<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_23_149216</id>
	<title>Amazon Scores Gift-Delivery Patent</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1258988880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"In May, the USPTO <a href="http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-VQYa94fZpfMGFiNzRjNTMtYTYzMy00MWExLTg0OWMtNmVmMDZiYmMyMmI3&amp;hl=en">rejected Amazon.com's patent claims</a> (PDF) for its <a href="http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PG01&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=\%2220080004982\%22.PGNR.&amp;OS=DN/20080004982&amp;RS=DN/20080004982">Method and System for Placing a Purchase Order Via a Communications Network</a> (a 1-Click spin-off). At the time, a USPTO Examiner cited <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/10/0414226/US-Supreme-Court-Skeptical-of-Business-Method-Patents">Bilski</a>, explaining that elements of CEO Jeff Bezos' gift-delivery invention 'may be performed largely within the human mind,' coming to essentially the same conclusion a NY Post reporter <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030207134113/www.nypost.com/technology/64022.htm">arrived at in 2002</a>. But <a href="http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-VQYa94fZpfNjg5NGQyMzgtNzdkMC00NDE1LTgyNGYtNDVmNmIzZWRhZmE3&amp;hl=en">Amazon's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic</a> (PDF), convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient' is indeed novel and patentable. A Notice of Allowance for the patent was mailed to Amazon on November 17th, just in time for <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&amp;p=irol-newsArticle&amp;ID=502842&amp;highlight=">Holiday Season injunction-giving</a>!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " In May , the USPTO rejected Amazon.com 's patent claims ( PDF ) for its Method and System for Placing a Purchase Order Via a Communications Network ( a 1-Click spin-off ) .
At the time , a USPTO Examiner cited Bilski , explaining that elements of CEO Jeff Bezos ' gift-delivery invention 'may be performed largely within the human mind, ' coming to essentially the same conclusion a NY Post reporter arrived at in 2002 .
But Amazon 's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic ( PDF ) , convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient ' is indeed novel and patentable .
A Notice of Allowance for the patent was mailed to Amazon on November 17th , just in time for Holiday Season injunction-giving !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "In May, the USPTO rejected Amazon.com's patent claims (PDF) for its Method and System for Placing a Purchase Order Via a Communications Network (a 1-Click spin-off).
At the time, a USPTO Examiner cited Bilski, explaining that elements of CEO Jeff Bezos' gift-delivery invention 'may be performed largely within the human mind,' coming to essentially the same conclusion a NY Post reporter arrived at in 2002.
But Amazon's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic (PDF), convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient' is indeed novel and patentable.
A Notice of Allowance for the patent was mailed to Amazon on November 17th, just in time for Holiday Season injunction-giving!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202730</id>
	<title>Amazon has, effectively, patented Santa Claus...</title>
	<author>rootrot</author>
	<datestamp>1258995600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Appears they've patented a delivery system where the source is other than giver or receiver...I wonder if Santa will have to pay per delivery or if he can negotiate a single license for all annual activity...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Appears they 've patented a delivery system where the source is other than giver or receiver...I wonder if Santa will have to pay per delivery or if he can negotiate a single license for all annual activity.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Appears they've patented a delivery system where the source is other than giver or receiver...I wonder if Santa will have to pay per delivery or if he can negotiate a single license for all annual activity...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30205100</id>
	<title>Amazon Violates Wedding Gift Register Patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259008920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow!  Way to sheepdip the OP, all contributors and whole discussion in general.</p><p>Has anyone here heard of a WEDDING GIFT REGISTER?</p><p>1. Go to a shop<br>2. Say you're buying something for Joe and Hilda's wedding<br>3. Pimply workers shows you J&amp;H's wish list<br>4. You buy something<br>5. The store has it delivered to their wedding.</p><p>Queue slippery law type to criticise "flawed example"........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Way to sheepdip the OP , all contributors and whole discussion in general.Has anyone here heard of a WEDDING GIFT REGISTER ? 1 .
Go to a shop2 .
Say you 're buying something for Joe and Hilda 's wedding3 .
Pimply workers shows you J&amp;H 's wish list4 .
You buy something5 .
The store has it delivered to their wedding.Queue slippery law type to criticise " flawed example " ....... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Way to sheepdip the OP, all contributors and whole discussion in general.Has anyone here heard of a WEDDING GIFT REGISTER?1.
Go to a shop2.
Say you're buying something for Joe and Hilda's wedding3.
Pimply workers shows you J&amp;H's wish list4.
You buy something5.
The store has it delivered to their wedding.Queue slippery law type to criticise "flawed example"........</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202206</id>
	<title>'Tis the season</title>
	<author>shynthriir</author>
	<datestamp>1258992600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.. for patenting everything!</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. for patenting everything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. for patenting everything!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202622</id>
	<title>Re:Should Patents be done away with?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258995060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents are pointless they simply give a monopoly to one company, if they were withdrawn they would simply revert to using the copyright system, which is where most of this stuff should be....</p><p>Patents all give too broad a monopoly because they restrict you doing something no matter how you do it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the patent holder has no motivation to improve</p><p>At least with copyright if you find a better way you can use your better way to supplant the current copyright holder<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents are pointless they simply give a monopoly to one company , if they were withdrawn they would simply revert to using the copyright system , which is where most of this stuff should be....Patents all give too broad a monopoly because they restrict you doing something no matter how you do it ...the patent holder has no motivation to improveAt least with copyright if you find a better way you can use your better way to supplant the current copyright holder .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents are pointless they simply give a monopoly to one company, if they were withdrawn they would simply revert to using the copyright system, which is where most of this stuff should be....Patents all give too broad a monopoly because they restrict you doing something no matter how you do it ...the patent holder has no motivation to improveAt least with copyright if you find a better way you can use your better way to supplant the current copyright holder ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202726</id>
	<title>Re:Should Patents be done away with?</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1258995540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright does not come down to "basically [doing] the equivalent of a diff".  Literal copying is only one form of potential copyright infringement; there are many ways to modify a work and still infringe on the original; and determining whether your work was the source of material in my work is really only the first step (and the easiest step) in determining infringement.</p><p>Trademark is <i>far</i> from "easy to evaluate"; I'm not sure I can think of any law with definitions as murky and subjective as trademark.</p><p>I don't know that individuals moving from job to job has anything to do with the original purpose of patents.  If a company chooses to protect knowledge instead of patent/publish it, they make a trade secret of it.  They can do this today with patent law, they could do it without patent law, and an employee taking the idea to his next employer could be sued off the map.</p><p>I'd say that sometimes patents do serve their intended purpose, but that even when they do people are more inclined to see them as unfair restrictions because "I could've thought of that".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright does not come down to " basically [ doing ] the equivalent of a diff " .
