<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_24_1325219</id>
	<title>Xerox Sues Google, Yahoo Over Search Patents</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1267031640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>gnosygnus writes <i>"<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100223/wr\_nm/us\_xerox\_google">Xerox Corp has sued Google, Inc. and Yahoo, Inc.</a>, accusing them of infringing the document management company's patents related to Internet search. In a lawsuit filed last Friday in the US District Court in Delaware, Xerox said Google's Web-based services, such as Google Maps, YouTube and AdSense advertising software, as well as Web tools including Yahoo Shopping, infringe patents granted as far back as 2001. Xerox seeks compensation for past infringement and asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>gnosygnus writes " Xerox Corp has sued Google , Inc. and Yahoo , Inc. , accusing them of infringing the document management company 's patents related to Internet search .
In a lawsuit filed last Friday in the US District Court in Delaware , Xerox said Google 's Web-based services , such as Google Maps , YouTube and AdSense advertising software , as well as Web tools including Yahoo Shopping , infringe patents granted as far back as 2001 .
Xerox seeks compensation for past infringement and asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gnosygnus writes "Xerox Corp has sued Google, Inc. and Yahoo, Inc., accusing them of infringing the document management company's patents related to Internet search.
In a lawsuit filed last Friday in the US District Court in Delaware, Xerox said Google's Web-based services, such as Google Maps, YouTube and AdSense advertising software, as well as Web tools including Yahoo Shopping, infringe patents granted as far back as 2001.
Xerox seeks compensation for past infringement and asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261432</id>
	<title>Xerox Gets a Pass</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1265135340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given their contributions to the PC, I'm giving them a pass on this one. Cut them a check and send them on their way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given their contributions to the PC , I 'm giving them a pass on this one .
Cut them a check and send them on their way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given their contributions to the PC, I'm giving them a pass on this one.
Cut them a check and send them on their way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263312</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone help?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In USA it's normal practice to patent everything. Get used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In USA it 's normal practice to patent everything .
Get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In USA it's normal practice to patent everything.
Get used to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264146</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265103600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad they never pushed any of that great tech out the door. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad they never pushed any of that great tech out the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad they never pushed any of that great tech out the door. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262324</id>
	<title>What?!?!?</title>
	<author>iceT</author>
	<datestamp>1265138640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No Bing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No Bing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Bing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265028</id>
	<title>Re:Do you just say that every time?</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1265107260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no patent infringement, but XEROX is looking for an easy settlement to fatten the piggy bank.</p></div><p>I think that if you're looking for an <i>easy</i> way to get cash, <i>you don't sue a company made up of nearly nothing but PhDs</i> over <i>technology</i>.  Personally, if I were a CEO looking to spend $10m on an easy way to get cash, I'd invest $1m every month in the Powerball lottery.  I'd probably come out ahead when compared with using it as a war chest against Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no patent infringement , but XEROX is looking for an easy settlement to fatten the piggy bank.I think that if you 're looking for an easy way to get cash , you do n't sue a company made up of nearly nothing but PhDs over technology .
Personally , if I were a CEO looking to spend $ 10m on an easy way to get cash , I 'd invest $ 1m every month in the Powerball lottery .
I 'd probably come out ahead when compared with using it as a war chest against Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no patent infringement, but XEROX is looking for an easy settlement to fatten the piggy bank.I think that if you're looking for an easy way to get cash, you don't sue a company made up of nearly nothing but PhDs over technology.
Personally, if I were a CEO looking to spend $10m on an easy way to get cash, I'd invest $1m every month in the Powerball lottery.
I'd probably come out ahead when compared with using it as a war chest against Google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265854</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1265110560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It took a couple years to figure out that Google was the king of internet search, and Yahoo his chambermaid?  Or it took a couple years to drum up something that looks like it may possibly considered infringing if you look at it "just so"?</p><p>I can't really buy the first possibility, and the patents sound generic enough to cover most anything they'd have done.</p><p>Google has been around a long, long time - three years (the period of their application prior to approval) is more than enough time to find something infringing about Google's search, and another six years to negotiate? Seriously?  I call BS on the whole thing, and I hope the claim gets slapped down via laches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It took a couple years to figure out that Google was the king of internet search , and Yahoo his chambermaid ?
Or it took a couple years to drum up something that looks like it may possibly considered infringing if you look at it " just so " ? I ca n't really buy the first possibility , and the patents sound generic enough to cover most anything they 'd have done.Google has been around a long , long time - three years ( the period of their application prior to approval ) is more than enough time to find something infringing about Google 's search , and another six years to negotiate ?
Seriously ? I call BS on the whole thing , and I hope the claim gets slapped down via laches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took a couple years to figure out that Google was the king of internet search, and Yahoo his chambermaid?
Or it took a couple years to drum up something that looks like it may possibly considered infringing if you look at it "just so"?I can't really buy the first possibility, and the patents sound generic enough to cover most anything they'd have done.Google has been around a long, long time - three years (the period of their application prior to approval) is more than enough time to find something infringing about Google's search, and another six years to negotiate?
Seriously?  I call BS on the whole thing, and I hope the claim gets slapped down via laches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Xerox have done a lot of innovation in the past, particularly at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox\_Parc" title="wikipedia.org">Xerox PARC</a> [wikipedia.org]. They practically invented the GUI.
<br> <br>
So although their claim might be a little... erm... aggressive, don't be too quick to dismiss them as a mere patent troll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Xerox have done a lot of innovation in the past , particularly at Xerox PARC [ wikipedia.org ] .
They practically invented the GUI .
So although their claim might be a little... erm... aggressive , do n't be too quick to dismiss them as a mere patent troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xerox have done a lot of innovation in the past, particularly at Xerox PARC [wikipedia.org].
They practically invented the GUI.
So although their claim might be a little... erm... aggressive, don't be too quick to dismiss them as a mere patent troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262300</id>
	<title>"Xerox sues someone for copying?"</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265138520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still one of the best headlines ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still one of the best headlines ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still one of the best headlines ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261592</id>
	<title>Re:Xerox Gets a Pass</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1265135880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to edit that sig.<br>There are 42 million people in slavery worldwide right now, and communism is alive and well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to edit that sig.There are 42 million people in slavery worldwide right now , and communism is alive and well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to edit that sig.There are 42 million people in slavery worldwide right now, and communism is alive and well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261748</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone help?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, since Xerox invented practically everything, that would make sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since Xerox invented practically everything , that would make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since Xerox invented practically everything, that would make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262164</id>
	<title>Re:So you are saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no... They xeroxed xerox.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no... They xeroxed xerox .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no... They xeroxed xerox.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261460</id>
	<title>Re:Timeframe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably tried to actually find something using Bing and decided they wouldn't have a case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably tried to actually find something using Bing and decided they would n't have a case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably tried to actually find something using Bing and decided they wouldn't have a case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31266892</id>
	<title>Re:Xerox won't win</title>
	<author>rollingcalf</author>
	<datestamp>1265116800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"If you knowingly let infringers make use of your IP so you can sue them when they're worth something, you lose the ability to enforce your patent."</i></p><p>Not entirely.  You lose the right to sue for past infringement, but you can still successfully sue for infringement that occurs after you've warned the infringing parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you knowingly let infringers make use of your IP so you can sue them when they 're worth something , you lose the ability to enforce your patent .
" Not entirely .
You lose the right to sue for past infringement , but you can still successfully sue for infringement that occurs after you 've warned the infringing parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you knowingly let infringers make use of your IP so you can sue them when they're worth something, you lose the ability to enforce your patent.
"Not entirely.
You lose the right to sue for past infringement, but you can still successfully sue for infringement that occurs after you've warned the infringing parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262688</id>
	<title>mod down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Beyond the scope of do, or indeed what I read the latest overly morbid and a popular 'news AsSOCIATION OF The fruitless of the GNAA I racist?  How is has significantly irc network. The Get tough. I hope SAID. 'SCREAMING how it was supposed troubled OS. Now am protesting website Third, you gains market share sales and so on, number of FreeBSD flaws in the BSD 'first poSt' formed his own gone Romeo and with THOUSANDS of Need to join the other members in In addition, of BSD/OS. A GNAA (GAY NIGGER in the sun. In the in posting a GNAA shout the loudest base for FreeBSD eyes on the real the same operation codebase became Windows, SUN or</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beyond the scope of do , or indeed what I read the latest overly morbid and a popular 'news AsSOCIATION OF The fruitless of the GNAA I racist ?
How is has significantly irc network .
The Get tough .
I hope SAID .
'SCREAMING how it was supposed troubled OS .
Now am protesting website Third , you gains market share sales and so on , number of FreeBSD flaws in the BSD 'first poSt ' formed his own gone Romeo and with THOUSANDS of Need to join the other members in In addition , of BSD/OS .
A GNAA ( GAY NIGGER in the sun .
In the in posting a GNAA shout the loudest base for FreeBSD eyes on the real the same operation codebase became Windows , SUN or</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beyond the scope of do, or indeed what I read the latest overly morbid and a popular 'news AsSOCIATION OF The fruitless of the GNAA I racist?
How is has significantly irc network.
The Get tough.
I hope SAID.
'SCREAMING how it was supposed troubled OS.
Now am protesting website Third, you gains market share sales and so on, number of FreeBSD flaws in the BSD 'first poSt' formed his own gone Romeo and with THOUSANDS of Need to join the other members in In addition, of BSD/OS.
A GNAA (GAY NIGGER in the sun.
In the in posting a GNAA shout the loudest base for FreeBSD eyes on the real the same operation codebase became Windows, SUN or</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31266064</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265111700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's taken us also 3 years to take an idea and turn it into a viable product.  If we were to use your patent system, all that hard work would have been for not, because just as we got ready to start selling it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's taken us also 3 years to take an idea and turn it into a viable product .
If we were to use your patent system , all that hard work would have been for not , because just as we got ready to start selling it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's taken us also 3 years to take an idea and turn it into a viable product.
If we were to use your patent system, all that hard work would have been for not, because just as we got ready to start selling it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261518</id>
	<title>Re:Xerox Gets a Pass</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1265135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is the one who screwed them the most regarding their contributions to the PC yet that is one of the search engines that is not being targeted.</p><p>I'd say the pass is revoked.</p><p>If they were merely screwing over those who screwed them over I would agree, but that does not appear to be the case here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is the one who screwed them the most regarding their contributions to the PC yet that is one of the search engines that is not being targeted.I 'd say the pass is revoked.If they were merely screwing over those who screwed them over I would agree , but that does not appear to be the case here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is the one who screwed them the most regarding their contributions to the PC yet that is one of the search engines that is not being targeted.I'd say the pass is revoked.If they were merely screwing over those who screwed them over I would agree, but that does not appear to be the case here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262444</id>
	<title>Time Frames</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1265139180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should definately put shorter time frames on these.  Go after them when they are small, and you never have to worry about them continuing to use your patent.
