1. Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now
that a golden opportunity has been presented?</p></div><p>The Bilski application was on a method of managing risk in derivative markets. While it could be done in software, there was nothing in the claims that even mentioned a computer or software. So this isn't a "golden opportunity", even on the Government's side. It'd be as golden as an application on a method of diagnosing a disease as the deciding case for software... It's kind of apples and oranges, and there are many other applications that are more central to the issue of software.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Why is it the job of the govt. deputy solicitor to uphold the political interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand? (there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which
seems very dubious to me at any rate).</p></div><p>Once a case gets to the supreme court, legality isn't the question - whatever they decide <i>is</i> the law, so you aren't going to go waving a statute at them and telling them they're ignoring the legality of the issue. Instead, they're making a politically-influenced interpretation of Congress' intent in drafting the Patent Act.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?</p></div><p>"This decision shall be interpreted as applying solely to those methods and processes that may be feasibly performed without a computer."</p><p>

And to forestall your answer "but all software could be performed with a pen, paper, and slide rule", the relevant word is feasible. Go decode a PGP message with a pen, paper and slide rule and come back when you're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the govt. (read deputy solicitor) seems very worried that many lawyers and patent powerhouses would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.</p></div><p>I think the government is more concerned that Google, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Citrix, IBM, etc., etc., would come crashing down as a result of this ruling. Their stock prices certainly would, since your proposed course of action would eliminate billions of dollars of intellectual property rights in a puff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone explain to me : 1 .
Why the govt .
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents , now that a golden opportunity has been presented ? The Bilski application was on a method of managing risk in derivative markets .
While it could be done in software , there was nothing in the claims that even mentioned a computer or software .
So this is n't a " golden opportunity " , even on the Government 's side .
It 'd be as golden as an application on a method of diagnosing a disease as the deciding case for software... It 's kind of apples and oranges , and there are many other applications that are more central to the issue of software.2 .
Why is it the job of the govt .
deputy solicitor to uphold the political interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand ?
( there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which seems very dubious to me at any rate ) .Once a case gets to the supreme court , legality is n't the question - whatever they decide is the law , so you are n't going to go waving a statute at them and telling them they 're ignoring the legality of the issue .
Instead , they 're making a politically-influenced interpretation of Congress ' intent in drafting the Patent Act.3 .
How is it technically feasible , if at all , to make a ruling on the Business Methods case without influencing whether software can or can not be patented ?
" This decision shall be interpreted as applying solely to those methods and processes that may be feasibly performed without a computer .
" And to forestall your answer " but all software could be performed with a pen , paper , and slide rule " , the relevant word is feasible .
Go decode a PGP message with a pen , paper and slide rule and come back when you 're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.I think the govt .
( read deputy solicitor ) seems very worried that many lawyers and patent powerhouses would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.I think the government is more concerned that Google , Microsoft , Apple , Cisco , Citrix , IBM , etc. , etc. , would come crashing down as a result of this ruling .
Their stock prices certainly would , since your proposed course of action would eliminate billions of dollars of intellectual property rights in a puff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone explain to me:1.
Why the govt.
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now
that a golden opportunity has been presented?The Bilski application was on a method of managing risk in derivative markets.
While it could be done in software, there was nothing in the claims that even mentioned a computer or software.
So this isn't a "golden opportunity", even on the Government's side.
It'd be as golden as an application on a method of diagnosing a disease as the deciding case for software... It's kind of apples and oranges, and there are many other applications that are more central to the issue of software.2.
Why is it the job of the govt.
deputy solicitor to uphold the political interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand?
(there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which
seems very dubious to me at any rate).Once a case gets to the supreme court, legality isn't the question - whatever they decide is the law, so you aren't going to go waving a statute at them and telling them they're ignoring the legality of the issue.
Instead, they're making a politically-influenced interpretation of Congress' intent in drafting the Patent Act.3.
How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?
"This decision shall be interpreted as applying solely to those methods and processes that may be feasibly performed without a computer.
"

And to forestall your answer "but all software could be performed with a pen, paper, and slide rule", the relevant word is feasible.
Go decode a PGP message with a pen, paper and slide rule and come back when you're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.I think the govt.
(read deputy solicitor) seems very worried that many lawyers and patent powerhouses would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.I think the government is more concerned that Google, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Citrix, IBM, etc., etc., would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.
Their stock prices certainly would, since your proposed course of action would eliminate billions of dollars of intellectual property rights in a puff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044576</id>
	<title>Someone should patent</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1257862680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the process of creating obfuscated reports about client billing practices intended to hide nickel-and-diming the customer to death. That would be a shot across the bow of lawyers, doctors, contractors and the banking industry in one fell swoop! Imagine the lobbying then to get rid of business method patents!</htmltext>
<tokenext>the process of creating obfuscated reports about client billing practices intended to hide nickel-and-diming the customer to death .
That would be a shot across the bow of lawyers , doctors , contractors and the banking industry in one fell swoop !
Imagine the lobbying then to get rid of business method patents !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the process of creating obfuscated reports about client billing practices intended to hide nickel-and-diming the customer to death.
That would be a shot across the bow of lawyers, doctors, contractors and the banking industry in one fell swoop!
Imagine the lobbying then to get rid of business method patents!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30052426</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1257851580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In our legal system, courts decide *CASES*, not *ISSUES*.</i> <br> <br>For better or worse, out legal system uses the existance of other cases to decide future ones.  The Supreme Court does not decide cases at all.  They don't hear facts.  They almost always accept the findings of fact of the lower court, and solely address the applicaton of law.  To many, that means they do not decide the case, but the issues.  Were the issues handled right by the lower court?  By the legislature?  What reasoning did they use for those issues, so others below them working on cases can apply what was said to deliver consistency to those involved in the legal system?<br> <br>No, the Supreme Court essentially accepts that the case was handled correctly, for the information given at the time, and decides on the issues regarding whether that information was correct, and whether to specifically clarify that information.  And, if that has an effect on the case, they almost never change the case themselves, but send it back down to be readdressed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In our legal system , courts decide * CASES * , not * ISSUES * .
For better or worse , out legal system uses the existance of other cases to decide future ones .
The Supreme Court does not decide cases at all .
They do n't hear facts .
They almost always accept the findings of fact of the lower court , and solely address the applicaton of law .
To many , that means they do not decide the case , but the issues .
Were the issues handled right by the lower court ?
By the legislature ?
What reasoning did they use for those issues , so others below them working on cases can apply what was said to deliver consistency to those involved in the legal system ?
No , the Supreme Court essentially accepts that the case was handled correctly , for the information given at the time , and decides on the issues regarding whether that information was correct , and whether to specifically clarify that information .
And , if that has an effect on the case , they almost never change the case themselves , but send it back down to be readdressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In our legal system, courts decide *CASES*, not *ISSUES*.
For better or worse, out legal system uses the existance of other cases to decide future ones.
The Supreme Court does not decide cases at all.
They don't hear facts.
They almost always accept the findings of fact of the lower court, and solely address the applicaton of law.
To many, that means they do not decide the case, but the issues.
Were the issues handled right by the lower court?
By the legislature?
What reasoning did they use for those issues, so others below them working on cases can apply what was said to deliver consistency to those involved in the legal system?
No, the Supreme Court essentially accepts that the case was handled correctly, for the information given at the time, and decides on the issues regarding whether that information was correct, and whether to specifically clarify that information.
And, if that has an effect on the case, they almost never change the case themselves, but send it back down to be readdressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045220</id>
	<title>Software patents ok?</title>
	<author>mikeborella</author>
	<datestamp>1257866820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My read is that the justices seem to be ok with software patents in principle but are leery of business method patents that are not tied to a device or that do not incorporate some form of technology.</p><p>They seemed to struggle with how much of a "machine" needs to be added to an abstract business method before it becomes patentable subject matter.</p><p>In other news, Roberts appears to be confused about the difference between patentable subject matter and obviousness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My read is that the justices seem to be ok with software patents in principle but are leery of business method patents that are not tied to a device or that do not incorporate some form of technology.They seemed to struggle with how much of a " machine " needs to be added to an abstract business method before it becomes patentable subject matter.In other news , Roberts appears to be confused about the difference between patentable subject matter and obviousness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My read is that the justices seem to be ok with software patents in principle but are leery of business method patents that are not tied to a device or that do not incorporate some form of technology.They seemed to struggle with how much of a "machine" needs to be added to an abstract business method before it becomes patentable subject matter.In other news, Roberts appears to be confused about the difference between patentable subject matter and obviousness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046316</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't count on it...</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1257871860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How, exactly, is Justice Thomas "in the tank" for big business, and how, exactly, can "other ones<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... be bought"?  There are of course the all-important campaign contributions.  No, wait, federal judges are appointed for life.  Scratch that.  Well, Big Biz could lobby Congress to reduce their pay if they don't stay in line.  Except that would be patently unconstitutional under Article III.  But still, they need to kiss the right behinds to climb the ladder.  Except they're already on the Supreme Court, so there's really nowhere to go.  So are you suggesting that Monsanto and other big business interests outright bribe certain justices?  Well now, I'm interested in what evidence you have to support this theory, because we have here the makings of one of the biggest scandals we've ever seen.  Also, we have some pretty stupid justices who would jeapordize their careers and legacies for the sake of whatever bribe the baddies are willing to offer.</p><p>I often disagree with Supreme Court justices, but for better or worse, it's hard for me to find a reason for them deciding the way they do except they really believe that's the way things ought to be.  Our clever little Constitution did a pretty good job of removing all other incentives.  Now, they may be cozy with the interests they've sided with through the years, because we all love to be buddies with like-minded people, but nobody owns them.  If Justice Thomas decided he wanted to put the smack down on Monsanto, there's nothing Monsanto could do to stop him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How , exactly , is Justice Thomas " in the tank " for big business , and how , exactly , can " other ones ... be bought " ?
