<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_140218</id>
	<title>Windows 7 Under Fire For Patent Infringement</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259850540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"A patent issued in 2003 called 'Method and system for <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6629163">demultiplexing a first sequence of packet components</a> to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components' is now owned by <a href="http://www.implicitnetworks.com/">Implicit Networks</a>, who has <a href="http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/44915-windows-7-alleged-to-breach-patent">recently claimed Windows 7 infringes upon it</a> with its Filtering Platform.  This is used in Vista, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008.  Implicit is seeking a jury trial and damages.  A shocking turn of events; you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as <a href="http://www.wapatents.com/labels/Implicit\%20Networks.html">Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll)</a> and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " A patent issued in 2003 called 'Method and system for demultiplexing a first sequence of packet components to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components ' is now owned by Implicit Networks , who has recently claimed Windows 7 infringes upon it with its Filtering Platform .
This is used in Vista , Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 .
Implicit is seeking a jury trial and damages .
A shocking turn of events ; you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company ( troll ) and has done battle with Sun , AMD , Intel and NVIDIA .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "A patent issued in 2003 called 'Method and system for demultiplexing a first sequence of packet components to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components' is now owned by Implicit Networks, who has recently claimed Windows 7 infringes upon it with its Filtering Platform.
This is used in Vista, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008.
Implicit is seeking a jury trial and damages.
A shocking turn of events; you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310488</id>
	<title>under the ACTA using 7 may get you black listed an</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>under the ACTA using 7 may get you black listed and if you have the family pack with 3 systems = 3 times braking the law and also under the ACTA you just to need to clame infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>under the ACTA using 7 may get you black listed and if you have the family pack with 3 systems = 3 times braking the law and also under the ACTA you just to need to clame infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>under the ACTA using 7 may get you black listed and if you have the family pack with 3 systems = 3 times braking the law and also under the ACTA you just to need to clame infringement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311896</id>
	<title>Re:Agreed. Microsoft lobbies for software patents.</title>
	<author>Lieutenant Buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1259862060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe, they would be lost again tomorrow, when 10,000 more patents were filed.</p></div><p>This is entirely the problem. The fact that the patent system in the United States (and many other countries) allows a ridiculous number of patents for things with plenty of prior art, plain obvious ideas and troll patents (i.e. the Russian who trademarked the ";-)" or Tsera's ridiculous patent on the concept of a touchpad). The system is entirely broken and needs to be re-done from the ground up or we will continue to have patent trolls trolling trolls and nobody being able to do a damn thing anymore without stepping on some obscure company's patent that they're likely not even using for any product. I imagine that many companies won't release their software or drivers open-source because they're afraid that someone has patented something they've used. It's not just the patent system, either, trademark law and copyright are no better, allowing ridiculously obvious patents to be held for ridiculous amounts of time. As there are more companies, more inventors and as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer possible inventive ideas. Yes, it will be an absolute nightmare of red tape to fix the system and I'd be shocked if it actually happened, but just because something is unlikely doesn't mean the concept is invalid. At the very least, we need some reform, because this system is failing us and is becoming a detriment to society where all information, ideas and works can be kept under lock essentially indefinitely. As the cliche goes, information wants to be free and this applies to patents just as much as any other works. Short patent lives allows for collaboration and the combination of winning ideas to make greater inventions that benefit the company, the inventors and society as a whole. We need to put an end to this shortsighted selfishness of the current patent system's "I thought of it first, so it's mine and you can't ever use it." philosophy so we can all move forward.

But hey, what do I know? I don't even work for the patent office.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe , they would be lost again tomorrow , when 10,000 more patents were filed.This is entirely the problem .
The fact that the patent system in the United States ( and many other countries ) allows a ridiculous number of patents for things with plenty of prior art , plain obvious ideas and troll patents ( i.e .
the Russian who trademarked the " ; - ) " or Tsera 's ridiculous patent on the concept of a touchpad ) .
The system is entirely broken and needs to be re-done from the ground up or we will continue to have patent trolls trolling trolls and nobody being able to do a damn thing anymore without stepping on some obscure company 's patent that they 're likely not even using for any product .
I imagine that many companies wo n't release their software or drivers open-source because they 're afraid that someone has patented something they 've used .
It 's not just the patent system , either , trademark law and copyright are no better , allowing ridiculously obvious patents to be held for ridiculous amounts of time .
As there are more companies , more inventors and as time goes on , there will be fewer and fewer possible inventive ideas .
Yes , it will be an absolute nightmare of red tape to fix the system and I 'd be shocked if it actually happened , but just because something is unlikely does n't mean the concept is invalid .
At the very least , we need some reform , because this system is failing us and is becoming a detriment to society where all information , ideas and works can be kept under lock essentially indefinitely .
As the cliche goes , information wants to be free and this applies to patents just as much as any other works .
Short patent lives allows for collaboration and the combination of winning ideas to make greater inventions that benefit the company , the inventors and society as a whole .
We need to put an end to this shortsighted selfishness of the current patent system 's " I thought of it first , so it 's mine and you ca n't ever use it .
" philosophy so we can all move forward .
But hey , what do I know ?
I do n't even work for the patent office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe, they would be lost again tomorrow, when 10,000 more patents were filed.This is entirely the problem.
The fact that the patent system in the United States (and many other countries) allows a ridiculous number of patents for things with plenty of prior art, plain obvious ideas and troll patents (i.e.
the Russian who trademarked the ";-)" or Tsera's ridiculous patent on the concept of a touchpad).
The system is entirely broken and needs to be re-done from the ground up or we will continue to have patent trolls trolling trolls and nobody being able to do a damn thing anymore without stepping on some obscure company's patent that they're likely not even using for any product.
I imagine that many companies won't release their software or drivers open-source because they're afraid that someone has patented something they've used.
It's not just the patent system, either, trademark law and copyright are no better, allowing ridiculously obvious patents to be held for ridiculous amounts of time.
As there are more companies, more inventors and as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer possible inventive ideas.
Yes, it will be an absolute nightmare of red tape to fix the system and I'd be shocked if it actually happened, but just because something is unlikely doesn't mean the concept is invalid.
At the very least, we need some reform, because this system is failing us and is becoming a detriment to society where all information, ideas and works can be kept under lock essentially indefinitely.
As the cliche goes, information wants to be free and this applies to patents just as much as any other works.
Short patent lives allows for collaboration and the combination of winning ideas to make greater inventions that benefit the company, the inventors and society as a whole.
We need to put an end to this shortsighted selfishness of the current patent system's "I thought of it first, so it's mine and you can't ever use it.
" philosophy so we can all move forward.
But hey, what do I know?
I don't even work for the patent office.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30321578</id>
	<title>Patent is too bogus</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1259957340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The intent appears to be to get a performance improvement by having the ethernet or network driver pass a specific set of packets to a special purpose program that takes those packets and in the language of the patent "converts" them directly into data of a single format (eg video or audio). The hoped for performance improvement would probably be realised because the packets don't have to be copied through all the layers of the ISO network model. (Err, right)
</p><p>
Obviously, for most modern user machines this is pointless. It was a useful technique back in the days of the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface\_Message\_Processor" title="wikipedia.org">IMP</a> [wikipedia.org] when machines couldn't keep up with the network at all. Even today, it's sometimes useful in embedded applications or on the server side for example 'sendfile()' and kernel based file servers, web servers (IIS, kHHTPd) and so on. Linux even got user space support for this sort of thing back in '00 in terms of the QUEUE target of iptables, though you can do it with most filewall+packet capture combinations. But, AFAICS, nobody's ever really put together a generic framework for this, (unless you count iptables, or maybe the old DOS packet drivers) not much reason to.
</p><p>
So prior art looks far too easy to find; Microsoft will squash this flat.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intent appears to be to get a performance improvement by having the ethernet or network driver pass a specific set of packets to a special purpose program that takes those packets and in the language of the patent " converts " them directly into data of a single format ( eg video or audio ) .
The hoped for performance improvement would probably be realised because the packets do n't have to be copied through all the layers of the ISO network model .
( Err , right ) Obviously , for most modern user machines this is pointless .
It was a useful technique back in the days of the IMP [ wikipedia.org ] when machines could n't keep up with the network at all .
Even today , it 's sometimes useful in embedded applications or on the server side for example 'sendfile ( ) ' and kernel based file servers , web servers ( IIS , kHHTPd ) and so on .
Linux even got user space support for this sort of thing back in '00 in terms of the QUEUE target of iptables , though you can do it with most filewall + packet capture combinations .
But , AFAICS , nobody 's ever really put together a generic framework for this , ( unless you count iptables , or maybe the old DOS packet drivers ) not much reason to .
So prior art looks far too easy to find ; Microsoft will squash this flat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The intent appears to be to get a performance improvement by having the ethernet or network driver pass a specific set of packets to a special purpose program that takes those packets and in the language of the patent "converts" them directly into data of a single format (eg video or audio).
The hoped for performance improvement would probably be realised because the packets don't have to be copied through all the layers of the ISO network model.
(Err, right)