<br> <br>
Wait until they make millions or billions instead of taking care of it when you knew this happened: then you are just after money.
<br> <br>
Sure, companies need to put their foot down so that other companies do not walk all over the patents, but when you wait almost 9 years to fo anything for some of these, than obviously you are not caring that much about your patents for allowing another company to use it for that long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should definately put shorter time frames on these .
Go after them when they are small , and you never have to worry about them continuing to use your patent .
Wait until they make millions or billions instead of taking care of it when you knew this happened : then you are just after money .
Sure , companies need to put their foot down so that other companies do not walk all over the patents , but when you wait almost 9 years to fo anything for some of these , than obviously you are not caring that much about your patents for allowing another company to use it for that long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should definately put shorter time frames on these.
Go after them when they are small, and you never have to worry about them continuing to use your patent.
Wait until they make millions or billions instead of taking care of it when you knew this happened: then you are just after money.
Sure, companies need to put their foot down so that other companies do not walk all over the patents, but when you wait almost 9 years to fo anything for some of these, than obviously you are not caring that much about your patents for allowing another company to use it for that long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262038</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after discovery of infringement (maybe a couple years after the event), they could have attempted to come to an agreement with both entities. Negotiation might have broken down and now the patent holder's last recourse is an infringement suit.</p><p>Wouldn't be the first time that series of events occurred, especially when multiple patent-lawyer-loaded parties are involved, and it would create a legitimate delay before filing suit.</p><p>Be interesting to see what the details actually were, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after discovery of infringement ( maybe a couple years after the event ) , they could have attempted to come to an agreement with both entities .
Negotiation might have broken down and now the patent holder 's last recourse is an infringement suit.Would n't be the first time that series of events occurred , especially when multiple patent-lawyer-loaded parties are involved , and it would create a legitimate delay before filing suit.Be interesting to see what the details actually were , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after discovery of infringement (maybe a couple years after the event), they could have attempted to come to an agreement with both entities.
Negotiation might have broken down and now the patent holder's last recourse is an infringement suit.Wouldn't be the first time that series of events occurred, especially when multiple patent-lawyer-loaded parties are involved, and it would create a legitimate delay before filing suit.Be interesting to see what the details actually were, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264040</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>BatGnat</author>
	<datestamp>1265103060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.<br> <br>No we know that XEROX actually created Dr Evils clone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>we want ..... ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS .
No we know that XEROX actually created Dr Evils clone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we want ..... ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.
No we know that XEROX actually created Dr Evils clone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262186</id>
	<title>I'm fine with it if they sue facebook, myspace...</title>
	<author>Sleeping Kirby</author>
	<datestamp>1265138160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>any and all podcast grabbers, twitter, flicker, friendster, eharmony... let's see... what other social/popular sites do people keep tell me to join....

There needs to be a law where if you are going to sue for tech patent infringement, you need to sue all the companies that have infringed at once or none at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>any and all podcast grabbers , twitter , flicker , friendster , eharmony... let 's see... what other social/popular sites do people keep tell me to join... . There needs to be a law where if you are going to sue for tech patent infringement , you need to sue all the companies that have infringed at once or none at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>any and all podcast grabbers, twitter, flicker, friendster, eharmony... let's see... what other social/popular sites do people keep tell me to join....

There needs to be a law where if you are going to sue for tech patent infringement, you need to sue all the companies that have infringed at once or none at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262344</id>
	<title>In this thread:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Xerox demonstrates very clearly and loudly, after the fashion of patent trolls worldwide, that as a company they realize <i>they are no longer relevant</i>, and seek to rectify the situation. Translation: Xerox has become an attention whore. <b>Memo to Xerox:</b> you might have better luck with camwhoring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Xerox demonstrates very clearly and loudly , after the fashion of patent trolls worldwide , that as a company they realize they are no longer relevant , and seek to rectify the situation .
Translation : Xerox has become an attention whore .
Memo to Xerox : you might have better luck with camwhoring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xerox demonstrates very clearly and loudly, after the fashion of patent trolls worldwide, that as a company they realize they are no longer relevant, and seek to rectify the situation.
Translation: Xerox has become an attention whore.
Memo to Xerox: you might have better luck with camwhoring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264742</id>
	<title>Re:So you are saying</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1265106060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox???</p></div><p>I find all these xerography jokes rather dry...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox ? ?
? I find all these xerography jokes rather dry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox??
?I find all these xerography jokes rather dry...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265374</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1265108640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides the things you have mentioned, here are a couple of others:</p><p>1. A patent holder pays legal costs policy. If you want to sue someone over a an artificial and probably defective government granted monopoly, you should pay reasonable legal costs for their defense, <em>up front</em>. Then if you win, you get those costs refunded as part of the judgment.</p><p>2. Mandatory licensing. No patent holder should be allowed to refuse to license a patent under reasonable and non discriminatory terms.  Mandatory arbitration to establish what is "reasonable".</p><p>3. Cost recovery.  All patent submissions should be required to include documented research and development costs associated with the invention.  Then cost recovery from <em>all parties</em> should be limited to <em>twice</em> the research and development costs plus $10,000.  As soon as the licensing fees exceed that amount, the patent should go into the public domain.</p><p>Both the patent office and the courts should have the ability to review and discount dubious research and development cost claims.  We are talking about an artificial, government granted monopoly to something that is not naturally "property" after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the things you have mentioned , here are a couple of others : 1 .
A patent holder pays legal costs policy .
If you want to sue someone over a an artificial and probably defective government granted monopoly , you should pay reasonable legal costs for their defense , up front .
Then if you win , you get those costs refunded as part of the judgment.2 .
Mandatory licensing .
No patent holder should be allowed to refuse to license a patent under reasonable and non discriminatory terms .
Mandatory arbitration to establish what is " reasonable " .3 .
Cost recovery .
All patent submissions should be required to include documented research and development costs associated with the invention .
Then cost recovery from all parties should be limited to twice the research and development costs plus $ 10,000 .
As soon as the licensing fees exceed that amount , the patent should go into the public domain.Both the patent office and the courts should have the ability to review and discount dubious research and development cost claims .
We are talking about an artificial , government granted monopoly to something that is not naturally " property " after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the things you have mentioned, here are a couple of others:1.
A patent holder pays legal costs policy.
If you want to sue someone over a an artificial and probably defective government granted monopoly, you should pay reasonable legal costs for their defense, up front.
Then if you win, you get those costs refunded as part of the judgment.2.
Mandatory licensing.
No patent holder should be allowed to refuse to license a patent under reasonable and non discriminatory terms.
Mandatory arbitration to establish what is "reasonable".3.
Cost recovery.
All patent submissions should be required to include documented research and development costs associated with the invention.
Then cost recovery from all parties should be limited to twice the research and development costs plus $10,000.
As soon as the licensing fees exceed that amount, the patent should go into the public domain.Both the patent office and the courts should have the ability to review and discount dubious research and development cost claims.
We are talking about an artificial, government granted monopoly to something that is not naturally "property" after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261472</id>
	<title>Re:So you are saying</title>
	<author>The Clockwork Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1265135460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dupe post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dupe post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dupe post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261602</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone help?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhat ironically, Google offers information on these patents - <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6778979" title="google.com">number 1</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6236994" title="google.com">number 2</a> [google.com].  Here's <a href="http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/02/24/xerox-sues-google-yahoo/1" title="bit-tech.net">a more substantive article.</a> [bit-tech.net]  <br> <br>The bigger question is why not sue MSFT &amp;  as well - they're doing everything Yahoo &amp; Google does.  Perhaps Microsoft has many other patents they could use to retaliate against Xerox, something Google &amp; Yahoo are a bit lighter on.  Given these patents are more than a decade old, could Google &amp; Yahoo make some sort of laches defense?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhat ironically , Google offers information on these patents - number 1 [ google.com ] and number 2 [ google.com ] .
Here 's a more substantive article .
[ bit-tech.net ] The bigger question is why not sue MSFT &amp; as well - they 're doing everything Yahoo &amp; Google does .
Perhaps Microsoft has many other patents they could use to retaliate against Xerox , something Google &amp; Yahoo are a bit lighter on .
Given these patents are more than a decade old , could Google &amp; Yahoo make some sort of laches defense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhat ironically, Google offers information on these patents - number 1 [google.com] and number 2 [google.com].
Here's a more substantive article.
[bit-tech.net]   The bigger question is why not sue MSFT &amp;  as well - they're doing everything Yahoo &amp; Google does.
Perhaps Microsoft has many other patents they could use to retaliate against Xerox, something Google &amp; Yahoo are a bit lighter on.
Given these patents are more than a decade old, could Google &amp; Yahoo make some sort of laches defense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261448</id>
	<title>How do I get in on this?</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1265135400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Google, Yahoo, and anyone else who has more money than I do. I would like some of your money. Please give me some money or I will have to sue you for it. Thank you and have a nice day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Google , Yahoo , and anyone else who has more money than I do .
I would like some of your money .
Please give me some money or I will have to sue you for it .
Thank you and have a nice day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Google, Yahoo, and anyone else who has more money than I do.
I would like some of your money.
Please give me some money or I will have to sue you for it.
Thank you and have a nice day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261326</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo and Google used a Xerox copier to take a copy of the technology for themselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo and Google used a Xerox copier to take a copy of the technology for themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo and Google used a Xerox copier to take a copy of the technology for themselves?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262474</id>
	<title>Oh no. Here I go again...</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1265139300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I'm going to have to sue Xerox for violating my patent for the business process of how to make money from companies using ridiculous patent infringement lawsuits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I 'm going to have to sue Xerox for violating my patent for the business process of how to make money from companies using ridiculous patent infringement lawsuits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I'm going to have to sue Xerox for violating my patent for the business process of how to make money from companies using ridiculous patent infringement lawsuits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262138</id>
	<title>Go Xerox !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much for the Google's "DO NO EVIL".</p><p>You better backup your Google "docs".</p><p>Yours In <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L-Ymv\_PbX8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Vladivostok</a> [youtube.com],<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for the Google 's " DO NO EVIL " .You better backup your Google " docs " .Yours In Vladivostok [ youtube.com ] ,K. Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for the Google's "DO NO EVIL".You better backup your Google "docs".Yours In Vladivostok [youtube.com],K. Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264354</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265104560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a small problem with your 1-3 year limit on patents.  Certain things (like pharmaceutical products) have a set of regulatory requirements to fulfill before they are allowed on the market.  These requirements are impossible to fulfill in 1-3 years' time.  These requirements also can require hundreds of millions of dollars in investment just to meet. This doesn't include the money required to discover/invent the product in the first place.  A company needs time to first develop and get these products to market, as well as time to sell them in order to recover an investment.</p><p>Now, if we take your plan and modify the regulatory environment too... that may work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a small problem with your 1-3 year limit on patents .
