<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_01_1442236</id>
	<title>Report Shows Patent Trolls Are Thriving</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265040960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"The <a href="http://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/2009-patent-litigation-study.jhtml">2009 Patent Litigation Study</a> has been released by Price Waterhouse Coopers.  It shows evidence that <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/digestTAL.jsp?id=1202441718346">patent trolls are growing and doing quite well</a>.  Using a very conservative view of a non-practicing entity (referred to as NPE in the report), PWC noted that 'damage awards for NPEs have averaged more than double those for practicing entities since 1995' and 'certain federal district courts (particularly Virginia Eastern and Texas Eastern) continue to be more favorable to patent holders, with shorter time-to-trial, higher success rates, and higher median damages awards.'  The report paints a dire picture of the state of patent lawsuits and especially those brought by NPEs and also shows that in the past eighteen years the number of patent cases filed yearly is on the rise significantly when normalized against the number of patents granted yearly."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The 2009 Patent Litigation Study has been released by Price Waterhouse Coopers .
It shows evidence that patent trolls are growing and doing quite well .
Using a very conservative view of a non-practicing entity ( referred to as NPE in the report ) , PWC noted that 'damage awards for NPEs have averaged more than double those for practicing entities since 1995 ' and 'certain federal district courts ( particularly Virginia Eastern and Texas Eastern ) continue to be more favorable to patent holders , with shorter time-to-trial , higher success rates , and higher median damages awards .
' The report paints a dire picture of the state of patent lawsuits and especially those brought by NPEs and also shows that in the past eighteen years the number of patent cases filed yearly is on the rise significantly when normalized against the number of patents granted yearly .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The 2009 Patent Litigation Study has been released by Price Waterhouse Coopers.
It shows evidence that patent trolls are growing and doing quite well.
Using a very conservative view of a non-practicing entity (referred to as NPE in the report), PWC noted that 'damage awards for NPEs have averaged more than double those for practicing entities since 1995' and 'certain federal district courts (particularly Virginia Eastern and Texas Eastern) continue to be more favorable to patent holders, with shorter time-to-trial, higher success rates, and higher median damages awards.
'  The report paints a dire picture of the state of patent lawsuits and especially those brought by NPEs and also shows that in the past eighteen years the number of patent cases filed yearly is on the rise significantly when normalized against the number of patents granted yearly.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986396</id>
	<title>Both are being manipulated</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1265016960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both are being manipulated. And the patent office as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both are being manipulated .
And the patent office as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both are being manipulated.
And the patent office as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984898</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1265055120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> We may have issues when companies like (for example) Nokia and Apple wage patent warfare but both of these companies spend enormous fortunes on R&amp;D and they both produce exceptional products.</p></div></blockquote><p>So they're somehow more virtuous than other &euro;vuh&pound; Corpra$hun$ because they do R&amp;D and manufacturing[1] under the same roof, but why should other companies be forced to do so?  Why can't one company specialize in R&amp;D and work with another that specializes in production and another that specializes in marketing.  Have you heard of Adam Smith?</p><p>What if either of your holy companies decided, for whatever reason, to spin off one arm into a subsidiary?    Would that invalidate all their patents?  Because I don't see what, in reality, would change.</p><p>[1] Unless they outsource all that to China, in which case they're effectively NPEs too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We may have issues when companies like ( for example ) Nokia and Apple wage patent warfare but both of these companies spend enormous fortunes on R&amp;D and they both produce exceptional products.So they 're somehow more virtuous than other    vuh   Corpra $ hun $ because they do R&amp;D and manufacturing [ 1 ] under the same roof , but why should other companies be forced to do so ?
Why ca n't one company specialize in R&amp;D and work with another that specializes in production and another that specializes in marketing .
Have you heard of Adam Smith ? What if either of your holy companies decided , for whatever reason , to spin off one arm into a subsidiary ?
Would that invalidate all their patents ?
Because I do n't see what , in reality , would change .
[ 1 ] Unless they outsource all that to China , in which case they 're effectively NPEs too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We may have issues when companies like (for example) Nokia and Apple wage patent warfare but both of these companies spend enormous fortunes on R&amp;D and they both produce exceptional products.So they're somehow more virtuous than other €vuh£ Corpra$hun$ because they do R&amp;D and manufacturing[1] under the same roof, but why should other companies be forced to do so?
Why can't one company specialize in R&amp;D and work with another that specializes in production and another that specializes in marketing.
Have you heard of Adam Smith?What if either of your holy companies decided, for whatever reason, to spin off one arm into a subsidiary?
Would that invalidate all their patents?
Because I don't see what, in reality, would change.
[1] Unless they outsource all that to China, in which case they're effectively NPEs too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984086</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265051460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most patent trolls don't even come up with the patent themselves. They go around to companies that are going under, and buy up their patent portfolio for cheap. Then they wait for some other company, preferably one with deep pockets, to do something marginally similar, and then they sue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most patent trolls do n't even come up with the patent themselves .
They go around to companies that are going under , and buy up their patent portfolio for cheap .
Then they wait for some other company , preferably one with deep pockets , to do something marginally similar , and then they sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most patent trolls don't even come up with the patent themselves.
They go around to companies that are going under, and buy up their patent portfolio for cheap.
Then they wait for some other company, preferably one with deep pockets, to do something marginally similar, and then they sue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982950</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>cormander</author>
	<datestamp>1265046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are going to abbreviate no matter what you do, so we need to come up with an abbreviation that speaks for itself:

POOP - People Orchestrating Obvious Patents

Everybody say it with me. These companies are POOP!</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are going to abbreviate no matter what you do , so we need to come up with an abbreviation that speaks for itself : POOP - People Orchestrating Obvious Patents Everybody say it with me .
These companies are POOP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are going to abbreviate no matter what you do, so we need to come up with an abbreviation that speaks for itself:

