<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_2321226</id>
	<title>HP Patents Bignum Implementation From 1912</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262617260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.ffii.org/" rel="nofollow">I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property</a> writes <i>"The authors of GMP (the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library) were <a href="http://www.wikipatents.com/7523150.html-1">invited to join Peer-to-Patent</a> to review HP's recent patent on a <a href="http://www.wikipatents.com/7523150.html-1">very old technique for implementing bignums</a> because their software might infringe. Basically, HP's patent claims choosing an exponent based on processor word size. If you choose a 4-bit word size and a binary number, you end up working in hexadecimal. Or for a computer with a 16-bit word and a base-10 number, you use base 10,000 so that each digit of the base-10,000 number would fit into a single 16-bit word. The obvious problem with that is that there's plenty of prior art here. Someone who <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&amp;sid=20100101143741478&amp;title=The+patent+on+Hexadecimal&amp;type=article&amp;order=&amp;hideanonymous=0&amp;pid=811129#c811304">spent a few minutes Googling</a> found that Knuth describing the idea in TAOCP Vol. 2 and <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/2298483">other citations go back to 1912</a> (which implemented the same algorithm using strips of cardboard and a calculating machine). None of this can be found in the 'references cited' section. Even though the patent examiner did add a couple of references, they appear to have cited some old patents. The patent issued a few months ago was filed back in October of 2004, and collected dust at the USPTO for some 834 days."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Do n't Believe in Imaginary Property writes " The authors of GMP ( the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library ) were invited to join Peer-to-Patent to review HP 's recent patent on a very old technique for implementing bignums because their software might infringe .
Basically , HP 's patent claims choosing an exponent based on processor word size .
If you choose a 4-bit word size and a binary number , you end up working in hexadecimal .
Or for a computer with a 16-bit word and a base-10 number , you use base 10,000 so that each digit of the base-10,000 number would fit into a single 16-bit word .
The obvious problem with that is that there 's plenty of prior art here .
Someone who spent a few minutes Googling found that Knuth describing the idea in TAOCP Vol .
2 and other citations go back to 1912 ( which implemented the same algorithm using strips of cardboard and a calculating machine ) .
None of this can be found in the 'references cited ' section .
Even though the patent examiner did add a couple of references , they appear to have cited some old patents .
The patent issued a few months ago was filed back in October of 2004 , and collected dust at the USPTO for some 834 days .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The authors of GMP (the GNU Multiple Precision Arithmetic Library) were invited to join Peer-to-Patent to review HP's recent patent on a very old technique for implementing bignums because their software might infringe.
Basically, HP's patent claims choosing an exponent based on processor word size.
If you choose a 4-bit word size and a binary number, you end up working in hexadecimal.
Or for a computer with a 16-bit word and a base-10 number, you use base 10,000 so that each digit of the base-10,000 number would fit into a single 16-bit word.
The obvious problem with that is that there's plenty of prior art here.
Someone who spent a few minutes Googling found that Knuth describing the idea in TAOCP Vol.
2 and other citations go back to 1912 (which implemented the same algorithm using strips of cardboard and a calculating machine).
None of this can be found in the 'references cited' section.
Even though the patent examiner did add a couple of references, they appear to have cited some old patents.
The patent issued a few months ago was filed back in October of 2004, and collected dust at the USPTO for some 834 days.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651488</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262629020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I prefer that would-be patent applicants have to post their patents in a comment, so the dupes can be modded... -1, Redundant,  by a computer scientist with mod points<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer that would-be patent applicants have to post their patents in a comment , so the dupes can be modded... -1 , Redundant , by a computer scientist with mod points : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I prefer that would-be patent applicants have to post their patents in a comment, so the dupes can be modded... -1, Redundant,  by a computer scientist with mod points :)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656284</id>
	<title>Re:Now if we only knew what the patent was about!</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1262712900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually, the summary explains the whole thing</i></p><p>My comment is a reflection on the emprical fact that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. patent stories almost never accurately summarize the claims--which are the only part of the patent that has legal teeth.  Almost every patent-related story on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has a long list of outraged replies from people who think that the summary has something to do with the patent, followed by an explanation from someone who has bothered to read and understand the claims as to why the summary is false, followed by a bunch of replies to the tune of "well so what the system sucks anyway!"</p><p>It gets tiresome, and I thought it would be fun to try to short-circuit the process.</p><p>If you've checked the actual claims in the patent itself and verified that the summary accurately reflects them, fair enough.  If you've taken the summary at face value then you have a very high probability of not knowing anything about the what has actually been patented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the summary explains the whole thingMy comment is a reflection on the emprical fact that / .
patent stories almost never accurately summarize the claims--which are the only part of the patent that has legal teeth .
Almost every patent-related story on / .
has a long list of outraged replies from people who think that the summary has something to do with the patent , followed by an explanation from someone who has bothered to read and understand the claims as to why the summary is false , followed by a bunch of replies to the tune of " well so what the system sucks anyway !
" It gets tiresome , and I thought it would be fun to try to short-circuit the process.If you 've checked the actual claims in the patent itself and verified that the summary accurately reflects them , fair enough .
If you 've taken the summary at face value then you have a very high probability of not knowing anything about the what has actually been patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the summary explains the whole thingMy comment is a reflection on the emprical fact that /.
patent stories almost never accurately summarize the claims--which are the only part of the patent that has legal teeth.
Almost every patent-related story on /.
has a long list of outraged replies from people who think that the summary has something to do with the patent, followed by an explanation from someone who has bothered to read and understand the claims as to why the summary is false, followed by a bunch of replies to the tune of "well so what the system sucks anyway!
"It gets tiresome, and I thought it would be fun to try to short-circuit the process.If you've checked the actual claims in the patent itself and verified that the summary accurately reflects them, fair enough.
If you've taken the summary at face value then you have a very high probability of not knowing anything about the what has actually been patented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656424</id>
	<title>Re:Now if we only knew what the patent was about!</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1262713380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually, the summary explains the whole thing:</i></p><p>Scrolling down a bit I find this story is in fact that other routine kind of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. falsehood:  a patent application being reported as a patent grant.</p><p>So while in this case the summary does more-or-less accurately reflect the claims, it lies when it says HP has a patent on those claims.  It has nothing of the kind, nor is there any reason to believe it ever will.</p><p>So if by "explaining the whole thing" you mean "misleads the reader into believing falsehoods that fundamentally change the sense of the facts purportedly being reported" I'll grant your point.  Otherwise, not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the summary explains the whole thing : Scrolling down a bit I find this story is in fact that other routine kind of / .
falsehood : a patent application being reported as a patent grant.So while in this case the summary does more-or-less accurately reflect the claims , it lies when it says HP has a patent on those claims .
It has nothing of the kind , nor is there any reason to believe it ever will.So if by " explaining the whole thing " you mean " misleads the reader into believing falsehoods that fundamentally change the sense of the facts purportedly being reported " I 'll grant your point .
Otherwise , not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the summary explains the whole thing:Scrolling down a bit I find this story is in fact that other routine kind of /.
falsehood:  a patent application being reported as a patent grant.So while in this case the summary does more-or-less accurately reflect the claims, it lies when it says HP has a patent on those claims.
It has nothing of the kind, nor is there any reason to believe it ever will.So if by "explaining the whole thing" you mean "misleads the reader into believing falsehoods that fundamentally change the sense of the facts purportedly being reported" I'll grant your point.
Otherwise, not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650666</id>
	<title>Re:Now if we only knew what the patent was about!</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262622120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wish the summary said something about what the patent was about.</p></div><p>Actually, the summary explains the whole thing:</p><blockquote><div><p>Basically, HP's patent claims choosing an exponent based on processor word size. If you choose a 4-bit word size and a binary number, you end up working in hexadecimal. Or for a computer with a 16-bit word and a base-10 number, you use base 10,000 so that each digit of the base-10,000 number would fit into a single 16-bit word. </p></div> </blockquote><p>It's okay if you don't understand the explanation, but perhaps you should try <em>reading</em> the summary before complaining about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the summary said something about what the patent was about.Actually , the summary explains the whole thing : Basically , HP 's patent claims choosing an exponent based on processor word size .
If you choose a 4-bit word size and a binary number , you end up working in hexadecimal .
Or for a computer with a 16-bit word and a base-10 number , you use base 10,000 so that each digit of the base-10,000 number would fit into a single 16-bit word .
It 's okay if you do n't understand the explanation , but perhaps you should try reading the summary before complaining about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the summary said something about what the patent was about.Actually, the summary explains the whole thing:Basically, HP's patent claims choosing an exponent based on processor word size.
If you choose a 4-bit word size and a binary number, you end up working in hexadecimal.
Or for a computer with a 16-bit word and a base-10 number, you use base 10,000 so that each digit of the base-10,000 number would fit into a single 16-bit word.
It's okay if you don't understand the explanation, but perhaps you should try reading the summary before complaining about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651410</id>
	<title>"Someone who spent a few minutes Googling"...</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1262628360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... but doesn't understand what he's reading. From the summary's link:<p><div class="quote"><p>They claim one thing that they repeat three times. What they claim is converting a string of digits...<br>
The claims repeat this, first for "a method of operating a processor having a processor word size" to do the sectioning and converting each section. Then they say the same thing but don't call the sectioning a separate step, i.e., going through the input string N digits at a time as there is no reason to actually do a sectioning step. And third they repeat the wording of the first one but call it "a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for controlling a processor" instead of "a method of operating a processor", but otherwise just repeat all the same words.</p></div><p>... and that right there identifies the author as not understanding patent law.  If he were to focus on the technical aspects, he may have some authority, but he clearly doesn't understand what he's actually criticizing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but does n't understand what he 's reading .
From the summary 's link : They claim one thing that they repeat three times .
What they claim is converting a string of digits.. . The claims repeat this , first for " a method of operating a processor having a processor word size " to do the sectioning and converting each section .
Then they say the same thing but do n't call the sectioning a separate step , i.e. , going through the input string N digits at a time as there is no reason to actually do a sectioning step .
And third they repeat the wording of the first one but call it " a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for controlling a processor " instead of " a method of operating a processor " , but otherwise just repeat all the same words.... and that right there identifies the author as not understanding patent law .