Certain things ( like pharmaceutical products ) have a set of regulatory requirements to fulfill before they are allowed on the market .
These requirements are impossible to fulfill in 1-3 years ' time .
These requirements also can require hundreds of millions of dollars in investment just to meet .
This does n't include the money required to discover/invent the product in the first place .
A company needs time to first develop and get these products to market , as well as time to sell them in order to recover an investment.Now , if we take your plan and modify the regulatory environment too... that may work ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a small problem with your 1-3 year limit on patents.
Certain things (like pharmaceutical products) have a set of regulatory requirements to fulfill before they are allowed on the market.
These requirements are impossible to fulfill in 1-3 years' time.
These requirements also can require hundreds of millions of dollars in investment just to meet.
This doesn't include the money required to discover/invent the product in the first place.
A company needs time to first develop and get these products to market, as well as time to sell them in order to recover an investment.Now, if we take your plan and modify the regulatory environment too... that may work ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261966</id>
	<title>Re:Remember when PARC actually invented stuff?</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad management at PARC were too retarded to profit from what the guys (and gals) there invented (they were 10 years ahead)</p><p>researchers: "We've invented the GUI, OO programming, etc, etc"<br>managers "hurr durr durr what's that hurrrr"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad management at PARC were too retarded to profit from what the guys ( and gals ) there invented ( they were 10 years ahead ) researchers : " We 've invented the GUI , OO programming , etc , etc " managers " hurr durr durr what 's that hurrrr "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad management at PARC were too retarded to profit from what the guys (and gals) there invented (they were 10 years ahead)researchers: "We've invented the GUI, OO programming, etc, etc"managers "hurr durr durr what's that hurrrr"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261298</id>
	<title>Real Goal: Cross-Licensing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess is that Xerox isn't looking for any big payout, but rather some kind of cross-licensing deal for patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that Xerox is n't looking for any big payout , but rather some kind of cross-licensing deal for patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that Xerox isn't looking for any big payout, but rather some kind of cross-licensing deal for patents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260</id>
	<title>Can someone help?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone have a link to this patent? The summary fails to accurately describe what it is they patented - though the impression I get is... Practically Everything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have a link to this patent ?
The summary fails to accurately describe what it is they patented - though the impression I get is... Practically Everything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have a link to this patent?
The summary fails to accurately describe what it is they patented - though the impression I get is... Practically Everything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261564</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone help?</title>
	<author>BuddyT</author>
	<datestamp>1265135760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6778979" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6778979</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/patents ? vid = USPAT6778979 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6778979 [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Rob Y.</author>
	<datestamp>1265138400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...They practically invented the GUI. </i> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and if they'd be able to patent it, we'd still all be running DOS, since Xerox never came out with a GUI product.  Such is the power of software patents to drive innovation (into the ground).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...They practically invented the GUI .
...and if they 'd be able to patent it , we 'd still all be running DOS , since Xerox never came out with a GUI product .
Such is the power of software patents to drive innovation ( into the ground ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...They practically invented the GUI.
...and if they'd be able to patent it, we'd still all be running DOS, since Xerox never came out with a GUI product.
Such is the power of software patents to drive innovation (into the ground).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261540</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1265135700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And once upon a time SCO was a respectable Unix vendor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And once upon a time SCO was a respectable Unix vendor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And once upon a time SCO was a respectable Unix vendor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261654</id>
	<title>does Darl McBride work there now?</title>
	<author>doubleyou</author>
	<datestamp>1265136120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice to see Darl McBride landed on his feet and got a job working for Xerox.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>Seriously, is this the litmus test for tech companies that are circling the drain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to see Darl McBride landed on his feet and got a job working for Xerox .
: -PSeriously , is this the litmus test for tech companies that are circling the drain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to see Darl McBride landed on his feet and got a job working for Xerox.
:-PSeriously, is this the litmus test for tech companies that are circling the drain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262072</id>
	<title>Re:Do you just say that every time?</title>
	<author>calibre-not-output</author>
	<datestamp>1265137680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers</p></div><p>
This fits closely. Besides, why did they wait 10 years to file this suit? I'll tell you why: There is no patent infringement, but XEROX is looking for an easy settlement to fatten the piggy bank.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers This fits closely .
Besides , why did they wait 10 years to file this suit ?
I 'll tell you why : There is no patent infringement , but XEROX is looking for an easy settlement to fatten the piggy bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers
This fits closely.
Besides, why did they wait 10 years to file this suit?
I'll tell you why: There is no patent infringement, but XEROX is looking for an easy settlement to fatten the piggy bank.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263756</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>greenbird</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll go so far as to say I think patents could solve much of the trouble we are currently having pulling our selves/society in to the digital information age.</p></div><p>Arcane patent and copyright laws are the major obstacles preventing society's move into the digital age. I dare say they're a major contributing factor to the current economic situation. Instead of society being able to embrace new efficiencies they're are being tied up in legal fees and monopolies rents. The music industry is the perfect example. Technology allows for a way to reduce the distribution cost of music to almost nothing and instead of embracing this tremendous new efficiency they fight it tooth and nail. Pretty much any software project of any significance is going to violate multiple patents in a system where linked lists can be patented. Just think of where we'd be if they had started issuing similar software patents in the 60's.</p><p>The only hope is instituting a independent invention defense that invalidates the patent do to obviousness. If someone, or especially more than one someone, comes up with the same idea you patented independently I'd say it pretty much proves the idea was obvious to someone skilled in the art. Just because your the first one to do something that advances in technology have made possible doesn't mean it isn't obvious and wouldn't have have occurred a week or 2 later if you'd been hit by a truck. it certainly shouldn't give you monopoly rents for what is in essence eternity in terms of technological advancement. Just think of where the tech industry was 17 years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll go so far as to say I think patents could solve much of the trouble we are currently having pulling our selves/society in to the digital information age.Arcane patent and copyright laws are the major obstacles preventing society 's move into the digital age .
I dare say they 're a major contributing factor to the current economic situation .
Instead of society being able to embrace new efficiencies they 're are being tied up in legal fees and monopolies rents .
The music industry is the perfect example .
Technology allows for a way to reduce the distribution cost of music to almost nothing and instead of embracing this tremendous new efficiency they fight it tooth and nail .
Pretty much any software project of any significance is going to violate multiple patents in a system where linked lists can be patented .
Just think of where we 'd be if they had started issuing similar software patents in the 60 's.The only hope is instituting a independent invention defense that invalidates the patent do to obviousness .
If someone , or especially more than one someone , comes up with the same idea you patented independently I 'd say it pretty much proves the idea was obvious to someone skilled in the art .
Just because your the first one to do something that advances in technology have made possible does n't mean it is n't obvious and would n't have have occurred a week or 2 later if you 'd been hit by a truck .
it certainly should n't give you monopoly rents for what is in essence eternity in terms of technological advancement .
Just think of where the tech industry was 17 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll go so far as to say I think patents could solve much of the trouble we are currently having pulling our selves/society in to the digital information age.Arcane patent and copyright laws are the major obstacles preventing society's move into the digital age.
I dare say they're a major contributing factor to the current economic situation.
Instead of society being able to embrace new efficiencies they're are being tied up in legal fees and monopolies rents.
The music industry is the perfect example.
Technology allows for a way to reduce the distribution cost of music to almost nothing and instead of embracing this tremendous new efficiency they fight it tooth and nail.
Pretty much any software project of any significance is going to violate multiple patents in a system where linked lists can be patented.
Just think of where we'd be if they had started issuing similar software patents in the 60's.The only hope is instituting a independent invention defense that invalidates the patent do to obviousness.
If someone, or especially more than one someone, comes up with the same idea you patented independently I'd say it pretty much proves the idea was obvious to someone skilled in the art.
Just because your the first one to do something that advances in technology have made possible doesn't mean it isn't obvious and wouldn't have have occurred a week or 2 later if you'd been hit by a truck.
it certainly shouldn't give you monopoly rents for what is in essence eternity in terms of technological advancement.
Just think of where the tech industry was 17 years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261480</id>
	<title>Delaware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They filed in Delaware?  Don't they know all suits like this seem to be required to be filed in East Texas!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They filed in Delaware ?
Do n't they know all suits like this seem to be required to be filed in East Texas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They filed in Delaware?
Don't they know all suits like this seem to be required to be filed in East Texas!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264296</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>klossner</author>
	<datestamp>1265104260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Xerox never came out with a GUI product</p></div><p>The first Xerox GUI product was the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox\_Star" title="wikipedia.org">Xerox Star</a> [wikipedia.org] in 1981.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Xerox never came out with a GUI productThe first Xerox GUI product was the Xerox Star [ wikipedia.org ] in 1981 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xerox never came out with a GUI productThe first Xerox GUI product was the Xerox Star [wikipedia.org] in 1981.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261494</id>
	<title>Links</title>
	<author>trancemission</author>
	<datestamp>1265135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Suit: <br> <br> <a href="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/pdfs/1main.pdf" title="com.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [com.com] <br>
<br>
Possible patents:<br> <br>
<a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=6,778,979.PN.&amp;OS=PN/6,778,979&amp;RS=PN/6,778,979" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow"> System for automatically generating queries </a> [uspto.gov] <br>

<a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;d=PALL&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsrchnum.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;s1=6,236,994.PN.&amp;OS=PN/6,236,994&amp;RS=PN/6,236,994" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow"> Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge </a> [uspto.gov] <br> <br> <br>
Lifted from <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/xerox\_sues\_google\_yahoo/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">the register</a> [theregister.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suit : here [ com.com ] Possible patents : System for automatically generating queries [ uspto.gov ] Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge [ uspto.gov ] Lifted from the register [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suit:   here [com.com] 

Possible patents: 
 System for automatically generating queries  [uspto.gov] 

 Method and apparatus for the integration of information and knowledge  [uspto.gov]   
Lifted from the register [theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262548</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265139600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Xerox has done a lot of innovating.  They have also quite famously totally failed to properly DO anything with the things they've created.  We could have had something akin to Java a lot earlier in the form of Smalltalk-80.  Xerox in their "wisdom" decided to charge a king's ransom for it forever enshrining it in it's ivory tower.  It took Apple, Microsoft and Amiga, Inc to bring the windowed interface to the world, despite Xerox having the working system right in front of them (again, in the form of Smalltalk-80).</p><p>So Xerox missed the boat...nay, the entire 20 year revolution of home computers and business computing without so much as a "duh?"  Guess there's not much left to do but become the next great patent troll, now that SCO is out of the picture.  See Bing in that lawsuit anywhere?  Of course not...look not behind the curtain, mortal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Xerox has done a lot of innovating .