POOP - People Orchestrating Obvious Patents

Everybody say it with me.
These companies are POOP!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982564</id>
	<title>Those who can do. Those who can't sue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck the police.</p><p>These thieves need a large dose of street justice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the police.These thieves need a large dose of street justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the police.These thieves need a large dose of street justice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986346</id>
	<title>Not a good example</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1265016780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An automobile is a rivalrous good; something that only one person can posses at a time. A patent licence is not; an unlimited number of licences may be issued for the same good. And a patent licence does not provide the same sort of security; multiple patents can apply to a product and most patents are worded more broadly than what they can apply to, making it difficult to know if a product is licenced or not.
<p>Also, the "simple" solution is seriously lacking in details.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An automobile is a rivalrous good ; something that only one person can posses at a time .
A patent licence is not ; an unlimited number of licences may be issued for the same good .
And a patent licence does not provide the same sort of security ; multiple patents can apply to a product and most patents are worded more broadly than what they can apply to , making it difficult to know if a product is licenced or not .
Also , the " simple " solution is seriously lacking in details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An automobile is a rivalrous good; something that only one person can posses at a time.
A patent licence is not; an unlimited number of licences may be issued for the same good.
And a patent licence does not provide the same sort of security; multiple patents can apply to a product and most patents are worded more broadly than what they can apply to, making it difficult to know if a product is licenced or not.
Also, the "simple" solution is seriously lacking in details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983464</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing inherently wrong with NPEs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That has got to be the worst analogy ever.  Non-practicing entities != car rental companies.  A rental company provides a service.  I don't want to have to buy and store a car in every city that I might conceivably visit for business or vacation.</p><p>The non-practicing entities are more like domain squatters.  They build barriers to useful commerce without providing any services whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That has got to be the worst analogy ever .
Non-practicing entities ! = car rental companies .
A rental company provides a service .
I do n't want to have to buy and store a car in every city that I might conceivably visit for business or vacation.The non-practicing entities are more like domain squatters .
They build barriers to useful commerce without providing any services whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That has got to be the worst analogy ever.
Non-practicing entities != car rental companies.
A rental company provides a service.
I don't want to have to buy and store a car in every city that I might conceivably visit for business or vacation.The non-practicing entities are more like domain squatters.
They build barriers to useful commerce without providing any services whatsoever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983192</id>
	<title>Re:Disgusting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not the patent system that's being manipulated; the court system is being manipulated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the patent system that 's being manipulated ; the court system is being manipulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the patent system that's being manipulated; the court system is being manipulated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558</id>
	<title>What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...how come patent trolls are awarded patents in the first place?  Would it be possible to make an applicant show proof that they are in the planning stages or are currently using what they are trying to patent?</p><p>Or would that just be a logistical nightmare?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...how come patent trolls are awarded patents in the first place ?
Would it be possible to make an applicant show proof that they are in the planning stages or are currently using what they are trying to patent ? Or would that just be a logistical nightmare ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how come patent trolls are awarded patents in the first place?
Would it be possible to make an applicant show proof that they are in the planning stages or are currently using what they are trying to patent?Or would that just be a logistical nightmare?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982922</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See thing is you could still 'game' the system.</p><p>Lets say for arguments sake NPE's are legislated out of existence.  What stops say a PE from just buying up the remains and continuing where it left off?  It is profitable...</p><p>I didnt even put 2 mins of thought into that and was able to game around your 'fix'.  A better fix would be to limit the damage these guys do.  Such as 'yes you own the patent on this but make nothing'  the fee is 500 million and the other company gets the patent too and must fair and reasonable terms it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See thing is you could still 'game ' the system.Lets say for arguments sake NPE 's are legislated out of existence .
What stops say a PE from just buying up the remains and continuing where it left off ?
It is profitable...I didnt even put 2 mins of thought into that and was able to game around your 'fix' .
A better fix would be to limit the damage these guys do .
Such as 'yes you own the patent on this but make nothing ' the fee is 500 million and the other company gets the patent too and must fair and reasonable terms it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See thing is you could still 'game' the system.Lets say for arguments sake NPE's are legislated out of existence.
What stops say a PE from just buying up the remains and continuing where it left off?
It is profitable...I didnt even put 2 mins of thought into that and was able to game around your 'fix'.
A better fix would be to limit the damage these guys do.
Such as 'yes you own the patent on this but make nothing'  the fee is 500 million and the other company gets the patent too and must fair and reasonable terms it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986460</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1265017140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They exist solely to sue. They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system.</i> <br>
<br>
And also with the corporate system altogether. Something about an entity that grants investors limited liability over its actions to make a return on investment -- as though that in-and-of-itself is proof that a particular corporation is a net-benefit to society.<br>
<br>
Limited liability has replaced social justice in our society. I think we'd see a lot less unethical behaviour if investors were held responsible the more egregious actions those making money for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They exist solely to sue .
They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system .
And also with the corporate system altogether .
Something about an entity that grants investors limited liability over its actions to make a return on investment -- as though that in-and-of-itself is proof that a particular corporation is a net-benefit to society .
Limited liability has replaced social justice in our society .
I think we 'd see a lot less unethical behaviour if investors were held responsible the more egregious actions those making money for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They exist solely to sue.
They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system.
And also with the corporate system altogether.
Something about an entity that grants investors limited liability over its actions to make a return on investment -- as though that in-and-of-itself is proof that a particular corporation is a net-benefit to society.
Limited liability has replaced social justice in our society.
I think we'd see a lot less unethical behaviour if investors were held responsible the more egregious actions those making money for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180</id>
	<title>Nothing inherently wrong with NPEs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Non-practicing entities exist in other legal and business contexts.  Consider a car rental company, for example.  It might own thousands of cars, yet it does not build cars, sell cars, or use the cars itself.  What's more, it charges an obscene fee to rent a car compared to buying one (~$20/day for a compact is $7300/year!).</p><p>Sounds a lot like a patent troll, right?  It doesn't use the technology, it won't sell the technology outright, and it quite possibly didn't even invent it in the first place.</p><p>But what both kinds of NPE provide is convenience and certainty.  People pay car rental companies a comparative fortune because it's cheaper than owning a car in every city you might want to fly to, and the car rental company provides certainty that the car will be available, in reasonably good condition, properly titled, etc.</p><p>By the same token, a patent holding company provides convenience and certainty.  Patents and patent applications are publicly available, so you can avoid wasting time and money on duplicate research and development by simply seeking a license from a company that has already done the work.  And of course a license gives you legal certainty.  Knowing that your product is licensed reduces the risk of an infringement lawsuit, which makes things like developing venture capital and contracting with suppliers and distributors easier.</p><p>Now, of course, there are problems.  Too may patents are too vague to be of much practical use to a practicing entity because they don't go into adequate detail on how to actually make and use the invention.  In response the courts are moving towards tightening the written description and enablement requirements, which I support.  Another problem is that too many patents are actually invalid, and Microsoft is currently asking the Supreme Court to make patents easier to invalidate by eliminating the strong presumption of validity that patents currently enjoy, which is another reform I support.  (That's right, Microsoft is trying to make it easier to invalidate patents).</p><p>The answer to the problem of non-practicing entities is not to ban them outright, nor to engage in overly narrow reforms that will only add complexity to the law.  The solution is simple, broad reform that will increase the societal value of all kinds of patents while at the same time reducing the incentive to file for unsupported patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Non-practicing entities exist in other legal and business contexts .
Consider a car rental company , for example .
It might own thousands of cars , yet it does not build cars , sell cars , or use the cars itself .
What 's more , it charges an obscene fee to rent a car compared to buying one ( ~ $ 20/day for a compact is $ 7300/year !
) .Sounds a lot like a patent troll , right ?
It does n't use the technology , it wo n't sell the technology outright , and it quite possibly did n't even invent it in the first place.But what both kinds of NPE provide is convenience and certainty .
People pay car rental companies a comparative fortune because it 's cheaper than owning a car in every city you might want to fly to , and the car rental company provides certainty that the car will be available , in reasonably good condition , properly titled , etc.By the same token , a patent holding company provides convenience and certainty .
Patents and patent applications are publicly available , so you can avoid wasting time and money on duplicate research and development by simply seeking a license from a company that has already done the work .
And of course a license gives you legal certainty .
Knowing that your product is licensed reduces the risk of an infringement lawsuit , which makes things like developing venture capital and contracting with suppliers and distributors easier.Now , of course , there are problems .
Too may patents are too vague to be of much practical use to a practicing entity because they do n't go into adequate detail on how to actually make and use the invention .
In response the courts are moving towards tightening the written description and enablement requirements , which I support .
Another problem is that too many patents are actually invalid , and Microsoft is currently asking the Supreme Court to make patents easier to invalidate by eliminating the strong presumption of validity that patents currently enjoy , which is another reform I support .
( That 's right , Microsoft is trying to make it easier to invalidate patents ) .The answer to the problem of non-practicing entities is not to ban them outright , nor to engage in overly narrow reforms that will only add complexity to the law .
The solution is simple , broad reform that will increase the societal value of all kinds of patents while at the same time reducing the incentive to file for unsupported patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Non-practicing entities exist in other legal and business contexts.
Consider a car rental company, for example.
It might own thousands of cars, yet it does not build cars, sell cars, or use the cars itself.
What's more, it charges an obscene fee to rent a car compared to buying one (~$20/day for a compact is $7300/year!
).Sounds a lot like a patent troll, right?
It doesn't use the technology, it won't sell the technology outright, and it quite possibly didn't even invent it in the first place.But what both kinds of NPE provide is convenience and certainty.
People pay car rental companies a comparative fortune because it's cheaper than owning a car in every city you might want to fly to, and the car rental company provides certainty that the car will be available, in reasonably good condition, properly titled, etc.By the same token, a patent holding company provides convenience and certainty.
Patents and patent applications are publicly available, so you can avoid wasting time and money on duplicate research and development by simply seeking a license from a company that has already done the work.
And of course a license gives you legal certainty.
Knowing that your product is licensed reduces the risk of an infringement lawsuit, which makes things like developing venture capital and contracting with suppliers and distributors easier.Now, of course, there are problems.
Too may patents are too vague to be of much practical use to a practicing entity because they don't go into adequate detail on how to actually make and use the invention.
In response the courts are moving towards tightening the written description and enablement requirements, which I support.
Another problem is that too many patents are actually invalid, and Microsoft is currently asking the Supreme Court to make patents easier to invalidate by eliminating the strong presumption of validity that patents currently enjoy, which is another reform I support.
(That's right, Microsoft is trying to make it easier to invalidate patents).The answer to the problem of non-practicing entities is not to ban them outright, nor to engage in overly narrow reforms that will only add complexity to the law.
The solution is simple, broad reform that will increase the societal value of all kinds of patents while at the same time reducing the incentive to file for unsupported patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983234</id>
	<title>Resource allocation within collapsing economies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Collapsing economies always funnel more resources into the military, government and legal sectors. That's precisely what we see happening in the US, now that its manufacturing base has been destroyed over the past 40 years.</p><p>We're now about two generations away from the last generation that worked in our factories and produced real products. Most people born after 1970s have no recollection or understanding of what it was like when America was an industrial powerhouse, and a center of innovation and research. They have a very skewed perspective of what it means to "produce real wealth".</p><p>To them, "real wealth" includes pseudo-bullshit "financial instruments" based on debt. To them, "real wealth" is generated when one party sues another. To them, "real wealth" is the loss generated by manipulated prices of virtually limitless goods (for example, digital music) thanks to artificial scarcity created by copyright legislation.</p><p>They can't comprehend when physical goods were actually made in America, and they were built to last. All they know about are shitty goods manufactured in third-world countries that often don't even work out of the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Collapsing economies always funnel more resources into the military , government and legal sectors .
That 's precisely what we see happening in the US , now that its manufacturing base has been destroyed over the past 40 years.We 're now about two generations away from the last generation that worked in our factories and produced real products .
Most people born after 1970s have no recollection or understanding of what it was like when America was an industrial powerhouse , and a center of innovation and research .
They have a very skewed perspective of what it means to " produce real wealth " .To them , " real wealth " includes pseudo-bullshit " financial instruments " based on debt .
To them , " real wealth " is generated when one party sues another .
To them , " real wealth " is the loss generated by manipulated prices of virtually limitless goods ( for example , digital music ) thanks to artificial scarcity created by copyright legislation.They ca n't comprehend when physical goods were actually made in America , and they were built to last .
All they know about are shitty goods manufactured in third-world countries that often do n't even work out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Collapsing economies always funnel more resources into the military, government and legal sectors.
That's precisely what we see happening in the US, now that its manufacturing base has been destroyed over the past 40 years.We're now about two generations away from the last generation that worked in our factories and produced real products.
Most people born after 1970s have no recollection or understanding of what it was like when America was an industrial powerhouse, and a center of innovation and research.
They have a very skewed perspective of what it means to "produce real wealth".To them, "real wealth" includes pseudo-bullshit "financial instruments" based on debt.
To them, "real wealth" is generated when one party sues another.
To them, "real wealth" is the loss generated by manipulated prices of virtually limitless goods (for example, digital music) thanks to artificial scarcity created by copyright legislation.They can't comprehend when physical goods were actually made in America, and they were built to last.
All they know about are shitty goods manufactured in third-world countries that often don't even work out of the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986772</id>
	<title>That's how power works in our society.</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1265018220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's how power works in our society. It is not about what is "right", but what suites the needs of the big players. Our system is *obviously* better than anything before it -- it has many checks and balances -- but I think people expect too much from it when they think that patent laws should be revised merely because it would be a sensible thing to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how power works in our society .
It is not about what is " right " , but what suites the needs of the big players .
Our system is * obviously * better than anything before it -- it has many checks and balances -- but I think people expect too much from it when they think that patent laws should be revised merely because it would be a sensible thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how power works in our society.
It is not about what is "right", but what suites the needs of the big players.
Our system is *obviously* better than anything before it -- it has many checks and balances -- but I think people expect too much from it when they think that patent laws should be revised merely because it would be a sensible thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986676</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1265017920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders would be able to sue the government for the value of the patents.</i> <br>
<br>
I find it ludicrous that the government would be threatened with litigation for passing laws. Surely the laws themselves would have to be impugned -- which means referring to the constitution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's called a taking , and the ex-patent holders would be able to sue the government for the value of the patents .
I find it ludicrous that the government would be threatened with litigation for passing laws .
Surely the laws themselves would have to be impugned -- which means referring to the constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders would be able to sue the government for the value of the patents.
I find it ludicrous that the government would be threatened with litigation for passing laws.
Surely the laws themselves would have to be impugned -- which means referring to the constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982924</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1265046840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm probably alone in this, but if the patents were of significant value, I wouldn't have a problem with the "trolls".</p><p>The problem is that they are not of significant value.  Usually, they are trivial extensions of existing technology which are inevitable.  Thus, they are worthless to exploit directly, but if you wait for someone else to exploit it you can derive more value from them. That's the problem that needs to be fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm probably alone in this , but if the patents were of significant value , I would n't have a problem with the " trolls " .The problem is that they are not of significant value .
Usually , they are trivial extensions of existing technology which are inevitable .
Thus , they are worthless to exploit directly , but if you wait for someone else to exploit it you can derive more value from them .
That 's the problem that needs to be fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm probably alone in this, but if the patents were of significant value, I wouldn't have a problem with the "trolls".The problem is that they are not of significant value.
Usually, they are trivial extensions of existing technology which are inevitable.
Thus, they are worthless to exploit directly, but if you wait for someone else to exploit it you can derive more value from them.
That's the problem that needs to be fixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986816</id>
	<title>Bad example...</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1265018340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The guy who invented pulse wipers has sued every car company for royalties now; </i>
<br> <br>
Wait, he INVENTED pulse wipers? He made the ("non-obvious to a expert in that field" according to TPO guidelines) leap of increasing the time interval between wiper passes, and then tried to sell that to car companies? Talk about a patent troll. I don't blame car companies for 'stealing' his idea.
<br> <br>
Was his idea worth some money? Sure, probably about $5. Someone would have thought of it, and it really isn't hard to wire a capacitor into a wiper motor to slow it down. Was it worthy of a patent? Hell no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy who invented pulse wipers has sued every car company for royalties now ; Wait , he INVENTED pulse wipers ?
He made the ( " non-obvious to a expert in that field " according to TPO guidelines ) leap of increasing the time interval between wiper passes , and then tried to sell that to car companies ?
Talk about a patent troll .
I do n't blame car companies for 'stealing ' his idea .
Was his idea worth some money ?
Sure , probably about $ 5 .
Someone would have thought of it , and it really is n't hard to wire a capacitor into a wiper motor to slow it down .
Was it worthy of a patent ?
Hell no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy who invented pulse wipers has sued every car company for royalties now; 
 