If he were to focus on the technical aspects , he may have some authority , but he clearly does n't understand what he 's actually criticizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but doesn't understand what he's reading.
From the summary's link:They claim one thing that they repeat three times.
What they claim is converting a string of digits...
The claims repeat this, first for "a method of operating a processor having a processor word size" to do the sectioning and converting each section.
Then they say the same thing but don't call the sectioning a separate step, i.e., going through the input string N digits at a time as there is no reason to actually do a sectioning step.
And third they repeat the wording of the first one but call it "a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for controlling a processor" instead of "a method of operating a processor", but otherwise just repeat all the same words.... and that right there identifies the author as not understanding patent law.
If he were to focus on the technical aspects, he may have some authority, but he clearly doesn't understand what he's actually criticizing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30662352</id>
	<title>Re:Now if we only knew what the patent was about!</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1262693520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you had comprehension skills, you'd be able to ascertain that it relates to an implementation of an arbitrary precision numerics engine</i></p><p>What is this "it" of which you speak?  The summary and headline talk about a patent, but there is no patent, only a patent application.  I didn't realize this when I made my comment because following up on patent stories on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is a waste of time, for pretty much the reasons I describe:  they are always false.</p><p>In this case the summary happens to have described the claims more-or-less accurately, but is completely misleading with regard to the nature of the document.  It is not a patent, and the headline is simply false.</p><p>I'm not sure why you or anyone else is all worked up about this patent application.  Anyone can apply to patent anything, including hundred-year-old techniques, and patent examiners routinely reject them.</p><p>Why all the beating of chests and gnashing of teeth about that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had comprehension skills , you 'd be able to ascertain that it relates to an implementation of an arbitrary precision numerics engineWhat is this " it " of which you speak ?
The summary and headline talk about a patent , but there is no patent , only a patent application .
I did n't realize this when I made my comment because following up on patent stories on / .
is a waste of time , for pretty much the reasons I describe : they are always false.In this case the summary happens to have described the claims more-or-less accurately , but is completely misleading with regard to the nature of the document .
It is not a patent , and the headline is simply false.I 'm not sure why you or anyone else is all worked up about this patent application .
Anyone can apply to patent anything , including hundred-year-old techniques , and patent examiners routinely reject them.Why all the beating of chests and gnashing of teeth about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had comprehension skills, you'd be able to ascertain that it relates to an implementation of an arbitrary precision numerics engineWhat is this "it" of which you speak?
The summary and headline talk about a patent, but there is no patent, only a patent application.
I didn't realize this when I made my comment because following up on patent stories on /.
is a waste of time, for pretty much the reasons I describe:  they are always false.In this case the summary happens to have described the claims more-or-less accurately, but is completely misleading with regard to the nature of the document.
It is not a patent, and the headline is simply false.I'm not sure why you or anyone else is all worked up about this patent application.
Anyone can apply to patent anything, including hundred-year-old techniques, and patent examiners routinely reject them.Why all the beating of chests and gnashing of teeth about that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568</id>
	<title>What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1262621220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how many of these blatant abuses actually get overturned?</p><p>In particular, is there any way sanity can enter the process without having to challenge it in court?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how many of these blatant abuses actually get overturned ? In particular , is there any way sanity can enter the process without having to challenge it in court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how many of these blatant abuses actually get overturned?In particular, is there any way sanity can enter the process without having to challenge it in court?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654844</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks.</title>
	<author>paladin217</author>
	<datestamp>1262707140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, HP shouldn't try patenting this...</p></div></blockquote><p>

In my time at the USPTO, I noticed that HP took the phrase <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/447/303/case.html" title="justia.com" rel="nofollow">"anything under the sun made by man"</a> [justia.com] to the extreme and tried to patent <em>everything</em> under the sun made by man in every patent app filed.  Each case was an absolute battle to get them to claim what they really invented.  If the examiner wasn't willing to fight it out on the case, he or she could have just easily said "Screw it! They won't try to enforce it anyway..." and just allowed the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , HP should n't try patenting this.. . In my time at the USPTO , I noticed that HP took the phrase " anything under the sun made by man " [ justia.com ] to the extreme and tried to patent everything under the sun made by man in every patent app filed .
Each case was an absolute battle to get them to claim what they really invented .
If the examiner was n't willing to fight it out on the case , he or she could have just easily said " Screw it !
They wo n't try to enforce it anyway... " and just allowed the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, HP shouldn't try patenting this...

In my time at the USPTO, I noticed that HP took the phrase "anything under the sun made by man" [justia.com] to the extreme and tried to patent everything under the sun made by man in every patent app filed.
Each case was an absolute battle to get them to claim what they really invented.
If the examiner wasn't willing to fight it out on the case, he or she could have just easily said "Screw it!
They won't try to enforce it anyway..." and just allowed the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650534</id>
	<title>CmdrTaco Has A Tiny Penis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CmdrTaco patents having a 2 inch penis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CmdrTaco patents having a 2 inch penis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CmdrTaco patents having a 2 inch penis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651458</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>quantumplacet</author>
	<datestamp>1262628780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citations needed]</p><p>very badly since you seem to be the only person on the entire internet to have ever heard any of these stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citations needed ] very badly since you seem to be the only person on the entire internet to have ever heard any of these stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citations needed]very badly since you seem to be the only person on the entire internet to have ever heard any of these stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651356</id>
	<title>Re:WikiPatents? Good idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262627820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm thinking this would be very useful in the patent approval process, not just after the fact. Suppose it worked like this: The second you file a patent, it would be published. Before it could be approved, it would have to be public for some length of time, during which anyone could present prior art or arguments for "obviousness".</p></div><p>That's brilliant. Why, change "the second" to "within 18 months after" and you just described the USPTO. All patent applications are published and public for some length of time before approval, during which anyone can present prior art or arguments for "obviousness".</p><p>
You knew that, right? I mean, you're not just griping about something without actually researching it, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking this would be very useful in the patent approval process , not just after the fact .
Suppose it worked like this : The second you file a patent , it would be published .
Before it could be approved , it would have to be public for some length of time , during which anyone could present prior art or arguments for " obviousness " .That 's brilliant .
Why , change " the second " to " within 18 months after " and you just described the USPTO .
All patent applications are published and public for some length of time before approval , during which anyone can present prior art or arguments for " obviousness " .
You knew that , right ?
I mean , you 're not just griping about something without actually researching it , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking this would be very useful in the patent approval process, not just after the fact.
Suppose it worked like this: The second you file a patent, it would be published.
Before it could be approved, it would have to be public for some length of time, during which anyone could present prior art or arguments for "obviousness".That's brilliant.
Why, change "the second" to "within 18 months after" and you just described the USPTO.
All patent applications are published and public for some length of time before approval, during which anyone can present prior art or arguments for "obviousness".
You knew that, right?
I mean, you're not just griping about something without actually researching it, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652860</id>
	<title>Re:CmdrTaco Has A Tiny Penis</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1262687580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Truly laughing for the guy who moderated your statement as "Redundant"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Truly laughing for the guy who moderated your statement as " Redundant "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truly laughing for the guy who moderated your statement as "Redundant"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650788</id>
	<title>10,000???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10,000???  Turn in your geek card now.
Don't understand why it should be turned in?  Well,
there are 10 types of people...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10,000 ? ? ?
Turn in your geek card now .
Do n't understand why it should be turned in ?
Well , there are 10 types of people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10,000???
Turn in your geek card now.
Don't understand why it should be turned in?
Well,
there are 10 types of people...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653654</id>
	<title>The GMP mailing list discussion is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262698800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...<a href="http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2009-December/date.html" title="gmplib.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [gmplib.org] and <a href="http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2010-January/date.html" title="gmplib.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [gmplib.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...here [ gmplib.org ] and here [ gmplib.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...here [gmplib.org] and here [gmplib.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656666</id>
	<title>Re:Suggested standard for patent reviews</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1262714280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If finding that prior art took less than 2 hours of Googling by a PhD in the field, the inspector is shot.</p></div><p>You want to shoot someone who probably has zero experience with the field the patent is in, who probably has much less than 2 hours per patent (that's only 4 patents a day, which the various patent articles over the years seem to imply is much less than patent inspectors are expected to review in a single day)?<br>
<br>
Not saying it's right or wrong that a patent inspector inspects patents under those circumstances, just that it isn't nice to "shoot the messenger" as could probably be said about your proposed solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If finding that prior art took less than 2 hours of Googling by a PhD in the field , the inspector is shot.You want to shoot someone who probably has zero experience with the field the patent is in , who probably has much less than 2 hours per patent ( that 's only 4 patents a day , which the various patent articles over the years seem to imply is much less than patent inspectors are expected to review in a single day ) ?
Not saying it 's right or wrong that a patent inspector inspects patents under those circumstances , just that it is n't nice to " shoot the messenger " as could probably be said about your proposed solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If finding that prior art took less than 2 hours of Googling by a PhD in the field, the inspector is shot.You want to shoot someone who probably has zero experience with the field the patent is in, who probably has much less than 2 hours per patent (that's only 4 patents a day, which the various patent articles over the years seem to imply is much less than patent inspectors are expected to review in a single day)?
Not saying it's right or wrong that a patent inspector inspects patents under those circumstances, just that it isn't nice to "shoot the messenger" as could probably be said about your proposed solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650688</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1262622240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have the patent office add a Slashcode forum so commenters from the peanut gallery can yell:</p><p>DUPE!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have the patent office add a Slashcode forum so commenters from the peanut gallery can yell : DUPE ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have the patent office add a Slashcode forum so commenters from the peanut gallery can yell:DUPE!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652726</id>
	<title>Overloading is a factor, it's not "the" cause</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1262686380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As other posts noted, patent examination isn't about verifying whether a patent application is in fact novel.
<p>
Instead it's about seeing if a patent examiner, who must approve a certain number of patents per week or be fired (!), can spot any obvious prior art (read: "previous patents on the same subject") in the time budgeted for examination. Which is about 10-30 minutes apart from doing the paperwork retrieve and to file a patent claim and scan for existing patents.
