<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_20_0145200</id>
	<title>Microsoft Applies For Patent On Tufte's Sparklines</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258734600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jenkin sear writes <i>"Data visualization guru Edward Tufte developed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparklines">Sparklines</a>, a great way to display condensed data as an inline graphic. Excel's new version has incorporated the design element &mdash; and <a href="http://sparklines-excel.blogspot.com/2009/11/united-states-patent-application.html">Microsoft has applied for a patent</a> on them &mdash;  <a href="http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg\_id=0003Y1&amp;topic\_id=1">without so much as a by-your-leave from Tufte</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jenkin sear writes " Data visualization guru Edward Tufte developed Sparklines , a great way to display condensed data as an inline graphic .
Excel 's new version has incorporated the design element    and Microsoft has applied for a patent on them    without so much as a by-your-leave from Tufte .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jenkin sear writes "Data visualization guru Edward Tufte developed Sparklines, a great way to display condensed data as an inline graphic.
Excel's new version has incorporated the design element — and Microsoft has applied for a patent on them —  without so much as a by-your-leave from Tufte.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169704</id>
	<title>New Moon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258719600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Edward... sparkliness... vampires (MS)... I smell another 'Twilight' promo here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Edward... sparkliness... vampires ( MS ) ... I smell another 'Twilight ' promo here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Edward... sparkliness... vampires (MS)... I smell another 'Twilight' promo here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169236</id>
	<title>Do you know who Tufte is?</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1258712820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously not. If you did you would know he always credits his sources in depth and explains the historical development of his thinking. He often draws out features of graphical presentation of data and gives them simplifying names to provide a framework, but he does not claim originality.<p>He is not suing Microsoft, and has done absolutely nothing wrong, And your post is a simple troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously not .
If you did you would know he always credits his sources in depth and explains the historical development of his thinking .
He often draws out features of graphical presentation of data and gives them simplifying names to provide a framework , but he does not claim originality.He is not suing Microsoft , and has done absolutely nothing wrong , And your post is a simple troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously not.
If you did you would know he always credits his sources in depth and explains the historical development of his thinking.
He often draws out features of graphical presentation of data and gives them simplifying names to provide a framework, but he does not claim originality.He is not suing Microsoft, and has done absolutely nothing wrong, And your post is a simple troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168260</id>
	<title>They give him credit on a MS Blog Page</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1258653780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over on the <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-excel.aspx" title="msdn.com">Microsoft Excel Team Blog</a> [msdn.com] they even give Edward Tufte credit as the inventor of these sparklines.</p><blockquote><div><p>For Excel 2010 we&rsquo;ve implemented sparklines, &ldquo;intense, simple, word-sized graphics&rdquo;, as their inventor Edward Tufte describes them in his book Beautiful Evidence.  Sparklines help bring meaning and context to numbers being reported and, unlike a chart, are meant to be embedded into what they are describing:</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over on the Microsoft Excel Team Blog [ msdn.com ] they even give Edward Tufte credit as the inventor of these sparklines.For Excel 2010 we    ve implemented sparklines ,    intense , simple , word-sized graphics    , as their inventor Edward Tufte describes them in his book Beautiful Evidence .
Sparklines help bring meaning and context to numbers being reported and , unlike a chart , are meant to be embedded into what they are describing :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over on the Microsoft Excel Team Blog [msdn.com] they even give Edward Tufte credit as the inventor of these sparklines.For Excel 2010 we’ve implemented sparklines, “intense, simple, word-sized graphics”, as their inventor Edward Tufte describes them in his book Beautiful Evidence.
Sparklines help bring meaning and context to numbers being reported and, unlike a chart, are meant to be embedded into what they are describing:
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170064</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258725660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a load of dingo's kidneys, because nobody had to manually generate sparklines, either. There are already numerous systems which dynamically generate them as needed, for example a <a href="http://drupal.org/project/sparkline" title="drupal.org">drupal module</a> [drupal.org]. This is a ridiculous patent, as completely insane as any "business method" patent, except instead of taking a common business model and adding "on the internet", it's taking an already-accepted practice and adding "in excel". By any reasonable standard, this is a bad patent application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a load of dingo 's kidneys , because nobody had to manually generate sparklines , either .
There are already numerous systems which dynamically generate them as needed , for example a drupal module [ drupal.org ] .
This is a ridiculous patent , as completely insane as any " business method " patent , except instead of taking a common business model and adding " on the internet " , it 's taking an already-accepted practice and adding " in excel " .
By any reasonable standard , this is a bad patent application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a load of dingo's kidneys, because nobody had to manually generate sparklines, either.
There are already numerous systems which dynamically generate them as needed, for example a drupal module [drupal.org].
This is a ridiculous patent, as completely insane as any "business method" patent, except instead of taking a common business model and adding "on the internet", it's taking an already-accepted practice and adding "in excel".
By any reasonable standard, this is a bad patent application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169522</id>
	<title>Embedding is what they are meant for</title>
	<author>metalmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1258717200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sparklines "are meant to be embedded into what they are describing" quote <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-excel.aspx" title="msdn.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-excel.aspx</a> [msdn.com]
<br>
How can a patent be granted on embedding them in a grid, when Sparklines were designed to be easily embedded into other contexts. A grid being one such context.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sparklines " are meant to be embedded into what they are describing " quote http : //blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-excel.aspx [ msdn.com ] How can a patent be granted on embedding them in a grid , when Sparklines were designed to be easily embedded into other contexts .
A grid being one such context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sparklines "are meant to be embedded into what they are describing" quote http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-excel.aspx [msdn.com]

How can a patent be granted on embedding them in a grid, when Sparklines were designed to be easily embedded into other contexts.
A grid being one such context.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170788</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1258731120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A patent should protect the research done. The idea is to encourage people to show their results and in return they get a time limited exclusive right to use, so others can build on top of their research, instead of having to hide their discoveries from the opposition to protect their investment.</p><p>Now please show me what investment, what research, what ROI is to be protected here? It's about monopolizing a trivial idea. It's the exact opposite of what patents are about. Not more research and more development, faster discoveries because others don't have to reinvent the wheel. It's monopolizing a trivial idea and actually forcing others to reinvent the wheel, to find loopholes in the patent that allows them to use that very trivial idea as well.</p><p>The reason why using a sparkline (whatever it may be) in a spreadsheet wasn't implemented earlier is that the sparkline itself is new. If anything, this could be patented because that's what required research and investment of resources. What MS does, just to bother a car analogy, is to patent the use of a new rubber mix in tyres after someone else invented the better rubber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A patent should protect the research done .
The idea is to encourage people to show their results and in return they get a time limited exclusive right to use , so others can build on top of their research , instead of having to hide their discoveries from the opposition to protect their investment.Now please show me what investment , what research , what ROI is to be protected here ?
It 's about monopolizing a trivial idea .
It 's the exact opposite of what patents are about .
Not more research and more development , faster discoveries because others do n't have to reinvent the wheel .
It 's monopolizing a trivial idea and actually forcing others to reinvent the wheel , to find loopholes in the patent that allows them to use that very trivial idea as well.The reason why using a sparkline ( whatever it may be ) in a spreadsheet was n't implemented earlier is that the sparkline itself is new .
If anything , this could be patented because that 's what required research and investment of resources .
What MS does , just to bother a car analogy , is to patent the use of a new rubber mix in tyres after someone else invented the better rubber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A patent should protect the research done.
The idea is to encourage people to show their results and in return they get a time limited exclusive right to use, so others can build on top of their research, instead of having to hide their discoveries from the opposition to protect their investment.Now please show me what investment, what research, what ROI is to be protected here?
It's about monopolizing a trivial idea.
It's the exact opposite of what patents are about.
Not more research and more development, faster discoveries because others don't have to reinvent the wheel.
It's monopolizing a trivial idea and actually forcing others to reinvent the wheel, to find loopholes in the patent that allows them to use that very trivial idea as well.The reason why using a sparkline (whatever it may be) in a spreadsheet wasn't implemented earlier is that the sparkline itself is new.
If anything, this could be patented because that's what required research and investment of resources.
What MS does, just to bother a car analogy, is to patent the use of a new rubber mix in tyres after someone else invented the better rubber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170588</id>
	<title>Re:Specifically...</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1258729920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it isn't.  The patent expressly treats generic sparklines as prior art.  From the "Background" section of the patent, where you put things that you admit are prior art:  <p><div class="quote"><p>[0001]Sparklines are small graphics embedded in a document, such as a text document or a spreadsheet, among the words, numbers, images or other content of the document. Sparklines can be used to graphically represent the content of one or more neighboring cells to provide a visual representation of the data. There are at least two advantages to using sparklines. First, as a "picture paints a thousand words," at a glance, a graph can quickly clearly show values, trends, and similar information. Second, by presenting such a graph in context within the document as opposed to presenting the graph on a separate page or screen, a viewer can more readily appreciate the information represented and/or compare the represented information with that represented by other sparklines. </p><p>

[0002]In the case of creating sparkline graphs, conventionally, sparklines are created manually, often by simulating the generation of bars with a set of segment fonts that represent parts of bars, lines, or other graph features. Alternatively, a user could manually could select data and manually generate a chart, then try to scale the chart to fit the desired space.</p></div><p>Sparklines are also used as elements of the claims.  You can't use them as elements if you're claiming sparklines.  This application may or may not have allowable claims, but it is clearly <strong>not</strong> trying to claim sparklines themselves.  It's claiming an improvement on sparklines, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, including without the permission of the inventor of the underlying technology.  In fact, since (as everybody has vociferously pointed out) generic sparklines are clearly in the prior art, Tufte <strong>cannot</strong> be named as an inventor on this application.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is n't .
The patent expressly treats generic sparklines as prior art .
From the " Background " section of the patent , where you put things that you admit are prior art : [ 0001 ] Sparklines are small graphics embedded in a document , such as a text document or a spreadsheet , among the words , numbers , images or other content of the document .
Sparklines can be used to graphically represent the content of one or more neighboring cells to provide a visual representation of the data .
There are at least two advantages to using sparklines .
First , as a " picture paints a thousand words , " at a glance , a graph can quickly clearly show values , trends , and similar information .
Second , by presenting such a graph in context within the document as opposed to presenting the graph on a separate page or screen , a viewer can more readily appreciate the information represented and/or compare the represented information with that represented by other sparklines .
[ 0002 ] In the case of creating sparkline graphs , conventionally , sparklines are created manually , often by simulating the generation of bars with a set of segment fonts that represent parts of bars , lines , or other graph features .
Alternatively , a user could manually could select data and manually generate a chart , then try to scale the chart to fit the desired space.Sparklines are also used as elements of the claims .
You ca n't use them as elements if you 're claiming sparklines .
This application may or may not have allowable claims , but it is clearly not trying to claim sparklines themselves .
It 's claiming an improvement on sparklines , which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do , including without the permission of the inventor of the underlying technology .
In fact , since ( as everybody has vociferously pointed out ) generic sparklines are clearly in the prior art , Tufte can not be named as an inventor on this application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it isn't.
The patent expressly treats generic sparklines as prior art.
From the "Background" section of the patent, where you put things that you admit are prior art:  [0001]Sparklines are small graphics embedded in a document, such as a text document or a spreadsheet, among the words, numbers, images or other content of the document.
Sparklines can be used to graphically represent the content of one or more neighboring cells to provide a visual representation of the data.
There are at least two advantages to using sparklines.
First, as a "picture paints a thousand words," at a glance, a graph can quickly clearly show values, trends, and similar information.
Second, by presenting such a graph in context within the document as opposed to presenting the graph on a separate page or screen, a viewer can more readily appreciate the information represented and/or compare the represented information with that represented by other sparklines.
[0002]In the case of creating sparkline graphs, conventionally, sparklines are created manually, often by simulating the generation of bars with a set of segment fonts that represent parts of bars, lines, or other graph features.
Alternatively, a user could manually could select data and manually generate a chart, then try to scale the chart to fit the desired space.Sparklines are also used as elements of the claims.
You can't use them as elements if you're claiming sparklines.
This application may or may not have allowable claims, but it is clearly not trying to claim sparklines themselves.
It's claiming an improvement on sparklines, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, including without the permission of the inventor of the underlying technology.
In fact, since (as everybody has vociferously pointed out) generic sparklines are clearly in the prior art, Tufte cannot be named as an inventor on this application.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170456</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft didn't patent the sparkline itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258729140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use of sparklines in an Excel cell is available as an Excel add-in from Bissantz.com and has been for several years.<br>They have scrolling versions, live tickers etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use of sparklines in an Excel cell is available as an Excel add-in from Bissantz.com and has been for several years.They have scrolling versions , live tickers etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use of sparklines in an Excel cell is available as an Excel add-in from Bissantz.com and has been for several years.They have scrolling versions, live tickers etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168788</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1258660440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.</p></div></blockquote><p>The wikipedia article lists several, but for all I know they may have appeared there after your post.<br>As for the patent being of restricted use that is true but ultimately somewhat petty.  It is like appending "on a plane" onto a mention of anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , I 'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious , then surely there 's an open source version that predates this application.The wikipedia article lists several , but for all I know they may have appeared there after your post.As for the patent being of restricted use that is true but ultimately somewhat petty .
