<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_1815257</id>
	<title>USPTO Grants Google a Patent On MapReduce</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263927120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Two years ago, David DeWitt and Michael Stonebraker <a href="//developers.slashdot.org/story/08/01/18/1813248/MapReduce-mdash-a-Major-Step-Backwards">deemed MapReduce a major step backwards</a> (here are the <a href="http://databasecolumn.vertica.com/database-innovation/mapreduce-a-major-step-backwards/">original paper</a> and a <a href="http://databasecolumn.vertica.com/database-innovation/mapreduce-ii/">defense of it</a>) that 'represents a specific implementation of well known techniques developed nearly 25 years ago.' A year later, the pair teamed up with other academics and eBay to <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/40882">slam MapReduce again</a>. But the very public complaints didn't stop Google from demanding a patent for MapReduce; nor did it stop the USPTO from granting Google's request (after four rejections). On Tuesday, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,650,331 to Google for inventing <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,650,331"> Efficient Large-Scale Data Processing</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Two years ago , David DeWitt and Michael Stonebraker deemed MapReduce a major step backwards ( here are the original paper and a defense of it ) that 'represents a specific implementation of well known techniques developed nearly 25 years ago .
' A year later , the pair teamed up with other academics and eBay to slam MapReduce again .
But the very public complaints did n't stop Google from demanding a patent for MapReduce ; nor did it stop the USPTO from granting Google 's request ( after four rejections ) .
On Tuesday , the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No .
7,650,331 to Google for inventing Efficient Large-Scale Data Processing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Two years ago, David DeWitt and Michael Stonebraker deemed MapReduce a major step backwards (here are the original paper and a defense of it) that 'represents a specific implementation of well known techniques developed nearly 25 years ago.
' A year later, the pair teamed up with other academics and eBay to slam MapReduce again.
But the very public complaints didn't stop Google from demanding a patent for MapReduce; nor did it stop the USPTO from granting Google's request (after four rejections).
On Tuesday, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No.
7,650,331 to Google for inventing  Efficient Large-Scale Data Processing.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824116</id>
	<title>Re:Working for Google</title>
	<author>Night64</author>
	<datestamp>1263893640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Defensive patent portfolio. If you don't now what it is, well, just google it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Defensive patent portfolio .
If you do n't now what it is , well , just google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defensive patent portfolio.
If you don't now what it is, well, just google it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824630</id>
	<title>Defensive Patent Portfolio?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1263896280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll reserve judgement until this patent is involved, offensively, defensively or otherwise, in litigation.</p><p>Google has got a good reputation so I'm not as quick to condemn them as I am to condemn Microsoft which has a PROVEN track record of evil.</p><p>It's entirely plausible that this patent is part of a defensive patent portfolio whose sole purpose is to protect Google.</p><p>And considering the zany IP landscape, if anyone's going to have a patent on this, I'd rather it be Google than anyone else.  If Microsoft had this club in their arsenal you can bet your bottom dollar they'd make their assault on Tom-Tom look like a puny peashooter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll reserve judgement until this patent is involved , offensively , defensively or otherwise , in litigation.Google has got a good reputation so I 'm not as quick to condemn them as I am to condemn Microsoft which has a PROVEN track record of evil.It 's entirely plausible that this patent is part of a defensive patent portfolio whose sole purpose is to protect Google.And considering the zany IP landscape , if anyone 's going to have a patent on this , I 'd rather it be Google than anyone else .
If Microsoft had this club in their arsenal you can bet your bottom dollar they 'd make their assault on Tom-Tom look like a puny peashooter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll reserve judgement until this patent is involved, offensively, defensively or otherwise, in litigation.Google has got a good reputation so I'm not as quick to condemn them as I am to condemn Microsoft which has a PROVEN track record of evil.It's entirely plausible that this patent is part of a defensive patent portfolio whose sole purpose is to protect Google.And considering the zany IP landscape, if anyone's going to have a patent on this, I'd rather it be Google than anyone else.
If Microsoft had this club in their arsenal you can bet your bottom dollar they'd make their assault on Tom-Tom look like a puny peashooter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844</id>
	<title>will be interesting to see if they use it</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1263931380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A somewhat optimistic guess is that they'll be restricted to using this defensively. Are they really going to sue Hadoop, the open-source implementation of MapReduce? Hadoop not only <i>implements</i> a version of MapReduce, it even <a href="http://hadoop.apache.org/mapreduce/" title="apache.org">uses its name</a> [apache.org], so is not at all coy about being a direct infringement of this patent. And yet, I would be surprised if Google sued them, or the <a href="http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/PoweredBy" title="apache.org">many people using it</a> [apache.org]. They certainly haven't said anything yet, as far as I can find--- when things like <a href="http://aws.amazon.com/elasticmapreduce/" title="amazon.com">Amazon Elastic MapReduce</a> [amazon.com] were launched, I can't find record of Google saying, "hey, you're stealing our tech!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A somewhat optimistic guess is that they 'll be restricted to using this defensively .
Are they really going to sue Hadoop , the open-source implementation of MapReduce ?
Hadoop not only implements a version of MapReduce , it even uses its name [ apache.org ] , so is not at all coy about being a direct infringement of this patent .
And yet , I would be surprised if Google sued them , or the many people using it [ apache.org ] .
They certainly have n't said anything yet , as far as I can find--- when things like Amazon Elastic MapReduce [ amazon.com ] were launched , I ca n't find record of Google saying , " hey , you 're stealing our tech !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A somewhat optimistic guess is that they'll be restricted to using this defensively.
Are they really going to sue Hadoop, the open-source implementation of MapReduce?
Hadoop not only implements a version of MapReduce, it even uses its name [apache.org], so is not at all coy about being a direct infringement of this patent.
And yet, I would be surprised if Google sued them, or the many people using it [apache.org].
They certainly haven't said anything yet, as far as I can find--- when things like Amazon Elastic MapReduce [amazon.com] were launched, I can't find record of Google saying, "hey, you're stealing our tech!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823542</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1263934200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is not true that if Google doesn't patent it, a troll will.</p></div><p>Really?  Why?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable</p></div><p>.. and yet it just got patented somehow!</p><p>I find it hard to believe that the PTO decided "Well, this isn't patentable, but we'll allow Google to patent it just because they're Google."</p><p>If Google was granted a patent on it, then a patent troll could have done the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not true that if Google does n't patent it , a troll will.Really ?
Why ? MapReduce , is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.. and yet it just got patented somehow ! I find it hard to believe that the PTO decided " Well , this is n't patentable , but we 'll allow Google to patent it just because they 're Google .
" If Google was granted a patent on it , then a patent troll could have done the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not true that if Google doesn't patent it, a troll will.Really?
Why?MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.. and yet it just got patented somehow!I find it hard to believe that the PTO decided "Well, this isn't patentable, but we'll allow Google to patent it just because they're Google.
"If Google was granted a patent on it, then a patent troll could have done the same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823492</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>Target Practice</author>
	<datestamp>1263934080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable."</p><p>Someone should really let the patent clerks in on that secret...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A technique that is well known , such as MapReduce , is the property of the general public and is unpatentable .
" Someone should really let the patent clerks in on that secret.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.
"Someone should really let the patent clerks in on that secret...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823614</id>
	<title>Re:google is getting evil</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1263934620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've always done that, haven't they? You sign up, then they text you a validation code.<br> <br>

I'm all for it as long as it keeps people from abusing Gmail accounts. Google's heuristics are so sharp that they could probably figure out your number even if you don't directly hand it to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've always done that , have n't they ?
You sign up , then they text you a validation code .
I 'm all for it as long as it keeps people from abusing Gmail accounts .
Google 's heuristics are so sharp that they could probably figure out your number even if you do n't directly hand it to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've always done that, haven't they?
You sign up, then they text you a validation code.
I'm all for it as long as it keeps people from abusing Gmail accounts.
Google's heuristics are so sharp that they could probably figure out your number even if you don't directly hand it to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823472</id>
	<title>Re:Working for Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263933960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sad.</p></div><p>That you base your evaluation of potential employers on a slashdot summary?<br>Or that you would categorise a company based on one event (the motive for which you are, as the rest of us, blissfully unaware of -- as pointed out by others, perhaps this was done for benign reasons)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad.That you base your evaluation of potential employers on a slashdot summary ? Or that you would categorise a company based on one event ( the motive for which you are , as the rest of us , blissfully unaware of -- as pointed out by others , perhaps this was done for benign reasons ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad.That you base your evaluation of potential employers on a slashdot summary?Or that you would categorise a company based on one event (the motive for which you are, as the rest of us, blissfully unaware of -- as pointed out by others, perhaps this was done for benign reasons)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30828496</id>
	<title>Google patents associative chicken scratches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263923340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would expand on the title but I'll let the absurdity speak for itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would expand on the title but I 'll let the absurdity speak for itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would expand on the title but I'll let the absurdity speak for itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824616</id>
	<title>Re:US patent office workers should be ashamed...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263896220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does Open source have to do with patents?  Nothing.</p><p>You seem to be confusing prior art with open source, which they have no real relation to each other.  It doesn't matter if Hadoop did it and told everyone about it.  What matters is who come up with the idea first, they don't even have to implement it!</p><p>As for stupid, well you might want to take a look in the mirror for several reasons.  A) You don't know what you're talking about.  B) I'm willing to bet pretty much everyone you called 'stupid' makes more money and has a much more comfortable lifestyle than you do, mostly due to A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does Open source have to do with patents ?
Nothing.You seem to be confusing prior art with open source , which they have no real relation to each other .
It does n't matter if Hadoop did it and told everyone about it .
What matters is who come up with the idea first , they do n't even have to implement it ! As for stupid , well you might want to take a look in the mirror for several reasons .
A ) You do n't know what you 're talking about .
B ) I 'm willing to bet pretty much everyone you called 'stupid ' makes more money and has a much more comfortable lifestyle than you do , mostly due to A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does Open source have to do with patents?
Nothing.You seem to be confusing prior art with open source, which they have no real relation to each other.
It doesn't matter if Hadoop did it and told everyone about it.
What matters is who come up with the idea first, they don't even have to implement it!As for stupid, well you might want to take a look in the mirror for several reasons.