Wait, he INVENTED pulse wipers?
He made the ("non-obvious to a expert in that field" according to TPO guidelines) leap of increasing the time interval between wiper passes, and then tried to sell that to car companies?
Talk about a patent troll.
I don't blame car companies for 'stealing' his idea.
Was his idea worth some money?
Sure, probably about $5.
Someone would have thought of it, and it really isn't hard to wire a capacitor into a wiper motor to slow it down.
Was it worthy of a patent?
Hell no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986204</id>
	<title>documenting trolls on http://en.swpat.org</title>
	<author>H4x0r Jim Duggan</author>
	<datestamp>1265016300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I've gathered some info already about patent trolls:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent\_trolls" title="swpat.org">Patent trolls</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Intellectual\_Ventures" title="swpat.org">Intellectual Ventures</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Blackboard\_inc." title="swpat.org">Blackboard inc.</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Acacia\_Research\_Corporation" title="swpat.org">Acacia Research Corporation</a> [swpat.org] </li></ul><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    I 've gathered some info already about patent trolls : Patent trolls [ swpat.org ] Intellectual Ventures [ swpat.org ] Blackboard inc. [ swpat.org ] Acacia Research Corporation [ swpat.org ]     swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki , help welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    I've gathered some info already about patent trolls: Patent trolls [swpat.org]  Intellectual Ventures [swpat.org]  Blackboard inc. [swpat.org]  Acacia Research Corporation [swpat.org] 
    swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30985040</id>
	<title>The era of innovation is over.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the era of litigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the era of litigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the era of litigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982402</id>
	<title>Oh, and I'm also going to need a patent for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kitten Mittens</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kitten Mittens</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kitten Mittens</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982488</id>
	<title>Disgusting</title>
	<author>HEbGb</author>
	<datestamp>1265045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a real shame that the patent system has been able to be manipulated so effectively, to siphon hard-earned money from real companies, and real inventors, into the pockets of these parasites.  They're nothing but a drain on everyone.  Lemelson's legacy lives on!</p><p>I'm glad this is getting some attention, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a real shame that the patent system has been able to be manipulated so effectively , to siphon hard-earned money from real companies , and real inventors , into the pockets of these parasites .
They 're nothing but a drain on everyone .
Lemelson 's legacy lives on ! I 'm glad this is getting some attention , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a real shame that the patent system has been able to be manipulated so effectively, to siphon hard-earned money from real companies, and real inventors, into the pockets of these parasites.
They're nothing but a drain on everyone.
Lemelson's legacy lives on!I'm glad this is getting some attention, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984576</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing inherently wrong with NPEs</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the difference: Did you actually do the work involved in developing the patents, or did you find someone else who did, yet was going out of business, so you bought their patents and waited for someone else to do the work in implementing a similar solution?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the difference : Did you actually do the work involved in developing the patents , or did you find someone else who did , yet was going out of business , so you bought their patents and waited for someone else to do the work in implementing a similar solution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the difference: Did you actually do the work involved in developing the patents, or did you find someone else who did, yet was going out of business, so you bought their patents and waited for someone else to do the work in implementing a similar solution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982622</id>
	<title>Could patents be a tragedy of private property...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>,,, misapplied to information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>,, , misapplied to information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>,,, misapplied to information?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983108</id>
	<title>Who Benefits ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question to ask yourselves is , Who funded this study and why ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question to ask yourselves is , Who funded this study and why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question to ask yourselves is , Who funded this study and why ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982972</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1265047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd be a nightmare.  The guy who invented pulse wipers has sued every car company for royalties now; when he first invented them, he presented the idea to 2 car companies, who dismissed him because his idea was non-useful.  They immediately implemented pulse wipers, followed by every other car manufacturer.  After several years of legal bullshit, he managed to start making some headway and getting judgments against them for the theft of his idea.</p><p>
Patents are marketable.  Some folks like to sit back on a patent and wait for someone else to re-invent it, rather than go out there and risk someone finding a way to work around your idea so you can't sue them for it.  If they successfully work around it, then they don't have to license the patent from you and can't be successfully sued, so there is incentive to attempt to come up with a similar-but-legally-different implementation.  On the other hand, waiting for the entire industry to implement your invention and then suing everyone in the world is a shit move.
</p><p>
Forbidding inventors from profiting from their inventions would be a disaster.  It would prevent small-shop inventors without the capital to make a real, marketable product from capitalizing on their work at all.  I could design a new type of nuclear reactor, but I can't build any significant components for it and thus my invention is impossible for me to actually manufacture (I'd need hundreds of millions of dollars).  I could license the design to someone else, of course.  There may not be a market for new nuclear reactors at this time, though; maybe I need to wait 10 years....
</p><p>
What a mess, yes?  The system has to make these considerations, but in doing so it leaves itself open for abuse.  In failing to do so, however, it also leaves itself open for abuse.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be a nightmare .
The guy who invented pulse wipers has sued every car company for royalties now ; when he first invented them , he presented the idea to 2 car companies , who dismissed him because his idea was non-useful .
They immediately implemented pulse wipers , followed by every other car manufacturer .
After several years of legal bullshit , he managed to start making some headway and getting judgments against them for the theft of his idea .
Patents are marketable .
Some folks like to sit back on a patent and wait for someone else to re-invent it , rather than go out there and risk someone finding a way to work around your idea so you ca n't sue them for it .
If they successfully work around it , then they do n't have to license the patent from you and ca n't be successfully sued , so there is incentive to attempt to come up with a similar-but-legally-different implementation .
On the other hand , waiting for the entire industry to implement your invention and then suing everyone in the world is a shit move .
Forbidding inventors from profiting from their inventions would be a disaster .
It would prevent small-shop inventors without the capital to make a real , marketable product from capitalizing on their work at all .
I could design a new type of nuclear reactor , but I ca n't build any significant components for it and thus my invention is impossible for me to actually manufacture ( I 'd need hundreds of millions of dollars ) .
I could license the design to someone else , of course .
There may not be a market for new nuclear reactors at this time , though ; maybe I need to wait 10 years... . What a mess , yes ?
The system has to make these considerations , but in doing so it leaves itself open for abuse .
In failing to do so , however , it also leaves itself open for abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be a nightmare.
The guy who invented pulse wipers has sued every car company for royalties now; when he first invented them, he presented the idea to 2 car companies, who dismissed him because his idea was non-useful.
They immediately implemented pulse wipers, followed by every other car manufacturer.
After several years of legal bullshit, he managed to start making some headway and getting judgments against them for the theft of his idea.
Patents are marketable.
Some folks like to sit back on a patent and wait for someone else to re-invent it, rather than go out there and risk someone finding a way to work around your idea so you can't sue them for it.
If they successfully work around it, then they don't have to license the patent from you and can't be successfully sued, so there is incentive to attempt to come up with a similar-but-legally-different implementation.
On the other hand, waiting for the entire industry to implement your invention and then suing everyone in the world is a shit move.
Forbidding inventors from profiting from their inventions would be a disaster.
It would prevent small-shop inventors without the capital to make a real, marketable product from capitalizing on their work at all.
I could design a new type of nuclear reactor, but I can't build any significant components for it and thus my invention is impossible for me to actually manufacture (I'd need hundreds of millions of dollars).
I could license the design to someone else, of course.
There may not be a market for new nuclear reactors at this time, though; maybe I need to wait 10 years....