Obviously, for most modern user machines this is pointless.
It was a useful technique back in the days of the
IMP [wikipedia.org] when machines couldn't keep up with the network at all.
Even today, it's sometimes useful in embedded applications or on the server side for example 'sendfile()' and kernel based file servers, web servers (IIS, kHHTPd) and so on.
Linux even got user space support for this sort of thing back in '00 in terms of the QUEUE target of iptables, though you can do it with most filewall+packet capture combinations.
But, AFAICS, nobody's ever really put together a generic framework for this, (unless you count iptables, or maybe the old DOS packet drivers) not much reason to.
So prior art looks far too easy to find; Microsoft will squash this flat.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30315046</id>
	<title>I'm probably too late</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1259873580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm probably too late, but I want to get in on this patent game.  I will patent, "Turning on a computer and doing stuff with it."  It's just like living, but with a computer.  Anyone who does anything with a computer will have to pay me and my crack legal team of digital ambulance chasers.  All of your profits will belong to me's.</p><p>1. Find a task<br>2. Append "with a computer"<br>3. Patent<br>4. ???<br>5. Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm probably too late , but I want to get in on this patent game .
I will patent , " Turning on a computer and doing stuff with it .
" It 's just like living , but with a computer .
Anyone who does anything with a computer will have to pay me and my crack legal team of digital ambulance chasers .
All of your profits will belong to me 's.1 .
Find a task2 .
Append " with a computer " 3 .
Patent4. ? ? ? 5 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm probably too late, but I want to get in on this patent game.
I will patent, "Turning on a computer and doing stuff with it.
"  It's just like living, but with a computer.
Anyone who does anything with a computer will have to pay me and my crack legal team of digital ambulance chasers.
All of your profits will belong to me's.1.
Find a task2.
Append "with a computer"3.
Patent4. ???5.
Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309948</id>
	<title>They patented networking in 1999?</title>
	<author>Nickodeemus</author>
	<datestamp>1259854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>seriously? I thought it [networking] had been around since the 60s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>seriously ?
I thought it [ networking ] had been around since the 60s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriously?
I thought it [networking] had been around since the 60s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30326724</id>
	<title>Re:A jury of their peers</title>
	<author>rayharris</author>
	<datestamp>1259955000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or I could be an American who knows full well what a "jury of one's peer's" really means, but chose to employ the phrase as a cliche to make a point that the content of the patent trial would go right over the head of the average citizen.</p><p>In America, there is no legal aristocracy, and so every one is in the same peer group and the concept of "jury of peers" didn't have to be codified into law.</p><p>The concept of a jury of peers was actually started in Britain in 1215 (in Article 39 of the Magna Carta: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_trial" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_trial</a> [wikipedia.org]) and the practice was finally abolished in 1948 ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege\_of\_Peerage" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege\_of\_Peerage</a> [wikipedia.org] ).</p><p>The more you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or I could be an American who knows full well what a " jury of one 's peer 's " really means , but chose to employ the phrase as a cliche to make a point that the content of the patent trial would go right over the head of the average citizen.In America , there is no legal aristocracy , and so every one is in the same peer group and the concept of " jury of peers " did n't have to be codified into law.The concept of a jury of peers was actually started in Britain in 1215 ( in Article 39 of the Magna Carta : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury \ _trial [ wikipedia.org ] ) and the practice was finally abolished in 1948 ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege \ _of \ _Peerage [ wikipedia.org ] ) .The more you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or I could be an American who knows full well what a "jury of one's peer's" really means, but chose to employ the phrase as a cliche to make a point that the content of the patent trial would go right over the head of the average citizen.In America, there is no legal aristocracy, and so every one is in the same peer group and the concept of "jury of peers" didn't have to be codified into law.The concept of a jury of peers was actually started in Britain in 1215 (in Article 39 of the Magna Carta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_trial [wikipedia.org]) and the practice was finally abolished in 1948 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege\_of\_Peerage [wikipedia.org] ).The more you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30316432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309974</id>
	<title>It is a pickle who is worse</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1259854800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A company who just goes around getting patents to sue others so they can make money, or Microsoft.

Hmm, I guess I will side with Linux this time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A company who just goes around getting patents to sue others so they can make money , or Microsoft .
Hmm , I guess I will side with Linux this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company who just goes around getting patents to sue others so they can make money, or Microsoft.
Hmm, I guess I will side with Linux this time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30313498</id>
	<title>Re:pop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259867460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*<br>*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*<br>*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*<br>*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*</p><p>The sound of 10000 slashdotters heads exploding as they try to figure out who to cheer for.</p></div><p>I feel a great disturbance in the *Source*... as if millions of Slashdotters *ow!* Okay, Okay, I'll stop!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me wipes stains of rotten vegetables off his clothes and exits stage right</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * The sound of 10000 slashdotters heads exploding as they try to figure out who to cheer for.I feel a great disturbance in the * Source * ... as if millions of Slashdotters * ow !
* Okay , Okay , I 'll stop !
/me wipes stains of rotten vegetables off his clothes and exits stage right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop**BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss**BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM**pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*The sound of 10000 slashdotters heads exploding as they try to figure out who to cheer for.I feel a great disturbance in the *Source*... as if millions of Slashdotters *ow!
* Okay, Okay, I'll stop!
/me wipes stains of rotten vegetables off his clothes and exits stage right
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312524</id>
	<title>Re:Sup Wigguhs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259863980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That patent description sounds somewhat like what the "header blocks" are for at the beginning of an electronically-transmitted tax return, per IRS specifications.  I'm aware that electronic tax returns have been getting transmitted significantly before 2003, so maybe that would be "prior art" to overturn this patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That patent description sounds somewhat like what the " header blocks " are for at the beginning of an electronically-transmitted tax return , per IRS specifications .
I 'm aware that electronic tax returns have been getting transmitted significantly before 2003 , so maybe that would be " prior art " to overturn this patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That patent description sounds somewhat like what the "header blocks" are for at the beginning of an electronically-transmitted tax return, per IRS specifications.
I'm aware that electronic tax returns have been getting transmitted significantly before 2003, so maybe that would be "prior art" to overturn this patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310638</id>
	<title>Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously though, I dislike patent squatting.</p><p>These folks delay technology advancement and don't actually produce anything themselves.</p></div><p>But where do you draw the line?  You assume that anyone with a patent falls into one of a small number of groups:</p><p>1.  Doesn't make any effort to do anything useful with the patent.<br>2.  Works hard on products and, licensing or not, does a fair job.<br>3.  Licenses the patent to all and sundry so everyone can work on products based on the patent.</p><p>What about 4.  Refuses to license the patent, attempts to build a product based on it, sues anyone who infringes <b>yet at the same time</b> does an absolutely appalling job of commercialising it into a useful product. ?  There are plenty of examples of this around - hell, see the Wright Brothers and their patents on the earliest aircraft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously though , I dislike patent squatting.These folks delay technology advancement and do n't actually produce anything themselves.But where do you draw the line ?
You assume that anyone with a patent falls into one of a small number of groups : 1 .
Does n't make any effort to do anything useful with the patent.2 .
Works hard on products and , licensing or not , does a fair job.3 .
Licenses the patent to all and sundry so everyone can work on products based on the patent.What about 4 .
Refuses to license the patent , attempts to build a product based on it , sues anyone who infringes yet at the same time does an absolutely appalling job of commercialising it into a useful product .
? There are plenty of examples of this around - hell , see the Wright Brothers and their patents on the earliest aircraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously though, I dislike patent squatting.These folks delay technology advancement and don't actually produce anything themselves.But where do you draw the line?
You assume that anyone with a patent falls into one of a small number of groups:1.
Doesn't make any effort to do anything useful with the patent.2.
Works hard on products and, licensing or not, does a fair job.3.
Licenses the patent to all and sundry so everyone can work on products based on the patent.What about 4.
Refuses to license the patent, attempts to build a product based on it, sues anyone who infringes yet at the same time does an absolutely appalling job of commercialising it into a useful product.
?  There are plenty of examples of this around - hell, see the Wright Brothers and their patents on the earliest aircraft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312848</id>
	<title>Wordplay?</title>
	<author>warriorpostman</author>
	<datestamp>1259865180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone else find it comical that the alleged patent troll's company name is "Implicit"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone else find it comical that the alleged patent troll 's company name is " Implicit " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone else find it comical that the alleged patent troll's company name is "Implicit"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888</id>
	<title>Legal System Flaw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before: one of these litigants has to win. If only *both* could lose...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before : one of these litigants has to win .
If only * both * could lose.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before: one of these litigants has to win.
If only *both* could lose...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309996</id>
	<title>Now we'll see how lawyers earn $$</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1259854920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By fighting over the fact that the courts cant decide what to do about retarded laws and the scoundrels that scavenge there.  Welcome to corporate ethics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By fighting over the fact that the courts cant decide what to do about retarded laws and the scoundrels that scavenge there .
Welcome to corporate ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By fighting over the fact that the courts cant decide what to do about retarded laws and the scoundrels that scavenge there.
Welcome to corporate ethics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312686</id>
	<title>Patent Trolls should be helped</title>
	<author>Known Brave</author>
	<datestamp>1259864520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.