Literal copying is only one form of potential copyright infringement ; there are many ways to modify a work and still infringe on the original ; and determining whether your work was the source of material in my work is really only the first step ( and the easiest step ) in determining infringement.Trademark is far from " easy to evaluate " ; I 'm not sure I can think of any law with definitions as murky and subjective as trademark.I do n't know that individuals moving from job to job has anything to do with the original purpose of patents .
If a company chooses to protect knowledge instead of patent/publish it , they make a trade secret of it .
They can do this today with patent law , they could do it without patent law , and an employee taking the idea to his next employer could be sued off the map.I 'd say that sometimes patents do serve their intended purpose , but that even when they do people are more inclined to see them as unfair restrictions because " I could 've thought of that " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright does not come down to "basically [doing] the equivalent of a diff".
Literal copying is only one form of potential copyright infringement; there are many ways to modify a work and still infringe on the original; and determining whether your work was the source of material in my work is really only the first step (and the easiest step) in determining infringement.Trademark is far from "easy to evaluate"; I'm not sure I can think of any law with definitions as murky and subjective as trademark.I don't know that individuals moving from job to job has anything to do with the original purpose of patents.
If a company chooses to protect knowledge instead of patent/publish it, they make a trade secret of it.
They can do this today with patent law, they could do it without patent law, and an employee taking the idea to his next employer could be sued off the map.I'd say that sometimes patents do serve their intended purpose, but that even when they do people are more inclined to see them as unfair restrictions because "I could've thought of that".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202196</id>
	<title>F It, I'm Patenting Eating</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1258992600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PLACING CHEESY COMESTIBLES INSIDE HOMO SAPIEN MANDIBLES<br> <br>

<i>Abstract</i> <br> <br>

A method and system for correctly and precisely placing a reasonable sized and digestible material inside the human mouth without death or injury to the consumer.  This patent produces a new novel approach to the problems humans face in locating food in front of them and successfully placing it betwixt their teeth without injury to eye, nose or throat.  The fact that the location of the food in front of them may or may not be immediately known inside their brain until they cast their eyes upon it establishes the validity of this patent.  <br> <br>

<i>Claims</i><ol> <li>A method and system for placing cheesy comestibles inside homo sapien mandibles</li><li>The method of claim 1 wherein the consumer relies on utensils (as fork, knife and spork patents apply) to correctly portion size said cheesy comestible such as to prevent choking.</li><li>The method of claim 2 wherein the consumer does not yet realize the food resides in front of them and the two apparatuses known as eyeballs must convene on said cheesy comestible thereby bringing it into focus and (where appropriate central nervous system coordination patents apply) the feed from the cerebral cortex is relayed to the arms and hands to manipulate utensils of claim 2.  </li><li>ETC.</li></ol><p>

Prepare to starve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PLACING CHEESY COMESTIBLES INSIDE HOMO SAPIEN MANDIBLES Abstract A method and system for correctly and precisely placing a reasonable sized and digestible material inside the human mouth without death or injury to the consumer .
This patent produces a new novel approach to the problems humans face in locating food in front of them and successfully placing it betwixt their teeth without injury to eye , nose or throat .
The fact that the location of the food in front of them may or may not be immediately known inside their brain until they cast their eyes upon it establishes the validity of this patent .
Claims A method and system for placing cheesy comestibles inside homo sapien mandiblesThe method of claim 1 wherein the consumer relies on utensils ( as fork , knife and spork patents apply ) to correctly portion size said cheesy comestible such as to prevent choking.The method of claim 2 wherein the consumer does not yet realize the food resides in front of them and the two apparatuses known as eyeballs must convene on said cheesy comestible thereby bringing it into focus and ( where appropriate central nervous system coordination patents apply ) the feed from the cerebral cortex is relayed to the arms and hands to manipulate utensils of claim 2 .
ETC . Prepare to starve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PLACING CHEESY COMESTIBLES INSIDE HOMO SAPIEN MANDIBLES 

Abstract  

A method and system for correctly and precisely placing a reasonable sized and digestible material inside the human mouth without death or injury to the consumer.
This patent produces a new novel approach to the problems humans face in locating food in front of them and successfully placing it betwixt their teeth without injury to eye, nose or throat.
The fact that the location of the food in front of them may or may not be immediately known inside their brain until they cast their eyes upon it establishes the validity of this patent.
Claims A method and system for placing cheesy comestibles inside homo sapien mandiblesThe method of claim 1 wherein the consumer relies on utensils (as fork, knife and spork patents apply) to correctly portion size said cheesy comestible such as to prevent choking.The method of claim 2 wherein the consumer does not yet realize the food resides in front of them and the two apparatuses known as eyeballs must convene on said cheesy comestible thereby bringing it into focus and (where appropriate central nervous system coordination patents apply) the feed from the cerebral cortex is relayed to the arms and hands to manipulate utensils of claim 2.
ETC.

Prepare to starve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480</id>
	<title>Should Patents be done away with?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1258994220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just occurs to me that, like so many other things, the government is simply incompetent at patents.  They aren't like copyrights where you basically do the equivalent of a diff() between two works and come to a conclusion nor or they like trademarks which are also similiarly easy to evaluate.</p><p>People talk of fixing the patent system, but is it any fix at all?  The really good stuff seems to be always "proprietary" and hidden anyway, and the goal of patent was to open knowledge in exchange for limited time monopolies - well, considering that society is different and much more fluid now, that you're hardly in a secretive guild, let alone one company your entire life, do patents satisfy the original purpose anymore?</p><p>And if they don't, why keep it around?  Is it becoming too big a drag on commerce?  I'm really curious what proponents have to say, because slashdot does tend to get one sided on issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just occurs to me that , like so many other things , the government is simply incompetent at patents .