</p><p>
The USPTO largely relies on the public to conduct in-depth tests of patents (through court action).
</p><p>
This probably isn't by malicious design, but it's a direct consequence of the USPTO being self-financing (and indeed a profit center) from patent application fees and being mandated by congress to remain that way. Our collective wisdom has probed the alternatives and settled for this particular solution.
</p><p>
Of course the USPTO could be instructed to change its priorities and conduct rigorous and in-depth patent examinations. Only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we (or our elected representatives) aren't willing to pay the price, which is a few billion $ extra per year from here on out to employ large swathes of new patent examiners.
</p><p>
If you find that strange, I'm with you. Only don't tell me it's by an act of God that all kinds of stupid patents are granted. We're doing that to ourselves (if only by proxy).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As other posts noted , patent examination is n't about verifying whether a patent application is in fact novel .
Instead it 's about seeing if a patent examiner , who must approve a certain number of patents per week or be fired ( !
) , can spot any obvious prior art ( read : " previous patents on the same subject " ) in the time budgeted for examination .
Which is about 10-30 minutes apart from doing the paperwork retrieve and to file a patent claim and scan for existing patents .
The USPTO largely relies on the public to conduct in-depth tests of patents ( through court action ) .
This probably is n't by malicious design , but it 's a direct consequence of the USPTO being self-financing ( and indeed a profit center ) from patent application fees and being mandated by congress to remain that way .
Our collective wisdom has probed the alternatives and settled for this particular solution .
Of course the USPTO could be instructed to change its priorities and conduct rigorous and in-depth patent examinations .
Only ... we ( or our elected representatives ) are n't willing to pay the price , which is a few billion $ extra per year from here on out to employ large swathes of new patent examiners .
If you find that strange , I 'm with you .
Only do n't tell me it 's by an act of God that all kinds of stupid patents are granted .
We 're doing that to ourselves ( if only by proxy ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As other posts noted, patent examination isn't about verifying whether a patent application is in fact novel.
Instead it's about seeing if a patent examiner, who must approve a certain number of patents per week or be fired (!
), can spot any obvious prior art (read: "previous patents on the same subject") in the time budgeted for examination.
Which is about 10-30 minutes apart from doing the paperwork retrieve and to file a patent claim and scan for existing patents.
The USPTO largely relies on the public to conduct in-depth tests of patents (through court action).
This probably isn't by malicious design, but it's a direct consequence of the USPTO being self-financing (and indeed a profit center) from patent application fees and being mandated by congress to remain that way.
Our collective wisdom has probed the alternatives and settled for this particular solution.
Of course the USPTO could be instructed to change its priorities and conduct rigorous and in-depth patent examinations.
Only ... we (or our elected representatives) aren't willing to pay the price, which is a few billion $ extra per year from here on out to employ large swathes of new patent examiners.
If you find that strange, I'm with you.
Only don't tell me it's by an act of God that all kinds of stupid patents are granted.
We're doing that to ourselves (if only by proxy).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650664</id>
	<title>Re:Now if we only knew what the patent was about!</title>
	<author>\_merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1262622060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had comprehension skills, you'd be able to ascertain that it relates to an implementation of an arbitrary precision numerics engine, a la GNU MultiPrecision (aka GMP).  The technique has been around for close to a century, if not longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had comprehension skills , you 'd be able to ascertain that it relates to an implementation of an arbitrary precision numerics engine , a la GNU MultiPrecision ( aka GMP ) .
The technique has been around for close to a century , if not longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had comprehension skills, you'd be able to ascertain that it relates to an implementation of an arbitrary precision numerics engine, a la GNU MultiPrecision (aka GMP).
The technique has been around for close to a century, if not longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652534</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1262684220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C'mon. They are world leader in printer ink cartridge lifetime shortening and protection from copying technology.</p><p>Wasn't that them who invented scanner-printer devices that refuse to scan if you don't have ink?<br>Wasn't that them who invented ink level permanent kill switch to prevent refilling?<br>Wasn't that them who invented disabling cartridges based on number of pages printed, ink level notwithstanding?<br>Wasn't that them who invented printer cartridges with built in clock and killswitch to disable full cartridges after specified date?</p><p>Who was first to create full C+M+Y+K cartridges so that if you run out of black, printing papers, you have to dump all the color ink as well?</p><p>Unfortunately Lexmark beat them to use code of a program as authentication key for a cartridge to sue anyone authenticating their cartridges using the same key under DMCA for copying their code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon .
They are world leader in printer ink cartridge lifetime shortening and protection from copying technology.Was n't that them who invented scanner-printer devices that refuse to scan if you do n't have ink ? Was n't that them who invented ink level permanent kill switch to prevent refilling ? Was n't that them who invented disabling cartridges based on number of pages printed , ink level notwithstanding ? Was n't that them who invented printer cartridges with built in clock and killswitch to disable full cartridges after specified date ? Who was first to create full C + M + Y + K cartridges so that if you run out of black , printing papers , you have to dump all the color ink as well ? Unfortunately Lexmark beat them to use code of a program as authentication key for a cartridge to sue anyone authenticating their cartridges using the same key under DMCA for copying their code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon.
They are world leader in printer ink cartridge lifetime shortening and protection from copying technology.Wasn't that them who invented scanner-printer devices that refuse to scan if you don't have ink?Wasn't that them who invented ink level permanent kill switch to prevent refilling?Wasn't that them who invented disabling cartridges based on number of pages printed, ink level notwithstanding?Wasn't that them who invented printer cartridges with built in clock and killswitch to disable full cartridges after specified date?Who was first to create full C+M+Y+K cartridges so that if you run out of black, printing papers, you have to dump all the color ink as well?Unfortunately Lexmark beat them to use code of a program as authentication key for a cartridge to sue anyone authenticating their cartridges using the same key under DMCA for copying their code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650858</id>
	<title>I'm waiting</title>
	<author>Grand Facade</author>
	<datestamp>1262623500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm waiting for Al Gore to patent the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for Al Gore to patent the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for Al Gore to patent the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30655214</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1262708820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is another reason to patent something besides to sue people.<br>It is to keep you from getting sued. If you own the patent of something then it is a lot harder to get sued when some "IP" holding company patents something that you have been doing for years.<br>In the industry I work in an IP company got a patent on sending text over a serial connection to a terminal.  It didn't matter that several companies had been doing that for years in this industry. The IP company didn't go after any of the software companies in the industry they went after our customers.  One of them finally stood up and fought the patient and we and our competitors then helped them get the patent over turned.<br>Now we patent just about every new innovation we can. Not to sue anybody but to protect ourselves and our customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another reason to patent something besides to sue people.It is to keep you from getting sued .
If you own the patent of something then it is a lot harder to get sued when some " IP " holding company patents something that you have been doing for years.In the industry I work in an IP company got a patent on sending text over a serial connection to a terminal .
It did n't matter that several companies had been doing that for years in this industry .
The IP company did n't go after any of the software companies in the industry they went after our customers .
One of them finally stood up and fought the patient and we and our competitors then helped them get the patent over turned.Now we patent just about every new innovation we can .
Not to sue anybody but to protect ourselves and our customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another reason to patent something besides to sue people.It is to keep you from getting sued.
If you own the patent of something then it is a lot harder to get sued when some "IP" holding company patents something that you have been doing for years.In the industry I work in an IP company got a patent on sending text over a serial connection to a terminal.
It didn't matter that several companies had been doing that for years in this industry.
The IP company didn't go after any of the software companies in the industry they went after our customers.
One of them finally stood up and fought the patient and we and our competitors then helped them get the patent over turned.Now we patent just about every new innovation we can.
Not to sue anybody but to protect ourselves and our customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1262626860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sanity has never been part of the US patent process. Here's some pre-computer examples.</p><p>1. An inventor was able to patent a design for mule shaped bookends, while another was denied a patent on a mule shaped balloon. The Patent Office ruled that sawing a brass mule in half was non-obvious and original, while blowing up a rubber mule wasn't. In a similar area, dying coal blue wasn't novel, but dying coal blue with your company logo was.</p><p>2. Aspirin was patented well after a similar process for making Salicylic Acid on an industrial scale was. The office decided, with no precidents, that making the same chemical in pure enough form that it was safe for medicinal use was novel. When challenged on it, the USPO said they were going through a bottle a day deciding patent claims and were not about to reject rewarding this claim no matter what the law said.</p><p>3. A patent was once denied on a chemical process because that chemical was already mentioned in industry literature from more than a year before. The problem? What the literature said was: "It is impossible to synthesize chemical X. No one will ever do it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sanity has never been part of the US patent process .
Here 's some pre-computer examples.1 .
An inventor was able to patent a design for mule shaped bookends , while another was denied a patent on a mule shaped balloon .
The Patent Office ruled that sawing a brass mule in half was non-obvious and original , while blowing up a rubber mule was n't .
In a similar area , dying coal blue was n't novel , but dying coal blue with your company logo was.2 .
Aspirin was patented well after a similar process for making Salicylic Acid on an industrial scale was .
The office decided , with no precidents , that making the same chemical in pure enough form that it was safe for medicinal use was novel .
When challenged on it , the USPO said they were going through a bottle a day deciding patent claims and were not about to reject rewarding this claim no matter what the law said.3 .
A patent was once denied on a chemical process because that chemical was already mentioned in industry literature from more than a year before .
The problem ?
What the literature said was : " It is impossible to synthesize chemical X. No one will ever do it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sanity has never been part of the US patent process.
Here's some pre-computer examples.1.
An inventor was able to patent a design for mule shaped bookends, while another was denied a patent on a mule shaped balloon.
The Patent Office ruled that sawing a brass mule in half was non-obvious and original, while blowing up a rubber mule wasn't.
In a similar area, dying coal blue wasn't novel, but dying coal blue with your company logo was.2.
Aspirin was patented well after a similar process for making Salicylic Acid on an industrial scale was.
The office decided, with no precidents, that making the same chemical in pure enough form that it was safe for medicinal use was novel.
When challenged on it, the USPO said they were going through a bottle a day deciding patent claims and were not about to reject rewarding this claim no matter what the law said.3.
