<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_31_002259</id>
	<title>US Dir. of Citizen Participation Patents the News</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264947120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Ex-Googler and now <a href="http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/new-director-citizen-participation-brings-google-ology-1600-penn">White House Director of Citizen Participation Katie Stanton</a> is charged with <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/kaite-stanton-internet-and-shanghai-town-hall">promoting open public dialogues</a>. Last Thursday, Stanton and Google snagged a patent on <a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4305492261\_2b0ba47474\_o.jpg">displaying financial news</a>. Google explains that Stanton's invention &mdash; <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7,653,582">Interactive Financial Charting and Related News Correlation</a> &mdash; will 'facilitate and encourage the user's use and understanding of financial information,' which  does jibe nicely with <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the\_press\_office/President-Obama-Announces-More-Key-White-House-Staff/">Stanton's appointment</a> to Obama's New Media Team. Too bad it'll be encumbered by a Google patent until 2027."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Ex-Googler and now White House Director of Citizen Participation Katie Stanton is charged with promoting open public dialogues .
Last Thursday , Stanton and Google snagged a patent on displaying financial news .
Google explains that Stanton 's invention    Interactive Financial Charting and Related News Correlation    will 'facilitate and encourage the user 's use and understanding of financial information, ' which does jibe nicely with Stanton 's appointment to Obama 's New Media Team .
Too bad it 'll be encumbered by a Google patent until 2027 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Ex-Googler and now White House Director of Citizen Participation Katie Stanton is charged with promoting open public dialogues.
Last Thursday, Stanton and Google snagged a patent on displaying financial news.
Google explains that Stanton's invention — Interactive Financial Charting and Related News Correlation — will 'facilitate and encourage the user's use and understanding of financial information,' which  does jibe nicely with Stanton's appointment to Obama's New Media Team.
Too bad it'll be encumbered by a Google patent until 2027.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967864</id>
	<title>Re:Director of Citzen Participation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264869600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Leave the passive stuff to the sheep.</p></div><p>Leave the fucking Amazon links to the bourgeois.  Link to some torrents and then we'll take a look at your books.</p><p>Goddamn capitalist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave the passive stuff to the sheep.Leave the fucking Amazon links to the bourgeois .
Link to some torrents and then we 'll take a look at your books.Goddamn capitalist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave the passive stuff to the sheep.Leave the fucking Amazon links to the bourgeois.
Link to some torrents and then we'll take a look at your books.Goddamn capitalist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968778</id>
	<title>Re:Government Employee?</title>
	<author>dsoltesz</author>
	<datestamp>1264928760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's legal if you're patenting it for the government. However, the patent predates Stanton taking a job with the government, so the question is moot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's legal if you 're patenting it for the government .
However , the patent predates Stanton taking a job with the government , so the question is moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's legal if you're patenting it for the government.
However, the patent predates Stanton taking a job with the government, so the question is moot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967500</id>
	<title>one question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264864440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>where's the digg button?  I see twitter and facebook, no digg...</htmltext>
<tokenext>where 's the digg button ?
I see twitter and facebook , no digg.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where's the digg button?
I see twitter and facebook, no digg...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968558</id>
	<title>so?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264880520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.</p></div><p>since when has that stopped companies from patenting the "technology" they "invented".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is n't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way , and I do n't think they were the first.since when has that stopped companies from patenting the " technology " they " invented " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.since when has that stopped companies from patenting the "technology" they "invented".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30978428</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbor Limits for Fair Use</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1265016060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was annoyed at the title malfunction, too.</p><p>Anything that is copyrighted to the U.S. government can be freely disseminated and it's fair use. I would think the same applies to patents.</p><p>My erroneous conclusion was that the Dept. of Citizen Participation was somehow protecting a portion of content, probably in an effort to get them to participate in something or other, like, I don't know, a discussion board, without worrying about getting sued for copying a paragraph from an Associated Press article.</p><p>And beyond being closer to correct, I would think that "Google Patents the News" is more likely to attract attention than the Director of some obscure governmental department that I've never heard of before.</p><p>I almost skipped it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was annoyed at the title malfunction , too.Anything that is copyrighted to the U.S. government can be freely disseminated and it 's fair use .
I would think the same applies to patents.My erroneous conclusion was that the Dept .
of Citizen Participation was somehow protecting a portion of content , probably in an effort to get them to participate in something or other , like , I do n't know , a discussion board , without worrying about getting sued for copying a paragraph from an Associated Press article.And beyond being closer to correct , I would think that " Google Patents the News " is more likely to attract attention than the Director of some obscure governmental department that I 've never heard of before.I almost skipped it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was annoyed at the title malfunction, too.Anything that is copyrighted to the U.S. government can be freely disseminated and it's fair use.