There are of course the all-important campaign contributions .
No , wait , federal judges are appointed for life .
Scratch that .
Well , Big Biz could lobby Congress to reduce their pay if they do n't stay in line .
Except that would be patently unconstitutional under Article III .
But still , they need to kiss the right behinds to climb the ladder .
Except they 're already on the Supreme Court , so there 's really nowhere to go .
So are you suggesting that Monsanto and other big business interests outright bribe certain justices ?
Well now , I 'm interested in what evidence you have to support this theory , because we have here the makings of one of the biggest scandals we 've ever seen .
Also , we have some pretty stupid justices who would jeapordize their careers and legacies for the sake of whatever bribe the baddies are willing to offer.I often disagree with Supreme Court justices , but for better or worse , it 's hard for me to find a reason for them deciding the way they do except they really believe that 's the way things ought to be .
Our clever little Constitution did a pretty good job of removing all other incentives .
Now , they may be cozy with the interests they 've sided with through the years , because we all love to be buddies with like-minded people , but nobody owns them .
If Justice Thomas decided he wanted to put the smack down on Monsanto , there 's nothing Monsanto could do to stop him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How, exactly, is Justice Thomas "in the tank" for big business, and how, exactly, can "other ones ... be bought"?
There are of course the all-important campaign contributions.
No, wait, federal judges are appointed for life.
Scratch that.
Well, Big Biz could lobby Congress to reduce their pay if they don't stay in line.
Except that would be patently unconstitutional under Article III.
But still, they need to kiss the right behinds to climb the ladder.
Except they're already on the Supreme Court, so there's really nowhere to go.
So are you suggesting that Monsanto and other big business interests outright bribe certain justices?
Well now, I'm interested in what evidence you have to support this theory, because we have here the makings of one of the biggest scandals we've ever seen.
Also, we have some pretty stupid justices who would jeapordize their careers and legacies for the sake of whatever bribe the baddies are willing to offer.I often disagree with Supreme Court justices, but for better or worse, it's hard for me to find a reason for them deciding the way they do except they really believe that's the way things ought to be.
Our clever little Constitution did a pretty good job of removing all other incentives.
Now, they may be cozy with the interests they've sided with through the years, because we all love to be buddies with like-minded people, but nobody owns them.
If Justice Thomas decided he wanted to put the smack down on Monsanto, there's nothing Monsanto could do to stop him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045042</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>kabloom</author>
	<datestamp>1257865800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Why is it the job of the govt. deputy solicitor to uphold the political interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand? (there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which seems very dubious to me at any rate).</p></div><p>The solicitor general's job is to argue the political interests of the USA before the Supreme Court and and be an advocate for a particular position that the court has to rule on. Though the Solicitor General can practice "confession of judgement" (which means to drop a case if he considers the government's official position to be unjust) it's much more normal for the Solicitor General to play devil's advocate and argue the position and let the court create precedent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
Why is it the job of the govt .
deputy solicitor to uphold the political interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand ?
( there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which seems very dubious to me at any rate ) .The solicitor general 's job is to argue the political interests of the USA before the Supreme Court and and be an advocate for a particular position that the court has to rule on .
Though the Solicitor General can practice " confession of judgement " ( which means to drop a case if he considers the government 's official position to be unjust ) it 's much more normal for the Solicitor General to play devil 's advocate and argue the position and let the court create precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
Why is it the job of the govt.
deputy solicitor to uphold the political interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand?
(there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which seems very dubious to me at any rate).The solicitor general's job is to argue the political interests of the USA before the Supreme Court and and be an advocate for a particular position that the court has to rule on.
Though the Solicitor General can practice "confession of judgement" (which means to drop a case if he considers the government's official position to be unjust) it's much more normal for the Solicitor General to play devil's advocate and argue the position and let the court create precedent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047172</id>
	<title>Re:Let freedom ring!</title>
	<author>ravenshrike</author>
	<datestamp>1257875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He swiped it from Locke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He swiped it from Locke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He swiped it from Locke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047458</id>
	<title>Patenting speed dating</title>
	<author>dbirnbau</author>
	<datestamp>1257875880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"......Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable, Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep....."

Uh hate to break it to Supremies, but there's a lot of patents already issued on both dating methods and teaching methods.  Honest.  You should get on your clerks case for not being able to find something anyone at all familiar with the patent system could find in about 5 minutes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ......Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable , Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep..... " Uh hate to break it to Supremies , but there 's a lot of patents already issued on both dating methods and teaching methods .
Honest. You should get on your clerks case for not being able to find something anyone at all familiar with the patent system could find in about 5 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"......Sotomayor wondered if speed-dating could be patentable, Breyer questioned whether a professor could patent a lesson plan that kept his students from falling asleep....."

Uh hate to break it to Supremies, but there's a lot of patents already issued on both dating methods and teaching methods.
Honest.  You should get on your clerks case for not being able to find something anyone at all familiar with the patent system could find in about 5 minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30050284</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>oliphaunt</author>
	<datestamp>1257885960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone who thinks different from me isn't necessarily weird, but if they arrive at a different conclusion than I reached, they're most likely wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone who thinks different from me is n't necessarily weird , but if they arrive at a different conclusion than I reached , they 're most likely wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone who thinks different from me isn't necessarily weird, but if they arrive at a different conclusion than I reached, they're most likely wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045032</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257865740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) There's a belief that we're screwed as an economy if we invalidate software and medical procedure patents.   We don't manufacture a lot of stuff in this country anymore.  I hold that there will be problems by this decision if it invalidates a whole range of patents- but that we need to just go ahead and pull the bandage and get it over with.  It'll hurt, yes.  But in the long-run, we need to do it now.</p><p>2) Many people in the government aren't doing their jobs these days.  Seriously.  It's more about politics than what needs to be done.</p><p>3) If you keep the Circuit Court decision, you can mostly do that.  Not that it's really applicable- adding a machine test doesn't really change the patentability of mathematical, business processes, or of nature itself.  Putting it on a specific computer shouldn't magically make it patentable if it would otherwise not be without it.</p><p>The government is protecting what it thinks is part of it's constituency.  The "IP" law firms and the businesses that use them to patent all sorts of tripe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) There 's a belief that we 're screwed as an economy if we invalidate software and medical procedure patents .
We do n't manufacture a lot of stuff in this country anymore .
I hold that there will be problems by this decision if it invalidates a whole range of patents- but that we need to just go ahead and pull the bandage and get it over with .
It 'll hurt , yes .
But in the long-run , we need to do it now.2 ) Many people in the government are n't doing their jobs these days .
Seriously. It 's more about politics than what needs to be done.3 ) If you keep the Circuit Court decision , you can mostly do that .
Not that it 's really applicable- adding a machine test does n't really change the patentability of mathematical , business processes , or of nature itself .
Putting it on a specific computer should n't magically make it patentable if it would otherwise not be without it.The government is protecting what it thinks is part of it 's constituency .
The " IP " law firms and the businesses that use them to patent all sorts of tripe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) There's a belief that we're screwed as an economy if we invalidate software and medical procedure patents.
We don't manufacture a lot of stuff in this country anymore.
I hold that there will be problems by this decision if it invalidates a whole range of patents- but that we need to just go ahead and pull the bandage and get it over with.
It'll hurt, yes.
But in the long-run, we need to do it now.2) Many people in the government aren't doing their jobs these days.
Seriously.  It's more about politics than what needs to be done.3) If you keep the Circuit Court decision, you can mostly do that.
Not that it's really applicable- adding a machine test doesn't really change the patentability of mathematical, business processes, or of nature itself.
Putting it on a specific computer shouldn't magically make it patentable if it would otherwise not be without it.The government is protecting what it thinks is part of it's constituency.
