<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_23_0656238</id>
	<title>Patent Markings May Spell Trouble For Activision</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266925260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"If you pick up your copy of <em>Guitar Hero</em> and read the literature, you'll notice it says 'patent pending' and cites a number of patents.  A group <a href="http://www.patentarcade.com/2010/02/mark-against-activision.html">alleges no such patent pends nor are some of the patents applicable</a>.  If a judge finds Activision guilty of misleading the public in this manner, <a href="http://kotaku.com/5476931/activision-going-to-court-over-guitar-hero-patent-claims">they could become liable for up to $500 per product sold</a> under false patent marking.  The patents in question seem to be legitimately <em>Guitar Hero</em>-oriented, and little is to be found about the mysterious group.  The final piece of the puzzle puts the filing in Texas Northern District Court, which might be close enough to Texas Eastern District Court to write this off as a new kind of 'false patent marking troll' targeting big fish with deep coffers."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " If you pick up your copy of Guitar Hero and read the literature , you 'll notice it says 'patent pending ' and cites a number of patents .
A group alleges no such patent pends nor are some of the patents applicable .
If a judge finds Activision guilty of misleading the public in this manner , they could become liable for up to $ 500 per product sold under false patent marking .
The patents in question seem to be legitimately Guitar Hero-oriented , and little is to be found about the mysterious group .
The final piece of the puzzle puts the filing in Texas Northern District Court , which might be close enough to Texas Eastern District Court to write this off as a new kind of 'false patent marking troll ' targeting big fish with deep coffers .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "If you pick up your copy of Guitar Hero and read the literature, you'll notice it says 'patent pending' and cites a number of patents.
A group alleges no such patent pends nor are some of the patents applicable.
If a judge finds Activision guilty of misleading the public in this manner, they could become liable for up to $500 per product sold under false patent marking.
The patents in question seem to be legitimately Guitar Hero-oriented, and little is to be found about the mysterious group.
The final piece of the puzzle puts the filing in Texas Northern District Court, which might be close enough to Texas Eastern District Court to write this off as a new kind of 'false patent marking troll' targeting big fish with deep coffers.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243436</id>
	<title>Re:Someone zoned out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266934560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the first patent, "5,739,457" (filed in 1996 published 1998) has 36 claims, of which 4 are independant (claims 1, 18, 24, 33), and is basically for Guitar Freaks (Konami arcade 1998).</p><p>Claim one and 18 have money validation units. Claim 24 has speakers and a display. Claim 33 has a cabinet.</p><p>Guitar hero hardware/software does not have any of those items. Perhaps a patent lawyer might know better if you can include stuff (like television) that is not part of the sold system in the claims.</p><p>At least it does have the word "plurality" almost often enough to be a real patent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the first patent , " 5,739,457 " ( filed in 1996 published 1998 ) has 36 claims , of which 4 are independant ( claims 1 , 18 , 24 , 33 ) , and is basically for Guitar Freaks ( Konami arcade 1998 ) .Claim one and 18 have money validation units .
Claim 24 has speakers and a display .
Claim 33 has a cabinet.Guitar hero hardware/software does not have any of those items .
Perhaps a patent lawyer might know better if you can include stuff ( like television ) that is not part of the sold system in the claims.At least it does have the word " plurality " almost often enough to be a real patent : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the first patent, "5,739,457" (filed in 1996 published 1998) has 36 claims, of which 4 are independant (claims 1, 18, 24, 33), and is basically for Guitar Freaks (Konami arcade 1998).Claim one and 18 have money validation units.
Claim 24 has speakers and a display.
Claim 33 has a cabinet.Guitar hero hardware/software does not have any of those items.
Perhaps a patent lawyer might know better if you can include stuff (like television) that is not part of the sold system in the claims.At least it does have the word "plurality" almost often enough to be a real patent :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243266</id>
	<title>New from Activision...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266933060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barney Frank's Cocksucker Hero!  Guess what the controller is shaped like?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barney Frank 's Cocksucker Hero !
Guess what the controller is shaped like ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barney Frank's Cocksucker Hero!
Guess what the controller is shaped like?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245918</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone make sense of this story?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266947520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pending patents are for <b>hardware</b>, not software. They cannot apply to a box of software people purchase.</p><p>
Okay, everyone seems to be very ignorant here, and the article isn't explaining this, so I guess I have to give a damn history lesson:</p><p>
The US government requires that you put notification of patent use on things you sell. (Either your own patent, or something you've licensed from someone else.)</p><p>
That is fine for issued patents, but what about <b>pending</b> patents? Remember, you can use something for up to a year before filing a patent on it, and you do have some amount of protection when patents are pending.</p><p>
Ergo, you should have to put pending patent notifications, so people can look <b>those</b> up, too, and not waste their time building something that's going to be in violation of a patent in two months.</p><p>
Well, the problem then arose. You see, actual patents are easy to look up. Patent lawyers could have copies of the entire set, you could go to a law courthouse in state capital, etc.</p><p>
<b>Pending</b> patents, OTOH, are real bitch to find. Only the patent office has those. So some enterprising people who couldn't, or didn't bother, to get patents, just went around putting 'patent pending' on everything, resulting in other people unable to figure out what, exactly, was patented. Or they could keep resubmitted a rejected patent, and it remain 'pending'.</p><p>
Hence, at some point, falsely claiming to have patents pending, or actually having one pending, but unrelated to what you put it on, was made criminal and you can be fined for it.</p><p>
Those laws don't really make any sense anymore, but are still there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pending patents are for hardware , not software .