They are n't like copyrights where you basically do the equivalent of a diff ( ) between two works and come to a conclusion nor or they like trademarks which are also similiarly easy to evaluate.People talk of fixing the patent system , but is it any fix at all ?
The really good stuff seems to be always " proprietary " and hidden anyway , and the goal of patent was to open knowledge in exchange for limited time monopolies - well , considering that society is different and much more fluid now , that you 're hardly in a secretive guild , let alone one company your entire life , do patents satisfy the original purpose anymore ? And if they do n't , why keep it around ?
Is it becoming too big a drag on commerce ?
I 'm really curious what proponents have to say , because slashdot does tend to get one sided on issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just occurs to me that, like so many other things, the government is simply incompetent at patents.
They aren't like copyrights where you basically do the equivalent of a diff() between two works and come to a conclusion nor or they like trademarks which are also similiarly easy to evaluate.People talk of fixing the patent system, but is it any fix at all?
The really good stuff seems to be always "proprietary" and hidden anyway, and the goal of patent was to open knowledge in exchange for limited time monopolies - well, considering that society is different and much more fluid now, that you're hardly in a secretive guild, let alone one company your entire life, do patents satisfy the original purpose anymore?And if they don't, why keep it around?
Is it becoming too big a drag on commerce?
I'm really curious what proponents have to say, because slashdot does tend to get one sided on issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203446</id>
	<title>Re:Prior art</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1258999440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>obtaining <b>delivery information</b> for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient</p></div><p>OK, I'll bite on this one.  If anyone is a frequent shopper at a store whereby the salesclerk knows you quite well, and you walk into a store and the clerk makes a suggestion based solely on the feedback you give them "I need a gift for a 3yr old boy", then they are using sources of information (the clerk's knowledge of gifts appropriate for a 3yr old boy, and not your knowledge) that is a source "other than the gift giver and recipient".</p></div><p>That's a gift suggestion, not "delivery information".  Delivery information would be that you tell the clerk that you need a gift for a 3 year old boy, and the clerk tells you where a 3 year old boy lives.  Which is just suspicious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipientOK , I 'll bite on this one .
If anyone is a frequent shopper at a store whereby the salesclerk knows you quite well , and you walk into a store and the clerk makes a suggestion based solely on the feedback you give them " I need a gift for a 3yr old boy " , then they are using sources of information ( the clerk 's knowledge of gifts appropriate for a 3yr old boy , and not your knowledge ) that is a source " other than the gift giver and recipient " .That 's a gift suggestion , not " delivery information " .
Delivery information would be that you tell the clerk that you need a gift for a 3 year old boy , and the clerk tells you where a 3 year old boy lives .
Which is just suspicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipientOK, I'll bite on this one.
If anyone is a frequent shopper at a store whereby the salesclerk knows you quite well, and you walk into a store and the clerk makes a suggestion based solely on the feedback you give them "I need a gift for a 3yr old boy", then they are using sources of information (the clerk's knowledge of gifts appropriate for a 3yr old boy, and not your knowledge) that is a source "other than the gift giver and recipient".That's a gift suggestion, not "delivery information".
Delivery information would be that you tell the clerk that you need a gift for a 3 year old boy, and the clerk tells you where a 3 year old boy lives.
Which is just suspicious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203926</id>
	<title>Re:Should Patents be done away with?</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1259002140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It just occurs to me that, like so many other things, the government is simply incompetent at patents.  </p></div><p>Depends on what outcome you want. The patent system in the US is primarily a way to protect large companies from competition (foreign or domestic), and it's doing a good (but expensive) job at that. Ask yourself if Amazon is better off in the US where it gets this extra defense, or in a country without patent protections? And note that the question isn't whether the overall economy is better off, which is a different question.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>...the goal of patent was to open knowledge in exchange for limited time monopolies</p></div><p> You started by arguing that the Government is incompetent, but that conclusion depends on the goal, and
"the goal" is many different things to different interests. It's like when people look at the devastating effects of the war on drugs and conclude that it's failed. Failed relative to what goal?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just occurs to me that , like so many other things , the government is simply incompetent at patents .
Depends on what outcome you want .
The patent system in the US is primarily a way to protect large companies from competition ( foreign or domestic ) , and it 's doing a good ( but expensive ) job at that .
Ask yourself if Amazon is better off in the US where it gets this extra defense , or in a country without patent protections ?
And note that the question is n't whether the overall economy is better off , which is a different question....the goal of patent was to open knowledge in exchange for limited time monopolies You started by arguing that the Government is incompetent , but that conclusion depends on the goal , and " the goal " is many different things to different interests .
It 's like when people look at the devastating effects of the war on drugs and conclude that it 's failed .
Failed relative to what goal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just occurs to me that, like so many other things, the government is simply incompetent at patents.
Depends on what outcome you want.
The patent system in the US is primarily a way to protect large companies from competition (foreign or domestic), and it's doing a good (but expensive) job at that.
Ask yourself if Amazon is better off in the US where it gets this extra defense, or in a country without patent protections?
And note that the question isn't whether the overall economy is better off, which is a different question....the goal of patent was to open knowledge in exchange for limited time monopolies You started by arguing that the Government is incompetent, but that conclusion depends on the goal, and
"the goal" is many different things to different interests.
It's like when people look at the devastating effects of the war on drugs and conclude that it's failed.
Failed relative to what goal?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30204866</id>
	<title>In related news ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1259007540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Amazon serves North Pole with cease and desist order.
</p><p>Santa Claus counters with: Method for gift allocation by means of naughty/nice behavioral data mining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Amazon serves North Pole with cease and desist order .
Santa Claus counters with : Method for gift allocation by means of naughty/nice behavioral data mining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Amazon serves North Pole with cease and desist order.
Santa Claus counters with: Method for gift allocation by means of naughty/nice behavioral data mining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202308</id>
	<title>So, forget about my letters to Santa this year?</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1258993200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boo-hoo, and shame on you! Nasty, nasty Amazon!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boo-hoo , and shame on you !
Nasty , nasty Amazon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boo-hoo, and shame on you!