A patent was once denied on a chemical process because that chemical was already mentioned in industry literature from more than a year before.
The problem?
What the literature said was: "It is impossible to synthesize chemical X. No one will ever do it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651358</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1262627880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It comes right down to the process is overloaded.  We don't put enough people and energy into maintaining the patent system and it is geared solely toward protecting large industry and business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It comes right down to the process is overloaded .
We do n't put enough people and energy into maintaining the patent system and it is geared solely toward protecting large industry and business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It comes right down to the process is overloaded.
We don't put enough people and energy into maintaining the patent system and it is geared solely toward protecting large industry and business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653266</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1262693280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More relevantly, does the patent process serve society as it now exists? The process was invented about three centuries ago, when the pace of progress was much slower and research tools were much weaker, so that it was plausible to protect at least some inventions (e.g. industrial processes) by keeping them secret. It intended to protect society against two ills: people not bothering to make or exploit inventions because they would be ripped off by others, and people keeping inventions secret to they were not as widely exploited as would be useful for society.</p><p>Both of these reasons are much weaker in our current technological age. People generally manage to make quite a fair amount out of things that not patentable. While they do, of course, apply for patents, in many cases they would still product their products without patent protection - and even with patent protection, copiers often find ways round the protection. And reverse engineering is often good enough to bypass the secrecy approach: while your product may be difficult to reverse engineer, I think it would be unwise to depend upon that.</p><p>I would not deny that the patent system provides some means of protecting and rewarding genuine inventors. But I question whether the cost of the system is worth the benefit it brings in today's technological world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More relevantly , does the patent process serve society as it now exists ?
The process was invented about three centuries ago , when the pace of progress was much slower and research tools were much weaker , so that it was plausible to protect at least some inventions ( e.g .
industrial processes ) by keeping them secret .
It intended to protect society against two ills : people not bothering to make or exploit inventions because they would be ripped off by others , and people keeping inventions secret to they were not as widely exploited as would be useful for society.Both of these reasons are much weaker in our current technological age .
People generally manage to make quite a fair amount out of things that not patentable .
While they do , of course , apply for patents , in many cases they would still product their products without patent protection - and even with patent protection , copiers often find ways round the protection .
And reverse engineering is often good enough to bypass the secrecy approach : while your product may be difficult to reverse engineer , I think it would be unwise to depend upon that.I would not deny that the patent system provides some means of protecting and rewarding genuine inventors .
But I question whether the cost of the system is worth the benefit it brings in today 's technological world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More relevantly, does the patent process serve society as it now exists?
The process was invented about three centuries ago, when the pace of progress was much slower and research tools were much weaker, so that it was plausible to protect at least some inventions (e.g.
industrial processes) by keeping them secret.
It intended to protect society against two ills: people not bothering to make or exploit inventions because they would be ripped off by others, and people keeping inventions secret to they were not as widely exploited as would be useful for society.Both of these reasons are much weaker in our current technological age.
People generally manage to make quite a fair amount out of things that not patentable.
While they do, of course, apply for patents, in many cases they would still product their products without patent protection - and even with patent protection, copiers often find ways round the protection.
And reverse engineering is often good enough to bypass the secrecy approach: while your product may be difficult to reverse engineer, I think it would be unwise to depend upon that.I would not deny that the patent system provides some means of protecting and rewarding genuine inventors.
But I question whether the cost of the system is worth the benefit it brings in today's technological world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654950</id>
	<title>Re:Approve them all and let the courts sort em out</title>
	<author>paladin217</author>
	<datestamp>1262707680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, it is.  The general thinking among some examiners is that the bigger companies mostly get patents defensively (i.e. to stop others from suing them with the threat of a big patent portfolio).  They see it as harmless to let something like this out because a patent like this would likely be used against another company with enough money to shoot it down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it is .
The general thinking among some examiners is that the bigger companies mostly get patents defensively ( i.e .
to stop others from suing them with the threat of a big patent portfolio ) .
They see it as harmless to let something like this out because a patent like this would likely be used against another company with enough money to shoot it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it is.
The general thinking among some examiners is that the bigger companies mostly get patents defensively (i.e.
to stop others from suing them with the threat of a big patent portfolio).
They see it as harmless to let something like this out because a patent like this would likely be used against another company with enough money to shoot it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30655966</id>
	<title>HP could use it in this HP LCD I have</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262711760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently HP could use this in the HP LCD I'm using, which shows 99999 backlight hours (even though the display was manufactured less than a year ago).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently HP could use this in the HP LCD I 'm using , which shows 99999 backlight hours ( even though the display was manufactured less than a year ago ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently HP could use this in the HP LCD I'm using, which shows 99999 backlight hours (even though the display was manufactured less than a year ago).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30658992</id>
	<title>I object to this joke due to prior art.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262722740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every right-winger in the last ten years has made this joke, so it's played out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every right-winger in the last ten years has made this joke , so it 's played out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every right-winger in the last ten years has made this joke, so it's played out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650856</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>sg\_oneill</author>
	<datestamp>1262623500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not the dupe guys they fear, its penisbird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not the dupe guys they fear , its penisbird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not the dupe guys they fear, its penisbird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651474</id>
	<title>Nice</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1262628960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's so much easier to be a patent troll if you patent stuff that's already been invented. I don't think HP actually makes... things... these days. The only thing I've seen out of them in recent days is crappy IT outsourcing and lawsuits. I'd have thought super-expensive ink would have been more profitable than any of the above, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's so much easier to be a patent troll if you patent stuff that 's already been invented .
I do n't think HP actually makes... things... these days .
The only thing I 've seen out of them in recent days is crappy IT outsourcing and lawsuits .
I 'd have thought super-expensive ink would have been more profitable than any of the above , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's so much easier to be a patent troll if you patent stuff that's already been invented.
I don't think HP actually makes... things... these days.
The only thing I've seen out of them in recent days is crappy IT outsourcing and lawsuits.
I'd have thought super-expensive ink would have been more profitable than any of the above, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650578</id>
	<title>Now if we only knew what the patent was about!</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1262621280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish the summary said something about what the patent was about.  I guess I'll check back in a few hours and scroll down to read the explanation that someone who has actually bothered to read and understand the claims has posted--I can't be bothered to be that guy this time, but I'm sure someone else will do it.</p><p>Just think, if<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. summaries on these stories bothered to tell us what the patent was about we could all be spared that effort, but we all know from long experience that they don't, so there's no point in responding to the summary with outrage unless you want to look like a completely newless clewbie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the summary said something about what the patent was about .
I guess I 'll check back in a few hours and scroll down to read the explanation that someone who has actually bothered to read and understand the claims has posted--I ca n't be bothered to be that guy this time , but I 'm sure someone else will do it.Just think , if / .
summaries on these stories bothered to tell us what the patent was about we could all be spared that effort , but we all know from long experience that they do n't , so there 's no point in responding to the summary with outrage unless you want to look like a completely newless clewbie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the summary said something about what the patent was about.
I guess I'll check back in a few hours and scroll down to read the explanation that someone who has actually bothered to read and understand the claims has posted--I can't be bothered to be that guy this time, but I'm sure someone else will do it.Just think, if /.
summaries on these stories bothered to tell us what the patent was about we could all be spared that effort, but we all know from long experience that they don't, so there's no point in responding to the summary with outrage unless you want to look like a completely newless clewbie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652794</id>
	<title>Re:Newbie mistake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Never use a big word when a diminutive word will do." (One of my Greek prof's quotes for the day.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Never use a big word when a diminutive word will do .
" ( One of my Greek prof 's quotes for the day .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Never use a big word when a diminutive word will do.
" (One of my Greek prof's quotes for the day.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651262</id>
	<title>Re:WikiPatents? Good idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as long as Jimbo isn't involved.  Fuck him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>as long as Jimbo is n't involved .
Fuck him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as long as Jimbo isn't involved.
Fuck him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652134</id>
	<title>Re:WikiPatents? Good idea!</title>
	<author>dasmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262722860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do know the patent system sucks not only for companies being trolled, but also for inventors right? There are so many big companies infringing on the little guys who just don't have the resources to fight. Even if they did fight, they could be labeled trolls because they don't have the capital to produce their idea. Publishing the patent before approved could give big companies two years of royalty free access to their idea, making it so that everyone already has widget x and doesn't need one anymore, or the goodwill has been created for company x's widget being the best. The patent system sucks from both sides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do know the patent system sucks not only for companies being trolled , but also for inventors right ?
There are so many big companies infringing on the little guys who just do n't have the resources to fight .
Even if they did fight , they could be labeled trolls because they do n't have the capital to produce their idea .
Publishing the patent before approved could give big companies two years of royalty free access to their idea , making it so that everyone already has widget x and does n't need one anymore , or the goodwill has been created for company x 's widget being the best .
The patent system sucks from both sides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do know the patent system sucks not only for companies being trolled, but also for inventors right?
There are so many big companies infringing on the little guys who just don't have the resources to fight.
Even if they did fight, they could be labeled trolls because they don't have the capital to produce their idea.
Publishing the patent before approved could give big companies two years of royalty free access to their idea, making it so that everyone already has widget x and doesn't need one anymore, or the goodwill has been created for company x's widget being the best.
The patent system sucks from both sides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653674</id>
	<title>BigNum?</title>
	<author>Frankie70</author>
	<datestamp>1262699100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome this.</p><p>HP's bignum is based on regular numbers which I patented a few years back.<br>So HP would have to license my patent to do anything useful with their patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome this.HP 's bignum is based on regular numbers which I patented a few years back.So HP would have to license my patent to do anything useful with their patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome this.HP's bignum is based on regular numbers which I patented a few years back.So HP would have to license my patent to do anything useful with their patent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653964</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait to you see my patent.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262702100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Oh yes.. and my patent on trigonometric functions.. [...] And PI itself...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I think you mean copyright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes.. and my patent on trigonometric functions.. [ ... ] And PI itself.. . I think you mean copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Oh yes.. and my patent on trigonometric functions.. [...] And PI itself...