It is like appending " on a plane " onto a mention of anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.The wikipedia article lists several, but for all I know they may have appeared there after your post.As for the patent being of restricted use that is true but ultimately somewhat petty.
It is like appending "on a plane" onto a mention of anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168494</id>
	<title>Wait A Cotton Picking Second</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258656240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sparklines on PC have existed since the 1990s for financial, memory management, cpu graphing, calculators and medical statistics. They even go back farther in the field statistics and physics itself. Neither Microsoft, nor Tufte have invented anything here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sparklines on PC have existed since the 1990s for financial , memory management , cpu graphing , calculators and medical statistics .
They even go back farther in the field statistics and physics itself .
Neither Microsoft , nor Tufte have invented anything here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sparklines on PC have existed since the 1990s for financial, memory management, cpu graphing, calculators and medical statistics.
They even go back farther in the field statistics and physics itself.
Neither Microsoft, nor Tufte have invented anything here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171322</id>
	<title>Redundant comment - WTF ?</title>
	<author>OneSmartFellow</author>
	<datestamp>1258733760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can anyone patent a graph ?<br> <br>
I don't care how small it is, or whether it has axis labels, or what, it's a damned graph (or chart, which ever word you prefer)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can anyone patent a graph ?
I do n't care how small it is , or whether it has axis labels , or what , it 's a damned graph ( or chart , which ever word you prefer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can anyone patent a graph ?
I don't care how small it is, or whether it has axis labels, or what, it's a damned graph (or chart, which ever word you prefer)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169030</id>
	<title>Microsoft didn't patent the sparkline itself</title>
	<author>Device666</author>
	<datestamp>1258710300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft patented the use of sparklines as a visualization for a single cell in a grid. In the US patent system, that's night and day different. They recognise Edward Tufte on their <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-excel.aspx" title="msdn.com">website</a> [msdn.com] for his invention of the sparkline: "For Excel 2010 we've implemented sparklines, "intense, simple, word-sized graphics", as their inventor Edward Tufte describes them in his book Beautiful Evidence."</p><p>If they would patent the sparkline they would have no claim because of broadly published prior art, under 35 U.S.C. 301: "Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential."</p><p>
Speaking from an information visualisation perspective Microsoft badly implemented sparklines in excel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft patented the use of sparklines as a visualization for a single cell in a grid .
In the US patent system , that 's night and day different .
They recognise Edward Tufte on their website [ msdn.com ] for his invention of the sparkline : " For Excel 2010 we 've implemented sparklines , " intense , simple , word-sized graphics " , as their inventor Edward Tufte describes them in his book Beautiful Evidence .
" If they would patent the sparkline they would have no claim because of broadly published prior art , under 35 U.S.C .
301 : " Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent .
If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent , the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent .
At the written request of the person citing the prior art , his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential .
" Speaking from an information visualisation perspective Microsoft badly implemented sparklines in excel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft patented the use of sparklines as a visualization for a single cell in a grid.
In the US patent system, that's night and day different.
They recognise Edward Tufte on their website [msdn.com] for his invention of the sparkline: "For Excel 2010 we've implemented sparklines, "intense, simple, word-sized graphics", as their inventor Edward Tufte describes them in his book Beautiful Evidence.
"If they would patent the sparkline they would have no claim because of broadly published prior art, under 35 U.S.C.
301: "Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent.
If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent.
At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.
"
Speaking from an information visualisation perspective Microsoft badly implemented sparklines in excel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168390</id>
	<title>It's killing me</title>
	<author>elysiana</author>
	<datestamp>1258655100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either it's way past my bedtime, or the market is over-saturated with Twilight crap, or both, but...</p><p>I totally read that as "Tufte's Sparkliness".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either it 's way past my bedtime , or the market is over-saturated with Twilight crap , or both , but...I totally read that as " Tufte 's Sparkliness " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either it's way past my bedtime, or the market is over-saturated with Twilight crap, or both, but...I totally read that as "Tufte's Sparkliness".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168362</id>
	<title>Right initial, wrong patent</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258654920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should patent Tourette instead, so maybe the rest of the world stop getting its symptoms every time they make a move.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should patent Tourette instead , so maybe the rest of the world stop getting its symptoms every time they make a move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should patent Tourette instead, so maybe the rest of the world stop getting its symptoms every time they make a move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170774</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258731060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether or not the "inventor" is capable of producing a device or program is irrelevant.  The question is whether he has invented anything.</p><p>This is not an easy question.  Inventions are almost always composed of previous inventions.  Back when mechanical timepieces were being developed to improve navigation, inventors were constantly tinkering with ways to improve them.  These were arrangements of preexisting machine parts like levers and springs.  So does *every* distinct mechanical watch design amount to an "invention" just because it is unique?</p><p>No -- the ability to design (much less build) something is completely unrelated to whether you can invent something.</p><p>It seems to me that an *invention* has to embody an original insight into the problem. Lest I be pushing the semantic ambiguity onto a different word, I'll make a stab at what I think "insight" means in the context of invention:</p><p>Insight is an idea that leads to a reformulation of a problem, rather than restatements of existing solutions to it.</p><p>In mechanical timekeeping, the idea that a *wheel* could act like a pendulum alters the problem.  Before that realization the problem would have been how to deal with the mechanical inconvenience of a weighted rod, or how to balance friction and force to get a consistent result without a pendulum.</p><p>In this case we have the idea of a sparkgraph, stated in terms of a common design pattern: the observer pattern.   If you *have* a sparkgraph in software, you must update it *somehow*; either by manual intervention by the user or by reaction to changes in data.  As soon as you decide to make sparkgraphs available to the user, the process of design *forces* you to make the choice one way or the other. You might have the only software package robustly designed enough to give you the option of automatic update, but the choice itself is a generic one forced on you by preexisting design conceptions.  You haven't created any *new* way of conceptualizing the software architecture or user interface.</p><p>This requirement of insight is, by the way, why I think software patents are a bad idea.  It's not that we don't invent things, it's the opposite. We invent things *constantly*.  As software designers that's our job, to create new conceptualizations of problems. The problem is that we generate and discard so many potentially useful ideas that it is virtually certain with enough of us working on various problems, somebody has come up with a lot of the same things independently.  That's not quite the same as saying the ideas are "obvious". It's quite difficult to come up with a good conceptualization of a problem and not many people can do it.  That's what makes working in this field interesting.</p><p>So why is software engineering different than other fields of "inventing"? I think it's because the flexibility of computers as a platform for expressing useful creative ideas makes generating many alternative problem conceptualizations worthwhile.</p><p>So we *do* invent things all the time in software design.   Despite this, an application of an existing design pattern to a useful feature doesn't quality as an "invention".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not the " inventor " is capable of producing a device or program is irrelevant .
The question is whether he has invented anything.This is not an easy question .
Inventions are almost always composed of previous inventions .
Back when mechanical timepieces were being developed to improve navigation , inventors were constantly tinkering with ways to improve them .
These were arrangements of preexisting machine parts like levers and springs .
So does * every * distinct mechanical watch design amount to an " invention " just because it is unique ? No -- the ability to design ( much less build ) something is completely unrelated to whether you can invent something.It seems to me that an * invention * has to embody an original insight into the problem .
Lest I be pushing the semantic ambiguity onto a different word , I 'll make a stab at what I think " insight " means in the context of invention : Insight is an idea that leads to a reformulation of a problem , rather than restatements of existing solutions to it.In mechanical timekeeping , the idea that a * wheel * could act like a pendulum alters the problem .
Before that realization the problem would have been how to deal with the mechanical inconvenience of a weighted rod , or how to balance friction and force to get a consistent result without a pendulum.In this case we have the idea of a sparkgraph , stated in terms of a common design pattern : the observer pattern .
If you * have * a sparkgraph in software , you must update it * somehow * ; either by manual intervention by the user or by reaction to changes in data .
As soon as you decide to make sparkgraphs available to the user , the process of design * forces * you to make the choice one way or the other .
You might have the only software package robustly designed enough to give you the option of automatic update , but the choice itself is a generic one forced on you by preexisting design conceptions .
You have n't created any * new * way of conceptualizing the software architecture or user interface.This requirement of insight is , by the way , why I think software patents are a bad idea .
It 's not that we do n't invent things , it 's the opposite .
We invent things * constantly * .
As software designers that 's our job , to create new conceptualizations of problems .
The problem is that we generate and discard so many potentially useful ideas that it is virtually certain with enough of us working on various problems , somebody has come up with a lot of the same things independently .
That 's not quite the same as saying the ideas are " obvious " .
It 's quite difficult to come up with a good conceptualization of a problem and not many people can do it .
That 's what makes working in this field interesting.So why is software engineering different than other fields of " inventing " ?
I think it 's because the flexibility of computers as a platform for expressing useful creative ideas makes generating many alternative problem conceptualizations worthwhile.So we * do * invent things all the time in software design .
Despite this , an application of an existing design pattern to a useful feature does n't quality as an " invention " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not the "inventor" is capable of producing a device or program is irrelevant.
The question is whether he has invented anything.This is not an easy question.
Inventions are almost always composed of previous inventions.
Back when mechanical timepieces were being developed to improve navigation, inventors were constantly tinkering with ways to improve them.
These were arrangements of preexisting machine parts like levers and springs.
So does *every* distinct mechanical watch design amount to an "invention" just because it is unique?No -- the ability to design (much less build) something is completely unrelated to whether you can invent something.It seems to me that an *invention* has to embody an original insight into the problem.
Lest I be pushing the semantic ambiguity onto a different word, I'll make a stab at what I think "insight" means in the context of invention:Insight is an idea that leads to a reformulation of a problem, rather than restatements of existing solutions to it.In mechanical timekeeping, the idea that a *wheel* could act like a pendulum alters the problem.
Before that realization the problem would have been how to deal with the mechanical inconvenience of a weighted rod, or how to balance friction and force to get a consistent result without a pendulum.In this case we have the idea of a sparkgraph, stated in terms of a common design pattern: the observer pattern.
If you *have* a sparkgraph in software, you must update it *somehow*; either by manual intervention by the user or by reaction to changes in data.
As soon as you decide to make sparkgraphs available to the user, the process of design *forces* you to make the choice one way or the other.
You might have the only software package robustly designed enough to give you the option of automatic update, but the choice itself is a generic one forced on you by preexisting design conceptions.
You haven't created any *new* way of conceptualizing the software architecture or user interface.This requirement of insight is, by the way, why I think software patents are a bad idea.
It's not that we don't invent things, it's the opposite.
We invent things *constantly*.
As software designers that's our job, to create new conceptualizations of problems.
The problem is that we generate and discard so many potentially useful ideas that it is virtually certain with enough of us working on various problems, somebody has come up with a lot of the same things independently.
That's not quite the same as saying the ideas are "obvious".
It's quite difficult to come up with a good conceptualization of a problem and not many people can do it.
That's what makes working in this field interesting.So why is software engineering different than other fields of "inventing"?
I think it's because the flexibility of computers as a platform for expressing useful creative ideas makes generating many alternative problem conceptualizations worthwhile.So we *do* invent things all the time in software design.
Despite this, an application of an existing design pattern to a useful feature doesn't quality as an "invention".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169856</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>fbjon</author>
	<datestamp>1258722180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are there automatically updating graphs in spreadsheets? A sparkline is ultimately a graph or other image with a small format. If an automatically updating image isn't obvious, whatever the image may be, I don't know what is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there automatically updating graphs in spreadsheets ?
A sparkline is ultimately a graph or other image with a small format .
If an automatically updating image is n't obvious , whatever the image may be , I do n't know what is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there automatically updating graphs in spreadsheets?
A sparkline is ultimately a graph or other image with a small format.
If an automatically updating image isn't obvious, whatever the image may be, I don't know what is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169944</id>
	<title>Re:Specifically...</title>
	<author>RalphSleigh</author>
	<datestamp>1258724100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document"</p><p>I am pretty sure this means that the sparkline resizes to fit its containing cell(s) when you drag the row/column resize handles at the edges, or some other process causes the cell(s) to be resized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document " I am pretty sure this means that the sparkline resizes to fit its containing cell ( s ) when you drag the row/column resize handles at the edges , or some other process causes the cell ( s ) to be resized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document"I am pretty sure this means that the sparkline resizes to fit its containing cell(s) when you drag the row/column resize handles at the edges, or some other process causes the cell(s) to be resized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168428</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application. Remember, though, that this application was filed on May 7, 2008, so the open source version would need to predate that, preferably (but not necessarily) by a year or more. That would actually be an important piece of prior art."