Nasty, nasty Amazon!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203634</id>
	<title>Registry of Non-Patentable</title>
	<author>waitwonder</author>
	<datestamp>1259000520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is needed is a Registry of Non-Patentable funded by a portion of fees from patent application. This will help in:
1- Converting all ridiculous patents as non-patentable.
2- Providing a way to protect for any future patent application by patent troll. (peace of mind for business reducing unnecessary protection patent applications)
3- Allow obvious to be filed by public.

Does something like this exists?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is needed is a Registry of Non-Patentable funded by a portion of fees from patent application .
This will help in : 1- Converting all ridiculous patents as non-patentable .
2- Providing a way to protect for any future patent application by patent troll .
( peace of mind for business reducing unnecessary protection patent applications ) 3- Allow obvious to be filed by public .
Does something like this exists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is needed is a Registry of Non-Patentable funded by a portion of fees from patent application.
This will help in:
1- Converting all ridiculous patents as non-patentable.
2- Providing a way to protect for any future patent application by patent troll.
(peace of mind for business reducing unnecessary protection patent applications)
3- Allow obvious to be filed by public.
Does something like this exists?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202774</id>
	<title>I wonder what this patent is for?</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1258995960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem here is I have no idea what is being patented.  Since<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. patent-related headlines and summaries are always false and misleading, this posting just makes me wonder what Amazon has actually patented.  It would be interesting to know, but since neither the headline nor the summary of the article contains any factual information about the patent that could be used to form a rational judgement about the novelty of the subject matter there's really no point in discussing it.</p><p>Since it's Amazon--assuming the summary has the assignee correct--the patent probably has something to do with online sales, but I wonder what?  I just wish there was some way of figuring that out without digging down into the USPTO site myself, which I can't be bothered to do because all it will tell me is that a patent has been granted on something that might actually be kind of innovative.  At least, that's what's always happened in the past when I've bothered to contribute to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community by trying to inform people about how the (badly flawed) American patent system actually works.</p><p>If we knew what had been patented, people might be able to present prior art, but since we know nothing about what has been patented there really isn't any point in talking about it, is there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem here is I have no idea what is being patented .
Since / .
patent-related headlines and summaries are always false and misleading , this posting just makes me wonder what Amazon has actually patented .
It would be interesting to know , but since neither the headline nor the summary of the article contains any factual information about the patent that could be used to form a rational judgement about the novelty of the subject matter there 's really no point in discussing it.Since it 's Amazon--assuming the summary has the assignee correct--the patent probably has something to do with online sales , but I wonder what ?
I just wish there was some way of figuring that out without digging down into the USPTO site myself , which I ca n't be bothered to do because all it will tell me is that a patent has been granted on something that might actually be kind of innovative .
At least , that 's what 's always happened in the past when I 've bothered to contribute to the / .
community by trying to inform people about how the ( badly flawed ) American patent system actually works.If we knew what had been patented , people might be able to present prior art , but since we know nothing about what has been patented there really is n't any point in talking about it , is there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem here is I have no idea what is being patented.
Since /.
patent-related headlines and summaries are always false and misleading, this posting just makes me wonder what Amazon has actually patented.
It would be interesting to know, but since neither the headline nor the summary of the article contains any factual information about the patent that could be used to form a rational judgement about the novelty of the subject matter there's really no point in discussing it.Since it's Amazon--assuming the summary has the assignee correct--the patent probably has something to do with online sales, but I wonder what?
I just wish there was some way of figuring that out without digging down into the USPTO site myself, which I can't be bothered to do because all it will tell me is that a patent has been granted on something that might actually be kind of innovative.
At least, that's what's always happened in the past when I've bothered to contribute to the /.
community by trying to inform people about how the (badly flawed) American patent system actually works.If we knew what had been patented, people might be able to present prior art, but since we know nothing about what has been patented there really isn't any point in talking about it, is there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202260</id>
	<title>Christmas gifts,shoes,handbags,Tshirts,Jacket,ugg</title>
	<author>coolforsale100</author>
	<datestamp>1258992840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202816</id>
	<title>Sometimes I wonder...</title>
	<author>isd.bz</author>
	<datestamp>1258996140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes I wonder (or perhaps hope is a better word) if these corporations are buying up all of these absurd patents just to show how unfathomably absurd software patents are.<p>
Secondly, I am pretty sure many websites and forums have been doing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret\_Santa" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"Secret Santa"</a> [wikipedia.org] for at least a decade now. That always involves collecting information from more than just the "seller" and the "buyer" in order to complete an online transaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I wonder ( or perhaps hope is a better word ) if these corporations are buying up all of these absurd patents just to show how unfathomably absurd software patents are .
Secondly , I am pretty sure many websites and forums have been doing " Secret Santa " [ wikipedia.org ] for at least a decade now .
That always involves collecting information from more than just the " seller " and the " buyer " in order to complete an online transaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I wonder (or perhaps hope is a better word) if these corporations are buying up all of these absurd patents just to show how unfathomably absurd software patents are.
Secondly, I am pretty sure many websites and forums have been doing "Secret Santa" [wikipedia.org] for at least a decade now.
That always involves collecting information from more than just the "seller" and the "buyer" in order to complete an online transaction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202806</id>
	<title>Patent depression</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258996080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing quite like patents is capable of making me so angry that I want to break my computer. I only hope that a reasonable minded government realizes the ridiculous nature of the current patent situation.. business method patents, software patents et. al. are getting so incredibly out of control and illogical that they no longer serve their original purpose. These things simply do not deserve a patent, and any patent office that keeps releasing patents for these types of activities is not only discrediting the institution but introducing increased complexity and inefficiencies into the business system.</p><p>I don't blame companies for doing what they're doing because any self serving company would and should do this. They're in a situation where if they don't make the patent, some patent troll will and they will end up having to either fight a legal battle or pay a royalty. My only hope is that respectable companies like Amazon, IBM and others that happen to have a large patent presence realize the inefficiency that these patents are introducing and decide to not enforce any of these "patents".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing quite like patents is capable of making me so angry that I want to break my computer .
I only hope that a reasonable minded government realizes the ridiculous nature of the current patent situation.. business method patents , software patents et .
al. are getting so incredibly out of control and illogical that they no longer serve their original purpose .