They can not apply to a box of software people purchase .
Okay , everyone seems to be very ignorant here , and the article is n't explaining this , so I guess I have to give a damn history lesson : The US government requires that you put notification of patent use on things you sell .
( Either your own patent , or something you 've licensed from someone else .
) That is fine for issued patents , but what about pending patents ?
Remember , you can use something for up to a year before filing a patent on it , and you do have some amount of protection when patents are pending .
Ergo , you should have to put pending patent notifications , so people can look those up , too , and not waste their time building something that 's going to be in violation of a patent in two months .
Well , the problem then arose .
You see , actual patents are easy to look up .
Patent lawyers could have copies of the entire set , you could go to a law courthouse in state capital , etc .
Pending patents , OTOH , are real bitch to find .
Only the patent office has those .
So some enterprising people who could n't , or did n't bother , to get patents , just went around putting 'patent pending ' on everything , resulting in other people unable to figure out what , exactly , was patented .
Or they could keep resubmitted a rejected patent , and it remain 'pending' .
Hence , at some point , falsely claiming to have patents pending , or actually having one pending , but unrelated to what you put it on , was made criminal and you can be fined for it .
Those laws do n't really make any sense anymore , but are still there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pending patents are for hardware, not software.
They cannot apply to a box of software people purchase.
Okay, everyone seems to be very ignorant here, and the article isn't explaining this, so I guess I have to give a damn history lesson:
The US government requires that you put notification of patent use on things you sell.
(Either your own patent, or something you've licensed from someone else.
)
That is fine for issued patents, but what about pending patents?
Remember, you can use something for up to a year before filing a patent on it, and you do have some amount of protection when patents are pending.
Ergo, you should have to put pending patent notifications, so people can look those up, too, and not waste their time building something that's going to be in violation of a patent in two months.
Well, the problem then arose.
You see, actual patents are easy to look up.
Patent lawyers could have copies of the entire set, you could go to a law courthouse in state capital, etc.
Pending patents, OTOH, are real bitch to find.
Only the patent office has those.
So some enterprising people who couldn't, or didn't bother, to get patents, just went around putting 'patent pending' on everything, resulting in other people unable to figure out what, exactly, was patented.
Or they could keep resubmitted a rejected patent, and it remain 'pending'.
Hence, at some point, falsely claiming to have patents pending, or actually having one pending, but unrelated to what you put it on, was made criminal and you can be fined for it.
Those laws don't really make any sense anymore, but are still there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242988</id>
	<title>Maybe they used ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266930360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... numbers from <i>Patent Hero</i>, the newest game from Activision - you play along with the patent process but aren't <i>really</i> applying for them?<br> <br>
<i>You</i> hold the pen. <i>You</i> fill out the forms. <i>You</i> are the Patent Hero!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... numbers from Patent Hero , the newest game from Activision - you play along with the patent process but are n't really applying for them ?
You hold the pen .
You fill out the forms .
You are the Patent Hero !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... numbers from Patent Hero, the newest game from Activision - you play along with the patent process but aren't really applying for them?
You hold the pen.
You fill out the forms.
You are the Patent Hero!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243444</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they used ...</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1266934560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, you guys, playing this doesn't make you <em>real</em> inventors! Stop having fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , you guys , playing this does n't make you real inventors !
Stop having fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, you guys, playing this doesn't make you real inventors!
Stop having fun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243344</id>
	<title>Re:If they're trolls, so are the EFF</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1266933960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> So what's the big difference between a "false patent marking troll" and EFF?</p></div><p>Well, the obvious difference is that most of the EFF actions in the article you linked to involve them defending people who have actually received DCMA takedowns, C&amp;Ds or similar nastygrams from the people dubiously claiming copyright infringement.
</p><p>By contrast, if Activision have actually been threatening people over their (allegedly) false patent claims then TFA neglects to mention it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's the big difference between a " false patent marking troll " and EFF ? Well , the obvious difference is that most of the EFF actions in the article you linked to involve them defending people who have actually received DCMA takedowns , C&amp;Ds or similar nastygrams from the people dubiously claiming copyright infringement .
By contrast , if Activision have actually been threatening people over their ( allegedly ) false patent claims then TFA neglects to mention it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So what's the big difference between a "false patent marking troll" and EFF?Well, the obvious difference is that most of the EFF actions in the article you linked to involve them defending people who have actually received DCMA takedowns, C&amp;Ds or similar nastygrams from the people dubiously claiming copyright infringement.
By contrast, if Activision have actually been threatening people over their (allegedly) false patent claims then TFA neglects to mention it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243684</id>
	<title>Re:a nutty form of anti-patent troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a great way to collect "taxes". Did anyone ever questionned the fact that these groups may be funded by the government to deter false "patent pending" claims?<br> <br>
I mean, I don't think this is so bad that they are funded by the USPTO, but at least, they could be more transparent and simply say what they are.
<br> <br>
And since I'm pretty sure that no money go in the pockets of those groups when they deter a false "patent pending" claim, I'm also pretty sure that they do not have a dime to fund their research. So who would do this job for free?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a great way to collect " taxes " .
Did anyone ever questionned the fact that these groups may be funded by the government to deter false " patent pending " claims ?