A quick search shows: <a href="http://sparkline.org/" title="sparkline.org" rel="nofollow">http://sparkline.org/</a> [sparkline.org] which on their sf page have a release dated 2004-11-09</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Finally , I 'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious , then surely there 's an open source version that predates this application .
Remember , though , that this application was filed on May 7 , 2008 , so the open source version would need to predate that , preferably ( but not necessarily ) by a year or more .
That would actually be an important piece of prior art .
" A quick search shows : http : //sparkline.org/ [ sparkline.org ] which on their sf page have a release dated 2004-11-09</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.
Remember, though, that this application was filed on May 7, 2008, so the open source version would need to predate that, preferably (but not necessarily) by a year or more.
That would actually be an important piece of prior art.
"

A quick search shows: http://sparkline.org/ [sparkline.org] which on their sf page have a release dated 2004-11-09</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30173626</id>
	<title>Its just Excel</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1258742580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft wants to patent their implementation of Sparklines in Excel, that's their business. I've seen plenty of implementations in other applications, including spreadsheets, document editors, etc. Excel is their app and if they want to scare third parties from developing for their platforms with patents, that's fine by me.
</p><p>I don't use Excel (or other Microsoft crap) so that will just mean more developers will be working on the stuff I use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft wants to patent their implementation of Sparklines in Excel , that 's their business .
I 've seen plenty of implementations in other applications , including spreadsheets , document editors , etc .
Excel is their app and if they want to scare third parties from developing for their platforms with patents , that 's fine by me .
I do n't use Excel ( or other Microsoft crap ) so that will just mean more developers will be working on the stuff I use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft wants to patent their implementation of Sparklines in Excel, that's their business.
I've seen plenty of implementations in other applications, including spreadsheets, document editors, etc.
Excel is their app and if they want to scare third parties from developing for their platforms with patents, that's fine by me.
I don't use Excel (or other Microsoft crap) so that will just mean more developers will be working on the stuff I use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169762</id>
	<title>Regardless, Glad To See Sparklines in Excel</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1258720740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's too bad that we're all here talking about the legal issues surrounding Excel's implementation of Sparklines, rather than praising the developers at MS for picking up on this great idea and putting it in the code.  Isn't this what is supposed to happen in a free market of ideas?</p><p>It's obvious that MS isn't trying to claim authorship of Sparklines per se, since they mention Dr. Tufte's name right up front.  Seems to me they're just being aware of a terrific UI idea, and putting it into code.  There's not a thing wrong with that, and frankly, it doesn't happen nearly often enough.</p><p>The fact is, Sparklines look awesome in Excel, and I'd love to see them in Sharepoint, too, where a lot of dashboard-type information gets displayed.  Way to go, Microsoft!  It's great to see some outside-the-box thinking; you've beat your open source competitor at his own game.</p><p>People who know me know I don't normally take Microsoft's side on IP issues, but if their patent is properly limited in scope and novel in execution then let 'er rip.  If the patent claim is trash, well then, OK, throw it out.  But we need to make sure we don't discourage this imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery style of development.  That's how we advance the art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's too bad that we 're all here talking about the legal issues surrounding Excel 's implementation of Sparklines , rather than praising the developers at MS for picking up on this great idea and putting it in the code .
Is n't this what is supposed to happen in a free market of ideas ? It 's obvious that MS is n't trying to claim authorship of Sparklines per se , since they mention Dr. Tufte 's name right up front .
Seems to me they 're just being aware of a terrific UI idea , and putting it into code .
There 's not a thing wrong with that , and frankly , it does n't happen nearly often enough.The fact is , Sparklines look awesome in Excel , and I 'd love to see them in Sharepoint , too , where a lot of dashboard-type information gets displayed .
Way to go , Microsoft !
It 's great to see some outside-the-box thinking ; you 've beat your open source competitor at his own game.People who know me know I do n't normally take Microsoft 's side on IP issues , but if their patent is properly limited in scope and novel in execution then let 'er rip .
If the patent claim is trash , well then , OK , throw it out .
But we need to make sure we do n't discourage this imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery style of development .
That 's how we advance the art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's too bad that we're all here talking about the legal issues surrounding Excel's implementation of Sparklines, rather than praising the developers at MS for picking up on this great idea and putting it in the code.
Isn't this what is supposed to happen in a free market of ideas?It's obvious that MS isn't trying to claim authorship of Sparklines per se, since they mention Dr. Tufte's name right up front.
Seems to me they're just being aware of a terrific UI idea, and putting it into code.
There's not a thing wrong with that, and frankly, it doesn't happen nearly often enough.The fact is, Sparklines look awesome in Excel, and I'd love to see them in Sharepoint, too, where a lot of dashboard-type information gets displayed.
Way to go, Microsoft!
It's great to see some outside-the-box thinking; you've beat your open source competitor at his own game.People who know me know I don't normally take Microsoft's side on IP issues, but if their patent is properly limited in scope and novel in execution then let 'er rip.
If the patent claim is trash, well then, OK, throw it out.
But we need to make sure we don't discourage this imitation-is-the-sincerest-form-of-flattery style of development.
That's how we advance the art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169444</id>
	<title>A by-your-leave?</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1258716000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>without so much as a by-your-leave from Tufte</p></div><p>The summary seems to be implying that Tufte should have asked Microsoft for their permission before allowing them to rip him off. This seems somewhat harsh on the poor guy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>without so much as a by-your-leave from TufteThe summary seems to be implying that Tufte should have asked Microsoft for their permission before allowing them to rip him off .
This seems somewhat harsh on the poor guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>without so much as a by-your-leave from TufteThe summary seems to be implying that Tufte should have asked Microsoft for their permission before allowing them to rip him off.
This seems somewhat harsh on the poor guy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169506</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>fireylord</author>
	<datestamp>1258717020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the obvious target of this attempt at patenting someone else's idea into their spreadsheet app is other peoples' spreadsheet apps (openoffice et all).  Just goes to show that with stunts like this Micro$oft still hasnt changed their rattlesnake type business ethics</htmltext>
<tokenext>the obvious target of this attempt at patenting someone else 's idea into their spreadsheet app is other peoples ' spreadsheet apps ( openoffice et all ) .
Just goes to show that with stunts like this Micro $ oft still hasnt changed their rattlesnake type business ethics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the obvious target of this attempt at patenting someone else's idea into their spreadsheet app is other peoples' spreadsheet apps (openoffice et all).
Just goes to show that with stunts like this Micro$oft still hasnt changed their rattlesnake type business ethics</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30177290</id>
	<title>Prior art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this not count as prior art?</p><p><a href="http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2006/02/05/in-cell-charting/" title="dailydoseofexcel.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2006/02/05/in-cell-charting/</a> [dailydoseofexcel.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this not count as prior art ? http : //www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2006/02/05/in-cell-charting/ [ dailydoseofexcel.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this not count as prior art?http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2006/02/05/in-cell-charting/ [dailydoseofexcel.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171838</id>
	<title>Unclear to me....</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1258736100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm honestly not sure what exactly MS is patenting.</p><p>This doesn't look like an attemptt to patent sparkilnes, much as the headline wants to paint it that way (and many commenters seem to be playing along).  If it were, the claims would describe how to visualize data as a sparkline; instead, right from the very beginning of claim 1, they take the concept of a sparkline as a given.</p><p>So it's not sparklines; its the association of a sparline to data and presentation parametesr in an Excel document that they msut be trying to protect.  Is it a bad patent?  Maybe; the associations to Excel elements could be obvious.  But to assert that every sparkline out there (but not used in an Excel document and integrated with it in the ways the patent describes) is prior art would be incorrect.  Since nobody but MS could add this feature to Excel, I doubt there's any prior art.  It could be that similar use of sparklines in another spreadsheet package would qualify, unless there's something unique about the way it's done in the Excel format.</p><p>There is nothing inherantly wrong with a patent on an invention that depends on / incorporates an element that itself would not be patentable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm honestly not sure what exactly MS is patenting.This does n't look like an attemptt to patent sparkilnes , much as the headline wants to paint it that way ( and many commenters seem to be playing along ) .
If it were , the claims would describe how to visualize data as a sparkline ; instead , right from the very beginning of claim 1 , they take the concept of a sparkline as a given.So it 's not sparklines ; its the association of a sparline to data and presentation parametesr in an Excel document that they msut be trying to protect .
Is it a bad patent ?
Maybe ; the associations to Excel elements could be obvious .
But to assert that every sparkline out there ( but not used in an Excel document and integrated with it in the ways the patent describes ) is prior art would be incorrect .
Since nobody but MS could add this feature to Excel , I doubt there 's any prior art .
It could be that similar use of sparklines in another spreadsheet package would qualify , unless there 's something unique about the way it 's done in the Excel format.There is nothing inherantly wrong with a patent on an invention that depends on / incorporates an element that itself would not be patentable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm honestly not sure what exactly MS is patenting.This doesn't look like an attemptt to patent sparkilnes, much as the headline wants to paint it that way (and many commenters seem to be playing along).
If it were, the claims would describe how to visualize data as a sparkline; instead, right from the very beginning of claim 1, they take the concept of a sparkline as a given.So it's not sparklines; its the association of a sparline to data and presentation parametesr in an Excel document that they msut be trying to protect.
Is it a bad patent?
Maybe; the associations to Excel elements could be obvious.
But to assert that every sparkline out there (but not used in an Excel document and integrated with it in the ways the patent describes) is prior art would be incorrect.
Since nobody but MS could add this feature to Excel, I doubt there's any prior art.
It could be that similar use of sparklines in another spreadsheet package would qualify, unless there's something unique about the way it's done in the Excel format.There is nothing inherantly wrong with a patent on an invention that depends on / incorporates an element that itself would not be patentable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168392</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>sohp</author>
	<datestamp>1258655160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but taking an existing invention and just taking on "in Excel" or "using a computer" does not make it a new invention. That seems to be the way the USPTO treats those magic words, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but taking an existing invention and just taking on " in Excel " or " using a computer " does not make it a new invention .
That seems to be the way the USPTO treats those magic words , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but taking an existing invention and just taking on "in Excel" or "using a computer" does not make it a new invention.
That seems to be the way the USPTO treats those magic words, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168794</id>
	<title>first to apply</title>
	<author>dbcowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258660500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been hearing about the first to apply rule.  If patent reform includes such a rule change these new patent applications to inventions by others will have beat the owners of ideas in the race to patent, plus it allows free grab of anything left unpatented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been hearing about the first to apply rule .
If patent reform includes such a rule change these new patent applications to inventions by others will have beat the owners of ideas in the race to patent , plus it allows free grab of anything left unpatented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been hearing about the first to apply rule.
If patent reform includes such a rule change these new patent applications to inventions by others will have beat the owners of ideas in the race to patent, plus it allows free grab of anything left unpatented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170178</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious bad patent</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1258727040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's not really Microsoft's job to make sure the patent isn't bogus.</i></p><p>Oh, yes, it is.  You are supposed to know the field you're filing in.  And if you knowingly claim to have invented something when you haven't, it's fraud.</p><p><i>I suggest that we fine the USPTO reviewers who granted the patent.</i></p><p>What have they ever done to you?  I suggest we let people sue companies like Microsoft over invalid patents: you file an invalid patent, you're liable for treble damages, based on what licensing revenues you extracted and what impact you may have had on the market.  Giving lawyers a financial incentive to invalidate bad patents would stop this nonsense quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really Microsoft 's job to make sure the patent is n't bogus.Oh , yes , it is .
You are supposed to know the field you 're filing in .
And if you knowingly claim to have invented something when you have n't , it 's fraud.I suggest that we fine the USPTO reviewers who granted the patent.What have they ever done to you ?
I suggest we let people sue companies like Microsoft over invalid patents : you file an invalid patent , you 're liable for treble damages , based on what licensing revenues you extracted and what impact you may have had on the market .
Giving lawyers a financial incentive to invalidate bad patents would stop this nonsense quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really Microsoft's job to make sure the patent isn't bogus.Oh, yes, it is.
You are supposed to know the field you're filing in.
And if you knowingly claim to have invented something when you haven't, it's fraud.I suggest that we fine the USPTO reviewers who granted the patent.What have they ever done to you?
I suggest we let people sue companies like Microsoft over invalid patents: you file an invalid patent, you're liable for treble damages, based on what licensing revenues you extracted and what impact you may have had on the market.
Giving lawyers a financial incentive to invalidate bad patents would stop this nonsense quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168086</id>
	<title>Why are you surprised?</title>
	<author>stillpixel</author>
	<datestamp>1258652040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is very obvious that Microsoft has never payed much attention to design concepts, especially user interface design concepts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is very obvious that Microsoft has never payed much attention to design concepts , especially user interface design concepts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is very obvious that Microsoft has never payed much attention to design concepts, especially user interface design concepts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168702</id>
	<title>Re:Specifically...</title>
	<author>lahvak</author>
	<datestamp>1258659060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pretty interesting.  If I remember correctly, there is a LaTeX package for creating sparklines, it uses data that can be embedded in the document, it takes additional parameters that influence the look of the sparkline, and if you change the data a re-run latex, the sparkline changes to reflect the new data, while preserving the look given by the additional parameters.  Add to it a system that watches your file and rerun latex every time to see a change in order to generate a preview (I believe I have seen at least one such editor), and it seems to me exactly like what they are describing.  I don't quite understand what they mean by "matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document".  If that is the only difference, it really seems too little to deserve a patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty interesting .