These things simply do not deserve a patent , and any patent office that keeps releasing patents for these types of activities is not only discrediting the institution but introducing increased complexity and inefficiencies into the business system.I do n't blame companies for doing what they 're doing because any self serving company would and should do this .
They 're in a situation where if they do n't make the patent , some patent troll will and they will end up having to either fight a legal battle or pay a royalty .
My only hope is that respectable companies like Amazon , IBM and others that happen to have a large patent presence realize the inefficiency that these patents are introducing and decide to not enforce any of these " patents " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing quite like patents is capable of making me so angry that I want to break my computer.
I only hope that a reasonable minded government realizes the ridiculous nature of the current patent situation.. business method patents, software patents et.
al. are getting so incredibly out of control and illogical that they no longer serve their original purpose.
These things simply do not deserve a patent, and any patent office that keeps releasing patents for these types of activities is not only discrediting the institution but introducing increased complexity and inefficiencies into the business system.I don't blame companies for doing what they're doing because any self serving company would and should do this.
They're in a situation where if they don't make the patent, some patent troll will and they will end up having to either fight a legal battle or pay a royalty.
My only hope is that respectable companies like Amazon, IBM and others that happen to have a large patent presence realize the inefficiency that these patents are introducing and decide to not enforce any of these "patents".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202352</id>
	<title>Re:F It, I'm Patenting Eating</title>
	<author>macbuzz01</author>
	<datestamp>1258993380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You insensitive clod!  What about the people with only one eyeball? Wait...maybe I could patent that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You insensitive clod !
What about the people with only one eyeball ?
Wait...maybe I could patent that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You insensitive clod!
What about the people with only one eyeball?
Wait...maybe I could patent that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202230</id>
	<title>Simply ignore.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simply ignore that "patent", and if a lawer go on your house because this, kill then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply ignore that " patent " , and if a lawer go on your house because this , kill then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply ignore that "patent", and if a lawer go on your house because this, kill then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203154</id>
	<title>Link to Amended ABSTRACT is Wrong</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1258998060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But Amazon's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic (PDF), convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient' is indeed novel and patentable.</p></div><p>The PDF linked by the submitter is the amended <i>Abstract</i>.  What legal weight does the Abstract have? NONE.</p><p>
In fact, the single-page PDF with the amended abstract was to fix the Examiner's object that the abstract was 191 words long.  That "wordsmithing magic" is just trimming the length down.  It has nothing to do with the Bilski arguments.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>At the time, a USPTO Examiner cited Bilski, explaining that elements of CEO Jeff Bezos' gift-delivery invention '<b>may be performed largely within the human mind</b>,' coming to essentially the same conclusion a NY Post reporter arrived at in 2002. But Amazon's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic (PDF), convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient' is indeed <b>novel and patentable</b>.</p></div><p>And this is two different arguments: inventions that are "performed largely within the human mind" are unpatentable under Bilski, <i>even if they're completely new and non-obvious</i>.  In other words, if I invent a brand new type of mathematics that is completely unknown to the world, it's unpatentable because it's just done in your mind.  It's not that it's not "novel".</p><p>
So, essentially, the submitter has tried to claim that the attorney's fixing the length of the <i>abstract</i>, which bears no legal weight whatsoever and is merely for use in searching patent databases, somehow solves any question of patentability and novelty.  And that's just wrong, and stupid.</p><p>
Now, what did Amazon <i>really</i> say regarding the Bilski rejection? They amended the claims to include a server computer, which means they're tied to a specific machine, under the Bilski test. You can't do the method in your head unless you've got a web server installed in there.<br>Incidentally, as I explained above, this has nothing to do with whether something is novel or not obvious - this is just about "can you do it in your head"? Novelty is an entirely different question, and one that Amazon got around with further amendments to narrow the claims and additional arguments.</p><p>
Also, this is the law as it currently stands. The Supreme Court will likely clarify the Bilski test in a few months, but currently, that's the test. So don't bitch at me about how a server is a generic computing device or how any computer method is still really just a mathematical algorithm.  I'm just pointing out that the submitter's "they changed the abstract and that somehow convinced the USPTO that it's novel!" is completely, entirely, absolutely WRONG.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Amazon 's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic ( PDF ) , convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient ' is indeed novel and patentable.The PDF linked by the submitter is the amended Abstract .
What legal weight does the Abstract have ?
NONE . In fact , the single-page PDF with the amended abstract was to fix the Examiner 's object that the abstract was 191 words long .
That " wordsmithing magic " is just trimming the length down .
It has nothing to do with the Bilski arguments.At the time , a USPTO Examiner cited Bilski , explaining that elements of CEO Jeff Bezos ' gift-delivery invention 'may be performed largely within the human mind, ' coming to essentially the same conclusion a NY Post reporter arrived at in 2002 .
But Amazon 's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic ( PDF ) , convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient ' is indeed novel and patentable.And this is two different arguments : inventions that are " performed largely within the human mind " are unpatentable under Bilski , even if they 're completely new and non-obvious .
In other words , if I invent a brand new type of mathematics that is completely unknown to the world , it 's unpatentable because it 's just done in your mind .
It 's not that it 's not " novel " .
So , essentially , the submitter has tried to claim that the attorney 's fixing the length of the abstract , which bears no legal weight whatsoever and is merely for use in searching patent databases , somehow solves any question of patentability and novelty .
And that 's just wrong , and stupid .
Now , what did Amazon really say regarding the Bilski rejection ?
They amended the claims to include a server computer , which means they 're tied to a specific machine , under the Bilski test .
You ca n't do the method in your head unless you 've got a web server installed in there.Incidentally , as I explained above , this has nothing to do with whether something is novel or not obvious - this is just about " can you do it in your head " ?
Novelty is an entirely different question , and one that Amazon got around with further amendments to narrow the claims and additional arguments .
Also , this is the law as it currently stands .
The Supreme Court will likely clarify the Bilski test in a few months , but currently , that 's the test .
So do n't bitch at me about how a server is a generic computing device or how any computer method is still really just a mathematical algorithm .
I 'm just pointing out that the submitter 's " they changed the abstract and that somehow convinced the USPTO that it 's novel !
" is completely , entirely , absolutely WRONG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Amazon's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic (PDF), convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient' is indeed novel and patentable.The PDF linked by the submitter is the amended Abstract.
