<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_27_0041242</id>
	<title>Champerty and Other Common Law We Could Use Today</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264619820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pevans writes <i>"Over on Red Hat's Opensource.com I found this neat summary of a few <a href="http://opensource.com/law/09/11/whats-wrong-champerty">old laws that could really help us today</a> with the patent trolls. The article 'What's wrong with champerty?' is brief, but full of legal goodness that seems to have fallen by the wayside: 'Let's bring back barratry, maintenance, and champerty for patent lawsuits. Combine that with a limitation on the assignment of patents and a lot of patent trolls would be out of business. ...do patents have to be freely assignable? And why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pevans writes " Over on Red Hat 's Opensource.com I found this neat summary of a few old laws that could really help us today with the patent trolls .
The article 'What 's wrong with champerty ?
' is brief , but full of legal goodness that seems to have fallen by the wayside : 'Let 's bring back barratry , maintenance , and champerty for patent lawsuits .
Combine that with a limitation on the assignment of patents and a lot of patent trolls would be out of business .
...do patents have to be freely assignable ?
And why ca n't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pevans writes "Over on Red Hat's Opensource.com I found this neat summary of a few old laws that could really help us today with the patent trolls.
The article 'What's wrong with champerty?
' is brief, but full of legal goodness that seems to have fallen by the wayside: 'Let's bring back barratry, maintenance, and champerty for patent lawsuits.
Combine that with a limitation on the assignment of patents and a lot of patent trolls would be out of business.
...do patents have to be freely assignable?
And why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400</id>
	<title>No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1264623780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you need is to make sane fucking laws, not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet. That's what got us in this mess in the first place.</p><p>What next? Stoning girls because they weren't virgins on their wedding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you need is to make sane fucking laws , not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet .
That 's what got us in this mess in the first place.What next ?
Stoning girls because they were n't virgins on their wedding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you need is to make sane fucking laws, not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet.
That's what got us in this mess in the first place.What next?
Stoning girls because they weren't virgins on their wedding?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30919542</id>
	<title>Re:The patent system exists for aiding innovation</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1264616160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Software patents <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/10/red-hat-bilski-brief-says-software-patents-stifle-innovation.ars" title="arstechnica.com">stifle innovation</a> [arstechnica.com].<br>Yet they are still around.</p><p>Many of us hate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC" title="wikipedia.org">software patents</a> [wikipedia.org]. (myself included).<br>They limit what we can do, so we have to find <a href="http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#35" title="openbsd.org">innovative</a> [openbsd.org] ways to avoid them.</p></div><p>That they are only a problem when abused. If company X develops some new way of sorting data that allows them to produce a better database, then they deserve an opportunity to profit from their work, just as an inventor deserves a chance to profit from an invention. The fact that company X's invention is not embedded within a specific piece of hardware doesn't change the fact that they have contributed something.</p><p>(And, unlike copyrights, software patents have a chance of dying before the product being patented becomes obsolete).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides litigation, how do software patents benefit their holders?</p></div><p>Besides paying for your hospital bills, how does health insurance benefit you? Litigation, or the threat of litigation, is the main benefit for patent holders. If somebody steals your idea, you have a legal recourse against them. That's the only good thing that comes from patent law, but it is sufficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software patents stifle innovation [ arstechnica.com ] .Yet they are still around.Many of us hate software patents [ wikipedia.org ] .
( myself included ) .They limit what we can do , so we have to find innovative [ openbsd.org ] ways to avoid them.That they are only a problem when abused .
If company X develops some new way of sorting data that allows them to produce a better database , then they deserve an opportunity to profit from their work , just as an inventor deserves a chance to profit from an invention .
The fact that company X 's invention is not embedded within a specific piece of hardware does n't change the fact that they have contributed something .
( And , unlike copyrights , software patents have a chance of dying before the product being patented becomes obsolete ) .Besides litigation , how do software patents benefit their holders ? Besides paying for your hospital bills , how does health insurance benefit you ?
Litigation , or the threat of litigation , is the main benefit for patent holders .
If somebody steals your idea , you have a legal recourse against them .
That 's the only good thing that comes from patent law , but it is sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software patents stifle innovation [arstechnica.com].Yet they are still around.Many of us hate software patents [wikipedia.org].
(myself included).They limit what we can do, so we have to find innovative [openbsd.org] ways to avoid them.That they are only a problem when abused.
If company X develops some new way of sorting data that allows them to produce a better database, then they deserve an opportunity to profit from their work, just as an inventor deserves a chance to profit from an invention.
The fact that company X's invention is not embedded within a specific piece of hardware doesn't change the fact that they have contributed something.
(And, unlike copyrights, software patents have a chance of dying before the product being patented becomes obsolete).Besides litigation, how do software patents benefit their holders?Besides paying for your hospital bills, how does health insurance benefit you?
Litigation, or the threat of litigation, is the main benefit for patent holders.
If somebody steals your idea, you have a legal recourse against them.
That's the only good thing that comes from patent law, but it is sufficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915670</id>
	<title>Re:Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264598700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right - let's not pussy foot around</p><p>- the system is broken and it stifles innovation (1 click patent?)<br>- the system is broken and it stifles innovation (the mouse that roared - Mickey and his indefinite copyright by a cancerous organisation)<br>- the system is broken and it stifles innovation (wavelet compression and its failed advancement since the early 90s due to patents)</p><p>Do you want me to go on?<br>The System IS BROKEN</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right - let 's not pussy foot around- the system is broken and it stifles innovation ( 1 click patent ?
) - the system is broken and it stifles innovation ( the mouse that roared - Mickey and his indefinite copyright by a cancerous organisation ) - the system is broken and it stifles innovation ( wavelet compression and its failed advancement since the early 90s due to patents ) Do you want me to go on ? The System IS BROKEN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right - let's not pussy foot around- the system is broken and it stifles innovation (1 click patent?
)- the system is broken and it stifles innovation (the mouse that roared - Mickey and his indefinite copyright by a cancerous organisation)- the system is broken and it stifles innovation (wavelet compression and its failed advancement since the early 90s due to patents)Do you want me to go on?The System IS BROKEN</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436</id>
	<title>The patent system exists for aiding innovation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The patent system is for one thing only.  To aid innovation.
<br> <br>
If the patent system doesn't aid innovation it fails its own raison d'&#234;tre.<br>
If a part of the patent system doesn't aid innovation that part fails and should be removed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent system is for one thing only .
To aid innovation .
If the patent system does n't aid innovation it fails its own raison d '   tre .
If a part of the patent system does n't aid innovation that part fails and should be removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent system is for one thing only.
To aid innovation.
If the patent system doesn't aid innovation it fails its own raison d'être.
If a part of the patent system doesn't aid innovation that part fails and should be removed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918164</id>
	<title>A very superficial article</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1264610940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article was written in a very superficial way.  The author avoids going into detail on how her proposed solution would be implemented and why it would not have negative side effects.  I suspect she has not actually thought very deeply about the problem or her solution.</p><p> <em>But do patents have to be freely assignable?</em> </p><p>Patents are personal property--and thus freely assignable--by statute.  <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl\_35\_U\_S\_C\_261.htm" title="uspto.gov">35 U.S.C. 261</a> [uspto.gov].  Assignability is also guaranteed by <a href="http://www.wto.org/english/docs\_e/legal\_e/27-trips\_04c\_e.htm" title="wto.org">Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement</a> [wto.org], which is a treaty that the US is party to.  So changing the assignability of patents would require amending the law and withdrawing from or amending a very important international treaty.</p><p>And even if it were changed, it would mean that hundreds of patent holding companies would suddenly lose their patent rights because of an action by the government.  Other patent holders would lose their right to freely assign their patents.  That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders and patent holders whose patents lost value because of the restriction would be able to sue the government for the value of the patents.  It would be a massive litigation and cost the tax payer an enormous amount of money.</p><p>But anyway, how does she suggest we restrict the assignability of patents?  We could require that they only be assigned to an entity that intended to practice the invention.  Sounds great, right?  No more patent holding companies, therefore no more trolls.  There are at least five big problems with that:</p><p>1. Not all patents can be freely practiced because of other patents surrounding the technology. Imagine I own a startup company.  If I invent a new transistor design I can't be expected to practice it myself: other companies have patents on things like manufacturing processes, bus designs, chip packaging, etc.  I would have to license dozens of other patents in order to sell chips with my new transistor design.  But that's backwards.  Instead, I should license my one patent to companies like Intel and AMD and let them do the manufacturing and sales.  But a requirement to practice means I couldn't do that; I'd have to practice it myself.</p><p>2. And what about pure research institutions like universities?  They can't be expected to also become manufacturers.</p><p>3. But suppose we say it's worth making universities sell their patents.  Well, now since they have to sell the patent only a single entity will get the rights.  It can no longer stay with the university and be licensed to whoever will pay the fee.  The end result is less competition in the market place for the finished product.</p><p>4. Okay, suppose we say that it's sufficient that the patent owner license the patent to at least one entity that is going to practice it.  But then the law is too narrow.  Almost no patent trolls actually rely on litigation damages for income; it's too uncertain and the margins are too narrow and often negative.  Litigation is just a tool to extract a licensing fee.  So the end result is that the trolls can point to a manufacturer who licenses the patent and nothing changes.</p><p>5. What about patents on technologies that are ahead of their time?  For example, suppose I invented an amazing new transistor design.  It will make computers much faster but it requires X-ray lithography in order to work.  Well, X-ray lithography is not cost-effective yet, so I can't really practice my invention.  Does my patent just evaporate?  How does that spur innovation?</p><p>So the author has carefully avoided actually explaining how her solution would be implemented and how it would be narrow enough not to have side effects yet broad enough to be effective yet not invite more litigation or government regulation.</p><p> <em>Trademark law dealt with a similar problem, a worry about trafficking in intent-to-use trademark applications, and solved it by forbidding the assignment of them "e</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article was written in a very superficial way .
The author avoids going into detail on how her proposed solution would be implemented and why it would not have negative side effects .
I suspect she has not actually thought very deeply about the problem or her solution .
But do patents have to be freely assignable ?
Patents are personal property--and thus freely assignable--by statute .
35 U.S.C .
261 [ uspto.gov ] .
Assignability is also guaranteed by Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement [ wto.org ] , which is a treaty that the US is party to .
So changing the assignability of patents would require amending the law and withdrawing from or amending a very important international treaty.And even if it were changed , it would mean that hundreds of patent holding companies would suddenly lose their patent rights because of an action by the government .
Other patent holders would lose their right to freely assign their patents .
That 's called a taking , and the ex-patent holders and patent holders whose patents lost value because of the restriction would be able to sue the government for the value of the patents .