I think you mean copyright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650602</id>
	<title>WikiPatents? Good idea!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is the first time I've heard of WikiPatents at all, and I don't think it's been featured on the front page yet.</p><p>I'm thinking this would be very useful in the patent approval process, not just after the fact. Suppose it worked like this: The second you file a patent, it would be published. Before it could be approved, it would have to be public for some length of time, during which anyone could present prior art or arguments for "obviousness".</p><p>On the other hand, I think they're being entirely too kind. From <a href="http://wikipatents.com/faq" title="wikipatents.com">their FAQ</a> [wikipatents.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Patent Examiners do an excellent job reviewing patents in the limited amount of time they are allotted to review patents. However, no single individual can accumulate all of the most relevant information to review a patent within 10 hours, 100 hours, or even 1,000 hours.</p></div><p>On the other hand, based on the "quality" of the patents which get through (like this one!), it really doesn't seem like Patent Examiners even bother to Google it before approving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is the first time I 've heard of WikiPatents at all , and I do n't think it 's been featured on the front page yet.I 'm thinking this would be very useful in the patent approval process , not just after the fact .
Suppose it worked like this : The second you file a patent , it would be published .
Before it could be approved , it would have to be public for some length of time , during which anyone could present prior art or arguments for " obviousness " .On the other hand , I think they 're being entirely too kind .
From their FAQ [ wikipatents.com ] : Patent Examiners do an excellent job reviewing patents in the limited amount of time they are allotted to review patents .
However , no single individual can accumulate all of the most relevant information to review a patent within 10 hours , 100 hours , or even 1,000 hours.On the other hand , based on the " quality " of the patents which get through ( like this one !
) , it really does n't seem like Patent Examiners even bother to Google it before approving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is the first time I've heard of WikiPatents at all, and I don't think it's been featured on the front page yet.I'm thinking this would be very useful in the patent approval process, not just after the fact.
Suppose it worked like this: The second you file a patent, it would be published.
Before it could be approved, it would have to be public for some length of time, during which anyone could present prior art or arguments for "obviousness".On the other hand, I think they're being entirely too kind.
From their FAQ [wikipatents.com]:Patent Examiners do an excellent job reviewing patents in the limited amount of time they are allotted to review patents.
However, no single individual can accumulate all of the most relevant information to review a patent within 10 hours, 100 hours, or even 1,000 hours.On the other hand, based on the "quality" of the patents which get through (like this one!
), it really doesn't seem like Patent Examiners even bother to Google it before approving.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654426</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1262705160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm largely convinced that the USPTO is doing much harder stuff than a bottle of Asprin per day, based on the experience I've had up to this point with the system (And I HAVE had experience, based on prior filings done by myself...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm largely convinced that the USPTO is doing much harder stuff than a bottle of Asprin per day , based on the experience I 've had up to this point with the system ( And I HAVE had experience , based on prior filings done by myself... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm largely convinced that the USPTO is doing much harder stuff than a bottle of Asprin per day, based on the experience I've had up to this point with the system (And I HAVE had experience, based on prior filings done by myself...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654110</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess that there is some good news in this article. The patent hasn't been issued yet, it is only being reviewed right now. And this review is accomplishing what it is meant to: showing that the patent claim is ridiculous.</p></div><p>Wrong: according to <a href="http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7523150/description.html" title="patentstorm.us" rel="nofollow">this</a> [patentstorm.us], the patent has been issued April 21, 2009.</p><p>BTW, the GMP mailing list discussion can be read <a href="http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2009-December/date.html" title="gmplib.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [gmplib.org] and <a href="http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2010-January/date.html" title="gmplib.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [gmplib.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that there is some good news in this article .
The patent has n't been issued yet , it is only being reviewed right now .
And this review is accomplishing what it is meant to : showing that the patent claim is ridiculous.Wrong : according to this [ patentstorm.us ] , the patent has been issued April 21 , 2009.BTW , the GMP mailing list discussion can be read here [ gmplib.org ] and here [ gmplib.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that there is some good news in this article.
The patent hasn't been issued yet, it is only being reviewed right now.
And this review is accomplishing what it is meant to: showing that the patent claim is ridiculous.Wrong: according to this [patentstorm.us], the patent has been issued April 21, 2009.BTW, the GMP mailing list discussion can be read here [gmplib.org] and here [gmplib.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651028</id>
	<title>PostgreSQL did this ten years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PostgreSQL starting storing NUMERIC columns in base 10000 six or <a href="http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/release-7-4.html" title="postgresql.org">seven</a> [postgresql.org] years ago.  A nice trick, but not exactly rocket science.  If you have a high school level education in computer science, you should know how to do stuff like this.  Maybe that is what the patent examiners need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PostgreSQL starting storing NUMERIC columns in base 10000 six or seven [ postgresql.org ] years ago .
A nice trick , but not exactly rocket science .
If you have a high school level education in computer science , you should know how to do stuff like this .
Maybe that is what the patent examiners need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PostgreSQL starting storing NUMERIC columns in base 10000 six or seven [postgresql.org] years ago.
A nice trick, but not exactly rocket science.
If you have a high school level education in computer science, you should know how to do stuff like this.
Maybe that is what the patent examiners need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651560</id>
	<title>I did the same thing</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1262629860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to have a VAX assembly program called "er1e9", which computed e using base 1,000,000,000 numbers (which fit into 32-bit integers).  I wrote that in the late 80's, and still have it around somewhere.  Multiplying and dividing using the VAX instructions was fairly trivial with that format up to arbitrary lengths.  It's a pretty obvious optimization, or at least it was for a college kid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have a VAX assembly program called " er1e9 " , which computed e using base 1,000,000,000 numbers ( which fit into 32-bit integers ) .
I wrote that in the late 80 's , and still have it around somewhere .
Multiplying and dividing using the VAX instructions was fairly trivial with that format up to arbitrary lengths .
It 's a pretty obvious optimization , or at least it was for a college kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to have a VAX assembly program called "er1e9", which computed e using base 1,000,000,000 numbers (which fit into 32-bit integers).
I wrote that in the late 80's, and still have it around somewhere.
Multiplying and dividing using the VAX instructions was fairly trivial with that format up to arbitrary lengths.
It's a pretty obvious optimization, or at least it was for a college kid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653604</id>
	<title>That is what you get with limited budgets</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1262698140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say you are a developer and don't get enough funds for a project. Do you then
</p><p>A: do your job in your own time because quality is everything
</p><p>B: code what you can and shove the bugs/problems off to the next person in line?
</p><p>They are passing the buck because they don't have enough money to do the process properly, with so many patents being applied in a world that has ever more existing material, the job size increases each day. In the dawn of human history the job was easy, get patent application #2, check if it conflicts with patent #1 and isn't fire, then grant it. Bit harder these days.
</p><p>So more money is needed, that ain't available, so the problem is shoved on to someone else.
</p><p>Same with other things, not enough jails, release the criminals early and shove the problem onto someone else. Not enough mental wards, lock the mental patients in regular jails, overfilling them etc etc.
</p><p>And all because you want a 300 dollar tax rebate you spend in a day.
</p><p>People want top grade government for cut-rate taxes. Don't happen in the real world, only in election promises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say you are a developer and do n't get enough funds for a project .
Do you then A : do your job in your own time because quality is everything B : code what you can and shove the bugs/problems off to the next person in line ?
They are passing the buck because they do n't have enough money to do the process properly , with so many patents being applied in a world that has ever more existing material , the job size increases each day .
In the dawn of human history the job was easy , get patent application # 2 , check if it conflicts with patent # 1 and is n't fire , then grant it .
Bit harder these days .
So more money is needed , that ai n't available , so the problem is shoved on to someone else .
Same with other things , not enough jails , release the criminals early and shove the problem onto someone else .
Not enough mental wards , lock the mental patients in regular jails , overfilling them etc etc .
And all because you want a 300 dollar tax rebate you spend in a day .
People want top grade government for cut-rate taxes .
Do n't happen in the real world , only in election promises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say you are a developer and don't get enough funds for a project.
Do you then
A: do your job in your own time because quality is everything
B: code what you can and shove the bugs/problems off to the next person in line?
They are passing the buck because they don't have enough money to do the process properly, with so many patents being applied in a world that has ever more existing material, the job size increases each day.
In the dawn of human history the job was easy, get patent application #2, check if it conflicts with patent #1 and isn't fire, then grant it.
Bit harder these days.
So more money is needed, that ain't available, so the problem is shoved on to someone else.
Same with other things, not enough jails, release the criminals early and shove the problem onto someone else.
Not enough mental wards, lock the mental patients in regular jails, overfilling them etc etc.
And all because you want a 300 dollar tax rebate you spend in a day.
People want top grade government for cut-rate taxes.
Don't happen in the real world, only in election promises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650824</id>
	<title>Approve them all and let the courts sort em out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That seems to be the USPTO's over-riding theory.  Approve all the patents and then if people want to scream prior art, let them scream it to a judge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems to be the USPTO 's over-riding theory .
Approve all the patents and then if people want to scream prior art , let them scream it to a judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems to be the USPTO's over-riding theory.
Approve all the patents and then if people want to scream prior art, let them scream it to a judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652226</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1262723880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That essentially means that the patent office is a bunch of morons where people ends up when they for some reason can't get a productive job but still can't be put into unemployment since it would make the government look bad.</p><p>Maybe it's time to invalidate all patents and start over with a new set of rules for patents. Let a patent be valid for at most 12 months from the date of the application. That would keep competition on it's edge.</p><p>Today too many man-hours are wasted on patents and the process around patents. Enough to delay progress instead of promoting progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That essentially means that the patent office is a bunch of morons where people ends up when they for some reason ca n't get a productive job but still ca n't be put into unemployment since it would make the government look bad.Maybe it 's time to invalidate all patents and start over with a new set of rules for patents .
Let a patent be valid for at most 12 months from the date of the application .
That would keep competition on it 's edge.Today too many man-hours are wasted on patents and the process around patents .
Enough to delay progress instead of promoting progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That essentially means that the patent office is a bunch of morons where people ends up when they for some reason can't get a productive job but still can't be put into unemployment since it would make the government look bad.Maybe it's time to invalidate all patents and start over with a new set of rules for patents.