What a mess, yes?
The system has to make these considerations, but in doing so it leaves itself open for abuse.
In failing to do so, however, it also leaves itself open for abuse.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982920</id>
	<title>Cheers to Non Practicing Entitites!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is great!  The only way these things changing is if the game becomes to costly for the corporations who write the rules.  I hope "NPEs" start putting more companies through the wringer.</p><p>Sounds harsh but consider this: If I independently created something useful and it blows up like Facebook or Google but infringes on some minor or trivial patent for IBM/MS/Apple/Etc, the fruits of my labor will be taken from me.</p><p>God bless the NPEs for taken advantage of the game created by the advantaged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great !
The only way these things changing is if the game becomes to costly for the corporations who write the rules .
I hope " NPEs " start putting more companies through the wringer.Sounds harsh but consider this : If I independently created something useful and it blows up like Facebook or Google but infringes on some minor or trivial patent for IBM/MS/Apple/Etc , the fruits of my labor will be taken from me.God bless the NPEs for taken advantage of the game created by the advantaged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great!
The only way these things changing is if the game becomes to costly for the corporations who write the rules.
I hope "NPEs" start putting more companies through the wringer.Sounds harsh but consider this: If I independently created something useful and it blows up like Facebook or Google but infringes on some minor or trivial patent for IBM/MS/Apple/Etc, the fruits of my labor will be taken from me.God bless the NPEs for taken advantage of the game created by the advantaged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30987010</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't abbreviate it to NPE. Spell it out, each time</p></div><p>Why do I have to spell out NullPointerException each time?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't abbreviate it to NPE .
Spell it out , each timeWhy do I have to spell out NullPointerException each time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't abbreviate it to NPE.
Spell it out, each timeWhy do I have to spell out NullPointerException each time?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982784</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Don't abbreviate it to NPE. Spell it out, each time - non-practicing entity. By just saying three letters, it weakens the point that these companies do nothing. They exist solely to sue. They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system. Make it clear that these companies are leaches that do nothing of good. They are non-practicing entities.</p></div></blockquote><p>I know that likely I'll be modded into oblivion because I disagree with this.  <br> <br>While the potential of patent abuse by NPEs exists (and has been seen to occur), NPEs are an important part of the patent system.  They allow for better valuation of patents.  <br> <br>Let's say I invent something, which some company uses in their flagship product, making millions off my invention.  Let's say that I am unable to bring my product to market (because of limited capital, because of limited knowledge, because of a single market for my invention that someone else has control of... pick a reason, or multiple ones).<br> <br>My choices in seeking redress are to set up my own company to litigate the matter, or to sell the patent to someone who will litigate it. There are other choices, but these are the best ones available.  <br> <br>Why should I outsource the litigation to someone who is much more efficient at it?  Why shouldn't I offload the risk of unsuccessful litigation, in exchange for a reduced payout?  Why shouldn't a company be allowed to do assume the risk and cost of the patent litigation, in exchange for the potential reward?<br> <br>Not allowing NPEs limits the ability of small inventors to overcome the cash of huge corporations.  It gives those with the deepest pockets even more of an advantage.<br> <br>The key is to prevent abuse of the system by NPEs.  Unfortunately, any system will be abused by those seeking unfair gain.  So we need to balance the rights of patent-holders against the potential for abuse.  Eliminating NPEs trades one form of abuse (egregious litigation) for another (small patent-holders get screwed by the big corporations making millions off their inventions).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't abbreviate it to NPE .
Spell it out , each time - non-practicing entity .
By just saying three letters , it weakens the point that these companies do nothing .
They exist solely to sue .
They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system .
Make it clear that these companies are leaches that do nothing of good .
They are non-practicing entities.I know that likely I 'll be modded into oblivion because I disagree with this .
While the potential of patent abuse by NPEs exists ( and has been seen to occur ) , NPEs are an important part of the patent system .
They allow for better valuation of patents .
Let 's say I invent something , which some company uses in their flagship product , making millions off my invention .
Let 's say that I am unable to bring my product to market ( because of limited capital , because of limited knowledge , because of a single market for my invention that someone else has control of... pick a reason , or multiple ones ) .
My choices in seeking redress are to set up my own company to litigate the matter , or to sell the patent to someone who will litigate it .
There are other choices , but these are the best ones available .
Why should I outsource the litigation to someone who is much more efficient at it ?
Why should n't I offload the risk of unsuccessful litigation , in exchange for a reduced payout ?
Why should n't a company be allowed to do assume the risk and cost of the patent litigation , in exchange for the potential reward ?
Not allowing NPEs limits the ability of small inventors to overcome the cash of huge corporations .
It gives those with the deepest pockets even more of an advantage .
The key is to prevent abuse of the system by NPEs .
Unfortunately , any system will be abused by those seeking unfair gain .
So we need to balance the rights of patent-holders against the potential for abuse .
Eliminating NPEs trades one form of abuse ( egregious litigation ) for another ( small patent-holders get screwed by the big corporations making millions off their inventions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't abbreviate it to NPE.
Spell it out, each time - non-practicing entity.
By just saying three letters, it weakens the point that these companies do nothing.
They exist solely to sue.
They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system.
Make it clear that these companies are leaches that do nothing of good.
They are non-practicing entities.I know that likely I'll be modded into oblivion because I disagree with this.
While the potential of patent abuse by NPEs exists (and has been seen to occur), NPEs are an important part of the patent system.
They allow for better valuation of patents.
Let's say I invent something, which some company uses in their flagship product, making millions off my invention.
Let's say that I am unable to bring my product to market (because of limited capital, because of limited knowledge, because of a single market for my invention that someone else has control of... pick a reason, or multiple ones).
My choices in seeking redress are to set up my own company to litigate the matter, or to sell the patent to someone who will litigate it.
There are other choices, but these are the best ones available.
Why should I outsource the litigation to someone who is much more efficient at it?
Why shouldn't I offload the risk of unsuccessful litigation, in exchange for a reduced payout?
Why shouldn't a company be allowed to do assume the risk and cost of the patent litigation, in exchange for the potential reward?
Not allowing NPEs limits the ability of small inventors to overcome the cash of huge corporations.
It gives those with the deepest pockets even more of an advantage.
The key is to prevent abuse of the system by NPEs.
Unfortunately, any system will be abused by those seeking unfair gain.
So we need to balance the rights of patent-holders against the potential for abuse.
Eliminating NPEs trades one form of abuse (egregious litigation) for another (small patent-holders get screwed by the big corporations making millions off their inventions).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982956</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1265046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Patent trolls don't get awarded patents.  They buy patents, typically from companies that are going out of business or have been purchased to be sold off in pieces.  There are a few research institutes that make money by licensing research, though.  Would they be considered non-practicing entities? Because that does seem like a legitimate use of the patent system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent trolls do n't get awarded patents .
They buy patents , typically from companies that are going out of business or have been purchased to be sold off in pieces .
There are a few research institutes that make money by licensing research , though .
Would they be considered non-practicing entities ?
Because that does seem like a legitimate use of the patent system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent trolls don't get awarded patents.
They buy patents, typically from companies that are going out of business or have been purchased to be sold off in pieces.
There are a few research institutes that make money by licensing research, though.
Would they be considered non-practicing entities?
Because that does seem like a legitimate use of the patent system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983056</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1265047380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Universities spend a lot of money in research. And PhD students expect their contributions to be taken into account. If you created something that requires a platform to run on, but you don't have the platform, you expect the platform manufacturer to find you application useful and pay for it.<br> <br>
The issue with big companies is that they have lawyers, and they turn around their patents to cover others and avoid paying you fees. There is no easy way to figure out that people will misuse the system.<br> <br>
I recently read my country is planning to cut on the health program, because some had managed to get away with boob implants, and cosmetic surgeries as emergencies (although I agree that could be the case for some people, there are some others that found the loophole). The rest of the people shouldn't pay the consequences of the system abuse, but the system should be robust. Unluckily, the big companies always get away with it due to their political links.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Universities spend a lot of money in research .
And PhD students expect their contributions to be taken into account .
If you created something that requires a platform to run on , but you do n't have the platform , you expect the platform manufacturer to find you application useful and pay for it .
The issue with big companies is that they have lawyers , and they turn around their patents to cover others and avoid paying you fees .
There is no easy way to figure out that people will misuse the system .
I recently read my country is planning to cut on the health program , because some had managed to get away with boob implants , and cosmetic surgeries as emergencies ( although I agree that could be the case for some people , there are some others that found the loophole ) .
The rest of the people should n't pay the consequences of the system abuse , but the system should be robust .
Unluckily , the big companies always get away with it due to their political links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Universities spend a lot of money in research.
And PhD students expect their contributions to be taken into account.
If you created something that requires a platform to run on, but you don't have the platform, you expect the platform manufacturer to find you application useful and pay for it.
The issue with big companies is that they have lawyers, and they turn around their patents to cover others and avoid paying you fees.
There is no easy way to figure out that people will misuse the system.
I recently read my country is planning to cut on the health program, because some had managed to get away with boob implants, and cosmetic surgeries as emergencies (although I agree that could be the case for some people, there are some others that found the loophole).
The rest of the people shouldn't pay the consequences of the system abuse, but the system should be robust.
Unluckily, the big companies always get away with it due to their political links.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442</id>
	<title>"...shorter time-to-trial..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is favorable to <em>both</em> sides.  It's especially favorable to the defendant if a preliminary injunction is issued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is favorable to both sides .
It 's especially favorable to the defendant if a preliminary injunction is issued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is favorable to both sides.
It's especially favorable to the defendant if a preliminary injunction is issued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30985366</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing inherently wrong with NPEs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Non-practicing entities exist in other legal and business contexts. Consider a car rental company, for example. It might own thousands of cars, yet it does not build cars, sell cars, or use the cars itself. What's more, it charges an obscene fee to rent a car compared to buying one (~$20/day for a compact is $7300/year!).</p><p>Sounds a lot like a patent troll, right?"</p><p>No it sounds nothing like a patent troll for one very important reason: patents grant an unnatural monopoly.<br>In your car rental situation there is no such thing, compact cars will and are usually rented by many vendors side by side bringing competition, you cannot license the same patent from multiple competing vendors, your analogy is fatally flawed as it doesn't capture the essence of the situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Non-practicing entities exist in other legal and business contexts .
Consider a car rental company , for example .
It might own thousands of cars , yet it does not build cars , sell cars , or use the cars itself .
What 's more , it charges an obscene fee to rent a car compared to buying one ( ~ $ 20/day for a compact is $ 7300/year !
) .Sounds a lot like a patent troll , right ?
" No it sounds nothing like a patent troll for one very important reason : patents grant an unnatural monopoly.In your car rental situation there is no such thing , compact cars will and are usually rented by many vendors side by side bringing competition , you can not license the same patent from multiple competing vendors , your analogy is fatally flawed as it does n't capture the essence of the situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Non-practicing entities exist in other legal and business contexts.
Consider a car rental company, for example.
It might own thousands of cars, yet it does not build cars, sell cars, or use the cars itself.
What's more, it charges an obscene fee to rent a car compared to buying one (~$20/day for a compact is $7300/year!
).Sounds a lot like a patent troll, right?
"No it sounds nothing like a patent troll for one very important reason: patents grant an unnatural monopoly.In your car rental situation there is no such thing, compact cars will and are usually rented by many vendors side by side bringing competition, you cannot license the same patent from multiple competing vendors, your analogy is fatally flawed as it doesn't capture the essence of the situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984240</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing inherently wrong with NPEs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One patent was licensed to Autodesk, one was licensed to Havok</i></p><p>So, you went to them and said "hey look, I invented this neat thing that you can use for $x!"  Or did you just wait for them to do the neat thing on their own and then threaten to sue them for $y if they didn't license it for $x, because there IS a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One patent was licensed to Autodesk , one was licensed to HavokSo , you went to them and said " hey look , I invented this neat thing that you can use for $ x !
" Or did you just wait for them to do the neat thing on their own and then threaten to sue them for $ y if they did n't license it for $ x , because there IS a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One patent was licensed to Autodesk, one was licensed to HavokSo, you went to them and said "hey look, I invented this neat thing that you can use for $x!
"  Or did you just wait for them to do the neat thing on their own and then threaten to sue them for $y if they didn't license it for $x, because there IS a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982694</id>
	<title>Solve this the capitalist way</title>
	<author>francium de neobie</author>
	<datestamp>1265045940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The politicians can't be bothered with minor problems like the technology lead of the US. So let's just solve it the capitalist way.<br> <br>
Get the financial industry into the game, set up mutual funds and exchange traded funds to support patent trolls, get the investment banks into the game.<br> <br>
Once this gets started, within 6 months all the technology companies in the US will be able to do nothing. Then here's the smartest bit of the plan: the whole tech industry ask White House for a bailout because we've collectively become yet another too big to fail. So we get the money while we sit our asses doing nothing. No more death marches.<br> <br>
The perfect win-win situation! Wall Street wins, Silicon Valley wins!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The politicians ca n't be bothered with minor problems like the technology lead of the US .
So let 's just solve it the capitalist way .
Get the financial industry into the game , set up mutual funds and exchange traded funds to support patent trolls , get the investment banks into the game .
Once this gets started , within 6 months all the technology companies in the US will be able to do nothing .
Then here 's the smartest bit of the plan : the whole tech industry ask White House for a bailout because we 've collectively become yet another too big to fail .
So we get the money while we sit our asses doing nothing .
No more death marches .
The perfect win-win situation !
Wall Street wins , Silicon Valley wins !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The politicians can't be bothered with minor problems like the technology lead of the US.
So let's just solve it the capitalist way.
Get the financial industry into the game, set up mutual funds and exchange traded funds to support patent trolls, get the investment banks into the game.
Once this gets started, within 6 months all the technology companies in the US will be able to do nothing.
Then here's the smartest bit of the plan: the whole tech industry ask White House for a bailout because we've collectively become yet another too big to fail.
So we get the money while we sit our asses doing nothing.
No more death marches.
The perfect win-win situation!
Wall Street wins, Silicon Valley wins!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983276</id>
	<title>Prima Faciae Corruption?</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1265048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it merely the volume of the cases that makes it plaintiff friendly, or is it more plaintiff friendly than other districts when you adjust for volume?</p><p>Has anyone asked why it's more plaintiff friendly?  Has anyone done any kind of analysis of the judiciary to determine if they have some kind of background that gives them a superior understanding (engineering degrees, patent experience, etc)?</p><p>Somehow it all smells rotten -- a group of judges and a group of local attorneys who have built a cozy little legal franchise.  Local attorneys with familiarity in the courts handle the plaintiffs, the attorneys get paid handsomely for their access &amp; familiarity and the judges get re-elected with the financial support of the attorneys.</p><p>In short, everyone gets paid and the trolls don't really care because to them its all profit.</p><p>Now, I'm sure this is more conspiratorial than it all really is, but even so -- why would judges in those areas be so plaintiff friendly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it merely the volume of the cases that makes it plaintiff friendly , or is it more plaintiff friendly than other districts when you adjust for volume ? Has anyone asked why it 's more plaintiff friendly ?
Has anyone done any kind of analysis of the judiciary to determine if they have some kind of background that gives them a superior understanding ( engineering degrees , patent experience , etc ) ? Somehow it all smells rotten -- a group of judges and a group of local attorneys who have built a cozy little legal franchise .
Local attorneys with familiarity in the courts handle the plaintiffs , the attorneys get paid handsomely for their access &amp; familiarity and the judges get re-elected with the financial support of the attorneys.In short , everyone gets paid and the trolls do n't really care because to them its all profit.Now , I 'm sure this is more conspiratorial than it all really is , but even so -- why would judges in those areas be so plaintiff friendly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it merely the volume of the cases that makes it plaintiff friendly, or is it more plaintiff friendly than other districts when you adjust for volume?Has anyone asked why it's more plaintiff friendly?
Has anyone done any kind of analysis of the judiciary to determine if they have some kind of background that gives them a superior understanding (engineering degrees, patent experience, etc)?Somehow it all smells rotten -- a group of judges and a group of local attorneys who have built a cozy little legal franchise.
Local attorneys with familiarity in the courts handle the plaintiffs, the attorneys get paid handsomely for their access &amp; familiarity and the judges get re-elected with the financial support of the attorneys.In short, everyone gets paid and the trolls don't really care because to them its all profit.Now, I'm sure this is more conspiratorial than it all really is, but even so -- why would judges in those areas be so plaintiff friendly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982862</id>
	<title>Re:"...shorter time-to-trial..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is favorable to <em>both</em> sides.  It's especially favorable to the defendant if a preliminary injunction is issued.</p></div><p>I'm not a lawyer but there's an article <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-patent\_31bus.ART.State.Edition1.3ccb54a.html" title="dallasnews.com">from Sunday</a> [dallasnews.com] about Dallas firms specializing in 'tricky, rocky terrain' of patent litigation to be hired out in the Eastern Texas District Court ('Rocket Docket') cases listed in the report.  <br> <br>