They have also quite famously totally failed to properly DO anything with the things they 've created .
We could have had something akin to Java a lot earlier in the form of Smalltalk-80 .
Xerox in their " wisdom " decided to charge a king 's ransom for it forever enshrining it in it 's ivory tower .
It took Apple , Microsoft and Amiga , Inc to bring the windowed interface to the world , despite Xerox having the working system right in front of them ( again , in the form of Smalltalk-80 ) .So Xerox missed the boat...nay , the entire 20 year revolution of home computers and business computing without so much as a " duh ?
" Guess there 's not much left to do but become the next great patent troll , now that SCO is out of the picture .
See Bing in that lawsuit anywhere ?
Of course not...look not behind the curtain , mortal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xerox has done a lot of innovating.
They have also quite famously totally failed to properly DO anything with the things they've created.
We could have had something akin to Java a lot earlier in the form of Smalltalk-80.
Xerox in their "wisdom" decided to charge a king's ransom for it forever enshrining it in it's ivory tower.
It took Apple, Microsoft and Amiga, Inc to bring the windowed interface to the world, despite Xerox having the working system right in front of them (again, in the form of Smalltalk-80).So Xerox missed the boat...nay, the entire 20 year revolution of home computers and business computing without so much as a "duh?
"  Guess there's not much left to do but become the next great patent troll, now that SCO is out of the picture.
See Bing in that lawsuit anywhere?
Of course not...look not behind the curtain, mortal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31267378</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't Google just buy Xerox and be done with it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't Google just buy Xerox and be done with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't Google just buy Xerox and be done with it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262150</id>
	<title>Re:Xerox Gets a Pass</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1265137980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not cutting them any slack.  Roughly 7+ years to determine if they're infringing and not enforcing their rights is a bit beyond the pale and is very probably subject to equitable estoppel out of the gate.  They very probably shouldn't have ran this one up the flagpole in the first place- and it's very, very patent-trolly.  Patent trolls do not get an out no matter what their past contributions might have been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not cutting them any slack .
Roughly 7 + years to determine if they 're infringing and not enforcing their rights is a bit beyond the pale and is very probably subject to equitable estoppel out of the gate .
They very probably should n't have ran this one up the flagpole in the first place- and it 's very , very patent-trolly .
Patent trolls do not get an out no matter what their past contributions might have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not cutting them any slack.
Roughly 7+ years to determine if they're infringing and not enforcing their rights is a bit beyond the pale and is very probably subject to equitable estoppel out of the gate.
They very probably shouldn't have ran this one up the flagpole in the first place- and it's very, very patent-trolly.
Patent trolls do not get an out no matter what their past contributions might have been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262624</id>
	<title>How will Xerox get to the court?</title>
	<author>coryodaniel</author>
	<datestamp>1265139960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My bets that they'll use google maps. Any takers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My bets that they 'll use google maps .
Any takers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My bets that they'll use google maps.
Any takers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264352</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>Jaykul</author>
	<datestamp>1265104500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1-3 years? Yeah right. Even in software that's nowhere near long enough to protect you from the Microsoft's, Google's and Yahoo!s of the world.

I mean, sure, if you're a Fortune 500 company, you can probably get a <em>software</em> product to market in under 18 months and still have a year or two to try and promote it and get people using it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but for the garage inventor they're supposed to protect, a 3 year patent is just an insult.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1-3 years ?
Yeah right .
Even in software that 's nowhere near long enough to protect you from the Microsoft 's , Google 's and Yahoo ! s of the world .
I mean , sure , if you 're a Fortune 500 company , you can probably get a software product to market in under 18 months and still have a year or two to try and promote it and get people using it ... but for the garage inventor they 're supposed to protect , a 3 year patent is just an insult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1-3 years?
Yeah right.
Even in software that's nowhere near long enough to protect you from the Microsoft's, Google's and Yahoo!s of the world.
I mean, sure, if you're a Fortune 500 company, you can probably get a software product to market in under 18 months and still have a year or two to try and promote it and get people using it ... but for the garage inventor they're supposed to protect, a 3 year patent is just an insult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261372</id>
	<title>Timeframe</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1265135040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long can you sit on a patent before you have to start going after people?</p><p>It would appear to me that Xerox must have been sitting on this for quite sometime.</p><p>It is also odd how Microsoft is not included in this, Yahoo and Google, but not Microsoft in a search related patent case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long can you sit on a patent before you have to start going after people ? It would appear to me that Xerox must have been sitting on this for quite sometime.It is also odd how Microsoft is not included in this , Yahoo and Google , but not Microsoft in a search related patent case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long can you sit on a patent before you have to start going after people?It would appear to me that Xerox must have been sitting on this for quite sometime.It is also odd how Microsoft is not included in this, Yahoo and Google, but not Microsoft in a search related patent case?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263710</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1265101560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simpler solution: Besides all the other problems with them (like the inability of the patent office to tell what is an "invention"), software patents are a net drag on the economy, therefore they should be eliminated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simpler solution : Besides all the other problems with them ( like the inability of the patent office to tell what is an " invention " ) , software patents are a net drag on the economy , therefore they should be eliminated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simpler solution: Besides all the other problems with them (like the inability of the patent office to tell what is an "invention"), software patents are a net drag on the economy, therefore they should be eliminated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31266668</id>
	<title>Xerox is stuck in the past...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265115300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have a totally 1980s attitude to "intellectual property" and they are in the process of trying to follow where HP went in the Carly years. Xerox is dis-investing in R&amp;D and trying to become an IP and Services company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a totally 1980s attitude to " intellectual property " and they are in the process of trying to follow where HP went in the Carly years .
Xerox is dis-investing in R&amp;D and trying to become an IP and Services company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a totally 1980s attitude to "intellectual property" and they are in the process of trying to follow where HP went in the Carly years.
Xerox is dis-investing in R&amp;D and trying to become an IP and Services company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263162</id>
	<title>Re:Delaware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As some one that has had to deal with this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... East Texas judges are viewed greatly as being in favor the patent holder<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even if the patent is full of holes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or there is selective enforcement. Unfortunately this view is true much to the detriment to the consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As some one that has had to deal with this ... East Texas judges are viewed greatly as being in favor the patent holder ... even if the patent is full of holes ... or there is selective enforcement .
Unfortunately this view is true much to the detriment to the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As some one that has had to deal with this ... East Texas judges are viewed greatly as being in favor the patent holder ... even if the patent is full of holes ... or there is selective enforcement.
Unfortunately this view is true much to the detriment to the consumer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262266</id>
	<title>My new patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A system generates an interface to query information stored on a hard disc drive. When the information is obtained and processed it is displayed to the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A system generates an interface to query information stored on a hard disc drive .
When the information is obtained and processed it is displayed to the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A system generates an interface to query information stored on a hard disc drive.
When the information is obtained and processed it is displayed to the user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261466</id>
	<title>Remember when PARC actually invented stuff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good times, but how the mighty have fallen these days. I for one miss the idea of a pure research group.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good times , but how the mighty have fallen these days .
I for one miss the idea of a pure research group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good times, but how the mighty have fallen these days.
I for one miss the idea of a pure research group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264664</id>
	<title>Re:So you are saying</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1265105760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, no - Google and Yahoo Xeroxed Xerox!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , no - Google and Yahoo Xeroxed Xerox !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, no - Google and Yahoo Xeroxed Xerox!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262048</id>
	<title>Prior Art for search'gVeronica,Archie,Wais,Gopher</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Previous document search methods that were done in the 90's and earlier for text and website frontends are:</p><p>a). Veronica and Archie<br>b). WAIS<br>c). Gopher<br>d). News by dialup and and internet<br>e). webcrawlers<br>f). database queries using webfrontends and opensource DBMS'</p><p>patent should have been denied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Previous document search methods that were done in the 90 's and earlier for text and website frontends are : a ) .
Veronica and Archieb ) .
WAISc ) . Gopherd ) .
News by dialup and and internete ) .
webcrawlersf ) . database queries using webfrontends and opensource DBMS'patent should have been denied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Previous document search methods that were done in the 90's and earlier for text and website frontends are:a).
Veronica and Archieb).
WAISc). Gopherd).
News by dialup and and internete).
webcrawlersf). database queries using webfrontends and opensource DBMS'patent should have been denied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263256</id>
	<title>ACS, A Xerox Company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265142720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.acs-inc.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.acs-inc.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.acs-inc.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261492</id>
	<title>Re:Go America!</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1265135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And whose idea was it to make things this way?  Why, a lawyer of course!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And whose idea was it to make things this way ?
Why , a lawyer of course !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And whose idea was it to make things this way?
Why, a lawyer of course!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264948</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone help?</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265106960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patent something<br>Fail to bring anything to market<br>Have no idea how to leverage your IP<br>Wait<br>Take half a day to see if anything in your patent portfolio could be argued as being infringed by a new software or website<br>Sue like the troll you are</p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1561604&amp;cid=31262548" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1561604&amp;cid=31262548</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>What he said.  Classic failure.  I'm going to go Ricoh Minolta my tax return now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent somethingFail to bring anything to marketHave no idea how to leverage your IPWaitTake half a day to see if anything in your patent portfolio could be argued as being infringed by a new software or websiteSue like the troll you arehttp : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1561604&amp;cid = 31262548 [ slashdot.org ] What he said .
Classic failure .
I 'm going to go Ricoh Minolta my tax return now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent somethingFail to bring anything to marketHave no idea how to leverage your IPWaitTake half a day to see if anything in your patent portfolio could be argued as being infringed by a new software or websiteSue like the troll you arehttp://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1561604&amp;cid=31262548 [slashdot.org]What he said.