I mean , I do n't think this is so bad that they are funded by the USPTO , but at least , they could be more transparent and simply say what they are .
And since I 'm pretty sure that no money go in the pockets of those groups when they deter a false " patent pending " claim , I 'm also pretty sure that they do not have a dime to fund their research .
So who would do this job for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a great way to collect "taxes".
Did anyone ever questionned the fact that these groups may be funded by the government to deter false "patent pending" claims?
I mean, I don't think this is so bad that they are funded by the USPTO, but at least, they could be more transparent and simply say what they are.
And since I'm pretty sure that no money go in the pockets of those groups when they deter a false "patent pending" claim, I'm also pretty sure that they do not have a dime to fund their research.
So who would do this job for free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245400</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone make sense of this story?</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1266945540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If there are patents in question, then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why are they being sued?</p></div><p>Because, although the patents were "valid", they referred to articles not included in the box (such as patents on the drum set, on a box that contained only the software and the guitar).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there are patents in question , then ... why are they being sued ? Because , although the patents were " valid " , they referred to articles not included in the box ( such as patents on the drum set , on a box that contained only the software and the guitar ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there are patents in question, then ... why are they being sued?Because, although the patents were "valid", they referred to articles not included in the box (such as patents on the drum set, on a box that contained only the software and the guitar).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244924</id>
	<title>It's worse in germany</title>
	<author>s-whs</author>
	<datestamp>1266942960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the 'Abmanhnungen' in Germany. In both cases it's gaming the system and should be severely punished...</p><p>For many years in Germany attorneys have gamed the system, related to what you are allowed and not allowed to do esp. when selling something. These 'people' have for example scoured ebay ads, and when they found say a missing telephone number or missing note on how to undo the deal for a business seller, they sent such a 'Mahnung'. Not for free obviously, no, with an invoice for payment (for their own time/effort!). Yes, you will have to pay... It gets even worse. Suppose you've got an old magazine with old demo software disk on it and put it on ebay.de (as a German, I don't think you can be touched if not), then you'd better check there are no programs on there that are now forbidden. DVD copying software for example that circumvents the protection scheme is no longer allowed since several years.</p><p> People have been sent a 'Mahnung' for putting a mag with such no longer allowed software on ebay, and had to pay large amounts of money to such 'scammers'. You think you get a few euros, but you have to pay many hundreds. Nice.</p><p>These people are the worst kinds of assholes around just as the guy I mentioned in a previous posting, 'Pieter Lakeman' (who created a foundation supposedly to help clients of the DSB bank with supposedly bad loans, but in reality this foundation just pays his 300 euro/hour salary and there were hardly any bad loans anyway; He then influenced people to take away their money from DSB which led to its collapse. Nice!), and I consider them to be legal scammers.</p><p>
See for one notorious guy, who was sentenced to jail for other things, this page (it didn't end well for him and I don't think many people will give a damn, he was really hated as one can see in many forums...): <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G\%C3\%BCnter\_Freiherr\_von\_Gravenreuth" title="wikipedia.org">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G\%C3\%BCnter\_Freiherr\_von\_Gravenreuth</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the 'Abmanhnungen ' in Germany .
In both cases it 's gaming the system and should be severely punished...For many years in Germany attorneys have gamed the system , related to what you are allowed and not allowed to do esp .
when selling something .
These 'people ' have for example scoured ebay ads , and when they found say a missing telephone number or missing note on how to undo the deal for a business seller , they sent such a 'Mahnung' .
Not for free obviously , no , with an invoice for payment ( for their own time/effort ! ) .
Yes , you will have to pay... It gets even worse .
Suppose you 've got an old magazine with old demo software disk on it and put it on ebay.de ( as a German , I do n't think you can be touched if not ) , then you 'd better check there are no programs on there that are now forbidden .
DVD copying software for example that circumvents the protection scheme is no longer allowed since several years .
People have been sent a 'Mahnung ' for putting a mag with such no longer allowed software on ebay , and had to pay large amounts of money to such 'scammers' .
You think you get a few euros , but you have to pay many hundreds .
Nice.These people are the worst kinds of assholes around just as the guy I mentioned in a previous posting , 'Pieter Lakeman ' ( who created a foundation supposedly to help clients of the DSB bank with supposedly bad loans , but in reality this foundation just pays his 300 euro/hour salary and there were hardly any bad loans anyway ; He then influenced people to take away their money from DSB which led to its collapse .
Nice ! ) , and I consider them to be legal scammers .
See for one notorious guy , who was sentenced to jail for other things , this page ( it did n't end well for him and I do n't think many people will give a damn , he was really hated as one can see in many forums... ) : http : //de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G \ % C3 \ % BCnter \ _Freiherr \ _von \ _Gravenreuth [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the 'Abmanhnungen' in Germany.
In both cases it's gaming the system and should be severely punished...For many years in Germany attorneys have gamed the system, related to what you are allowed and not allowed to do esp.
when selling something.
These 'people' have for example scoured ebay ads, and when they found say a missing telephone number or missing note on how to undo the deal for a business seller, they sent such a 'Mahnung'.
Not for free obviously, no, with an invoice for payment (for their own time/effort!).
Yes, you will have to pay... It gets even worse.
Suppose you've got an old magazine with old demo software disk on it and put it on ebay.de (as a German, I don't think you can be touched if not), then you'd better check there are no programs on there that are now forbidden.