Now, pay attention to this part of the article</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'Rocket docket'<br> <br>

The Eastern District, which includes Collin County and much of eastern Texas, has won a reputation as extremely plaintiff-friendly and a preferred venue to get patent claims through quickly.<br> <br>

Just getting a case into the Eastern District &ndash; known by some as the "rocket docket" because its comparative lack of criminal cases lets judges move civil patent cases swiftly &ndash; has prompted some companies to settle quickly.<br> <br>

Nguyen says the district's reputation as friendly to patent plaintiffs is widespread; whenever it's mentioned at law conferences around the country, she hears the same reaction.</p></div><p>A case against you that you found out about last week has just gone to trial in Eastern Texas and you need to be there to represent yourself even though you're based out of New York City.  The reputation of the court is a bias toward the plaintiff and on top of that they have the Dallas firm that specializes in winning patent cases<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... now, quickly, you need to decide to settle or fight this.  <br> <br>

Sound fair to you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is favorable to both sides .
It 's especially favorable to the defendant if a preliminary injunction is issued.I 'm not a lawyer but there 's an article from Sunday [ dallasnews.com ] about Dallas firms specializing in 'tricky , rocky terrain ' of patent litigation to be hired out in the Eastern Texas District Court ( 'Rocket Docket ' ) cases listed in the report .
Now , pay attention to this part of the article'Rocket docket ' The Eastern District , which includes Collin County and much of eastern Texas , has won a reputation as extremely plaintiff-friendly and a preferred venue to get patent claims through quickly .
Just getting a case into the Eastern District    known by some as the " rocket docket " because its comparative lack of criminal cases lets judges move civil patent cases swiftly    has prompted some companies to settle quickly .
Nguyen says the district 's reputation as friendly to patent plaintiffs is widespread ; whenever it 's mentioned at law conferences around the country , she hears the same reaction.A case against you that you found out about last week has just gone to trial in Eastern Texas and you need to be there to represent yourself even though you 're based out of New York City .
The reputation of the court is a bias toward the plaintiff and on top of that they have the Dallas firm that specializes in winning patent cases ... now , quickly , you need to decide to settle or fight this .
Sound fair to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is favorable to both sides.
It's especially favorable to the defendant if a preliminary injunction is issued.I'm not a lawyer but there's an article from Sunday [dallasnews.com] about Dallas firms specializing in 'tricky, rocky terrain' of patent litigation to be hired out in the Eastern Texas District Court ('Rocket Docket') cases listed in the report.
Now, pay attention to this part of the article'Rocket docket' 

The Eastern District, which includes Collin County and much of eastern Texas, has won a reputation as extremely plaintiff-friendly and a preferred venue to get patent claims through quickly.
Just getting a case into the Eastern District – known by some as the "rocket docket" because its comparative lack of criminal cases lets judges move civil patent cases swiftly – has prompted some companies to settle quickly.
Nguyen says the district's reputation as friendly to patent plaintiffs is widespread; whenever it's mentioned at law conferences around the country, she hears the same reaction.A case against you that you found out about last week has just gone to trial in Eastern Texas and you need to be there to represent yourself even though you're based out of New York City.
The reputation of the court is a bias toward the plaintiff and on top of that they have the Dallas firm that specializes in winning patent cases ... now, quickly, you need to decide to settle or fight this.
Sound fair to you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982674</id>
	<title>When Normalized...</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1265045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the number of patent cases filed yearly is on the rise significantly when normalized against the number of patents granted yearly.</i></p><p>Number of patents granted are also on the rise significantly when normalized against GDP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the number of patent cases filed yearly is on the rise significantly when normalized against the number of patents granted yearly.Number of patents granted are also on the rise significantly when normalized against GDP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the number of patent cases filed yearly is on the rise significantly when normalized against the number of patents granted yearly.Number of patents granted are also on the rise significantly when normalized against GDP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983548</id>
	<title>bigger picture</title>
	<author>bfr99</author>
	<datestamp>1265049300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who gets the money's derived from patents and new ideas is of little importance except to the parties concerned. Clearly an enormous amount of money and other resources are wasted in legal fees that might otherwise be spent on research, development and invention. On the other hand this is a rich country and the real issue is whether or not the constitutional goals of the patent system have been compromised:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