I would think the same applies to patents.My erroneous conclusion was that the Dept.
of Citizen Participation was somehow protecting a portion of content, probably in an effort to get them to participate in something or other, like, I don't know, a discussion board, without worrying about getting sued for copying a paragraph from an Associated Press article.And beyond being closer to correct, I would think that "Google Patents the News" is more likely to attract attention than the Director of some obscure governmental department that I've never heard of before.I almost skipped it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967654</id>
	<title>TEABAG!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264866660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TEABAG!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TEABAG ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TEABAG!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968028</id>
	<title>Government Employee?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patenting a government process while on government time? I didn't think that was even legal, but if it is, then 'we the people' own the rights to the patent anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patenting a government process while on government time ?
I did n't think that was even legal , but if it is , then 'we the people ' own the rights to the patent anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patenting a government process while on government time?
I didn't think that was even legal, but if it is, then 'we the people' own the rights to the patent anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968172</id>
	<title>Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264874040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.  See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.
<p>
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.  These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).  Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.  So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.  Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.  In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for <b>either</b> McCain <b>or</b> Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.  (A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.  So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
</p><p>
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.  At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
</p><p>
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.  That claim is an outright lie.  Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.  Consider the case of North Carolina.  Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.  Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.  Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.  Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
</p><p>
Here is the bottom line.  Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.  He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
</p><p>
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.  Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.  Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.  Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.  You need not defend your actions in any way.  Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN .
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites ( and other non-Black folks ) .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and , hence , serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern .
Only about 65 \ % of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama .
In other words , a maximum of 65 \ % support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and , hence , is acceptable .
( A maximum of 65 \ % for McCain is okay .
So , European-American support at 55 \ % for McCain is well below this threshold and , hence , is not racist .
) If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race .
At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans .
African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today 's moral standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks).
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern.
Only about 65\% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama.
In other words, a maximum of 65\% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.
(A maximum of 65\% for McCain is okay.
So, European-American support at 55\% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.
)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why?  African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968724</id>
	<title>Yet Another Smear Campaign On Slashdot (YASCOS)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264970640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When employed at Google, Ms. Stanton worked on user interface design, and yes her employer sought a patent for one of her inventions (that she created as part of a team of other workers).<br>She was required to assign her interests in the invention to her employer---that's 100\% standard.<br>I'm not aware of any employer that say: "Oh, if you invent something, you get to keep it or patent<br>it yourself, or give it away as you see fit...."</p><p>Does this previous employment, which anyone in their right mind would consider an important<br>resume line, now eliminate her from serving in the White House?  Does the fact that<br>she's creative, and had to earn a living, prevent her from later working in the public<br>interest in government?</p><p>We should hope not, since government surely needs talented people.</p><p>Is there some sort of "purity test" implicit in this article?  I.e., anyone who has ever applied<br>for a patent---either personally (at enormous expense), or because of one's work---is NO LONGER<br>qualified to work in any position that lets them give something back to society?   I think<br>that's the tone of this submission. That's certainly the conclusion one draws from the wording.</p><p>Yes, the patent system is complex, outdated, silly and not what we need.  But do you know<br>what else we DO NOT need?   Patent trolling on slashdot.  We also don't need silly<br>"purity tests" that only allow patent virgins to work in public office.</p><p>What we DO NEED is talent, creativity and passion in public officials.   I'm glad that highly<br>talented people like Ms. Stanton can decide to change her career, give up the high paychecks,<br>and work in government, serving the public.   It's a shame there are idiots (and I use that<br>word carefully) who diminish her public service, because she once worked for a company.</p><p>What would the article author have us think?  Perhaps only starving artists should serve in<br>government?   Well, that wouldn't do, since the good ones bother to register copyright on<br>their valuable works....  Perhaps that will be the article author's next topic to attack.<br>Perhaps then we should have government ranks only filled by those who never held a job in<br>a large company, never did anything of value (worth having their employer seek patent protection),<br>and never wrote or composed anything of value, else they'd have tarnished themselves with<br>a copyright notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When employed at Google , Ms. Stanton worked on user interface design , and yes her employer sought a patent for one of her inventions ( that she created as part of a team of other workers ) .She was required to assign her interests in the invention to her employer---that 's 100 \ % standard.I 'm not aware of any employer that say : " Oh , if you invent something , you get to keep it or patentit yourself , or give it away as you see fit.... " Does this previous employment , which anyone in their right mind would consider an importantresume line , now eliminate her from serving in the White House ?
Does the fact thatshe 's creative , and had to earn a living , prevent her from later working in the publicinterest in government ? We should hope not , since government surely needs talented people.Is there some sort of " purity test " implicit in this article ?
I.e. , anyone who has ever appliedfor a patent---either personally ( at enormous expense ) , or because of one 's work---is NO LONGERqualified to work in any position that lets them give something back to society ?
I thinkthat 's the tone of this submission .
That 's certainly the conclusion one draws from the wording.Yes , the patent system is complex , outdated , silly and not what we need .
But do you knowwhat else we DO NOT need ?
Patent trolling on slashdot .