DVD copying software for example that circumvents the protection scheme is no longer allowed since several years.
People have been sent a 'Mahnung' for putting a mag with such no longer allowed software on ebay, and had to pay large amounts of money to such 'scammers'.
You think you get a few euros, but you have to pay many hundreds.
Nice.These people are the worst kinds of assholes around just as the guy I mentioned in a previous posting, 'Pieter Lakeman' (who created a foundation supposedly to help clients of the DSB bank with supposedly bad loans, but in reality this foundation just pays his 300 euro/hour salary and there were hardly any bad loans anyway; He then influenced people to take away their money from DSB which led to its collapse.
Nice!), and I consider them to be legal scammers.
See for one notorious guy, who was sentenced to jail for other things, this page (it didn't end well for him and I don't think many people will give a damn, he was really hated as one can see in many forums...): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G\%C3\%BCnter\_Freiherr\_von\_Gravenreuth [wikipedia.org]
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992</id>
	<title>If they're trolls, so are the EFF</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1266930360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The final piece of the puzzle puts the filing in Texas Northern District Court, which might be close enough to Texas Eastern District Court to write this off as a new kind of 'false patent marking troll' targeting big fish with deep coffers.</p></div><p>Troll? Hardly. The Electronic Frontier Foundation routinely files lawsuits like this one on the public's behalf. Compare PCG's lawsuit against alleged patent fraud to EFF's <a href="http://www.eff.org/related/3745/blog" title="eff.org">investigations and other actions against alleged copyfraud</a> [eff.org]. So what's the big difference between a "false patent marking troll" and EFF?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The final piece of the puzzle puts the filing in Texas Northern District Court , which might be close enough to Texas Eastern District Court to write this off as a new kind of 'false patent marking troll ' targeting big fish with deep coffers.Troll ?
Hardly. The Electronic Frontier Foundation routinely files lawsuits like this one on the public 's behalf .
Compare PCG 's lawsuit against alleged patent fraud to EFF 's investigations and other actions against alleged copyfraud [ eff.org ] .
So what 's the big difference between a " false patent marking troll " and EFF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The final piece of the puzzle puts the filing in Texas Northern District Court, which might be close enough to Texas Eastern District Court to write this off as a new kind of 'false patent marking troll' targeting big fish with deep coffers.Troll?
Hardly. The Electronic Frontier Foundation routinely files lawsuits like this one on the public's behalf.
Compare PCG's lawsuit against alleged patent fraud to EFF's investigations and other actions against alleged copyfraud [eff.org].
So what's the big difference between a "false patent marking troll" and EFF?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31254046</id>
	<title>Re:"Patent Pending" has no legal effect</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1266935700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree. Speech on products is highly regulated and printing a false claim on your product SHOULD be actionable. Printing patent pending while not actually having a patent pending is misleading. Patents are legal instruments, do not invoke them trivially.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
Speech on products is highly regulated and printing a false claim on your product SHOULD be actionable .
Printing patent pending while not actually having a patent pending is misleading .
Patents are legal instruments , do not invoke them trivially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
Speech on products is highly regulated and printing a false claim on your product SHOULD be actionable.
Printing patent pending while not actually having a patent pending is misleading.
Patents are legal instruments, do not invoke them trivially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244702</id>
	<title>Can someone make sense of this story?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266941640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Activision is being sued because they put "patent pending" on a product that doesn't actually have a patent pending. Ok, with you so far.</p><p>But then the summary adds this:</p><p><i>The patents in question seem to be legitimately Guitar Hero-oriented, and little is to be found about the mysterious group.</i></p><p>If there are patents in question, then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why are they being sued? Either they have pending patents or they don't, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Activision is being sued because they put " patent pending " on a product that does n't actually have a patent pending .
Ok , with you so far.But then the summary adds this : The patents in question seem to be legitimately Guitar Hero-oriented , and little is to be found about the mysterious group.If there are patents in question , then ... why are they being sued ?
Either they have pending patents or they do n't , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Activision is being sued because they put "patent pending" on a product that doesn't actually have a patent pending.
Ok, with you so far.But then the summary adds this:The patents in question seem to be legitimately Guitar Hero-oriented, and little is to be found about the mysterious group.If there are patents in question, then ... why are they being sued?
Either they have pending patents or they don't, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243108</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266931500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> they could become liable for up to $500 per product sold</p></div><p>What you mean is, "they will be liable for up to a $5 credit towards Activision titles per product sold", right? That's how it always seems to pan out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they could become liable for up to $ 500 per product soldWhat you mean is , " they will be liable for up to a $ 5 credit towards Activision titles per product sold " , right ?
That 's how it always seems to pan out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> they could become liable for up to $500 per product soldWhat you mean is, "they will be liable for up to a $5 credit towards Activision titles per product sold", right?
That's how it always seems to pan out.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31247408</id>
	<title>Overzealous IP claims</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266952620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies seem to think that aggressively asserting their IP rights in writing is the first step towards keeping people from infringing. (Probably not.) Sometimes they seem to think that they're entitled to state those rights in the strongest terms possible, even when it strains the limits of accuracy. It reminds me of the excessive and demonstrably false copyright notices that are spoken over sports broadcasts&mdash;I'll pick on the NFL:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and <strong>any other use</strong> of this telecast or of any pictures, <strong>descriptions or accounts of the game</strong> without the NFL's consent is prohibited. [emphasis added]</p></div><p>So, for one thing, they are lying by denying the existence of fair use. It's not that <em>any</em> use of the telecast is prohibited, only those uses not permitted under the fair use clause. But that's not as bad as this bullshit about "any [...] descriptions or accounts of the game." Any at all? Including my own? If I'm watching the game on TV and blogging about it, that's illegal?</p><p>I hate to suggest picking just one company to make an example of, but... they should make an example of Activision. These are big companies with full-time lawyers. They can afford to not lie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies seem to think that aggressively asserting their IP rights in writing is the first step towards keeping people from infringing .