It would be a massive litigation and cost the tax payer an enormous amount of money.But anyway , how does she suggest we restrict the assignability of patents ?
We could require that they only be assigned to an entity that intended to practice the invention .
Sounds great , right ?
No more patent holding companies , therefore no more trolls .
There are at least five big problems with that : 1 .
Not all patents can be freely practiced because of other patents surrounding the technology .
Imagine I own a startup company .
If I invent a new transistor design I ca n't be expected to practice it myself : other companies have patents on things like manufacturing processes , bus designs , chip packaging , etc .
I would have to license dozens of other patents in order to sell chips with my new transistor design .
But that 's backwards .
Instead , I should license my one patent to companies like Intel and AMD and let them do the manufacturing and sales .
But a requirement to practice means I could n't do that ; I 'd have to practice it myself.2 .
And what about pure research institutions like universities ?
They ca n't be expected to also become manufacturers.3 .
But suppose we say it 's worth making universities sell their patents .
Well , now since they have to sell the patent only a single entity will get the rights .
It can no longer stay with the university and be licensed to whoever will pay the fee .
The end result is less competition in the market place for the finished product.4 .
Okay , suppose we say that it 's sufficient that the patent owner license the patent to at least one entity that is going to practice it .
But then the law is too narrow .
Almost no patent trolls actually rely on litigation damages for income ; it 's too uncertain and the margins are too narrow and often negative .
Litigation is just a tool to extract a licensing fee .
So the end result is that the trolls can point to a manufacturer who licenses the patent and nothing changes.5 .
What about patents on technologies that are ahead of their time ?
For example , suppose I invented an amazing new transistor design .
It will make computers much faster but it requires X-ray lithography in order to work .
Well , X-ray lithography is not cost-effective yet , so I ca n't really practice my invention .
Does my patent just evaporate ?
How does that spur innovation ? So the author has carefully avoided actually explaining how her solution would be implemented and how it would be narrow enough not to have side effects yet broad enough to be effective yet not invite more litigation or government regulation .
Trademark law dealt with a similar problem , a worry about trafficking in intent-to-use trademark applications , and solved it by forbidding the assignment of them " e</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article was written in a very superficial way.
The author avoids going into detail on how her proposed solution would be implemented and why it would not have negative side effects.
I suspect she has not actually thought very deeply about the problem or her solution.
But do patents have to be freely assignable?
Patents are personal property--and thus freely assignable--by statute.
35 U.S.C.
261 [uspto.gov].
Assignability is also guaranteed by Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement [wto.org], which is a treaty that the US is party to.
So changing the assignability of patents would require amending the law and withdrawing from or amending a very important international treaty.And even if it were changed, it would mean that hundreds of patent holding companies would suddenly lose their patent rights because of an action by the government.
Other patent holders would lose their right to freely assign their patents.
That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders and patent holders whose patents lost value because of the restriction would be able to sue the government for the value of the patents.
It would be a massive litigation and cost the tax payer an enormous amount of money.But anyway, how does she suggest we restrict the assignability of patents?
We could require that they only be assigned to an entity that intended to practice the invention.
Sounds great, right?
No more patent holding companies, therefore no more trolls.
There are at least five big problems with that:1.
Not all patents can be freely practiced because of other patents surrounding the technology.
Imagine I own a startup company.
If I invent a new transistor design I can't be expected to practice it myself: other companies have patents on things like manufacturing processes, bus designs, chip packaging, etc.
I would have to license dozens of other patents in order to sell chips with my new transistor design.
But that's backwards.
Instead, I should license my one patent to companies like Intel and AMD and let them do the manufacturing and sales.
But a requirement to practice means I couldn't do that; I'd have to practice it myself.2.
And what about pure research institutions like universities?
They can't be expected to also become manufacturers.3.
But suppose we say it's worth making universities sell their patents.
Well, now since they have to sell the patent only a single entity will get the rights.
It can no longer stay with the university and be licensed to whoever will pay the fee.
The end result is less competition in the market place for the finished product.4.
Okay, suppose we say that it's sufficient that the patent owner license the patent to at least one entity that is going to practice it.
But then the law is too narrow.
Almost no patent trolls actually rely on litigation damages for income; it's too uncertain and the margins are too narrow and often negative.
Litigation is just a tool to extract a licensing fee.
So the end result is that the trolls can point to a manufacturer who licenses the patent and nothing changes.5.
What about patents on technologies that are ahead of their time?
For example, suppose I invented an amazing new transistor design.
It will make computers much faster but it requires X-ray lithography in order to work.
Well, X-ray lithography is not cost-effective yet, so I can't really practice my invention.
Does my patent just evaporate?
How does that spur innovation?So the author has carefully avoided actually explaining how her solution would be implemented and how it would be narrow enough not to have side effects yet broad enough to be effective yet not invite more litigation or government regulation.
Trademark law dealt with a similar problem, a worry about trafficking in intent-to-use trademark applications, and solved it by forbidding the assignment of them "e</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30932926</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, but no reason to be sexist</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264692900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I honestly can't tell if you're joking</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
That constant whooshing sound in your life must get annoying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly ca n't tell if you 're joking That constant whooshing sound in your life must get annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly can't tell if you're joking

That constant whooshing sound in your life must get annoying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30917518</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1264608600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nowadays, in a state ruled by representatives of the citizenry for the citizenry...</p></div></blockquote><p>See, that's the problem. We don't have that. If we did, we wouldn't have the patent system that we do. What we have is a state ruled by representatives of big businesses for big businesses.

</p><p>We need some sort of controls on barratry, not just to fight patent trolls but to stop <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic\_lawsuit\_against\_public\_participation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">SLAPPs</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nowadays , in a state ruled by representatives of the citizenry for the citizenry...See , that 's the problem .
We do n't have that .
If we did , we would n't have the patent system that we do .
What we have is a state ruled by representatives of big businesses for big businesses .
We need some sort of controls on barratry , not just to fight patent trolls but to stop SLAPPs [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nowadays, in a state ruled by representatives of the citizenry for the citizenry...See, that's the problem.
We don't have that.
If we did, we wouldn't have the patent system that we do.
What we have is a state ruled by representatives of big businesses for big businesses.
We need some sort of controls on barratry, not just to fight patent trolls but to stop SLAPPs [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30930486</id>
	<title>champerty and maintenance still wrongs in Ohio</title>
	<author>rssrss</author>
	<datestamp>1264710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp. 99 Ohio St.3d 121 (2003):</p><p>"We are asked to address whether a nonrecourse advance of funds secured solely by an interest in a pending lawsuit and at a contracted return exceeding 180 percent per year is permissible under Ohio law. We hold that it is not. Such an agreement constitutes champerty and maintenance and thus is void under Ohio law."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp. 99 Ohio St.3d 121 ( 2003 ) : " We are asked to address whether a nonrecourse advance of funds secured solely by an interest in a pending lawsuit and at a contracted return exceeding 180 percent per year is permissible under Ohio law .
We hold that it is not .
Such an agreement constitutes champerty and maintenance and thus is void under Ohio law .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp. 99 Ohio St.3d 121 (2003):"We are asked to address whether a nonrecourse advance of funds secured solely by an interest in a pending lawsuit and at a contracted return exceeding 180 percent per year is permissible under Ohio law.
We hold that it is not.
Such an agreement constitutes champerty and maintenance and thus is void under Ohio law.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30920794</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous Cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1264620720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case. The criteria are vague, but generally come down to litigating too much. This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen, company, organization or even the state</p></div><p>Not if the citizen being repeatedly secrewed over is being screwed over a barrage of frivolous lawsuits which they can't afford to fend off (because even if you get costs back, they'll never really cover your true costs)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case .
The criteria are vague , but generally come down to litigating too much .
This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen , company , organization or even the stateNot if the citizen being repeatedly secrewed over is being screwed over a barrage of frivolous lawsuits which they ca n't afford to fend off ( because even if you get costs back , they 'll never really cover your true costs )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case.
The criteria are vague, but generally come down to litigating too much.
This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen, company, organization or even the stateNot if the citizen being repeatedly secrewed over is being screwed over a barrage of frivolous lawsuits which they can't afford to fend off (because even if you get costs back, they'll never really cover your true costs)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30916372</id>
	<title>Re:Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1264603440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copyright is in the direct conflict with the freedom of speech, and there is not a shred of evidence
that it provides an actual incentive to produce works of art: i.e. there is no evidence that fewer works
would be produced without it. It follows that it only benefits the lucky few, while the public gets stuck
with a tax on all art production and consumption. Looks like a pretty good case for it being immoral.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is in the direct conflict with the freedom of speech , and there is not a shred of evidence that it provides an actual incentive to produce works of art : i.e .
there is no evidence that fewer works would be produced without it .
It follows that it only benefits the lucky few , while the public gets stuck with a tax on all art production and consumption .
Looks like a pretty good case for it being immoral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is in the direct conflict with the freedom of speech, and there is not a shred of evidence
that it provides an actual incentive to produce works of art: i.e.
there is no evidence that fewer works
would be produced without it.
It follows that it only benefits the lucky few, while the public gets stuck
with a tax on all art production and consumption.
Looks like a pretty good case for it being immoral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914852</id>
	<title>Re:Regular modern restrictions would be fine.</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1264588560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Reform the laws so that people can't cash in on something they did not contribute to, no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence.</i></p><p>So if I buy a house, I'm not allowed to rent it out?  Or sue somebody who built their own house on my land, thus attempting to live off what I paid for fair-and-square?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reform the laws so that people ca n't cash in on something they did not contribute to , no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence.So if I buy a house , I 'm not allowed to rent it out ?
Or sue somebody who built their own house on my land , thus attempting to live off what I paid for fair-and-square ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reform the laws so that people can't cash in on something they did not contribute to, no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence.So if I buy a house, I'm not allowed to rent it out?
Or sue somebody who built their own house on my land, thus attempting to live off what I paid for fair-and-square?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914842</id>
	<title>Re:The patent system exists for aiding innovation</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1264588320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They limit what we can do, so we have to find innovative [openbsd.org] ways to avoid them.</i></p><p>Innovative!? Quick, patent the technique!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They limit what we can do , so we have to find innovative [ openbsd.org ] ways to avoid them.Innovative ! ?
Quick , patent the technique ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They limit what we can do, so we have to find innovative [openbsd.org] ways to avoid them.Innovative!?