If I remember correctly , there is a LaTeX package for creating sparklines , it uses data that can be embedded in the document , it takes additional parameters that influence the look of the sparkline , and if you change the data a re-run latex , the sparkline changes to reflect the new data , while preserving the look given by the additional parameters .
Add to it a system that watches your file and rerun latex every time to see a change in order to generate a preview ( I believe I have seen at least one such editor ) , and it seems to me exactly like what they are describing .
I do n't quite understand what they mean by " matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document " .
If that is the only difference , it really seems too little to deserve a patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty interesting.
If I remember correctly, there is a LaTeX package for creating sparklines, it uses data that can be embedded in the document, it takes additional parameters that influence the look of the sparkline, and if you change the data a re-run latex, the sparkline changes to reflect the new data, while preserving the look given by the additional parameters.
Add to it a system that watches your file and rerun latex every time to see a change in order to generate a preview (I believe I have seen at least one such editor), and it seems to me exactly like what they are describing.
I don't quite understand what they mean by "matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document".
If that is the only difference, it really seems too little to deserve a patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168748</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258660020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They haven&rsquo;t tried to patent sparklines, but the use of sparklines in Excel</i></p><p>Let's say that I patent the way that I walk. That's okay, isn't it? I mean, I only patented how <i>I</i> walk, not how walking is done in general.</p><p>"Hey, you're walking kind of like me. Stop that, or I'll have my team of lawyers sue you!"</p><p>Patents have the potential to kill the small developers (like me).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They haven    t tried to patent sparklines , but the use of sparklines in ExcelLet 's say that I patent the way that I walk .
That 's okay , is n't it ?
I mean , I only patented how I walk , not how walking is done in general .
" Hey , you 're walking kind of like me .
Stop that , or I 'll have my team of lawyers sue you !
" Patents have the potential to kill the small developers ( like me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven’t tried to patent sparklines, but the use of sparklines in ExcelLet's say that I patent the way that I walk.
That's okay, isn't it?
I mean, I only patented how I walk, not how walking is done in general.
"Hey, you're walking kind of like me.
Stop that, or I'll have my team of lawyers sue you!
"Patents have the potential to kill the small developers (like me).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170674</id>
	<title>Re:I've done it...</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1258730460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've used sparklines that were updated "automatically" from the values in a database. The software in question tracked the coffee consumption pr. person</p></div><p>You guys went balls to the wall tracking down that asshole that wouldn't contribute for drinking the office coffee, huh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used sparklines that were updated " automatically " from the values in a database .
The software in question tracked the coffee consumption pr .
personYou guys went balls to the wall tracking down that asshole that would n't contribute for drinking the office coffee , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used sparklines that were updated "automatically" from the values in a database.
The software in question tracked the coffee consumption pr.
personYou guys went balls to the wall tracking down that asshole that wouldn't contribute for drinking the office coffee, huh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168490</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1258656240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This is just a synthesis of existing technologies.
</p><p>
Spreadsheet software already automatically updates graphs and charts based on changes in the spreadsheet.
</p><p>
A sparkline is nothing more than a graph reduced in size and placed in-line within the text.
</p><p>
It follows that a combination of the existing graph technology,  with the reduction in size, automatically leads to a sparkline that automatically updates.
</p><p>
Nothing new or novel is accomplished by the combination, so the synthesis isn't an invention.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a synthesis of existing technologies .
Spreadsheet software already automatically updates graphs and charts based on changes in the spreadsheet .
A sparkline is nothing more than a graph reduced in size and placed in-line within the text .
It follows that a combination of the existing graph technology , with the reduction in size , automatically leads to a sparkline that automatically updates .
Nothing new or novel is accomplished by the combination , so the synthesis is n't an invention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is just a synthesis of existing technologies.
Spreadsheet software already automatically updates graphs and charts based on changes in the spreadsheet.
A sparkline is nothing more than a graph reduced in size and placed in-line within the text.
It follows that a combination of the existing graph technology,  with the reduction in size, automatically leads to a sparkline that automatically updates.
Nothing new or novel is accomplished by the combination, so the synthesis isn't an invention.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168220</id>
	<title>Specifically...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1258653000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most general claim of the patent, claim number 1, is:</p><blockquote><div><p>associating a sparkline with a location in a document to provide a visual representation of one or more data values included in the document;associating with the sparkline a data source within the document including the one or more data values; associating the sparkline with one or more presentation options; generating the sparkline according to the one or more data values and the one or more associated presentation options by generating the selected visual representation based on the one or more data values with a matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document; presenting the sparkline at the associated location in the document; and configuring the sparkline to be updated, such that: the sparkline is regenerated when one or more of the data values in the data source change; and the one or more presentation options are maintained when one or more document attributes are changed.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most general claim of the patent , claim number 1 , is : associating a sparkline with a location in a document to provide a visual representation of one or more data values included in the document ; associating with the sparkline a data source within the document including the one or more data values ; associating the sparkline with one or more presentation options ; generating the sparkline according to the one or more data values and the one or more associated presentation options by generating the selected visual representation based on the one or more data values with a matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document ; presenting the sparkline at the associated location in the document ; and configuring the sparkline to be updated , such that : the sparkline is regenerated when one or more of the data values in the data source change ; and the one or more presentation options are maintained when one or more document attributes are changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most general claim of the patent, claim number 1, is:associating a sparkline with a location in a document to provide a visual representation of one or more data values included in the document;associating with the sparkline a data source within the document including the one or more data values; associating the sparkline with one or more presentation options; generating the sparkline according to the one or more data values and the one or more associated presentation options by generating the selected visual representation based on the one or more data values with a matrix of points proportional to the associated location in the document; presenting the sparkline at the associated location in the document; and configuring the sparkline to be updated, such that: the sparkline is regenerated when one or more of the data values in the data source change; and the one or more presentation options are maintained when one or more document attributes are changed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169488</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>Sabriel</author>
	<datestamp>1258716780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.</p></div></blockquote><p>There very likely is one. Of course, since it wouldn't have involved attempts to monetise somebody else's shoulders, it might involve actual work (hah) tracking it down.</p><p>Patents have become a broken window. The system was intended to reward what was once the rare spark of applied creative genius - it does not scale to cope with billions of educated individuals possessing both time and resources to advance the useful arts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , I 'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious , then surely there 's an open source version that predates this application.There very likely is one .
Of course , since it would n't have involved attempts to monetise somebody else 's shoulders , it might involve actual work ( hah ) tracking it down.Patents have become a broken window .
The system was intended to reward what was once the rare spark of applied creative genius - it does not scale to cope with billions of educated individuals possessing both time and resources to advance the useful arts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.There very likely is one.
Of course, since it wouldn't have involved attempts to monetise somebody else's shoulders, it might involve actual work (hah) tracking it down.Patents have become a broken window.
The system was intended to reward what was once the rare spark of applied creative genius - it does not scale to cope with billions of educated individuals possessing both time and resources to advance the useful arts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30172802</id>
	<title>Latex, Python (prior tech/art)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, at least one of the uninformed commentators on Tufte's site mentions Latex as including exactly the functionality in question here.</p><p>You're right, Slashdot should do a better job of policing everything in these discussions and correcting any and all inaccuracies. Of course, there wouldn't be much left if this were done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , at least one of the uninformed commentators on Tufte 's site mentions Latex as including exactly the functionality in question here.You 're right , Slashdot should do a better job of policing everything in these discussions and correcting any and all inaccuracies .
Of course , there would n't be much left if this were done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, at least one of the uninformed commentators on Tufte's site mentions Latex as including exactly the functionality in question here.You're right, Slashdot should do a better job of policing everything in these discussions and correcting any and all inaccuracies.
Of course, there wouldn't be much left if this were done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30173366</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1258741560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The patent clerc should tell his 5 year old about the idea. If he says "duh", it's not patentable.</p></div><p>I'm for patent reform as much as the next guy, but I'm also old enough to remember when soda cans had pull tabs that were removable. They were like that for YEARS before the current type that opens but stays affixed to the can. Whenever I hear the "duh" argument I wonder if the putative "5 year old" would have said "duh" to the current type of pop top.</p><p>Arguments in favor of that being a "non-duh" patent:</p><ul><li>it was YEARS before someone came up with something different.</li><li>undoubtedly took some engineering to make it: 1) sealed well enough to not leak, 2) weak enough to open, 3) strong enough to not break off entirely.</li></ul><p>I haven't read the MS application, but it's not clear the "duh" argument applies here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent clerc should tell his 5 year old about the idea .
If he says " duh " , it 's not patentable.I 'm for patent reform as much as the next guy , but I 'm also old enough to remember when soda cans had pull tabs that were removable .
They were like that for YEARS before the current type that opens but stays affixed to the can .
Whenever I hear the " duh " argument I wonder if the putative " 5 year old " would have said " duh " to the current type of pop top.Arguments in favor of that being a " non-duh " patent : it was YEARS before someone came up with something different.undoubtedly took some engineering to make it : 1 ) sealed well enough to not leak , 2 ) weak enough to open , 3 ) strong enough to not break off entirely.I have n't read the MS application , but it 's not clear the " duh " argument applies here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent clerc should tell his 5 year old about the idea.
If he says "duh", it's not patentable.I'm for patent reform as much as the next guy, but I'm also old enough to remember when soda cans had pull tabs that were removable.
They were like that for YEARS before the current type that opens but stays affixed to the can.
Whenever I hear the "duh" argument I wonder if the putative "5 year old" would have said "duh" to the current type of pop top.Arguments in favor of that being a "non-duh" patent:it was YEARS before someone came up with something different.undoubtedly took some engineering to make it: 1) sealed well enough to not leak, 2) weak enough to open, 3) strong enough to not break off entirely.I haven't read the MS application, but it's not clear the "duh" argument applies here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168158</id>
	<title>I'm trying to figure out who's more ridiculous...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258652640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft for trying to patent anything related to this or Tufte for putting a name on and claiming to "create" something as laughably simple as a miniature graph line...</p><p>Bad Tufte!  Baaaaaad *hits with paper*  Now, if I can just patent that really small pie chart idea I've been playing with.</p><p>-rt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft for trying to patent anything related to this or Tufte for putting a name on and claiming to " create " something as laughably simple as a miniature graph line...Bad Tufte !
Baaaaaad * hits with paper * Now , if I can just patent that really small pie chart idea I 've been playing with.-rt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft for trying to patent anything related to this or Tufte for putting a name on and claiming to "create" something as laughably simple as a miniature graph line...Bad Tufte!
Baaaaaad *hits with paper*  Now, if I can just patent that really small pie chart idea I've been playing with.-rt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170298</id>
	<title>Re:Why are you surprised?</title>
	<author>stillpixel</author>
	<datestamp>1258728120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why off topic? My point was that they never pay attention to such things so they wouldn't have noticed they can't patent Sparklines.

In this case I don't point my finger at Microsoft and scream bloody murder, I simply say they are ignorant in the matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why off topic ?
My point was that they never pay attention to such things so they would n't have noticed they ca n't patent Sparklines .
In this case I do n't point my finger at Microsoft and scream bloody murder , I simply say they are ignorant in the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why off topic?
My point was that they never pay attention to such things so they wouldn't have noticed they can't patent Sparklines.
In this case I don't point my finger at Microsoft and scream bloody murder, I simply say they are ignorant in the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169492</id>
	<title>Blame the system, not M$</title>
	<author>ath1901</author>
	<datestamp>1258716780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, the patent application may not go through, most likely because of the non-obvious/inventive step requirement (even if you find something looking like prior art, it may not look like it to a lawyer).</p><p>It doesn't make the (american) patent system any less stupid though:<br>Microsoft obviously thought the chances were good enough (&gt; 0\%) to spend some money filing a patent. It would (almost) be business malpractice if they didn't. Similar patents have been granted before (progress bars, one click shopping etc) and M$ would get a significant advantage if the patent was allowed (great marketing feature and by preventing interoperability of spreadsheets once again).</p><p>As long as design/software patents are allowed, you have to live with the consequences. Next time, vote on someone who cares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , the patent application may not go through , most likely because of the non-obvious/inventive step requirement ( even if you find something looking like prior art , it may not look like it to a lawyer ) .It does n't make the ( american ) patent system any less stupid though : Microsoft obviously thought the chances were good enough ( &gt; 0 \ % ) to spend some money filing a patent .
It would ( almost ) be business malpractice if they did n't .