This argument is similar to the discussion of medical malpractice lawsuits . The goal is clearly to design a system that encourages good medical care for as many people as possible as well as caring for those harmed by human and system errors. Sadly many, perhaps most people are financially motivated so the problem becomes how can we use financial carrots and sticks to align with good policy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gets the money 's derived from patents and new ideas is of little importance except to the parties concerned .
Clearly an enormous amount of money and other resources are wasted in legal fees that might otherwise be spent on research , development and invention .
On the other hand this is a rich country and the real issue is whether or not the constitutional goals of the patent system have been compromised : ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries .
This argument is similar to the discussion of medical malpractice lawsuits .
The goal is clearly to design a system that encourages good medical care for as many people as possible as well as caring for those harmed by human and system errors .
Sadly many , perhaps most people are financially motivated so the problem becomes how can we use financial carrots and sticks to align with good policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gets the money's derived from patents and new ideas is of little importance except to the parties concerned.
Clearly an enormous amount of money and other resources are wasted in legal fees that might otherwise be spent on research, development and invention.
On the other hand this is a rich country and the real issue is whether or not the constitutional goals of the patent system have been compromised: ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
This argument is similar to the discussion of medical malpractice lawsuits .
The goal is clearly to design a system that encourages good medical care for as many people as possible as well as caring for those harmed by human and system errors.
Sadly many, perhaps most people are financially motivated so the problem becomes how can we use financial carrots and sticks to align with good policy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983528</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing inherently wrong with NPEs</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Yes.  Having invented something, you may not want to do a startup.  Often, the technology developed is useful, but not suited for a standalone business, because it's better used as part of something else.
</p><p>
I hold several patents, and put "inventor" on my tax return.  One patent was licensed to Autodesk, one was licensed to Havok, and I'm currently going after DARPA for patent infringement on a third.  My fourth patent is about to issue, and a fifth one is in examination.  In each case, there's a working implementation, but not necessarily a commercial product.
</p><p>
The one that was licensed to Havok is for an approach to game physics engines.  I had the first ragdoll physics engine that worked, back in 1997, and I sold it as a high-end animation plug-in for a few years.  But the physics engine middleware business looked awful as a business.  Mathengine went bust, and Havok lost money for its founders and original investors.  (Havok was revived by a second round of investors who bought in cheap and replaced the management team.  In the VC community, this is called a "haircut".)
</p><p>
Most of the whining about patents comes from people who've never solved a hard problem.  I've never had serious "obviousness" objections from the USPTO.  For the ragdoll physics patent, we submitted, among other things, reviews of Trespasser, describing its miserable physics engine, with objects randomly flying off into the air ("This is the worst game I ever played").  That's a clear demonstration of non-obviousness - a big, expensive failure by a major organization to solve the problem. The USPTO accepts that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Having invented something , you may not want to do a startup .
Often , the technology developed is useful , but not suited for a standalone business , because it 's better used as part of something else .
I hold several patents , and put " inventor " on my tax return .
One patent was licensed to Autodesk , one was licensed to Havok , and I 'm currently going after DARPA for patent infringement on a third .
My fourth patent is about to issue , and a fifth one is in examination .
In each case , there 's a working implementation , but not necessarily a commercial product .
The one that was licensed to Havok is for an approach to game physics engines .
I had the first ragdoll physics engine that worked , back in 1997 , and I sold it as a high-end animation plug-in for a few years .
But the physics engine middleware business looked awful as a business .
Mathengine went bust , and Havok lost money for its founders and original investors .
( Havok was revived by a second round of investors who bought in cheap and replaced the management team .
In the VC community , this is called a " haircut " .
) Most of the whining about patents comes from people who 've never solved a hard problem .
I 've never had serious " obviousness " objections from the USPTO .
For the ragdoll physics patent , we submitted , among other things , reviews of Trespasser , describing its miserable physics engine , with objects randomly flying off into the air ( " This is the worst game I ever played " ) .
That 's a clear demonstration of non-obviousness - a big , expensive failure by a major organization to solve the problem .
The USPTO accepts that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Yes.
Having invented something, you may not want to do a startup.
Often, the technology developed is useful, but not suited for a standalone business, because it's better used as part of something else.
I hold several patents, and put "inventor" on my tax return.
One patent was licensed to Autodesk, one was licensed to Havok, and I'm currently going after DARPA for patent infringement on a third.
My fourth patent is about to issue, and a fifth one is in examination.
In each case, there's a working implementation, but not necessarily a commercial product.
The one that was licensed to Havok is for an approach to game physics engines.
I had the first ragdoll physics engine that worked, back in 1997, and I sold it as a high-end animation plug-in for a few years.
But the physics engine middleware business looked awful as a business.
Mathengine went bust, and Havok lost money for its founders and original investors.
(Havok was revived by a second round of investors who bought in cheap and replaced the management team.
In the VC community, this is called a "haircut".
)