Classic failure.
I'm going to go Ricoh Minolta my tax return now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265212</id>
	<title>They are only suing search engines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265108040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sites like bing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sites like bing ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sites like bing ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</id>
	<title>Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1265139060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I think patents are great, they give innovators a way to protect innovations giving them a small lead to jump-start their project. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I think patents could solve much of the trouble we are currently having pulling our selves/society in to the digital information age.<br> <br>
Bear with me..<br> <br>
The problems with patents as they currently stand is they are often used as bullshit tools whihc stifle technology in an attempt to extort or monopolise any technology or idea. What once might have been a useful tool has become a strategic game-piece often crippling American innovation when it was intended to encourage it.<br> <br>
But I don't believe the answer is to abolish the system, or even to make it increasingly difficult to make use of, that would punish legitimate users and patent trolls and legal firms would no doubt find ways to continue around it.<br> <br>
What I'd like to see is it remain almost exactly as it is today, with a few small changes:
<ul>
<li>Patents should be granted rapidly. Pending patents help no-one while discouraging research and innovation. Either you have one or you don't.</li><li>Patents should be reasonably easy to get. We should encourage their use, with a few sensible restriction (below).</li><li>Patent length should be very short. The protection they provide should last no more then 1-3 years. When a patent expires competition should be able to immediately begin.</li><li>Patents sole purpose should be to encourage innovation. Patent trolling and patent portfolios do nothing towards this end and actively, often parasitically discourage it and a great cost to the society they depend on.</li><li>Businesses that can't gain a reasonable advantage using a patent protected 1-3 year monopoly should not indefinably limit those that might.</li><li>Patents should only be granted for new ideas or new technologies and should never extend their protection onto old or existing technology. This is particularly important for software, where new code should be patentable (explained below) but at the end of the patents term only additions or patches might be considered new and therefore patentable.</li><li>Patenting code should be valuable because it would allow developers benefit from their work without relying on strictly on licensing or obscuring code through binary blobs. Quality projects would still could continue funded development with changes and updates eligible for patent protection. Of course nothing requires that anyone patent such work, or that should they chose to patent it that they drop protective licenses or release source. But we're heading towards a future where the user will be increasingly technical and black-box application may eventually find they have a disadvantage in the marketplace. Should they chose to make their products reasonably open source and use patent provisions to protect their business process it's possible that both society and business might benefit from a new form of commercial open source.</li></ul><p>

It's probably worth noting that software companies which wish to keep their code and related processes black-boxed would still have several options, one obvious option (aside from restrictive licensing and binary only releases) being SAS, where they control the process by keeping access to all relevant code and business systems themselves, only pushing relevant/needed data out to the client front-end. SAS is really the ultimate black-box solution and it protect your property from just about everything but internal abuse (staff, break-ins, social engineering) and network related penetration. And that's nothing new.
<br> <br>
Sorry about any grammaros/typos/spellos. I just wanted to get these ideas out while there was still active discussion. Over the past several years I've begun to strongly believe our own enemy (patents - via trolling/hording and other related anti-competitive business practices) are actually our best hope for a sensible business/technology future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think patents are great , they give innovators a way to protect innovations giving them a small lead to jump-start their project .
In fact , I 'll go so far as to say I think patents could solve much of the trouble we are currently having pulling our selves/society in to the digital information age .
Bear with me. . The problems with patents as they currently stand is they are often used as bullshit tools whihc stifle technology in an attempt to extort or monopolise any technology or idea .
What once might have been a useful tool has become a strategic game-piece often crippling American innovation when it was intended to encourage it .
But I do n't believe the answer is to abolish the system , or even to make it increasingly difficult to make use of , that would punish legitimate users and patent trolls and legal firms would no doubt find ways to continue around it .
What I 'd like to see is it remain almost exactly as it is today , with a few small changes : Patents should be granted rapidly .
Pending patents help no-one while discouraging research and innovation .
Either you have one or you do n't.Patents should be reasonably easy to get .
We should encourage their use , with a few sensible restriction ( below ) .Patent length should be very short .
The protection they provide should last no more then 1-3 years .
When a patent expires competition should be able to immediately begin.Patents sole purpose should be to encourage innovation .
Patent trolling and patent portfolios do nothing towards this end and actively , often parasitically discourage it and a great cost to the society they depend on.Businesses that ca n't gain a reasonable advantage using a patent protected 1-3 year monopoly should not indefinably limit those that might.Patents should only be granted for new ideas or new technologies and should never extend their protection onto old or existing technology .
This is particularly important for software , where new code should be patentable ( explained below ) but at the end of the patents term only additions or patches might be considered new and therefore patentable.Patenting code should be valuable because it would allow developers benefit from their work without relying on strictly on licensing or obscuring code through binary blobs .
Quality projects would still could continue funded development with changes and updates eligible for patent protection .
Of course nothing requires that anyone patent such work , or that should they chose to patent it that they drop protective licenses or release source .
But we 're heading towards a future where the user will be increasingly technical and black-box application may eventually find they have a disadvantage in the marketplace .
Should they chose to make their products reasonably open source and use patent provisions to protect their business process it 's possible that both society and business might benefit from a new form of commercial open source .
It 's probably worth noting that software companies which wish to keep their code and related processes black-boxed would still have several options , one obvious option ( aside from restrictive licensing and binary only releases ) being SAS , where they control the process by keeping access to all relevant code and business systems themselves , only pushing relevant/needed data out to the client front-end .
SAS is really the ultimate black-box solution and it protect your property from just about everything but internal abuse ( staff , break-ins , social engineering ) and network related penetration .
And that 's nothing new .
Sorry about any grammaros/typos/spellos .
I just wanted to get these ideas out while there was still active discussion .
Over the past several years I 've begun to strongly believe our own enemy ( patents - via trolling/hording and other related anti-competitive business practices ) are actually our best hope for a sensible business/technology future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think patents are great, they give innovators a way to protect innovations giving them a small lead to jump-start their project.
In fact, I'll go so far as to say I think patents could solve much of the trouble we are currently having pulling our selves/society in to the digital information age.
Bear with me.. 
The problems with patents as they currently stand is they are often used as bullshit tools whihc stifle technology in an attempt to extort or monopolise any technology or idea.
What once might have been a useful tool has become a strategic game-piece often crippling American innovation when it was intended to encourage it.
But I don't believe the answer is to abolish the system, or even to make it increasingly difficult to make use of, that would punish legitimate users and patent trolls and legal firms would no doubt find ways to continue around it.
What I'd like to see is it remain almost exactly as it is today, with a few small changes:

Patents should be granted rapidly.
Pending patents help no-one while discouraging research and innovation.
Either you have one or you don't.Patents should be reasonably easy to get.
We should encourage their use, with a few sensible restriction (below).Patent length should be very short.
The protection they provide should last no more then 1-3 years.
When a patent expires competition should be able to immediately begin.Patents sole purpose should be to encourage innovation.
Patent trolling and patent portfolios do nothing towards this end and actively, often parasitically discourage it and a great cost to the society they depend on.Businesses that can't gain a reasonable advantage using a patent protected 1-3 year monopoly should not indefinably limit those that might.Patents should only be granted for new ideas or new technologies and should never extend their protection onto old or existing technology.
This is particularly important for software, where new code should be patentable (explained below) but at the end of the patents term only additions or patches might be considered new and therefore patentable.Patenting code should be valuable because it would allow developers benefit from their work without relying on strictly on licensing or obscuring code through binary blobs.
Quality projects would still could continue funded development with changes and updates eligible for patent protection.
Of course nothing requires that anyone patent such work, or that should they chose to patent it that they drop protective licenses or release source.
But we're heading towards a future where the user will be increasingly technical and black-box application may eventually find they have a disadvantage in the marketplace.
Should they chose to make their products reasonably open source and use patent provisions to protect their business process it's possible that both society and business might benefit from a new form of commercial open source.
It's probably worth noting that software companies which wish to keep their code and related processes black-boxed would still have several options, one obvious option (aside from restrictive licensing and binary only releases) being SAS, where they control the process by keeping access to all relevant code and business systems themselves, only pushing relevant/needed data out to the client front-end.
SAS is really the ultimate black-box solution and it protect your property from just about everything but internal abuse (staff, break-ins, social engineering) and network related penetration.
And that's nothing new.
Sorry about any grammaros/typos/spellos.
I just wanted to get these ideas out while there was still active discussion.
Over the past several years I've begun to strongly believe our own enemy (patents - via trolling/hording and other related anti-competitive business practices) are actually our best hope for a sensible business/technology future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262172</id>
	<title>Re:So you are saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265138100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YeeeeeeeAaaaaaaa!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YeeeeeeeAaaaaaaa !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YeeeeeeeAaaaaaaa!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261936</id>
	<title>Xerox invented everything!</title>
	<author>Halotron1</author>
	<datestamp>1265137140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So seriously, Xerox invented the GUI, then <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Computer,\_Inc.\_v.\_Microsoft\_Corporation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Apple and Microsoft stole it</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Now Xerox invented internet search, then Google and Yahoo stole it?</p><p>They must be smartest programmers in the world, with the worst marketing department ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So seriously , Xerox invented the GUI , then Apple and Microsoft stole it [ wikipedia.org ] .Now Xerox invented internet search , then Google and Yahoo stole it ? They must be smartest programmers in the world , with the worst marketing department ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So seriously, Xerox invented the GUI, then Apple and Microsoft stole it [wikipedia.org].Now Xerox invented internet search, then Google and Yahoo stole it?They must be smartest programmers in the world, with the worst marketing department ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262502</id>
	<title>Dang, comma</title>
	<author>ittybad</author>
	<datestamp>1265139420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Xerox Sues Google, Yahoo Over Search Patents<br>
Because of a lawsuit between Xerox and Google, Yahoo is now no longer "in to" search patents?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Xerox Sues Google , Yahoo Over Search Patents Because of a lawsuit between Xerox and Google , Yahoo is now no longer " in to " search patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Xerox Sues Google, Yahoo Over Search Patents
Because of a lawsuit between Xerox and Google, Yahoo is now no longer "in to" search patents?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261458</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, but not because they are suing for patent violation.  I agree, because they waited almost 10 years to enforce this patent.  Why the wait?  Presumably these companies were in violation for longer than just the past year or 2.  And it's not like they can say that they "just found out that they existed"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but not because they are suing for patent violation .
I agree , because they waited almost 10 years to enforce this patent .
Why the wait ?