Quick, patent the technique!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914542</id>
	<title>Re:Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>starbugs</author>
	<datestamp>1264583160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Patents and copyrights are both immoral protection rackets designed to hide information and make the rich richer. They stall human progress rather than help it.</p></div><p>Hmmmm...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The disclosure requirement lies at the heart and origin of patent law. A state or government grants an inventor, or the inventor's assignee, a monopoly for a given period of time in exchange for the inventor disclosing to the public how to make or practice his or her invention.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency\_of\_disclosure" title="wikipedia.org">src</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>So the idea of patents was so that there would be fewer trade secrets. At least that was before information traveled at the speed of light.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents and copyrights are both immoral protection rackets designed to hide information and make the rich richer .
They stall human progress rather than help it.Hmmmm...The disclosure requirement lies at the heart and origin of patent law .
A state or government grants an inventor , or the inventor 's assignee , a monopoly for a given period of time in exchange for the inventor disclosing to the public how to make or practice his or her invention .
src [ wikipedia.org ] So the idea of patents was so that there would be fewer trade secrets .
At least that was before information traveled at the speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents and copyrights are both immoral protection rackets designed to hide information and make the rich richer.
They stall human progress rather than help it.Hmmmm...The disclosure requirement lies at the heart and origin of patent law.
A state or government grants an inventor, or the inventor's assignee, a monopoly for a given period of time in exchange for the inventor disclosing to the public how to make or practice his or her invention.
src [wikipedia.org]So the idea of patents was so that there would be fewer trade secrets.
At least that was before information traveled at the speed of light.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915076</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, but no reason to be sexist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264592040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This would cut down on teen pregnancy, abortion, children growing up in broken families, STDs, and so much more.</p></div><p>I honestly can't tell if you're joking, but let's examine this statement a little more closely rather than blithely passing it off as fact...</p><p> <i>Cut down on teen pregnancy</i>. Yes, because teens have time and time again proven that they carefully consider the consequences of their actions in advance (and of course this assumes they never do anything silly while experimenting with drink or drugs).</p><p> <i>Cut down on abortion</i>. This assumes that the first point works, otherwise it might actually <i>increase</i> abortion. It's a relatively simple operation now for a woman to have her hymen restored to fake virginity, it's a little harder to hide the fact that you have a child out of wedlock - if you tell people they're going to be stoned to death if they happen to be single mothers you're going to see a net increase in abortions. You also have the tricky situation that the woman might be pregnant. Do you kill her <i>and</i> the unborn child, or do you wait until the child is born, then kill her, and if so, how does this fit into the next point...</p><p> <i>Cut down on broken families</i> - aside from what you do with all the semi-orphans created from your previous point, this has some pretty flawed assumptions, firstly that a man and woman can't have a happy relationship unless the woman is a virgin when they meet, secondly that a couple who stay together but are deeply unhappy, or the relationship is violent, aren't also a "broken" family and finally that couples value sex so highly they will stay together even if they are deeply unhappy just because the woman can't remarry if either of them leaves (you didn't preclude them splitting up or getting divorced after all).</p><p> <i>STDs</i> - of course, if women are virgins at their weddings, nobody will ever have affairs or sleep with prostitutes ever again.</p><p>The fact is we can look at recent historical (and even in some cases current) evidence of societies which enact what you condone here and we can see that all that really happens is that the death rate of young women is much higher, none of the other issues are ever really solved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would cut down on teen pregnancy , abortion , children growing up in broken families , STDs , and so much more.I honestly ca n't tell if you 're joking , but let 's examine this statement a little more closely rather than blithely passing it off as fact... Cut down on teen pregnancy .
Yes , because teens have time and time again proven that they carefully consider the consequences of their actions in advance ( and of course this assumes they never do anything silly while experimenting with drink or drugs ) .
Cut down on abortion .
This assumes that the first point works , otherwise it might actually increase abortion .
It 's a relatively simple operation now for a woman to have her hymen restored to fake virginity , it 's a little harder to hide the fact that you have a child out of wedlock - if you tell people they 're going to be stoned to death if they happen to be single mothers you 're going to see a net increase in abortions .
You also have the tricky situation that the woman might be pregnant .
Do you kill her and the unborn child , or do you wait until the child is born , then kill her , and if so , how does this fit into the next point... Cut down on broken families - aside from what you do with all the semi-orphans created from your previous point , this has some pretty flawed assumptions , firstly that a man and woman ca n't have a happy relationship unless the woman is a virgin when they meet , secondly that a couple who stay together but are deeply unhappy , or the relationship is violent , are n't also a " broken " family and finally that couples value sex so highly they will stay together even if they are deeply unhappy just because the woman ca n't remarry if either of them leaves ( you did n't preclude them splitting up or getting divorced after all ) .
STDs - of course , if women are virgins at their weddings , nobody will ever have affairs or sleep with prostitutes ever again.The fact is we can look at recent historical ( and even in some cases current ) evidence of societies which enact what you condone here and we can see that all that really happens is that the death rate of young women is much higher , none of the other issues are ever really solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would cut down on teen pregnancy, abortion, children growing up in broken families, STDs, and so much more.I honestly can't tell if you're joking, but let's examine this statement a little more closely rather than blithely passing it off as fact... Cut down on teen pregnancy.
Yes, because teens have time and time again proven that they carefully consider the consequences of their actions in advance (and of course this assumes they never do anything silly while experimenting with drink or drugs).
Cut down on abortion.
This assumes that the first point works, otherwise it might actually increase abortion.
It's a relatively simple operation now for a woman to have her hymen restored to fake virginity, it's a little harder to hide the fact that you have a child out of wedlock - if you tell people they're going to be stoned to death if they happen to be single mothers you're going to see a net increase in abortions.
You also have the tricky situation that the woman might be pregnant.
Do you kill her and the unborn child, or do you wait until the child is born, then kill her, and if so, how does this fit into the next point... Cut down on broken families - aside from what you do with all the semi-orphans created from your previous point, this has some pretty flawed assumptions, firstly that a man and woman can't have a happy relationship unless the woman is a virgin when they meet, secondly that a couple who stay together but are deeply unhappy, or the relationship is violent, aren't also a "broken" family and finally that couples value sex so highly they will stay together even if they are deeply unhappy just because the woman can't remarry if either of them leaves (you didn't preclude them splitting up or getting divorced after all).
STDs - of course, if women are virgins at their weddings, nobody will ever have affairs or sleep with prostitutes ever again.The fact is we can look at recent historical (and even in some cases current) evidence of societies which enact what you condone here and we can see that all that really happens is that the death rate of young women is much higher, none of the other issues are ever really solved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914480</id>
	<title>Did I hear "net gain to society"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264625160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> And why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no <b>net gain to society</b>?</i> </p><p>What are you, some kind of communist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why ca n't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society ?
What are you , some kind of communist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society?
What are you, some kind of communist?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914772</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>cthugha</author>
	<datestamp>1264587360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contingency fee arrangement of the "no win, no fee" variety are not champertous, and have always been allowed in Queensland (my home jurisdiction) were champerty was not abolished as it was elsewhere in the Commonwealth. What is prohibited as champertous are fee arrangements under which lawyers' fees are calculated as a percentage of the final award in a proceeding. It's a fine line, but that's what comes out of the cases.</p><p>I'm not sure of the precise historical reasons for the abolition of these torts in New South Wales, but I note that they also create difficulties for types of litigation funding that are considered legitimate, e.g. funding by public interest groups or unions. IIRC, union lobbying was behind much of the Victorian Wrongs Act, which (in its original form) abolished maintenance and champerty in that State as well as making a whole load of other changes in relation to civil liability for negligence and personal injury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contingency fee arrangement of the " no win , no fee " variety are not champertous , and have always been allowed in Queensland ( my home jurisdiction ) were champerty was not abolished as it was elsewhere in the Commonwealth .
What is prohibited as champertous are fee arrangements under which lawyers ' fees are calculated as a percentage of the final award in a proceeding .
It 's a fine line , but that 's what comes out of the cases.I 'm not sure of the precise historical reasons for the abolition of these torts in New South Wales , but I note that they also create difficulties for types of litigation funding that are considered legitimate , e.g .
funding by public interest groups or unions .
IIRC , union lobbying was behind much of the Victorian Wrongs Act , which ( in its original form ) abolished maintenance and champerty in that State as well as making a whole load of other changes in relation to civil liability for negligence and personal injury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contingency fee arrangement of the "no win, no fee" variety are not champertous, and have always been allowed in Queensland (my home jurisdiction) were champerty was not abolished as it was elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
What is prohibited as champertous are fee arrangements under which lawyers' fees are calculated as a percentage of the final award in a proceeding.
It's a fine line, but that's what comes out of the cases.I'm not sure of the precise historical reasons for the abolition of these torts in New South Wales, but I note that they also create difficulties for types of litigation funding that are considered legitimate, e.g.
funding by public interest groups or unions.
IIRC, union lobbying was behind much of the Victorian Wrongs Act, which (in its original form) abolished maintenance and champerty in that State as well as making a whole load of other changes in relation to civil liability for negligence and personal injury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30916738</id>
	<title>Even older laws</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1264605180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or lack of, at least, like when there wasnt patents in general, or lasted a reasonable amount of time, or didnt existed trivial/common sense/"soft" patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>or lack of , at least , like when there wasnt patents in general , or lasted a reasonable amount of time , or didnt existed trivial/common sense/ " soft " patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or lack of, at least, like when there wasnt patents in general, or lasted a reasonable amount of time, or didnt existed trivial/common sense/"soft" patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914690</id>
	<title>your big chancego on then, write that law</title>
	<author>DrSkwid</author>
	<datestamp>1264586100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go on then, write that law for us to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go on then , write that law for us to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go on then, write that law for us to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30920874</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, but no reason to be sexist</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1264620900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      "What next? Stoning girls because they weren't virgins on their wedding?"</p><p>"This would cut down on teen pregnancy, abortion, children growing up in broken families, STDs, and so much more."</p><p>Ya, like it did before. STD's aren't new, neither is broken families; abortion and teen pregnancy???? You can't beat hormones and millions of years of evolution. Religion has been trying for thousands of years and has obviously lost. The only thing this will do is lower the population and guarantee a civil uprising like so many other times in history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What next ?
Stoning girls because they were n't virgins on their wedding ?
" " This would cut down on teen pregnancy , abortion , children growing up in broken families , STDs , and so much more .
" Ya , like it did before .
STD 's are n't new , neither is broken families ; abortion and teen pregnancy ? ? ? ?
You ca n't beat hormones and millions of years of evolution .
Religion has been trying for thousands of years and has obviously lost .
The only thing this will do is lower the population and guarantee a civil uprising like so many other times in history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      "What next?
Stoning girls because they weren't virgins on their wedding?
""This would cut down on teen pregnancy, abortion, children growing up in broken families, STDs, and so much more.
"Ya, like it did before.
STD's aren't new, neither is broken families; abortion and teen pregnancy????
You can't beat hormones and millions of years of evolution.