Similar patents have been granted before ( progress bars , one click shopping etc ) and M $ would get a significant advantage if the patent was allowed ( great marketing feature and by preventing interoperability of spreadsheets once again ) .As long as design/software patents are allowed , you have to live with the consequences .
Next time , vote on someone who cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, the patent application may not go through, most likely because of the non-obvious/inventive step requirement (even if you find something looking like prior art, it may not look like it to a lawyer).It doesn't make the (american) patent system any less stupid though:Microsoft obviously thought the chances were good enough (&gt; 0\%) to spend some money filing a patent.
It would (almost) be business malpractice if they didn't.
Similar patents have been granted before (progress bars, one click shopping etc) and M$ would get a significant advantage if the patent was allowed (great marketing feature and by preventing interoperability of spreadsheets once again).As long as design/software patents are allowed, you have to live with the consequences.
Next time, vote on someone who cares.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170952</id>
	<title>Re:Opposing patents</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1258731900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is one of those issues I'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on: If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date, what are your options? Can you file an opposition to the patent? How does it work?</p></div><p>Anyone can cite prior art to the USPTO on a pending application, even anonymously (at your written request). You must provide a written explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the prior art to at least one claim of the patent. This is completely free. See 35 USC 301.</p><p>
This being Slashdot, I should remind readers that filing tons of citations of fake prior art in an attempt to bury the Examiner could result in fines and/or jail time.</p><p>
If the patent has issued, you can request a reexamination. Again, it must be in writing and include a description of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art to every claim for which examination is requested, but this time, it must include a payment of the reexamination fee.  Currently, the fee is $2520. See 35 USC 302.</p><p>
Disclaimer: I'm a registered patent agent, but I'm not your agent and this information contains no warranty and may be entirely, 100\% false. Reliance upon it is unwarranted and unjustified.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those issues I 'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on : If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date , what are your options ?
Can you file an opposition to the patent ?
How does it work ? Anyone can cite prior art to the USPTO on a pending application , even anonymously ( at your written request ) .
You must provide a written explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the prior art to at least one claim of the patent .
This is completely free .
See 35 USC 301 .
This being Slashdot , I should remind readers that filing tons of citations of fake prior art in an attempt to bury the Examiner could result in fines and/or jail time .
If the patent has issued , you can request a reexamination .
Again , it must be in writing and include a description of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art to every claim for which examination is requested , but this time , it must include a payment of the reexamination fee .
Currently , the fee is $ 2520 .
See 35 USC 302 .
Disclaimer : I 'm a registered patent agent , but I 'm not your agent and this information contains no warranty and may be entirely , 100 \ % false .
Reliance upon it is unwarranted and unjustified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those issues I'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on: If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date, what are your options?
Can you file an opposition to the patent?
How does it work?Anyone can cite prior art to the USPTO on a pending application, even anonymously (at your written request).
You must provide a written explanation of the pertinency and manner of applying the prior art to at least one claim of the patent.
This is completely free.
See 35 USC 301.
This being Slashdot, I should remind readers that filing tons of citations of fake prior art in an attempt to bury the Examiner could result in fines and/or jail time.
If the patent has issued, you can request a reexamination.
Again, it must be in writing and include a description of the pertinency and manner of applying the cited prior art to every claim for which examination is requested, but this time, it must include a payment of the reexamination fee.
Currently, the fee is $2520.
See 35 USC 302.
Disclaimer: I'm a registered patent agent, but I'm not your agent and this information contains no warranty and may be entirely, 100\% false.
Reliance upon it is unwarranted and unjustified.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168670</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1258658400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course it is, it's all bullshit.  The whole system is fucked.  But any company that doesn't try to patent as much bullshit as they can will be sued by some asshole and at best pay a boatload of legal fees.  Any idiot can see that these companies must play the game or it will cost them.  Bit of a prisoner's dilemma.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it is , it 's all bullshit .
The whole system is fucked .
But any company that does n't try to patent as much bullshit as they can will be sued by some asshole and at best pay a boatload of legal fees .
Any idiot can see that these companies must play the game or it will cost them .
Bit of a prisoner 's dilemma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it is, it's all bullshit.
The whole system is fucked.
But any company that doesn't try to patent as much bullshit as they can will be sued by some asshole and at best pay a boatload of legal fees.
Any idiot can see that these companies must play the game or it will cost them.
Bit of a prisoner's dilemma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171182</id>
	<title>OK so who all actually read the patent?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258733100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... read this:</p><p>http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090282325.pdf</p><p>It's very clearly patenting the use of sparklines in Excel, with key features being that they autoupdate and can chain sparklines with other sparklines.</p><p>There are those who might consider this infringing, but it's certainly not attempting to patent sparklines themselves.</p><p>I'm guessing this was patented as a defensive move. There's probably someone out there that has created a 3rd part plugin for Excel that they want to knock down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... read this : http : //www.freepatentsonline.com/20090282325.pdfIt 's very clearly patenting the use of sparklines in Excel , with key features being that they autoupdate and can chain sparklines with other sparklines.There are those who might consider this infringing , but it 's certainly not attempting to patent sparklines themselves.I 'm guessing this was patented as a defensive move .
There 's probably someone out there that has created a 3rd part plugin for Excel that they want to knock down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... read this:http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090282325.pdfIt's very clearly patenting the use of sparklines in Excel, with key features being that they autoupdate and can chain sparklines with other sparklines.There are those who might consider this infringing, but it's certainly not attempting to patent sparklines themselves.I'm guessing this was patented as a defensive move.
There's probably someone out there that has created a 3rd part plugin for Excel that they want to knock down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168134</id>
	<title>Opposing patents</title>
	<author>StreetStealth</author>
	<datestamp>1258652400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of those issues I'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on: If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date, what are your options? Can you file an opposition to the patent? How does it work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those issues I 'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on : If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date , what are your options ?
Can you file an opposition to the patent ?
How does it work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those issues I'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on: If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date, what are your options?
Can you file an opposition to the patent?
How does it work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170274</id>
	<title>Re:Specifically...</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1258727880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A sparkline (or any graphic) is a matrix of points (pixels), that they in this case make proportional (resize to fit) the associated location (insertion point) in your document.<br><br>Part of what they're trying to patent, is sizing an inline graphic to the same height as your font.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A sparkline ( or any graphic ) is a matrix of points ( pixels ) , that they in this case make proportional ( resize to fit ) the associated location ( insertion point ) in your document.Part of what they 're trying to patent , is sizing an inline graphic to the same height as your font .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A sparkline (or any graphic) is a matrix of points (pixels), that they in this case make proportional (resize to fit) the associated location (insertion point) in your document.Part of what they're trying to patent, is sizing an inline graphic to the same height as your font.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168098</id>
	<title>32\% Rate hike for UC tuition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258652160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Crosshairs on the regents' foreheads. We're playing for keeps now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crosshairs on the regents ' foreheads .
We 're playing for keeps now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crosshairs on the regents' foreheads.
We're playing for keeps now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30173934</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>gentooligan</author>
	<datestamp>1258743720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.</p></div><p>Yup. Here's one: <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/sparklinesforxl/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://sourceforge.net/projects/sparklinesforxl/</a> [sourceforge.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , I 'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious , then surely there 's an open source version that predates this application.Yup .
Here 's one : http : //sourceforge.net/projects/sparklinesforxl/ [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.Yup.
Here's one: http://sourceforge.net/projects/sparklinesforxl/ [sourceforge.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171704</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>Tristfardd</author>
	<datestamp>1258735500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.  Remember, though, that this application was filed on May 7, 2008, so the open source version would need to predate that, preferably (but not necessarily) by a year or more.  That would actually be an important piece of prior art.</p></div><p>This is nonsense.  The idea that everything obvious must have been previously done is a complete rejection of the meaning of the word "obvious".  Using this legal-speak nothing has been obvious since the beginning of the world.  Nothing is obvious today that isn't in the history books.  You can use that thinking for what should be patentable, but it is the type of behavior that makes people despise lawyers.  It always forces everything to the most primitive denominator.  Does this make decision making easier?  Certainly.  Is it also so far outside of acceptable human norm that one has to become specialized in an arcane pursuit to understand it?  Yes.  This is the same approach to thinking that results in finding a woman not suitable for marriage because she is not a virgin.  Some people think that way, they also tend to have other problems.</p><p>Instead, most people have developed a better approach regarding women and marriage.  Economically, it suits the lawyers to not do so regarding patents.  How would they benefit?  Anything they can do to pull the law away from reasonableness is to their economic advantage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , I 'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious , then surely there 's an open source version that predates this application .
Remember , though , that this application was filed on May 7 , 2008 , so the open source version would need to predate that , preferably ( but not necessarily ) by a year or more .
That would actually be an important piece of prior art.This is nonsense .
The idea that everything obvious must have been previously done is a complete rejection of the meaning of the word " obvious " .
Using this legal-speak nothing has been obvious since the beginning of the world .
Nothing is obvious today that is n't in the history books .
You can use that thinking for what should be patentable , but it is the type of behavior that makes people despise lawyers .
It always forces everything to the most primitive denominator .
Does this make decision making easier ?
Certainly. Is it also so far outside of acceptable human norm that one has to become specialized in an arcane pursuit to understand it ?
Yes. This is the same approach to thinking that results in finding a woman not suitable for marriage because she is not a virgin .
Some people think that way , they also tend to have other problems.Instead , most people have developed a better approach regarding women and marriage .
Economically , it suits the lawyers to not do so regarding patents .
How would they benefit ?
Anything they can do to pull the law away from reasonableness is to their economic advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.
Remember, though, that this application was filed on May 7, 2008, so the open source version would need to predate that, preferably (but not necessarily) by a year or more.
That would actually be an important piece of prior art.This is nonsense.
The idea that everything obvious must have been previously done is a complete rejection of the meaning of the word "obvious".
Using this legal-speak nothing has been obvious since the beginning of the world.
Nothing is obvious today that isn't in the history books.
You can use that thinking for what should be patentable, but it is the type of behavior that makes people despise lawyers.
It always forces everything to the most primitive denominator.
Does this make decision making easier?
Certainly.  Is it also so far outside of acceptable human norm that one has to become specialized in an arcane pursuit to understand it?
Yes.  This is the same approach to thinking that results in finding a woman not suitable for marriage because she is not a virgin.
Some people think that way, they also tend to have other problems.Instead, most people have developed a better approach regarding women and marriage.
Economically, it suits the lawyers to not do so regarding patents.
How would they benefit?
Anything they can do to pull the law away from reasonableness is to their economic advantage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168666</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>sheriff\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1258658400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you look at the link? It links to a website that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... provides the technology to embed Sparklines in Excel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you look at the link ?
It links to a website that ... provides the technology to embed Sparklines in Excel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you look at the link?
It links to a website that ... provides the technology to embed Sparklines in Excel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</id>
	<title>A Few Points</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1258653720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, the actual claims are considerably narrower than just 'any and all uses of sparklines.'  The broadest claim is about the use of sparklines in a dynamically updated electronic document.  Most of the narrower claims have to do visual effects, the handling of null values in the spreadsheet, etc.  This is pretty tame stuff.</p><p>Second, this is a newly filed application.  The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness, and the claims will likely be narrowed in response.  Like most negotiations, the parties start off with extreme positions and work towards compromise.</p><p>Third, the patent application already cites Tufte (along with a dozen other pieces of prior art) in the Information Disclosure Statement.  In other words: Microsoft gave the patent examiner many important pieces of prior art.  The examiner will no doubt find many more.  This is all publicly available through the Patent Office's <a href="http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair" title="uspto.gov">Patent Application Information Retrieval</a> [uspto.gov] system.</p><p>Fourth, there is no need for Microsoft to acknowledge Tufte as an inventor on the patent application.  Inventorship in the patent context is a legal term of art with a specific meaning.  The fact that Microsoft said that Tufte invented sparklines is not the damning piece of evidence many are assuming it is (and recall from point three, above, that Microsoft acknowledged Tufte in its IDS).  First, Tufte invented sparklines more than a year before the filing date, so any patentable claims must be a non-obvious improvement upon or use of sparklines, not sparklines themselves.  Second, Tufte clearly did not work with the Microsoft inventors, so he cannot be a co-inventor of anything claimed in this application.</p><p>Once again non-experts hear hoofbeats and scream 'Zebra Stampede!'  The comments on Tufte's site, for example, are a joke, an absolute mess of uninformed speculation.  Given the wealth of publicly available information on patents and patent application, the Slashdot editors should do more to fact check these stories before publishing them.</p><p>Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.  Remember, though, that this application was filed on May 7, 2008, so the open source version would need to predate that, preferably (but not necessarily) by a year or more.  That would actually be an important piece of prior art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the actual claims are considerably narrower than just 'any and all uses of sparklines .
' The broadest claim is about the use of sparklines in a dynamically updated electronic document .
Most of the narrower claims have to do visual effects , the handling of null values in the spreadsheet , etc .
This is pretty tame stuff.Second , this is a newly filed application .
The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness , and the claims will likely be narrowed in response .