The "IP" law firms and the businesses that use them to patent all sorts of tripe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048090</id>
	<title>You fAil it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">It. Its miss`ion is decentralized THE RESIGNATION To avoid so as to</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It .
Its miss ` ion is decentralized THE RESIGNATION To avoid so as to [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It.
Its miss`ion is decentralized THE RESIGNATION To avoid so as to [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044548</id>
	<title>So, You'd like to patent your business model?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257862380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How competitive of you....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How competitive of you... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How competitive of you....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051560</id>
	<title>Re:The US</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1257848160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Darn interventionist judiciary, bringing gov't involvement into business. They're tilting the playing field, making it more difficult for some business to succeed. When was the last time the gov't intervention ever benefited a company? They should stick to what they know and keep their noses out of the marketplace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Darn interventionist judiciary , bringing gov't involvement into business .
They 're tilting the playing field , making it more difficult for some business to succeed .
When was the last time the gov't intervention ever benefited a company ?
They should stick to what they know and keep their noses out of the marketplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darn interventionist judiciary, bringing gov't involvement into business.
They're tilting the playing field, making it more difficult for some business to succeed.
When was the last time the gov't intervention ever benefited a company?
They should stick to what they know and keep their noses out of the marketplace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046012</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1257870720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now
that a golden opportunity has been presented?</p></div><p>This case isn't really suitable because the Bilski claims didn't have any software.  They were pure business method claims.  My guess is that the Court would say the question of software patents is not an actual case or controversy here, so it can't be decided.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business
Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?</p></div><p>Again, because there was no software in Bilski.  The Court can very easily say that these kinds of pure business method patents without any ties to anything physical---not even a piece of software on a computer---are not valid without touching the question of whether they would be valid if embodied in computer software.  And you would still see thousands of patents invalidated, because since 1998's <i>State Street</i> decision, we have had thousands and thousands of pure business method patents issue.  Note however that this doesn't automatically make those patent go away.  I recently defended a case where the patent claims were almost certainly invalid under the Federal Circuit's <i>Bilski</i> decision, which is still good law until the Supreme Court rules.  The plaintiffs admitted that they had <i>Bilski</i> problems, but they still sued because the patent is valid until a court says otherwise.  We ended up settling to make the troll go away because even with the <i>Bilski</i> problems, it was cheaper than getting through a summary judgment motion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Why the govt .
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents , now that a golden opportunity has been presented ? This case is n't really suitable because the Bilski claims did n't have any software .
They were pure business method claims .
My guess is that the Court would say the question of software patents is not an actual case or controversy here , so it ca n't be decided.3 .
How is it technically feasible , if at all , to make a ruling on the Business Methods case without influencing whether software can or can not be patented ? Again , because there was no software in Bilski .
The Court can very easily say that these kinds of pure business method patents without any ties to anything physical---not even a piece of software on a computer---are not valid without touching the question of whether they would be valid if embodied in computer software .
And you would still see thousands of patents invalidated , because since 1998 's State Street decision , we have had thousands and thousands of pure business method patents issue .
Note however that this does n't automatically make those patent go away .
I recently defended a case where the patent claims were almost certainly invalid under the Federal Circuit 's Bilski decision , which is still good law until the Supreme Court rules .
The plaintiffs admitted that they had Bilski problems , but they still sued because the patent is valid until a court says otherwise .
We ended up settling to make the troll go away because even with the Bilski problems , it was cheaper than getting through a summary judgment motion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Why the govt.
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now
that a golden opportunity has been presented?This case isn't really suitable because the Bilski claims didn't have any software.
They were pure business method claims.
My guess is that the Court would say the question of software patents is not an actual case or controversy here, so it can't be decided.3.
How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business
Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?Again, because there was no software in Bilski.
The Court can very easily say that these kinds of pure business method patents without any ties to anything physical---not even a piece of software on a computer---are not valid without touching the question of whether they would be valid if embodied in computer software.
And you would still see thousands of patents invalidated, because since 1998's State Street decision, we have had thousands and thousands of pure business method patents issue.
Note however that this doesn't automatically make those patent go away.
I recently defended a case where the patent claims were almost certainly invalid under the Federal Circuit's Bilski decision, which is still good law until the Supreme Court rules.
The plaintiffs admitted that they had Bilski problems, but they still sued because the patent is valid until a court says otherwise.
We ended up settling to make the troll go away because even with the Bilski problems, it was cheaper than getting through a summary judgment motion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044650</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why is it the job of the govt. deputy solicitor to uphold the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>&gt; interests of the US of A...</p><p>Because that is his job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why is it the job of the govt .
deputy solicitor to uphold the ... &gt; interests of the US of A...Because that is his job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why is it the job of the govt.
deputy solicitor to uphold the ...&gt; interests of the US of A...Because that is his job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044574</id>
	<title>Let freedom ring!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257862680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Thomas Jefferson patented the idea of Liberty<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... didn't he?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Thomas Jefferson patented the idea of Liberty .... did n't he ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Thomas Jefferson patented the idea of Liberty .... didn't he?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045582</id>
	<title>I will patent the following.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257868560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email Marketing,  So I will demand $0.25 per spam mail sent from every spammer for using my Idea.<br>Pyramid Schemes,  So when they are caught they will need to pay me royalty for breaking the law.<br>Telemarking, They call me they will need to pay for violating my patent.</p><p>Lets just patent all the evil practices so it is just that more expensive to try to lie and cheat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email Marketing , So I will demand $ 0.25 per spam mail sent from every spammer for using my Idea.Pyramid Schemes , So when they are caught they will need to pay me royalty for breaking the law.Telemarking , They call me they will need to pay for violating my patent.Lets just patent all the evil practices so it is just that more expensive to try to lie and cheat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email Marketing,  So I will demand $0.25 per spam mail sent from every spammer for using my Idea.Pyramid Schemes,  So when they are caught they will need to pay me royalty for breaking the law.Telemarking, They call me they will need to pay for violating my patent.Lets just patent all the evil practices so it is just that more expensive to try to lie and cheat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045840</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't count on it...</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1257869940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.</i>
<br>
<br>
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest any justice of the Supreme Court is taking a bribe?  Because that would be the biggest legal news in years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents ( e.x .
Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents ) , and I 'm sure the other ones can be bought .
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest any justice of the Supreme Court is taking a bribe ?
Because that would be the biggest legal news in years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x.
Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest any justice of the Supreme Court is taking a bribe?
Because that would be the biggest legal news in years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044686</id>
	<title>Re:Damn. This sucks.</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1257863580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They'll copy your model anyways, if you're small, you can't afford that many business patents (getting a patent is <b>expensive</b>,  and litigating patents is also expensive and will put you out of business,  unless  you are successful against <b>corporate army of lawyers</b>).
</p><p>
Patents nowadays are very much for lawyers and large corporations  BY lawyers and large corporations.  They provide very little / no  effective protection to the little guy.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll copy your model anyways , if you 're small , you ca n't afford that many business patents ( getting a patent is expensive , and litigating patents is also expensive and will put you out of business , unless you are successful against corporate army of lawyers ) .
Patents nowadays are very much for lawyers and large corporations BY lawyers and large corporations .
They provide very little / no effective protection to the little guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They'll copy your model anyways, if you're small, you can't afford that many business patents (getting a patent is expensive,  and litigating patents is also expensive and will put you out of business,  unless  you are successful against corporate army of lawyers).
Patents nowadays are very much for lawyers and large corporations  BY lawyers and large corporations.
They provide very little / no  effective protection to the little guy.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045194</id>
	<title>You're in violation of my patent...</title>
	<author>Stupendoussteve</author>
	<datestamp>1257866700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the concept of "blow-by-blow coverage."</p><p>Expect to be hearing from my lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the concept of " blow-by-blow coverage .
" Expect to be hearing from my lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the concept of "blow-by-blow coverage.
"Expect to be hearing from my lawyer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051690</id>
	<title>Don't Get Too Excited</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257848640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do have some hope, but I wouldn't get too excited if I were you.</p><p>A)  The questions don't prove which way they're leaning.  They've been known to ask hard questions of the people they eventually rule in favor because they want to have all the hard questions answered when they agree with them.</p><p>B)  There are many indications that they want to make a *narrow* ruling, even to narrow the Machine or Transformation test used to invalidate Bilski's patent.  They don't appear to be trying to kill software patents (even though they *should* do exactly that, IMHO).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do have some hope , but I would n't get too excited if I were you.A ) The questions do n't prove which way they 're leaning .
They 've been known to ask hard questions of the people they eventually rule in favor because they want to have all the hard questions answered when they agree with them.B ) There are many indications that they want to make a * narrow * ruling , even to narrow the Machine or Transformation test used to invalidate Bilski 's patent .
They do n't appear to be trying to kill software patents ( even though they * should * do exactly that , IMHO ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do have some hope, but I wouldn't get too excited if I were you.A)  The questions don't prove which way they're leaning.