Most of the whining about patents comes from people who've never solved a hard problem.
I've never had serious "obviousness" objections from the USPTO.
For the ragdoll physics patent, we submitted, among other things, reviews of Trespasser, describing its miserable physics engine, with objects randomly flying off into the air ("This is the worst game I ever played").
That's a clear demonstration of non-obviousness - a big, expensive failure by a major organization to solve the problem.
The USPTO accepts that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</id>
	<title>Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't abbreviate it to NPE. Spell it out, each time - non-practicing entity. By just saying three letters, it weakens the point that these companies do nothing. They exist solely to sue. They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system. Make it clear that these companies are leaches that do nothing of good. They are non-practicing entities.<br> <br>
We may have issues when companies like (for example) Nokia and Apple wage patent warfare but both of these companies spend enormous fortunes on R&amp;D and they both produce exceptional products. While the patent system may be borked, it exists so that companies like Nokia and Apple may exist and view R&amp;D as a worthwhile expense. Patent trolls should be legislated out of existence. Don't produce anything using the patent? Bye bye patent. Your business model is built around "buy patent, sue everybody in sight"? Bye bye company. Start with that and we might get closer to a point where the patent system isn't a joke.<br> <br>
Non-practicing entity. Spell it out. Make it clear. Leaches who do nothing of value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't abbreviate it to NPE .
Spell it out , each time - non-practicing entity .
By just saying three letters , it weakens the point that these companies do nothing .
They exist solely to sue .
They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system .
Make it clear that these companies are leaches that do nothing of good .
They are non-practicing entities .
We may have issues when companies like ( for example ) Nokia and Apple wage patent warfare but both of these companies spend enormous fortunes on R&amp;D and they both produce exceptional products .
While the patent system may be borked , it exists so that companies like Nokia and Apple may exist and view R&amp;D as a worthwhile expense .
Patent trolls should be legislated out of existence .
Do n't produce anything using the patent ?
Bye bye patent .
Your business model is built around " buy patent , sue everybody in sight " ?
Bye bye company .
Start with that and we might get closer to a point where the patent system is n't a joke .
Non-practicing entity .
Spell it out .
Make it clear .
Leaches who do nothing of value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't abbreviate it to NPE.
Spell it out, each time - non-practicing entity.
By just saying three letters, it weakens the point that these companies do nothing.
They exist solely to sue.
They are the personification of what is wrong with the patent system.
Make it clear that these companies are leaches that do nothing of good.
They are non-practicing entities.
We may have issues when companies like (for example) Nokia and Apple wage patent warfare but both of these companies spend enormous fortunes on R&amp;D and they both produce exceptional products.
While the patent system may be borked, it exists so that companies like Nokia and Apple may exist and view R&amp;D as a worthwhile expense.
Patent trolls should be legislated out of existence.
Don't produce anything using the patent?
Bye bye patent.
Your business model is built around "buy patent, sue everybody in sight"?
Bye bye company.
Start with that and we might get closer to a point where the patent system isn't a joke.
Non-practicing entity.
Spell it out.
Make it clear.
Leaches who do nothing of value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984366</id>
	<title>Re:Prima Faciae Corruption?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is it merely the volume of the cases that makes it plaintiff friendly, or is it more plaintiff friendly than other districts when you adjust for volume?</p></div><p>"higher success rates, and higher median damages" are independent of the number of cases.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, I'm sure this is more conspiratorial than it all really is</p></div><p>Are you? Why?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it merely the volume of the cases that makes it plaintiff friendly , or is it more plaintiff friendly than other districts when you adjust for volume ?
" higher success rates , and higher median damages " are independent of the number of cases.Now , I 'm sure this is more conspiratorial than it all really isAre you ?
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it merely the volume of the cases that makes it plaintiff friendly, or is it more plaintiff friendly than other districts when you adjust for volume?
"higher success rates, and higher median damages" are independent of the number of cases.Now, I'm sure this is more conspiratorial than it all really isAre you?
Why?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982978</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>devnullkac</author>
	<datestamp>1265047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just goes to show that the US generally values the ability to convince people that something is true over the ability to discover that something is true.  Time and again we see that marketing, fear mongering, and legal tactics overwhelm reasoned arguments and hard work.  Not that I would have the laws simply torn down to get at this devil (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man\_for\_All\_Seasons" title="wikipedia.org">A Man For All Seasons</a> [wikipedia.org]).  We must take care in our approach to reform that we don't find ourselves adrift in a worse sea of argument and arbitrary assignment of winners and losers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just goes to show that the US generally values the ability to convince people that something is true over the ability to discover that something is true .
Time and again we see that marketing , fear mongering , and legal tactics overwhelm reasoned arguments and hard work .
Not that I would have the laws simply torn down to get at this devil ( see A Man For All Seasons [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
We must take care in our approach to reform that we do n't find ourselves adrift in a worse sea of argument and arbitrary assignment of winners and losers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just goes to show that the US generally values the ability to convince people that something is true over the ability to discover that something is true.
Time and again we see that marketing, fear mongering, and legal tactics overwhelm reasoned arguments and hard work.
Not that I would have the laws simply torn down to get at this devil (see A Man For All Seasons [wikipedia.org]).
We must take care in our approach to reform that we don't find ourselves adrift in a worse sea of argument and arbitrary assignment of winners and losers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984502</id>
	<title>Re:"...shorter time-to-trial..."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265053380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Defendants may actually benefit from a longer time to trial even when a PI is issued. A PI means the judge believes there is infringement and is often followed up with a summary judgment motion for infringement. If you've lost a PI motion you're one step away from losing the case, and the more time you have to develop defenses the better.  Also, injunctions can be appealed and a favorable decision on appeal can be enough to sway the court to the defendant's side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Defendants may actually benefit from a longer time to trial even when a PI is issued .
A PI means the judge believes there is infringement and is often followed up with a summary judgment motion for infringement .
If you 've lost a PI motion you 're one step away from losing the case , and the more time you have to develop defenses the better .
Also , injunctions can be appealed and a favorable decision on appeal can be enough to sway the court to the defendant 's side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Defendants may actually benefit from a longer time to trial even when a PI is issued.
A PI means the judge believes there is infringement and is often followed up with a summary judgment motion for infringement.
If you've lost a PI motion you're one step away from losing the case, and the more time you have to develop defenses the better.
Also, injunctions can be appealed and a favorable decision on appeal can be enough to sway the court to the defendant's side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986438</id>
	<title>I thank you for 7Our time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ba7lots.  You wcould all over America will recall that it</htmltext>
<tokenext>ba7lots .
You wcould all over America will recall that it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ba7lots.
You wcould all over America will recall that it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984286</id>
	<title>Re:Prima Faciae Corruption?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being from Eastern Texas, I feel like I can speak with some authority in the matter.  I've known many of these judges and lawyers (and bar-tended a few of their private functions) and I have found that they are idiots. It's really that simple.  There is no conspiracy, there is only a mindset of "If someone sues someone else, then the defendant must deserve it".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being from Eastern Texas , I feel like I can speak with some authority in the matter .
I 've known many of these judges and lawyers ( and bar-tended a few of their private functions ) and I have found that they are idiots .
It 's really that simple .
There is no conspiracy , there is only a mindset of " If someone sues someone else , then the defendant must deserve it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being from Eastern Texas, I feel like I can speak with some authority in the matter.
I've known many of these judges and lawyers (and bar-tended a few of their private functions) and I have found that they are idiots.
It's really that simple.
There is no conspiracy, there is only a mindset of "If someone sues someone else, then the defendant must deserve it".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983380</id>
	<title>Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports<br>(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)</p><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Obama is controlled by the same people as Bush see The Obama Deception documentary</a> [youtube.com] [youtube.com]</p><p> <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&amp;sid=alQdCZFyS.0M&amp;refer=asia" title="bloomberg.com" rel="nofollow">Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says</a> [bloomberg.com] [bloomberg.com]<br>
 <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleasesMolt/idUSTRE52O6LH20090325" title="reuters.com" rel="nofollow">Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds</a> [reuters.com] [reuters.com]<br>
 <a href="http://dailybail.com/home/cnbc-congressional-bonus-debate-the-sherminator-kicks-some-w.html" title="dailybail.com" rel="nofollow">The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass</a> [dailybail.com] [dailybail.com]<br>
 <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&amp;sid=a6VAJqVQF2FM&amp;refer=patrick.net" title="bloomberg.com" rel="nofollow">China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar</a> [bloomberg.com] [bloomberg.com]<br>
 <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/7960620.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency</a> [bbc.co.uk] [bbc.co.uk]<br>
 <a href="http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AP194B\_CHINA\_NS\_20090323190818.gif" title="wsj.net" rel="nofollow">What are the reserve currencies?</a> [wsj.net] [wsj.net]<br>
 <a href="http://optionarmageddon.ml-implode.com/2009/03/23/anatomy-of-a-giveaway/" title="ml-implode.com" rel="nofollow">Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors</a> [ml-implode.com] [ml-implode.com]<br>
 <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5045421/Geithner-rescue-package-robbery-of-the-American-people.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people'</a> [telegraph.co.uk] [telegraph.co.uk]<br>
 <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-3629-Philadelphia-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m3d23-Toxic-Assets-Geithner-just-put-only-the-rich-in-Titanics-lifeboats" title="examiner.com" rel="nofollow">Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats</a> [examiner.com] [examiner.com]<br>
 <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/29848741" title="cnbc.com" rel="nofollow">Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers</a> [cnbc.com] [cnbc.com]<br>
 <a href="http://www.viewfromsiliconvalley.com/id489.html" title="viewfromsi...valley.com" rel="nofollow">A False Choice</a> [viewfromsi...valley.com] [viewfromsi...valley.com]<br>
 <a href="http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2009/03/24/spring\_lowball\_homes.html" title="ajc.com" rel="nofollow">Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers  ajc.com</a> [ajc.com] [ajc.com]<br>
 <a href="http://www.alternet.org/workplace/133076/time\_to\_take\_the\_steering\_wheel\_out\_of\_geithner's\_hands/?page=2" title="alternet.org" rel="nofollow">Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands</a> [alternet.org] [alternet.org]<br>
 <a href="http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/60/Socialising.php" title="freeradical.co.nz" rel="nofollow">Socialising and Privatising</a> [freeradical.co.nz] [freeradical.co.nz]<br>
 <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20371.html" title="politico.com" rel="nofollow">Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses</a> [politico.com] [politico.com]<br>
 <a href="http://www.researchrecap.com/index.php/2009/03/24/fitch-raises-prime-rmbs-pool-loss-estimates-sharply/" title="researchrecap.com" rel="nofollow">Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply</a> [researchrecap.com] [researchrecap.com]</p><p> <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7851925a-17a2-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac.html" title="ft.com" rel="nofollow"> Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund </a> [ft.com] [ft.com]</p><p>- Russia on an new world reserve currency:  <a href="http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090316/120580387.html" title="en.rian.ru" rel="nofollow"> It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read. </a> [en.rian.ru] [en.rian.ru]</p><p>- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organizati</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports ( Note : We are not a GOP-sters , Republicans or affiliated with any parties , and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and , unlike most people , We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group .
) Obama is controlled by the same people as Bush see The Obama Deception documentary [ youtube.com ] [ youtube.com ] Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries , UBS Says [ bloomberg.com ] [ bloomberg.com ] Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds [ reuters.com ] [ reuters.com ] The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass [ dailybail.com ] [ dailybail.com ] China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar [ bloomberg.com ] [ bloomberg.com ] China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency [ bbc.co.uk ] [ bbc.co.uk ] What are the reserve currencies ?
[ wsj.net ] [ wsj.net ] Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors [ ml-implode.com ] [ ml-implode.com ] Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people ' [ telegraph.co.uk ] [ telegraph.co.uk ] Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats [ examiner.com ] [ examiner.com ] Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers [ cnbc.com ] [ cnbc.com ] A False Choice [ viewfromsi...valley.com ] [ viewfromsi...valley.com ] Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers ajc.com [ ajc.com ] [ ajc.com ] Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner 's Hands [ alternet.org ] [ alternet.org ] Socialising and Privatising [ freeradical.co.nz ] [ freeradical.co.nz ] Fannie , Freddie to pay out bonuses [ politico.com ] [ politico.com ] Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply [ researchrecap.com ] [ researchrecap.com ] Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund [ ft.com ] [ ft.com ] - Russia on an new world reserve currency : It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy , which are binding for the leading world economies , including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read .
[ en.rian.ru ] [ en.rian.ru ] - President Barack " The Teleprompter " Obama is deeply connected to corruption .
Rahm Emanuel , his Chief of Staff , is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organizati</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.
) Obama is controlled by the same people as Bush see The Obama Deception documentary [youtube.com] [youtube.com] Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says [bloomberg.com] [bloomberg.com]
 Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds [reuters.com] [reuters.com]
 The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass [dailybail.com] [dailybail.com]
 China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar [bloomberg.com] [bloomberg.com]
 China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency [bbc.co.uk] [bbc.co.uk]
 What are the reserve currencies?
[wsj.net] [wsj.net]
 Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors [ml-implode.com] [ml-implode.com]
 Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people' [telegraph.co.uk] [telegraph.co.uk]
 Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats [examiner.com] [examiner.com]
 Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers [cnbc.com] [cnbc.com]
 A False Choice [viewfromsi...valley.com] [viewfromsi...valley.com]
 Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers  ajc.com [ajc.com] [ajc.com]
 Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands [alternet.org] [alternet.org]
 Socialising and Privatising [freeradical.co.nz] [freeradical.co.nz]
 Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses [politico.com] [politico.com]
 Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply [researchrecap.com] [researchrecap.com]  Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund  [ft.com] [ft.com]- Russia on an new world reserve currency:   It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read.
[en.rian.ru] [en.rian.ru]- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption.
Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organizati</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984248</id>
	<title>Patents are evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would life be like if people patented things like the concept of putting beverages inside glass, metal, rubber, wood, or plastic containers, and then waited a couple hundred years to enforce the patent?</p><p>It would be the end of civilisation as we know it.</p><p>The only thing worse than that is Micro$$$oft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would life be like if people patented things like the concept of putting beverages inside glass , metal , rubber , wood , or plastic containers , and then waited a couple hundred years to enforce the patent ? It would be the end of civilisation as we know it.The only thing worse than that is Micro $ $ $ oft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would life be like if people patented things like the concept of putting beverages inside glass, metal, rubber, wood, or plastic containers, and then waited a couple hundred years to enforce the patent?It would be the end of civilisation as we know it.The only thing worse than that is Micro$$$oft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984568</id>
	<title>Side Note</title>
	<author>bakestyle20</author>
	<datestamp>1265053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Might be off topic but....

Wish Bell Labs was still truckin....  All those public works patents made the world a better place and the R&amp;D staff were compensated well.  The failure of the firm though is just another instance of business executives and politicians banding together to ruin a strong and truly beneficial company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Might be off topic but... . Wish Bell Labs was still truckin.... All those public works patents made the world a better place and the R&amp;D staff were compensated well .
The failure of the firm though is just another instance of business executives and politicians banding together to ruin a strong and truly beneficial company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might be off topic but....