( Probably not .
) Sometimes they seem to think that they 're entitled to state those rights in the strongest terms possible , even when it strains the limits of accuracy .
It reminds me of the excessive and demonstrably false copyright notices that are spoken over sports broadcasts    I 'll pick on the NFL : This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience , and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures , descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL 's consent is prohibited .
[ emphasis added ] So , for one thing , they are lying by denying the existence of fair use .
It 's not that any use of the telecast is prohibited , only those uses not permitted under the fair use clause .
But that 's not as bad as this bullshit about " any [ ... ] descriptions or accounts of the game .
" Any at all ?
Including my own ?
If I 'm watching the game on TV and blogging about it , that 's illegal ? I hate to suggest picking just one company to make an example of , but... they should make an example of Activision .
These are big companies with full-time lawyers .
They can afford to not lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies seem to think that aggressively asserting their IP rights in writing is the first step towards keeping people from infringing.
(Probably not.
) Sometimes they seem to think that they're entitled to state those rights in the strongest terms possible, even when it strains the limits of accuracy.
It reminds me of the excessive and demonstrably false copyright notices that are spoken over sports broadcasts—I'll pick on the NFL:This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited.
[emphasis added]So, for one thing, they are lying by denying the existence of fair use.
It's not that any use of the telecast is prohibited, only those uses not permitted under the fair use clause.
But that's not as bad as this bullshit about "any [...] descriptions or accounts of the game.
" Any at all?
Including my own?
If I'm watching the game on TV and blogging about it, that's illegal?I hate to suggest picking just one company to make an example of, but... they should make an example of Activision.
These are big companies with full-time lawyers.
They can afford to not lie.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31246890</id>
	<title>Please don't compare North Texas to East Texas</title>
	<author>gravis777</author>
	<datestamp>1266950760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we are one big state of Palin-worshiping Bible-thumping pro-life conservatives, I find the insenuation that those of us from North Texas just want to hunt and fish insulting. We care about cows, oil, airlines and fighter jets here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we are one big state of Palin-worshiping Bible-thumping pro-life conservatives , I find the insenuation that those of us from North Texas just want to hunt and fish insulting .
We care about cows , oil , airlines and fighter jets here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we are one big state of Palin-worshiping Bible-thumping pro-life conservatives, I find the insenuation that those of us from North Texas just want to hunt and fish insulting.
We care about cows, oil, airlines and fighter jets here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242990</id>
	<title>a nutty form of anti-patent troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266930360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the article notes, these have become common lately. Groups going under names like the one here, "Patent Compliance Group", spend their time digging through product literature looking for "patent pending" claims, and then dig to see if a patent really is pending. In some small percentage of cases, it isn't, and they hope to make enough money on those to justify the endeavor.</p><p>I mean, I don't like false advertising, but somehow this particular cure seems even worse than the relatively minor disease of a game claiming it has a patent pending when it doesn't. Given that anyone can file a patent for pretty much anything, it's not like "patent pending" is worth much as a claim anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the article notes , these have become common lately .
Groups going under names like the one here , " Patent Compliance Group " , spend their time digging through product literature looking for " patent pending " claims , and then dig to see if a patent really is pending .
In some small percentage of cases , it is n't , and they hope to make enough money on those to justify the endeavor.I mean , I do n't like false advertising , but somehow this particular cure seems even worse than the relatively minor disease of a game claiming it has a patent pending when it does n't .
Given that anyone can file a patent for pretty much anything , it 's not like " patent pending " is worth much as a claim anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the article notes, these have become common lately.
Groups going under names like the one here, "Patent Compliance Group", spend their time digging through product literature looking for "patent pending" claims, and then dig to see if a patent really is pending.
In some small percentage of cases, it isn't, and they hope to make enough money on those to justify the endeavor.I mean, I don't like false advertising, but somehow this particular cure seems even worse than the relatively minor disease of a game claiming it has a patent pending when it doesn't.
Given that anyone can file a patent for pretty much anything, it's not like "patent pending" is worth much as a claim anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245848</id>
	<title>Re:If they're trolls, so are the EFF</title>
	<author>smartr</author>
	<datestamp>1266947340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>uhh... I don't think it's hard to tell the difference between a nonprofit consumer protection group like the EFF fighting fraudulent claims of ownership based on complaints and a mysterious "Patent Compliance Group, Inc." that seems to hunt for supposed fraudulent patent claims. To me, that's apples and oranges (yes they're both fruit!). I don't know how they come off thinking Activision Blizzard is making these claims for the "purpose of deceiving the public", and I further don't see how this group should be entitled to compensation. If the state was going after ATVI, or this was some class action suit, this might make some vague sense... I mean, even if Activision is guilty of breaking this act, how has PCG possibly been harmed in any way?</htmltext>
<tokenext>uhh... I do n't think it 's hard to tell the difference between a nonprofit consumer protection group like the EFF fighting fraudulent claims of ownership based on complaints and a mysterious " Patent Compliance Group , Inc. " that seems to hunt for supposed fraudulent patent claims .