What legal weight does the Abstract have?
NONE.
In fact, the single-page PDF with the amended abstract was to fix the Examiner's object that the abstract was 191 words long.
That "wordsmithing magic" is just trimming the length down.
It has nothing to do with the Bilski arguments.At the time, a USPTO Examiner cited Bilski, explaining that elements of CEO Jeff Bezos' gift-delivery invention 'may be performed largely within the human mind,' coming to essentially the same conclusion a NY Post reporter arrived at in 2002.
But Amazon's attorneys have worked their legal wordsmithing magic (PDF), convincing the USPTO that 'obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient' is indeed novel and patentable.And this is two different arguments: inventions that are "performed largely within the human mind" are unpatentable under Bilski, even if they're completely new and non-obvious.
In other words, if I invent a brand new type of mathematics that is completely unknown to the world, it's unpatentable because it's just done in your mind.
It's not that it's not "novel".
So, essentially, the submitter has tried to claim that the attorney's fixing the length of the abstract, which bears no legal weight whatsoever and is merely for use in searching patent databases, somehow solves any question of patentability and novelty.
And that's just wrong, and stupid.
Now, what did Amazon really say regarding the Bilski rejection?
They amended the claims to include a server computer, which means they're tied to a specific machine, under the Bilski test.
You can't do the method in your head unless you've got a web server installed in there.Incidentally, as I explained above, this has nothing to do with whether something is novel or not obvious - this is just about "can you do it in your head"?
Novelty is an entirely different question, and one that Amazon got around with further amendments to narrow the claims and additional arguments.
Also, this is the law as it currently stands.
The Supreme Court will likely clarify the Bilski test in a few months, but currently, that's the test.
So don't bitch at me about how a server is a generic computing device or how any computer method is still really just a mathematical algorithm.
I'm just pointing out that the submitter's "they changed the abstract and that somehow convinced the USPTO that it's novel!
" is completely, entirely, absolutely WRONG.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202626</id>
	<title>Re:Should Patents be done away with?</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1258995120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get off my tits! - patent pending.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off my tits !
- patent pending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off my tits!
- patent pending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203406</id>
	<title>Removed my business from Amazon</title>
	<author>hughbar</author>
	<datestamp>1258999260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the last patent, I just removed my account, a hard and confusing process that they will no doubt patent: 'process for trying to prevent a cognitively deranged customer from leaving the Amazon paradise of books'.
<br> <br>
I think this is the only thing that they will understand, loss of business with linkage. However, non-techy society needs a clear education about how damaging this is to the whole human endeavour, a few people like me dumping their accounts isn't going to do it. So, spread the word...</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the last patent , I just removed my account , a hard and confusing process that they will no doubt patent : 'process for trying to prevent a cognitively deranged customer from leaving the Amazon paradise of books' .
I think this is the only thing that they will understand , loss of business with linkage .
However , non-techy society needs a clear education about how damaging this is to the whole human endeavour , a few people like me dumping their accounts is n't going to do it .
So , spread the word.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the last patent, I just removed my account, a hard and confusing process that they will no doubt patent: 'process for trying to prevent a cognitively deranged customer from leaving the Amazon paradise of books'.
I think this is the only thing that they will understand, loss of business with linkage.
However, non-techy society needs a clear education about how damaging this is to the whole human endeavour, a few people like me dumping their accounts isn't going to do it.
So, spread the word...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30205040</id>
	<title>Prior Art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259008620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to claim prior art.  In BI (Before Internet) times I called my mother to get my grandmothers address so that I could send her a gift from the grandkids.  I paid for the gift over the phone using a CC# from my sister.  I think Amazon owes me a ton of licencing money for all the stuff it sent out using my process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to claim prior art .
In BI ( Before Internet ) times I called my mother to get my grandmothers address so that I could send her a gift from the grandkids .
I paid for the gift over the phone using a CC # from my sister .
I think Amazon owes me a ton of licencing money for all the stuff it sent out using my process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to claim prior art.
In BI (Before Internet) times I called my mother to get my grandmothers address so that I could send her a gift from the grandkids.
I paid for the gift over the phone using a CC# from my sister.
I think Amazon owes me a ton of licencing money for all the stuff it sent out using my process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30204964</id>
	<title>Re:Link to Amended ABSTRACT is Wrong</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1259008140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The PDF linked by the submitter is the amended Abstract. What legal weight does the Abstract have? NONE.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>So, essentially, the submitter has tried to claim that the attorney's fixing the length of the abstract, which bears no legal weight whatsoever and is merely for use in searching patent databases, somehow solves any question of patentability and novelty. And that's just wrong, and stupid.</p></div><p>Why shouldn't the USPTO judge patent applications based upon the abstract as well as the claims? Since the abstract is used for the purpose of performing preliminary searches of patents, poorly worded abstracts, or those that don't properly summarize the patent claims should be a basis for denial. Polluting the patent database with misleading data is one thing that the examiners should be taking into account.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PDF linked by the submitter is the amended Abstract .
What legal weight does the Abstract have ?
NONE.So , essentially , the submitter has tried to claim that the attorney 's fixing the length of the abstract , which bears no legal weight whatsoever and is merely for use in searching patent databases , somehow solves any question of patentability and novelty .
And that 's just wrong , and stupid.Why should n't the USPTO judge patent applications based upon the abstract as well as the claims ?
Since the abstract is used for the purpose of performing preliminary searches of patents , poorly worded abstracts , or those that do n't properly summarize the patent claims should be a basis for denial .
Polluting the patent database with misleading data is one thing that the examiners should be taking into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PDF linked by the submitter is the amended Abstract.
What legal weight does the Abstract have?
NONE.So, essentially, the submitter has tried to claim that the attorney's fixing the length of the abstract, which bears no legal weight whatsoever and is merely for use in searching patent databases, somehow solves any question of patentability and novelty.
And that's just wrong, and stupid.Why shouldn't the USPTO judge patent applications based upon the abstract as well as the claims?
Since the abstract is used for the purpose of performing preliminary searches of patents, poorly worded abstracts, or those that don't properly summarize the patent claims should be a basis for denial.