Wish Bell Labs was still truckin....  All those public works patents made the world a better place and the R&amp;D staff were compensated well.
The failure of the firm though is just another instance of business executives and politicians banding together to ruin a strong and truly beneficial company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30985868</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Zequel</author>
	<datestamp>1265015220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>..That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders 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></div><p>You're obviously a lawyer and I'm guessing there is a precedence for this 'taking'. Well think outside the box, maybe A) this precedence doesn't apply or B) the precedence is crap to begin with and should be ignored. I hate how lawyers rely on precedence so much. If it's not precedence, it's a law that can be repealed.
<br>
To be honest, I don't think it's so much a court system problem but with the patent system itself and idiotic patent examiners who don't know jack about software/technology and a patent office that prefers to generate revenue as opposed to doing their job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..That 's called a taking , and the ex-patent holders 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.You 're obviously a lawyer and I 'm guessing there is a precedence for this 'taking' .
Well think outside the box , maybe A ) this precedence does n't apply or B ) the precedence is crap to begin with and should be ignored .
I hate how lawyers rely on precedence so much .
If it 's not precedence , it 's a law that can be repealed .
To be honest , I do n't think it 's so much a court system problem but with the patent system itself and idiotic patent examiners who do n't know jack about software/technology and a patent office that prefers to generate revenue as opposed to doing their job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ..That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders 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.You're obviously a lawyer and I'm guessing there is a precedence for this 'taking'.
Well think outside the box, maybe A) this precedence doesn't apply or B) the precedence is crap to begin with and should be ignored.
I hate how lawyers rely on precedence so much.
If it's not precedence, it's a law that can be repealed.
To be honest, I don't think it's so much a court system problem but with the patent system itself and idiotic patent examiners who don't know jack about software/technology and a patent office that prefers to generate revenue as opposed to doing their job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982928</id>
	<title>Re:Disgusting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's a real shame that the patent system has been able to be manipulated so effectively</i></p><p>Let's call a spade a spade here: it was <i>designed</i> that way. You make it seem like government is the victim, when in fact, government is every bit as much to blame as the crooks who exploit government. After all, government holds the key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a real shame that the patent system has been able to be manipulated so effectivelyLet 's call a spade a spade here : it was designed that way .
You make it seem like government is the victim , when in fact , government is every bit as much to blame as the crooks who exploit government .
After all , government holds the key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a real shame that the patent system has been able to be manipulated so effectivelyLet's call a spade a spade here: it was designed that way.
You make it seem like government is the victim, when in fact, government is every bit as much to blame as the crooks who exploit government.
After all, government holds the key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30987468</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>rochberg</author>
	<datestamp>1265020680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's say I invent something, which some company uses in their flagship product, making millions off my invention.</p></div><p>Do you mean something like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ability to make an online purchase using only a single click</a> [wikipedia.org]?  More likely than not, they made millions off their flagship product, and your invention added very little value.  Is it really going to make a difference to Adobe whether or not they use some image manipulation filter that you thought up at the same time their designers did?  Their millions resulted from the combination of brand recognition, ability to keep costs down by streamlining manufacturing, the development of a clever user interface, etc.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's say that I am unable to bring my product to market (because of limited capital, because of limited knowledge, because of a single market for my invention that someone else has control of... pick a reason, or multiple ones).</p></div><p>So, are you implying that you should somehow be compensated for failing in business?  Look, if you invented something really amazing and non-obvious (e.g., arms that extended from my laptop to give me a shoulder massage while I worked...that would be cool...), then yes, you should get paid.  But if you expect to live a life of luxury just because you thought it'd be a good idea if your car let out a beep as you approach a red light (and failed to build a business model around this idea), then you're exactly what's wrong with the system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say I invent something , which some company uses in their flagship product , making millions off my invention.Do you mean something like the ability to make an online purchase using only a single click [ wikipedia.org ] ?
More likely than not , they made millions off their flagship product , and your invention added very little value .
Is it really going to make a difference to Adobe whether or not they use some image manipulation filter that you thought up at the same time their designers did ?
Their millions resulted from the combination of brand recognition , ability to keep costs down by streamlining manufacturing , the development of a clever user interface , etc.Let 's say that I am unable to bring my product to market ( because of limited capital , because of limited knowledge , because of a single market for my invention that someone else has control of... pick a reason , or multiple ones ) .So , are you implying that you should somehow be compensated for failing in business ?
Look , if you invented something really amazing and non-obvious ( e.g. , arms that extended from my laptop to give me a shoulder massage while I worked...that would be cool... ) , then yes , you should get paid .
But if you expect to live a life of luxury just because you thought it 'd be a good idea if your car let out a beep as you approach a red light ( and failed to build a business model around this idea ) , then you 're exactly what 's wrong with the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say I invent something, which some company uses in their flagship product, making millions off my invention.Do you mean something like the ability to make an online purchase using only a single click [wikipedia.org]?
More likely than not, they made millions off their flagship product, and your invention added very little value.
Is it really going to make a difference to Adobe whether or not they use some image manipulation filter that you thought up at the same time their designers did?
Their millions resulted from the combination of brand recognition, ability to keep costs down by streamlining manufacturing, the development of a clever user interface, etc.Let's say that I am unable to bring my product to market (because of limited capital, because of limited knowledge, because of a single market for my invention that someone else has control of... pick a reason, or multiple ones).So, are you implying that you should somehow be compensated for failing in business?
Look, if you invented something really amazing and non-obvious (e.g., arms that extended from my laptop to give me a shoulder massage while I worked...that would be cool...), then yes, you should get paid.
But if you expect to live a life of luxury just because you thought it'd be a good idea if your car let out a beep as you approach a red light (and failed to build a business model around this idea), then you're exactly what's wrong with the system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982882</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to know is...</title>
	<author>Grond</author>
	<datestamp>1265046660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>how come patent trolls are awarded patents in the first place? Would it be possible to make an applicant show proof that they are in the planning stages or are currently using what they are trying to patent?</em></p><p>That's called a 'working requirement' or a requirement to practice the invention.  A few countries have such a requirement (Turkey, for example), but the requirement is usually riddled with exceptions that make it essentially toothless.  There are several reasons why a strong working requirement is a bad idea, as I explained in <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1525728&amp;cid=30918164" title="slashdot.org">a comment</a> [slashdot.org] on <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/27/0041242/Champerty-and-Other-Common-Law-We-Could-Use-Today" title="slashdot.org">a recent Slashdot story</a> [slashdot.org] that suggested forbidding patent ownership by or assignment to non-practicing entities.</p><p>In the US 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 the law were changed, it would mean that hundreds of patent holding companies would suddenly lose their patent rights because of an action by the government.  That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders 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 would we implement such a requirement? We could require that patents 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. So now the patent will be owned by a single practicing entity. The patent 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>As you can see, there are a <em>lot</em> of problems with such a proposal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how come patent trolls are awarded patents in the first place ?
Would it be possible to make an applicant show proof that they are in the planning stages or are currently using what they are trying to patent ? That 's called a 'working requirement ' or a requirement to practice the invention .
A few countries have such a requirement ( Turkey , for example ) , but the requirement is usually riddled with exceptions that make it essentially toothless .
There are several reasons why a strong working requirement is a bad idea , as I explained in a comment [ slashdot.org ] on a recent Slashdot story [ slashdot.org ] that suggested forbidding patent ownership by or assignment to non-practicing entities.In the US 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 the law were changed , it would mean that hundreds of patent holding companies would suddenly lose their patent rights because of an action by the government .
That 's called a taking , and the ex-patent holders 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 would we implement such a requirement ?
We could require that patents 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 .
So now the patent will be owned by a single practicing entity .
The patent 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 ? As you can see , there are a lot of problems with such a proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how come patent trolls are awarded patents in the first place?
Would it be possible to make an applicant show proof that they are in the planning stages or are currently using what they are trying to patent?That's called a 'working requirement' or a requirement to practice the invention.
A few countries have such a requirement (Turkey, for example), but the requirement is usually riddled with exceptions that make it essentially toothless.
There are several reasons why a strong working requirement is a bad idea, as I explained in a comment [slashdot.org] on a recent Slashdot story [slashdot.org] that suggested forbidding patent ownership by or assignment to non-practicing entities.In the US 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 the law were changed, it would mean that hundreds of patent holding companies would suddenly lose their patent rights because of an action by the government.
That's called a taking, and the ex-patent holders 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 would we implement such a requirement?
We could require that patents 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.
So now the patent will be owned by a single practicing entity.
The patent 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?As you can see, there are a lot of problems with such a proposal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984038</id>
	<title>Re:Don't Abbreviate</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in the same time, you're stifling the progress of a company that, more likely than not given the description in your scenario, did not willfully infringe upon your patent, but merely made the mistake of putting someone clever on their problem who happened to come up with a similar solution. If you are unable to gather investors for your product, especially given the viability of the market as demonstrated by the other company, then why should the other company be unable to use their solution?

</p><p>And there still will be plenty of law firms willing to take your case, probably on a contingency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in the same time , you 're stifling the progress of a company that , more likely than not given the description in your scenario , did not willfully infringe upon your patent , but merely made the mistake of putting someone clever on their problem who happened to come up with a similar solution .
If you are unable to gather investors for your product , especially given the viability of the market as demonstrated by the other company , then why should the other company be unable to use their solution ?
And there still will be plenty of law firms willing to take your case , probably on a contingency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in the same time, you're stifling the progress of a company that, more likely than not given the description in your scenario, did not willfully infringe upon your patent, but merely made the mistake of putting someone clever on their problem who happened to come up with a similar solution.
If you are unable to gather investors for your product, especially given the viability of the market as demonstrated by the other company, then why should the other company be unable to use their solution?
And there still will be plenty of law firms willing to take your case, probably on a contingency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984270</id>
	<title>Obligatory...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1265052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and in other news, water is wet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and in other news , water is wet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and in other news, water is wet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30987468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30985366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30987010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30985868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_1442236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30985366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30985868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_1442236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30987468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30982922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30987010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30984898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30983056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_1442236.30986460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