We also do n't need silly " purity tests " that only allow patent virgins to work in public office.What we DO NEED is talent , creativity and passion in public officials .
I 'm glad that highlytalented people like Ms. Stanton can decide to change her career , give up the high paychecks,and work in government , serving the public .
It 's a shame there are idiots ( and I use thatword carefully ) who diminish her public service , because she once worked for a company.What would the article author have us think ?
Perhaps only starving artists should serve ingovernment ?
Well , that would n't do , since the good ones bother to register copyright ontheir valuable works.... Perhaps that will be the article author 's next topic to attack.Perhaps then we should have government ranks only filled by those who never held a job ina large company , never did anything of value ( worth having their employer seek patent protection ) ,and never wrote or composed anything of value , else they 'd have tarnished themselves witha copyright notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When employed at Google, Ms. Stanton worked on user interface design, and yes her employer sought a patent for one of her inventions (that she created as part of a team of other workers).She was required to assign her interests in the invention to her employer---that's 100\% standard.I'm not aware of any employer that say: "Oh, if you invent something, you get to keep it or patentit yourself, or give it away as you see fit...."Does this previous employment, which anyone in their right mind would consider an importantresume line, now eliminate her from serving in the White House?
Does the fact thatshe's creative, and had to earn a living, prevent her from later working in the publicinterest in government?We should hope not, since government surely needs talented people.Is there some sort of "purity test" implicit in this article?
I.e., anyone who has ever appliedfor a patent---either personally (at enormous expense), or because of one's work---is NO LONGERqualified to work in any position that lets them give something back to society?
I thinkthat's the tone of this submission.
That's certainly the conclusion one draws from the wording.Yes, the patent system is complex, outdated, silly and not what we need.
But do you knowwhat else we DO NOT need?
Patent trolling on slashdot.
We also don't need silly"purity tests" that only allow patent virgins to work in public office.What we DO NEED is talent, creativity and passion in public officials.
I'm glad that highlytalented people like Ms. Stanton can decide to change her career, give up the high paychecks,and work in government, serving the public.
It's a shame there are idiots (and I use thatword carefully) who diminish her public service, because she once worked for a company.What would the article author have us think?
Perhaps only starving artists should serve ingovernment?
Well, that wouldn't do, since the good ones bother to register copyright ontheir valuable works....  Perhaps that will be the article author's next topic to attack.Perhaps then we should have government ranks only filled by those who never held a job ina large company, never did anything of value (worth having their employer seek patent protection),and never wrote or composed anything of value, else they'd have tarnished themselves witha copyright notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969194</id>
	<title>Re:Is this REALLY what they want?</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1264937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think most people learned enough about wall st during the crisis. They did nothing. People don't know how to organize, they are afraid of government and corporate spies and sabotage, misinformed of the real causes, and ignorant and greedy, looking out for their own good, incapable of having a cool-headed debate and analysis of situations...  it's pretty sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most people learned enough about wall st during the crisis .
They did nothing .
People do n't know how to organize , they are afraid of government and corporate spies and sabotage , misinformed of the real causes , and ignorant and greedy , looking out for their own good , incapable of having a cool-headed debate and analysis of situations... it 's pretty sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most people learned enough about wall st during the crisis.
They did nothing.
People don't know how to organize, they are afraid of government and corporate spies and sabotage, misinformed of the real causes, and ignorant and greedy, looking out for their own good, incapable of having a cool-headed debate and analysis of situations...  it's pretty sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967764</id>
	<title>Patents issue on Tuesdays--</title>
	<author>sillivalley</author>
	<datestamp>1264868220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Picky, picky, picky, but new patents issue on Tuesdays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Picky , picky , picky , but new patents issue on Tuesdays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picky, picky, picky, but new patents issue on Tuesdays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968046</id>
	<title>Re:one question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264872120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>where's the digg button?  I see twitter and facebook, no digg...</p></div><p>I don't see Twitter and Facebook buttons, I added them to Adblock Plus blacklist.  So they can suck my fucking cock.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>where 's the digg button ?
I see twitter and facebook , no digg...I do n't see Twitter and Facebook buttons , I added them to Adblock Plus blacklist .
So they can suck my fucking cock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where's the digg button?
I see twitter and facebook, no digg...I don't see Twitter and Facebook buttons, I added them to Adblock Plus blacklist.
So they can suck my fucking cock.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30970356</id>
	<title>It isn't unusual to receive a patent</title>
	<author>mikefocke</author>
	<datestamp>1264953480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after you left the company. I received the approval for one about 3 weeks after I left the company who really owned the rights to the patent. I was just one of the "named inventors" even though I had a mostly administrative and management role in its creation. I had been working for the company to secure that patent with appropriate lawyers for 2+ years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after you left the company .
I received the approval for one about 3 weeks after I left the company who really owned the rights to the patent .
I was just one of the " named inventors " even though I had a mostly administrative and management role in its creation .