A) You don't know what you're talking about.
B) I'm willing to bet pretty much everyone you called 'stupid' makes more money and has a much more comfortable lifestyle than you do, mostly due to A.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822852</id>
	<title>One of Many, Many Google Patents</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1263931440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has at least <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?as\_q=&amp;btnG=Google\%20Search&amp;as\_epq=&amp;as\_oq=&amp;as\_eq=&amp;as\_pnum=&amp;as\_vt=&amp;as\_pinvent=&amp;as\_pasgnee=google&amp;as\_pusc=&amp;as\_pintlc=&amp;as\_ptype=11&amp;as\_drrb\_is=q&amp;as\_minm\_is=0&amp;as\_miny\_is=&amp;as\_maxm\_is=0&amp;as\_maxy\_is=&amp;as\_drrb\_ap=q&amp;as\_minm\_ap=0&amp;as\_miny\_ap=&amp;as\_maxm\_ap=0&amp;as\_maxy\_ap=&amp;rview=0&amp;as\_psrg=1" title="google.com">173 issued patents</a> [google.com] as well as <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?as\_q=&amp;btnG=Google\%20Search&amp;as\_epq=&amp;as\_oq=&amp;as\_eq=&amp;as\_pnum=&amp;as\_vt=&amp;as\_pinvent=&amp;as\_pasgnee=google&amp;as\_pusc=&amp;as\_pintlc=&amp;as\_ptype=11&amp;as\_drrb\_is=q&amp;as\_minm\_is=0&amp;as\_miny\_is=&amp;as\_maxm\_is=0&amp;as\_maxy\_is=&amp;as\_drrb\_ap=q&amp;as\_minm\_ap=0&amp;as\_miny\_ap=&amp;as\_maxm\_ap=0&amp;as\_maxy\_ap=&amp;rview=0&amp;as\_psra=1" title="google.com">over two hundred pending applications</a> [google.com].  That doesn't include the various patents (such as the PageRank patent) that it is the exclusive licensee for but does not actually own (Stanford owns it).  Google's software patent strategy dates back to at least 1997, when it filed <a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Nkt4AAAAEBAJ" title="google.com">this application</a> [google.com], which actually predates the PageRank application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has at least 173 issued patents [ google.com ] as well as over two hundred pending applications [ google.com ] .
That does n't include the various patents ( such as the PageRank patent ) that it is the exclusive licensee for but does not actually own ( Stanford owns it ) .
Google 's software patent strategy dates back to at least 1997 , when it filed this application [ google.com ] , which actually predates the PageRank application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has at least 173 issued patents [google.com] as well as over two hundred pending applications [google.com].
That doesn't include the various patents (such as the PageRank patent) that it is the exclusive licensee for but does not actually own (Stanford owns it).
Google's software patent strategy dates back to at least 1997, when it filed this application [google.com], which actually predates the PageRank application.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823938</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>ahem</author>
	<datestamp>1263892980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is totally off topic, but I'm amused by the irony inherent in your signature. It is of the form:</p><p>(mangled idiom), (linguisitic joke)</p><p>Please try:</p><p>For all intents and purposes,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Unless, of course, you're asserting that only people that work really hard that use 'whom' are targeted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is totally off topic , but I 'm amused by the irony inherent in your signature .
It is of the form : ( mangled idiom ) , ( linguisitic joke ) Please try : For all intents and purposes , ...Unless , of course , you 're asserting that only people that work really hard that use 'whom ' are targeted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is totally off topic, but I'm amused by the irony inherent in your signature.
It is of the form:(mangled idiom), (linguisitic joke)Please try:For all intents and purposes, ...Unless, of course, you're asserting that only people that work really hard that use 'whom' are targeted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>blee37</author>
	<datestamp>1263932880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not true that if Google doesn't patent it, a troll will.  A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.  Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not true that if Google does n't patent it , a troll will .
A technique that is well known , such as MapReduce , is the property of the general public and is unpatentable .
Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not true that if Google doesn't patent it, a troll will.
A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.
Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822946</id>
	<title>Meaning for Hadoop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263931740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this endanger the <a href="http://hadoop.apache.org/" title="apache.org">Hadoop</a> [apache.org] project, or projects using Hadoop? Its <a href="http://hadoop.apache.org/mapreduce/" title="apache.org">MapReduce</a> [apache.org] implementation is a rather crucial part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this endanger the Hadoop [ apache.org ] project , or projects using Hadoop ?
Its MapReduce [ apache.org ] implementation is a rather crucial part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this endanger the Hadoop [apache.org] project, or projects using Hadoop?
Its MapReduce [apache.org] implementation is a rather crucial part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823452</id>
	<title>Re:A quick idea for patent reform</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1263933840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're probably never going to get rid of software patents, odious as they are;</p> </div><p>The way the <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral\_arguments/argument\_transcripts/08-964.pdf" title="supremecourtus.gov">oral arguments on Bilski vs Kappos went</a> [supremecourtus.gov] back in November, software patents are one step away from an endangered species.</p><p>When you have every judge in the Supreme Court agreeing with one another on a subject...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're probably never going to get rid of software patents , odious as they are ; The way the oral arguments on Bilski vs Kappos went [ supremecourtus.gov ] back in November , software patents are one step away from an endangered species.When you have every judge in the Supreme Court agreeing with one another on a subject.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're probably never going to get rid of software patents, odious as they are; The way the oral arguments on Bilski vs Kappos went [supremecourtus.gov] back in November, software patents are one step away from an endangered species.When you have every judge in the Supreme Court agreeing with one another on a subject...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823150</id>
	<title>Re:google is getting evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is doubtful.  Very doubtful.</p><p>Regardless, I am allowing you to use my cell number: 111-222-3333</p><p>Don't pass it around please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is doubtful .
Very doubtful.Regardless , I am allowing you to use my cell number : 111-222-3333Do n't pass it around please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is doubtful.
Very doubtful.Regardless, I am allowing you to use my cell number: 111-222-3333Don't pass it around please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823028</id>
	<title>Re:google is getting evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What? Are you sure it was not a phishing site that was made to look similar to gmail? I recommend you visit <a href="https://mail.google.com/" title="google.com">https://mail.google.com/</a> [google.com] instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Are you sure it was not a phishing site that was made to look similar to gmail ?
I recommend you visit https : //mail.google.com/ [ google.com ] instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Are you sure it was not a phishing site that was made to look similar to gmail?
I recommend you visit https://mail.google.com/ [google.com] instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824578</id>
	<title>!Efficient</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263896040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It works on a large scale with todays available processing setups, but its far from 'efficient' in any sense of the term I consider.</p><p>Pyramids were built with (so the theory goes) millions of laborers because thats the only way they could handle such a large scale project.  Map reduce is the same thing.  On that scale, with todays technology, thats the way we do it.</p><p>It works, today, so we use they method, but thats where it ends.</p><p>Would you build the pyramids today with a million laborers?  No, you'd bring in some heavy equipment and a tiny (relative to the original) team and they'd do it in a couple years or less for FAR FAR less money (even slaves cost money since they don't tend to live long if you never feed or water them.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works on a large scale with todays available processing setups , but its far from 'efficient ' in any sense of the term I consider.Pyramids were built with ( so the theory goes ) millions of laborers because thats the only way they could handle such a large scale project .
Map reduce is the same thing .
On that scale , with todays technology , thats the way we do it.It works , today , so we use they method , but thats where it ends.Would you build the pyramids today with a million laborers ?
No , you 'd bring in some heavy equipment and a tiny ( relative to the original ) team and they 'd do it in a couple years or less for FAR FAR less money ( even slaves cost money since they do n't tend to live long if you never feed or water them .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works on a large scale with todays available processing setups, but its far from 'efficient' in any sense of the term I consider.Pyramids were built with (so the theory goes) millions of laborers because thats the only way they could handle such a large scale project.
Map reduce is the same thing.
On that scale, with todays technology, thats the way we do it.It works, today, so we use they method, but thats where it ends.Would you build the pyramids today with a million laborers?
No, you'd bring in some heavy equipment and a tiny (relative to the original) team and they'd do it in a couple years or less for FAR FAR less money (even slaves cost money since they don't tend to live long if you never feed or water them.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823050</id>
	<title>Re:!do no evil</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1263932160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What karma?  Google bowed to pressure from the Chinese government to censor their results from the beginning.  Some may argue that that was the price they had to pay to open up China but it was still a massive karma burn.  Google didn't just grow a conscience about dealing with China, they are acting in their own selfish interest as they always have been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What karma ?
Google bowed to pressure from the Chinese government to censor their results from the beginning .
Some may argue that that was the price they had to pay to open up China but it was still a massive karma burn .
Google did n't just grow a conscience about dealing with China , they are acting in their own selfish interest as they always have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What karma?
Google bowed to pressure from the Chinese government to censor their results from the beginning.
Some may argue that that was the price they had to pay to open up China but it was still a massive karma burn.
Google didn't just grow a conscience about dealing with China, they are acting in their own selfish interest as they always have been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824268</id>
	<title>Re:The usual /. patent question -</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263894420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure it would be so hard to infringe.  In fact, reading through it, I don't see how a merge sort implemented on multiple processors would not fit that exact description.  Merge sort is one of the oldest sorting algorithms in the world, it was invented by Von Neumann himself (I don't know when it was first used in a multiprocessor system, but I would guess no later than the 70s).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure it would be so hard to infringe .
In fact , reading through it , I do n't see how a merge sort implemented on multiple processors would not fit that exact description .
Merge sort is one of the oldest sorting algorithms in the world , it was invented by Von Neumann himself ( I do n't know when it was first used in a multiprocessor system , but I would guess no later than the 70s ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure it would be so hard to infringe.
In fact, reading through it, I don't see how a merge sort implemented on multiple processors would not fit that exact description.