They've been known to ask hard questions of the people they eventually rule in favor because they want to have all the hard questions answered when they agree with them.B)  There are many indications that they want to make a *narrow* ruling, even to narrow the Machine or Transformation test used to invalidate Bilski's patent.
They don't appear to be trying to kill software patents (even though they *should* do exactly that, IMHO).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051388</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>cfalcon</author>
	<datestamp>1257847440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If some turd law monetized air, arguments to get it out from under the grips of corporations so we didn't have to sign up with a Breathing Carrier or suffocate would all fall under the weight of your same arguments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If some turd law monetized air , arguments to get it out from under the grips of corporations so we did n't have to sign up with a Breathing Carrier or suffocate would all fall under the weight of your same arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If some turd law monetized air, arguments to get it out from under the grips of corporations so we didn't have to sign up with a Breathing Carrier or suffocate would all fall under the weight of your same arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046840</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1257873900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 - Its *not* a "golden opportunity".  Bilski's claims don't recite software, don't recite a computer, and don't recite any machine of any kind.  They are pure business method claims.</p><p>THAT is why Mr Stewart and the PTO are quite correct to say that this is an "unsuitable vehicle."</p><p>In our legal system, courts decide *CASES*, not *ISSUES*.</p><p>Broad issues are decided by the LEGISLATURE.  Specific CASES are decided by the courts, on their specific FACTS.</p><p>That is the SCOTUS will most likely affirm the Federal Circuit's test without saying anything about software.</p><p>2 - Same answer</p><p>3 - This decision will most certainly influence software patent eligibility, but both sides will have ammo.  Software patentee can say "look, they didn't eviscerate software patents".  The other side can say "look, they didn't expressly uphold software patents".</p><p>Thats how this game is played, until Congress steps in and clears things up.</p><p>But they are focused on other issues right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 - Its * not * a " golden opportunity " .
Bilski 's claims do n't recite software , do n't recite a computer , and do n't recite any machine of any kind .
They are pure business method claims.THAT is why Mr Stewart and the PTO are quite correct to say that this is an " unsuitable vehicle .
" In our legal system , courts decide * CASES * , not * ISSUES * .Broad issues are decided by the LEGISLATURE .
Specific CASES are decided by the courts , on their specific FACTS.That is the SCOTUS will most likely affirm the Federal Circuit 's test without saying anything about software.2 - Same answer3 - This decision will most certainly influence software patent eligibility , but both sides will have ammo .
Software patentee can say " look , they did n't eviscerate software patents " .
The other side can say " look , they did n't expressly uphold software patents " .Thats how this game is played , until Congress steps in and clears things up.But they are focused on other issues right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 - Its *not* a "golden opportunity".
Bilski's claims don't recite software, don't recite a computer, and don't recite any machine of any kind.
They are pure business method claims.THAT is why Mr Stewart and the PTO are quite correct to say that this is an "unsuitable vehicle.
"In our legal system, courts decide *CASES*, not *ISSUES*.Broad issues are decided by the LEGISLATURE.
Specific CASES are decided by the courts, on their specific FACTS.That is the SCOTUS will most likely affirm the Federal Circuit's test without saying anything about software.2 - Same answer3 - This decision will most certainly influence software patent eligibility, but both sides will have ammo.
Software patentee can say "look, they didn't eviscerate software patents".
The other side can say "look, they didn't expressly uphold software patents".Thats how this game is played, until Congress steps in and clears things up.But they are focused on other issues right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046646</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>DinDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1257873180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the government is more concerned that Google, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Citrix, IBM, etc., etc., would come crashing down as a result of this ruling. Their stock prices certainly would, since your proposed course of action would eliminate billions of dollars of intellectual property rights in a puff.</p></div><p>Arguable.  But even if you are right, it would be a pretty temporary devaluing of their stock, which would return to its normal level once it became clear that the value of the software was in its implementation, as well as marketing and integration with their other products, not just the novelty of their coding.  I, for one, would take it as a great buying opportunity.</p><p>After all, no one is arguing that copyright on computer code should be abolished with the patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the government is more concerned that Google , Microsoft , Apple , Cisco , Citrix , IBM , etc. , etc. , would come crashing down as a result of this ruling .
Their stock prices certainly would , since your proposed course of action would eliminate billions of dollars of intellectual property rights in a puff.Arguable .
But even if you are right , it would be a pretty temporary devaluing of their stock , which would return to its normal level once it became clear that the value of the software was in its implementation , as well as marketing and integration with their other products , not just the novelty of their coding .
I , for one , would take it as a great buying opportunity.After all , no one is arguing that copyright on computer code should be abolished with the patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the government is more concerned that Google, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Citrix, IBM, etc., etc., would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.
Their stock prices certainly would, since your proposed course of action would eliminate billions of dollars of intellectual property rights in a puff.Arguable.
But even if you are right, it would be a pretty temporary devaluing of their stock, which would return to its normal level once it became clear that the value of the software was in its implementation, as well as marketing and integration with their other products, not just the novelty of their coding.
I, for one, would take it as a great buying opportunity.After all, no one is arguing that copyright on computer code should be abolished with the patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30053078</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1257854700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Software patents are like buried land mines. They may slow us down and cripple us, but as long as they slow down and cripple our competitors even more than they do us -- that's what really counts.</p></div></blockquote><p>So your saying it's "OK" to halt global progress in what amounts to a Mexican Standoff? Nice, real nice!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software patents are like buried land mines .
They may slow us down and cripple us , but as long as they slow down and cripple our competitors even more than they do us -- that 's what really counts.So your saying it 's " OK " to halt global progress in what amounts to a Mexican Standoff ?
Nice , real nice ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software patents are like buried land mines.
They may slow us down and cripple us, but as long as they slow down and cripple our competitors even more than they do us -- that's what really counts.So your saying it's "OK" to halt global progress in what amounts to a Mexican Standoff?
Nice, real nice!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</id>
	<title>"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>jkrise</author>
	<datestamp>1257862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I enjoyed this bit of the exchanges the most:</p><p>**************<br>MR. STEWART: Well, first of all the only ruling that we're -- backtrack a bit,<br>to say, we oppose, sir, in this case because we recognize that there are<br>difficult problems out there in terms of patentability of software innovations<br>and medical diagnostics.</p><p>JUSTICE KENNEDY: You thought we -- you thought we would mess it up.</p><p>MR. STEWART: I didn't think --</p><p>(Laughter.)</p><p>MR. STEWART: We didn't think the Court would mess it up. We thought that this<br>case would provide an unsuitable vehicle for resolving the hard questions<br>because the case doesn't involve computer software or medical diagnostic<br>techniques, and therefore, we thought the Court would arrive at the position<br>that I think, at least some members are feeling that you have arrived at, that<br>you will decide this case, and most of the hard questions remain unresolved.<br>And, frankly, we think that's true.<br>*******************</p><p>Can someone explain to me:</p><p>1. Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now<br>that a golden opportunity has been presented?</p><p>2. Why is it the job of the govt. deputy solicitor to uphold the political<br>interests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand? (there<br>is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which<br>seems very dubious to me at any rate).</p><p>3. How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the Business<br>Methods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?</p><p>I think the govt. (read deputy solicitor) seems very worried that many lawyers<br>and patent powerhouses would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I enjoyed this bit of the exchanges the most : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MR. STEWART : Well , first of all the only ruling that we 're -- backtrack a bit,to say , we oppose , sir , in this case because we recognize that there aredifficult problems out there in terms of patentability of software innovationsand medical diagnostics.JUSTICE KENNEDY : You thought we -- you thought we would mess it up.MR .
STEWART : I did n't think -- ( Laughter. ) MR .
STEWART : We did n't think the Court would mess it up .
We thought that thiscase would provide an unsuitable vehicle for resolving the hard questionsbecause the case does n't involve computer software or medical diagnostictechniques , and therefore , we thought the Court would arrive at the positionthat I think , at least some members are feeling that you have arrived at , thatyou will decide this case , and most of the hard questions remain unresolved.And , frankly , we think that 's true .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Can someone explain to me : 1 .
Why the govt .
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents , nowthat a golden opportunity has been presented ? 2 .
Why is it the job of the govt .
deputy solicitor to uphold the politicalinterests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand ?
( thereis an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... whichseems very dubious to me at any rate ) .3 .
How is it technically feasible , if at all , to make a ruling on the BusinessMethods case without influencing whether software can or can not be patented ? I think the govt .
( read deputy solicitor ) seems very worried that many lawyersand patent powerhouses would come crashing down as a result of this ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I enjoyed this bit of the exchanges the most:**************MR. STEWART: Well, first of all the only ruling that we're -- backtrack a bit,to say, we oppose, sir, in this case because we recognize that there aredifficult problems out there in terms of patentability of software innovationsand medical diagnostics.JUSTICE KENNEDY: You thought we -- you thought we would mess it up.MR.