I had been working for the company to secure that patent with appropriate lawyers for 2 + years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after you left the company.
I received the approval for one about 3 weeks after I left the company who really owned the rights to the patent.
I was just one of the "named inventors" even though I had a mostly administrative and management role in its creation.
I had been working for the company to secure that patent with appropriate lawyers for 2+ years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968126</id>
	<title>YuO Fail It!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264873440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Community. The of playing your Corporate declined in market Of the waaring If you have FreeBSD at about 80</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Community .
The of playing your Corporate declined in market Of the waaring If you have FreeBSD at about 80 [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Community.
The of playing your Corporate declined in market Of the waaring If you have FreeBSD at about 80 [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967996</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1264871400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks--we all know that every<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. patent story is full of lies, and I appreciate you taking the time to figure out which specific lies were in this one.</p><p>Rob Malda et al believe deeply in the fundamental soundness of the US patent system, to the extent that it wouldn't surprise me that they held substantial portfolios of non-trivial software patents themselves.  You can tell this is the case because every single patent-related story on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is substantially false:  either the summary is full of lies about what has actually been patented, or a patent application is presented as a patent grant.  The level of ignorance expressed by the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors may actually be beyond the limit of "never assume venality where stupidity will do", although admittedly that is a tough boundary to cross.</p><p>In any case, if they had any fundamental beef with the US patent system they would be posting stories of genuine abuse, not fabricated and misleading summaries and headlines that are clearly the work of people who think the only way to make the US patent system look bad is to lie about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks--we all know that every / .
patent story is full of lies , and I appreciate you taking the time to figure out which specific lies were in this one.Rob Malda et al believe deeply in the fundamental soundness of the US patent system , to the extent that it would n't surprise me that they held substantial portfolios of non-trivial software patents themselves .
You can tell this is the case because every single patent-related story on / .
is substantially false : either the summary is full of lies about what has actually been patented , or a patent application is presented as a patent grant .
The level of ignorance expressed by the / .
editors may actually be beyond the limit of " never assume venality where stupidity will do " , although admittedly that is a tough boundary to cross.In any case , if they had any fundamental beef with the US patent system they would be posting stories of genuine abuse , not fabricated and misleading summaries and headlines that are clearly the work of people who think the only way to make the US patent system look bad is to lie about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks--we all know that every /.
patent story is full of lies, and I appreciate you taking the time to figure out which specific lies were in this one.Rob Malda et al believe deeply in the fundamental soundness of the US patent system, to the extent that it wouldn't surprise me that they held substantial portfolios of non-trivial software patents themselves.
You can tell this is the case because every single patent-related story on /.
is substantially false:  either the summary is full of lies about what has actually been patented, or a patent application is presented as a patent grant.
The level of ignorance expressed by the /.
editors may actually be beyond the limit of "never assume venality where stupidity will do", although admittedly that is a tough boundary to cross.In any case, if they had any fundamental beef with the US patent system they would be posting stories of genuine abuse, not fabricated and misleading summaries and headlines that are clearly the work of people who think the only way to make the US patent system look bad is to lie about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968418</id>
	<title>Re:Government Employee?</title>
	<author>e9th</author>
	<datestamp>1264878120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ms. Stanton was working for Google, not the government, when the patent application was filed back in 2006.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ms. Stanton was working for Google , not the government , when the patent application was filed back in 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ms. Stanton was working for Google, not the government, when the patent application was filed back in 2006.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967906</id>
	<title>Another reason to outsource</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1264870260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do not have to worry about these silly liabilities such as patent infringement.</p><p>The only person who loses is the American worker.</p><p>Time to fire the incumbents in 2010 and 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do not have to worry about these silly liabilities such as patent infringement.The only person who loses is the American worker.Time to fire the incumbents in 2010 and 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do not have to worry about these silly liabilities such as patent infringement.The only person who loses is the American worker.Time to fire the incumbents in 2010 and 2012.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967972</id>
	<title>automated financial news</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1264871160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>( Oil | Corn | Stock | Gold ) prices ( rise | fall ) on ( Middle East sabre-rattling | earnings release | Lindsay Lohan arrest | natural disaster ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Oil | Corn | Stock | Gold ) prices ( rise | fall ) on ( Middle East sabre-rattling | earnings release | Lindsay Lohan arrest | natural disaster ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>( Oil | Corn | Stock | Gold ) prices ( rise | fall ) on ( Middle East sabre-rattling | earnings release | Lindsay Lohan arrest | natural disaster ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967714</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1264867440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So she worked at Google and got a patent in 2006?  Nothing unusual about that.  Why is this news?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So she worked at Google and got a patent in 2006 ?
Nothing unusual about that .
Why is this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So she worked at Google and got a patent in 2006?
Nothing unusual about that.