Merge sort is one of the oldest sorting algorithms in the world, it was invented by Von Neumann himself (I don't know when it was first used in a multiprocessor system, but I would guess no later than the 70s).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30828108</id>
	<title>Re:MapReduce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over the last 15 years, I've worked at a couple of software companies in Electronic Design Automation where we designed parallel computing capability into our product. Each time, it was pretty painful. I now work for a company that competes with Google and we use Hadoop pretty extensively. For me, it definitely makes it easier to focus on the actual problem rather than worrying about how to parallelize it. Google deserves a lot of credit for their work, and I don't begrudge them a patent for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the last 15 years , I 've worked at a couple of software companies in Electronic Design Automation where we designed parallel computing capability into our product .
Each time , it was pretty painful .
I now work for a company that competes with Google and we use Hadoop pretty extensively .
For me , it definitely makes it easier to focus on the actual problem rather than worrying about how to parallelize it .
Google deserves a lot of credit for their work , and I do n't begrudge them a patent for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the last 15 years, I've worked at a couple of software companies in Electronic Design Automation where we designed parallel computing capability into our product.
Each time, it was pretty painful.
I now work for a company that competes with Google and we use Hadoop pretty extensively.
For me, it definitely makes it easier to focus on the actual problem rather than worrying about how to parallelize it.
Google deserves a lot of credit for their work, and I don't begrudge them a patent for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825560</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>McFly777</author>
	<datestamp>1263900240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.</p></div><p> Except if you have applied for the patent prior to it being offered for sale. In theory you then have only a year after the application to get the patent, but there are ways that patent attorneys can stretch this out by making amendments, etc. to the patent application.</p><p> I have a couple of applications pending from a previous employer. It has been about three years, and it seems like each year, around August, I get a call/email from the patent attorney asking me to sign another version of the application.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable .
Except if you have applied for the patent prior to it being offered for sale .
In theory you then have only a year after the application to get the patent , but there are ways that patent attorneys can stretch this out by making amendments , etc .
to the patent application .
I have a couple of applications pending from a previous employer .
It has been about three years , and it seems like each year , around August , I get a call/email from the patent attorney asking me to sign another version of the application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.
Except if you have applied for the patent prior to it being offered for sale.
In theory you then have only a year after the application to get the patent, but there are ways that patent attorneys can stretch this out by making amendments, etc.
to the patent application.
I have a couple of applications pending from a previous employer.
It has been about three years, and it seems like each year, around August, I get a call/email from the patent attorney asking me to sign another version of the application.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823162</id>
	<title>Working for Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My research are is HPC, and I sometimes have toyed with trying to work for Google.  They seemed like something special.</p><p>Now that they're pursuing unjustifiable software patents, I'm forced to sadly put Google into the same mental category as Microsoft and IBM.  Like the other two companies, Google does some cool stuff, but I wouldn't feel much better about working for Google than I would for IBM or Microsoft.</p><p>Sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My research are is HPC , and I sometimes have toyed with trying to work for Google .
They seemed like something special.Now that they 're pursuing unjustifiable software patents , I 'm forced to sadly put Google into the same mental category as Microsoft and IBM .
Like the other two companies , Google does some cool stuff , but I would n't feel much better about working for Google than I would for IBM or Microsoft.Sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My research are is HPC, and I sometimes have toyed with trying to work for Google.
They seemed like something special.Now that they're pursuing unjustifiable software patents, I'm forced to sadly put Google into the same mental category as Microsoft and IBM.
Like the other two companies, Google does some cool stuff, but I wouldn't feel much better about working for Google than I would for IBM or Microsoft.Sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823108</id>
	<title>need awareness of the "old" algorithms</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1263932400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The greybeards have a point there. In my branch of signal processing where have gone through cycles several times as computer hardware evolves.  In my experience we've been through minicomputers, array processors, workstations, clusters, stream processors, multi-cores etc.  Each configuration as different balance of CPU speed, memory size, memory bandwidth, and so on.  So we've gone through the difference algorithms, the integral algorithms, the spectral, the local-transform, cyclic matrices, etc. back and forth several times. Sometimes each new generation of grad students feels it has invented something new if sloppy work by their faculty advisor doesnt correct them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The greybeards have a point there .
In my branch of signal processing where have gone through cycles several times as computer hardware evolves .
In my experience we 've been through minicomputers , array processors , workstations , clusters , stream processors , multi-cores etc .
Each configuration as different balance of CPU speed , memory size , memory bandwidth , and so on .
So we 've gone through the difference algorithms , the integral algorithms , the spectral , the local-transform , cyclic matrices , etc .
back and forth several times .
Sometimes each new generation of grad students feels it has invented something new if sloppy work by their faculty advisor doesnt correct them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greybeards have a point there.
In my branch of signal processing where have gone through cycles several times as computer hardware evolves.
In my experience we've been through minicomputers, array processors, workstations, clusters, stream processors, multi-cores etc.
Each configuration as different balance of CPU speed, memory size, memory bandwidth, and so on.
So we've gone through the difference algorithms, the integral algorithms, the spectral, the local-transform, cyclic matrices, etc.
back and forth several times.
Sometimes each new generation of grad students feels it has invented something new if sloppy work by their faculty advisor doesnt correct them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30827770</id>
	<title>On the bright side...</title>
	<author>noahm</author>
	<datestamp>1263916080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If, as DeWitt &amp; Stonebreaker claim, MapReduce is a "major step backwards", we ought to be able to skip right past this patent and use whatever the state of the art is... Right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If , as DeWitt &amp; Stonebreaker claim , MapReduce is a " major step backwards " , we ought to be able to skip right past this patent and use whatever the state of the art is... Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, as DeWitt &amp; Stonebreaker claim, MapReduce is a "major step backwards", we ought to be able to skip right past this patent and use whatever the state of the art is... Right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823400</id>
	<title>How it's suppose to work... Take 2.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1263933660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A patent is only worth it's strength in court. The USPTO has clearly given up trying to judge if a patent is truly worthy on their own, relying on the courts to decide afterwards when a patent is put to use and put to the test - in court.</p><p>What bothers me the most is the fact that anyone can get a patent for anything as long as they keep revising their application.</p><p>At the end of the day, those with the biggest wallets will get their patents, and they will also have their guns to fight and win in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A patent is only worth it 's strength in court .
The USPTO has clearly given up trying to judge if a patent is truly worthy on their own , relying on the courts to decide afterwards when a patent is put to use and put to the test - in court.What bothers me the most is the fact that anyone can get a patent for anything as long as they keep revising their application.At the end of the day , those with the biggest wallets will get their patents , and they will also have their guns to fight and win in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A patent is only worth it's strength in court.
The USPTO has clearly given up trying to judge if a patent is truly worthy on their own, relying on the courts to decide afterwards when a patent is put to use and put to the test - in court.What bothers me the most is the fact that anyone can get a patent for anything as long as they keep revising their application.At the end of the day, those with the biggest wallets will get their patents, and they will also have their guns to fight and win in court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824090</id>
	<title>Re:Meaning for Hadoop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263893580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So why exactly is this funny?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why exactly is this funny ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why exactly is this funny?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825812</id>
	<title>Re:Awarded?</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1263901440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Near the very top, just above the author name ("Dean et al.") it says "United States Patent".  A published application would instead say "Patent Application Publication".</p><p>Another way to tell is that it has an issued patent number.  Currently, patents are being issued with numbers in the mid-seven-millions.  They (more or less) started at one and continue to increase from there.  Published applications have numbers in a different format:  YYYY/NNNNNNN, the YYYY being the year of publication and the NNNNNNN being a serial number for publications occurring in that year.</p><p>Finally, you can tell from the suffix on the number in cases where the suffix is printed (the linked-to USPTO database entry doesn't provide this, but it shows up on the face of the printed patent such as you might see on Google Patents).  Issued patents in the US have a suffix B1, B2, etc. (The number depends on whether the patent has been published previously, such as when a Certificate of Correction is issued for the patent.)  A published application will have a suffix A1 (or rarely A2).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Near the very top , just above the author name ( " Dean et al .
" ) it says " United States Patent " .
A published application would instead say " Patent Application Publication " .Another way to tell is that it has an issued patent number .
Currently , patents are being issued with numbers in the mid-seven-millions .
They ( more or less ) started at one and continue to increase from there .
Published applications have numbers in a different format : YYYY/NNNNNNN , the YYYY being the year of publication and the NNNNNNN being a serial number for publications occurring in that year.Finally , you can tell from the suffix on the number in cases where the suffix is printed ( the linked-to USPTO database entry does n't provide this , but it shows up on the face of the printed patent such as you might see on Google Patents ) .
Issued patents in the US have a suffix B1 , B2 , etc .
( The number depends on whether the patent has been published previously , such as when a Certificate of Correction is issued for the patent .
) A published application will have a suffix A1 ( or rarely A2 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Near the very top, just above the author name ("Dean et al.
") it says "United States Patent".
A published application would instead say "Patent Application Publication".Another way to tell is that it has an issued patent number.
Currently, patents are being issued with numbers in the mid-seven-millions.
They (more or less) started at one and continue to increase from there.
Published applications have numbers in a different format:  YYYY/NNNNNNN, the YYYY being the year of publication and the NNNNNNN being a serial number for publications occurring in that year.Finally, you can tell from the suffix on the number in cases where the suffix is printed (the linked-to USPTO database entry doesn't provide this, but it shows up on the face of the printed patent such as you might see on Google Patents).
Issued patents in the US have a suffix B1, B2, etc.
(The number depends on whether the patent has been published previously, such as when a Certificate of Correction is issued for the patent.
)  A published application will have a suffix A1 (or rarely A2).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825448</id>
	<title>help document this on swpat.org wiki</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1263899760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
  If you remember other stories of silly software patents, please help document this problem here:
</p><ul>

<li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Silly\_patents" title="swpat.org">Silly patents</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Example\_software\_patents" title="swpat.org">Example software patents</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Quality\_of\_software\_patents\_is\_particularly\_bad" title="swpat.org">Quality of software patents is particularly bad</a> [swpat.org] </li></ul><p>(On the public swpat.org documentation wiki)</p><p>Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you remember other stories of silly software patents , please help document this problem here : Silly patents [ swpat.org ] Example software patents [ swpat.org ] Quality of software patents is particularly bad [ swpat.org ] ( On the public swpat.org documentation wiki ) Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  If you remember other stories of silly software patents, please help document this problem here:


 Silly patents [swpat.org]  Example software patents [swpat.org]  Quality of software patents is particularly bad [swpat.org] (On the public swpat.org documentation wiki)Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30831352</id>
	<title>Re:!do no evil</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1264000560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, Google tends to hide a lot about its business details. Therefore it only published part of its motto.<br>The full motto is: Do no evil <em>unless you profit from it.</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , Google tends to hide a lot about its business details .