Like most negotiations , the parties start off with extreme positions and work towards compromise.Third , the patent application already cites Tufte ( along with a dozen other pieces of prior art ) in the Information Disclosure Statement .
In other words : Microsoft gave the patent examiner many important pieces of prior art .
The examiner will no doubt find many more .
This is all publicly available through the Patent Office 's Patent Application Information Retrieval [ uspto.gov ] system.Fourth , there is no need for Microsoft to acknowledge Tufte as an inventor on the patent application .
Inventorship in the patent context is a legal term of art with a specific meaning .
The fact that Microsoft said that Tufte invented sparklines is not the damning piece of evidence many are assuming it is ( and recall from point three , above , that Microsoft acknowledged Tufte in its IDS ) .
First , Tufte invented sparklines more than a year before the filing date , so any patentable claims must be a non-obvious improvement upon or use of sparklines , not sparklines themselves .
Second , Tufte clearly did not work with the Microsoft inventors , so he can not be a co-inventor of anything claimed in this application.Once again non-experts hear hoofbeats and scream 'Zebra Stampede !
' The comments on Tufte 's site , for example , are a joke , an absolute mess of uninformed speculation .
Given the wealth of publicly available information on patents and patent application , the Slashdot editors should do more to fact check these stories before publishing them.Finally , I 'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious , then surely there 's an open source version that predates this application .
Remember , though , that this application was filed on May 7 , 2008 , so the open source version would need to predate that , preferably ( but not necessarily ) by a year or more .
That would actually be an important piece of prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the actual claims are considerably narrower than just 'any and all uses of sparklines.
'  The broadest claim is about the use of sparklines in a dynamically updated electronic document.
Most of the narrower claims have to do visual effects, the handling of null values in the spreadsheet, etc.
This is pretty tame stuff.Second, this is a newly filed application.
The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness, and the claims will likely be narrowed in response.
Like most negotiations, the parties start off with extreme positions and work towards compromise.Third, the patent application already cites Tufte (along with a dozen other pieces of prior art) in the Information Disclosure Statement.
In other words: Microsoft gave the patent examiner many important pieces of prior art.
The examiner will no doubt find many more.
This is all publicly available through the Patent Office's Patent Application Information Retrieval [uspto.gov] system.Fourth, there is no need for Microsoft to acknowledge Tufte as an inventor on the patent application.
Inventorship in the patent context is a legal term of art with a specific meaning.
The fact that Microsoft said that Tufte invented sparklines is not the damning piece of evidence many are assuming it is (and recall from point three, above, that Microsoft acknowledged Tufte in its IDS).
First, Tufte invented sparklines more than a year before the filing date, so any patentable claims must be a non-obvious improvement upon or use of sparklines, not sparklines themselves.
Second, Tufte clearly did not work with the Microsoft inventors, so he cannot be a co-inventor of anything claimed in this application.Once again non-experts hear hoofbeats and scream 'Zebra Stampede!
'  The comments on Tufte's site, for example, are a joke, an absolute mess of uninformed speculation.
Given the wealth of publicly available information on patents and patent application, the Slashdot editors should do more to fact check these stories before publishing them.Finally, I'll just tack on that if sparklines are so great and this is all so obvious, then surely there's an open source version that predates this application.
Remember, though, that this application was filed on May 7, 2008, so the open source version would need to predate that, preferably (but not necessarily) by a year or more.
That would actually be an important piece of prior art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170934</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>deblau</author>
	<datestamp>1258731840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, this is a newly filed application. The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness, and the claims will likely be narrowed in response. Like most negotiations, the parties start off with extreme positions and work towards compromise.</p></div><p>And an invention is obvious if it is merely "the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions" to produce an expected result.  Thanks, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR\_v.\_Teleflex" title="wikipedia.org">KSR</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Second , this is a newly filed application .
The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness , and the claims will likely be narrowed in response .
Like most negotiations , the parties start off with extreme positions and work towards compromise.And an invention is obvious if it is merely " the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions " to produce an expected result .
Thanks , KSR [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second, this is a newly filed application.
The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness, and the claims will likely be narrowed in response.
Like most negotiations, the parties start off with extreme positions and work towards compromise.And an invention is obvious if it is merely "the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions" to produce an expected result.
Thanks, KSR [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169838</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious bad patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258721880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jeesh, read the patent.  They patented a specific way to generate the sparkline as an inline app process.  They did not patent the sparkline, nor did they patent making graphs smaller.  I don't like Microsoft a bit.  And this patent is pretty trivial, and should have been thrown out.  But it's probably going to be a feature in the next version of office, and they want to make the new feature hard to copy.  The OP and the blog writing about the patent obviously didn't read more than the first paragraph of the patent. Others already have alternative ways of generating sparklines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeesh , read the patent .
They patented a specific way to generate the sparkline as an inline app process .
They did not patent the sparkline , nor did they patent making graphs smaller .
I do n't like Microsoft a bit .
And this patent is pretty trivial , and should have been thrown out .
But it 's probably going to be a feature in the next version of office , and they want to make the new feature hard to copy .
The OP and the blog writing about the patent obviously did n't read more than the first paragraph of the patent .
Others already have alternative ways of generating sparklines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeesh, read the patent.
They patented a specific way to generate the sparkline as an inline app process.
They did not patent the sparkline, nor did they patent making graphs smaller.
I don't like Microsoft a bit.
And this patent is pretty trivial, and should have been thrown out.
But it's probably going to be a feature in the next version of office, and they want to make the new feature hard to copy.
The OP and the blog writing about the patent obviously didn't read more than the first paragraph of the patent.
Others already have alternative ways of generating sparklines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168632</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1258657920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just "stupid and obvious", there is plenty of prior art, and it follows from standard engineering principles.</p><p><i>Point is, it's not an attempt on something already claimed by someone.</i></p><p>Yes, it is.  If sparklines are public domain and updating graphs dynamically is public domain, then so is the (obvious) combination.  The technique belongs to all of us.</p><p>So, Microsoft isn't just stealing from another inventor here, they are stealing from all of us, which is even worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just " stupid and obvious " , there is plenty of prior art , and it follows from standard engineering principles.Point is , it 's not an attempt on something already claimed by someone.Yes , it is .
If sparklines are public domain and updating graphs dynamically is public domain , then so is the ( obvious ) combination .
The technique belongs to all of us.So , Microsoft is n't just stealing from another inventor here , they are stealing from all of us , which is even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just "stupid and obvious", there is plenty of prior art, and it follows from standard engineering principles.Point is, it's not an attempt on something already claimed by someone.Yes, it is.
If sparklines are public domain and updating graphs dynamically is public domain, then so is the (obvious) combination.
The technique belongs to all of us.So, Microsoft isn't just stealing from another inventor here, they are stealing from all of us, which is even worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110</id>
	<title>Obvious bad patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258652280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent is obviously bad. As the summary states, there is plenty of prior art. If you read the patent, it's also trivial - it's just making graphs smaller.</p><p>Will the USPTO reject it?<br>Maybe.</p><p>But even if they do, we also need to ask:<br>Will anyone at Microsoft be fined or imprisoned for applying for this bogus patent?<br>Unfortunately, not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent is obviously bad .
As the summary states , there is plenty of prior art .
If you read the patent , it 's also trivial - it 's just making graphs smaller.Will the USPTO reject it ? Maybe.But even if they do , we also need to ask : Will anyone at Microsoft be fined or imprisoned for applying for this bogus patent ? Unfortunately , not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent is obviously bad.
As the summary states, there is plenty of prior art.
If you read the patent, it's also trivial - it's just making graphs smaller.Will the USPTO reject it?Maybe.But even if they do, we also need to ask:Will anyone at Microsoft be fined or imprisoned for applying for this bogus patent?Unfortunately, not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168156</id>
	<title>Obligatory Plunger Analogy</title>
	<author>hoytak</author>
	<datestamp>1258652580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://wondermark.com/555/" title="wondermark.com" rel="nofollow">http://wondermark.com/555/</a> [wondermark.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //wondermark.com/555/ [ wondermark.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://wondermark.com/555/ [wondermark.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168498</id>
	<title>Re:I'm trying to figure out who's more ridiculous.</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1258656360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you should also patent that really small penis you've been playing with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should also patent that really small penis you 've been playing with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should also patent that really small penis you've been playing with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169850</id>
	<title>Emperor's New Clothes</title>
	<author>backwardMechanic</author>
	<datestamp>1258722120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I really the only person looking at this and thinking 'it's a graph'?
<br> <br>
The rest is all visual design and auto-updating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I really the only person looking at this and thinking 'it 's a graph ' ?
The rest is all visual design and auto-updating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I really the only person looking at this and thinking 'it's a graph'?
The rest is all visual design and auto-updating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170272</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious bad patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258727880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's also trivial - it's just making graphs smaller.</p></div><p>All of my children started making sparklines as soon as they were able to hold a pencil.</p><p>Hey, that's it!  Voila!  On behalf of all the children in the world, I hereby patent making sparklines with a pencil, pen, crayon, or any other manually manipulated drawing instrument!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's also trivial - it 's just making graphs smaller.All of my children started making sparklines as soon as they were able to hold a pencil.Hey , that 's it !
Voila ! On behalf of all the children in the world , I hereby patent making sparklines with a pencil , pen , crayon , or any other manually manipulated drawing instrument !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's also trivial - it's just making graphs smaller.All of my children started making sparklines as soon as they were able to hold a pencil.Hey, that's it!
Voila!  On behalf of all the children in the world, I hereby patent making sparklines with a pencil, pen, crayon, or any other manually manipulated drawing instrument!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168474</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious bad patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258656060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad people aren't imprisoned for excessively ignorant posts on slashdot.  You might enjoy being raped by niggers and mexicans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad people are n't imprisoned for excessively ignorant posts on slashdot .
You might enjoy being raped by niggers and mexicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad people aren't imprisoned for excessively ignorant posts on slashdot.
You might enjoy being raped by niggers and mexicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1258719180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We're talking about (usually) so obvious applications that a 5 year old wouldn't only get the idea but actually say "duh" when you present it to him.</i> </p><p>The 5 year may "get" the idea.</p><p>That doesn't mean he can produce the machine or device or program that puts the idea to work in new and interesting ways.</p><p>To the patent examiner, "obvious" has to mean more than "twenty-twenty hindsight."</p><p> If the "sparkline" is so obvious and useful an idea and so easily implemented in your spreadsheet program why isn't it there now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about ( usually ) so obvious applications that a 5 year old would n't only get the idea but actually say " duh " when you present it to him .
The 5 year may " get " the idea.That does n't mean he can produce the machine or device or program that puts the idea to work in new and interesting ways.To the patent examiner , " obvious " has to mean more than " twenty-twenty hindsight .
" If the " sparkline " is so obvious and useful an idea and so easily implemented in your spreadsheet program why is n't it there now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about (usually) so obvious applications that a 5 year old wouldn't only get the idea but actually say "duh" when you present it to him.
The 5 year may "get" the idea.That doesn't mean he can produce the machine or device or program that puts the idea to work in new and interesting ways.To the patent examiner, "obvious" has to mean more than "twenty-twenty hindsight.
" If the "sparkline" is so obvious and useful an idea and so easily implemented in your spreadsheet program why isn't it there now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168562</id>
	<title>Microsoft Applies For Patent On Tufte's Sparkline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258656900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an application, not a "claim" or a "patent". That means it has yet to be examined by the USPTO. You can file an application for anything, but the examiner must do an art search and examine the case.</p><p><a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2236525" title="goarticles.com" rel="nofollow">Force Factor</a> [goarticles.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an application , not a " claim " or a " patent " .
That means it has yet to be examined by the USPTO .
You can file an application for anything , but the examiner must do an art search and examine the case.Force Factor [ goarticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an application, not a "claim" or a "patent".
That means it has yet to be examined by the USPTO.
You can file an application for anything, but the examiner must do an art search and examine the case.Force Factor [goarticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168510</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious bad patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258656420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really Microsoft's job to make sure the patent isn't bogus. Remember, it's just an application. It will probably get rejected, reviewed, and sent in again. Microsoft is expecting this. If the system is working, Microsoft will only get the patent once they have a good claim.</p><p>But the system isn't working. Even if this patent isn't granted, the version that is eventually granted will still probably be invalid. Eventually, when someone finally goes to court to invalidate the patent, I suggest that we fine the USPTO reviewers who granted the patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really Microsoft 's job to make sure the patent is n't bogus .
Remember , it 's just an application .
It will probably get rejected , reviewed , and sent in again .
Microsoft is expecting this .
If the system is working , Microsoft will only get the patent once they have a good claim.But the system is n't working .
Even if this patent is n't granted , the version that is eventually granted will still probably be invalid .
Eventually , when someone finally goes to court to invalidate the patent , I suggest that we fine the USPTO reviewers who granted the patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really Microsoft's job to make sure the patent isn't bogus.