Why is this news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968054</id>
	<title>Calculating patent term</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1264872240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents filed these days receive a 20 year term from the earliest effective filing date.  In this case, the application was filed 24 February 2006.  That would mean its expiration date (assuming the assignee pays the maintenance fees) would be 24 February 2026.</p><p>However, due to delays by the USPTO, there is a patent term adjustment.  The USPTO calculated it at 686 days, which would mean that the patent actually expires (approximately) 11 January 2028.</p><p>Finally, a recent court decision (Wyeth v. Kappos) concluded that the USPTO was calculating patent term adjustment incorrectly.  This means that the patent may be due a (slightly) longer adjustment.  Ultimately, I'm not entirely sure what the correct expiration date is at this point.</p><p>In any case, the expiration date is definitely not in 2027.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents filed these days receive a 20 year term from the earliest effective filing date .
In this case , the application was filed 24 February 2006 .
That would mean its expiration date ( assuming the assignee pays the maintenance fees ) would be 24 February 2026.However , due to delays by the USPTO , there is a patent term adjustment .
The USPTO calculated it at 686 days , which would mean that the patent actually expires ( approximately ) 11 January 2028.Finally , a recent court decision ( Wyeth v. Kappos ) concluded that the USPTO was calculating patent term adjustment incorrectly .
This means that the patent may be due a ( slightly ) longer adjustment .
Ultimately , I 'm not entirely sure what the correct expiration date is at this point.In any case , the expiration date is definitely not in 2027 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents filed these days receive a 20 year term from the earliest effective filing date.
In this case, the application was filed 24 February 2006.
That would mean its expiration date (assuming the assignee pays the maintenance fees) would be 24 February 2026.However, due to delays by the USPTO, there is a patent term adjustment.
The USPTO calculated it at 686 days, which would mean that the patent actually expires (approximately) 11 January 2028.Finally, a recent court decision (Wyeth v. Kappos) concluded that the USPTO was calculating patent term adjustment incorrectly.
This means that the patent may be due a (slightly) longer adjustment.
Ultimately, I'm not entirely sure what the correct expiration date is at this point.In any case, the expiration date is definitely not in 2027.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968002</id>
	<title>Claim 1</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1264871460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't bother reading the summary - it's a bunch of twaddle.</p><p>Here is what the patent covers:</p><p>1. A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request, comprising: one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including: a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over a first time period; a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart, and for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that includes the first time period; and a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart, wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't bother reading the summary - it 's a bunch of twaddle.Here is what the patent covers : 1 .
A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request , comprising : one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including : a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over a first time period ; a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart , and for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that includes the first time period ; and a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart , wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't bother reading the summary - it's a bunch of twaddle.Here is what the patent covers:1.
A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request, comprising: one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including: a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over a first time period; a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart, and for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that includes the first time period; and a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart, wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969468</id>
	<title>documenting Obama on http://en.swpat.org</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1264942320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Obama's administration submitted a Bilski brief, and Obama's made a statement about wanting to enforce US patents overseas.  I'm starting to document the administration's software patent related stances here :</p><ul><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Obama\_administration" title="swpat.org">http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Obama\_administration</a> [swpat.org] </li></ul><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Obama 's administration submitted a Bilski brief , and Obama 's made a statement about wanting to enforce US patents overseas .
I 'm starting to document the administration 's software patent related stances here : http : //en.swpat.org/wiki/Obama \ _administration [ swpat.org ]     swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki , help welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Obama's administration submitted a Bilski brief, and Obama's made a statement about wanting to enforce US patents overseas.
I'm starting to document the administration's software patent related stances here : http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Obama\_administration [swpat.org] 
    swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30971348</id>
	<title>New phase of business development at Google</title>
	<author>piotru</author>
	<datestamp>1264961760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like so many others. First - genuine growth and competitiveness by innovation. Next - if lucky to reach the level of political corruption - corporate impotency, relaying on brand strength, monopoly, dubious patents and legislation. This phase is characterized by outsorcing and growth by takeovers; Apple (ex. ARM cores under A4 brand in iGlutton), and Microsoft all meet here. Third - an empty corporate shell managing the last asset - brand.<br>I have already no great expectations of Google who tries to exterminate Firefox (new YouTube codecs) and attempts draining money from the government (pushing patents into public services), like in this example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like so many others .
First - genuine growth and competitiveness by innovation .
Next - if lucky to reach the level of political corruption - corporate impotency , relaying on brand strength , monopoly , dubious patents and legislation .
This phase is characterized by outsorcing and growth by takeovers ; Apple ( ex .
ARM cores under A4 brand in iGlutton ) , and Microsoft all meet here .
Third - an empty corporate shell managing the last asset - brand.I have already no great expectations of Google who tries to exterminate Firefox ( new YouTube codecs ) and attempts draining money from the government ( pushing patents into public services ) , like in this example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like so many others.
First - genuine growth and competitiveness by innovation.
Next - if lucky to reach the level of political corruption - corporate impotency, relaying on brand strength, monopoly, dubious patents and legislation.