To me , that 's apples and oranges ( yes they 're both fruit ! ) .
I do n't know how they come off thinking Activision Blizzard is making these claims for the " purpose of deceiving the public " , and I further do n't see how this group should be entitled to compensation .
If the state was going after ATVI , or this was some class action suit , this might make some vague sense... I mean , even if Activision is guilty of breaking this act , how has PCG possibly been harmed in any way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uhh... I don't think it's hard to tell the difference between a nonprofit consumer protection group like the EFF fighting fraudulent claims of ownership based on complaints and a mysterious "Patent Compliance Group, Inc." that seems to hunt for supposed fraudulent patent claims.
To me, that's apples and oranges (yes they're both fruit!).
I don't know how they come off thinking Activision Blizzard is making these claims for the "purpose of deceiving the public", and I further don't see how this group should be entitled to compensation.
If the state was going after ATVI, or this was some class action suit, this might make some vague sense... I mean, even if Activision is guilty of breaking this act, how has PCG possibly been harmed in any way?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243794</id>
	<title>Activision Rocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266936960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Activision Rocks on. This material is copyright protected</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Activision Rocks on .
This material is copyright protected</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Activision Rocks on.
This material is copyright protected</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31255298</id>
	<title>keyword: UP TO $500</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266944520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US court system recently decided that $500 is only a maximum per item sold, and a judge could decide on any lesser amount.  Based on precedent, the fine would probably be more like a fraction of a dollar per unit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US court system recently decided that $ 500 is only a maximum per item sold , and a judge could decide on any lesser amount .
Based on precedent , the fine would probably be more like a fraction of a dollar per unit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US court system recently decided that $500 is only a maximum per item sold, and a judge could decide on any lesser amount.
Based on precedent, the fine would probably be more like a fraction of a dollar per unit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31246856</id>
	<title>False</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266950700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you state is wrong, the USPTO could never "fund" such an entity.  They are simply a newer form of a patent troll.  Why?  Because there is money to be made.  See how the free market (read: capitalist) approach works so much better than a solely government run (read: socialist) approach?<br>
&nbsp; <br>You have people who have a job and making money independently, with no loss to the government/commonwealth, compared to if the USPTO ran it the government would be spending millions for a much less efficient solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you state is wrong , the USPTO could never " fund " such an entity .
They are simply a newer form of a patent troll .
Why ? Because there is money to be made .
See how the free market ( read : capitalist ) approach works so much better than a solely government run ( read : socialist ) approach ?
  You have people who have a job and making money independently , with no loss to the government/commonwealth , compared to if the USPTO ran it the government would be spending millions for a much less efficient solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you state is wrong, the USPTO could never "fund" such an entity.
They are simply a newer form of a patent troll.
Why?  Because there is money to be made.
See how the free market (read: capitalist) approach works so much better than a solely government run (read: socialist) approach?
  You have people who have a job and making money independently, with no loss to the government/commonwealth, compared to if the USPTO ran it the government would be spending millions for a much less efficient solution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244130</id>
	<title>qui tam</title>
	<author>camg188</author>
	<datestamp>1266938820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wondering why a third party would be bringing legal action against Activision for allegedly violating federal patent law because it seemed to be a criminal, not a civil case.  Then I look up the definition of "qui tam"<br>Qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed (from wikipedia).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering why a third party would be bringing legal action against Activision for allegedly violating federal patent law because it seemed to be a criminal , not a civil case .
Then I look up the definition of " qui tam " Qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed ( from wikipedia ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering why a third party would be bringing legal action against Activision for allegedly violating federal patent law because it seemed to be a criminal, not a civil case.
Then I look up the definition of "qui tam"Qui tam is a writ whereby a private individual who assists a prosecution can receive all or part of any penalty imposed (from wikipedia).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31256228</id>
	<title>Re:"Patent Pending" has no legal effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266953940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Stamping "Patent Pending" on a product has no legal effect. It just makes you feel good.</p></div><p>you have no idea what you are talking about.</p><p>It is absolutely misleading and intentionally deceiving the public, and this is exactly what PCG is basing its claim on.</p><p> <i><br>35 U.S.C. 292 False marking.<br></i> </p><p>(a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word "patent" or any word or number importing the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; <b>or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public</b> - Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.</p><p>(b) Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.</p><p>Emphasis mine - you are wrong. Please stop talking because you aren't a lawyer and god forbid someone will think you know something about this</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stamping " Patent Pending " on a product has no legal effect .
It just makes you feel good.you have no idea what you are talking about.It is absolutely misleading and intentionally deceiving the public , and this is exactly what PCG is basing its claim on .
35 U.S.C .
292 False marking .
( a ) Whoever , without the consent of the patentee , marks upon , or affixes to , or uses in advertising in connection with anything made , used , offered for sale , or sold by such person within the United States , or imported by the person into the United States , the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee , the patent number , or the words " patent , " " patentee , " or the like , with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee , or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made , offered for sale , sold , or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee ; or Whoever marks upon , or affixes to , or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word " patent " or any word or number importing the same is patented , for the purpose of deceiving the public ; or Whoever marks upon , or affixes to , or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words " patent applied for , " " patent pending , " or any word importing that an application for patent has been made , when no application for patent has been made , or if made , is not pending , for the purpose of deceiving the public - Shall be fined not more than $ 500 for every such offense .