Polluting the patent database with misleading data is one thing that the examiners should be taking into account.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202396</id>
	<title>Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258993560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; I'm holding off to hear more arguments.</p><p>The submitter and at least one other poster are convinced that it's not at some obvious level, and I guess I'm missing the basis for that.  So here are my questions:</p><p>1) Did you read the patent claims?<br>2) Do you know of anyone in the history of online shopping that has done the thigns the patent claims cover?</p><p>My answers:  Yes I did; and No, I honestly haven't.</p><p>Lack of prior art alone doesn't prove something to be patentable, but if (as submitter applies) there is nothing novel about this patent, then I would be surprised to see we'd gone this far with online shopping and never seen it.  Remember that just because something is novel, doesn't mean it doesn't "seem obvious" after someone has pointed it out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it is , maybe it is n't ; I 'm holding off to hear more arguments.The submitter and at least one other poster are convinced that it 's not at some obvious level , and I guess I 'm missing the basis for that .
So here are my questions : 1 ) Did you read the patent claims ? 2 ) Do you know of anyone in the history of online shopping that has done the thigns the patent claims cover ? My answers : Yes I did ; and No , I honestly have n't.Lack of prior art alone does n't prove something to be patentable , but if ( as submitter applies ) there is nothing novel about this patent , then I would be surprised to see we 'd gone this far with online shopping and never seen it .
Remember that just because something is novel , does n't mean it does n't " seem obvious " after someone has pointed it out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; I'm holding off to hear more arguments.The submitter and at least one other poster are convinced that it's not at some obvious level, and I guess I'm missing the basis for that.
So here are my questions:1) Did you read the patent claims?2) Do you know of anyone in the history of online shopping that has done the thigns the patent claims cover?My answers:  Yes I did; and No, I honestly haven't.Lack of prior art alone doesn't prove something to be patentable, but if (as submitter applies) there is nothing novel about this patent, then I would be surprised to see we'd gone this far with online shopping and never seen it.
Remember that just because something is novel, doesn't mean it doesn't "seem obvious" after someone has pointed it out...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202512</id>
	<title>eye pee</title>
	<author>czarangelus</author>
	<datestamp>1258994400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copyright and patents are both impediments to technological and cultural progress enforced by the barrel of the government gun. Both of these serve to create a government-enforced monopoly.<a href="http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html" title="libertariannation.org" rel="nofollow">Against intellectual property</a> [libertariannation.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright and patents are both impediments to technological and cultural progress enforced by the barrel of the government gun .
Both of these serve to create a government-enforced monopoly.Against intellectual property [ libertariannation.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright and patents are both impediments to technological and cultural progress enforced by the barrel of the government gun.
Both of these serve to create a government-enforced monopoly.Against intellectual property [libertariannation.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30204462</id>
	<title>Re:Should Patents be done away with?</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1259005140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm really curious what proponents have to say, because slashdot does tend to get one sided on issues.</p></div><p>Allow me to offer my opinion on the subject as I am a proponent of the patent system (in principle, not the present implementation). The primary purpose of patents is to acknowledge that <i>ideas have value</i>. Manufactured things, of course, have value and those who build them earn a wage for the manual labor that goes into making them. Without the inventor, however, we would have only raw materials and muscle but no manufactured goods. The patent acknowledges that a person has a <i>right</i> to earn money from their ideas as well as from their physical labor. That is a right that I wholeheartedly support because I make a living off my mind not my muscles, as do many on Slashdot.</p><p>I happen to think that patents are necessary for the promotion of ideas and technology but that isn't the basis on which I think patents are a good thing. The argument hinges on the fact that people have a right to profit from their ideas <i>because they thought of them</i>. The notion that ideas are public is simply absurd. If I have an idea nothing can compel me to tell it to you; it's in my head, it's <i>my</i> idea. If I wish to build something using my idea and sell it, that is my right. The patent codifies the system that allows me to license others to build something from my idea if I don't have the means to build it myself, thereby distributing the fruits of my mental labor to the public. It is the patent that distinguishes the value of the idea from the value of the resources to build the thing. I disagree with the notion that physical labor can be done for the benefit of the individual but mental labor <i>must</i> be done for public good.</p><p>I also think that absurd "methods" patents and broad software patents like the ones that show up on Slashdot undermine the patent system. Those patents <i>should</i> be done away with. In most software cases I would agree that the copyright system is the better venue for protecting intellectual rights since I have yet to see a software patent that I think should exist. The existing implementation of the patent system needs to be dramatically reformed to avoid the obvious patents that get through on the virtue of the legal departments of large companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really curious what proponents have to say , because slashdot does tend to get one sided on issues.Allow me to offer my opinion on the subject as I am a proponent of the patent system ( in principle , not the present implementation ) .
The primary purpose of patents is to acknowledge that ideas have value .
Manufactured things , of course , have value and those who build them earn a wage for the manual labor that goes into making them .
Without the inventor , however , we would have only raw materials and muscle but no manufactured goods .
The patent acknowledges that a person has a right to earn money from their ideas as well as from their physical labor .
That is a right that I wholeheartedly support because I make a living off my mind not my muscles , as do many on Slashdot.I happen to think that patents are necessary for the promotion of ideas and technology but that is n't the basis on which I think patents are a good thing .
The argument hinges on the fact that people have a right to profit from their ideas because they thought of them .
The notion that ideas are public is simply absurd .
If I have an idea nothing can compel me to tell it to you ; it 's in my head , it 's my idea .
If I wish to build something using my idea and sell it , that is my right .
The patent codifies the system that allows me to license others to build something from my idea if I do n't have the means to build it myself , thereby distributing the fruits of my mental labor to the public .
It is the patent that distinguishes the value of the idea from the value of the resources to build the thing .
I disagree with the notion that physical labor can be done for the benefit of the individual but mental labor must be done for public good.I also think that absurd " methods " patents and broad software patents like the ones that show up on Slashdot undermine the patent system .
Those patents should be done away with .
In most software cases I would agree that the copyright system is the better venue for protecting intellectual rights since I have yet to see a software patent that I think should exist .
The existing implementation of the patent system needs to be dramatically reformed to avoid the obvious patents that get through on the virtue of the legal departments of large companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really curious what proponents have to say, because slashdot does tend to get one sided on issues.Allow me to offer my opinion on the subject as I am a proponent of the patent system (in principle, not the present implementation).