This phase is characterized by outsorcing and growth by takeovers; Apple (ex.
ARM cores under A4 brand in iGlutton), and Microsoft all meet here.
Third - an empty corporate shell managing the last asset - brand.I have already no great expectations of Google who tries to exterminate Firefox (new YouTube codecs) and attempts draining money from the government (pushing patents into public services), like in this example.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967736</id>
	<title>Director of Citzen Participation?</title>
	<author>ALeader71</author>
	<datestamp>1264867800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens if we don't "participate" Comrade Obama?</p><p>What's next?  A Council of Americanism?</p><p>I recommend learning and reading over passive propaganda any day.<br>
Try these non-political books: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science/dp/0393324869/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1264906969&amp;sr=1-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Naked Economics</a> [amazon.com] and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Learn-Earn-Beginners-Investing-Business/dp/0684811634" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Learn to Earn</a> [amazon.com].</p><p>Leave the passive stuff to the sheep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens if we do n't " participate " Comrade Obama ? What 's next ?
A Council of Americanism ? I recommend learning and reading over passive propaganda any day .
Try these non-political books : Naked Economics [ amazon.com ] and Learn to Earn [ amazon.com ] .Leave the passive stuff to the sheep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens if we don't "participate" Comrade Obama?What's next?
A Council of Americanism?I recommend learning and reading over passive propaganda any day.
Try these non-political books: Naked Economics [amazon.com] and Learn to Earn [amazon.com].Leave the passive stuff to the sheep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969800</id>
	<title>Re:Prior Art?</title>
	<author>reebmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1264947240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No offense, but you clearly didn't RTFP. In order to be good prior art (anticipating art), the relevant art must include all of the elements of a claim.  You can make an obviousness argument if you can find all of the elements in two or more references. To help you out, I've broken down the first independent claim into manageable pieces. You'll quickly notice that neither of your examples are even close:</p><p>1. A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request, comprising:</p><p>[ ]one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including:</p><p>[ ] a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [ ] a first time period;</p><p>[ ] a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart, and</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [ ] for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [ ] includes the first time period; and</p><p>[ ] a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart,</p><p>[ ] wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No offense , but you clearly did n't RTFP .
In order to be good prior art ( anticipating art ) , the relevant art must include all of the elements of a claim .
You can make an obviousness argument if you can find all of the elements in two or more references .
To help you out , I 've broken down the first independent claim into manageable pieces .
You 'll quickly notice that neither of your examples are even close : 1 .
A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request , comprising : [ ] one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including : [ ] a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over         [ ] a first time period ; [ ] a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart , and         [ ] for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that         [ ] includes the first time period ; and [ ] a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart , [ ] wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offense, but you clearly didn't RTFP.
In order to be good prior art (anticipating art), the relevant art must include all of the elements of a claim.
You can make an obviousness argument if you can find all of the elements in two or more references.
To help you out, I've broken down the first independent claim into manageable pieces.
You'll quickly notice that neither of your examples are even close:1.
A system for providing financial information about a target entity in response to a user request, comprising:[ ]one or more computers configured to provide a user interface including:[ ] a main chart for showing a graph of financial data over
        [ ] a first time period;[ ] a second chart displayed concurrently with the main chart, and
        [ ] for showing a graph of financial data over a second time period that
        [ ] includes the first time period; and[ ] a user-adjustable viewing window displayed on the second chart,[ ] wherein the first time period of the main chart is defined by placement of the user-adjustable viewing window on the second chart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30970722</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>njfuzzy</author>
	<datestamp>1264957020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what? I get that some FOSS types really don't like patents, especially software patents, but where's the news in this story? It's not like she raped her dog. Nothing especially heinous, unusual, or hypocritical happened here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
I get that some FOSS types really do n't like patents , especially software patents , but where 's the news in this story ?
It 's not like she raped her dog .
Nothing especially heinous , unusual , or hypocritical happened here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
I get that some FOSS types really don't like patents, especially software patents, but where's the news in this story?
It's not like she raped her dog.
Nothing especially heinous, unusual, or hypocritical happened here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969110</id>
	<title>Re:Google is not a patent troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264935840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is not yet a patent troll.</p><p>In future it could become one if it is in the interests of the shareholders.</p><p>They also said "Don't be evil," and had an anti-censorship statement in their FAQ, until they decided to go into the People's Republic of China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not yet a patent troll.In future it could become one if it is in the interests of the shareholders.They also said " Do n't be evil , " and had an anti-censorship statement in their FAQ , until they decided to go into the People 's Republic of China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not yet a patent troll.In future it could become one if it is in the interests of the shareholders.They also said "Don't be evil," and had an anti-censorship statement in their FAQ, until they decided to go into the People's Republic of China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967680</id>
	<title>Patented status (mostly) irrelevant to govt use</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1264867080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have pointed out, this patent is basically describing the sliding, adjustable window and news flags features of Google Finance, so it's unlikely that this patent would play much of a role in Ms. Stanton's new job.  But if the government wanted to use the invention described in the patent for some reason, it has an automatic license to do so.  <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1498.html" title="cornell.edu">28 USC 1498(a)</a> [cornell.edu] gives the federal government (NB: not state governments) a license to use any patented invention.  The patent owner can sue for reasonable compensation but cannot enjoin the government from using the invention.</p><p>As a side note, 28 USC 1498(b) gives the government a similar right to use copyrighted works.  In that case the copyright owner's damages are limited to reasonable compensation plus the <em>minimum</em> statutory damages, so no overinflated damages for government copyright infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have pointed out , this patent is basically describing the sliding , adjustable window and news flags features of Google Finance , so it 's unlikely that this patent would play much of a role in Ms. Stanton 's new job .