STEWART: I didn't think --(Laughter.)MR.
STEWART: We didn't think the Court would mess it up.
We thought that thiscase would provide an unsuitable vehicle for resolving the hard questionsbecause the case doesn't involve computer software or medical diagnostictechniques, and therefore, we thought the Court would arrive at the positionthat I think, at least some members are feeling that you have arrived at, thatyou will decide this case, and most of the hard questions remain unresolved.And, frankly, we think that's true.
*******************Can someone explain to me:1.
Why the govt.
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, nowthat a golden opportunity has been presented?2.
Why is it the job of the govt.
deputy solicitor to uphold the politicalinterests of the US of A rather than the legality of the issue at hand?
(thereis an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... whichseems very dubious to me at any rate).3.
How is it technically feasible, if at all, to make a ruling on the BusinessMethods case without influencing whether software can or cannot be patented?I think the govt.
(read deputy solicitor) seems very worried that many lawyersand patent powerhouses would come crashing down as a result of this ruling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044694</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't count on it...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1257863640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's within a judge's prerogative to change their mind.
What makes you think Clarence Thomas won't?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's within a judge 's prerogative to change their mind .
What makes you think Clarence Thomas wo n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's within a judge's prerogative to change their mind.
What makes you think Clarence Thomas won't?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044762</id>
	<title>You can't always tell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257864120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judges will ask questions and it may seem that they are favoring one side or the other.  That isn't always the case.  The judge's question may give a lawyer a chance to cover up a hole in his case that the judge saw but the lawyer missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judges will ask questions and it may seem that they are favoring one side or the other .
That is n't always the case .
The judge 's question may give a lawyer a chance to cover up a hole in his case that the judge saw but the lawyer missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judges will ask questions and it may seem that they are favoring one side or the other.
That isn't always the case.
The judge's question may give a lawyer a chance to cover up a hole in his case that the judge saw but the lawyer missed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30055660</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't count on it...</title>
	<author>slashqwerty</author>
	<datestamp>1257870120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So are you suggesting that Monsanto and other big business interests outright bribe certain justices? Well now, I'm interested in what evidence you have to support this theory, because we have here the makings of one of the biggest scandals we've ever seen.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I can't speak for this case but one week before issuing a ruling in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred\_v.\_Ashcroft" title="wikipedia.org">Eldred v Ashcroft</a> [wikipedia.org], Thomas accepted a seven figure deal with HarperCollins to publish his memoirs.  HarperCollins is owned by News Corp which submitted an Amicus Curie brief in that very case.  Oddly enough, Thomas ruled in News Corp's favor.

<br> <br>Most of the other justices have their memoirs published by independent academic institutions such as Harvard University Press but Thomas saw fit to sign a deal with a huge corporation just days before issuing a landmark ruling in their favor.  Perhaps Thomas did it because HarperCollins was offering an order of magnitude more than his colleagues were getting for their memoirs, but that just screams of corruption to me.

<br> <br>This happened almost seven years ago.  It seems the articles have faded from the internet.  All I can find on it now is this <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=50808&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=nested&amp;cid=5087835" title="slashdot.org">Slashdot thread</a> [slashdot.org].  I read the article it references back in 2003 and another one from Fox (yes Fox!) which said basically the same thing.  Even though that thread was written in 2003 it is worth noting Thomas's memoirs were in fact published by <a href="http://www.amazon.com/My-Grandfathers-Son-Clarence-Thomas/dp/0060565551#productDetails" title="amazon.com">Harper in 2007</a> [amazon.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are you suggesting that Monsanto and other big business interests outright bribe certain justices ?
Well now , I 'm interested in what evidence you have to support this theory , because we have here the makings of one of the biggest scandals we 've ever seen .
I ca n't speak for this case but one week before issuing a ruling in Eldred v Ashcroft [ wikipedia.org ] , Thomas accepted a seven figure deal with HarperCollins to publish his memoirs .
HarperCollins is owned by News Corp which submitted an Amicus Curie brief in that very case .
Oddly enough , Thomas ruled in News Corp 's favor .
Most of the other justices have their memoirs published by independent academic institutions such as Harvard University Press but Thomas saw fit to sign a deal with a huge corporation just days before issuing a landmark ruling in their favor .
Perhaps Thomas did it because HarperCollins was offering an order of magnitude more than his colleagues were getting for their memoirs , but that just screams of corruption to me .
This happened almost seven years ago .
It seems the articles have faded from the internet .
All I can find on it now is this Slashdot thread [ slashdot.org ] .
I read the article it references back in 2003 and another one from Fox ( yes Fox !
) which said basically the same thing .
Even though that thread was written in 2003 it is worth noting Thomas 's memoirs were in fact published by Harper in 2007 [ amazon.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are you suggesting that Monsanto and other big business interests outright bribe certain justices?
Well now, I'm interested in what evidence you have to support this theory, because we have here the makings of one of the biggest scandals we've ever seen.
I can't speak for this case but one week before issuing a ruling in Eldred v Ashcroft [wikipedia.org], Thomas accepted a seven figure deal with HarperCollins to publish his memoirs.
HarperCollins is owned by News Corp which submitted an Amicus Curie brief in that very case.
Oddly enough, Thomas ruled in News Corp's favor.
Most of the other justices have their memoirs published by independent academic institutions such as Harvard University Press but Thomas saw fit to sign a deal with a huge corporation just days before issuing a landmark ruling in their favor.
Perhaps Thomas did it because HarperCollins was offering an order of magnitude more than his colleagues were getting for their memoirs, but that just screams of corruption to me.
This happened almost seven years ago.
It seems the articles have faded from the internet.
All I can find on it now is this Slashdot thread [slashdot.org].
I read the article it references back in 2003 and another one from Fox (yes Fox!
) which said basically the same thing.
Even though that thread was written in 2003 it is worth noting Thomas's memoirs were in fact published by Harper in 2007 [amazon.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045678</id>
	<title>Analysis re swpats, and html transcript</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1257869040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The End Software Patents campaign has posted:</p><ul>

<li> <a href="http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-software-patents/" title="swpat.org">an analysis of the implications for software patents</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/" title="swpat.org">A html version of the court transcript</a> [swpat.org] </li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>The End Software Patents campaign has posted : an analysis of the implications for software patents [ swpat.org ] A html version of the court transcript [ swpat.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The End Software Patents campaign has posted:

 an analysis of the implications for software patents [swpat.org]  A html version of the court transcript [swpat.org] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049224</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1257881940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"This decision shall be interpreted as applying solely to those methods and processes that may be feasibly performed without a computer."</p><p>And to forestall your answer "but all software could be performed with a pen, paper, and slide rule", the relevant word is feasible. Go decode a PGP message with a pen, paper and slide rule and come back when you're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you think that a (novel) business method for hedging risk in derivatives markets could feasibly performed without a computer?  If not, adding that language would invalidate the very decision the court just made.</p><p>Personally, I'd wager that actual implementation of the Bilski method would be a considerably more complicated and computationally intensive piece of software than PGP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This decision shall be interpreted as applying solely to those methods and processes that may be feasibly performed without a computer .
" And to forestall your answer " but all software could be performed with a pen , paper , and slide rule " , the relevant word is feasible .
Go decode a PGP message with a pen , paper and slide rule and come back when you 're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.Do you think that a ( novel ) business method for hedging risk in derivatives markets could feasibly performed without a computer ?
If not , adding that language would invalidate the very decision the court just made.Personally , I 'd wager that actual implementation of the Bilski method would be a considerably more complicated and computationally intensive piece of software than PGP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This decision shall be interpreted as applying solely to those methods and processes that may be feasibly performed without a computer.
"And to forestall your answer "but all software could be performed with a pen, paper, and slide rule", the relevant word is feasible.
Go decode a PGP message with a pen, paper and slide rule and come back when you're finished to describe how any software can feasibly be done manually.Do you think that a (novel) business method for hedging risk in derivatives markets could feasibly performed without a computer?
If not, adding that language would invalidate the very decision the court just made.Personally, I'd wager that actual implementation of the Bilski method would be a considerably more complicated and computationally intensive piece of software than PGP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044864</id>
	<title>Re:Damn. This sucks.</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1257864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model. We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths. What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework. What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! You have to *buy* me! That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!</p><p>They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.</p></div><p>And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to. Any idiot realises that patenting was never created to benefit "the small players." Really, conspiracy aside, but how much influence does small businesses contra large businesses have on politics and politicians? Do you think there is one single top politician who doesn't own stock in one or many large corporations? And it doesn't have to be a plot or a cartel, you can be a very honest politician but when that opportunity comes along the temptation to make a few extra hundred thousand can become too much. Also it does help if you can pretend you're doing it for "the small players."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not joking guys .