Therefore it only published part of its motto.The full motto is : Do no evil unless you profit from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, Google tends to hide a lot about its business details.
Therefore it only published part of its motto.The full motto is: Do no evil unless you profit from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823620</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>leenks</author>
	<datestamp>1263934620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not defending patents, but this patent was filed for on June 18, 2004. The MapReduce paper was released in December 2004. The fact that it is similar to functional programming primitives is largely irrelavent - it is the application of the technique in a novel way to solve a specific problem (ie large scale data processing) which makes it patentable. For a start, the system described in the patent includes details on parallelisation/processing task distribution, rack awareness, and lots more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not defending patents , but this patent was filed for on June 18 , 2004 .
The MapReduce paper was released in December 2004 .
The fact that it is similar to functional programming primitives is largely irrelavent - it is the application of the technique in a novel way to solve a specific problem ( ie large scale data processing ) which makes it patentable .
For a start , the system described in the patent includes details on parallelisation/processing task distribution , rack awareness , and lots more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not defending patents, but this patent was filed for on June 18, 2004.
The MapReduce paper was released in December 2004.
The fact that it is similar to functional programming primitives is largely irrelavent - it is the application of the technique in a novel way to solve a specific problem (ie large scale data processing) which makes it patentable.
For a start, the system described in the patent includes details on parallelisation/processing task distribution, rack awareness, and lots more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824604</id>
	<title>Re:The usual /. patent question -</title>
	<author>laughingskeptic</author>
	<datestamp>1263896160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The software technique is obvious and has been used many times in the last 50 years.  The use of key/value pairs for storing state is mundane.  The use of sets of key/value pairs to partition work across multiple processing steps is equally mundane.  Scaling a parallelizable process to multiple processors is obvious.  So what is patentable about this claim?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The software technique is obvious and has been used many times in the last 50 years .
The use of key/value pairs for storing state is mundane .
The use of sets of key/value pairs to partition work across multiple processing steps is equally mundane .
Scaling a parallelizable process to multiple processors is obvious .
So what is patentable about this claim ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The software technique is obvious and has been used many times in the last 50 years.
The use of key/value pairs for storing state is mundane.
The use of sets of key/value pairs to partition work across multiple processing steps is equally mundane.
Scaling a parallelizable process to multiple processors is obvious.
So what is patentable about this claim?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30844718</id>
	<title>Original article in the post misses the point</title>
	<author>Absync</author>
	<datestamp>1264082160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It claims the database technology is better in enforcing data consistency . They make this assumption keeping applications like banking, payroll etc in mind. Not the Web applications where speed matters a lot. This is where MapReduce score high.

Considering speed is utmost factor, would you care design application with all referential integrity constraints or figure ways where u avoid it all together. Database schema and all looks good but doesnot provide speed or rather eats up processing power.

Mapreduce allows you to process huge amount of data in parallel.  While academics debate about merits of Mapreduce, Google builds new systems quickly, processes data at lightning speed. Mapreduce is the very reason for the success of google infrastructure. It makes easy to processes data, write pipelines to mine data etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It claims the database technology is better in enforcing data consistency .
They make this assumption keeping applications like banking , payroll etc in mind .
Not the Web applications where speed matters a lot .
This is where MapReduce score high .
Considering speed is utmost factor , would you care design application with all referential integrity constraints or figure ways where u avoid it all together .
Database schema and all looks good but doesnot provide speed or rather eats up processing power .
Mapreduce allows you to process huge amount of data in parallel .
While academics debate about merits of Mapreduce , Google builds new systems quickly , processes data at lightning speed .
Mapreduce is the very reason for the success of google infrastructure .
It makes easy to processes data , write pipelines to mine data etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It claims the database technology is better in enforcing data consistency .
They make this assumption keeping applications like banking, payroll etc in mind.
Not the Web applications where speed matters a lot.
This is where MapReduce score high.
Considering speed is utmost factor, would you care design application with all referential integrity constraints or figure ways where u avoid it all together.
Database schema and all looks good but doesnot provide speed or rather eats up processing power.
Mapreduce allows you to process huge amount of data in parallel.
While academics debate about merits of Mapreduce, Google builds new systems quickly, processes data at lightning speed.
Mapreduce is the very reason for the success of google infrastructure.
It makes easy to processes data, write pipelines to mine data etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824946</id>
	<title>Re:US patent office workers should be ashamed...</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1263897720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You realize that Hadoop is a reimplementation of the MapReduce technology widely in use inside Google for a long time. Google invented it, filed a patent on it, published a paper on it, and Hadoop reimplemented it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then finally the US PTO granted the patent. Clear?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that Hadoop is a reimplementation of the MapReduce technology widely in use inside Google for a long time .
Google invented it , filed a patent on it , published a paper on it , and Hadoop reimplemented it ... then finally the US PTO granted the patent .
Clear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that Hadoop is a reimplementation of the MapReduce technology widely in use inside Google for a long time.
Google invented it, filed a patent on it, published a paper on it, and Hadoop reimplemented it ... then finally the US PTO granted the patent.
Clear?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823610</id>
	<title>I don't recall a more boring day on slashdot...</title>
	<author>genghisjahn</author>
	<datestamp>1263934620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At this point I think I'd read Mac Tablet rumors...</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point I think I 'd read Mac Tablet rumors.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point I think I'd read Mac Tablet rumors...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823246</id>
	<title>MapReduce</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1263933000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know what MapReduce was so I looked it up:</p><blockquote><div><p>MapReduce is a software framework introduced by Google to support distributed computing on large data sets on clusters of computers.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know what MapReduce was so I looked it up : MapReduce is a software framework introduced by Google to support distributed computing on large data sets on clusters of computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know what MapReduce was so I looked it up:MapReduce is a software framework introduced by Google to support distributed computing on large data sets on clusters of computers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825386</id>
	<title>Has anyone actually read the patent?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263899520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since this is Slashdot, the usual knee-jerk reaction to any patent story is "duh, this is obvious". In most cases, people posting such replies haven't even read the claims, or if they did, do not understand how to interpret them properly.</p><p>I'm very skeptical that Google had indeed somehow managed to patent the fundamental principle of MapReduce, given that map and reduce (fold) have been basic FP building blocks for several decades, under these very names. I suspect, rather, that Google patented their particular implementation, complete with intelligent load balancing, hot-swapping, automated error checking and removal of faulty nodes, and whatever other fancy stuff they may have there - which is another matter entirely (even if implemented purely in software).</p><p>Since there are still some people here who are proficient in legalese (and specifically its dialect used in patent applications), any one of you care to explain what this <em>actually</em> is about to us simple folk?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this is Slashdot , the usual knee-jerk reaction to any patent story is " duh , this is obvious " .
In most cases , people posting such replies have n't even read the claims , or if they did , do not understand how to interpret them properly.I 'm very skeptical that Google had indeed somehow managed to patent the fundamental principle of MapReduce , given that map and reduce ( fold ) have been basic FP building blocks for several decades , under these very names .
I suspect , rather , that Google patented their particular implementation , complete with intelligent load balancing , hot-swapping , automated error checking and removal of faulty nodes , and whatever other fancy stuff they may have there - which is another matter entirely ( even if implemented purely in software ) .Since there are still some people here who are proficient in legalese ( and specifically its dialect used in patent applications ) , any one of you care to explain what this actually is about to us simple folk ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this is Slashdot, the usual knee-jerk reaction to any patent story is "duh, this is obvious".
In most cases, people posting such replies haven't even read the claims, or if they did, do not understand how to interpret them properly.I'm very skeptical that Google had indeed somehow managed to patent the fundamental principle of MapReduce, given that map and reduce (fold) have been basic FP building blocks for several decades, under these very names.
I suspect, rather, that Google patented their particular implementation, complete with intelligent load balancing, hot-swapping, automated error checking and removal of faulty nodes, and whatever other fancy stuff they may have there - which is another matter entirely (even if implemented purely in software).Since there are still some people here who are proficient in legalese (and specifically its dialect used in patent applications), any one of you care to explain what this actually is about to us simple folk?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823534</id>
	<title>MapReduce is cheap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263934200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article makes reference of MapReduce detractors.  Here is my response to them:<br> <br>With cloud computing pricing following Moore's Law, the cost of distributed brute force is headed to $0.  This is preferable to most users than: <br> <br>a) getting screwed by Oracle and other proprietary DBMS vendors on licensing costs<br>b) getting screwed by vertically scaled big iron hardware vendors for running enough horsepower for your large Oracle footprint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article makes reference of MapReduce detractors .
Here is my response to them : With cloud computing pricing following Moore 's Law , the cost of distributed brute force is headed to $ 0 .
This is preferable to most users than : a ) getting screwed by Oracle and other proprietary DBMS vendors on licensing costsb ) getting screwed by vertically scaled big iron hardware vendors for running enough horsepower for your large Oracle footprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article makes reference of MapReduce detractors.
Here is my response to them: With cloud computing pricing following Moore's Law, the cost of distributed brute force is headed to $0.
This is preferable to most users than:  a) getting screwed by Oracle and other proprietary DBMS vendors on licensing costsb) getting screwed by vertically scaled big iron hardware vendors for running enough horsepower for your large Oracle footprint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823780</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1263892200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is why IBM takes out so many patents too. Most of them are "defensive" patents."</p><p>Yes. Let's have a toast to all the prolific patent-holders and their "defensive" patents. I'll pour the Kool-Aid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is why IBM takes out so many patents too .
Most of them are " defensive " patents. " Yes .
Let 's have a toast to all the prolific patent-holders and their " defensive " patents .
I 'll pour the Kool-Aid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is why IBM takes out so many patents too.
Most of them are "defensive" patents."Yes.
Let's have a toast to all the prolific patent-holders and their "defensive" patents.