But if the government wanted to use the invention described in the patent for some reason , it has an automatic license to do so .
28 USC 1498 ( a ) [ cornell.edu ] gives the federal government ( NB : not state governments ) a license to use any patented invention .
The patent owner can sue for reasonable compensation but can not enjoin the government from using the invention.As a side note , 28 USC 1498 ( b ) gives the government a similar right to use copyrighted works .
In that case the copyright owner 's damages are limited to reasonable compensation plus the minimum statutory damages , so no overinflated damages for government copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have pointed out, this patent is basically describing the sliding, adjustable window and news flags features of Google Finance, so it's unlikely that this patent would play much of a role in Ms. Stanton's new job.
But if the government wanted to use the invention described in the patent for some reason, it has an automatic license to do so.
28 USC 1498(a) [cornell.edu] gives the federal government (NB: not state governments) a license to use any patented invention.
The patent owner can sue for reasonable compensation but cannot enjoin the government from using the invention.As a side note, 28 USC 1498(b) gives the government a similar right to use copyrighted works.
In that case the copyright owner's damages are limited to reasonable compensation plus the minimum statutory damages, so no overinflated damages for government copyright infringement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594</id>
	<title>Misleading title</title>
	<author>Wuhao</author>
	<datestamp>1264865580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary doesn't go into specifics as to what has been claimed. Basically, Ms. Stanton worked at Google, and was part of the team that developed Google Finance. What's been claimed here is essentially the placement of flags at points on the stock chart, along with some other specifics of Google's stock chart presentation.</p><p>Laying aside opinions on the patent system and this patent in particular for a second, I would say that the title is highly misleading: the "news" is not patented, nor was the filing made by the named inventor of record in her capacity as Director of Citizen Participation. Google is obligated to list all individuals who played a dominant role in the inventive process, and apparently it was felt that Katie Stanton was just such an individual.</p><p>Since I consider Google Finance to be a fantastically well-designed resource that communicates a lot of data very succinctly, I guess I'd say that this recommends Ms. Stanton's ability to communicate information, even in a very abstract sense. That said, I suspect that this is the last I will ever hear of her, or the office of the Director of Citizen Participation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary does n't go into specifics as to what has been claimed .
Basically , Ms. Stanton worked at Google , and was part of the team that developed Google Finance .
What 's been claimed here is essentially the placement of flags at points on the stock chart , along with some other specifics of Google 's stock chart presentation.Laying aside opinions on the patent system and this patent in particular for a second , I would say that the title is highly misleading : the " news " is not patented , nor was the filing made by the named inventor of record in her capacity as Director of Citizen Participation .
Google is obligated to list all individuals who played a dominant role in the inventive process , and apparently it was felt that Katie Stanton was just such an individual.Since I consider Google Finance to be a fantastically well-designed resource that communicates a lot of data very succinctly , I guess I 'd say that this recommends Ms. Stanton 's ability to communicate information , even in a very abstract sense .
That said , I suspect that this is the last I will ever hear of her , or the office of the Director of Citizen Participation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary doesn't go into specifics as to what has been claimed.
Basically, Ms. Stanton worked at Google, and was part of the team that developed Google Finance.
What's been claimed here is essentially the placement of flags at points on the stock chart, along with some other specifics of Google's stock chart presentation.Laying aside opinions on the patent system and this patent in particular for a second, I would say that the title is highly misleading: the "news" is not patented, nor was the filing made by the named inventor of record in her capacity as Director of Citizen Participation.
Google is obligated to list all individuals who played a dominant role in the inventive process, and apparently it was felt that Katie Stanton was just such an individual.Since I consider Google Finance to be a fantastically well-designed resource that communicates a lot of data very succinctly, I guess I'd say that this recommends Ms. Stanton's ability to communicate information, even in a very abstract sense.
That said, I suspect that this is the last I will ever hear of her, or the office of the Director of Citizen Participation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967842</id>
	<title>Google is not a patent troll</title>
	<author>marquinhocb</author>
	<datestamp>1264869300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever seen Google sue offensively? Cuz I haven't.  It seems Google uses their patents for defensive cases (i.e. so someone else can't sue them), not as a patent troll.  At least, that's been the rule so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever seen Google sue offensively ?