( b ) Any person may sue for the penalty , in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.Emphasis mine - you are wrong .
Please stop talking because you are n't a lawyer and god forbid someone will think you know something about this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stamping "Patent Pending" on a product has no legal effect.
It just makes you feel good.you have no idea what you are talking about.It is absolutely misleading and intentionally deceiving the public, and this is exactly what PCG is basing its claim on.
35 U.S.C.
292 False marking.
(a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word "patent" or any word or number importing the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public - Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.
(b) Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.Emphasis mine - you are wrong.
Please stop talking because you aren't a lawyer and god forbid someone will think you know something about this
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245468</id>
	<title>Something had to give...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266945780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people who play Guitar Hero don't realise that Konami (UUDDLRLRBABAStart?) did all of this guitar and drum game stuff almost 10 years before Activision with games called GuitarFreaks and DrumMania.</p><p>A few years back back when R0x0r Games, a company noted for making linux based games, decided to make their own DanceDanceRevolution knock-off game, titled 'In The Groove', they got sued by Konami. Since then, I believe they had to sell the ITG franchise off to a Korean company named Andimiro, who got away with making a DDR clone called 'Pump It Up' for years.</p><p>Konami was well ahead of everyone with patenting all of the technology for the various controllers. It's how they've been able to sue other game companies making these clone games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people who play Guitar Hero do n't realise that Konami ( UUDDLRLRBABAStart ?
) did all of this guitar and drum game stuff almost 10 years before Activision with games called GuitarFreaks and DrumMania.A few years back back when R0x0r Games , a company noted for making linux based games , decided to make their own DanceDanceRevolution knock-off game , titled 'In The Groove ' , they got sued by Konami .
Since then , I believe they had to sell the ITG franchise off to a Korean company named Andimiro , who got away with making a DDR clone called 'Pump It Up ' for years.Konami was well ahead of everyone with patenting all of the technology for the various controllers .
It 's how they 've been able to sue other game companies making these clone games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people who play Guitar Hero don't realise that Konami (UUDDLRLRBABAStart?
) did all of this guitar and drum game stuff almost 10 years before Activision with games called GuitarFreaks and DrumMania.A few years back back when R0x0r Games, a company noted for making linux based games, decided to make their own DanceDanceRevolution knock-off game, titled 'In The Groove', they got sued by Konami.
Since then, I believe they had to sell the ITG franchise off to a Korean company named Andimiro, who got away with making a DDR clone called 'Pump It Up' for years.Konami was well ahead of everyone with patenting all of the technology for the various controllers.
It's how they've been able to sue other game companies making these clone games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243504</id>
	<title>On behalf of some developer, possibly</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1266934980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, from what I can tell, EFFs purpose of suing isn't to line their own pockets, but to strike down invalid patents and patent claims because it stifles innovation.</p></div><p>How do you know the plaintiff in this case isn't acting on behalf of some video game developer that wants to make another guitar game?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , from what I can tell , EFFs purpose of suing is n't to line their own pockets , but to strike down invalid patents and patent claims because it stifles innovation.How do you know the plaintiff in this case is n't acting on behalf of some video game developer that wants to make another guitar game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, from what I can tell, EFFs purpose of suing isn't to line their own pockets, but to strike down invalid patents and patent claims because it stifles innovation.How do you know the plaintiff in this case isn't acting on behalf of some video game developer that wants to make another guitar game?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242864</id>
	<title>Hold On a Moment...</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1266929280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I <i>invented</i> trolling for false patent markings (patent pending).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I invented trolling for false patent markings ( patent pending ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I invented trolling for false patent markings (patent pending).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31257024</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they used ...</title>
	<author>drkim</author>
	<datestamp>1265105520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm looking forward to Harmonix new <i>"Patent Hero - Band"</i> in which you, and a group of friends, can simulate playing <i>"Patent Hero"</i>
<br> <br>
Sorry - I just can't help it sometimes...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to Harmonix new " Patent Hero - Band " in which you , and a group of friends , can simulate playing " Patent Hero " Sorry - I just ca n't help it sometimes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to Harmonix new "Patent Hero - Band" in which you, and a group of friends, can simulate playing "Patent Hero"
 
Sorry - I just can't help it sometimes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31266144</id>
	<title>Re:Hold On a Moment...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265112180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, tough shit, cause I invented invention itself! (Patent #3735928559.)</p><p>Oh, and green is house. Because I say so. Just as coocoo is tetracell white. Also because I say so. And I own you like a slave. Because I said so.</p><p>&lt;/delusional-&ldquo;IP&rdquo;-&ldquo;owner&rdquo;&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , tough shit , cause I invented invention itself !
( Patent # 3735928559 .
) Oh , and green is house .
Because I say so .
Just as coocoo is tetracell white .
Also because I say so .
And I own you like a slave .
Because I said so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, tough shit, cause I invented invention itself!
(Patent #3735928559.
)Oh, and green is house.
Because I say so.
Just as coocoo is tetracell white.
Also because I say so.
And I own you like a slave.