Religion has been trying for thousands of years and has obviously lost.
The only thing this will do is lower the population and guarantee a civil uprising like so many other times in history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914392</id>
	<title>Let's bring back barratry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what she said!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what she said !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what she said!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914664</id>
	<title>Re:Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1264585620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Immoral?  I'm not sure that word means what you think it does.<br> <br>
In an ideal world, people who enjoy an artists work would be able to pay the artist directly for their enjoyment.  That way the artist is supported, and people who aren't interested don't have to support what they consider 'junk.'  That is how it should be.<br> <br>
In the real world, copyright is a pretty good way to get that done.  Are there problems with it? Yes, and the law is a little behind the latest technology (big surprise).  That doesn't mean everything about copyright is bad.<br> <br>
Usually people I see who consider copyright immoral are people who are too cheap to pay a dollar for a song. Copyright for a reasonable length of time is not immoral, it's a good system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Immoral ?
I 'm not sure that word means what you think it does .
In an ideal world , people who enjoy an artists work would be able to pay the artist directly for their enjoyment .
That way the artist is supported , and people who are n't interested do n't have to support what they consider 'junk .
' That is how it should be .
In the real world , copyright is a pretty good way to get that done .
Are there problems with it ?
Yes , and the law is a little behind the latest technology ( big surprise ) .
That does n't mean everything about copyright is bad .
Usually people I see who consider copyright immoral are people who are too cheap to pay a dollar for a song .
Copyright for a reasonable length of time is not immoral , it 's a good system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Immoral?
I'm not sure that word means what you think it does.
In an ideal world, people who enjoy an artists work would be able to pay the artist directly for their enjoyment.
That way the artist is supported, and people who aren't interested don't have to support what they consider 'junk.
'  That is how it should be.
In the real world, copyright is a pretty good way to get that done.
Are there problems with it?
Yes, and the law is a little behind the latest technology (big surprise).
That doesn't mean everything about copyright is bad.
Usually people I see who consider copyright immoral are people who are too cheap to pay a dollar for a song.
Copyright for a reasonable length of time is not immoral, it's a good system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30929526</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264612860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, so you were following that rape case in Bangladesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , so you were following that rape case in Bangladesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, so you were following that rape case in Bangladesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918336</id>
	<title>Re:The patent system exists for aiding innovation</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1264611660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're living in the past.  That's why both patents and copyrights were conceived in the Constitution.</p><p>I fear that has little to do with why patents and copyrights are around now - especially copyrights.  I'll be curious to see how patent law is tweaked, so that patents can continue to be a barrier-to-entry, yet get rid of patent trolls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're living in the past .
That 's why both patents and copyrights were conceived in the Constitution.I fear that has little to do with why patents and copyrights are around now - especially copyrights .
I 'll be curious to see how patent law is tweaked , so that patents can continue to be a barrier-to-entry , yet get rid of patent trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're living in the past.
That's why both patents and copyrights were conceived in the Constitution.I fear that has little to do with why patents and copyrights are around now - especially copyrights.
I'll be curious to see how patent law is tweaked, so that patents can continue to be a barrier-to-entry, yet get rid of patent trolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915678</id>
	<title>Re:The patent system exists for aiding innovation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264598760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Blockbuster Drugs/Phama has declined as no-one wants to co-operate or share research - or do research where litigation may be a problem. Sure - they publish so as to block others.<br>Other areas - can prove failing - but not a sniff of  honest reform going on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Blockbuster Drugs/Phama has declined as no-one wants to co-operate or share research - or do research where litigation may be a problem .
Sure - they publish so as to block others.Other areas - can prove failing - but not a sniff of honest reform going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Blockbuster Drugs/Phama has declined as no-one wants to co-operate or share research - or do research where litigation may be a problem.
Sure - they publish so as to block others.Other areas - can prove failing - but not a sniff of  honest reform going on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914540</id>
	<title>When there is no net gain to society?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264583160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question: Why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society?<br>Answer: Because who is going to decide what constitutes a net gain for society?  The government (Big Brother sends his regard)? A board of community leaders (who will be on the payroll of the big corporations in no time)?  Judges (the same ones who make a mess of patent claims now)?  That way madness lies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : Why ca n't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society ? Answer : Because who is going to decide what constitutes a net gain for society ?
The government ( Big Brother sends his regard ) ?
A board of community leaders ( who will be on the payroll of the big corporations in no time ) ?
Judges ( the same ones who make a mess of patent claims now ) ?
That way madness lies .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: Why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society?Answer: Because who is going to decide what constitutes a net gain for society?
The government (Big Brother sends his regard)?
A board of community leaders (who will be on the payroll of the big corporations in no time)?
Judges (the same ones who make a mess of patent claims now)?
That way madness lies ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914970</id>
	<title>Wouldn't this kill open source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264590780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't barratry kill off legal defense funds?  Since those are the only real way that open source orgs have to defend themselve, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work well. The same goes for transferring copyright to the FSF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't barratry kill off legal defense funds ?
Since those are the only real way that open source orgs have to defend themselve , I 'm pretty sure this would n't work well .
The same goes for transferring copyright to the FSF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't barratry kill off legal defense funds?
Since those are the only real way that open source orgs have to defend themselve, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work well.
The same goes for transferring copyright to the FSF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30935220</id>
	<title>Re:Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1264700580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A dollar is too much for something of infinite supply and finite demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A dollar is too much for something of infinite supply and finite demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A dollar is too much for something of infinite supply and finite demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914960</id>
	<title>Re:Trial By Combat!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264590660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comic Sans FTW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comic Sans FTW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comic Sans FTW!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915798</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>One Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264599600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Both these principles were from a time when the single purpose of the law was to enforce stability... the current attitude is that the law should provide justice and protection to the citizenry</p></div><p>Someone needs to renew their cynicsm prescription. I've never regarded the former state of law to have expired nor the latter attitude to have stretched as far as the actual legal system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both these principles were from a time when the single purpose of the law was to enforce stability... the current attitude is that the law should provide justice and protection to the citizenrySomeone needs to renew their cynicsm prescription .
I 've never regarded the former state of law to have expired nor the latter attitude to have stretched as far as the actual legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both these principles were from a time when the single purpose of the law was to enforce stability... the current attitude is that the law should provide justice and protection to the citizenrySomeone needs to renew their cynicsm prescription.
I've never regarded the former state of law to have expired nor the latter attitude to have stretched as far as the actual legal system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30917658</id>
	<title>Re:Regular modern restrictions would be fine.</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1264609140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All that needs to happen is to make it so people can't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income.</p></div></blockquote><p>Exactly.

</p><p>Of course, we also need to apply that to absentee landlords and absentee business investors. That pretty much destroys capitalism as we know it. I'm okay with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that needs to happen is to make it so people ca n't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income.Exactly .
Of course , we also need to apply that to absentee landlords and absentee business investors .
That pretty much destroys capitalism as we know it .
I 'm okay with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that needs to happen is to make it so people can't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income.Exactly.
Of course, we also need to apply that to absentee landlords and absentee business investors.
That pretty much destroys capitalism as we know it.
I'm okay with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915690</id>
	<title>Re:Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1264598760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, no, that's a complete misreading of the intent &amp; point of such laws.</p><p>Imagine you invented The Next Great Thing in your garage.<br>Without these laws, Supermegacorp, seeing your great idea, could (for a trvial investment on their part) copy your idea and annihilate you competitively.</p><p>These laws protect innovation PARTICULARLY when the innovator is poor of resources to compete with rich&amp;powerful opponents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , no , that 's a complete misreading of the intent &amp; point of such laws.Imagine you invented The Next Great Thing in your garage.Without these laws , Supermegacorp , seeing your great idea , could ( for a trvial investment on their part ) copy your idea and annihilate you competitively.These laws protect innovation PARTICULARLY when the innovator is poor of resources to compete with rich&amp;powerful opponents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, no, that's a complete misreading of the intent &amp; point of such laws.Imagine you invented The Next Great Thing in your garage.Without these laws, Supermegacorp, seeing your great idea, could (for a trvial investment on their part) copy your idea and annihilate you competitively.These laws protect innovation PARTICULARLY when the innovator is poor of resources to compete with rich&amp;powerful opponents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915886</id>
	<title>Re:Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264600320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How long will we wait?</i></p><p>Until hell freezes over plus 30 years at a guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long will we wait ? Until hell freezes over plus 30 years at a guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long will we wait?Until hell freezes over plus 30 years at a guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30916898</id>
	<title>Personal injury</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264605960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Champerty and maintenance also make life a lot more difficult for ambulance chasing lawyers, as they can't get third party funding to bring court cases on behalf of people who fell over because they're too dumb to stand up and/or get a job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Champerty and maintenance also make life a lot more difficult for ambulance chasing lawyers , as they ca n't get third party funding to bring court cases on behalf of people who fell over because they 're too dumb to stand up and/or get a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Champerty and maintenance also make life a lot more difficult for ambulance chasing lawyers, as they can't get third party funding to bring court cases on behalf of people who fell over because they're too dumb to stand up and/or get a job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30921176</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264621740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What you need is to make sane fucking laws, not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet.</i></p><p>Close, but the assumption that a sitting government can make laws that can keep pace with an economy (and by proxy technology) was rejected well over <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex\_mercatoria" title="wikipedia.org">800 years ago</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>It never worked, it doesn't work, it never will work.   Non-crazy people stop trying things that don't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you need is to make sane fucking laws , not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet.Close , but the assumption that a sitting government can make laws that can keep pace with an economy ( and by proxy technology ) was rejected well over 800 years ago [ wikipedia.org ] .It never worked , it does n't work , it never will work .
Non-crazy people stop trying things that do n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you need is to make sane fucking laws, not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet.Close, but the assumption that a sitting government can make laws that can keep pace with an economy (and by proxy technology) was rejected well over 800 years ago [wikipedia.org].It never worked, it doesn't work, it never will work.
Non-crazy people stop trying things that don't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914594</id>
	<title>Sometimes old is better (an example)</title>
	<author>piotru</author>
	<datestamp>1264584180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, don't forget that it was Clinton abolishing in the year 1999 a law from 1929 that had gotten US into the banking mess. Plus, creating innovative rules for mortgages...<br>Patents and Copyrights sole purpose is to enhance the society and this justification has to come back into consideration urgently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , do n't forget that it was Clinton abolishing in the year 1999 a law from 1929 that had gotten US into the banking mess .
Plus , creating innovative rules for mortgages...Patents and Copyrights sole purpose is to enhance the society and this justification has to come back into consideration urgently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, don't forget that it was Clinton abolishing in the year 1999 a law from 1929 that had gotten US into the banking mess.