Presumably these companies were in violation for longer than just the past year or 2 .
And it 's not like they can say that they " just found out that they existed " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but not because they are suing for patent violation.
I agree, because they waited almost 10 years to enforce this patent.
Why the wait?
Presumably these companies were in violation for longer than just the past year or 2.
And it's not like they can say that they "just found out that they existed"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261862</id>
	<title>Do you just say that every time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can: PATENT TROLL.</p></div><p>I know it's in vogue here on Slashdot to scream "Troll!" anytime a patent holder sues for infringement, but "patent troll" really means something distinct from "patent suit."</p><p>From the Wiki, a patent troll is someone who:<br>* Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;<br>* Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;<br>* Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base<br>* Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights.<br>* Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers</p><p>TFA and TFS are thin on details, so there is no evidence to support the idea that Xerox is doing any one of these.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can : PATENT TROLL.I know it 's in vogue here on Slashdot to scream " Troll !
" anytime a patent holder sues for infringement , but " patent troll " really means something distinct from " patent suit .
" From the Wiki , a patent troll is someone who : * Purchases a patent , often from a bankrupt firm , and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent ; * Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service ; * Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base * Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights .
* Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiersTFA and TFS are thin on details , so there is no evidence to support the idea that Xerox is doing any one of these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can: PATENT TROLL.I know it's in vogue here on Slashdot to scream "Troll!
" anytime a patent holder sues for infringement, but "patent troll" really means something distinct from "patent suit.
"From the Wiki, a patent troll is someone who:* Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;* Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;* Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base* Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights.
* Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiersTFA and TFS are thin on details, so there is no evidence to support the idea that Xerox is doing any one of these.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261248</id>
	<title>Perhaps...</title>
	<author>FF8Jake</author>
	<datestamp>1265134560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yahoo and Google used a Xerox copier to take a copy of the technology for themselves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo and Google used a Xerox copier to take a copy of the technology for themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo and Google used a Xerox copier to take a copy of the technology for themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262726</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Well, no - since the GUI would have been patented in the 1970s and at that time the law gave protection for 17 years from the date of publication (and usually took 3 years to get published - current law is 20 years from filing).  GUIs didn't really become popular until the late 1980s and that would have been near the end of any patent for it, so it may have delayed the GUI, but not killed it.  Some hardware patents Xerox showed off such as the mouse would have already been near end of patent by the 1980s (invented in the 1960s).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'm not saying software patents don't suck - I don't think people should be able to patent, say, how to do the Navier Stokes equations for fluid dynamics in software and on graphics hardware, which has been done multiple times (and the methods are trivially obvious in some cases - one hardware accelerated patent I saw was essentially implementing an expired software patent in hardware).  OTOH, if you INVENTED the Navier Stokes equations, then sure - allow a patent that can apply to software.  I also don't think an idea itself should be patentable, either - for instance, I remember Woz talking about when he made characters display on a screen and then later getting sued by a TV manufacturer that had patented the idea - there needs to be some practical plan to implement it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , no - since the GUI would have been patented in the 1970s and at that time the law gave protection for 17 years from the date of publication ( and usually took 3 years to get published - current law is 20 years from filing ) .
GUIs did n't really become popular until the late 1980s and that would have been near the end of any patent for it , so it may have delayed the GUI , but not killed it .
Some hardware patents Xerox showed off such as the mouse would have already been near end of patent by the 1980s ( invented in the 1960s ) .
    I 'm not saying software patents do n't suck - I do n't think people should be able to patent , say , how to do the Navier Stokes equations for fluid dynamics in software and on graphics hardware , which has been done multiple times ( and the methods are trivially obvious in some cases - one hardware accelerated patent I saw was essentially implementing an expired software patent in hardware ) .
OTOH , if you INVENTED the Navier Stokes equations , then sure - allow a patent that can apply to software .
I also do n't think an idea itself should be patentable , either - for instance , I remember Woz talking about when he made characters display on a screen and then later getting sued by a TV manufacturer that had patented the idea - there needs to be some practical plan to implement it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Well, no - since the GUI would have been patented in the 1970s and at that time the law gave protection for 17 years from the date of publication (and usually took 3 years to get published - current law is 20 years from filing).
GUIs didn't really become popular until the late 1980s and that would have been near the end of any patent for it, so it may have delayed the GUI, but not killed it.
Some hardware patents Xerox showed off such as the mouse would have already been near end of patent by the 1980s (invented in the 1960s).
    I'm not saying software patents don't suck - I don't think people should be able to patent, say, how to do the Navier Stokes equations for fluid dynamics in software and on graphics hardware, which has been done multiple times (and the methods are trivially obvious in some cases - one hardware accelerated patent I saw was essentially implementing an expired software patent in hardware).
OTOH, if you INVENTED the Navier Stokes equations, then sure - allow a patent that can apply to software.
I also don't think an idea itself should be patentable, either - for instance, I remember Woz talking about when he made characters display on a screen and then later getting sued by a TV manufacturer that had patented the idea - there needs to be some practical plan to implement it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263484</id>
	<title>Halt the technology?</title>
	<author>neghvar1</author>
	<datestamp>1265143620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Xerox...asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology."

So they are asking the courts to have google shutdown the search engine, youtube and google maps until the verdict is in?  Fat chance!  Same with yahoo.

There is no way youtube, google maps or Google search would get shutdown while this court case carries on.  It could take months or even years to finish this case</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Xerox...asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology .
" So they are asking the courts to have google shutdown the search engine , youtube and google maps until the verdict is in ?
Fat chance !
Same with yahoo .
There is no way youtube , google maps or Google search would get shutdown while this court case carries on .
It could take months or even years to finish this case</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Xerox...asked the court to halt the companies from further using the technology.
"

So they are asking the courts to have google shutdown the search engine, youtube and google maps until the verdict is in?
Fat chance!
Same with yahoo.
There is no way youtube, google maps or Google search would get shutdown while this court case carries on.
It could take months or even years to finish this case</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261698</id>
	<title>Re:Remember when PARC actually invented stuff?</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1265136300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it sounds to me like Xerox is facing increasing irrelevancy, and has decided to turn to litigation as a new revenue stream.  I [ugh, sadly] do a lot of purchasing of office equipment, and now that I think of it, I have not even once considered a Xerox product in the last 6 years that I've worked here.  I'm not even sure what they're up to anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it sounds to me like Xerox is facing increasing irrelevancy , and has decided to turn to litigation as a new revenue stream .
I [ ugh , sadly ] do a lot of purchasing of office equipment , and now that I think of it , I have not even once considered a Xerox product in the last 6 years that I 've worked here .
I 'm not even sure what they 're up to anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it sounds to me like Xerox is facing increasing irrelevancy, and has decided to turn to litigation as a new revenue stream.
I [ugh, sadly] do a lot of purchasing of office equipment, and now that I think of it, I have not even once considered a Xerox product in the last 6 years that I've worked here.
I'm not even sure what they're up to anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270</id>
	<title>Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can: PATENT TROLL.

Just because people don't use paper anymore...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can : PATENT TROLL .
Just because people do n't use paper anymore.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can: PATENT TROLL.
Just because people don't use paper anymore...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261324</id>
	<title>Let the Troll Wars begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's that I hear walking across my bridge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's that I hear walking across my bridge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's that I hear walking across my bridge?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263160</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>spydabyte</author>
	<datestamp>1265142360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>tell that to pharmaceutical drug companies. A patent's goal isn't just for "innovation" protection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>tell that to pharmaceutical drug companies .
A patent 's goal is n't just for " innovation " protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tell that to pharmaceutical drug companies.
A patent's goal isn't just for "innovation" protection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261772</id>
	<title>Re:Remember when PARC actually invented stuff?</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265136540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Good times, but how the mighty have fallen these days. I for one miss the idea of a pure research group.</p></div><p>Yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no kidding. Put Bell Laboratories on the short list as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good times , but how the mighty have fallen these days .
I for one miss the idea of a pure research group.Yeah ... no kidding .
Put Bell Laboratories on the short list as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good times, but how the mighty have fallen these days.
I for one miss the idea of a pure research group.Yeah ... no kidding.
Put Bell Laboratories on the short list as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262032</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps...</title>
	<author>FF8Jake</author>
	<datestamp>1265137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice, Anonymous Coward submitted the same thing a couple seconds earlier and I get modded redundant. Clearly, my copy is the cleaner one here and not cluttered with excess question marks. I will be taking my copying needs to Google and Yahoo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice , Anonymous Coward submitted the same thing a couple seconds earlier and I get modded redundant .
Clearly , my copy is the cleaner one here and not cluttered with excess question marks .
I will be taking my copying needs to Google and Yahoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice, Anonymous Coward submitted the same thing a couple seconds earlier and I get modded redundant.
Clearly, my copy is the cleaner one here and not cluttered with excess question marks.
I will be taking my copying needs to Google and Yahoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265764</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1265110200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may not have come up with a product, but they certainly would have been open to licensing it to someone else.  The beauty of patents is it's out in the open where everyone can see.  You can't hide it, and if they did not take advantage of it they would have lost it anyway.</p><p>Any attempt to bury it would have simply failed, that's the whole purpose of the patent system, is to <i>prevent</i> the loss of innovations.</p><p>If they had simply patented it, they would be much more of a technology powerhouse than they are now.  We'd still have GUI's, and they would not be expensive.</p><p>Besides, by now there would be no licensing fees, and wouldn't have been for the last ten years.  Nothing really changes, except we might be 15-20 years farther along with GUI's if Xerox hadn't been so stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may not have come up with a product , but they certainly would have been open to licensing it to someone else .
The beauty of patents is it 's out in the open where everyone can see .
You ca n't hide it , and if they did not take advantage of it they would have lost it anyway.Any attempt to bury it would have simply failed , that 's the whole purpose of the patent system , is to prevent the loss of innovations.If they had simply patented it , they would be much more of a technology powerhouse than they are now .
We 'd still have GUI 's , and they would not be expensive.Besides , by now there would be no licensing fees , and would n't have been for the last ten years .
Nothing really changes , except we might be 15-20 years farther along with GUI 's if Xerox had n't been so stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may not have come up with a product, but they certainly would have been open to licensing it to someone else.
The beauty of patents is it's out in the open where everyone can see.
You can't hide it, and if they did not take advantage of it they would have lost it anyway.Any attempt to bury it would have simply failed, that's the whole purpose of the patent system, is to prevent the loss of innovations.If they had simply patented it, they would be much more of a technology powerhouse than they are now.