We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model .
We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we 'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths .
What will happen if you ca n't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework .
What can you do ?
You 're tiny .
You 're toast !
But wait !
I have a business model patent !
You have to * buy * me !
That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose ! They take that away and now we 're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable ?
Just like all patenting has come down to .
Any idiot realises that patenting was never created to benefit " the small players .
" Really , conspiracy aside , but how much influence does small businesses contra large businesses have on politics and politicians ?
Do you think there is one single top politician who does n't own stock in one or many large corporations ?
And it does n't have to be a plot or a cartel , you can be a very honest politician but when that opportunity comes along the temptation to make a few extra hundred thousand can become too much .
Also it does help if you can pretend you 're doing it for " the small players .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not joking guys.
We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model.
We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths.
What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework.
What can you do?
You're tiny.
You're toast!
But wait!
I have a business model patent!
You have to *buy* me!
That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable?
Just like all patenting has come down to.
Any idiot realises that patenting was never created to benefit "the small players.
" Really, conspiracy aside, but how much influence does small businesses contra large businesses have on politics and politicians?
Do you think there is one single top politician who doesn't own stock in one or many large corporations?
And it doesn't have to be a plot or a cartel, you can be a very honest politician but when that opportunity comes along the temptation to make a few extra hundred thousand can become too much.
Also it does help if you can pretend you're doing it for "the small players.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047002</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257874440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now
that a golden opportunity has been presented?</p></div><p>It preserves a rent-seeking opportunity for campaign donors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the govt .
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents , now that a golden opportunity has been presented ? It preserves a rent-seeking opportunity for campaign donors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the govt.
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now
that a golden opportunity has been presented?It preserves a rent-seeking opportunity for campaign donors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634</id>
	<title>Damn. This sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model. We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths. What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework. What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! You have to *buy* me! That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!</p><p>They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not joking guys .
We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model .
We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we 'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths .
What will happen if you ca n't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework .
What can you do ?
You 're tiny .
You 're toast !
But wait !
I have a business model patent !
You have to * buy * me !
That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose ! They take that away and now we 're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not joking guys.
We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model.
We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths.
What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework.
What can you do?
You're tiny.
You're toast!
But wait!
I have a business model patent!
You have to *buy* me!
That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30076686</id>
	<title>Swing and a miss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scalia proves he's right on top of the new business model and how it will impact technology, by referencing an old-timey radio show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scalia proves he 's right on top of the new business model and how it will impact technology , by referencing an old-timey radio show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scalia proves he's right on top of the new business model and how it will impact technology, by referencing an old-timey radio show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30052418</id>
	<title>Re:Damn. This sucks.</title>
	<author>rachit</author>
	<datestamp>1257851520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF mods, you may not agree with the guy, but the guy is posting his concerns.</p><p>He's not flamebaiting or trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF mods , you may not agree with the guy , but the guy is posting his concerns.He 's not flamebaiting or trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF mods, you may not agree with the guy, but the guy is posting his concerns.He's not flamebaiting or trolling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044724</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257863880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you read too much into that exchange.  A short while ago the Washington D.C. gun ban fell after having stood for over 3 decades.  Why did it take so long?  Because the pro-gun lobby was waiting for a case that was favorable to their cause.  They didn't want to bring just any case - they wanted the "perfect" case where they could be certain of the outcome (i.e. SCOTUS sides with the gun owner).</p><p>I think Mr. Stewart is following the same thought process when he says, "We thought that this case would provide an unsuitable vehicle..."   He would have rather waited for a later case where the outcome would be in his favor (pro-patent rights).  Instead he got this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you read too much into that exchange .
A short while ago the Washington D.C. gun ban fell after having stood for over 3 decades .
Why did it take so long ?
Because the pro-gun lobby was waiting for a case that was favorable to their cause .
They did n't want to bring just any case - they wanted the " perfect " case where they could be certain of the outcome ( i.e .
SCOTUS sides with the gun owner ) .I think Mr. Stewart is following the same thought process when he says , " We thought that this case would provide an unsuitable vehicle... " He would have rather waited for a later case where the outcome would be in his favor ( pro-patent rights ) .
Instead he got this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you read too much into that exchange.
A short while ago the Washington D.C. gun ban fell after having stood for over 3 decades.
Why did it take so long?
Because the pro-gun lobby was waiting for a case that was favorable to their cause.
They didn't want to bring just any case - they wanted the "perfect" case where they could be certain of the outcome (i.e.
SCOTUS sides with the gun owner).I think Mr. Stewart is following the same thought process when he says, "We thought that this case would provide an unsuitable vehicle..."   He would have rather waited for a later case where the outcome would be in his favor (pro-patent rights).
Instead he got this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30054878</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1257865320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they're making a politically-influenced interpretation of Congress' intent in drafting the Patent Act.</p></div><p>Not even the intent. They go by the specific wording of the law. If congress passes a law banning (say) all "personal audio transducers that fit within the ear" within the boundaries of national parks in order to stem the scourge of iPod wearing hipsters at Yellowstone, it doesn't matter that the <b>intent</b> was to ban headphones. The law <b>as written</b> is what they have to go by, so if the NPS starts confiscating bluetooth headsets and hearing aids, the <b>intent</b> of congress won't amount to anything if it comes up to the supreme court. Most likely, they'd say "the law says NPS can take away hearing aids. Congress needs to be more specific if it means something more specific".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're making a politically-influenced interpretation of Congress ' intent in drafting the Patent Act.Not even the intent .
They go by the specific wording of the law .
If congress passes a law banning ( say ) all " personal audio transducers that fit within the ear " within the boundaries of national parks in order to stem the scourge of iPod wearing hipsters at Yellowstone , it does n't matter that the intent was to ban headphones .
The law as written is what they have to go by , so if the NPS starts confiscating bluetooth headsets and hearing aids , the intent of congress wo n't amount to anything if it comes up to the supreme court .
Most likely , they 'd say " the law says NPS can take away hearing aids .
Congress needs to be more specific if it means something more specific " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're making a politically-influenced interpretation of Congress' intent in drafting the Patent Act.Not even the intent.
They go by the specific wording of the law.
If congress passes a law banning (say) all "personal audio transducers that fit within the ear" within the boundaries of national parks in order to stem the scourge of iPod wearing hipsters at Yellowstone, it doesn't matter that the intent was to ban headphones.
The law as written is what they have to go by, so if the NPS starts confiscating bluetooth headsets and hearing aids, the intent of congress won't amount to anything if it comes up to the supreme court.
Most likely, they'd say "the law says NPS can take away hearing aids.
Congress needs to be more specific if it means something more specific".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30057402</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldn't count on it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If Justice Thomas decided he wanted to put the smack down on Monsanto, there's nothing Monsanto could do to stop him.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds like someone needs to read The Pelican Brief.</p><p>But seriously, as a fellow lawyer, I agree that the Court is pretty immune to outside influence.  Yes, Clarence really is that retarded.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Justice Thomas decided he wanted to put the smack down on Monsanto , there 's nothing Monsanto could do to stop him.Sounds like someone needs to read The Pelican Brief.But seriously , as a fellow lawyer , I agree that the Court is pretty immune to outside influence .
Yes , Clarence really is that retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Justice Thomas decided he wanted to put the smack down on Monsanto, there's nothing Monsanto could do to stop him.Sounds like someone needs to read The Pelican Brief.But seriously, as a fellow lawyer, I agree that the Court is pretty immune to outside influence.
Yes, Clarence really is that retarded.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045528</id>
	<title>Re:Damn. This sucks.</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1257868320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable?</p></div><p>Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting "filing a patent" or "earning money". And if they do invent something, they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it. And if they've really done something new and nonobvious and it's actually valuable and innovative, why shouldn't they have a limited period to exploit that invention? Particularly when, by it's very definition, it's limited, and 20 years later, <i>everyone</i> gets to do this new, nonobvious, and valuable method?</p><p>
I think most of the people who complain about the patent system, whether they realize it or not, are primarily concerned about the "new and nonobvious" part, rather than subject matter eligibility. We don't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing, or investing in a hedge fund, or tickling a cat. But that's because those have either been done before, or are so freaking obvious that it's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that's a question of novelty and obviousness, not subject matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable ? Well , first they have to invent it , which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting " filing a patent " or " earning money " .
And if they do invent something , they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it .
And if they 've really done something new and nonobvious and it 's actually valuable and innovative , why should n't they have a limited period to exploit that invention ?
Particularly when , by it 's very definition , it 's limited , and 20 years later , everyone gets to do this new , nonobvious , and valuable method ?
I think most of the people who complain about the patent system , whether they realize it or not , are primarily concerned about the " new and nonobvious " part , rather than subject matter eligibility .
We do n't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing , or investing in a hedge fund , or tickling a cat .