Patent Trolls should be encouraged, helped, and blessed.

If enough of them win, it'll bring this whole insane Patent and Economic system to a screeching halt.

Then, and only then, will something be done, reforms be implemented and sanity restored.

Until then, slow death drags on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Patent Trolls should be encouraged , helped , and blessed .
If enough of them win , it 'll bring this whole insane Patent and Economic system to a screeching halt .
Then , and only then , will something be done , reforms be implemented and sanity restored .
Until then , slow death drags on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Patent Trolls should be encouraged, helped, and blessed.
If enough of them win, it'll bring this whole insane Patent and Economic system to a screeching halt.
Then, and only then, will something be done, reforms be implemented and sanity restored.
Until then, slow death drags on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30316432</id>
	<title>Re:A jury of their peers</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1259835780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to be clear, this is an American court trial, and America doesn't have "jury of peers" as part of its legal tradition.</p><p>That phrase comes from (if I recall correctly) the reforms of the French revolution. So, from that, I assume you are French -- but yeah, over here there is no such thing as "jury of your peers".</p><p>Cheers to you over there in France.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to be clear , this is an American court trial , and America does n't have " jury of peers " as part of its legal tradition.That phrase comes from ( if I recall correctly ) the reforms of the French revolution .
So , from that , I assume you are French -- but yeah , over here there is no such thing as " jury of your peers " .Cheers to you over there in France .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to be clear, this is an American court trial, and America doesn't have "jury of peers" as part of its legal tradition.That phrase comes from (if I recall correctly) the reforms of the French revolution.
So, from that, I assume you are French -- but yeah, over here there is no such thing as "jury of your peers".Cheers to you over there in France.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310272</id>
	<title>Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1259856300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are too many educated people on earth for all of them to be contributive to the society. Some of them just become patent lawyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are too many educated people on earth for all of them to be contributive to the society .
Some of them just become patent lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are too many educated people on earth for all of them to be contributive to the society.
Some of them just become patent lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310218</id>
	<title>Thinking for me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft</i></p><p>Oh I do? And you...what....can read my mind even before I have made it up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you actually want to cheer for MicrosoftOh I do ?
And you...what....can read my mind even before I have made it up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you actually want to cheer for MicrosoftOh I do?
And you...what....can read my mind even before I have made it up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309970</id>
	<title>Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn&rsquo;t look substantially different from what any audio/video encapsulation format does, and plenty of those were around before December of &rsquo;99...</p><blockquote><div><p> <strong>Filing date:</strong> Dec 29, 1999</p><p>What is claimed is:</p><p>1. A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets, the method comprising:</p><p>
&nbsp; providing a plurality of components, each component being a software routine for converting data with an input format into data with an output format;<br>
&nbsp; for the first packet of the message,<br>
&nbsp; identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in the sequence; and<br>
&nbsp; storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message; and<br>
&nbsp; for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence,<br>
&nbsp; for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence,<br>
&nbsp; retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the previous packet of the message;<br>
&nbsp; performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information; and<br>
&nbsp; storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message.</p><p>(...)</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This doesn    t look substantially different from what any audio/video encapsulation format does , and plenty of those were around before December of    99... Filing date : Dec 29 , 1999What is claimed is : 1 .
A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets , the method comprising :   providing a plurality of components , each component being a software routine for converting data with an input format into data with an output format ;   for the first packet of the message ,   identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in the sequence ; and   storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message ; and   for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence ,   for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence ,   retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the previous packet of the message ;   performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information ; and   storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message. ( .. .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn’t look substantially different from what any audio/video encapsulation format does, and plenty of those were around before December of ’99... Filing date: Dec 29, 1999What is claimed is:1.
A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets, the method comprising:
  providing a plurality of components, each component being a software routine for converting data with an input format into data with an output format;
  for the first packet of the message,
  identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in the sequence; and
  storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message; and
  for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence,
  for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence,
  retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the previous packet of the message;
  performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information; and
  storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message.(...
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309946</id>
	<title>What goes around comes around...</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1259854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not going to side with MS as they are the ones that caused this landscape of nasty litigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not going to side with MS as they are the ones that caused this landscape of nasty litigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not going to side with MS as they are the ones that caused this landscape of nasty litigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310824</id>
	<title>simmer down</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1259858640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>A shocking turn of events, you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA."</i>
<br>
<br>
Please don't tell me what I want to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A shocking turn of events , you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company ( troll ) and has done battle with Sun , AMD , Intel and NVIDIA .
" Please do n't tell me what I want to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A shocking turn of events, you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA.
"


Please don't tell me what I want to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310524</id>
	<title>I'll start cheering for Microsoft...</title>
	<author>pem</author>
	<datestamp>1259857440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>when they:
<ul>
<li> Stop using patents as offensive weapons</li><li> Stop using "standards" as offensive weapons</li><li> Stop throwing chairs at the competition </li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>when they : Stop using patents as offensive weapons Stop using " standards " as offensive weapons Stop throwing chairs at the competition</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when they:

 Stop using patents as offensive weapons Stop using "standards" as offensive weapons Stop throwing chairs at the competition </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30314780</id>
	<title>my proposal for revamp of patent law</title>
	<author>msouth</author>
	<datestamp>1259872500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since it's basically impossible to say what would be "surprising to an expert in the art" (or whatever the standard is), and since soooooo many obvious things have been patented that were patently obvious, you adopt a new standard.</p><p>A product (or even a business technique) is patentable if and only if:</p><p>(a) It has been economically feasible to do for 20 years<br>(b) It has not been publicly described or implemented</p><p>The idea is this:</p><p>Even a simple idea, which for whatever reason has not been described or implemented, could be brought to market because of this.  If you have a simple improvement on, say, the broom, you are just going to sit on it, because (a) you don't know who to talk to at the many many broom manufacturers (b) if it's simple anyone else could copy it, so it's not worth it to start making brooms yourself, etc.</p><p>It should prevent the current patenting of obvious things that simply haven't been done because people haven't been doing business over the internet or selling stuff on cell phones or whatever.  The obvious stuff that any smart engineer would figure out will get done in that first 20 years, and only the hard (or easy, but hard to think of) stuff will be left.</p><p>The justification for granting a patent is that the world has been given time to figure this out, and they haven't.  Therefore, it makes sense to give you monopoly for 20 years (short time in the big scheme of things) so that the idea gets out there, which is the whole point of it from the Constitution's perspective.</p><p>Another way to do it:</p><p>(a) It has been feasible for X years, but not described or produced, you can have patent for X years.  That way if you're working in a new field, you can still get protection, but not lock everyone out for 20 years.  So, one-click could have gotten protection, but only for four years or whatever.</p><p>Obvious flaw:  how do you decide when it started to be "feasible"?  But I think that's a lot easier to come up with a standard for than "obviousness", which is plagued by the fact that a lot of things seem obvious after you see them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it 's basically impossible to say what would be " surprising to an expert in the art " ( or whatever the standard is ) , and since soooooo many obvious things have been patented that were patently obvious , you adopt a new standard.A product ( or even a business technique ) is patentable if and only if : ( a ) It has been economically feasible to do for 20 years ( b ) It has not been publicly described or implementedThe idea is this : Even a simple idea , which for whatever reason has not been described or implemented , could be brought to market because of this .
If you have a simple improvement on , say , the broom , you are just going to sit on it , because ( a ) you do n't know who to talk to at the many many broom manufacturers ( b ) if it 's simple anyone else could copy it , so it 's not worth it to start making brooms yourself , etc.It should prevent the current patenting of obvious things that simply have n't been done because people have n't been doing business over the internet or selling stuff on cell phones or whatever .
The obvious stuff that any smart engineer would figure out will get done in that first 20 years , and only the hard ( or easy , but hard to think of ) stuff will be left.The justification for granting a patent is that the world has been given time to figure this out , and they have n't .
Therefore , it makes sense to give you monopoly for 20 years ( short time in the big scheme of things ) so that the idea gets out there , which is the whole point of it from the Constitution 's perspective.Another way to do it : ( a ) It has been feasible for X years , but not described or produced , you can have patent for X years .
That way if you 're working in a new field , you can still get protection , but not lock everyone out for 20 years .
So , one-click could have gotten protection , but only for four years or whatever.Obvious flaw : how do you decide when it started to be " feasible " ?
But I think that 's a lot easier to come up with a standard for than " obviousness " , which is plagued by the fact that a lot of things seem obvious after you see them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it's basically impossible to say what would be "surprising to an expert in the art" (or whatever the standard is), and since soooooo many obvious things have been patented that were patently obvious, you adopt a new standard.A product (or even a business technique) is patentable if and only if:(a) It has been economically feasible to do for 20 years(b) It has not been publicly described or implementedThe idea is this:Even a simple idea, which for whatever reason has not been described or implemented, could be brought to market because of this.
If you have a simple improvement on, say, the broom, you are just going to sit on it, because (a) you don't know who to talk to at the many many broom manufacturers (b) if it's simple anyone else could copy it, so it's not worth it to start making brooms yourself, etc.It should prevent the current patenting of obvious things that simply haven't been done because people haven't been doing business over the internet or selling stuff on cell phones or whatever.
The obvious stuff that any smart engineer would figure out will get done in that first 20 years, and only the hard (or easy, but hard to think of) stuff will be left.The justification for granting a patent is that the world has been given time to figure this out, and they haven't.
Therefore, it makes sense to give you monopoly for 20 years (short time in the big scheme of things) so that the idea gets out there, which is the whole point of it from the Constitution's perspective.Another way to do it:(a) It has been feasible for X years, but not described or produced, you can have patent for X years.
That way if you're working in a new field, you can still get protection, but not lock everyone out for 20 years.
So, one-click could have gotten protection, but only for four years or whatever.Obvious flaw:  how do you decide when it started to be "feasible"?
But I think that's a lot easier to come up with a standard for than "obviousness", which is plagued by the fact that a lot of things seem obvious after you see them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30315816</id>
	<title>Prior art in cRTP</title>
	<author>chrylis</author>
	<datestamp>1259833500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The claims look quite similar to <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2508" title="ietf.org">compressed RTP</a> [ietf.org], which is used to shorten IP/UDP/RTP headers for VoIP calls from 40 bytes to 2 and has been an RFC since 1999.  For that matter, this patent could describe MPLS as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The claims look quite similar to compressed RTP [ ietf.org ] , which is used to shorten IP/UDP/RTP headers for VoIP calls from 40 bytes to 2 and has been an RFC since 1999 .
For that matter , this patent could describe MPLS as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claims look quite similar to compressed RTP [ietf.org], which is used to shorten IP/UDP/RTP headers for VoIP calls from 40 bytes to 2 and has been an RFC since 1999.
For that matter, this patent could describe MPLS as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310682</id>
	<title>Re:Legal System Flaw</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1259858100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, I wouldn't mind Microsoft winning...if they go about doing it by changing their position on in re Bilski.  In other words, if they go for invalidating software patents in general.  Otherwise, I would see both of them losing, not that this would be possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , I would n't mind Microsoft winning...if they go about doing it by changing their position on in re Bilski .
In other words , if they go for invalidating software patents in general .
Otherwise , I would see both of them losing , not that this would be possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, I wouldn't mind Microsoft winning...if they go about doing it by changing their position on in re Bilski.
In other words, if they go for invalidating software patents in general.
Otherwise, I would see both of them losing, not that this would be possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309886</id>
	<title>Sup Wigguhs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309994</id>
	<title>New?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this something new ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this something new ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this something new ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310314</id>
	<title>Re:Legal System Flaw</title>
	<author>jgostling</author>
	<datestamp>1259856480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prior art to when the patent was issued? Doesn't prior art need to be from before the date of the application?<br> <br>
Cheers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior art to when the patent was issued ?
Does n't prior art need to be from before the date of the application ?
Cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior art to when the patent was issued?
Doesn't prior art need to be from before the date of the application?
Cheers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311556</id>
	<title>Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1259861100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hope microsoft wins this. Of course, they will, because there's no one on earth they can't buy if they try hard enough.</p></div><p>They can only lease, not buy, the European Union.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope microsoft wins this .
Of course , they will , because there 's no one on earth they ca n't buy if they try hard enough.They can only lease , not buy , the European Union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope microsoft wins this.
Of course, they will, because there's no one on earth they can't buy if they try hard enough.They can only lease, not buy, the European Union.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312568</id>
	<title>They actually got a patent on this?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259864100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That sounds so obvious, not only have I thought of it, I believe I've implemented it in software... several times. Surely a company with the vast resources of Microsoft should be able to find some prior art to fight this with!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds so obvious , not only have I thought of it , I believe I 've implemented it in software... several times .
Surely a company with the vast resources of Microsoft should be able to find some prior art to fight this with !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds so obvious, not only have I thought of it, I believe I've implemented it in software... several times.
Surely a company with the vast resources of Microsoft should be able to find some prior art to fight this with!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309958</id>
	<title>Redjack, is that you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing I hate worse than being forced to root for Microsoft because someone else is even more evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing I hate worse than being forced to root for Microsoft because someone else is even more evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing I hate worse than being forced to root for Microsoft because someone else is even more evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30316696</id>
	<title>Re:I might be one to bash MSFT but --</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259836500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US patent system needs to be abolished and apologies issued to the entire country for wasting soo much time and treasure on rank absurdities.</p><p>Patenting the concept of length + type fields speaks for itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US patent system needs to be abolished and apologies issued to the entire country for wasting soo much time and treasure on rank absurdities.Patenting the concept of length + type fields speaks for itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US patent system needs to be abolished and apologies issued to the entire country for wasting soo much time and treasure on rank absurdities.Patenting the concept of length + type fields speaks for itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310658</id>
	<title>Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you</title>
	<author>dnahelicase</author>
	<datestamp>1259857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The goal for Implicit isn't to win this case.  Patent trolls don't want a long drawn out case, they just want to be a thorn in the M$ side.  The goal is to have someone at M$ say "x dollars to fight this is &gt; x dollars to settle".  Then Implicit gets money, they don't have to defend their patent in court (and possibly lose), the patent looks more legitimate, and they can then use those funds to go after Apple, Sun, Dell, IBM, Amazon, GE, Kraft, the NFL, the Girl Scouts, and anyone else that does business in Texas...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal for Implicit is n't to win this case .
Patent trolls do n't want a long drawn out case , they just want to be a thorn in the M $ side .
The goal is to have someone at M $ say " x dollars to fight this is &gt; x dollars to settle " .
Then Implicit gets money , they do n't have to defend their patent in court ( and possibly lose ) , the patent looks more legitimate , and they can then use those funds to go after Apple , Sun , Dell , IBM , Amazon , GE , Kraft , the NFL , the Girl Scouts , and anyone else that does business in Texas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal for Implicit isn't to win this case.
Patent trolls don't want a long drawn out case, they just want to be a thorn in the M$ side.
The goal is to have someone at M$ say "x dollars to fight this is &gt; x dollars to settle".
Then Implicit gets money, they don't have to defend their patent in court (and possibly lose), the patent looks more legitimate, and they can then use those funds to go after Apple, Sun, Dell, IBM, Amazon, GE, Kraft, the NFL, the Girl Scouts, and anyone else that does business in Texas...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309884</id>
	<title>Too funny</title>
	<author>wookychewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1259854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is so original. Wonder if these poor blokes know what they are up against. Kinda reminds me of that video where wild ferocious animals attack for food....