Because I said so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244824</id>
	<title>Re:If they're trolls, so are the EFF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266942420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>check this link: <a href="http://www.grayonclaims.com/home/2010/2/17/patent-marking-police-out-in-full-force.html" title="grayonclaims.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.grayonclaims.com/home/2010/2/17/patent-marking-police-out-in-full-force.html</a> [grayonclaims.com] <br>
or this link: <a href="http://www.grayonclaims.com/storage/MarkingPoliceVers4.pdf" title="grayonclaims.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.grayonclaims.com/storage/MarkingPoliceVers4.pdf</a> [grayonclaims.com] <br>
then you will see this is a separate issue than any of EFF's legal actions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>check this link : http : //www.grayonclaims.com/home/2010/2/17/patent-marking-police-out-in-full-force.html [ grayonclaims.com ] or this link : http : //www.grayonclaims.com/storage/MarkingPoliceVers4.pdf [ grayonclaims.com ] then you will see this is a separate issue than any of EFF 's legal actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>check this link: http://www.grayonclaims.com/home/2010/2/17/patent-marking-police-out-in-full-force.html [grayonclaims.com] 
or this link: http://www.grayonclaims.com/storage/MarkingPoliceVers4.pdf [grayonclaims.com] 
then you will see this is a separate issue than any of EFF's legal actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242888</id>
	<title>Someone zoned out...</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266929460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess someone in the patents-cubicle zoned out and forgot to follow up on his email properly..</p><p>"Oh those patents, yes, they're sent off..."<br>
"What are those patentnumbers, we need them for printing.."<br>
*searches inbox on 'patent issue'* "Here's a list, let me put it in excel for you.."<br>
"kthx!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess someone in the patents-cubicle zoned out and forgot to follow up on his email properly.. " Oh those patents , yes , they 're sent off... " " What are those patentnumbers , we need them for printing.. " * searches inbox on 'patent issue ' * " Here 's a list , let me put it in excel for you.. " " kthx ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess someone in the patents-cubicle zoned out and forgot to follow up on his email properly.."Oh those patents, yes, they're sent off..."
"What are those patentnumbers, we need them for printing.."
*searches inbox on 'patent issue'* "Here's a list, let me put it in excel for you.."
"kthx!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245486</id>
	<title>"Patent Pending" has no legal effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266945840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stamping "Patent Pending" on a product has no legal effect. It just makes you feel good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stamping " Patent Pending " on a product has no legal effect .
It just makes you feel good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stamping "Patent Pending" on a product has no legal effect.
It just makes you feel good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243904</id>
	<title>one or more</title>
	<author>CockMonster</author>
	<datestamp>1266937740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Covered by one or more of the following patents..."

seems to me they have their ass covered</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Covered by one or more of the following patents... " seems to me they have their ass covered</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Covered by one or more of the following patents..."

seems to me they have their ass covered</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243162</id>
	<title>What about software?</title>
	<author>idontusenumbers</author>
	<datestamp>1266931860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If hardware is required to have related patents listed on the product, shouldn't software need these markings? What a mess that would spell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If hardware is required to have related patents listed on the product , should n't software need these markings ?
What a mess that would spell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If hardware is required to have related patents listed on the product, shouldn't software need these markings?
What a mess that would spell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243820</id>
	<title>false patent marking troll?</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1266937140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they a 'false patent marking troll' for going after Activision?  Or is Activision the troll for covering their products with misleading patent information?  Or are they both trolls?  Seems like it should be some sort of patent regulatory body that prosecutes such things; what are they up to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they a 'false patent marking troll ' for going after Activision ?
Or is Activision the troll for covering their products with misleading patent information ?
Or are they both trolls ?
Seems like it should be some sort of patent regulatory body that prosecutes such things ; what are they up to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they a 'false patent marking troll' for going after Activision?
Or is Activision the troll for covering their products with misleading patent information?
Or are they both trolls?
Seems like it should be some sort of patent regulatory body that prosecutes such things; what are they up to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243332</id>
	<title>Re:If they're trolls, so are the EFF</title>
	<author>arth1</author>
	<datestamp>1266933840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So what's the big difference between a "false patent marking troll" and EFF?</p></div></blockquote><p>EFF doesn't file in Eastern Texas.  In my opinion, <i>anyone</i> who files for a case related to patents and copyrights in Easter Texas does it to take advantage of the sham court system they have established there.</p><p>Also, from what I can tell, EFFs purpose of suing isn't to line their own pockets, but to strike down invalid patents and patent claims because it stifles innovation.  That difference in intent is striking, isn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's the big difference between a " false patent marking troll " and EFF ? EFF does n't file in Eastern Texas .
In my opinion , anyone who files for a case related to patents and copyrights in Easter Texas does it to take advantage of the sham court system they have established there.Also , from what I can tell , EFFs purpose of suing is n't to line their own pockets , but to strike down invalid patents and patent claims because it stifles innovation .
That difference in intent is striking , is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's the big difference between a "false patent marking troll" and EFF?EFF doesn't file in Eastern Texas.
In my opinion, anyone who files for a case related to patents and copyrights in Easter Texas does it to take advantage of the sham court system they have established there.Also, from what I can tell, EFFs purpose of suing isn't to line their own pockets, but to strike down invalid patents and patent claims because it stifles innovation.
That difference in intent is striking, isn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31246856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31256228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31257024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31266144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31254046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_23_0656238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31257024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31246890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31244702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31266144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31245486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31254046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31256228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_23_0656238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31242990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31243684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_23_0656238.31246856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