But that 's because those have either been done before , or are so freaking obvious that it 's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that 's a question of novelty and obviousness , not subject matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable?Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting "filing a patent" or "earning money".
And if they do invent something, they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it.
And if they've really done something new and nonobvious and it's actually valuable and innovative, why shouldn't they have a limited period to exploit that invention?
Particularly when, by it's very definition, it's limited, and 20 years later, everyone gets to do this new, nonobvious, and valuable method?
I think most of the people who complain about the patent system, whether they realize it or not, are primarily concerned about the "new and nonobvious" part, rather than subject matter eligibility.
We don't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing, or investing in a hedge fund, or tickling a cat.
But that's because those have either been done before, or are so freaking obvious that it's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that's a question of novelty and obviousness, not subject matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046114</id>
	<title>Re:Damn. This sucks.</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1257871020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is surprising how?</p><p>Big guys bullying little guys is a common thread in ALL fields, not just patents.</p><p>Might makes right no matter what the arena.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is surprising how ? Big guys bullying little guys is a common thread in ALL fields , not just patents.Might makes right no matter what the arena .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is surprising how?Big guys bullying little guys is a common thread in ALL fields, not just patents.Might makes right no matter what the arena.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044714</id>
	<title>good background info</title>
	<author>volt4ire</author>
	<datestamp>1257863820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A good source of background info for this case is provided in epside 1 of the Software Freedom Law Center's podcast <a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2008/nov/25/0x01/" title="softwarefreedom.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2008/nov/25/0x01/</a> [softwarefreedom.org] It puts the case in perspective as to what software patents would be thrown-out under even the most optimistic Bilski rulings (ie: not ending all software patents, as we'd like to see).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A good source of background info for this case is provided in epside 1 of the Software Freedom Law Center 's podcast http : //www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2008/nov/25/0x01/ [ softwarefreedom.org ] It puts the case in perspective as to what software patents would be thrown-out under even the most optimistic Bilski rulings ( ie : not ending all software patents , as we 'd like to see ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good source of background info for this case is provided in epside 1 of the Software Freedom Law Center's podcast http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast/2008/nov/25/0x01/ [softwarefreedom.org] It puts the case in perspective as to what software patents would be thrown-out under even the most optimistic Bilski rulings (ie: not ending all software patents, as we'd like to see).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044872</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The discussion has digressed into the mess of software patents which is purely a distraction from the arguement.</p><p>Some software patents are really business method patents (how someone navigates this page, or which button they press).  Some software patents *may be* technological patents and should be measured as such.  Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and oranges.  Whether or not the non-business-method software patents (technological patents in software) should be allowed is a completely separate issue but people tend to discuss them under one arguement when it is really two arguements.  If your software algorithm can pass the test of patent-eligibility then it should be patentable.  I am not saying it is even possible to have something in software that is patentable but with more of our world moving into the realm of invention through transformation of data I am not going to say it is impossible either.  Ask yourself this, would you consider a device that allows the teleportation of objects to be a patentable invention?  Would you feel the same way if 100\% of the actual work was driven by the software running the system?  Which is the technology, the arrangement of hardware that made it possible (based on a hundred years of prior art) or the computation done by the software that drives it.... just sayin.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The patent system was invented to promote the technology and arts.  It is not about business methods.  If Bilski loses, its set the tone for the invalidation of all business patents, thousands of patents could be invalidated.  This is why this is even a case to begin with (many companies stand to lose a lot if Bilski loses).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The discussion has digressed into the mess of software patents which is purely a distraction from the arguement.Some software patents are really business method patents ( how someone navigates this page , or which button they press ) .
Some software patents * may be * technological patents and should be measured as such .
Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and oranges .
Whether or not the non-business-method software patents ( technological patents in software ) should be allowed is a completely separate issue but people tend to discuss them under one arguement when it is really two arguements .
If your software algorithm can pass the test of patent-eligibility then it should be patentable .
I am not saying it is even possible to have something in software that is patentable but with more of our world moving into the realm of invention through transformation of data I am not going to say it is impossible either .
Ask yourself this , would you consider a device that allows the teleportation of objects to be a patentable invention ?
Would you feel the same way if 100 \ % of the actual work was driven by the software running the system ?
Which is the technology , the arrangement of hardware that made it possible ( based on a hundred years of prior art ) or the computation done by the software that drives it.... just sayin .
    The patent system was invented to promote the technology and arts .
It is not about business methods .
If Bilski loses , its set the tone for the invalidation of all business patents , thousands of patents could be invalidated .
This is why this is even a case to begin with ( many companies stand to lose a lot if Bilski loses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The discussion has digressed into the mess of software patents which is purely a distraction from the arguement.Some software patents are really business method patents (how someone navigates this page, or which button they press).
Some software patents *may be* technological patents and should be measured as such.
Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and oranges.
Whether or not the non-business-method software patents (technological patents in software) should be allowed is a completely separate issue but people tend to discuss them under one arguement when it is really two arguements.
If your software algorithm can pass the test of patent-eligibility then it should be patentable.
I am not saying it is even possible to have something in software that is patentable but with more of our world moving into the realm of invention through transformation of data I am not going to say it is impossible either.
Ask yourself this, would you consider a device that allows the teleportation of objects to be a patentable invention?
Would you feel the same way if 100\% of the actual work was driven by the software running the system?
Which is the technology, the arrangement of hardware that made it possible (based on a hundred years of prior art) or the computation done by the software that drives it.... just sayin.
    The patent system was invented to promote the technology and arts.
It is not about business methods.
If Bilski loses, its set the tone for the invalidation of all business patents, thousands of patents could be invalidated.
This is why this is even a case to begin with (many companies stand to lose a lot if Bilski loses).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045896</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257870240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What are you saying, because he doesn't watch TV that he's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak? </i></p><p>No, when Scalia says things like "factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached" and argues that torture is not punishment and therefore not forbidden by the 8th amendment, THAT's when I say that he's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you saying , because he does n't watch TV that he 's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak ?
No , when Scalia says things like " factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached " and argues that torture is not punishment and therefore not forbidden by the 8th amendment , THAT 's when I say that he 's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you saying, because he doesn't watch TV that he's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak?
No, when Scalia says things like "factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached" and argues that torture is not punishment and therefore not forbidden by the 8th amendment, THAT's when I say that he's some kind of out-of-touch weirdo freak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048696</id>
	<title>Re:Damn. This sucks.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1257879960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model.</i></p><p><i>What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework.  What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! </i></p><p>Great.  You have <b>a</b> patent.  And when your lawyer slaps that patent down on the table in front of the army of lawyers representing the corporation who has copied your methods, that army of lawyers is going to laugh in unison, and slap down their <b>seventy-five</b> patents that you potentially violate.  And then they're going to say, again in unison, "Well this looks like a simple matter -- we'll just cross-license each others patents, with compensation proportional to our relative patent holdings.  Everyone wins!"</p><p>Fight it, and you're going after them for one patent violation and they're going after you for seventy five.  Can your lawyer handle seventy five cases?  They've got a team of lawyers on each one.</p><p>Agree, and well, you pay out the nose for the 'right' to use their patents and they can still eat your lunch by duplicating your methods.</p><p>This happens <b>all the time</b> in software and technology in general.  Your patent is not going to save you from crap, unless you don't actually do or make anything yourself and thus can't possibly be the victim of this tactic -- i.e. you're a patent troll, only you aren't, so good fucking luck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not joking guys .
We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model.What will happen if you ca n't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework .
What can you do ?
You 're tiny .
You 're toast !
But wait !
I have a business model patent !
Great. You have a patent .
And when your lawyer slaps that patent down on the table in front of the army of lawyers representing the corporation who has copied your methods , that army of lawyers is going to laugh in unison , and slap down their seventy-five patents that you potentially violate .
And then they 're going to say , again in unison , " Well this looks like a simple matter -- we 'll just cross-license each others patents , with compensation proportional to our relative patent holdings .
Everyone wins !
" Fight it , and you 're going after them for one patent violation and they 're going after you for seventy five .
Can your lawyer handle seventy five cases ?
They 've got a team of lawyers on each one.Agree , and well , you pay out the nose for the 'right ' to use their patents and they can still eat your lunch by duplicating your methods.This happens all the time in software and technology in general .
Your patent is not going to save you from crap , unless you do n't actually do or make anything yourself and thus ca n't possibly be the victim of this tactic -- i.e .
you 're a patent troll , only you are n't , so good fucking luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not joking guys.
We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model.What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework.
What can you do?
You're tiny.
You're toast!
But wait!
I have a business model patent!
Great.  You have a patent.
And when your lawyer slaps that patent down on the table in front of the army of lawyers representing the corporation who has copied your methods, that army of lawyers is going to laugh in unison, and slap down their seventy-five patents that you potentially violate.