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKEHi2nwWw8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKEHi2nwWw8</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is so original .
Wonder if these poor blokes know what they are up against .
Kinda reminds me of that video where wild ferocious animals attack for food... . http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = SKEHi2nwWw8 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is so original.
Wonder if these poor blokes know what they are up against.
Kinda reminds me of that video where wild ferocious animals attack for food....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKEHi2nwWw8 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310962</id>
	<title>Re:cheers</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1259859120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EIther you believe in your principles, or you don't.  If you believe in your principles except when ignoring them hurts someone you don't like, you are a hypocrite.</p><p>The law protects everyone equally.  It's not ok to steal from a bully.  There is no "he needed killin'" defense (even in Texas).  If it's proper to sue MS over this patent, then it's ok to sue <i>anyone</i> who infringes this patent.</p><p>That may be something you hadn't thought of, by the way.  If this patent is as broad as many are claiming (as I've posted elsewhere I'm unconvinced, but for the sake of argument...), how confident are you that MacOS, Linux, BSD, or any other OS (or even networking product) that perhaps you <i>do</i> like isn't infringing it?  You realize that if MS can't get this patent overturned, nothing would stop the next lawsuit from landing on... maybe Apple, maybe Red Hat, or potentially even non-commercial users of infringing products?</p><p>You do what you want, but if your principles are worth a damn you'll root for a fair playing field first, and then root for the players you like on that field second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EIther you believe in your principles , or you do n't .
If you believe in your principles except when ignoring them hurts someone you do n't like , you are a hypocrite.The law protects everyone equally .
It 's not ok to steal from a bully .
There is no " he needed killin ' " defense ( even in Texas ) .
If it 's proper to sue MS over this patent , then it 's ok to sue anyone who infringes this patent.That may be something you had n't thought of , by the way .
If this patent is as broad as many are claiming ( as I 've posted elsewhere I 'm unconvinced , but for the sake of argument... ) , how confident are you that MacOS , Linux , BSD , or any other OS ( or even networking product ) that perhaps you do like is n't infringing it ?
You realize that if MS ca n't get this patent overturned , nothing would stop the next lawsuit from landing on... maybe Apple , maybe Red Hat , or potentially even non-commercial users of infringing products ? You do what you want , but if your principles are worth a damn you 'll root for a fair playing field first , and then root for the players you like on that field second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EIther you believe in your principles, or you don't.
If you believe in your principles except when ignoring them hurts someone you don't like, you are a hypocrite.The law protects everyone equally.
It's not ok to steal from a bully.
There is no "he needed killin'" defense (even in Texas).
If it's proper to sue MS over this patent, then it's ok to sue anyone who infringes this patent.That may be something you hadn't thought of, by the way.
If this patent is as broad as many are claiming (as I've posted elsewhere I'm unconvinced, but for the sake of argument...), how confident are you that MacOS, Linux, BSD, or any other OS (or even networking product) that perhaps you do like isn't infringing it?
You realize that if MS can't get this patent overturned, nothing would stop the next lawsuit from landing on... maybe Apple, maybe Red Hat, or potentially even non-commercial users of infringing products?You do what you want, but if your principles are worth a damn you'll root for a fair playing field first, and then root for the players you like on that field second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310448</id>
	<title>Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1259857140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft need to get hurt by enough of these patent trolls that they put their weight behind doing something about the broken patent system that makes things like this possible...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft need to get hurt by enough of these patent trolls that they put their weight behind doing something about the broken patent system that makes things like this possible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft need to get hurt by enough of these patent trolls that they put their weight behind doing something about the broken patent system that makes things like this possible...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310400</id>
	<title>Agreed. Microsoft lobbies for software patents.</title>
	<author>Concern</author>
	<datestamp>1259856900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they like this system so much, I'm sure they will have no problem paying out to all the patent-holders they infringe upon, according to the same idiotic legal principles they believe should protect their own works.</p><p>Of course, if any more than a handful of crooks started following these rules, that would make the software industry impossible. Not even Microsoft could ever know what they infringe. Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe, they would be lost again tomorrow, when 10,000 more patents were filed.</p><p>The only way this absurd system of legalized corporate mugging is truly going to end is when Microsoft and the other lobbyists behind it themselves lose Real Money (i.e. billions of US monopoly dollars) to other patent holders.</p><p>I am wishing Implicit all the best in their bullshit lawsuit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they like this system so much , I 'm sure they will have no problem paying out to all the patent-holders they infringe upon , according to the same idiotic legal principles they believe should protect their own works.Of course , if any more than a handful of crooks started following these rules , that would make the software industry impossible .
Not even Microsoft could ever know what they infringe .
Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe , they would be lost again tomorrow , when 10,000 more patents were filed.The only way this absurd system of legalized corporate mugging is truly going to end is when Microsoft and the other lobbyists behind it themselves lose Real Money ( i.e .
billions of US monopoly dollars ) to other patent holders.I am wishing Implicit all the best in their bullshit lawsuit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they like this system so much, I'm sure they will have no problem paying out to all the patent-holders they infringe upon, according to the same idiotic legal principles they believe should protect their own works.Of course, if any more than a handful of crooks started following these rules, that would make the software industry impossible.
Not even Microsoft could ever know what they infringe.
Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe, they would be lost again tomorrow, when 10,000 more patents were filed.The only way this absurd system of legalized corporate mugging is truly going to end is when Microsoft and the other lobbyists behind it themselves lose Real Money (i.e.
billions of US monopoly dollars) to other patent holders.I am wishing Implicit all the best in their bullshit lawsuit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30315602</id>
	<title>Is there some way they both could lose?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259832600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't sound like there's any moral high ground here at all. I propose a scenario whereby Microsoft throws enough lawyers at the case to bankrupt the patent trolls, then the FSF buys the patent at the bankruptcy auction just before prevailing in the suit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't sound like there 's any moral high ground here at all .
I propose a scenario whereby Microsoft throws enough lawyers at the case to bankrupt the patent trolls , then the FSF buys the patent at the bankruptcy auction just before prevailing in the suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't sound like there's any moral high ground here at all.
I propose a scenario whereby Microsoft throws enough lawyers at the case to bankrupt the patent trolls, then the FSF buys the patent at the bankruptcy auction just before prevailing in the suit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30317556</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this a basic design pattern in software engineering?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this a basic design pattern in software engineering ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this a basic design pattern in software engineering?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30313280</id>
	<title>on software patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people loose sight on two key thing about Patents.  (Ignoring the fact that the patents in this case most likely have Prior Art.)</p><p>
&nbsp; First, they expire a lot faster then copyrights.</p><p>secondly, they make concepts avalable to people and are one of the bedrocks for development.  If I develop a process, be a new way to mix chemicals or a new way to search a database, I as the developer have three options.</p><p>1) Say "out of the goodness of my heart, anyone can have this"<br>2) Keep it a secret, and having only my product improved.  Lets use the database, I make a database that can search 10\% faster, however, as soon as my new database is released, Microsoft and oracle will in the end use my work to figure out how it works, and then add that to my product, and my company, the one that created the innovation, will be crushed like a egg.<br>3) Patent it, I get a few years of exclusive use, or I can licence it out to other companies for a fee.   No startup, even if they have a database that searches 10\% faster, is going to be able to take on a Oracle and win, however the innovator is rewarded and the consumer gets a improved product.</p><p>Is there need to improve Software Patent law? sure, software patents need to have less time, and many of them are poor patents due to prior art.   However, if the open source community wanted to do something REALLY smart, they sould use patant law to their advantage, patent ideas developed in open source, and put them in a holding company that freely licences out it to open source software, but extracts money or prohibits close source developments from using those ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people loose sight on two key thing about Patents .
( Ignoring the fact that the patents in this case most likely have Prior Art .
)   First , they expire a lot faster then copyrights.secondly , they make concepts avalable to people and are one of the bedrocks for development .
If I develop a process , be a new way to mix chemicals or a new way to search a database , I as the developer have three options.1 ) Say " out of the goodness of my heart , anyone can have this " 2 ) Keep it a secret , and having only my product improved .
Lets use the database , I make a database that can search 10 \ % faster , however , as soon as my new database is released , Microsoft and oracle will in the end use my work to figure out how it works , and then add that to my product , and my company , the one that created the innovation , will be crushed like a egg.3 ) Patent it , I get a few years of exclusive use , or I can licence it out to other companies for a fee .
No startup , even if they have a database that searches 10 \ % faster , is going to be able to take on a Oracle and win , however the innovator is rewarded and the consumer gets a improved product.Is there need to improve Software Patent law ?
sure , software patents need to have less time , and many of them are poor patents due to prior art .
However , if the open source community wanted to do something REALLY smart , they sould use patant law to their advantage , patent ideas developed in open source , and put them in a holding company that freely licences out it to open source software , but extracts money or prohibits close source developments from using those ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people loose sight on two key thing about Patents.
(Ignoring the fact that the patents in this case most likely have Prior Art.
)
  First, they expire a lot faster then copyrights.secondly, they make concepts avalable to people and are one of the bedrocks for development.
If I develop a process, be a new way to mix chemicals or a new way to search a database, I as the developer have three options.1) Say "out of the goodness of my heart, anyone can have this"2) Keep it a secret, and having only my product improved.
Lets use the database, I make a database that can search 10\% faster, however, as soon as my new database is released, Microsoft and oracle will in the end use my work to figure out how it works, and then add that to my product, and my company, the one that created the innovation, will be crushed like a egg.3) Patent it, I get a few years of exclusive use, or I can licence it out to other companies for a fee.
No startup, even if they have a database that searches 10\% faster, is going to be able to take on a Oracle and win, however the innovator is rewarded and the consumer gets a improved product.Is there need to improve Software Patent law?
sure, software patents need to have less time, and many of them are poor patents due to prior art.
However, if the open source community wanted to do something REALLY smart, they sould use patant law to their advantage, patent ideas developed in open source, and put them in a holding company that freely licences out it to open source software, but extracts money or prohibits close source developments from using those ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310974</id>
	<title>A jury of their peers</title>
	<author>rayharris</author>
	<datestamp>1259859180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they get a jury trial, every member of the jury should be required to hold at least a Master's degree in some form of engineering. That's the only way to ensure it's a jury of their peers.</p><p>If they just pull twelve random people off the street, their eyes will glaze over in about 30 seconds and they'll vote like they were in the audience of American Idol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they get a jury trial , every member of the jury should be required to hold at least a Master 's degree in some form of engineering .
That 's the only way to ensure it 's a jury of their peers.If they just pull twelve random people off the street , their eyes will glaze over in about 30 seconds and they 'll vote like they were in the audience of American Idol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they get a jury trial, every member of the jury should be required to hold at least a Master's degree in some form of engineering.
That's the only way to ensure it's a jury of their peers.If they just pull twelve random people off the street, their eyes will glaze over in about 30 seconds and they'll vote like they were in the audience of American Idol.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310282</id>
	<title>You make your bed, now you get to sleep in it</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1259856360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has been quite the nasty little patent troll itself in the past -- I do hope they win this one, but it is always amusing to see them get a taste of their own medicine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has been quite the nasty little patent troll itself in the past -- I do hope they win this one , but it is always amusing to see them get a taste of their own medicine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has been quite the nasty little patent troll itself in the past -- I do hope they win this one, but it is always amusing to see them get a taste of their own medicine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30319024</id>
	<title>Re:trolls trolling trolls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259846220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because Microsoft is Evil(TM) doesn't mean that Implicit Networks isn't More Evil(Patent Pending).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because Microsoft is Evil ( TM ) does n't mean that Implicit Networks is n't More Evil ( Patent Pending ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because Microsoft is Evil(TM) doesn't mean that Implicit Networks isn't More Evil(Patent Pending).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30321656</id>
	<title>Re:Legal System Flaw</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1259958960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if not both, then just M$... got to make progress somewhere<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if not both , then just M $ ... got to make progress somewhere ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if not both, then just M$... got to make progress somewhere ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30315998</id>
	<title>patent half life?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259834100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>isnt there something about patents that are soposed to expire after XX number of years at which point it passes in to public domain or is that copyrights???</p><p>seems like the problem would be averted if all theses things had a time to live and at which point can not be refiled or enforced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>isnt there something about patents that are soposed to expire after XX number of years at which point it passes in to public domain or is that copyrights ? ?
? seems like the problem would be averted if all theses things had a time to live and at which point can not be refiled or enforced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isnt there something about patents that are soposed to expire after XX number of years at which point it passes in to public domain or is that copyrights??
?seems like the problem would be averted if all theses things had a time to live and at which point can not be refiled or enforced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311774</id>
	<title>Nobody Wins the Dairy Challenge!</title>
	<author>vom.Zorn</author>
	<datestamp>1259861760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember kids, NO ONE wins the Dairy Challenge... <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV6In1K8zKk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV6In1K8zKk</a> [youtube.com] [fast forward to 3:00 mins in]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember kids , NO ONE wins the Dairy Challenge... http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = VV6In1K8zKk [ youtube.com ] [ fast forward to 3 : 00 mins in ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember kids, NO ONE wins the Dairy Challenge... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV6In1K8zKk [youtube.com] [fast forward to 3:00 mins in]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30323958</id>
	<title>Re:Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259943420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If MSFT buys them, MSFT loses because the slimey owners are still laughing all the way to the bank.</p><p>If there were a use it or lose it rule built into the patent system, it might prevent some of this. Although I try not to under estimate the truly intelligent scammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If MSFT buys them , MSFT loses because the slimey owners are still laughing all the way to the bank.If there were a use it or lose it rule built into the patent system , it might prevent some of this .
Although I try not to under estimate the truly intelligent scammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If MSFT buys them, MSFT loses because the slimey owners are still laughing all the way to the bank.If there were a use it or lose it rule built into the patent system, it might prevent some of this.
Although I try not to under estimate the truly intelligent scammers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310796</id>
	<title>Frivolous Lawsuits</title>
	<author>LiteralKa</author>
	<datestamp>1259858520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just afraid I'll find a finger in my CPU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just afraid I 'll find a finger in my CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just afraid I'll find a finger in my CPU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312936</id>
	<title>Re:I'll start cheering for Microsoft...</title>
	<author>darknetone</author>
	<datestamp>1259865420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cheer for Microsoft, not!