The primary purpose of patents is to acknowledge that ideas have value.
Manufactured things, of course, have value and those who build them earn a wage for the manual labor that goes into making them.
Without the inventor, however, we would have only raw materials and muscle but no manufactured goods.
The patent acknowledges that a person has a right to earn money from their ideas as well as from their physical labor.
That is a right that I wholeheartedly support because I make a living off my mind not my muscles, as do many on Slashdot.I happen to think that patents are necessary for the promotion of ideas and technology but that isn't the basis on which I think patents are a good thing.
The argument hinges on the fact that people have a right to profit from their ideas because they thought of them.
The notion that ideas are public is simply absurd.
If I have an idea nothing can compel me to tell it to you; it's in my head, it's my idea.
If I wish to build something using my idea and sell it, that is my right.
The patent codifies the system that allows me to license others to build something from my idea if I don't have the means to build it myself, thereby distributing the fruits of my mental labor to the public.
It is the patent that distinguishes the value of the idea from the value of the resources to build the thing.
I disagree with the notion that physical labor can be done for the benefit of the individual but mental labor must be done for public good.I also think that absurd "methods" patents and broad software patents like the ones that show up on Slashdot undermine the patent system.
Those patents should be done away with.
In most software cases I would agree that the copyright system is the better venue for protecting intellectual rights since I have yet to see a software patent that I think should exist.
The existing implementation of the patent system needs to be dramatically reformed to avoid the obvious patents that get through on the virtue of the legal departments of large companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202648</id>
	<title>Prior art</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1258995180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient</p></div><p>OK, I'll bite on this one.  If anyone is a frequent shopper at a store whereby the salesclerk knows you quite well, and you walk into a store and the clerk makes a suggestion based solely on the feedback you give them "I need a gift for a 3yr old boy", then they are using sources of information (the clerk's knowledge of gifts appropriate for a 3yr old boy, and not your knowledge) that is a source "other than the gift giver and recipient".</p><p>Now I highly doubt the patent means "<b>sole</b> sources of information other than gift giver or recipient." Otherwise, that would be a random guess.  How would any system know upon you entering the store what would be appropriate for the recipient without knowing atleast some information about said recipient.  I believe that would be a <i>random guess.</i>  Just because I bought a table saw on my last visit to Amazon does not mean that power tools are what I'm looking for in a gift for my 3yr old nephew.</p><p>Don't supermarkets already do this?  They look at what I just bought and make a recommendation for some related product, by printing out a coupon at the cash register.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipientOK , I 'll bite on this one .
If anyone is a frequent shopper at a store whereby the salesclerk knows you quite well , and you walk into a store and the clerk makes a suggestion based solely on the feedback you give them " I need a gift for a 3yr old boy " , then they are using sources of information ( the clerk 's knowledge of gifts appropriate for a 3yr old boy , and not your knowledge ) that is a source " other than the gift giver and recipient " .Now I highly doubt the patent means " sole sources of information other than gift giver or recipient .
" Otherwise , that would be a random guess .
How would any system know upon you entering the store what would be appropriate for the recipient without knowing atleast some information about said recipient .
I believe that would be a random guess .
Just because I bought a table saw on my last visit to Amazon does not mean that power tools are what I 'm looking for in a gift for my 3yr old nephew.Do n't supermarkets already do this ?
They look at what I just bought and make a recommendation for some related product , by printing out a coupon at the cash register .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipientOK, I'll bite on this one.
If anyone is a frequent shopper at a store whereby the salesclerk knows you quite well, and you walk into a store and the clerk makes a suggestion based solely on the feedback you give them "I need a gift for a 3yr old boy", then they are using sources of information (the clerk's knowledge of gifts appropriate for a 3yr old boy, and not your knowledge) that is a source "other than the gift giver and recipient".Now I highly doubt the patent means "sole sources of information other than gift giver or recipient.
" Otherwise, that would be a random guess.
How would any system know upon you entering the store what would be appropriate for the recipient without knowing atleast some information about said recipient.
I believe that would be a random guess.
Just because I bought a table saw on my last visit to Amazon does not mean that power tools are what I'm looking for in a gift for my 3yr old nephew.Don't supermarkets already do this?
They look at what I just bought and make a recommendation for some related product, by printing out a coupon at the cash register.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202358</id>
	<title>Psychic Postmen</title>
	<author>tilandal</author>
	<datestamp>1258993440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient"</p><p>Hey, if they have truly figured out a way to determine who I am sending a gift to without asking me or the person receiving the gift I would say that is worthy of a patent. All other retailers will be stuck actually asking you where you want your stuff mailed and who has the time to enter all that info?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient " Hey , if they have truly figured out a way to determine who I am sending a gift to without asking me or the person receiving the gift I would say that is worthy of a patent .
All other retailers will be stuck actually asking you where you want your stuff mailed and who has the time to enter all that info ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"obtaining delivery information for a gift from one or more information sources other than the gift giver and recipient"Hey, if they have truly figured out a way to determine who I am sending a gift to without asking me or the person receiving the gift I would say that is worthy of a patent.
All other retailers will be stuck actually asking you where you want your stuff mailed and who has the time to enter all that info?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202334</id>
	<title>Re:F It, I'm Patenting Eating</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258993320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MMMmmm...*munch* *munch* *much* I claim mmmm.....*munch* *munch* prioahr aaurt<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... mmmmmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..mmmmm.... *munch* *munch*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MMMmmm... * munch * * munch * * much * I claim mmmm..... * munch * * munch * prioahr aaurt ... mmmmmm ..mmmmm.... * munch * * munch *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MMMmmm...*munch* *munch* *much* I claim mmmm.....*munch* *munch* prioahr aaurt ... mmmmmm ..mmmmm.... *munch* *munch*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203554</id>
	<title>Re:Psychic Postmen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259000040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this what Sunday Paper inserts do? IE: "Big Screen TV, $1299, Free Delivery"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this what Sunday Paper inserts do ?
IE : " Big Screen TV , $ 1299 , Free Delivery "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this what Sunday Paper inserts do?
IE: "Big Screen TV, $1299, Free Delivery"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202358</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30205100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30204462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30204964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_149216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30204462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30204964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30205100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30203446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_149216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_149216.30202352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