And then they're going to say, again in unison, "Well this looks like a simple matter -- we'll just cross-license each others patents, with compensation proportional to our relative patent holdings.
Everyone wins!
"Fight it, and you're going after them for one patent violation and they're going after you for seventy five.
Can your lawyer handle seventy five cases?
They've got a team of lawyers on each one.Agree, and well, you pay out the nose for the 'right' to use their patents and they can still eat your lunch by duplicating your methods.This happens all the time in software and technology in general.
Your patent is not going to save you from crap, unless you don't actually do or make anything yourself and thus can't possibly be the victim of this tactic -- i.e.
you're a patent troll, only you aren't, so good fucking luck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045004</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1257865680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which seems very dubious to me at any rate).</p></div></blockquote><p>
Software patents are like buried land mines. They may slow us down and cripple us, but as long as they slow down and cripple our competitors even more than they do us -- that's what really counts.

</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which seems very dubious to me at any rate ) .
Software patents are like buried land mines .
They may slow us down and cripple us , but as long as they slow down and cripple our competitors even more than they do us -- that 's what really counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(there is an opinion here that software patents help the USA in World Trade.... which seems very dubious to me at any rate).
Software patents are like buried land mines.
They may slow us down and cripple us, but as long as they slow down and cripple our competitors even more than they do us -- that's what really counts.


	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30056722</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1257879180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and oranges</p></div><p>They're both fruits?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and orangesThey 're both fruits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blanketing software patents by comparing them to business method patents is comparing apples and orangesThey're both fruits?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608</id>
	<title>I wouldn't count on it...</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1257862920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x. Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents ( e.x .
Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents ) , and I 'm sure the other ones can be bought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some justices who are clearly in the tank for big business patents (e.x.
Clarence Thomas/Monsanto food patents), and I'm sure the other ones can be bought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044566</id>
	<title>I patent the discussion of patents</title>
	<author>MeNotU</author>
	<datestamp>1257862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a solid business method!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a solid business method !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a solid business method!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045710</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1257869220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When he's talking about cars, does he compare everything to a 1954 DeSoto?</p></div><p>I hear he's a fan of those new Packards we've been hearing so much about...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When he 's talking about cars , does he compare everything to a 1954 DeSoto ? I hear he 's a fan of those new Packards we 've been hearing so much about.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When he's talking about cars, does he compare everything to a 1954 DeSoto?I hear he's a fan of those new Packards we've been hearing so much about...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044542</id>
	<title>Hope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257862320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, good.  We may yet have some hope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , good .
We may yet have some hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, good.
We may yet have some hope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048948</id>
	<title>Re:Someone should patent</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1257880920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you seen a lawyer's billables worksheet? It's pretty damn detailed. You bill in 6-minute increments at most big law firms, and you have to list what you're working on each of those 6-minute periods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen a lawyer 's billables worksheet ?
It 's pretty damn detailed .
You bill in 6-minute increments at most big law firms , and you have to list what you 're working on each of those 6-minute periods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen a lawyer's billables worksheet?
It's pretty damn detailed.
You bill in 6-minute increments at most big law firms, and you have to list what you're working on each of those 6-minute periods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044556</id>
	<title>The US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257862440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US, the worlds largest quasi capitalism. Why won't anybody understand that patents and capitalism don't mix?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US , the worlds largest quasi capitalism .
Why wo n't anybody understand that patents and capitalism do n't mix ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US, the worlds largest quasi capitalism.
Why won't anybody understand that patents and capitalism don't mix?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049076</id>
	<title>Re:"You thought we would mess it up?"</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1257881340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. Why the govt. does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, now<br>that a golden opportunity has been presented?</p></div></blockquote><p>The person arguing the government's position in court is tasked with defending the government, not pursuing the right course of action. He's the government's rep, not the people's rep. This gets into all kinds of jurisprudential philosophy, and it's easy to be glib and say "HE'S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT ME...DEMOCRACY!," but that's not actually true. In an adversarial system in which a law is challenged, the system only works if you have someone advocating on both sides.</p><p>Furthermore, here, the responsibility of reforming the patent system is Congress's, not the Executive's. The lawyer representing the government is an Executive officer.</p><p>Finally, the Supreme Court won't do it because a majority of the members are conservative, and "fixing it" as you've so put it would be activist, something most people in this country rail against (as a synonym for "not what I believe," I might add).</p><p>You also ask how it's technically feasible to rule on BM but not on software patents. It's easy. The Court could say: "Before us is a business methods patent issue. As a matter of law, it does not promote the useful arts and sciences to allow BMs to be patented. Accordingly, BMs are not constitutional." Note here that they never examined whether software patents are necessary or constitutional or mandated or anything. This is what's called a "narrow holding." John Roberts very famously has said he will pursue narrow holdings in cases before his Court. (Of course, until a pet issue of his comes before the Court).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Why the govt .
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents , nowthat a golden opportunity has been presented ? The person arguing the government 's position in court is tasked with defending the government , not pursuing the right course of action .
He 's the government 's rep , not the people 's rep. This gets into all kinds of jurisprudential philosophy , and it 's easy to be glib and say " HE 'S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT ME...DEMOCRACY ! , " but that 's not actually true .
In an adversarial system in which a law is challenged , the system only works if you have someone advocating on both sides.Furthermore , here , the responsibility of reforming the patent system is Congress 's , not the Executive 's .
The lawyer representing the government is an Executive officer.Finally , the Supreme Court wo n't do it because a majority of the members are conservative , and " fixing it " as you 've so put it would be activist , something most people in this country rail against ( as a synonym for " not what I believe , " I might add ) .You also ask how it 's technically feasible to rule on BM but not on software patents .
It 's easy .
The Court could say : " Before us is a business methods patent issue .
As a matter of law , it does not promote the useful arts and sciences to allow BMs to be patented .
Accordingly , BMs are not constitutional .
" Note here that they never examined whether software patents are necessary or constitutional or mandated or anything .
This is what 's called a " narrow holding .
" John Roberts very famously has said he will pursue narrow holdings in cases before his Court .
( Of course , until a pet issue of his comes before the Court ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Why the govt.
does not want to resolve the mess that is software patents, nowthat a golden opportunity has been presented?The person arguing the government's position in court is tasked with defending the government, not pursuing the right course of action.
He's the government's rep, not the people's rep. This gets into all kinds of jurisprudential philosophy, and it's easy to be glib and say "HE'S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT ME...DEMOCRACY!," but that's not actually true.
In an adversarial system in which a law is challenged, the system only works if you have someone advocating on both sides.Furthermore, here, the responsibility of reforming the patent system is Congress's, not the Executive's.
The lawyer representing the government is an Executive officer.Finally, the Supreme Court won't do it because a majority of the members are conservative, and "fixing it" as you've so put it would be activist, something most people in this country rail against (as a synonym for "not what I believe," I might add).You also ask how it's technically feasible to rule on BM but not on software patents.
It's easy.
The Court could say: "Before us is a business methods patent issue.
As a matter of law, it does not promote the useful arts and sciences to allow BMs to be patented.
Accordingly, BMs are not constitutional.
" Note here that they never examined whether software patents are necessary or constitutional or mandated or anything.
This is what's called a "narrow holding.
" John Roberts very famously has said he will pursue narrow holdings in cases before his Court.
(Of course, until a pet issue of his comes before the Court).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046258</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1257871620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why is Warehouse 13 any more weird than futurama? &lt;/ducks&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why is Warehouse 13 any more weird than futurama ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why is Warehouse 13 any more weird than futurama? </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044690</id>
	<title>Radio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, Scalia's "pop culture" reference is a radio show that went off the air in the mid 50's? Seriously? When he's talking about cars, does he compare everything to a 1954 DeSoto?</p><p>Don't they have law clerks that can help them line up snappy references? For example, "Professor Farnsworth" comes to mind. Sure, it's obscure, but not much more than his reference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Scalia 's " pop culture " reference is a radio show that went off the air in the mid 50 's ?
Seriously ? When he 's talking about cars , does he compare everything to a 1954 DeSoto ? Do n't they have law clerks that can help them line up snappy references ?
For example , " Professor Farnsworth " comes to mind .
Sure , it 's obscure , but not much more than his reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, Scalia's "pop culture" reference is a radio show that went off the air in the mid 50's?
Seriously? When he's talking about cars, does he compare everything to a 1954 DeSoto?Don't they have law clerks that can help them line up snappy references?
For example, "Professor Farnsworth" comes to mind.
Sure, it's obscure, but not much more than his reference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30057402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30054878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30052426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30052418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30053078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30056722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30055660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30050284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_0414226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045528
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30052418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30050284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30048948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30054878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30056722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30049076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30053078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30052426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30051690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30055660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30057402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30046422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30045840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_0414226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30044574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_0414226.30047172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