They produce a really crappy product, Windows. However Office (Word, Excel, Power Point are good Access is OK and Visio was purchased technology).

They lie, cheat and steal.

They infringe upon patents.

They try to force your business to knuckle under and follow suit else they take away your contractual right pre-install windows.

They have claimed to have invented that which they did not invent.

The have monopolized the computing industry in such a way as to stifle growth and competition.

They buy up companies who produce better competing products.

They do not honor technology sharing agreements.

They tried to force the world to use their version of Java.

They tried to ram IE down our throats.

They his and lie about vulnerabilities and they don't want the public to know about them.

They...

No I seriously do not feel bad for nor do I cheer for Microsoft.

I am not a PC I am a Penguin, I have bee using computers since before PC's were around and I have seen and experienced the BS of MS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheer for Microsoft , not !
They produce a really crappy product , Windows .
However Office ( Word , Excel , Power Point are good Access is OK and Visio was purchased technology ) .
They lie , cheat and steal .
They infringe upon patents .
They try to force your business to knuckle under and follow suit else they take away your contractual right pre-install windows .
They have claimed to have invented that which they did not invent .
The have monopolized the computing industry in such a way as to stifle growth and competition .
They buy up companies who produce better competing products .
They do not honor technology sharing agreements .
They tried to force the world to use their version of Java .
They tried to ram IE down our throats .
They his and lie about vulnerabilities and they do n't want the public to know about them .
They.. . No I seriously do not feel bad for nor do I cheer for Microsoft .
I am not a PC I am a Penguin , I have bee using computers since before PC 's were around and I have seen and experienced the BS of MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheer for Microsoft, not!
They produce a really crappy product, Windows.
However Office (Word, Excel, Power Point are good Access is OK and Visio was purchased technology).
They lie, cheat and steal.
They infringe upon patents.
They try to force your business to knuckle under and follow suit else they take away your contractual right pre-install windows.
They have claimed to have invented that which they did not invent.
The have monopolized the computing industry in such a way as to stifle growth and competition.
They buy up companies who produce better competing products.
They do not honor technology sharing agreements.
They tried to force the world to use their version of Java.
They tried to ram IE down our throats.
They his and lie about vulnerabilities and they don't want the public to know about them.
They...