Let a patent be valid for at most 12 months from the date of the application.
That would keep competition on it's edge.Today too many man-hours are wasted on patents and the process around patents.
Enough to delay progress instead of promoting progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652516</id>
	<title>FTP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262683920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck the patent police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the patent police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the patent police.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584</id>
	<title>Put down the pitchforks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that there is some good news in this article. The patent hasn't been issued yet, it is only being reviewed right now. And this review is accomplishing what it is meant to: showing that the patent claim is ridiculous. Yeah, HP shouldn't try patenting this, and the USPTO probably should have thrown this away in November of 2004, but still it was caught and (hopefully) won't be issued. The system is working, kinda, and this patent at least will hopefully not be issued. We will only need to get out the torches and pitchforks if the USPTO grants this patent anyways despite the outcry and prior art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that there is some good news in this article .
The patent has n't been issued yet , it is only being reviewed right now .
And this review is accomplishing what it is meant to : showing that the patent claim is ridiculous .
Yeah , HP should n't try patenting this , and the USPTO probably should have thrown this away in November of 2004 , but still it was caught and ( hopefully ) wo n't be issued .
The system is working , kinda , and this patent at least will hopefully not be issued .
We will only need to get out the torches and pitchforks if the USPTO grants this patent anyways despite the outcry and prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that there is some good news in this article.
The patent hasn't been issued yet, it is only being reviewed right now.
And this review is accomplishing what it is meant to: showing that the patent claim is ridiculous.
Yeah, HP shouldn't try patenting this, and the USPTO probably should have thrown this away in November of 2004, but still it was caught and (hopefully) won't be issued.
The system is working, kinda, and this patent at least will hopefully not be issued.
We will only need to get out the torches and pitchforks if the USPTO grants this patent anyways despite the outcry and prior art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650842</id>
	<title>Patent system fundamentally broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The current patent system presumes that "everything worth inventing, that has been invented, already has a patent".  That wasn't really true in the late 1700s, and is completely nonsense today.
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2009/12/31/#moglen-bilski" title="dwheeler.com">Eben Moglen made an interesting point about patents back in 2009</a> [dwheeler.com].
Today, any time the government wants to create a new rule/regulation, they must normally ensure that the public can participate/review/comment on it.
Also, the government must show that the benefits of the rule/regulation exceeds its costs.
All of this is courtesy of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (aka the APA).
The APA is no garden of perfection, but it has helped.
The big exception is the patent system, which predates the APA, and thus patents are exempt
from the APA.
In the patent system, there is no opportunity for the public to participate/review/comment on each patent,
and there is no requirement to show that the benefits of granting a patent exceeds its costs.
Which is weird, because patents (as government-granted monopolies) can have as wide an effect as any other rule or regulation.
We need to <a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/software-patents.html" title="dwheeler.com">get rid of software and business method patents</a> [dwheeler.com],
at least, but changing the patent system to require public review and a demonstration that costs exceeded benefits
would help too.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current patent system presumes that " everything worth inventing , that has been invented , already has a patent " .
That was n't really true in the late 1700s , and is completely nonsense today .
Eben Moglen made an interesting point about patents back in 2009 [ dwheeler.com ] .
Today , any time the government wants to create a new rule/regulation , they must normally ensure that the public can participate/review/comment on it .
Also , the government must show that the benefits of the rule/regulation exceeds its costs .
All of this is courtesy of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 ( aka the APA ) .
The APA is no garden of perfection , but it has helped .
The big exception is the patent system , which predates the APA , and thus patents are exempt from the APA .
In the patent system , there is no opportunity for the public to participate/review/comment on each patent , and there is no requirement to show that the benefits of granting a patent exceeds its costs .
Which is weird , because patents ( as government-granted monopolies ) can have as wide an effect as any other rule or regulation .
We need to get rid of software and business method patents [ dwheeler.com ] , at least , but changing the patent system to require public review and a demonstration that costs exceeded benefits would help too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The current patent system presumes that "everything worth inventing, that has been invented, already has a patent".
That wasn't really true in the late 1700s, and is completely nonsense today.
Eben Moglen made an interesting point about patents back in 2009 [dwheeler.com].
Today, any time the government wants to create a new rule/regulation, they must normally ensure that the public can participate/review/comment on it.
Also, the government must show that the benefits of the rule/regulation exceeds its costs.
All of this is courtesy of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (aka the APA).
The APA is no garden of perfection, but it has helped.
The big exception is the patent system, which predates the APA, and thus patents are exempt
from the APA.
In the patent system, there is no opportunity for the public to participate/review/comment on each patent,
and there is no requirement to show that the benefits of granting a patent exceeds its costs.
Which is weird, because patents (as government-granted monopolies) can have as wide an effect as any other rule or regulation.
We need to get rid of software and business method patents [dwheeler.com],
at least, but changing the patent system to require public review and a demonstration that costs exceeded benefits
would help too.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651072</id>
	<title>Newbie mistake</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1262625180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Context: author described "finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle" in English.</p><p>Damn newbies, with an explanation as provided you will most definitely get your patent application rejected. Heck even a two year old could understand the explanation. Your mistake was using an understandable explanation. The trick is to use 'patentese' a language so arcane that even the experts have a hard time understanding what is being described. You see it is like using Shakespear's English in that you marvel them at your use of the language that they give up and simply approve based on language rather than content.</p><p>There is other arcane languages in common use today such as 'marketese', where you convince people to buy your product simply based on the noble use of the words of Buzz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Context : author described " finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle " in English.Damn newbies , with an explanation as provided you will most definitely get your patent application rejected .
Heck even a two year old could understand the explanation .
Your mistake was using an understandable explanation .
The trick is to use 'patentese ' a language so arcane that even the experts have a hard time understanding what is being described .
You see it is like using Shakespear 's English in that you marvel them at your use of the language that they give up and simply approve based on language rather than content.There is other arcane languages in common use today such as 'marketese ' , where you convince people to buy your product simply based on the noble use of the words of Buzz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Context: author described "finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle" in English.Damn newbies, with an explanation as provided you will most definitely get your patent application rejected.
Heck even a two year old could understand the explanation.
Your mistake was using an understandable explanation.
The trick is to use 'patentese' a language so arcane that even the experts have a hard time understanding what is being described.
You see it is like using Shakespear's English in that you marvel them at your use of the language that they give up and simply approve based on language rather than content.There is other arcane languages in common use today such as 'marketese', where you convince people to buy your product simply based on the noble use of the words of Buzz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653130</id>
	<title>Suggested standard for patent reviews</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1262691480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not fundamentally against software patents, so long as they follow some basic rules:</p><ul><li>If prior art is found, but wasn't mentioned on the application, the person applying for the patent is shot.</li><li>If finding that prior art took less than 2 hours of Googling by a PhD in the field, the inspector is shot.</li><li>If all of the above are true, and the patent was asserted against someone, the lawyer is shot, and since corporations are "people", the entire corporation (if one was involved) is put in jail for its "lifetime" (e.g., until its incorporation is dissolved).</li><li>A patent is considered "obvious" if 10 top-notch PhD's in the field are put into a room (with access to the Internet), posed with the problem to be solved, and can't come up with a solution similar to the one being proposed within a week.</li><li>If a patent is overturned, whoever field the patent must pay all costs (including labor, and interest) to the person who did the work of getting it overturned.  And must also participate in a last-man-standing cage match with Michael Tyson after having tatooed on his ass, "Mike Tyson, I'm going to make you my bitch!"</li><li>Patents last for 7 years.</li></ul><p>This would be completely acceptable to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not fundamentally against software patents , so long as they follow some basic rules : If prior art is found , but was n't mentioned on the application , the person applying for the patent is shot.If finding that prior art took less than 2 hours of Googling by a PhD in the field , the inspector is shot.If all of the above are true , and the patent was asserted against someone , the lawyer is shot , and since corporations are " people " , the entire corporation ( if one was involved ) is put in jail for its " lifetime " ( e.g. , until its incorporation is dissolved ) .A patent is considered " obvious " if 10 top-notch PhD 's in the field are put into a room ( with access to the Internet ) , posed with the problem to be solved , and ca n't come up with a solution similar to the one being proposed within a week.If a patent is overturned , whoever field the patent must pay all costs ( including labor , and interest ) to the person who did the work of getting it overturned .
And must also participate in a last-man-standing cage match with Michael Tyson after having tatooed on his ass , " Mike Tyson , I 'm going to make you my bitch !
" Patents last for 7 years.This would be completely acceptable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not fundamentally against software patents, so long as they follow some basic rules:If prior art is found, but wasn't mentioned on the application, the person applying for the patent is shot.If finding that prior art took less than 2 hours of Googling by a PhD in the field, the inspector is shot.If all of the above are true, and the patent was asserted against someone, the lawyer is shot, and since corporations are "people", the entire corporation (if one was involved) is put in jail for its "lifetime" (e.g., until its incorporation is dissolved).A patent is considered "obvious" if 10 top-notch PhD's in the field are put into a room (with access to the Internet), posed with the problem to be solved, and can't come up with a solution similar to the one being proposed within a week.If a patent is overturned, whoever field the patent must pay all costs (including labor, and interest) to the person who did the work of getting it overturned.
And must also participate in a last-man-standing cage match with Michael Tyson after having tatooed on his ass, "Mike Tyson, I'm going to make you my bitch!