I'll pour the Kool-Aid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824682</id>
	<title>Re:will be interesting to see if they use it</title>
	<author>laughingskeptic</author>
	<datestamp>1263896520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they don't enforce their patents, they effectively become public domain.  They will probably not sue Hadop, but will try to arrange for some official acknowledgment from Hadop of Google's patent rights and grant them some sort of license explicitly for open source projects.  This will strengthen Google's claim.  They did not fight their way through 4 rejections and hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney fees to not enforce this patent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't enforce their patents , they effectively become public domain .
They will probably not sue Hadop , but will try to arrange for some official acknowledgment from Hadop of Google 's patent rights and grant them some sort of license explicitly for open source projects .
This will strengthen Google 's claim .
They did not fight their way through 4 rejections and hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney fees to not enforce this patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't enforce their patents, they effectively become public domain.
They will probably not sue Hadop, but will try to arrange for some official acknowledgment from Hadop of Google's patent rights and grant them some sort of license explicitly for open source projects.
This will strengthen Google's claim.
They did not fight their way through 4 rejections and hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney fees to not enforce this patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30826982</id>
	<title>Re:will be interesting to see if they use it</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1263908820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A somewhat optimistic guess is that they'll be restricted to using this defensively. Are they really going to sue Hadoop, the open-source implementation of MapReduce? Hadoop not only implements a version of MapReduce, it even uses its name, so is not at all coy about being a direct infringement of this patent. And yet, I would be surprised if Google sued them, or the many people using it. They certainly haven't said anything yet, as far as I can find--- when things like Amazon Elastic MapReduce were launched, I can't find record of Google saying, "hey, you're stealing our tech!"</p></div><p>Your evidence of their good intentions is that they didn't sue anyone for patent infringement <i>before they had a patent granted</i>?</p><p>I have news for you.  They now have the legal ability to sue people for infringement of this patent (that they didn't have before it was granted).  Even if you think "But Eric Schmidt is such a lovely chap, he'd never be so dastardly" you have no guarantee that he will be CEO tomorrow let alone in ten years' time.  At any time, Google could choose to sue and they have made no public legally binding statement that they will not do so.  As with any patent, you infringe at your peril.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A somewhat optimistic guess is that they 'll be restricted to using this defensively .
Are they really going to sue Hadoop , the open-source implementation of MapReduce ?
Hadoop not only implements a version of MapReduce , it even uses its name , so is not at all coy about being a direct infringement of this patent .
And yet , I would be surprised if Google sued them , or the many people using it .
They certainly have n't said anything yet , as far as I can find--- when things like Amazon Elastic MapReduce were launched , I ca n't find record of Google saying , " hey , you 're stealing our tech !
" Your evidence of their good intentions is that they did n't sue anyone for patent infringement before they had a patent granted ? I have news for you .
They now have the legal ability to sue people for infringement of this patent ( that they did n't have before it was granted ) .
Even if you think " But Eric Schmidt is such a lovely chap , he 'd never be so dastardly " you have no guarantee that he will be CEO tomorrow let alone in ten years ' time .
At any time , Google could choose to sue and they have made no public legally binding statement that they will not do so .
As with any patent , you infringe at your peril .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A somewhat optimistic guess is that they'll be restricted to using this defensively.
Are they really going to sue Hadoop, the open-source implementation of MapReduce?
Hadoop not only implements a version of MapReduce, it even uses its name, so is not at all coy about being a direct infringement of this patent.
And yet, I would be surprised if Google sued them, or the many people using it.
They certainly haven't said anything yet, as far as I can find--- when things like Amazon Elastic MapReduce were launched, I can't find record of Google saying, "hey, you're stealing our tech!
"Your evidence of their good intentions is that they didn't sue anyone for patent infringement before they had a patent granted?I have news for you.
They now have the legal ability to sue people for infringement of this patent (that they didn't have before it was granted).
Even if you think "But Eric Schmidt is such a lovely chap, he'd never be so dastardly" you have no guarantee that he will be CEO tomorrow let alone in ten years' time.
At any time, Google could choose to sue and they have made no public legally binding statement that they will not do so.
As with any patent, you infringe at your peril.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823044</id>
	<title>Re:will be interesting to see if they use it</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263932160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be nice to see maps.google.com have it's bandwidth reduced using the mapreduce technic.</p><p>I'd really like a full city map that fits in my pocket.</p><p>This patent can do lots of good things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be nice to see maps.google.com have it 's bandwidth reduced using the mapreduce technic.I 'd really like a full city map that fits in my pocket.This patent can do lots of good things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be nice to see maps.google.com have it's bandwidth reduced using the mapreduce technic.I'd really like a full city map that fits in my pocket.This patent can do lots of good things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822812</id>
	<title>Re:!do no evil</title>
	<author>astrashe</author>
	<datestamp>1263931320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds more stupid than evil, which is interesting, because Google doesn't do obviously stupid things very often.</p><p>The patent won't do them any good, because it won't stand up in court.  They could use it to attack someone small -- an open source developer who would have to back down because they couldn't handle teh legal fees -- but they don't have much of a history of that sort of thing, and there's no reason to think they would in this case, either.</p><p>It won't do them any good at all against someone big -- MS and Bing, for example -- because MS would have good lawyers who could demonstrate prior art to a court.</p><p>So what's the point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds more stupid than evil , which is interesting , because Google does n't do obviously stupid things very often.The patent wo n't do them any good , because it wo n't stand up in court .
They could use it to attack someone small -- an open source developer who would have to back down because they could n't handle teh legal fees -- but they do n't have much of a history of that sort of thing , and there 's no reason to think they would in this case , either.It wo n't do them any good at all against someone big -- MS and Bing , for example -- because MS would have good lawyers who could demonstrate prior art to a court.So what 's the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds more stupid than evil, which is interesting, because Google doesn't do obviously stupid things very often.The patent won't do them any good, because it won't stand up in court.
They could use it to attack someone small -- an open source developer who would have to back down because they couldn't handle teh legal fees -- but they don't have much of a history of that sort of thing, and there's no reason to think they would in this case, either.It won't do them any good at all against someone big -- MS and Bing, for example -- because MS would have good lawyers who could demonstrate prior art to a court.So what's the point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30827264</id>
	<title>Multiple reduce functions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263911100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anybody care to explain what it means to have both an application-independent reduce module and an application-specific reduce operation?  It would seem that these would generally be mutually exclusive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody care to explain what it means to have both an application-independent reduce module and an application-specific reduce operation ?
It would seem that these would generally be mutually exclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody care to explain what it means to have both an application-independent reduce module and an application-specific reduce operation?
It would seem that these would generally be mutually exclusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30826028</id>
	<title>Michael Stonebraker</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_Stonebraker" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Michael Stonebraker</a> [wikipedia.org] co-founded of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertica" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Vertica</a> [wikipedia.org], a column-store database system. In the SIGMOD '09 paper that "slammed" MapReduce, he and the other academics use Vertica alongside another unidentified commercial database system to show the weaknesses of the MapReduce model (using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadoop" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Hadoop</a> [wikipedia.org], the most popular publicly available implementation).</p><p>I mean no offense to Stonebraker and this fact alone certainly does not imply anything, but it should still be noted. It appears to be a clear ethics/conflict-of-interest violation to me and it is unfortunate that (to my knowledge) no one in the database community has spoken up. Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael Stonebraker [ wikipedia.org ] co-founded of Vertica [ wikipedia.org ] , a column-store database system .
In the SIGMOD '09 paper that " slammed " MapReduce , he and the other academics use Vertica alongside another unidentified commercial database system to show the weaknesses of the MapReduce model ( using Hadoop [ wikipedia.org ] , the most popular publicly available implementation ) .I mean no offense to Stonebraker and this fact alone certainly does not imply anything , but it should still be noted .
It appears to be a clear ethics/conflict-of-interest violation to me and it is unfortunate that ( to my knowledge ) no one in the database community has spoken up .
Posted anonymously for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael Stonebraker [wikipedia.org] co-founded of Vertica [wikipedia.org], a column-store database system.
In the SIGMOD '09 paper that "slammed" MapReduce, he and the other academics use Vertica alongside another unidentified commercial database system to show the weaknesses of the MapReduce model (using Hadoop [wikipedia.org], the most popular publicly available implementation).I mean no offense to Stonebraker and this fact alone certainly does not imply anything, but it should still be noted.
It appears to be a clear ethics/conflict-of-interest violation to me and it is unfortunate that (to my knowledge) no one in the database community has spoken up.
Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823800</id>
	<title>"Unpatentable"</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1263892260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.</i></p><p>A patent based on such technology may not stand up in court, but to start with, in practice "patentable" means something the USPTO will issue a patent on. And the examiner looking at whether to grant such an issue may not be familiar with relevant prior art, not to mention that they may not even have any particular incentive to examine a given patent application closely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.A patent based on such technology may not stand up in court , but to start with , in practice " patentable " means something the USPTO will issue a patent on .
And the examiner looking at whether to grant such an issue may not be familiar with relevant prior art , not to mention that they may not even have any particular incentive to examine a given patent application closely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.A patent based on such technology may not stand up in court, but to start with, in practice "patentable" means something the USPTO will issue a patent on.
And the examiner looking at whether to grant such an issue may not be familiar with relevant prior art, not to mention that they may not even have any particular incentive to examine a given patent application closely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766</id>
	<title>google is getting evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263931140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just the other day I couldn't sign up for a gmail account without google demanding my mobile telephone number!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the other day I could n't sign up for a gmail account without google demanding my mobile telephone number !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the other day I couldn't sign up for a gmail account without google demanding my mobile telephone number!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002</id>
	<title>Defensive patent</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1263931920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you go acusing Google of doing Evil (TM), think.
If they don't do this, some troll will.  The troll will lose,
but Google will waste a lot more money defending against it.</p><p>This is why IBM takes out so many patents too.  Most of them
are "defensive" patents.</p><p>We (that being everybody except the USPTO) could agree not to take
out any more software patents, and the industry would breathe a collective
sigh of relief.  Trouble is, it only takes a few bad apples to spoil
that approach.  It's the same reason Communism didn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you go acusing Google of doing Evil ( TM ) , think .
If they do n't do this , some troll will .