We'd still have GUI's, and they would not be expensive.Besides, by now there would be no licensing fees, and wouldn't have been for the last ten years.
Nothing really changes, except we might be 15-20 years farther along with GUI's if Xerox hadn't been so stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263254</id>
	<title>Meanwhile, in the boardroom</title>
	<author>MattGWU</author>
	<datestamp>1265142720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chief Legal Counsel: "The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is when we win these lawsuits, we will be Google."<br>Chairman of the Board: "And you're sure it will work?"<br>Chief Legal Counsel: "It cannot fail. We have.............The Patents."<br>All: "Aaah...."<br>Chief Financial Officer: "Are you sure we waited long enough to enforce our patents? Perhaps if we wait a bit longer..."<br>Chief Legal Counsel: "NO! The time to strike is now! We will be rich beyond our wildest dreams"<br>Chief Operating Officer: "Has anybody ever tried something like this before? How did they fare?"<br>Chief Legal Counsel: "Other companies have tried this approach, but their claims were weak and meaningless, and they met with failure and the derision of the world. Our patents are strong. Bulletproof even. Any intelligent judge in the world will see that we invented web search.  We will succeed beyond our wildest dreams.  We here will all buy Maybachs so we have something nice to drive to the Bugatti dealership."<br>Chairman of the Board: "Then......let us begin."</p><p>I can only assume this is how this discussion tends to go every time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chief Legal Counsel : " The bottom line , ladies and gentlemen , is when we win these lawsuits , we will be Google .
" Chairman of the Board : " And you 're sure it will work ?
" Chief Legal Counsel : " It can not fail .
We have.............The Patents .
" All : " Aaah.... " Chief Financial Officer : " Are you sure we waited long enough to enforce our patents ?
Perhaps if we wait a bit longer... " Chief Legal Counsel : " NO !
The time to strike is now !
We will be rich beyond our wildest dreams " Chief Operating Officer : " Has anybody ever tried something like this before ?
How did they fare ?
" Chief Legal Counsel : " Other companies have tried this approach , but their claims were weak and meaningless , and they met with failure and the derision of the world .
Our patents are strong .
Bulletproof even .
Any intelligent judge in the world will see that we invented web search .
We will succeed beyond our wildest dreams .
We here will all buy Maybachs so we have something nice to drive to the Bugatti dealership .
" Chairman of the Board : " Then......let us begin .
" I can only assume this is how this discussion tends to go every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chief Legal Counsel: "The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is when we win these lawsuits, we will be Google.
"Chairman of the Board: "And you're sure it will work?
"Chief Legal Counsel: "It cannot fail.
We have.............The Patents.
"All: "Aaah...."Chief Financial Officer: "Are you sure we waited long enough to enforce our patents?
Perhaps if we wait a bit longer..."Chief Legal Counsel: "NO!
The time to strike is now!
We will be rich beyond our wildest dreams"Chief Operating Officer: "Has anybody ever tried something like this before?
How did they fare?
"Chief Legal Counsel: "Other companies have tried this approach, but their claims were weak and meaningless, and they met with failure and the derision of the world.
Our patents are strong.
Bulletproof even.
Any intelligent judge in the world will see that we invented web search.
We will succeed beyond our wildest dreams.
We here will all buy Maybachs so we have something nice to drive to the Bugatti dealership.
"Chairman of the Board: "Then......let us begin.
"I can only assume this is how this discussion tends to go every time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244</id>
	<title>So you are saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31271858</id>
	<title>Re:Timeframe</title>
	<author>almondo</author>
	<datestamp>1267111980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they were concerned that the disease might be contagious and they didn't want to get too close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they were concerned that the disease might be contagious and they did n't want to get too close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they were concerned that the disease might be contagious and they didn't want to get too close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261292</id>
	<title>Go America!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go America! Way to pervert research into something that lets slow old giants make innovative technical companies suffer financially, all while making lawyers rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go America !
Way to pervert research into something that lets slow old giants make innovative technical companies suffer financially , all while making lawyers rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go America!
Way to pervert research into something that lets slow old giants make innovative technical companies suffer financially, all while making lawyers rich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263304</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1265142840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree, because they waited almost 10 years to enforce this patent.</p>  </div><p>Do you work for either company? How do you know negotiations have not been taking place all this time?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , because they waited almost 10 years to enforce this patent .
Do you work for either company ?
How do you know negotiations have not been taking place all this time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, because they waited almost 10 years to enforce this patent.
Do you work for either company?
How do you know negotiations have not been taking place all this time?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261972</id>
	<title>Re:So you are saying</title>
	<author>mingbrasil</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox???</p></div><p>No... They xeroxed a copy</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox ? ? ? No.. .
They xeroxed a copy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that Google and Yahoo COPIED Xerox???No...
They xeroxed a copy
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261436</id>
	<title>Re:So you are saying</title>
	<author>The Clockwork Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1265135340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's hope for Xerox's sake that the court of jurisdiction is Soviet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope for Xerox 's sake that the court of jurisdiction is Soviet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope for Xerox's sake that the court of jurisdiction is Soviet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263720</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Wylfing</author>
	<datestamp>1265101560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, posting to remove a wrong mod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , posting to remove a wrong mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, posting to remove a wrong mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265674</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1265109900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three years is far too short for a patent.  20-30 years might be a little excessive, but 3 years is just as absurd as 100.  If you put that into effect, the only things that will be patented are trivial items of no great benefit to society.  Everything that takes more than three or four years to develop will be locked away as a trade secret instead, which is the opposite of what we want.</p><p>In case you don't understand the consequences of that, one would no more generic drugs.  They would be gone, because Big Pharma, who spent 20 years developing that new wonder drug, would never tell anybody how they made it.  Currently, however, after a number of years generics are licensed and cheap drugs flood the market.  It's one of the few things keeping socialized health care afloat outside of the US, because some of these drugs retail at $1000 a pill.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Patents sole purpose should be to encourage innovation. Patent trolling and patent portfolios do nothing towards this end and actively, often parasitically discourage it and a great cost to the society they depend on.</p></div><p>You didn't say what you'd do about this.  Personally, I'd make patent ownership non-transferable.  You could still put clauses in employment contracts stating that anything patented during their employment is immediately licensed to the company at no cost, but actual ownership and further licensing belongs to the inventor.  They should certainly be able to delegate management of the patent to their company or a third party, but it should remain the individual's (or group of individuals) patent and it should never belong to a company, period.  That would destroy patent trolls, as they'd never own another patent.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Patents should be granted rapidly. Pending patents help no-one while discouraging research and innovation. Either you have one or you don't.</p></div><p>The problem there is the sheer number of patent applications and the expense to process them.  Right now it costs about $200 to file for a patent.  Because of this, hundreds of thousands of patents are filed every year.  To get them processed in a reasonable amount of time would take ten times the staff and much greater related expenses.  You would probably have to raise the price to $3000-4000 per application, which seriously raises the barrier to entry.  That may not be a bad thing, but I don't think it is what you were going for.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Patents should be reasonably easy to get. We should encourage their use, with a few sensible restriction (below).</p></div><p>Doesn't jive with:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Patents should only be granted for new ideas or new technologies and should never extend their protection onto old or existing technology. This is particularly important for software, where new code should be patentable (explained below) but at the end of the patents term only additions or patches might be considered new and therefore patentable.</p></div><p>It is already too easy to get patents, and too difficult to do adequate research on whether or not a patent idea is unique, innovative, and non-obvious.  Any sort of streamlining without making these things easier for the patent officers simply makes things worse.</p><p>All we really need is to be sure that patents are truly innovative first, that the information in the patent is significant enough that a subject matter expert could easily duplicate the invention, and that the patent is granted as quickly as possible while still maintaining the first and second criteria.</p><p>The real magic of patents is that, even if someone can't afford to license the patent themselves, if they have the design in their hands and the knowledge to implement it, they can then begin work on the next progression in the technology.  They can then patent the innovative improvement and make their own money, and somebody else can then improve upon that design.  The technology can progress as fast as possible in this way, regardless of whether the patent terms are 5 years or 50.  Obviously though, you want to strike a balance between maximum incentive to develop and maximum benefit to society, and I'd put that somewhere in the 15-25 year range.</p><p>My thoughts are similar for copyright, though I think copyright is of less importance than patent rights, and could get away with being a little longer without hurting much.  Lifetime plus 70 years, though, is still absurd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three years is far too short for a patent .
20-30 years might be a little excessive , but 3 years is just as absurd as 100 .
If you put that into effect , the only things that will be patented are trivial items of no great benefit to society .
Everything that takes more than three or four years to develop will be locked away as a trade secret instead , which is the opposite of what we want.In case you do n't understand the consequences of that , one would no more generic drugs .
They would be gone , because Big Pharma , who spent 20 years developing that new wonder drug , would never tell anybody how they made it .
Currently , however , after a number of years generics are licensed and cheap drugs flood the market .
It 's one of the few things keeping socialized health care afloat outside of the US , because some of these drugs retail at $ 1000 a pill.Patents sole purpose should be to encourage innovation .
Patent trolling and patent portfolios do nothing towards this end and actively , often parasitically discourage it and a great cost to the society they depend on.You did n't say what you 'd do about this .
Personally , I 'd make patent ownership non-transferable .
You could still put clauses in employment contracts stating that anything patented during their employment is immediately licensed to the company at no cost , but actual ownership and further licensing belongs to the inventor .
They should certainly be able to delegate management of the patent to their company or a third party , but it should remain the individual 's ( or group of individuals ) patent and it should never belong to a company , period .
That would destroy patent trolls , as they 'd never own another patent.Patents should be granted rapidly .
Pending patents help no-one while discouraging research and innovation .
Either you have one or you do n't.The problem there is the sheer number of patent applications and the expense to process them .
Right now it costs about $ 200 to file for a patent .
Because of this , hundreds of thousands of patents are filed every year .
To get them processed in a reasonable amount of time would take ten times the staff and much greater related expenses .
You would probably have to raise the price to $ 3000-4000 per application , which seriously raises the barrier to entry .
That may not be a bad thing , but I do n't think it is what you were going for.Patents should be reasonably easy to get .
We should encourage their use , with a few sensible restriction ( below ) .Does n't jive with : Patents should only be granted for new ideas or new technologies and should never extend their protection onto old or existing technology .
This is particularly important for software , where new code should be patentable ( explained below ) but at the end of the patents term only additions or patches might be considered new and therefore patentable.It is already too easy to get patents , and too difficult to do adequate research on whether or not a patent idea is unique , innovative , and non-obvious .