Plus, creating innovative rules for mortgages...Patents and Copyrights sole purpose is to enhance the society and this justification has to come back into consideration urgently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30928082</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1264600080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Contingency fee arrangement of the "no win, no fee" variety are not champertous, and have always been allowed in Queensland (my home jurisdiction) were champerty was not abolished as it was elsewhere in the Commonwealth. What is prohibited as champertous are fee arrangements under which lawyers' fees are calculated as a percentage of the final award in a proceeding. It's a fine line, but that's what comes out of the cases.</i> </p><p>Well since I started Law at Sydney, a few years after the passage of the 1993 Act, I never read any of the cases, so I'll defer to your greater learning on the matter.  OK, so I checked out a leading English case <i>Trendtex</i> this morning, where Wilberforce LJ cites Halsbury's to the effect that "<i>Champerty is a particular kind of maintenance, namely maintenance of an action in consideration of a promise to give the maintainer a share in the proceeds or subject matter of the action.</i>," which accords well with what you wrote.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>That being said, the Act did usher a period of greater litigation down here, being I perhaps part of raft of "reforms" (if memory serves me correctly it was from that time that advertisment for legal services began to appear).  Of course such reforms might not be the sole cause, as this was the time Deane's proximity doctrine had gone viral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contingency fee arrangement of the " no win , no fee " variety are not champertous , and have always been allowed in Queensland ( my home jurisdiction ) were champerty was not abolished as it was elsewhere in the Commonwealth .
What is prohibited as champertous are fee arrangements under which lawyers ' fees are calculated as a percentage of the final award in a proceeding .
It 's a fine line , but that 's what comes out of the cases .
Well since I started Law at Sydney , a few years after the passage of the 1993 Act , I never read any of the cases , so I 'll defer to your greater learning on the matter .
OK , so I checked out a leading English case Trendtex this morning , where Wilberforce LJ cites Halsbury 's to the effect that " Champerty is a particular kind of maintenance , namely maintenance of an action in consideration of a promise to give the maintainer a share in the proceeds or subject matter of the action. , " which accords well with what you wrote .
; ) That being said , the Act did usher a period of greater litigation down here , being I perhaps part of raft of " reforms " ( if memory serves me correctly it was from that time that advertisment for legal services began to appear ) .
Of course such reforms might not be the sole cause , as this was the time Deane 's proximity doctrine had gone viral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Contingency fee arrangement of the "no win, no fee" variety are not champertous, and have always been allowed in Queensland (my home jurisdiction) were champerty was not abolished as it was elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
What is prohibited as champertous are fee arrangements under which lawyers' fees are calculated as a percentage of the final award in a proceeding.
It's a fine line, but that's what comes out of the cases.
Well since I started Law at Sydney, a few years after the passage of the 1993 Act, I never read any of the cases, so I'll defer to your greater learning on the matter.
OK, so I checked out a leading English case Trendtex this morning, where Wilberforce LJ cites Halsbury's to the effect that "Champerty is a particular kind of maintenance, namely maintenance of an action in consideration of a promise to give the maintainer a share in the proceeds or subject matter of the action.," which accords well with what you wrote.
;)That being said, the Act did usher a period of greater litigation down here, being I perhaps part of raft of "reforms" (if memory serves me correctly it was from that time that advertisment for legal services began to appear).
Of course such reforms might not be the sole cause, as this was the time Deane's proximity doctrine had gone viral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914506</id>
	<title>Re:The patent system exists for aiding innovation</title>
	<author>starbugs</author>
	<datestamp>1264625640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software patents <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/10/red-hat-bilski-brief-says-software-patents-stifle-innovation.ars" title="arstechnica.com">stifle innovation</a> [arstechnica.com].<br>Yet they are still around.</p><p>Many of us hate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC" title="wikipedia.org">software patents</a> [wikipedia.org]. (myself included).<br>They limit what we can do, so we have to find <a href="http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#35" title="openbsd.org">innovative</a> [openbsd.org] ways to avoid them.<br>Meanwhile we are happy when some <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com">large companies</a> [microsoft.com] get bitten by <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22595" title="zdnet.com">patents</a> [zdnet.com].</p><p>Besides litigation, how do software patents benefit their holders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software patents stifle innovation [ arstechnica.com ] .Yet they are still around.Many of us hate software patents [ wikipedia.org ] .
( myself included ) .They limit what we can do , so we have to find innovative [ openbsd.org ] ways to avoid them.Meanwhile we are happy when some large companies [ microsoft.com ] get bitten by patents [ zdnet.com ] .Besides litigation , how do software patents benefit their holders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software patents stifle innovation [arstechnica.com].Yet they are still around.Many of us hate software patents [wikipedia.org].
(myself included).They limit what we can do, so we have to find innovative [openbsd.org] ways to avoid them.Meanwhile we are happy when some large companies [microsoft.com] get bitten by patents [zdnet.com].Besides litigation, how do software patents benefit their holders?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915136</id>
	<title>Barratry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264592940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barratry is alive and well, in both federal and many state judicial systems:</p><p><a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer\_awaits\_verdict\_in\_barratry\_trial\_over\_subpoena\_sent\_to\_opposing\_part/" title="abajournal.com">http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer\_awaits\_verdict\_in\_barratry\_trial\_over\_subpoena\_sent\_to\_opposing\_part/</a> [abajournal.com]<br><a href="http://www.lukegilman.com/blawg/2009/11/07/houston-lawyer-charged-with-barratry-for-having-homeless-man-hand-out-business-cards/" title="lukegilman.com">http://www.lukegilman.com/blawg/2009/11/07/houston-lawyer-charged-with-barratry-for-having-homeless-man-hand-out-business-cards/</a> [lukegilman.com]<br><a href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/state-oklahoma-miller-v-king" title="citmedialaw.org">http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/state-oklahoma-miller-v-king</a> [citmedialaw.org]</p><p>In the case of "the offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones",<br>just making the accusation is often enough to make the attorney quit a case. They can be tried for it in court as well as being censured or disbarred, whereas the client can only be tried (often not understanding what it is and/or thinking their case's validity precludes such a charge). It may have been used successfully at least once in a context in which it is often discussed: "In Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode, 1994 WL 228607 (C.D. Cal. 1994), a Rule 11 sanction of $8,887.50 was imposed against Helena K. Kobrin, an attorney for the Church for bringing legally baseless, frivolous claims", however corroboration for this is lacking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barratry is alive and well , in both federal and many state judicial systems : http : //www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer \ _awaits \ _verdict \ _in \ _barratry \ _trial \ _over \ _subpoena \ _sent \ _to \ _opposing \ _part/ [ abajournal.com ] http : //www.lukegilman.com/blawg/2009/11/07/houston-lawyer-charged-with-barratry-for-having-homeless-man-hand-out-business-cards/ [ lukegilman.com ] http : //www.citmedialaw.org/threats/state-oklahoma-miller-v-king [ citmedialaw.org ] In the case of " the offense of persistently instigating lawsuits , typically groundless ones " ,just making the accusation is often enough to make the attorney quit a case .
They can be tried for it in court as well as being censured or disbarred , whereas the client can only be tried ( often not understanding what it is and/or thinking their case 's validity precludes such a charge ) .
It may have been used successfully at least once in a context in which it is often discussed : " In Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode , 1994 WL 228607 ( C.D .
Cal. 1994 ) , a Rule 11 sanction of $ 8,887.50 was imposed against Helena K. Kobrin , an attorney for the Church for bringing legally baseless , frivolous claims " , however corroboration for this is lacking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barratry is alive and well, in both federal and many state judicial systems:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer\_awaits\_verdict\_in\_barratry\_trial\_over\_subpoena\_sent\_to\_opposing\_part/ [abajournal.com]http://www.lukegilman.com/blawg/2009/11/07/houston-lawyer-charged-with-barratry-for-having-homeless-man-hand-out-business-cards/ [lukegilman.com]http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/state-oklahoma-miller-v-king [citmedialaw.org]In the case of "the offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones",just making the accusation is often enough to make the attorney quit a case.
They can be tried for it in court as well as being censured or disbarred, whereas the client can only be tried (often not understanding what it is and/or thinking their case's validity precludes such a charge).
It may have been used successfully at least once in a context in which it is often discussed: "In Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode, 1994 WL 228607 (C.D.
Cal. 1994), a Rule 11 sanction of $8,887.50 was imposed against Helena K. Kobrin, an attorney for the Church for bringing legally baseless, frivolous claims", however corroboration for this is lacking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914650</id>
	<title>Sure, but no reason to be sexist</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1264585140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What next? Stoning girls because they weren't virgins on their wedding?</p></div><p>This would cut down on teen pregnancy, abortion, children growing up in broken families, STDs, and so much more.</p><p>Modern science allows us to hunt down most of the guys too, so we don't have to be sexist. We can now get DNA just from a touch, and we can track tiny mutations in the microbes that people normally carry. Even a virus like HIV has mutations that can help lead back to the guilty party.</p><p>We can build a database with everybody's DNA signature in it, and soon we'll be able to do full sequences including microbes. We could use GPS tracking on everybody so that we can reduce the search space. We could even have chastity belts with tamper alarms, for both male and female (they can alert on proximity).</p><p>For the stoning itself, I think we should televize it live. We can auction off the right to throw the first stones, and we can sell tickets to throw the rest of the stones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What next ?
Stoning girls because they were n't virgins on their wedding ? This would cut down on teen pregnancy , abortion , children growing up in broken families , STDs , and so much more.Modern science allows us to hunt down most of the guys too , so we do n't have to be sexist .
We can now get DNA just from a touch , and we can track tiny mutations in the microbes that people normally carry .
Even a virus like HIV has mutations that can help lead back to the guilty party.We can build a database with everybody 's DNA signature in it , and soon we 'll be able to do full sequences including microbes .
We could use GPS tracking on everybody so that we can reduce the search space .
We could even have chastity belts with tamper alarms , for both male and female ( they can alert on proximity ) .For the stoning itself , I think we should televize it live .
We can auction off the right to throw the first stones , and we can sell tickets to throw the rest of the stones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What next?
Stoning girls because they weren't virgins on their wedding?This would cut down on teen pregnancy, abortion, children growing up in broken families, STDs, and so much more.Modern science allows us to hunt down most of the guys too, so we don't have to be sexist.
We can now get DNA just from a touch, and we can track tiny mutations in the microbes that people normally carry.
Even a virus like HIV has mutations that can help lead back to the guilty party.We can build a database with everybody's DNA signature in it, and soon we'll be able to do full sequences including microbes.
We could use GPS tracking on everybody so that we can reduce the search space.
We could even have chastity belts with tamper alarms, for both male and female (they can alert on proximity).For the stoning itself, I think we should televize it live.