The troll will lose , but Google will waste a lot more money defending against it.This is why IBM takes out so many patents too .
Most of them are " defensive " patents.We ( that being everybody except the USPTO ) could agree not to take out any more software patents , and the industry would breathe a collective sigh of relief .
Trouble is , it only takes a few bad apples to spoil that approach .
It 's the same reason Communism did n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you go acusing Google of doing Evil (TM), think.
If they don't do this, some troll will.
The troll will lose,
but Google will waste a lot more money defending against it.This is why IBM takes out so many patents too.
Most of them
are "defensive" patents.We (that being everybody except the USPTO) could agree not to take
out any more software patents, and the industry would breathe a collective
sigh of relief.
Trouble is, it only takes a few bad apples to spoil
that approach.
It's the same reason Communism didn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823974</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>wtbname</author>
	<datestamp>1263893100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is <b>unpatentable.</b>. Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is <b>unpatentable.</b></p> </div><p>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</p><p>From TFA: <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,650,331.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,650,331&amp;RS=PN/7,650,331" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,650,331.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,650,331&amp;RS=PN/7,650,331</a> [uspto.gov]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A technique that is well known , such as MapReduce , is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.. Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable .
You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means.From TFA : http : //patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser ? Sect1 = PTO1&amp;Sect2 = HITOFF&amp;d = PALL&amp;p = 1&amp;u = \ % 2Fnetahtml \ % 2FPTO \ % 2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r = 1&amp;f = G&amp;l = 50&amp;s1 = 7,650,331.PN.&amp;OS = PN/7,650,331&amp;RS = PN/7,650,331 [ uspto.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.. Any technology that has been sold or in use for over a year is unpatentable.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.From TFA: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=7,650,331.PN.&amp;OS=PN/7,650,331&amp;RS=PN/7,650,331 [uspto.gov]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822910</id>
	<title>Awarded?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263931560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do we know the patent is awarded? I'm no expert on reading patents, but I don't see any references to a patent status there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know the patent is awarded ?
I 'm no expert on reading patents , but I do n't see any references to a patent status there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know the patent is awarded?
I'm no expert on reading patents, but I don't see any references to a patent status there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825282</id>
	<title>Re:will be interesting to see if they use it</title>
	<author>rtfa-troll</author>
	<datestamp>1263899040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you are thinking of trademarks.  Those are not related to patents.  There are various limitations on their ability to demand damages for past actions that they didn't act about, but their patent won't become invalid through lack of use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you are thinking of trademarks .
Those are not related to patents .
There are various limitations on their ability to demand damages for past actions that they did n't act about , but their patent wo n't become invalid through lack of use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are thinking of trademarks.
Those are not related to patents.
There are various limitations on their ability to demand damages for past actions that they didn't act about, but their patent won't become invalid through lack of use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30829418</id>
	<title>fork and merge</title>
	<author>Dr.Ruud</author>
	<datestamp>1263980100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call this "fork and merge" and we have been doing it since forever (1993 at least, but we surely didn't invent it).</p><p>The general technique is to have multiple processors work on part of the data set, in a potentially wasteful/redundant way, and then when the results are coming in, perform a merge step to arrive at a clean result.</p><p>Multi-threading must die. Forking is your past, present and future.</p><p>Processing chunks is also more effective, because you give other processes a chance to do some work too.</p><p>(" and  in one sentence-alert<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call this " fork and merge " and we have been doing it since forever ( 1993 at least , but we surely did n't invent it ) .The general technique is to have multiple processors work on part of the data set , in a potentially wasteful/redundant way , and then when the results are coming in , perform a merge step to arrive at a clean result.Multi-threading must die .
Forking is your past , present and future.Processing chunks is also more effective , because you give other processes a chance to do some work too .
( " and in one sentence-alert : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call this "fork and merge" and we have been doing it since forever (1993 at least, but we surely didn't invent it).The general technique is to have multiple processors work on part of the data set, in a potentially wasteful/redundant way, and then when the results are coming in, perform a merge step to arrive at a clean result.Multi-threading must die.
Forking is your past, present and future.Processing chunks is also more effective, because you give other processes a chance to do some work too.
(" and  in one sentence-alert :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30835922</id>
	<title>Re:A quick idea for patent reform</title>
	<author>sloth jr</author>
	<datestamp>1264018260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you so much for that link; in addition to the specific matter being discussed, it gives a great overview of the dynamics and personalities of the court. Excellent read, very accessible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you so much for that link ; in addition to the specific matter being discussed , it gives a great overview of the dynamics and personalities of the court .
Excellent read , very accessible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you so much for that link; in addition to the specific matter being discussed, it gives a great overview of the dynamics and personalities of the court.
Excellent read, very accessible!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824592</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1263896100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is not true that if Google doesn't patent it, a troll will. A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.</p></div> </blockquote><p>If it was unpatentable in practice Google would obviously not have been granted a patent on it; since they were granted a patent on it, the inescapable conclusion is that, in practice, MapReduce is in the category of things which can be patented (whether it should be or not), and therefore, it is not at all inconceivable that if Google had failed to patent it, some patent troll would have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not true that if Google does n't patent it , a troll will .
A technique that is well known , such as MapReduce , is the property of the general public and is unpatentable .
If it was unpatentable in practice Google would obviously not have been granted a patent on it ; since they were granted a patent on it , the inescapable conclusion is that , in practice , MapReduce is in the category of things which can be patented ( whether it should be or not ) , and therefore , it is not at all inconceivable that if Google had failed to patent it , some patent troll would have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not true that if Google doesn't patent it, a troll will.
A technique that is well known, such as MapReduce, is the property of the general public and is unpatentable.
If it was unpatentable in practice Google would obviously not have been granted a patent on it; since they were granted a patent on it, the inescapable conclusion is that, in practice, MapReduce is in the category of things which can be patented (whether it should be or not), and therefore, it is not at all inconceivable that if Google had failed to patent it, some patent troll would have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823046</id>
	<title>resume builders</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263932160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wrote a parallel application to process scientific data on multiple servers at a previous place I worked, using just SQL statements with a mod function on a primary key. The resume builders there then hired a consultant to help them rewrite the whole thing (excluding the core atomic algorithm part) using Hadoop and MapReduce, because the previous one didn't use Hadoop and MapReduce. They made a total mess and it's so hard to configure and deploy that IT still uses the version I wrote a year before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote a parallel application to process scientific data on multiple servers at a previous place I worked , using just SQL statements with a mod function on a primary key .
The resume builders there then hired a consultant to help them rewrite the whole thing ( excluding the core atomic algorithm part ) using Hadoop and MapReduce , because the previous one did n't use Hadoop and MapReduce .
They made a total mess and it 's so hard to configure and deploy that IT still uses the version I wrote a year before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote a parallel application to process scientific data on multiple servers at a previous place I worked, using just SQL statements with a mod function on a primary key.
The resume builders there then hired a consultant to help them rewrite the whole thing (excluding the core atomic algorithm part) using Hadoop and MapReduce, because the previous one didn't use Hadoop and MapReduce.
They made a total mess and it's so hard to configure and deploy that IT still uses the version I wrote a year before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824600</id>
	<title>Re:A quick idea for patent reform</title>
	<author>Harin\_Teb</author>
	<datestamp>1263896100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all such a rule would do is 1) force small inventors out of the patent field due to increased costs, and 2) SLAM the USPTO with applications which are virtually identical but have different claims instead of 20 claims in one patent, you'd have 20 patents, each with one claim.</p><p>IAAPA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all such a rule would do is 1 ) force small inventors out of the patent field due to increased costs , and 2 ) SLAM the USPTO with applications which are virtually identical but have different claims instead of 20 claims in one patent , you 'd have 20 patents , each with one claim.IAAPA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all such a rule would do is 1) force small inventors out of the patent field due to increased costs, and 2) SLAM the USPTO with applications which are virtually identical but have different claims instead of 20 claims in one patent, you'd have 20 patents, each with one claim.IAAPA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823462</id>
	<title>US patent office workers should be ashamed...</title>
	<author>BuddaLicious</author>
	<datestamp>1263933960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how do you get a patent awarded on something that has already been released as "open source" (Hadoop)</p><p>This does not add up, either Hadoop is not really open source, or US patent office are as FCKING stupid as EVERYONE seems to think they are.</p><p>Come on people, don't you get tired of the shame of working for such an organization....don't you want to see freedom and democracy restored to the world..?&gt;?&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how do you get a patent awarded on something that has already been released as " open source " ( Hadoop ) This does not add up , either Hadoop is not really open source , or US patent office are as FCKING stupid as EVERYONE seems to think they are.Come on people , do n't you get tired of the shame of working for such an organization....do n't you want to see freedom and democracy restored to the world.. ? &gt; ? &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do you get a patent awarded on something that has already been released as "open source" (Hadoop)This does not add up, either Hadoop is not really open source, or US patent office are as FCKING stupid as EVERYONE seems to think they are.Come on people, don't you get tired of the shame of working for such an organization....don't you want to see freedom and democracy restored to the world..?&gt;?&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822894</id>
	<title>Who Wrote This?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263931560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your summary of the situation "isn't even wrong". One does not "demand" a patent, one writes an application which is then examined against prior art and other bars to patentability.  Seriously, who wrote this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your summary of the situation " is n't even wrong " .
One does not " demand " a patent , one writes an application which is then examined against prior art and other bars to patentability .
Seriously , who wrote this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your summary of the situation "isn't even wrong".
One does not "demand" a patent, one writes an application which is then examined against prior art and other bars to patentability.
Seriously, who wrote this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30829504</id>
	<title>Re:google is getting evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263981120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When signing up, get a temporary email (See: 10minutemail.com) and put that in as your secondary address (or whatever).</p><p>Problem solved. If they bug you, ignore them (you can click it to go away forever after sign up).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When signing up , get a temporary email ( See : 10minutemail.com ) and put that in as your secondary address ( or whatever ) .Problem solved .
If they bug you , ignore them ( you can click it to go away forever after sign up ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When signing up, get a temporary email (See: 10minutemail.com) and put that in as your secondary address (or whatever).Problem solved.