Remember, it's just an application.
It will probably get rejected, reviewed, and sent in again.
Microsoft is expecting this.
If the system is working, Microsoft will only get the patent once they have a good claim.But the system isn't working.
Even if this patent isn't granted, the version that is eventually granted will still probably be invalid.
Eventually, when someone finally goes to court to invalidate the patent, I suggest that we fine the USPTO reviewers who granted the patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</id>
	<title>It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258652340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A comment on the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2009/11/19/microsoft-puts-edward-tuftes-sparklines-into-excel/" title="harvard.edu">blog post</a> [harvard.edu] discussing the feature (to which TFS links) says:</p><p><i>They haven&rsquo;t tried to patent sparklines, but the use of sparklines in Excel. I.e. the automatic updating of a sparkline embedded in a spreadsheet.</i></p><p>Cue the posts on how obvious and stupid the patent is regardless of this below. Point is, it's not an attempt on something already claimed by someone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A comment on the blog post [ harvard.edu ] discussing the feature ( to which TFS links ) says : They haven    t tried to patent sparklines , but the use of sparklines in Excel .
I.e. the automatic updating of a sparkline embedded in a spreadsheet.Cue the posts on how obvious and stupid the patent is regardless of this below .
Point is , it 's not an attempt on something already claimed by someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A comment on the blog post [harvard.edu] discussing the feature (to which TFS links) says:They haven’t tried to patent sparklines, but the use of sparklines in Excel.
I.e. the automatic updating of a sparkline embedded in a spreadsheet.Cue the posts on how obvious and stupid the patent is regardless of this below.
Point is, it's not an attempt on something already claimed by someone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170052</id>
	<title>Tufte's Real Contribution</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1258725600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is the argument really about?  If these charts are so prevalent, what is Tufte complaining for?  As anyone knows who's been following Tufte for as long as I have knows that his real contribution to the field of graphics is his minimalist approach - his crusade to remove the graphics of the world from "chartjunk".   His goal is to present the user with the most amount of information using the least amount of features.  So, aside from a nifty name, to what exactly is Tufte laying claim?  The same could also be asked of Microsoft - are they claiming a specific layout, color combination, or feature set?  Or are they just trying to capitalize on  the name "Sparklines".  If the former, I don't think anyone has a case. If the latter, that does seem fairly reprehensible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is the argument really about ?
If these charts are so prevalent , what is Tufte complaining for ?
As anyone knows who 's been following Tufte for as long as I have knows that his real contribution to the field of graphics is his minimalist approach - his crusade to remove the graphics of the world from " chartjunk " .
His goal is to present the user with the most amount of information using the least amount of features .
So , aside from a nifty name , to what exactly is Tufte laying claim ?
The same could also be asked of Microsoft - are they claiming a specific layout , color combination , or feature set ?
Or are they just trying to capitalize on the name " Sparklines " .
If the former , I do n't think anyone has a case .
If the latter , that does seem fairly reprehensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is the argument really about?
If these charts are so prevalent, what is Tufte complaining for?
As anyone knows who's been following Tufte for as long as I have knows that his real contribution to the field of graphics is his minimalist approach - his crusade to remove the graphics of the world from "chartjunk".
His goal is to present the user with the most amount of information using the least amount of features.
So, aside from a nifty name, to what exactly is Tufte laying claim?
The same could also be asked of Microsoft - are they claiming a specific layout, color combination, or feature set?
Or are they just trying to capitalize on  the name "Sparklines".
If the former, I don't think anyone has a case.
If the latter, that does seem fairly reprehensible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1258653000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so if I have to push a button to update it, it's not covered? If I don't embed it but, say, just have an external application retrieve data from a spreadsheet, it's not covered?</p><p>Yes, I'm hanging on technicalities. But when you look at it closely, the whole software patent BS is about technicalities and not much more. We're talking about (usually) so obvious applications that a 5 year old wouldn't only get the idea but actually say "duh" when you present it to him.</p><p>Maybe that would be a good metric. The patent clerc should tell his 5 year old about the idea. If he says "duh", it's not patentable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so if I have to push a button to update it , it 's not covered ?
If I do n't embed it but , say , just have an external application retrieve data from a spreadsheet , it 's not covered ? Yes , I 'm hanging on technicalities .
But when you look at it closely , the whole software patent BS is about technicalities and not much more .
We 're talking about ( usually ) so obvious applications that a 5 year old would n't only get the idea but actually say " duh " when you present it to him.Maybe that would be a good metric .
The patent clerc should tell his 5 year old about the idea .
If he says " duh " , it 's not patentable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so if I have to push a button to update it, it's not covered?
If I don't embed it but, say, just have an external application retrieve data from a spreadsheet, it's not covered?Yes, I'm hanging on technicalities.
But when you look at it closely, the whole software patent BS is about technicalities and not much more.
We're talking about (usually) so obvious applications that a 5 year old wouldn't only get the idea but actually say "duh" when you present it to him.Maybe that would be a good metric.
The patent clerc should tell his 5 year old about the idea.
If he says "duh", it's not patentable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171282</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258733580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the "sparkline" is so obvious and useful an idea and so easily implemented in your spreadsheet program why isn't it there now?</i></p><p>It is, it's called a graph. Just don't show the axes and scale it down. Voila. "Sparkline"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the " sparkline " is so obvious and useful an idea and so easily implemented in your spreadsheet program why is n't it there now ? It is , it 's called a graph .
Just do n't show the axes and scale it down .
Voila. " Sparkline "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the "sparkline" is so obvious and useful an idea and so easily implemented in your spreadsheet program why isn't it there now?It is, it's called a graph.
Just don't show the axes and scale it down.
Voila. "Sparkline"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170252</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1258727640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not trying to patent NTFS. I'm patenting using NTFS on my computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not trying to patent NTFS .
I 'm patenting using NTFS on my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not trying to patent NTFS.
I'm patenting using NTFS on my computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168606</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>barath\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1258657500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re: Predating May 7 2008 :
<p>
<a href="http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2006/02/05/in-cell-charting/" title="dailydoseofexcel.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2006/02/05/in-cell-charting/</a> [dailydoseofexcel.com]
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7603152763857688635&amp;postID=4147846911463078558&amp;pli=1" title="blogger.com" rel="nofollow">https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7603152763857688635&amp;postID=4147846911463078558&amp;pli=1</a> [blogger.com]
Note especially comments by Bob Phillips and jon Peltier, in addition to the post by Fabrice on starting in 2005.
</p><p>
Plus, I'm not sure why you emphasize open source implementations that predate it. Did you really mean to imply that if I had a closed source implementation that predated it, it would not be prior art ?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : Predating May 7 2008 : http : //www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2006/02/05/in-cell-charting/ [ dailydoseofexcel.com ] https : //www.blogger.com/comment.g ? blogID = 7603152763857688635&amp;postID = 4147846911463078558&amp;pli = 1 [ blogger.com ] Note especially comments by Bob Phillips and jon Peltier , in addition to the post by Fabrice on starting in 2005 .
Plus , I 'm not sure why you emphasize open source implementations that predate it .
Did you really mean to imply that if I had a closed source implementation that predated it , it would not be prior art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: Predating May 7 2008 :

http://www.dailydoseofexcel.com/archives/2006/02/05/in-cell-charting/ [dailydoseofexcel.com]
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7603152763857688635&amp;postID=4147846911463078558&amp;pli=1 [blogger.com]
Note especially comments by Bob Phillips and jon Peltier, in addition to the post by Fabrice on starting in 2005.
Plus, I'm not sure why you emphasize open source implementations that predate it.
Did you really mean to imply that if I had a closed source implementation that predated it, it would not be prior art ?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168398</id>
	<title>Not too impressed.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258655220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't complain about Microsoft's activity when you link to Wikipedia rather than the author's own <a href="http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg\_id=0001OR" title="edwardtufte.com">page on sparklines</a> [edwardtufte.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't complain about Microsoft 's activity when you link to Wikipedia rather than the author 's own page on sparklines [ edwardtufte.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't complain about Microsoft's activity when you link to Wikipedia rather than the author's own page on sparklines [edwardtufte.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169460</id>
	<title>"Non experts" are rightfully scared</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258716420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, fuck you and your condescending attitude.</p><p>Patents are unreadable by an expert in the field they apply to. I have 15 years experience in IT, as a developer and sysadmin, plus a formal education in a technical field, and I can't understand patents that apply to the work I do. I can not. I might just be stupid, but I can't help notice that most of my peers can't read patents either.</p><p>Yet I can get sued should I publish Free software that is infringing on something I can't read.</p><p>And here you are, patronising people for not understanding that patent, while the damn things are made unreadable *on fucking purpose* because it's advantageous to the patent holder since it makes it easier to trick east Texan rednecks into awarding them billions for nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , fuck you and your condescending attitude.Patents are unreadable by an expert in the field they apply to .
I have 15 years experience in IT , as a developer and sysadmin , plus a formal education in a technical field , and I ca n't understand patents that apply to the work I do .
I can not .
I might just be stupid , but I ca n't help notice that most of my peers ca n't read patents either.Yet I can get sued should I publish Free software that is infringing on something I ca n't read.And here you are , patronising people for not understanding that patent , while the damn things are made unreadable * on fucking purpose * because it 's advantageous to the patent holder since it makes it easier to trick east Texan rednecks into awarding them billions for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, fuck you and your condescending attitude.Patents are unreadable by an expert in the field they apply to.
I have 15 years experience in IT, as a developer and sysadmin, plus a formal education in a technical field, and I can't understand patents that apply to the work I do.
I can not.
I might just be stupid, but I can't help notice that most of my peers can't read patents either.Yet I can get sued should I publish Free software that is infringing on something I can't read.And here you are, patronising people for not understanding that patent, while the damn things are made unreadable *on fucking purpose* because it's advantageous to the patent holder since it makes it easier to trick east Texan rednecks into awarding them billions for nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170956</id>
	<title>Re:Opposing patents</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1258731900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is one of those issues I'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on: If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date, what are your options? Can you file an opposition to the patent? How does it work?</p></div><p>With the preface that <b>this is not legal advice, I don't represent you, and you should not rely on this as a legal opinion for any reason whatsoever, this post is for entertainment purposes only, and anybody who relies on a random post on Slashdot as legal advice deserves whatever they get</b>, you have several options actually.  (Also, note that this isn't the case here.  Microsoft is claiming an improvement on sparklines.  It may or may not be an allowable patent, but it is not Tufte's invention they are claiming).</p><p>The easiest and cheapest thing to do is to send a copy of your prior art to the patent attorney prosecuting the application.  That attorney is now aware of the prior art and is obligated to share it with the examiner.  Make sure that you get a return receipt on your mail, so that you can prove you sent it.  If the attorney fails to submit the art, and it's later determined to be material, the patent is invalid.  9+ out of 10 attorneys will just send it in, since there is rarely a reason not to (there was one time when we had already gotten a notice of allowance and the relevance of the art was extremely questionable where we considered not sending it in, but in the end we did anyway).  In the case of this Microsoft application, I would imagine that the attorneys have already submitted articles, patents, or other materials that identify sparklines as prior art.  If you're REALLY interested, you could even go look at it in <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/status/index.jsp" title="uspto.gov">PAIR</a> [uspto.gov] and check the electronic file wrapper.  Look for "Information Disclosure Statements."  Then you'll know what Microsoft has shared with the Patent Office.</p><p>Next cheapest option is to file a Protest if you're within the protest period.  <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1900.htm" title="uspto.gov">Chapter 1900 of the MPEP</a> [uspto.gov] has all the procedures.  Feel free to go look it up.</p><p>You could wait for the patent to issue, and then if it still has claims that read on your art, you could file a request <em>ex parte</em> or <em>inter partes</em> reexamination.</p><p>If there's no bar date, you could file an application, naming yourself as inventor, to provoke an interference.  In your hypothetical, there probably is a bar date, so no dice.</p><p>Then there are all the options that involve hiring a lawyer and giving him a big pile of money.  This is the option I recommend.  That lawyer will then tell you what options are available in your specific case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those issues I 'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on : If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date , what are your options ?
Can you file an opposition to the patent ?
How does it work ? With the preface that this is not legal advice , I do n't represent you , and you should not rely on this as a legal opinion for any reason whatsoever , this post is for entertainment purposes only , and anybody who relies on a random post on Slashdot as legal advice deserves whatever they get , you have several options actually .
( Also , note that this is n't the case here .
Microsoft is claiming an improvement on sparklines .
It may or may not be an allowable patent , but it is not Tufte 's invention they are claiming ) .The easiest and cheapest thing to do is to send a copy of your prior art to the patent attorney prosecuting the application .
That attorney is now aware of the prior art and is obligated to share it with the examiner .
Make sure that you get a return receipt on your mail , so that you can prove you sent it .
If the attorney fails to submit the art , and it 's later determined to be material , the patent is invalid .