We can auction off the right to throw the first stones, and we can sell tickets to throw the rest of the stones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462</id>
	<title>Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents and copyrights are both immoral protection rackets designed to hide information and make the rich richer. They stall human progress rather than help it. They will inevitably be removed. The only question is: How long will we wait?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents and copyrights are both immoral protection rackets designed to hide information and make the rich richer .
They stall human progress rather than help it .
They will inevitably be removed .
The only question is : How long will we wait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents and copyrights are both immoral protection rackets designed to hide information and make the rich richer.
They stall human progress rather than help it.
They will inevitably be removed.
The only question is: How long will we wait?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30919568</id>
	<title>Yes!  But this is a distraction.</title>
	<author>CherniyVolk</author>
	<datestamp>1264616220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in total favor of reviewing and reestablishing older precedent.  For example, my store/school/park/pub or bar, my property, my responsibility, my liability so therefore my choice on who I want to serve.</p><p>However, in this case, maybe it's not necessary.  I think the champerty laws ultimately govern law processes, I think they can be abused to prevent you from opening a class action lawsuit, or as retribution for having successfully disrupted the system on account of a whistle blower.</p><p>Regarding law, Lawyers should be civil servants and paid accordingly.  In America it's constitutionally guaranteed legal council, but who in America can really afford an lawyer?  To draw up an interesting contrast here, let's pick a hot current affair regarding what the Average Joe has access too... Medicine.  We all recognize the medical field is fucked up, average Joe can't get medical assistance, that surgery is too expensive this and that.  But, what about compared to the legal system (of which, we are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed access too)?  I mean seriously, has anyone ever drawn up a comparison?  Today I can effectively and safely tend to my minor wounds.  I can buy some ibuprofen, some cough medicine, I know how to make a splint for a broken leg, I mean I can even get real medicine, the nerve in your tooth just died on a Sunday morning guy down the road has some cocaine to tide you over till Monday.  Now, in the legal system you can represent yourself but that's called a fool and the cheapest retainer fee I could ever find was 500 dollars (pro bono you ask?  HAH!).  The legal system is so far out of reach of the average person it seems a damn waste of time even teaching words like "court", "lawyer/counsel/attorney", "Supreme Court" in our schools.</p><p>Now, we have all argued on the patents... my objections above lay on the perimeter of a basic sentiment.  We should not rely on a broken and inaccessible system to fix another corrupted system.  We should fix the systems, but regarding patents, the legal system and social laws are a totally different matter in themselves.</p><p>If RedHat is so bent on trying to provide legal arguments to bring back old stuff,  then they should be trying to bring back the recently revised IP laws, specifically altering the legalities of reverse engineering.   To me, RedHat's proposition only serves to fix a window pane of a house sitting on a shoddy foundation.   I think we need a whole new house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in total favor of reviewing and reestablishing older precedent .
For example , my store/school/park/pub or bar , my property , my responsibility , my liability so therefore my choice on who I want to serve.However , in this case , maybe it 's not necessary .
I think the champerty laws ultimately govern law processes , I think they can be abused to prevent you from opening a class action lawsuit , or as retribution for having successfully disrupted the system on account of a whistle blower.Regarding law , Lawyers should be civil servants and paid accordingly .
In America it 's constitutionally guaranteed legal council , but who in America can really afford an lawyer ?
To draw up an interesting contrast here , let 's pick a hot current affair regarding what the Average Joe has access too... Medicine. We all recognize the medical field is fucked up , average Joe ca n't get medical assistance , that surgery is too expensive this and that .
But , what about compared to the legal system ( of which , we are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed access too ) ?
I mean seriously , has anyone ever drawn up a comparison ?
Today I can effectively and safely tend to my minor wounds .
I can buy some ibuprofen , some cough medicine , I know how to make a splint for a broken leg , I mean I can even get real medicine , the nerve in your tooth just died on a Sunday morning guy down the road has some cocaine to tide you over till Monday .
Now , in the legal system you can represent yourself but that 's called a fool and the cheapest retainer fee I could ever find was 500 dollars ( pro bono you ask ?
HAH ! ) . The legal system is so far out of reach of the average person it seems a damn waste of time even teaching words like " court " , " lawyer/counsel/attorney " , " Supreme Court " in our schools.Now , we have all argued on the patents... my objections above lay on the perimeter of a basic sentiment .
We should not rely on a broken and inaccessible system to fix another corrupted system .
We should fix the systems , but regarding patents , the legal system and social laws are a totally different matter in themselves.If RedHat is so bent on trying to provide legal arguments to bring back old stuff , then they should be trying to bring back the recently revised IP laws , specifically altering the legalities of reverse engineering .
To me , RedHat 's proposition only serves to fix a window pane of a house sitting on a shoddy foundation .
I think we need a whole new house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in total favor of reviewing and reestablishing older precedent.
For example, my store/school/park/pub or bar, my property, my responsibility, my liability so therefore my choice on who I want to serve.However, in this case, maybe it's not necessary.
I think the champerty laws ultimately govern law processes, I think they can be abused to prevent you from opening a class action lawsuit, or as retribution for having successfully disrupted the system on account of a whistle blower.Regarding law, Lawyers should be civil servants and paid accordingly.
In America it's constitutionally guaranteed legal council, but who in America can really afford an lawyer?
To draw up an interesting contrast here, let's pick a hot current affair regarding what the Average Joe has access too... Medicine.  We all recognize the medical field is fucked up, average Joe can't get medical assistance, that surgery is too expensive this and that.
But, what about compared to the legal system (of which, we are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed access too)?
I mean seriously, has anyone ever drawn up a comparison?
Today I can effectively and safely tend to my minor wounds.
I can buy some ibuprofen, some cough medicine, I know how to make a splint for a broken leg, I mean I can even get real medicine, the nerve in your tooth just died on a Sunday morning guy down the road has some cocaine to tide you over till Monday.
Now, in the legal system you can represent yourself but that's called a fool and the cheapest retainer fee I could ever find was 500 dollars (pro bono you ask?
HAH!).  The legal system is so far out of reach of the average person it seems a damn waste of time even teaching words like "court", "lawyer/counsel/attorney", "Supreme Court" in our schools.Now, we have all argued on the patents... my objections above lay on the perimeter of a basic sentiment.
We should not rely on a broken and inaccessible system to fix another corrupted system.
We should fix the systems, but regarding patents, the legal system and social laws are a totally different matter in themselves.If RedHat is so bent on trying to provide legal arguments to bring back old stuff,  then they should be trying to bring back the recently revised IP laws, specifically altering the legalities of reverse engineering.
To me, RedHat's proposition only serves to fix a window pane of a house sitting on a shoddy foundation.
I think we need a whole new house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915966</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264601040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You voice my objections to the article better than I could.</p><p>That said, what we are talking about is a phenomenon where the abolition of one class of legal abuse tends to lead to another, new class of abuse.  As long as there is law and there are people with money interested in subverting the law for their own purposes, you'll have new abuses dreamed up by creative and unscrupulous lawyers.</p><p>So this is not a matter of getting the law <em>right</em>, but keeping up with the development of novel abuses.</p><p>We needn't resurrect the doctrine of champetry wholesale as it existed a century ago to address the most flagrantly abusive forms of maintenance.  The problem with champetry is that it assumes that because contingency fees create an incentive to maintain frivolous lawsuits, that any lawsuit undertaken by a lawyer with a contingency fee is necessarily frivolous.   That's only true if we assume that substantive lawsuits are brought exclusively by gentleman of means.</p><p>The real problem is not the fee arrangements, but the use of law to obtain plaintiffs privileges beyond what the law grants them.   It is the use of the law to undermine the rational basis of the law.</p><p>So the point the article makes is better than it appears.   Patent trolls use the law to redress injuries that would not exist were it not possible to obtain "relief" through the courts. This is not the case for patent holders who produce actual products using the patents, because infringers take money away from the patent holder's business.   Patent trolls have no revenue or prospect of revenue save what they can obtain through lawsuits.  Therefore the "injury" they suffer by infringement is a legal fiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You voice my objections to the article better than I could.That said , what we are talking about is a phenomenon where the abolition of one class of legal abuse tends to lead to another , new class of abuse .
As long as there is law and there are people with money interested in subverting the law for their own purposes , you 'll have new abuses dreamed up by creative and unscrupulous lawyers.So this is not a matter of getting the law right , but keeping up with the development of novel abuses.We need n't resurrect the doctrine of champetry wholesale as it existed a century ago to address the most flagrantly abusive forms of maintenance .
The problem with champetry is that it assumes that because contingency fees create an incentive to maintain frivolous lawsuits , that any lawsuit undertaken by a lawyer with a contingency fee is necessarily frivolous .
That 's only true if we assume that substantive lawsuits are brought exclusively by gentleman of means.The real problem is not the fee arrangements , but the use of law to obtain plaintiffs privileges beyond what the law grants them .
It is the use of the law to undermine the rational basis of the law.So the point the article makes is better than it appears .
Patent trolls use the law to redress injuries that would not exist were it not possible to obtain " relief " through the courts .
This is not the case for patent holders who produce actual products using the patents , because infringers take money away from the patent holder 's business .
Patent trolls have no revenue or prospect of revenue save what they can obtain through lawsuits .
Therefore the " injury " they suffer by infringement is a legal fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You voice my objections to the article better than I could.That said, what we are talking about is a phenomenon where the abolition of one class of legal abuse tends to lead to another, new class of abuse.
As long as there is law and there are people with money interested in subverting the law for their own purposes, you'll have new abuses dreamed up by creative and unscrupulous lawyers.So this is not a matter of getting the law right, but keeping up with the development of novel abuses.We needn't resurrect the doctrine of champetry wholesale as it existed a century ago to address the most flagrantly abusive forms of maintenance.
The problem with champetry is that it assumes that because contingency fees create an incentive to maintain frivolous lawsuits, that any lawsuit undertaken by a lawyer with a contingency fee is necessarily frivolous.
That's only true if we assume that substantive lawsuits are brought exclusively by gentleman of means.The real problem is not the fee arrangements, but the use of law to obtain plaintiffs privileges beyond what the law grants them.
It is the use of the law to undermine the rational basis of the law.So the point the article makes is better than it appears.
Patent trolls use the law to redress injuries that would not exist were it not possible to obtain "relief" through the courts.
This is not the case for patent holders who produce actual products using the patents, because infringers take money away from the patent holder's business.
Patent trolls have no revenue or prospect of revenue save what they can obtain through lawsuits.