If they bug you, ignore them (you can click it to go away forever after sign up).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823078</id>
	<title>Re:will be interesting to see if they use it</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1263932280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't find record of Google saying, "hey, you're stealing our tech!"</p></div><p>Maybe you just used the wrong search keywords. Nobody says "you're stealing our tech". The correct phraseology would be "hey, you're <i>infringing on</i> our <i>IP</i>!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't find record of Google saying , " hey , you 're stealing our tech !
" Maybe you just used the wrong search keywords .
Nobody says " you 're stealing our tech " .
The correct phraseology would be " hey , you 're infringing on our IP !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't find record of Google saying, "hey, you're stealing our tech!
"Maybe you just used the wrong search keywords.
Nobody says "you're stealing our tech".
The correct phraseology would be "hey, you're infringing on our IP!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664</id>
	<title>!do no evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263930780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess they had to burn some of the karma they earned for standing up to China.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess they had to burn some of the karma they earned for standing up to China.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess they had to burn some of the karma they earned for standing up to China.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30828036</id>
	<title>Google Declines to Comment on Patent's Intent</title>
	<author>theodp</author>
	<datestamp>1263918960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://gigaom.com/2010/01/19/why-hadoop-users-shouldnt-fear-googles-new-mapreduce-patent/" title="gigaom.com">Gigaom</a> [gigaom.com]: Michelle Lee, Google Deputy General Counsel, on why Google sought the patent,  and whether or not Google would seek to enforce its patent rights: "Like other responsible, innovative companies, Google files patent applications on a variety of technologies it develops. While we do not comment about the use of this or any part of our portfolio, we feel that our behavior to date has been inline with our corporate values and priorities."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gigaom [ gigaom.com ] : Michelle Lee , Google Deputy General Counsel , on why Google sought the patent , and whether or not Google would seek to enforce its patent rights : " Like other responsible , innovative companies , Google files patent applications on a variety of technologies it develops .
While we do not comment about the use of this or any part of our portfolio , we feel that our behavior to date has been inline with our corporate values and priorities .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gigaom [gigaom.com]: Michelle Lee, Google Deputy General Counsel, on why Google sought the patent,  and whether or not Google would seek to enforce its patent rights: "Like other responsible, innovative companies, Google files patent applications on a variety of technologies it develops.
While we do not comment about the use of this or any part of our portfolio, we feel that our behavior to date has been inline with our corporate values and priorities.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823484</id>
	<title>Re:The usual /. patent question -</title>
	<author>ratboy666</author>
	<datestamp>1263934020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That's one heck of a detailed claim. Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely."</p><p>Um...</p><p>My "Computer Science" foo may not be strong, but I do see a problem.</p><p>Let's begin with the definition of "process" and "interconnected processors". When translated this actually doesn't mean much, especially if using a functional notation. In short, a functional sort <b>has to</b> conflict.</p><p>Except of course for the clause:</p><p>"and wherein at least two of the second plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously"</p><p>Now, this may, or may not happen. I guess it depends on the implementation of the functional programming system. But, we certainly cannot permit the automatic parallelization of functional algorithms anymore!</p><p>Almost <b>any</b> attempt runs afoul of this patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's one heck of a detailed claim .
Infringement would require some effort ; anticipation ( every limitation appearing in a single document , arranged in the same manner as the claim ) is unlikely .
" Um...My " Computer Science " foo may not be strong , but I do see a problem.Let 's begin with the definition of " process " and " interconnected processors " .
When translated this actually does n't mean much , especially if using a functional notation .
In short , a functional sort has to conflict.Except of course for the clause : " and wherein at least two of the second plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously " Now , this may , or may not happen .
I guess it depends on the implementation of the functional programming system .
But , we certainly can not permit the automatic parallelization of functional algorithms anymore ! Almost any attempt runs afoul of this patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's one heck of a detailed claim.
Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely.
"Um...My "Computer Science" foo may not be strong, but I do see a problem.Let's begin with the definition of "process" and "interconnected processors".
When translated this actually doesn't mean much, especially if using a functional notation.
In short, a functional sort has to conflict.Except of course for the clause:"and wherein at least two of the second plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously"Now, this may, or may not happen.
I guess it depends on the implementation of the functional programming system.
But, we certainly cannot permit the automatic parallelization of functional algorithms anymore!Almost any attempt runs afoul of this patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30827074</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1263909360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before you go acusing Google of doing Evil (TM), think. If they don't do this, some troll will. The troll will lose, but Google will waste a lot more money defending against it.</p></div><p>Actually, no. (Usual caveat of I Am Not A Lawyer).  Google could quite happily have let the patent application be rejected by the USPTO.  It would still have become a published patent application, and thus would still have been included in any USPTO "prior art" searches for future patent applications just as a granted patent would.  Having the patent granted rather than rejected doesn't seem to do anything extra to prevent anyone else from submitting a patent.  The USPTO tried to reject it four times, but Google kept tweaking it to get it granted, so it seems Google really do want the patent, not just to prevent anybody else from getting it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you go acusing Google of doing Evil ( TM ) , think .
If they do n't do this , some troll will .
The troll will lose , but Google will waste a lot more money defending against it.Actually , no .
( Usual caveat of I Am Not A Lawyer ) .
Google could quite happily have let the patent application be rejected by the USPTO .
It would still have become a published patent application , and thus would still have been included in any USPTO " prior art " searches for future patent applications just as a granted patent would .
Having the patent granted rather than rejected does n't seem to do anything extra to prevent anyone else from submitting a patent .
The USPTO tried to reject it four times , but Google kept tweaking it to get it granted , so it seems Google really do want the patent , not just to prevent anybody else from getting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you go acusing Google of doing Evil (TM), think.
If they don't do this, some troll will.
The troll will lose, but Google will waste a lot more money defending against it.Actually, no.
(Usual caveat of I Am Not A Lawyer).
Google could quite happily have let the patent application be rejected by the USPTO.
It would still have become a published patent application, and thus would still have been included in any USPTO "prior art" searches for future patent applications just as a granted patent would.
Having the patent granted rather than rejected doesn't seem to do anything extra to prevent anyone else from submitting a patent.
The USPTO tried to reject it four times, but Google kept tweaking it to get it granted, so it seems Google really do want the patent, not just to prevent anybody else from getting it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823034</id>
	<title>A quick idea for patent reform</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're probably never going to get rid of software patents, odious as they are; at this point there are too many enormous players, of which Google is not at all the worst offender, with way too much invested in them.  But it occurs to me that one change to patent law that might be politically feasible, and which would really help cut down on clearly frivolous patents like this one:</p><p><i>If any claim in the patent is held to be invalid, the entire patent is invalid.</i></p><p>Claim 1 of the patent is simply an arcane, legalistic description of the operation of pretty much <b>every parallel processing algorithm ever.</b>  Some of the subsequent claims actually do describe novel, non-obvious, and useful ways of handling large data sets across multiple processors.  If the patent were restricted to these claims, well, it would still be a software patent and therefore Evil, but it might at least have some claim to promoting "the progress of science and the useful arts."</p><p>In general, it seems like this would make both patent trolling, and big companies like Google lawyering small independent developers to death, a little more difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're probably never going to get rid of software patents , odious as they are ; at this point there are too many enormous players , of which Google is not at all the worst offender , with way too much invested in them .
But it occurs to me that one change to patent law that might be politically feasible , and which would really help cut down on clearly frivolous patents like this one : If any claim in the patent is held to be invalid , the entire patent is invalid.Claim 1 of the patent is simply an arcane , legalistic description of the operation of pretty much every parallel processing algorithm ever .
Some of the subsequent claims actually do describe novel , non-obvious , and useful ways of handling large data sets across multiple processors .
If the patent were restricted to these claims , well , it would still be a software patent and therefore Evil , but it might at least have some claim to promoting " the progress of science and the useful arts .
" In general , it seems like this would make both patent trolling , and big companies like Google lawyering small independent developers to death , a little more difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're probably never going to get rid of software patents, odious as they are; at this point there are too many enormous players, of which Google is not at all the worst offender, with way too much invested in them.
But it occurs to me that one change to patent law that might be politically feasible, and which would really help cut down on clearly frivolous patents like this one:If any claim in the patent is held to be invalid, the entire patent is invalid.Claim 1 of the patent is simply an arcane, legalistic description of the operation of pretty much every parallel processing algorithm ever.
Some of the subsequent claims actually do describe novel, non-obvious, and useful ways of handling large data sets across multiple processors.
If the patent were restricted to these claims, well, it would still be a software patent and therefore Evil, but it might at least have some claim to promoting "the progress of science and the useful arts.
"In general, it seems like this would make both patent trolling, and big companies like Google lawyering small independent developers to death, a little more difficult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30826876</id>
	<title>Re:will be interesting to see if they use it</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1263908040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Hadoop not only implements a version of MapReduce, it even uses its name</p><p>It's nice that Google can move backwards in time and Patent something that has been around in MPI for 10 or 20 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Hadoop not only implements a version of MapReduce , it even uses its nameIt 's nice that Google can move backwards in time and Patent something that has been around in MPI for 10 or 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Hadoop not only implements a version of MapReduce, it even uses its nameIt's nice that Google can move backwards in time and Patent something that has been around in MPI for 10 or 20 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30828712</id>
	<title>Re:Working for Google</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1263925680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My research are is HPC, and I sometimes have toyed with trying to work for Google.  They seemed like something special.</p><p>Now that they're pursuing unjustifiable software patents, I'm forced to sadly put Google into the same mental category as Microsoft and IBM.  Like the other two companies, Google does some cool stuff, but I wouldn't feel much better about working for Google than I would for IBM or Microsoft.</p><p>Sad.</p></div><p>Perhaps, but it's almost impossible to find a computer software or hardware company of any size that <em>doesn't</em> do this.  It's pretty much standard procedure in the industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My research are is HPC , and I sometimes have toyed with trying to work for Google .
They seemed like something special.Now that they 're pursuing unjustifiable software patents , I 'm forced to sadly put Google into the same mental category as Microsoft and IBM .
Like the other two companies , Google does some cool stuff , but I would n't feel much better about working for Google than I would for IBM or Microsoft.Sad.Perhaps , but it 's almost impossible to find a computer software or hardware company of any size that does n't do this .