No I seriously do not feel bad for nor do I cheer for Microsoft.
I am not a PC I am a Penguin, I have bee using computers since before PC's were around and I have seen and experienced the BS of MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310674</id>
	<title>pop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*<br>*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*<br>*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*<br>*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*</p><p>The sound of 10000 slashdotters heads exploding as they try to figure out who to cheer for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * * pop * pop * pop * bang * hiss * BANG * pop * BOOM * pop * The sound of 10000 slashdotters heads exploding as they try to figure out who to cheer for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop**BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss**BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM**pop*pop*pop*bang*hiss*BANG*pop*BOOM*pop*The sound of 10000 slashdotters heads exploding as they try to figure out who to cheer for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309986</id>
	<title>No Texas</title>
	<author>Voulnet</author>
	<datestamp>1259854920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just stop Implicit from reaching Texas...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just stop Implicit from reaching Texas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just stop Implicit from reaching Texas...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311160</id>
	<title>Karma!</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1259859780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations MS, you are now getting your just deserts after what you pulled on Tom Tom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations MS , you are now getting your just deserts after what you pulled on Tom Tom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations MS, you are now getting your just deserts after what you pulled on Tom Tom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309954</id>
	<title>Nope.</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1259854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't make me root for Microsoft. I hope they lose, and the jury awards the other guys an infinite amount of money. Maybe then we'll see some reform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't make me root for Microsoft .
I hope they lose , and the jury awards the other guys an infinite amount of money .
Maybe then we 'll see some reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't make me root for Microsoft.
I hope they lose, and the jury awards the other guys an infinite amount of money.
Maybe then we'll see some reform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311114</id>
	<title>MNG does that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The MNG animation format, published in February 2001, does that.  Images (composed of a sequence of chunks) can be reused rather than being retransmitted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The MNG animation format , published in February 2001 , does that .
Images ( composed of a sequence of chunks ) can be reused rather than being retransmitted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The MNG animation format, published in February 2001, does that.
Images (composed of a sequence of chunks) can be reused rather than being retransmitted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310418</id>
	<title>Re:Nope.</title>
	<author>Sanity</author>
	<datestamp>1259856960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are an idiot.  If anyone is worse than Microsoft it is these patent trolls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are an idiot .
If anyone is worse than Microsoft it is these patent trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are an idiot.
If anyone is worse than Microsoft it is these patent trolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310342</id>
	<title>Re:Legal System Flaw</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1259856660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow I know *we'll* lose!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I know * we 'll * lose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I know *we'll* lose!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310454</id>
	<title>cheers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259857140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time</p></div><p>Please don't tell me what I want to do. Thank you.</p><p>Some people deserve what they get, even if I wouldn't wish it on anyone else. Patent trolls are abominations, but so is Microsoft, and which of them is the worse one is strictly a judgement call.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this timePlease do n't tell me what I want to do .
Thank you.Some people deserve what they get , even if I would n't wish it on anyone else .
Patent trolls are abominations , but so is Microsoft , and which of them is the worse one is strictly a judgement call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this timePlease don't tell me what I want to do.
Thank you.Some people deserve what they get, even if I wouldn't wish it on anyone else.
Patent trolls are abominations, but so is Microsoft, and which of them is the worse one is strictly a judgement call.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309930</id>
	<title>trolls trolling trolls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>hard to choose which is the less evil side</htmltext>
<tokenext>hard to choose which is the less evil side</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hard to choose which is the less evil side</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310014</id>
	<title>I might be one to bash MSFT but --</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-- this patent is bogus.</p><p>De-multiplexing has been around for a long time (circa late 60s or early 70s).</p><p>But, even with that out of the way, the patent is basically describing getting offset data after the de-multiplexing to then get at the data.</p><p>Both have gobs of prior art in their own rights. As well as this being obvious to anyone skilled in the areas of communications and programming.</p><p>The patent office needs a spanking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-- this patent is bogus.De-multiplexing has been around for a long time ( circa late 60s or early 70s ) .But , even with that out of the way , the patent is basically describing getting offset data after the de-multiplexing to then get at the data.Both have gobs of prior art in their own rights .
As well as this being obvious to anyone skilled in the areas of communications and programming.The patent office needs a spanking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-- this patent is bogus.De-multiplexing has been around for a long time (circa late 60s or early 70s).But, even with that out of the way, the patent is basically describing getting offset data after the de-multiplexing to then get at the data.Both have gobs of prior art in their own rights.
As well as this being obvious to anyone skilled in the areas of communications and programming.The patent office needs a spanking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310840</id>
	<title>Re:Legal System Flaw</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1259858700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before: one of these litigants has to win. If only *both* could lose...</p></div><p>That's really not true.  I've seen plenty of cases where everybody loses, including the lawyers. (If you think that's not possible, it's because you've never had to try to collect legitimate fees from a broke client.  I only wish I could get paid for 100\% of my time.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before : one of these litigants has to win .
If only * both * could lose...That 's really not true .
I 've seen plenty of cases where everybody loses , including the lawyers .
( If you think that 's not possible , it 's because you 've never had to try to collect legitimate fees from a broke client .
I only wish I could get paid for 100 \ % of my time .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never noticed this flaw in US legal system before: one of these litigants has to win.
If only *both* could lose...That's really not true.
I've seen plenty of cases where everybody loses, including the lawyers.
(If you think that's not possible, it's because you've never had to try to collect legitimate fees from a broke client.
I only wish I could get paid for 100\% of my time.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312554</id>
	<title>Re:cheers</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1259864100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>
It's not a matter of principles. MS should be treated fairly under the law <b>they themselves lobby for</b>.</p><p>
And, eventually, they will lose horribly on some idiotic bogus patent (As the law itself is setup to do.), and reconsider their stance of software patents.</p><p>
It is not hypocritical to want everyone to get a pass under an unjust law....except the people who are pushing for said law. Who then <b>presumably</b> realize how dumb the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It 's not a matter of principles .
MS should be treated fairly under the law they themselves lobby for .
And , eventually , they will lose horribly on some idiotic bogus patent ( As the law itself is setup to do .
) , and reconsider their stance of software patents .
It is not hypocritical to want everyone to get a pass under an unjust law....except the people who are pushing for said law .
Who then presumably realize how dumb the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It's not a matter of principles.
MS should be treated fairly under the law they themselves lobby for.
And, eventually, they will lose horribly on some idiotic bogus patent (As the law itself is setup to do.
), and reconsider their stance of software patents.
It is not hypocritical to want everyone to get a pass under an unjust law....except the people who are pushing for said law.
Who then presumably realize how dumb the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310468</id>
	<title>Re:Legal System Flaw</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1259857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, if you look up the AT&amp;T v. BSD *nix lawsuits, both were found to have infringed on each other, forcing both parties to basically cross-license their stuff and call it a loss (which turned out to be a pretty solid win for those of us out here in Geekdom).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if you look up the AT&amp;T v. BSD * nix lawsuits , both were found to have infringed on each other , forcing both parties to basically cross-license their stuff and call it a loss ( which turned out to be a pretty solid win for those of us out here in Geekdom ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if you look up the AT&amp;T v. BSD *nix lawsuits, both were found to have infringed on each other, forcing both parties to basically cross-license their stuff and call it a loss (which turned out to be a pretty solid win for those of us out here in Geekdom).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30317054</id>
	<title>don't tell me what I want to do</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259837640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I'm neither cheering for Microsoft nor for Implicit... I'm just watching with a bowl of popcorn...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company ( troll ) and has done battle with Sun , AMD , Intel and NVIDIA .
I 'm neither cheering for Microsoft nor for Implicit... I 'm just watching with a bowl of popcorn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll) and has done battle with Sun, AMD, Intel and NVIDIA.
I'm neither cheering for Microsoft nor for Implicit... I'm just watching with a bowl of popcorn...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892</id>
	<title>Go Microsoft, Believe in me who believes in you</title>
	<author>Dadamh</author>
	<datestamp>1259854320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously though, I dislike patent squatting.
<p>
These folks delay technology advancement and don't actually produce anything themselves.
</p><p>
I hope microsoft wins this.  Of course, they will, because there's no one on earth they can't buy if they try hard enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously though , I dislike patent squatting .
These folks delay technology advancement and do n't actually produce anything themselves .
I hope microsoft wins this .
Of course , they will , because there 's no one on earth they ca n't buy if they try hard enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously though, I dislike patent squatting.
These folks delay technology advancement and don't actually produce anything themselves.
I hope microsoft wins this.
Of course, they will, because there's no one on earth they can't buy if they try hard enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30313832</id>
	<title>I'm gonna file a patent</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1259868540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for the method of granting idiotic patents, then sue the USPTO into oblivion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for the method of granting idiotic patents , then sue the USPTO into oblivion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the method of granting idiotic patents, then sue the USPTO into oblivion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310094</id>
	<title>Re:Legal System Flaw</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259855400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's possible to have a "no winner" situation if MS can show prior art existed before the patent was issued, and then the judge will nullify the patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's possible to have a " no winner " situation if MS can show prior art existed before the patent was issued , and then the judge will nullify the patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's possible to have a "no winner" situation if MS can show prior art existed before the patent was issued, and then the judge will nullify the patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312588</id>
	<title>Re:Patentable?</title>
	<author>Tired and Emotional</author>
	<datestamp>1259864160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed - lets look at that:

What is claimed is:

&gt; 1. A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets, the method &gt; comprising:

&gt;  providing a plurality of components, each component being a software routine for converting data &gt;  with an input format into data with an output format;

Every file convertor ever written does this part. Nothing new here.

&gt;  for the first packet of the message,

This is standard patentese - it does not mean anything

&gt;  identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the
&gt;  output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in
&gt;  the sequence; and

So, this is claiming the ability to recognize a sequence of components that need to run to do the conversion from the first packet. But this is just a function of the input data. It just means the data is "flat" in some sense. Absolutely nothing new here.

&gt;  storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to
&gt;  be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message; and
&gt;  for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence,
&gt;  for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence,
&gt;  retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the &gt;   &gt;  previous packet of the message;

So this looks like a claim on software pipelining. You do a bit of processing, save some state, and send the data on its way. There must be hundreds of uses of this prior to 1999. Its probably even in the textbooks in 1999.