"Patents last for 7 years.This would be completely acceptable to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30665168</id>
	<title>Re:If I published a book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262709420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the false claim itself is a felony, what stops the examiner from simply approving all of them?</p><p>It's in their interest to do so unless their is some cost for not paying attention right?</p><p>So now we have a situation where the examiner externalizes their costs (time) to a third party (the courts, ie, the people).  We all know externalizations suck for everyone but the externalizer - their is no motive to avoid being an asshat.</p><p>It might cut down on frivolous applications, but it would increase ridiculous approvals.  So.... wouldn't you need a balance against said approvals?  Wouldn't there need to be some repercussions for approving a patents that has say, prior art?</p><p>Seems to make sense so far... until you try to hire some examiners... and you get the bottom of the barrel that either don't care, can't afford to care or don'y know they should care.</p><p>Are we any farther away from square one when we work only on the punishment motive?</p><p>Basic psychology suggests that the carrot doesn't work alone nor does the stick.  Both are required to get the behavior you want.  So... if you what some ethics, honesty, morals... justice in the patent system, you need more than punishment for violation and more than huge rewards for being 'intellectually violated'.</p><p>Perhaps an easier solution to the say, SCO/IBM case would have been to say 'ok - SCO you lost, IBM, you now own SCO... and all its debts."  IBM can either pay and own the patents of SCO or they can not and the patents go public domain on the spot.  If its worth money to them to prevent the idea coming to market, IBM should see it as a carrot and pay.  If not, they should see it as a stick and avoid getting hit by not paying.  If they can't figure out which it which, then damn, clearly the 'free market' with all its natural wisdom will take care of everything right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh yeah... part of the price IBM is that you must donate x dollars (fixed against inflation, exchange rates and GROSS sales) to the US campaign finance reform movement.  Also, all funds donated from all employees, all board members and all shareholders go into a pot when it comes to political donations distributed by un-interested third parties with no conflicts of interest THAT YOU HAVE NO INFLUENCE IN CHOOSING until the patent you just got goes to public domain... though you can put the patent into the public domain at any time.</p><p>Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. CEO - put your money where your mouth is... 'K?  Afterall, you wouldn't make so much money spending so much money explaining how vital you are if you can't make such a decision.  Certainly your worth the price you are paid right?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Right?</p><p>So... what's your motive?  To protect a great idea you ARE USING from being copied (reasonable and fair) or to prevent anyone from using a great idea so your crap alternative can continue to profit (God, I wish people like this would just choke)</p><p>PS - externalizer is a killer band name.  '..'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) '..'</p><p>PPS - I know that IBM has the biggest IP porfolio of all but then again, they OFTEN use it in ways that ends up defending the little guy as well.  I don't mean to pick on IBM per say - just making a relevant example of the case we all know and hate.</p><p>If the patent is worth the money, it will be paid for.  If not, they why is it not in the public domain in the first place since its obviously not worth paying for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the false claim itself is a felony , what stops the examiner from simply approving all of them ? It 's in their interest to do so unless their is some cost for not paying attention right ? So now we have a situation where the examiner externalizes their costs ( time ) to a third party ( the courts , ie , the people ) .
We all know externalizations suck for everyone but the externalizer - their is no motive to avoid being an asshat.It might cut down on frivolous applications , but it would increase ridiculous approvals .
So.... would n't you need a balance against said approvals ?
Would n't there need to be some repercussions for approving a patents that has say , prior art ? Seems to make sense so far... until you try to hire some examiners... and you get the bottom of the barrel that either do n't care , ca n't afford to care or don'y know they should care.Are we any farther away from square one when we work only on the punishment motive ? Basic psychology suggests that the carrot does n't work alone nor does the stick .
Both are required to get the behavior you want .
So... if you what some ethics , honesty , morals... justice in the patent system , you need more than punishment for violation and more than huge rewards for being 'intellectually violated'.Perhaps an easier solution to the say , SCO/IBM case would have been to say 'ok - SCO you lost , IBM , you now own SCO... and all its debts .
" IBM can either pay and own the patents of SCO or they can not and the patents go public domain on the spot .
If its worth money to them to prevent the idea coming to market , IBM should see it as a carrot and pay .
If not , they should see it as a stick and avoid getting hit by not paying .
If they ca n't figure out which it which , then damn , clearly the 'free market ' with all its natural wisdom will take care of everything right ?
... oh yeah... part of the price IBM is that you must donate x dollars ( fixed against inflation , exchange rates and GROSS sales ) to the US campaign finance reform movement .
Also , all funds donated from all employees , all board members and all shareholders go into a pot when it comes to political donations distributed by un-interested third parties with no conflicts of interest THAT YOU HAVE NO INFLUENCE IN CHOOSING until the patent you just got goes to public domain... though you can put the patent into the public domain at any time.Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms .
CEO - put your money where your mouth is... 'K ? Afterall , you would n't make so much money spending so much money explaining how vital you are if you ca n't make such a decision .
Certainly your worth the price you are paid right ?
.... Right ? So... what 's your motive ?
To protect a great idea you ARE USING from being copied ( reasonable and fair ) or to prevent anyone from using a great idea so your crap alternative can continue to profit ( God , I wish people like this would just choke ) PS - externalizer is a killer band name .
'.. ' : ) '..'PPS - I know that IBM has the biggest IP porfolio of all but then again , they OFTEN use it in ways that ends up defending the little guy as well .
I do n't mean to pick on IBM per say - just making a relevant example of the case we all know and hate.If the patent is worth the money , it will be paid for .
If not , they why is it not in the public domain in the first place since its obviously not worth paying for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the false claim itself is a felony, what stops the examiner from simply approving all of them?It's in their interest to do so unless their is some cost for not paying attention right?So now we have a situation where the examiner externalizes their costs (time) to a third party (the courts, ie, the people).
We all know externalizations suck for everyone but the externalizer - their is no motive to avoid being an asshat.It might cut down on frivolous applications, but it would increase ridiculous approvals.
So.... wouldn't you need a balance against said approvals?
Wouldn't there need to be some repercussions for approving a patents that has say, prior art?Seems to make sense so far... until you try to hire some examiners... and you get the bottom of the barrel that either don't care, can't afford to care or don'y know they should care.Are we any farther away from square one when we work only on the punishment motive?Basic psychology suggests that the carrot doesn't work alone nor does the stick.
Both are required to get the behavior you want.
So... if you what some ethics, honesty, morals... justice in the patent system, you need more than punishment for violation and more than huge rewards for being 'intellectually violated'.Perhaps an easier solution to the say, SCO/IBM case would have been to say 'ok - SCO you lost, IBM, you now own SCO... and all its debts.
"  IBM can either pay and own the patents of SCO or they can not and the patents go public domain on the spot.
If its worth money to them to prevent the idea coming to market, IBM should see it as a carrot and pay.
If not, they should see it as a stick and avoid getting hit by not paying.
If they can't figure out which it which, then damn, clearly the 'free market' with all its natural wisdom will take care of everything right?
... oh yeah... part of the price IBM is that you must donate x dollars (fixed against inflation, exchange rates and GROSS sales) to the US campaign finance reform movement.
Also, all funds donated from all employees, all board members and all shareholders go into a pot when it comes to political donations distributed by un-interested third parties with no conflicts of interest THAT YOU HAVE NO INFLUENCE IN CHOOSING until the patent you just got goes to public domain... though you can put the patent into the public domain at any time.Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms.
CEO - put your money where your mouth is... 'K?  Afterall, you wouldn't make so much money spending so much money explaining how vital you are if you can't make such a decision.
Certainly your worth the price you are paid right?
.... Right?So... what's your motive?
To protect a great idea you ARE USING from being copied (reasonable and fair) or to prevent anyone from using a great idea so your crap alternative can continue to profit (God, I wish people like this would just choke)PS - externalizer is a killer band name.
'..' :) '..'PPS - I know that IBM has the biggest IP porfolio of all but then again, they OFTEN use it in ways that ends up defending the little guy as well.
I don't mean to pick on IBM per say - just making a relevant example of the case we all know and hate.If the patent is worth the money, it will be paid for.
If not, they why is it not in the public domain in the first place since its obviously not worth paying for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653248</id>
	<title>Re:Now if we only knew what the patent was about!</title>
	<author>pipatron</author>
	<datestamp>1262692980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I only read the headline, it's faster that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I only read the headline , it 's faster that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only read the headline, it's faster that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651384</id>
	<title>Well, we all know what to do now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...until GMP pulls their bignum implementation, it's time to boycott GNU software, and even once it's all cleared up, perhaps it still won't be cleared for Free Software use, given that they're using proprietary tech.</p><p>just kiddin', guys.  I hope this ends up being a slam-dunk against HP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...until GMP pulls their bignum implementation , it 's time to boycott GNU software , and even once it 's all cleared up , perhaps it still wo n't be cleared for Free Software use , given that they 're using proprietary tech.just kiddin ' , guys .
I hope this ends up being a slam-dunk against HP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...until GMP pulls their bignum implementation, it's time to boycott GNU software, and even once it's all cleared up, perhaps it still won't be cleared for Free Software use, given that they're using proprietary tech.just kiddin', guys.
I hope this ends up being a slam-dunk against HP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651656</id>
	<title>Re:Nice</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262630880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
HP provides some <a href="http://h20223.www2.hp.com/nonstopcomputing/us/en/messaging/news-systems-35-anniversary.html" title="hp.com" rel="nofollow">decent server gear</a> [hp.com] (and network gear, now that they bought 3com)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HP provides some decent server gear [ hp.com ] ( and network gear , now that they bought 3com )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
HP provides some decent server gear [hp.com] (and network gear, now that they bought 3com)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651164</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In particular, is there any way sanity can enter the process without having to challenge it in court?</i></p><p>The whole idea is not that the patent has any basis but that it is ridiculously expensive to go to court.  This puts a huge entry barrier around the market and protects the large incumbents.  In essence, patents are now being used to protect large corporations from small entrepreneurs - exactly the opposite of their original intention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In particular , is there any way sanity can enter the process without having to challenge it in court ? The whole idea is not that the patent has any basis but that it is ridiculously expensive to go to court .
This puts a huge entry barrier around the market and protects the large incumbents .
In essence , patents are now being used to protect large corporations from small entrepreneurs - exactly the opposite of their original intention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In particular, is there any way sanity can enter the process without having to challenge it in court?The whole idea is not that the patent has any basis but that it is ridiculously expensive to go to court.
This puts a huge entry barrier around the market and protects the large incumbents.
In essence, patents are now being used to protect large corporations from small entrepreneurs - exactly the opposite of their original intention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650874</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait to you see my patent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish to patent the "floor function". It takes as its input lots and lots of alcohol. The output then hits the floor. <br> <br>

Using my floor function as a reference, I extend it to the ceiling function, which also accepts alcohol as an input. F(x) then becomes parallel to the floor function and faces upward. The projection is then called the ceiling function, which is a dizzying combination of periodic sine[(c)Mysidia 2010] and cosine[(c)Mysidia 2010] functions. The ceiling function is itself periodic and reverts to the floor function.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish to patent the " floor function " .