Any sort of streamlining without making these things easier for the patent officers simply makes things worse.All we really need is to be sure that patents are truly innovative first , that the information in the patent is significant enough that a subject matter expert could easily duplicate the invention , and that the patent is granted as quickly as possible while still maintaining the first and second criteria.The real magic of patents is that , even if someone ca n't afford to license the patent themselves , if they have the design in their hands and the knowledge to implement it , they can then begin work on the next progression in the technology .
They can then patent the innovative improvement and make their own money , and somebody else can then improve upon that design .
The technology can progress as fast as possible in this way , regardless of whether the patent terms are 5 years or 50 .
Obviously though , you want to strike a balance between maximum incentive to develop and maximum benefit to society , and I 'd put that somewhere in the 15-25 year range.My thoughts are similar for copyright , though I think copyright is of less importance than patent rights , and could get away with being a little longer without hurting much .
Lifetime plus 70 years , though , is still absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three years is far too short for a patent.
20-30 years might be a little excessive, but 3 years is just as absurd as 100.
If you put that into effect, the only things that will be patented are trivial items of no great benefit to society.
Everything that takes more than three or four years to develop will be locked away as a trade secret instead, which is the opposite of what we want.In case you don't understand the consequences of that, one would no more generic drugs.
They would be gone, because Big Pharma, who spent 20 years developing that new wonder drug, would never tell anybody how they made it.
Currently, however, after a number of years generics are licensed and cheap drugs flood the market.
It's one of the few things keeping socialized health care afloat outside of the US, because some of these drugs retail at $1000 a pill.Patents sole purpose should be to encourage innovation.
Patent trolling and patent portfolios do nothing towards this end and actively, often parasitically discourage it and a great cost to the society they depend on.You didn't say what you'd do about this.
Personally, I'd make patent ownership non-transferable.
You could still put clauses in employment contracts stating that anything patented during their employment is immediately licensed to the company at no cost, but actual ownership and further licensing belongs to the inventor.
They should certainly be able to delegate management of the patent to their company or a third party, but it should remain the individual's (or group of individuals) patent and it should never belong to a company, period.
That would destroy patent trolls, as they'd never own another patent.Patents should be granted rapidly.
Pending patents help no-one while discouraging research and innovation.
Either you have one or you don't.The problem there is the sheer number of patent applications and the expense to process them.
Right now it costs about $200 to file for a patent.
Because of this, hundreds of thousands of patents are filed every year.
To get them processed in a reasonable amount of time would take ten times the staff and much greater related expenses.
You would probably have to raise the price to $3000-4000 per application, which seriously raises the barrier to entry.
That may not be a bad thing, but I don't think it is what you were going for.Patents should be reasonably easy to get.
We should encourage their use, with a few sensible restriction (below).Doesn't jive with: Patents should only be granted for new ideas or new technologies and should never extend their protection onto old or existing technology.
This is particularly important for software, where new code should be patentable (explained below) but at the end of the patents term only additions or patches might be considered new and therefore patentable.It is already too easy to get patents, and too difficult to do adequate research on whether or not a patent idea is unique, innovative, and non-obvious.
Any sort of streamlining without making these things easier for the patent officers simply makes things worse.All we really need is to be sure that patents are truly innovative first, that the information in the patent is significant enough that a subject matter expert could easily duplicate the invention, and that the patent is granted as quickly as possible while still maintaining the first and second criteria.The real magic of patents is that, even if someone can't afford to license the patent themselves, if they have the design in their hands and the knowledge to implement it, they can then begin work on the next progression in the technology.
They can then patent the innovative improvement and make their own money, and somebody else can then improve upon that design.
The technology can progress as fast as possible in this way, regardless of whether the patent terms are 5 years or 50.
Obviously though, you want to strike a balance between maximum incentive to develop and maximum benefit to society, and I'd put that somewhere in the 15-25 year range.My thoughts are similar for copyright, though I think copyright is of less importance than patent rights, and could get away with being a little longer without hurting much.
Lifetime plus 70 years, though, is still absurd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264588</id>
	<title>Re:Patent problem solved!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265105340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with most of what you say, but--</p><p><i>Patent length should be very short. The protection they provide should last no more then 1-3 years</i></p><p>I think the current 20 years is a good fit, particularly considering the research costs involved in coming up with some patented tech. Ten or fifteen years to develop a revolutionary idea and it's only protected for three? Now, copyright, OTOH, is far too long, and copyright length has hindered artistic creativity. If patents lasted as long as copyrights, technological innovation would come to s atandstill.</p><p><i>It's probably worth noting that software companies which wish to keep their code and related processes black-boxed would still have several options</i></p><p>One reaon for patents' existance is to keeo that from happening; to patent a thing, the design must be public. No invention should die with its inventor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with most of what you say , but--Patent length should be very short .
The protection they provide should last no more then 1-3 yearsI think the current 20 years is a good fit , particularly considering the research costs involved in coming up with some patented tech .
Ten or fifteen years to develop a revolutionary idea and it 's only protected for three ?
Now , copyright , OTOH , is far too long , and copyright length has hindered artistic creativity .
If patents lasted as long as copyrights , technological innovation would come to s atandstill.It 's probably worth noting that software companies which wish to keep their code and related processes black-boxed would still have several optionsOne reaon for patents ' existance is to keeo that from happening ; to patent a thing , the design must be public .
No invention should die with its inventor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with most of what you say, but--Patent length should be very short.
The protection they provide should last no more then 1-3 yearsI think the current 20 years is a good fit, particularly considering the research costs involved in coming up with some patented tech.
Ten or fifteen years to develop a revolutionary idea and it's only protected for three?
Now, copyright, OTOH, is far too long, and copyright length has hindered artistic creativity.
If patents lasted as long as copyrights, technological innovation would come to s atandstill.It's probably worth noting that software companies which wish to keep their code and related processes black-boxed would still have several optionsOne reaon for patents' existance is to keeo that from happening; to patent a thing, the design must be public.
No invention should die with its inventor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261316</id>
	<title>Article summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We want your cake too. And it'll cost us less in legal fees than the potential benefit. That's a mighty nice website you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to...happen... to it. Probable result: cross-licensing agreement to patent portfolio to lock out smaller competitors, higher costs for consumers in countries with strong IP laws. "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We want your cake too .
And it 'll cost us less in legal fees than the potential benefit .
That 's a mighty nice website you have there .
It would be a shame if anything were to...happen... to it .
Probable result : cross-licensing agreement to patent portfolio to lock out smaller competitors , higher costs for consumers in countries with strong IP laws .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We want your cake too.
And it'll cost us less in legal fees than the potential benefit.
That's a mighty nice website you have there.
It would be a shame if anything were to...happen... to it.
Probable result: cross-licensing agreement to patent portfolio to lock out smaller competitors, higher costs for consumers in countries with strong IP laws.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262406</id>
	<title>Re:Can you say "Patent troll"?</title>
	<author>Creepy</author>
	<datestamp>1265139000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except patent trolls file in east Texas, not Delaware.  Most patent trolls create a shell office in Texas just so they can file cases there - in fact, I believe setting up shell offices was Texas' biggest growth industries during the recession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except patent trolls file in east Texas , not Delaware .
Most patent trolls create a shell office in Texas just so they can file cases there - in fact , I believe setting up shell offices was Texas ' biggest growth industries during the recession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except patent trolls file in east Texas, not Delaware.
Most patent trolls create a shell office in Texas just so they can file cases there - in fact, I believe setting up shell offices was Texas' biggest growth industries during the recession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261956</id>
	<title>Xerox won't win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both patents I've seen cited as applicable were granted (filed in 2001) in 2004.</p><p>Given that they're just suing now, unless there's been extensive negotiation privately that's somehow managed to not leak out at all over 5-6 years (unlikely), Xerox probably won't be able to get any court to enforce shit.  It's called laches - you have to actually work to minimize your damages.  If you knowingly let infringers make use of your IP so you can sue them when they're worth something, you lose the ability to enforce your patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both patents I 've seen cited as applicable were granted ( filed in 2001 ) in 2004.Given that they 're just suing now , unless there 's been extensive negotiation privately that 's somehow managed to not leak out at all over 5-6 years ( unlikely ) , Xerox probably wo n't be able to get any court to enforce shit .
It 's called laches - you have to actually work to minimize your damages .
If you knowingly let infringers make use of your IP so you can sue them when they 're worth something , you lose the ability to enforce your patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both patents I've seen cited as applicable were granted (filed in 2001) in 2004.Given that they're just suing now, unless there's been extensive negotiation privately that's somehow managed to not leak out at all over 5-6 years (unlikely), Xerox probably won't be able to get any court to enforce shit.
It's called laches - you have to actually work to minimize your damages.
If you knowingly let infringers make use of your IP so you can sue them when they're worth something, you lose the ability to enforce your patent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262296</id>
	<title>Robert Frost</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1265138520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Will the world end in fire or ice?"<br> <br>Neither, Bobby; it's gonna be lawsuits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Will the world end in fire or ice ?
" Neither , Bobby ; it 's gon na be lawsuits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Will the world end in fire or ice?
" Neither, Bobby; it's gonna be lawsuits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31275836</id>
	<title>Re:Xerox won't win</title>
	<author>RavenChild</author>
	<datestamp>1267128120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox\_Parc#Adoption\_by\_Apple" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox\_Parc#Adoption\_by\_Apple</a> [wikipedia.org] gives a great example of Xerox's past(failed) attempt to do the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox \ _Parc # Adoption \ _by \ _Apple [ wikipedia.org ] gives a great example of Xerox 's past ( failed ) attempt to do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox\_Parc#Adoption\_by\_Apple [wikipedia.org] gives a great example of Xerox's past(failed) attempt to do the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31270544</id>
	<title>Re:Timeframe</title>
	<author>4phun</author>
	<datestamp>1267101600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They probably tried to actually find something using Bing and decided they wouldn't have a case.</p></div><p>FUNNY

Best<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. of the day IMHO</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably tried to actually find something using Bing and decided they would n't have a case.FUNNY Best / .
of the day IMHO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably tried to actually find something using Bing and decided they wouldn't have a case.FUNNY

Best /.
of the day IMHO
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261460</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31270544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31275836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31271858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31266064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31266892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_24_1325219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31266892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31275836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262072
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262726
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31271858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31270544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31262412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31263710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31265374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31264588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31266064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_24_1325219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_24_1325219.31261316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