It 's pretty much standard procedure in the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My research are is HPC, and I sometimes have toyed with trying to work for Google.
They seemed like something special.Now that they're pursuing unjustifiable software patents, I'm forced to sadly put Google into the same mental category as Microsoft and IBM.
Like the other two companies, Google does some cool stuff, but I wouldn't feel much better about working for Google than I would for IBM or Microsoft.Sad.Perhaps, but it's almost impossible to find a computer software or hardware company of any size that doesn't do this.
It's pretty much standard procedure in the industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822802</id>
	<title>Re:!do no evil</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1263931260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's exactly my first thought. But then I weighed the loss in revenues for standing up to china against the gain they would get from this patent. The loss is heavier and hence the hypothesis fails.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly my first thought .
But then I weighed the loss in revenues for standing up to china against the gain they would get from this patent .
The loss is heavier and hence the hypothesis fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly my first thought.
But then I weighed the loss in revenues for standing up to china against the gain they would get from this patent.
The loss is heavier and hence the hypothesis fails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124</id>
	<title>The usual /. patent question -</title>
	<author>Janthkin</author>
	<datestamp>1263932460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>- did the submitter actually read the claims, before asserting that it was obvious and/or anticipated?

<br>Here's claim 1 (it's a monster):
1. A system for large-scale processing of data, comprising: <br>a plurality of processes executing on a plurality of interconnected processors; <br>the plurality of processes including a master process, for coordinating a data processing job for processing a set of input data, and worker processes; <br>the master process, in response to a request to perform the data processing job, assigning input data blocks of the set of input data to respective ones of the worker processes; <br>each of a first plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent map module for retrieving a respective input data block assigned to the worker process by the master process and applying an application-specific map operation to the respective input data block to produce intermediate data values, wherein at least a subset of the intermediate data values each comprises a key/value pair, and wherein at least two of the first plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific map operation in parallel on distinct, respective input data blocks; a partition operator for processing the produced intermediate data values to produce a plurality of intermediate data sets, wherein each respective intermediate data set includes all key/value pairs for a distinct set of respective keys, and wherein at least one of the respective intermediate data sets includes respective ones of the key/value pairs produced by a plurality of the first plurality of the worker processes; and <br>each of a second plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent reduce module for retrieving data, the retrieved data comprising at least a subset of the key/value pairs from a respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets and applying an application-specific reduce operation to the retrieved data to produce final output data corresponding to the distinct set of respective keys in the respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets, and wherein at least two of the second plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific reduce operation in parallel on multiple respective subsets of the produced intermediate data values.<br> <br>That's one heck of a detailed claim.  Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>- did the submitter actually read the claims , before asserting that it was obvious and/or anticipated ?
Here 's claim 1 ( it 's a monster ) : 1 .
A system for large-scale processing of data , comprising : a plurality of processes executing on a plurality of interconnected processors ; the plurality of processes including a master process , for coordinating a data processing job for processing a set of input data , and worker processes ; the master process , in response to a request to perform the data processing job , assigning input data blocks of the set of input data to respective ones of the worker processes ; each of a first plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent map module for retrieving a respective input data block assigned to the worker process by the master process and applying an application-specific map operation to the respective input data block to produce intermediate data values , wherein at least a subset of the intermediate data values each comprises a key/value pair , and wherein at least two of the first plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific map operation in parallel on distinct , respective input data blocks ; a partition operator for processing the produced intermediate data values to produce a plurality of intermediate data sets , wherein each respective intermediate data set includes all key/value pairs for a distinct set of respective keys , and wherein at least one of the respective intermediate data sets includes respective ones of the key/value pairs produced by a plurality of the first plurality of the worker processes ; and each of a second plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent reduce module for retrieving data , the retrieved data comprising at least a subset of the key/value pairs from a respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets and applying an application-specific reduce operation to the retrieved data to produce final output data corresponding to the distinct set of respective keys in the respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets , and wherein at least two of the second plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific reduce operation in parallel on multiple respective subsets of the produced intermediate data values .
That 's one heck of a detailed claim .
Infringement would require some effort ; anticipation ( every limitation appearing in a single document , arranged in the same manner as the claim ) is unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- did the submitter actually read the claims, before asserting that it was obvious and/or anticipated?
Here's claim 1 (it's a monster):
1.
A system for large-scale processing of data, comprising: a plurality of processes executing on a plurality of interconnected processors; the plurality of processes including a master process, for coordinating a data processing job for processing a set of input data, and worker processes; the master process, in response to a request to perform the data processing job, assigning input data blocks of the set of input data to respective ones of the worker processes; each of a first plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent map module for retrieving a respective input data block assigned to the worker process by the master process and applying an application-specific map operation to the respective input data block to produce intermediate data values, wherein at least a subset of the intermediate data values each comprises a key/value pair, and wherein at least two of the first plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific map operation in parallel on distinct, respective input data blocks; a partition operator for processing the produced intermediate data values to produce a plurality of intermediate data sets, wherein each respective intermediate data set includes all key/value pairs for a distinct set of respective keys, and wherein at least one of the respective intermediate data sets includes respective ones of the key/value pairs produced by a plurality of the first plurality of the worker processes; and each of a second plurality of the worker processes including an application-independent reduce module for retrieving data, the retrieved data comprising at least a subset of the key/value pairs from a respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets and applying an application-specific reduce operation to the retrieved data to produce final output data corresponding to the distinct set of respective keys in the respective intermediate data set of the plurality of intermediate data sets, and wherein at least two of the second plurality of the worker processes operate simultaneously so as to perform the application-specific reduce operation in parallel on multiple respective subsets of the produced intermediate data values.
That's one heck of a detailed claim.
Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824806</id>
	<title>Re:A quick idea for patent reform</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1263897240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>We're probably never going to get rid of software patents, odious as they are;</p></div><p>The way the <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral\_arguments/argument\_transcripts/08-964.pdf" title="supremecourtus.gov" rel="nofollow">oral arguments on Bilski vs Kappos went</a> [supremecourtus.gov] back in November, software patents are one step away from an endangered species.</p><p>When you have every judge in the Supreme Court agreeing with one another on a subject...</p></div><p>Bilski wasn't a software patent, it was a business method patent.  It's <i>highly</i> unlikely that the Supreme Court will throw out software patents.  Business methods, otoh, are a much tougher sell to anyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're probably never going to get rid of software patents , odious as they are ; The way the oral arguments on Bilski vs Kappos went [ supremecourtus.gov ] back in November , software patents are one step away from an endangered species.When you have every judge in the Supreme Court agreeing with one another on a subject...Bilski was n't a software patent , it was a business method patent .
It 's highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will throw out software patents .
Business methods , otoh , are a much tougher sell to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're probably never going to get rid of software patents, odious as they are;The way the oral arguments on Bilski vs Kappos went [supremecourtus.gov] back in November, software patents are one step away from an endangered species.When you have every judge in the Supreme Court agreeing with one another on a subject...Bilski wasn't a software patent, it was a business method patent.
It's highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will throw out software patents.
Business methods, otoh, are a much tougher sell to anyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824418</id>
	<title>Re:Defensive patent</title>
	<author>anegg</author>
	<datestamp>1263895200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the risk of being modded Offtopic (which I am), You are either trolling for grammer Nazis, or you misapprehended a phrase... I believe you meant to say "For all *intents* and *purposes*" in your signature line, not "For all intensive purposes..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the risk of being modded Offtopic ( which I am ) , You are either trolling for grammer Nazis , or you misapprehended a phrase... I believe you meant to say " For all * intents * and * purposes * " in your signature line , not " For all intensive purposes... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the risk of being modded Offtopic (which I am), You are either trolling for grammer Nazis, or you misapprehended a phrase... I believe you meant to say "For all *intents* and *purposes*" in your signature line, not "For all intensive purposes..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824454</id>
	<title>Re:The usual /. patent question -</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1263895380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's one heck of a detailed claim. Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely.</p></div></blockquote><p>Anticipation is narrow.  Infringement, however, is broad.  A slight difference between the purported prior art and the claim means the prior art doesn't invalidate the claim.  A slight difference between the device claimed to infringe and the claim, however, doesn't make the device non-infringing.  This means that while it should be that prior art leaves broad areas of technology unpatentable, what actually happens is the other way around -- the patent leaves broad areas of prior art unusable, because just about any use of that prior art which hasn't been done exactly that way before is interpreted as infringing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one heck of a detailed claim .
Infringement would require some effort ; anticipation ( every limitation appearing in a single document , arranged in the same manner as the claim ) is unlikely.Anticipation is narrow .
Infringement , however , is broad .
A slight difference between the purported prior art and the claim means the prior art does n't invalidate the claim .
A slight difference between the device claimed to infringe and the claim , however , does n't make the device non-infringing .
This means that while it should be that prior art leaves broad areas of technology unpatentable , what actually happens is the other way around -- the patent leaves broad areas of prior art unusable , because just about any use of that prior art which has n't been done exactly that way before is interpreted as infringing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one heck of a detailed claim.
Infringement would require some effort; anticipation (every limitation appearing in a single document, arranged in the same manner as the claim) is unlikely.Anticipation is narrow.
Infringement, however, is broad.
A slight difference between the purported prior art and the claim means the prior art doesn't invalidate the claim.
A slight difference between the device claimed to infringe and the claim, however, doesn't make the device non-infringing.
This means that while it should be that prior art leaves broad areas of technology unpatentable, what actually happens is the other way around -- the patent leaves broad areas of prior art unusable, because just about any use of that prior art which hasn't been done exactly that way before is interpreted as infringing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823820</id>
	<title>Perhaps they should patent</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1263892380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the run-on sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the run-on sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the run-on sentence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824654</id>
	<title>Merge Sort Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263896400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this any different from a patent on distributed merge sort?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different from a patent on distributed merge sort ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different from a patent on distributed merge sort?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30831352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30827074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30828712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30835922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30826876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30826982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30828108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30829504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1815257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30828712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30827074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30826876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30826982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30825812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30835922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30824604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30831352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30827264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30822766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30829504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1815257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30823246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1815257.30828108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