Cuz I have n't .
It seems Google uses their patents for defensive cases ( i.e .
so someone else ca n't sue them ) , not as a patent troll .
At least , that 's been the rule so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever seen Google sue offensively?
Cuz I haven't.
It seems Google uses their patents for defensive cases (i.e.
so someone else can't sue them), not as a patent troll.
At least, that's been the rule so far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968364</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading title</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1264877160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Finance is a decent site, but calling it a fantastically well-designed resource is a bit of stretch.  It does some of the things Google does well, like aggregate financial news from many other sites.  It displays public data in a fairly clean Google fashion.  But as a financial resource, it is quite primitive.  I wouldn't recommend using it to make an real financial decisions.  Even someone deciding how to re-balance their 401k for the year would be well advised to use more than what Google Finance can offer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Finance is a decent site , but calling it a fantastically well-designed resource is a bit of stretch .
It does some of the things Google does well , like aggregate financial news from many other sites .
It displays public data in a fairly clean Google fashion .
But as a financial resource , it is quite primitive .
I would n't recommend using it to make an real financial decisions .
Even someone deciding how to re-balance their 401k for the year would be well advised to use more than what Google Finance can offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Finance is a decent site, but calling it a fantastically well-designed resource is a bit of stretch.
It does some of the things Google does well, like aggregate financial news from many other sites.
It displays public data in a fairly clean Google fashion.
But as a financial resource, it is quite primitive.
I wouldn't recommend using it to make an real financial decisions.
Even someone deciding how to re-balance their 401k for the year would be well advised to use more than what Google Finance can offer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968214</id>
	<title>There are some who call me...tim....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264874820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I would say that the title is highly misleading</i></p><p>Well of course it is.  This is very typical of articles posted by timothy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say that the title is highly misleadingWell of course it is .
This is very typical of articles posted by timothy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say that the title is highly misleadingWell of course it is.
This is very typical of articles posted by timothy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967844</id>
	<title>Is this REALLY what they want?</title>
	<author>Erbo</author>
	<datestamp>1264869360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the Federal Government <i>really</i> want to "facilitate and encourage the [citizens'] use and understanding of financial information?"  After all, if citizens do that, they just MIGHT figure out how the Wall Street banksters and fraudsters, and their bought-and-paid-for friends in the government (at <i>all</i> levels and in <i>both</i> parties), have been fleecing them for years, while milking off massive bonuses for themselves at taxpayer expense.<p>And if <i>that</i> happens, I foresee a big jump in the sales of torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers, and boiled rope.</p><p>See the writings of <a href="http://www.market-ticker.org/" title="market-ticker.org">Karl Denninger</a> [market-ticker.org] for more information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the Federal Government really want to " facilitate and encourage the [ citizens ' ] use and understanding of financial information ?
" After all , if citizens do that , they just MIGHT figure out how the Wall Street banksters and fraudsters , and their bought-and-paid-for friends in the government ( at all levels and in both parties ) , have been fleecing them for years , while milking off massive bonuses for themselves at taxpayer expense.And if that happens , I foresee a big jump in the sales of torches , pitchforks , tar and feathers , and boiled rope.See the writings of Karl Denninger [ market-ticker.org ] for more information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the Federal Government really want to "facilitate and encourage the [citizens'] use and understanding of financial information?
"  After all, if citizens do that, they just MIGHT figure out how the Wall Street banksters and fraudsters, and their bought-and-paid-for friends in the government (at all levels and in both parties), have been fleecing them for years, while milking off massive bonuses for themselves at taxpayer expense.And if that happens, I foresee a big jump in the sales of torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers, and boiled rope.See the writings of Karl Denninger [market-ticker.org] for more information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968198</id>
	<title>lets be realistic here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264874520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The constitution doesn't stop the white house - do you think a patent is going to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution does n't stop the white house - do you think a patent is going to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution doesn't stop the white house - do you think a patent is going to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967510</id>
	<title>Prior Art?</title>
	<author>longacre</author>
	<datestamp>1264864680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.
<br> <br>
Examples:<br>
<a href="http://www.smartmoney.com/stock-quote/?symbol=MSFT" title="smartmoney.com">SmartMoney</a> [smartmoney.com]
<br>
<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/msft/charts" title="marketwatch.com">MarketWatch</a> [marketwatch.com]</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is n't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way , and I do n't think they were the first .
Examples : SmartMoney [ smartmoney.com ] MarketWatch [ marketwatch.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google isn't the only site that displays news on stock charts this way, and I don't think they were the first.
Examples:
SmartMoney [smartmoney.com]

MarketWatch [marketwatch.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30978428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_31_002259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30978428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30969800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_31_002259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30967500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_31_002259.30968046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