&gt;  performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information; and
&gt;  storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message

Well, yeah, how else would you do it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed - lets look at that : What is claimed is : &gt; 1 .
A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets , the method &gt; comprising : &gt; providing a plurality of components , each component being a software routine for converting data &gt; with an input format into data with an output format ; Every file convertor ever written does this part .
Nothing new here .
&gt; for the first packet of the message , This is standard patentese - it does not mean anything &gt; identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the &gt; output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in &gt; the sequence ; and So , this is claiming the ability to recognize a sequence of components that need to run to do the conversion from the first packet .
But this is just a function of the input data .
It just means the data is " flat " in some sense .
Absolutely nothing new here .
&gt; storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to &gt; be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message ; and &gt; for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence , &gt; for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence , &gt; retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the &gt; &gt; previous packet of the message ; So this looks like a claim on software pipelining .
You do a bit of processing , save some state , and send the data on its way .
There must be hundreds of uses of this prior to 1999 .
Its probably even in the textbooks in 1999 .
&gt; performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information ; and &gt; storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message Well , yeah , how else would you do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed - lets look at that:

What is claimed is:

&gt; 1.
A method in a computer system for processing a message having a sequence of packets, the method &gt; comprising:

&gt;  providing a plurality of components, each component being a software routine for converting data &gt;  with an input format into data with an output format;

Every file convertor ever written does this part.
Nothing new here.
&gt;  for the first packet of the message,

This is standard patentese - it does not mean anything

&gt;  identifying a sequence of components for processing the packets of the message such that the
&gt;  output format of the components of the sequence match the input format of the next component in
&gt;  the sequence; and

So, this is claiming the ability to recognize a sequence of components that need to run to do the conversion from the first packet.
But this is just a function of the input data.
It just means the data is "flat" in some sense.
Absolutely nothing new here.
&gt;  storing an indication of each of the identified components so that the sequence does not need to
&gt;  be re-identified for subsequent packets of the message; and
&gt;  for each of a plurality of packets of the message in sequence,
&gt;  for each of a plurality of components in the identified sequence,
&gt;  retrieving state information relating to performing the processing of the component with the &gt;   &gt;  previous packet of the message;

So this looks like a claim on software pipelining.
You do a bit of processing, save some state, and send the data on its way.
There must be hundreds of uses of this prior to 1999.
Its probably even in the textbooks in 1999.
&gt;  performing the processing of the identified component with the packet and the retrieved state information; and
&gt;  storing state information relating to the processing of the component with the packet for use when processing the next packet of the message

Well, yeah, how else would you do it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310714</id>
	<title>what!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1259858220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll)<br>Actually no, seeing as M$ does the exact same thing as they do, and have been know to force shut downs of companies that directly infringed on these patents, instead of giving them a possible pay out scheme.</p><p>I say, M$ needs to get what they give, and learn a lesson from it, so I actually root for Implicit to win, but not because I think Implicit is right, but more so, because M$ is dead wrong so many times, they need to feel it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company ( troll ) Actually no , seeing as M $ does the exact same thing as they do , and have been know to force shut downs of companies that directly infringed on these patents , instead of giving them a possible pay out scheme.I say , M $ needs to get what they give , and learn a lesson from it , so I actually root for Implicit to win , but not because I think Implicit is right , but more so , because M $ is dead wrong so many times , they need to feel it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;you actually want to cheer for Microsoft this time as Implicit is nothing more than a patent licensing company (troll)Actually no, seeing as M$ does the exact same thing as they do, and have been know to force shut downs of companies that directly infringed on these patents, instead of giving them a possible pay out scheme.I say, M$ needs to get what they give, and learn a lesson from it, so I actually root for Implicit to win, but not because I think Implicit is right, but more so, because M$ is dead wrong so many times, they need to feel it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30321990</id>
	<title>Re:cheers</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1259921400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>EIther you believe in your principles, or you don't. If you believe in your principles except when ignoring them hurts someone you don't like, you are a hypocrite.</p></div><p>Then I am that, because I believe that principles are for people who find life too confusing to re-align their beliefs every now and then. Reality changes constantly. Adaptation is quite a useful thing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The law protects everyone equally. It's not ok to steal from a bully. There is no "he needed killin'" defense (even in Texas). If it's proper to sue MS over this patent, then it's ok to sue anyone who infringes this patent.</p></div><p>Yes, it is. And as I said: Patent trolls are an abomination. And <b>still</b> I can't find myself feeling sorry for Microsoft. Because what is "proper" and what is <b>right</b> are sometimes different things, and not easily encoded into law. Yes, there is no "he needed killing" defense, and rightly so, because the legal system is easily gamed. But in real-life courts - and I've been to real-life courts up to the highest levels so I know a little about what I'm talking about - it exists. Judges, especially in the higher courts, do make these judgement calls and then look how the law needs to be applied to justify them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>EIther you believe in your principles , or you do n't .
If you believe in your principles except when ignoring them hurts someone you do n't like , you are a hypocrite.Then I am that , because I believe that principles are for people who find life too confusing to re-align their beliefs every now and then .
Reality changes constantly .
Adaptation is quite a useful thing.The law protects everyone equally .
It 's not ok to steal from a bully .
There is no " he needed killin ' " defense ( even in Texas ) .
If it 's proper to sue MS over this patent , then it 's ok to sue anyone who infringes this patent.Yes , it is .
And as I said : Patent trolls are an abomination .
And still I ca n't find myself feeling sorry for Microsoft .
Because what is " proper " and what is right are sometimes different things , and not easily encoded into law .
Yes , there is no " he needed killing " defense , and rightly so , because the legal system is easily gamed .
But in real-life courts - and I 've been to real-life courts up to the highest levels so I know a little about what I 'm talking about - it exists .
Judges , especially in the higher courts , do make these judgement calls and then look how the law needs to be applied to justify them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EIther you believe in your principles, or you don't.
If you believe in your principles except when ignoring them hurts someone you don't like, you are a hypocrite.Then I am that, because I believe that principles are for people who find life too confusing to re-align their beliefs every now and then.
Reality changes constantly.
Adaptation is quite a useful thing.The law protects everyone equally.
It's not ok to steal from a bully.
There is no "he needed killin'" defense (even in Texas).
If it's proper to sue MS over this patent, then it's ok to sue anyone who infringes this patent.Yes, it is.
And as I said: Patent trolls are an abomination.
And still I can't find myself feeling sorry for Microsoft.
Because what is "proper" and what is right are sometimes different things, and not easily encoded into law.
Yes, there is no "he needed killing" defense, and rightly so, because the legal system is easily gamed.
But in real-life courts - and I've been to real-life courts up to the highest levels so I know a little about what I'm talking about - it exists.
Judges, especially in the higher courts, do make these judgement calls and then look how the law needs to be applied to justify them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311112</id>
	<title>Sorry but...</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1259859660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really dont (ever) want to cheer for Microsoft. I mean they jumped right onboard and we're one of the pioneers of the whole "patents as a weapon" thing. Actually I'm pleased they got hit. What goes around comes around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really dont ( ever ) want to cheer for Microsoft .
I mean they jumped right onboard and we 're one of the pioneers of the whole " patents as a weapon " thing .
Actually I 'm pleased they got hit .
What goes around comes around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really dont (ever) want to cheer for Microsoft.
I mean they jumped right onboard and we're one of the pioneers of the whole "patents as a weapon" thing.
Actually I'm pleased they got hit.
What goes around comes around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310012</id>
	<title>Not cheering at all</title>
	<author>Errol backfiring</author>
	<datestamp>1259854980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NO patent case makes me cheer for anybody.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NO patent case makes me cheer for anybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO patent case makes me cheer for anybody.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311126</id>
	<title>Live by the sword, die by the sword</title>
	<author>Tony</author>
	<datestamp>1259859720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, I *don't* want to cheer for Microsoft. Or Sun. Or Apple. Or IBM. Or even Red Hat (much).</p><p>Any company that holds software patents and has not worked to eliminate software patents is complicit in this fucked-up mess. This is especially true of any company that has attempted to enforce their software patents (I'm lookin' at you, Microsoft, IBM, Tivoli, Oracle, and any number of other companies).</p><p>Yes, patent trolls are the scum of the earth, right there with spammers and people who use off-ramps and shoulders as passing lanes. But those companies that hold software patents and do not fight to eliminate software patents are part of the problem; those that hold software patents and have actively fought to maintain the current system are even worse.</p><p>So fuck 'em both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I * do n't * want to cheer for Microsoft .
Or Sun .
Or Apple .
Or IBM .
Or even Red Hat ( much ) .Any company that holds software patents and has not worked to eliminate software patents is complicit in this fucked-up mess .
This is especially true of any company that has attempted to enforce their software patents ( I 'm lookin ' at you , Microsoft , IBM , Tivoli , Oracle , and any number of other companies ) .Yes , patent trolls are the scum of the earth , right there with spammers and people who use off-ramps and shoulders as passing lanes .
But those companies that hold software patents and do not fight to eliminate software patents are part of the problem ; those that hold software patents and have actively fought to maintain the current system are even worse.So fuck 'em both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I *don't* want to cheer for Microsoft.
Or Sun.
Or Apple.
Or IBM.
Or even Red Hat (much).Any company that holds software patents and has not worked to eliminate software patents is complicit in this fucked-up mess.
This is especially true of any company that has attempted to enforce their software patents (I'm lookin' at you, Microsoft, IBM, Tivoli, Oracle, and any number of other companies).Yes, patent trolls are the scum of the earth, right there with spammers and people who use off-ramps and shoulders as passing lanes.
But those companies that hold software patents and do not fight to eliminate software patents are part of the problem; those that hold software patents and have actively fought to maintain the current system are even worse.So fuck 'em both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30321656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30323958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30321990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30319024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30317556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30313498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30316696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30326724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30316432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_140218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30316432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30326724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30313498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30317556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30316696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30319024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30314780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30323958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30311556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30321656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30309946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_140218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30310962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30312554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_140218.30321990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