Therefore the "injury" they suffer by infringement is a legal fiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914510</id>
	<title>Re:Lets not pussyfoot around</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264625880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, copyright and patents are immoral, thats why I have no problem including GPL code in my closed source projects<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Okay okay, back to reality<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I think you need to go figure out what immoral means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , copyright and patents are immoral , thats why I have no problem including GPL code in my closed source projects ...Okay okay , back to reality ...I think you need to go figure out what immoral means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, copyright and patents are immoral, thats why I have no problem including GPL code in my closed source projects ...Okay okay, back to reality ...I think you need to go figure out what immoral means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914948</id>
	<title>Article says Mind Your Own Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264590300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I read it, it bringing back those laws would also stop people contributing to the legal defense of (say) the Pirate Bay, on the grounds that it was none of their business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I read it , it bringing back those laws would also stop people contributing to the legal defense of ( say ) the Pirate Bay , on the grounds that it was none of their business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I read it, it bringing back those laws would also stop people contributing to the legal defense of (say) the Pirate Bay, on the grounds that it was none of their business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918738</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1264613040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly why lawyers should be arbitrarily appointed by the judge as if drawn from a hat.</p><p>Scenario:</p><p>Big Company (BC), wants to sue Joe Blow (JB), for some reason, the BC has to appear before a judge and state the nature of the suit. The judge pulls out of the hat three names of lawyers, of which the BC chooses the one they want.</p><p>At the same time, JB is in the courtroom and the judge pulls our three names from the pool.</p><p>The judge gives each person one month to prepare. The judge then requires  each side to sumbit its case and then each side gets two weeks to prepare a rebuttal. When the rebuttals are prepared, the judge gets these, and sets a final court date for witnesses to appear and such.</p><p>The day of the trial comes, the judge assembles the cast, swears all witnesses in at once, and the trial begins.</p><p>The trial lasts as long as the Judge (jury) has unanswered questions, lawyers aren't allowed to pontificate anything, but only allowed to counsel their clients on the "law".</p><p>Loser pays set fee for use of all lawyers, plus court costs. Since the burden of evidence is upon the person making the suit, they have the added burden of paying the defending litigant the exact sum being asked for in the suit.</p><p>Part of every award goes towards a fund for the "poor", to cover the costs associated for people of limited means.</p><p>This is fair to everyone involved. If you have a weak case, you're less likely to sue. If you have a strong case, there is a huge incentive to settle out of court.</p><p>And the deep pockets of the rich will have limited effect on the case.</p><p>Civil trials take way too long, and there is incentives by lawyers to keep the system flooded with needless, useless and pointless lawsuits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why lawyers should be arbitrarily appointed by the judge as if drawn from a hat.Scenario : Big Company ( BC ) , wants to sue Joe Blow ( JB ) , for some reason , the BC has to appear before a judge and state the nature of the suit .
The judge pulls out of the hat three names of lawyers , of which the BC chooses the one they want.At the same time , JB is in the courtroom and the judge pulls our three names from the pool.The judge gives each person one month to prepare .
The judge then requires each side to sumbit its case and then each side gets two weeks to prepare a rebuttal .
When the rebuttals are prepared , the judge gets these , and sets a final court date for witnesses to appear and such.The day of the trial comes , the judge assembles the cast , swears all witnesses in at once , and the trial begins.The trial lasts as long as the Judge ( jury ) has unanswered questions , lawyers are n't allowed to pontificate anything , but only allowed to counsel their clients on the " law " .Loser pays set fee for use of all lawyers , plus court costs .
Since the burden of evidence is upon the person making the suit , they have the added burden of paying the defending litigant the exact sum being asked for in the suit.Part of every award goes towards a fund for the " poor " , to cover the costs associated for people of limited means.This is fair to everyone involved .
If you have a weak case , you 're less likely to sue .
If you have a strong case , there is a huge incentive to settle out of court.And the deep pockets of the rich will have limited effect on the case.Civil trials take way too long , and there is incentives by lawyers to keep the system flooded with needless , useless and pointless lawsuits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why lawyers should be arbitrarily appointed by the judge as if drawn from a hat.Scenario:Big Company (BC), wants to sue Joe Blow (JB), for some reason, the BC has to appear before a judge and state the nature of the suit.
The judge pulls out of the hat three names of lawyers, of which the BC chooses the one they want.At the same time, JB is in the courtroom and the judge pulls our three names from the pool.The judge gives each person one month to prepare.
The judge then requires  each side to sumbit its case and then each side gets two weeks to prepare a rebuttal.
When the rebuttals are prepared, the judge gets these, and sets a final court date for witnesses to appear and such.The day of the trial comes, the judge assembles the cast, swears all witnesses in at once, and the trial begins.The trial lasts as long as the Judge (jury) has unanswered questions, lawyers aren't allowed to pontificate anything, but only allowed to counsel their clients on the "law".Loser pays set fee for use of all lawyers, plus court costs.
Since the burden of evidence is upon the person making the suit, they have the added burden of paying the defending litigant the exact sum being asked for in the suit.Part of every award goes towards a fund for the "poor", to cover the costs associated for people of limited means.This is fair to everyone involved.
If you have a weak case, you're less likely to sue.
If you have a strong case, there is a huge incentive to settle out of court.And the deep pockets of the rich will have limited effect on the case.Civil trials take way too long, and there is incentives by lawyers to keep the system flooded with needless, useless and pointless lawsuits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914524</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Capsaicin</author>
	<datestamp>1264582800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>What you need is to make sane fucking laws, not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet. That's what got us in this mess in the first place.</i> </p><p>No what got us into this mess in the first place was not applying tried and true law, but instead being stampeded into enacting new law because "oooooh it's the internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we need neeewwwww laws (that'll make a motza for the people I work for)."  Take copyright and other so-called IP law back 25-50 years and we'd be in a much better position.</p><p>That being said, the issues surrounding maintainance and champerty (which makes working on a contingency fee basis impossible) are a little more complicated.  In my jurisdiction (NSW.au) these were still torts until 1993 when the <i>Maitainance, Champerty and Barratry Abolition Act</i> 1993 (NSW), was passed.  Until then it was difficult for ordinary people to defend their legal rights as the cost of litigation (the ultimate threat) would be prohibitive.  So these torts acted in a highly anti-democratic fashion.</p><p>OTOH after the Act was passed the amount if litigation obviously increased.  And it increased to the point where it was felt necessary to curtail the remedies available to individuals (via the <i>Civil Liability Act</i> 2002 (NSW)).  So the abolition of these torts ultimately acted to reduce an individual's rights.  Also it made lawyers unpopular as happens when a people becomes more litigious.</p><p>Difficult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you need is to make sane fucking laws , not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet .
That 's what got us in this mess in the first place .
No what got us into this mess in the first place was not applying tried and true law , but instead being stampeded into enacting new law because " oooooh it 's the internet ... we need neeewwwww laws ( that 'll make a motza for the people I work for ) .
" Take copyright and other so-called IP law back 25-50 years and we 'd be in a much better position.That being said , the issues surrounding maintainance and champerty ( which makes working on a contingency fee basis impossible ) are a little more complicated .
In my jurisdiction ( NSW.au ) these were still torts until 1993 when the Maitainance , Champerty and Barratry Abolition Act 1993 ( NSW ) , was passed .
Until then it was difficult for ordinary people to defend their legal rights as the cost of litigation ( the ultimate threat ) would be prohibitive .
So these torts acted in a highly anti-democratic fashion.OTOH after the Act was passed the amount if litigation obviously increased .
And it increased to the point where it was felt necessary to curtail the remedies available to individuals ( via the Civil Liability Act 2002 ( NSW ) ) .
So the abolition of these torts ultimately acted to reduce an individual 's rights .
Also it made lawyers unpopular as happens when a people becomes more litigious.Difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What you need is to make sane fucking laws, not apply laws from before the wheel to the age of the internet.
That's what got us in this mess in the first place.
No what got us into this mess in the first place was not applying tried and true law, but instead being stampeded into enacting new law because "oooooh it's the internet ... we need neeewwwww laws (that'll make a motza for the people I work for).
"  Take copyright and other so-called IP law back 25-50 years and we'd be in a much better position.That being said, the issues surrounding maintainance and champerty (which makes working on a contingency fee basis impossible) are a little more complicated.
In my jurisdiction (NSW.au) these were still torts until 1993 when the Maitainance, Champerty and Barratry Abolition Act 1993 (NSW), was passed.
Until then it was difficult for ordinary people to defend their legal rights as the cost of litigation (the ultimate threat) would be prohibitive.
So these torts acted in a highly anti-democratic fashion.OTOH after the Act was passed the amount if litigation obviously increased.
And it increased to the point where it was felt necessary to curtail the remedies available to individuals (via the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)).
So the abolition of these torts ultimately acted to reduce an individual's rights.
Also it made lawyers unpopular as happens when a people becomes more litigious.Difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914724</id>
	<title>what if the EU stops with software patents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264586700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a petition going on ( see stopsoftwarepatents.eu ), I wonder what happens if the EU stops the whole software patent circus.</p><p>Would the US have to follow, or see their software industry collapse?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a petition going on ( see stopsoftwarepatents.eu ) , I wonder what happens if the EU stops the whole software patent circus.Would the US have to follow , or see their software industry collapse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a petition going on ( see stopsoftwarepatents.eu ), I wonder what happens if the EU stops the whole software patent circus.Would the US have to follow, or see their software industry collapse?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30936738</id>
	<title>Re:The patent system exists for aiding innovation</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1264704780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, perhaps a modification of patent law so that you have to prove that the patent is in active use in order to maintain control of it.  Say you have a year to show that you have  either:</p><p>1.  Have started production of a product using this patent<br>2.  Are spending X\% of your annual gross cashflow creating infra-structure to use this patent.<br>3.  Have licensed this patent to someone else who has to demonstrate #1 or #2<br>4.  Have sold this patent to someone else who has a year.  (This extension happens only once -- it's one year from the first resale date.)</p><p>This would prevent a lot of speculation on patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , perhaps a modification of patent law so that you have to prove that the patent is in active use in order to maintain control of it .
Say you have a year to show that you have either : 1 .
Have started production of a product using this patent2 .
Are spending X \ % of your annual gross cashflow creating infra-structure to use this patent.3 .
Have licensed this patent to someone else who has to demonstrate # 1 or # 24 .
Have sold this patent to someone else who has a year .
( This extension happens only once -- it 's one year from the first resale date .
) This would prevent a lot of speculation on patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, perhaps a modification of patent law so that you have to prove that the patent is in active use in order to maintain control of it.
Say you have a year to show that you have  either:1.
Have started production of a product using this patent2.
Are spending X\% of your annual gross cashflow creating infra-structure to use this patent.3.
Have licensed this patent to someone else who has to demonstrate #1 or #24.
Have sold this patent to someone else who has a year.