It takes as its input lots and lots of alcohol .
The output then hits the floor .
Using my floor function as a reference , I extend it to the ceiling function , which also accepts alcohol as an input .
F ( x ) then becomes parallel to the floor function and faces upward .
The projection is then called the ceiling function , which is a dizzying combination of periodic sine [ ( c ) Mysidia 2010 ] and cosine [ ( c ) Mysidia 2010 ] functions .
The ceiling function is itself periodic and reverts to the floor function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish to patent the "floor function".
It takes as its input lots and lots of alcohol.
The output then hits the floor.
Using my floor function as a reference, I extend it to the ceiling function, which also accepts alcohol as an input.
F(x) then becomes parallel to the floor function and faces upward.
The projection is then called the ceiling function, which is a dizzying combination of periodic sine[(c)Mysidia 2010] and cosine[(c)Mysidia 2010] functions.
The ceiling function is itself periodic and reverts to the floor function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30659396</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262724540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mean acetylsalicylic acid.  Otherwise, it would just be...spirin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean acetylsalicylic acid .
Otherwise , it would just be...spirin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean acetylsalicylic acid.
Otherwise, it would just be...spirin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650792</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks.</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1262623020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see the patent grab as being indicative of the fucked-up state of the patent system, not as abusing it. A defensive move. Hell, I wish more big corporations would scoop up common-sense shit and release them as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_patent" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">open patents</a> [wikipedia.org]. It's in everybody's best interest as long as patent trolls exist.<br> <br>

Better HP than some "IP Firm" taking it to the East District of Texas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see the patent grab as being indicative of the fucked-up state of the patent system , not as abusing it .
A defensive move .
Hell , I wish more big corporations would scoop up common-sense shit and release them as open patents [ wikipedia.org ] .
It 's in everybody 's best interest as long as patent trolls exist .
Better HP than some " IP Firm " taking it to the East District of Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see the patent grab as being indicative of the fucked-up state of the patent system, not as abusing it.
A defensive move.
Hell, I wish more big corporations would scoop up common-sense shit and release them as open patents [wikipedia.org].
It's in everybody's best interest as long as patent trolls exist.
Better HP than some "IP Firm" taking it to the East District of Texas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650986</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait to you see my patent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>did someone say pie? I was told there'd be pie!</htmltext>
<tokenext>did someone say pie ?
I was told there 'd be pie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>did someone say pie?
I was told there'd be pie!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652948</id>
	<title>Re:Put down the pitchforks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.wikipatents.com/7523150.html-1</p><p>Date of application: Oct 28, 2004<br>Date of patent: Apr 21, 2009</p><p>Note that this is a GRANTED PATENT, and can thus be found in the USPTO's granted patent search, NOT the pending/applied for patents search.</p><p>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=7523150&amp;OS=7523150&amp;RS=7523150</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.wikipatents.com/7523150.html-1Date of application : Oct 28 , 2004Date of patent : Apr 21 , 2009Note that this is a GRANTED PATENT , and can thus be found in the USPTO 's granted patent search , NOT the pending/applied for patents search.http : //patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser ? Sect1 = PTO2&amp;Sect2 = HITOFF&amp;p = 1&amp;u = \ % 2Fnetahtml \ % 2FPTO \ % 2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r = 1&amp;f = G&amp;l = 50&amp;co1 = AND&amp;d = PTXT&amp;s1 = 7523150&amp;OS = 7523150&amp;RS = 7523150</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.wikipatents.com/7523150.html-1Date of application: Oct 28, 2004Date of patent: Apr 21, 2009Note that this is a GRANTED PATENT, and can thus be found in the USPTO's granted patent search, NOT the pending/applied for patents search.http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=7523150&amp;OS=7523150&amp;RS=7523150</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618</id>
	<title>Just wait to you see my patent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
On finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
</p><p>
Scope of the invention:
</p><p>
For right triangle with length of two sides denoted by A, B, the length of the hypotenuse denoted by C:
</p><p>
  C^2 = A^2 + B^2
</p><p>
and</p><p>
  Abs(C) = Sqrt(A^2 + B^2)
</p><p>
 Oh yes.. and my patent on trigonometric functions..
These things I like to call "Sines", "Cosines", "Secants", "ArcSecants", "Tangents", and "ArcTangents".
</p><p>
And PI itself...
</p><p>
Stand back Eolas, i4i, NTP, Unisys, get ready for <b>Mysidia</b>.
</p><p>
Muahahahahahahahahaha!!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle .
Scope of the invention : For right triangle with length of two sides denoted by A , B , the length of the hypotenuse denoted by C : C ^ 2 = A ^ 2 + B ^ 2 and Abs ( C ) = Sqrt ( A ^ 2 + B ^ 2 ) Oh yes.. and my patent on trigonometric functions. . These things I like to call " Sines " , " Cosines " , " Secants " , " ArcSecants " , " Tangents " , and " ArcTangents " .
And PI itself.. . Stand back Eolas , i4i , NTP , Unisys , get ready for Mysidia .
Muahahahahahahahahaha ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
On finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle.
Scope of the invention:

For right triangle with length of two sides denoted by A, B, the length of the hypotenuse denoted by C:

  C^2 = A^2 + B^2

and
  Abs(C) = Sqrt(A^2 + B^2)

 Oh yes.. and my patent on trigonometric functions..
These things I like to call "Sines", "Cosines", "Secants", "ArcSecants", "Tangents", and "ArcTangents".
And PI itself...

Stand back Eolas, i4i, NTP, Unisys, get ready for Mysidia.
Muahahahahahahahahaha!!
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652630</id>
	<title>If I published a book</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262685240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or a scientific article, which claimed to be original but was actually a copy of an older work, this would be plagiarism, as well as a copyright violation.</p><p>However, if I claim a patent on an invention almost a hundred years old, I would be granted exclusive rights to it until someone sics a lawyer on me.</p><p>Can't we make filing false patent claims a felony? It is not enough to have these patents sit uncontested unless someone can cough up the cash for a civil court case. The people who file these patents should ask themselves: "Do I want to pay a sizable fine or spend time in jail for filing a fraudulent patent claim?"</p><p>Morally, this is a violation of the intellectual property rights of the People (ie. the public domain), and the state should prosecute that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a scientific article , which claimed to be original but was actually a copy of an older work , this would be plagiarism , as well as a copyright violation.However , if I claim a patent on an invention almost a hundred years old , I would be granted exclusive rights to it until someone sics a lawyer on me.Ca n't we make filing false patent claims a felony ?
It is not enough to have these patents sit uncontested unless someone can cough up the cash for a civil court case .
The people who file these patents should ask themselves : " Do I want to pay a sizable fine or spend time in jail for filing a fraudulent patent claim ?
" Morally , this is a violation of the intellectual property rights of the People ( ie .
the public domain ) , and the state should prosecute that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a scientific article, which claimed to be original but was actually a copy of an older work, this would be plagiarism, as well as a copyright violation.However, if I claim a patent on an invention almost a hundred years old, I would be granted exclusive rights to it until someone sics a lawyer on me.Can't we make filing false patent claims a felony?
It is not enough to have these patents sit uncontested unless someone can cough up the cash for a civil court case.
The people who file these patents should ask themselves: "Do I want to pay a sizable fine or spend time in jail for filing a fraudulent patent claim?
"Morally, this is a violation of the intellectual property rights of the People (ie.
the public domain), and the state should prosecute that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651048</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait to you see my patent.</title>
	<author>kadey</author>
	<datestamp>1262624880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">cheap wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.power4game.com/" title="power4game.com" rel="nofollow">buy wow gold</a> [power4game.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany jewellery</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.tiffanys-store.com/" title="tiffanys-store.com" rel="nofollow">tiffany jewelry</a> [tiffanys-store.com]
<a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/" title="panjewellery.com" rel="nofollow">pandora jewellery</a> [panjewellery.com]
<a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/" title="panjewellery.com" rel="nofollow">pandora bracelets</a> [panjewellery.com]
<a href="http://www.panjewellery.com/" title="panjewellery.com" rel="nofollow">pandora charms</a> [panjewellery.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>wow gold [ power4game.com ] cheap wow gold [ power4game.com ] buy wow gold [ power4game.com ] tiffany jewellery [ tiffanys-store.com ] tiffany [ tiffanys-store.com ] tiffany jewelry [ tiffanys-store.com ] pandora jewellery [ panjewellery.com ] pandora bracelets [ panjewellery.com ] pandora charms [ panjewellery.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow gold [power4game.com]
cheap wow gold [power4game.com]
buy wow gold [power4game.com]
tiffany jewellery [tiffanys-store.com]
tiffany [tiffanys-store.com]
tiffany jewelry [tiffanys-store.com]
pandora jewellery [panjewellery.com]
pandora bracelets [panjewellery.com]
pandora charms [panjewellery.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656032</id>
	<title>Re:I'm waiting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He has to patent the environment first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has to patent the environment first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has to patent the environment first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651816</id>
	<title>Collecting dust for 834 days?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262632920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Collecting dust for an indefinite amount of time with little feedback only to be arbitrarily granted or denied in some process with impenetrable logic (if it even has any of *that*).... I just realized....
<p>
The patent office is a perfect analogy for the iTunes app store!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Collecting dust for an indefinite amount of time with little feedback only to be arbitrarily granted or denied in some process with impenetrable logic ( if it even has any of * that * ) .... I just realized... . The patent office is a perfect analogy for the iTunes app store !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Collecting dust for an indefinite amount of time with little feedback only to be arbitrarily granted or denied in some process with impenetrable logic (if it even has any of *that*).... I just realized....

The patent office is a perfect analogy for the iTunes app store!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30665168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30659396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30662352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30655214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30658992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2321226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30659396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30655214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30658992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30665168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30652534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30662352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30656284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30651028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2321226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30650824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30654950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2321226.30653604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