9 + out of 10 attorneys will just send it in , since there is rarely a reason not to ( there was one time when we had already gotten a notice of allowance and the relevance of the art was extremely questionable where we considered not sending it in , but in the end we did anyway ) .
In the case of this Microsoft application , I would imagine that the attorneys have already submitted articles , patents , or other materials that identify sparklines as prior art .
If you 're REALLY interested , you could even go look at it in PAIR [ uspto.gov ] and check the electronic file wrapper .
Look for " Information Disclosure Statements .
" Then you 'll know what Microsoft has shared with the Patent Office.Next cheapest option is to file a Protest if you 're within the protest period .
Chapter 1900 of the MPEP [ uspto.gov ] has all the procedures .
Feel free to go look it up.You could wait for the patent to issue , and then if it still has claims that read on your art , you could file a request ex parte or inter partes reexamination.If there 's no bar date , you could file an application , naming yourself as inventor , to provoke an interference .
In your hypothetical , there probably is a bar date , so no dice.Then there are all the options that involve hiring a lawyer and giving him a big pile of money .
This is the option I recommend .
That lawyer will then tell you what options are available in your specific case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those issues I'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on: If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date, what are your options?
Can you file an opposition to the patent?
How does it work?With the preface that this is not legal advice, I don't represent you, and you should not rely on this as a legal opinion for any reason whatsoever, this post is for entertainment purposes only, and anybody who relies on a random post on Slashdot as legal advice deserves whatever they get, you have several options actually.
(Also, note that this isn't the case here.
Microsoft is claiming an improvement on sparklines.
It may or may not be an allowable patent, but it is not Tufte's invention they are claiming).The easiest and cheapest thing to do is to send a copy of your prior art to the patent attorney prosecuting the application.
That attorney is now aware of the prior art and is obligated to share it with the examiner.
Make sure that you get a return receipt on your mail, so that you can prove you sent it.
If the attorney fails to submit the art, and it's later determined to be material, the patent is invalid.
9+ out of 10 attorneys will just send it in, since there is rarely a reason not to (there was one time when we had already gotten a notice of allowance and the relevance of the art was extremely questionable where we considered not sending it in, but in the end we did anyway).
In the case of this Microsoft application, I would imagine that the attorneys have already submitted articles, patents, or other materials that identify sparklines as prior art.
If you're REALLY interested, you could even go look at it in PAIR [uspto.gov] and check the electronic file wrapper.
Look for "Information Disclosure Statements.
"  Then you'll know what Microsoft has shared with the Patent Office.Next cheapest option is to file a Protest if you're within the protest period.
Chapter 1900 of the MPEP [uspto.gov] has all the procedures.
Feel free to go look it up.You could wait for the patent to issue, and then if it still has claims that read on your art, you could file a request ex parte or inter partes reexamination.If there's no bar date, you could file an application, naming yourself as inventor, to provoke an interference.
In your hypothetical, there probably is a bar date, so no dice.Then there are all the options that involve hiring a lawyer and giving him a big pile of money.
This is the option I recommend.
That lawyer will then tell you what options are available in your specific case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30177820</id>
	<title>Can we please *ban* patent stories from Slashdot?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1258713540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been proven time and again that Slashdot cannot get patent stories right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been proven time and again that Slashdot can not get patent stories right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been proven time and again that Slashdot cannot get patent stories right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171330</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1258733760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the Slashdot editors should do more to fact check these stories before publishing them.</i></p><p>They would get fewer page-views from the outraged and ignorant if they did that, which is the only reason I can see for them to persist in posting patent stories with false headlines and misleading summaries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Slashdot editors should do more to fact check these stories before publishing them.They would get fewer page-views from the outraged and ignorant if they did that , which is the only reason I can see for them to persist in posting patent stories with false headlines and misleading summaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Slashdot editors should do more to fact check these stories before publishing them.They would get fewer page-views from the outraged and ignorant if they did that, which is the only reason I can see for them to persist in posting patent stories with false headlines and misleading summaries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168342</id>
	<title>Re:Opposing patents</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1258654800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>This is one of those issues I'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on: If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date, what are your options? Can you file an opposition to the patent? How does it work?</em></p><p>I am not an attorney (I'm an academic) and this is not legal advice. If you ever find yourself in a situation like this you should consult a competent patent attorney in your jurisdiction.  To be clear, when I use the word 'you' in this post I mean the generic 'you,' not you personally.</p><p>Here's the basic flowchart.  Has the other party filed an application or received a patent?  If they've already received a patent, then your primary option is to put the patent into reexamination.  To do this requires evidence of a substantial new question of patentability (i.e., something new the examiner or the courts haven't looked at yet) and the payment of a fee.  You can either put it into <em>ex parte</em> reexamination, where you submit your evidence and the patent office takes it from there, or you can put it into <em>inter partes</em> reexamination, where the patent office holds a sort of mini trial with you arguing against the patent's validity and the patent owner arguing for it.</p><p>If the patent holder is actually demanding a license, threatening a lawsuit, etc, then you may also have the option of filing what's called a declaratory judgment lawsuit where you ask a court to determine whether the patent is valid or not.</p><p>If things are still at the application stage, your options are much more limited.  You can submit prior art to the patent office, or, in the rare circumstance that you also have a pending patent application on the same invention, then the patent office may declare what's called an interference and try to figure out who invented the claimed invention first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those issues I 'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on : If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date , what are your options ?
Can you file an opposition to the patent ?
How does it work ? I am not an attorney ( I 'm an academic ) and this is not legal advice .
If you ever find yourself in a situation like this you should consult a competent patent attorney in your jurisdiction .
To be clear , when I use the word 'you ' in this post I mean the generic 'you, ' not you personally.Here 's the basic flowchart .
Has the other party filed an application or received a patent ?
If they 've already received a patent , then your primary option is to put the patent into reexamination .
To do this requires evidence of a substantial new question of patentability ( i.e. , something new the examiner or the courts have n't looked at yet ) and the payment of a fee .
You can either put it into ex parte reexamination , where you submit your evidence and the patent office takes it from there , or you can put it into inter partes reexamination , where the patent office holds a sort of mini trial with you arguing against the patent 's validity and the patent owner arguing for it.If the patent holder is actually demanding a license , threatening a lawsuit , etc , then you may also have the option of filing what 's called a declaratory judgment lawsuit where you ask a court to determine whether the patent is valid or not.If things are still at the application stage , your options are much more limited .
You can submit prior art to the patent office , or , in the rare circumstance that you also have a pending patent application on the same invention , then the patent office may declare what 's called an interference and try to figure out who invented the claimed invention first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those issues I'd love to hear a real patent attorney weigh in on: If someone files a patent on something you can prove you demonstrated publicly at an earlier date, what are your options?
Can you file an opposition to the patent?
How does it work?I am not an attorney (I'm an academic) and this is not legal advice.
If you ever find yourself in a situation like this you should consult a competent patent attorney in your jurisdiction.
To be clear, when I use the word 'you' in this post I mean the generic 'you,' not you personally.Here's the basic flowchart.
Has the other party filed an application or received a patent?
If they've already received a patent, then your primary option is to put the patent into reexamination.
To do this requires evidence of a substantial new question of patentability (i.e., something new the examiner or the courts haven't looked at yet) and the payment of a fee.
You can either put it into ex parte reexamination, where you submit your evidence and the patent office takes it from there, or you can put it into inter partes reexamination, where the patent office holds a sort of mini trial with you arguing against the patent's validity and the patent owner arguing for it.If the patent holder is actually demanding a license, threatening a lawsuit, etc, then you may also have the option of filing what's called a declaratory judgment lawsuit where you ask a court to determine whether the patent is valid or not.If things are still at the application stage, your options are much more limited.
You can submit prior art to the patent office, or, in the rare circumstance that you also have a pending patent application on the same invention, then the patent office may declare what's called an interference and try to figure out who invented the claimed invention first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168618</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258657740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well sparkline.org was registered in late 2004 - and it seems that around 5 years ago (well before the 2008 application date) there was code released on sourceforge - BSD license too.<br>Obviously it wont match the precise claims because it predates the application but you would expect the application to avoid any claims that could be made about the functionality of existing published code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well sparkline.org was registered in late 2004 - and it seems that around 5 years ago ( well before the 2008 application date ) there was code released on sourceforge - BSD license too.Obviously it wont match the precise claims because it predates the application but you would expect the application to avoid any claims that could be made about the functionality of existing published code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well sparkline.org was registered in late 2004 - and it seems that around 5 years ago (well before the 2008 application date) there was code released on sourceforge - BSD license too.Obviously it wont match the precise claims because it predates the application but you would expect the application to avoid any claims that could be made about the functionality of existing published code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168630</id>
	<title>Re:It's not a patent for Sparklines themselves</title>
	<author>ChaosDiscord</author>
	<datestamp>1258657920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, golly, I've got a very small chart in a spreadsheet.  And you're suggesting that I could dynamically update that chart?  Wow!  I would never have thought of that! Truly a breakthrough that must have taken years of research and is totally worth a patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , golly , I 've got a very small chart in a spreadsheet .
And you 're suggesting that I could dynamically update that chart ?
Wow ! I would never have thought of that !
Truly a breakthrough that must have taken years of research and is totally worth a patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, golly, I've got a very small chart in a spreadsheet.
And you're suggesting that I could dynamically update that chart?
Wow!  I would never have thought of that!
Truly a breakthrough that must have taken years of research and is totally worth a patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169998</id>
	<title>If only there was a way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258724820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only there was a way to show Microsoft's coming Waterloo using just one immediately apparent and arresting graphic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only there was a way to show Microsoft 's coming Waterloo using just one immediately apparent and arresting graphic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only there was a way to show Microsoft's coming Waterloo using just one immediately apparent and arresting graphic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169826</id>
	<title>I've done it...</title>
	<author>mok000</author>
	<datestamp>1258721820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used sparklines that were updated "automatically" from the values in a database. The software in question tracked the coffee consumption pr. person in the lab, and displayed it using sparklines on a web page (no longer online). The sparkline code was a PHP snippet I found on the net somewhere. There must be plenty of prior art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used sparklines that were updated " automatically " from the values in a database .
The software in question tracked the coffee consumption pr .
person in the lab , and displayed it using sparklines on a web page ( no longer online ) .
The sparkline code was a PHP snippet I found on the net somewhere .
There must be plenty of prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used sparklines that were updated "automatically" from the values in a database.
The software in question tracked the coffee consumption pr.
person in the lab, and displayed it using sparklines on a web page (no longer online).
The sparkline code was a PHP snippet I found on the net somewhere.
There must be plenty of prior art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168556</id>
	<title>Re:A Few Points</title>
	<author>Akir</author>
	<datestamp>1258656900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness [....]</i></p><p>You're saying this about the patent system that approved the patents on <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=T2QKAAAAEBAJ" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">swinging on a swing</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=OfwkAAAAEBAJ" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">using a laser pointer as a cat toy</a> [google.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness [ .... ] You 're saying this about the patent system that approved the patents on swinging on a swing [ google.com ] and using a laser pointer as a cat toy [ google.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The examiner will almost certainly come back with multiple rejections based on obviousness [....]You're saying this about the patent system that approved the patents on swinging on a swing [google.com] and using a laser pointer as a cat toy [google.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30182382</id>
	<title>Prior art from 2005 perhaps earlier.</title>
	<author>niftymitch</author>
	<datestamp>1258744920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.bissantz.de/sparklines/" title="bissantz.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.bissantz.de/sparklines/</a> [bissantz.de]
Done for Microsoft office
Feb. 2005
See also <a href="http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg\_id=0001OR&amp;topic\_id=1" title="edwardtufte.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg\_id=0001OR&amp;topic\_id=1</a> [edwardtufte.com]

Also the size of graphics is not implicitly small
but can and could have been any size and automated
by scripts the way  Nicolas Bissantz did in '05</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.bissantz.de/sparklines/ [ bissantz.de ] Done for Microsoft office Feb. 2005 See also http : //www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg ? msg \ _id = 0001OR&amp;topic \ _id = 1 [ edwardtufte.com ] Also the size of graphics is not implicitly small but can and could have been any size and automated by scripts the way Nicolas Bissantz did in '05</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.bissantz.de/sparklines/ [bissantz.de]
Done for Microsoft office
Feb. 2005
See also http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg\_id=0001OR&amp;topic\_id=1 [edwardtufte.com]

Also the size of graphics is not implicitly small
but can and could have been any size and automated
by scripts the way  Nicolas Bissantz did in '05</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168284</id>
	<title>Why must /. editors insist on twisting the truth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258654200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the obvious twisting of what is actualy being patented here, is timothy the new kdawson?</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the obvious twisting of what is actualy being patented here , is timothy the new kdawson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the obvious twisting of what is actualy being patented here, is timothy the new kdawson?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30173934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30173366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30172802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_0145200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30172802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30173934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169944
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169682
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169856
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170788
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30171282
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30173366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30169826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_0145200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30168086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_0145200.30170298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