(This extension happens only once -- it's one year from the first resale date.
)This would prevent a lot of speculation on patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914424</id>
	<title>Regular modern restrictions would be fine.</title>
	<author>Senes</author>
	<datestamp>1264624200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>All that needs to happen is to make it so people can't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income. Reform the laws so that people can't cash in on something they did not contribute to, no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that needs to happen is to make it so people ca n't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income .
Reform the laws so that people ca n't cash in on something they did not contribute to , no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that needs to happen is to make it so people can't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income.
Reform the laws so that people can't cash in on something they did not contribute to, no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914474</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264624980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm quite fond of stoned girls who aren't virgins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm quite fond of stoned girls who are n't virgins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm quite fond of stoned girls who aren't virgins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30927276</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1264595400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All that needs to happen is to make it so people can't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income. Reform the laws so that people can't cash in on something they did not contribute to, no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that needs to happen is to make it so people ca n't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income .
Reform the laws so that people ca n't cash in on something they did not contribute to , no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that needs to happen is to make it so people can't SPECIFICALLY claim property just for the sake of passive income.
Reform the laws so that people can't cash in on something they did not contribute to, no more random lawsuits aimed at people who did all their own work to bring things into existence.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918960</id>
	<title>Re:Trial By Combat!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I shall ready the trebuchet!</p></div><p>And I shall ready the Ballista!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I shall ready the trebuchet ! And I shall ready the Ballista !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I shall ready the trebuchet!And I shall ready the Ballista!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914396</id>
	<title>Trial By Combat!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264623660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I shall ready the trebuchet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I shall ready the trebuchet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I shall ready the trebuchet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915766</id>
	<title>Re:Trial By Combat!</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1264599300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I shall ready the trebuchet!</p></div><p>Then I shall fetch thee a lawyer, that thou may'st have ammunition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I shall ready the trebuchet ! Then I shall fetch thee a lawyer , that thou may'st have ammunition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I shall ready the trebuchet!Then I shall fetch thee a lawyer, that thou may'st have ammunition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30919590</id>
	<title>Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene?  Check!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1264616340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will never happen.  It sounds much more like an attack on the legal principle that a lawyer will take on a case "for free" in exchange for 1/3 the "loot" should they win.</p><p>And thus it will never get anywhere, even if its promoters scream "It doesn't mean that!" at the top of their lungs, for better or for worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will never happen .
It sounds much more like an attack on the legal principle that a lawyer will take on a case " for free " in exchange for 1/3 the " loot " should they win.And thus it will never get anywhere , even if its promoters scream " It does n't mean that !
" at the top of their lungs , for better or for worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will never happen.
It sounds much more like an attack on the legal principle that a lawyer will take on a case "for free" in exchange for 1/3 the "loot" should they win.And thus it will never get anywhere, even if its promoters scream "It doesn't mean that!
" at the top of their lungs, for better or for worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568</id>
	<title>Re:No, no, no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264583760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. What the article fails to mention is why these principles have fallen by the wayside.<br>1) Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case. The criteria are vague, but generally come down to litigating too much. This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen, company, organization or even the state. As is clear even from the wording of the law, it wasn't designed to uphold justice, the nod at the end notwithstanding, but to keep things quiet, which was in the best interest of the king. Nowadays, in a state ruled by representatives of the citizenry for the citizenry, rather than by the king for the king, the principle of barratry has no place.<br>2) Maintenance (and thus champetry) makes it impossible for charities to for example support people who are in a protracted legal battle with an organisation with much deeper pockets. Again, we can see that this is a very useful law for the aristocracy but not for the common people.<br>Both these principles were from a time when the single purpose of the law was to enforce stability, and where it served justice, it only did so as a means to that end. Although vestiges of that past are still visible in our laws today, the current attitude is that the law should provide justice and protection to the citizenry. If there are laws that don't serve this end* they should be changed or abolished.<br>*Previously on Slashdot:<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/yro/00/04/17/0056200.shtml" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">UK Censorship: Demonic Consequences</a> [slashdot.org]<br><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/14/0022251" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> In the UK, a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech</a> [slashdot.org]<br><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/23/0113250/A-New-Libel-Defense-In-Canada-For-Blogs-Too" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">A New Libel Defense In Canada; For Blogs Too</a> [slashdot.org]<br><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/09/16/2043242/In-Britain-Better-Not-Call-It-Bogus-Science" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">In Britain, Better Not Call It Bogus Science</a> [slashdot.org]<br>And you can help make the world a better place: <a href="http://www.libelreform.org/" title="libelreform.org" rel="nofollow">Libel Reform Campaign</a> [libelreform.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
What the article fails to mention is why these principles have fallen by the wayside.1 ) Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case .
The criteria are vague , but generally come down to litigating too much .
This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen , company , organization or even the state .
As is clear even from the wording of the law , it was n't designed to uphold justice , the nod at the end notwithstanding , but to keep things quiet , which was in the best interest of the king .
Nowadays , in a state ruled by representatives of the citizenry for the citizenry , rather than by the king for the king , the principle of barratry has no place.2 ) Maintenance ( and thus champetry ) makes it impossible for charities to for example support people who are in a protracted legal battle with an organisation with much deeper pockets .
Again , we can see that this is a very useful law for the aristocracy but not for the common people.Both these principles were from a time when the single purpose of the law was to enforce stability , and where it served justice , it only did so as a means to that end .
Although vestiges of that past are still visible in our laws today , the current attitude is that the law should provide justice and protection to the citizenry .
If there are laws that do n't serve this end * they should be changed or abolished .
* Previously on Slashdot : UK Censorship : Demonic Consequences [ slashdot.org ] In the UK , a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech [ slashdot.org ] A New Libel Defense In Canada ; For Blogs Too [ slashdot.org ] In Britain , Better Not Call It Bogus Science [ slashdot.org ] And you can help make the world a better place : Libel Reform Campaign [ libelreform.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
What the article fails to mention is why these principles have fallen by the wayside.1) Barratry allows the state to punish you if you start a court case.
The criteria are vague, but generally come down to litigating too much.
This can be a problem if for example a citizen is getting repeatedly screwed over by some other citizen, company, organization or even the state.
As is clear even from the wording of the law, it wasn't designed to uphold justice, the nod at the end notwithstanding, but to keep things quiet, which was in the best interest of the king.
Nowadays, in a state ruled by representatives of the citizenry for the citizenry, rather than by the king for the king, the principle of barratry has no place.2) Maintenance (and thus champetry) makes it impossible for charities to for example support people who are in a protracted legal battle with an organisation with much deeper pockets.
Again, we can see that this is a very useful law for the aristocracy but not for the common people.Both these principles were from a time when the single purpose of the law was to enforce stability, and where it served justice, it only did so as a means to that end.
Although vestiges of that past are still visible in our laws today, the current attitude is that the law should provide justice and protection to the citizenry.
If there are laws that don't serve this end* they should be changed or abolished.
*Previously on Slashdot:UK Censorship: Demonic Consequences [slashdot.org] In the UK, a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech [slashdot.org]A New Libel Defense In Canada; For Blogs Too [slashdot.org]In Britain, Better Not Call It Bogus Science [slashdot.org]And you can help make the world a better place: Libel Reform Campaign [libelreform.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30927190</id>
	<title>quasi commies are at it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264595040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its good we live in a society where people are allowed to hold not only stupid ideas but ideas that are in essence the anti-thesis of freedom, such as these quasi-commies who want free access to other peoples ideas. we can clearly see why all left wing systems yield totalitarianism, the only way to surely enforce free access to other people ideas are through a totalitarian state, everyone must yield to the greater good. force then becomes the only tool to ensure this aim... the results are glaringly visible through our recent history...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its good we live in a society where people are allowed to hold not only stupid ideas but ideas that are in essence the anti-thesis of freedom , such as these quasi-commies who want free access to other peoples ideas .
we can clearly see why all left wing systems yield totalitarianism , the only way to surely enforce free access to other people ideas are through a totalitarian state , everyone must yield to the greater good .
force then becomes the only tool to ensure this aim... the results are glaringly visible through our recent history.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its good we live in a society where people are allowed to hold not only stupid ideas but ideas that are in essence the anti-thesis of freedom, such as these quasi-commies who want free access to other peoples ideas.
we can clearly see why all left wing systems yield totalitarianism, the only way to surely enforce free access to other people ideas are through a totalitarian state, everyone must yield to the greater good.
force then becomes the only tool to ensure this aim... the results are glaringly visible through our recent history...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30929342</id>
	<title>Re:Did I hear "net gain to society"?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1264610580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society?</p><blockquote><div><p>What are you, some kind of communist?</p></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>


Perish the thought,<br> <br>

To this effect I demand that each innovation must cause a <b>net loss to society</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why ca n't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society ? What are you , some kind of communist ?
Perish the thought , To this effect I demand that each innovation must cause a net loss to society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why can't we prohibit a cause of action for patent infringement where there is no net gain to society?What are you, some kind of communist?
Perish the thought, 

To this effect I demand that each innovation must cause a net loss to society.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30916674</id>
	<title>easier:  award the trolls $1</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1264604940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Patent trolls are in a very tenuous position -- in the absence of a lawsuit/settlement, they would not make \_ANYTHING\_ from their patents (even if valid).  So their damages are \_ZERO\_.  Not some hypothetical value had they chosen to manufacture or licence.<p>
Time to look at the concept of damages more closely, not just make them broad.  There is a serious question whether juries should set damages, or perhaps as fact-finders be forced to break them down for appeals to review at-law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent trolls are in a very tenuous position -- in the absence of a lawsuit/settlement , they would not make \ _ANYTHING \ _ from their patents ( even if valid ) .
So their damages are \ _ZERO \ _ .
Not some hypothetical value had they chosen to manufacture or licence .
Time to look at the concept of damages more closely , not just make them broad .
There is a serious question whether juries should set damages , or perhaps as fact-finders be forced to break them down for appeals to review at-law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent trolls are in a very tenuous position -- in the absence of a lawsuit/settlement, they would not make \_ANYTHING\_ from their patents (even if valid).
So their damages are \_ZERO\_.
Not some hypothetical value had they chosen to manufacture or licence.
Time to look at the concept of damages more closely, not just make them broad.
There is a serious question whether juries should set damages, or perhaps as fact-finders be forced to break them down for appeals to review at-law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30919542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30929342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30917518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30916372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30928082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30935220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30936738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30921176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30920874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30929526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30917658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30932926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30920794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_27_0041242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30916674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30919542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30936738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30929342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30928082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30917518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30920794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915076
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30932926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30920874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30929526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30921176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30916372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30935220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30917658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_27_0041242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30914960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30915766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_27_0041242.30918960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
