<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_26_1926257</id>
	<title>Facebook Patents the News Feed</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267175100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>daedae writes <i>"It seems Facebook has been granted a <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20100226/tc\_nf/71887">patent for the news feed</a>, as a method of monitoring activities, storing them in a database, and displaying an appropriate set of activities to an appropriate set of users.  'That sounds pretty broad, and the social-networking world was all atwitter at the possible ramifications. Writing for ReadWriteWeb, Marshall Kirkpatrick proclaimed, "This could be very big. ... MySpace, Flickr, Yahoo, Twitter (?), the sharing part of Google Reader, and even Google Buzz &mdash; do all of these sites have technology at the center of their social experiences that falls under this new patent of Facebook's?" The patent may not be that broad. Nick O'Neill at the All Facebook blog wrote that the patent doesn't appear to cover status updates as used by Twitter. "It appears that this patent surrounds implicit actions. This means status updates, which is what Twitter is based on, are not part of this patent. ... Instead, this is about stories about the actions of a user's friends. While still significant, the implications for competing social networks may be less substantial," O'Neill wrote.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>daedae writes " It seems Facebook has been granted a patent for the news feed , as a method of monitoring activities , storing them in a database , and displaying an appropriate set of activities to an appropriate set of users .
'That sounds pretty broad , and the social-networking world was all atwitter at the possible ramifications .
Writing for ReadWriteWeb , Marshall Kirkpatrick proclaimed , " This could be very big .
... MySpace , Flickr , Yahoo , Twitter ( ?
) , the sharing part of Google Reader , and even Google Buzz    do all of these sites have technology at the center of their social experiences that falls under this new patent of Facebook 's ?
" The patent may not be that broad .
Nick O'Neill at the All Facebook blog wrote that the patent does n't appear to cover status updates as used by Twitter .
" It appears that this patent surrounds implicit actions .
This means status updates , which is what Twitter is based on , are not part of this patent .
... Instead , this is about stories about the actions of a user 's friends .
While still significant , the implications for competing social networks may be less substantial , " O'Neill wrote .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>daedae writes "It seems Facebook has been granted a patent for the news feed, as a method of monitoring activities, storing them in a database, and displaying an appropriate set of activities to an appropriate set of users.
'That sounds pretty broad, and the social-networking world was all atwitter at the possible ramifications.
Writing for ReadWriteWeb, Marshall Kirkpatrick proclaimed, "This could be very big.
... MySpace, Flickr, Yahoo, Twitter (?
), the sharing part of Google Reader, and even Google Buzz — do all of these sites have technology at the center of their social experiences that falls under this new patent of Facebook's?
" The patent may not be that broad.
Nick O'Neill at the All Facebook blog wrote that the patent doesn't appear to cover status updates as used by Twitter.
"It appears that this patent surrounds implicit actions.
This means status updates, which is what Twitter is based on, are not part of this patent.
... Instead, this is about stories about the actions of a user's friends.
While still significant, the implications for competing social networks may be less substantial," O'Neill wrote.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290816</id>
	<title>Re:RSS</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1267179720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you combine it with filters (found in most rss programs), password-protected rss feeds (possible) and some algorithm that tries to decide what's important news to you (Facebook seriously sucks at this though), then yes it's basically the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you combine it with filters ( found in most rss programs ) , password-protected rss feeds ( possible ) and some algorithm that tries to decide what 's important news to you ( Facebook seriously sucks at this though ) , then yes it 's basically the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you combine it with filters (found in most rss programs), password-protected rss feeds (possible) and some algorithm that tries to decide what's important news to you (Facebook seriously sucks at this though), then yes it's basically the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291786</id>
	<title>How long?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267185240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long until someone patents writing?</p><p>Or, to be simpler, what happens if someone patents patents?</p><p>What is the world is coming to?</p><p>We, as species, are only strong \_because\_ we share knowledge. All this infighting... what are we waiting for?</p><p>An alien/animal intelligent enemy that unites us?</p><p>Pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until someone patents writing ? Or , to be simpler , what happens if someone patents patents ? What is the world is coming to ? We , as species , are only strong \ _because \ _ we share knowledge .
All this infighting... what are we waiting for ? An alien/animal intelligent enemy that unites us ? Pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until someone patents writing?Or, to be simpler, what happens if someone patents patents?What is the world is coming to?We, as species, are only strong \_because\_ we share knowledge.
All this infighting... what are we waiting for?An alien/animal intelligent enemy that unites us?Pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290644</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267179000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You post has been processed and stored.  The activity to be displayed is: "Mods: Mod parent Karma Whore (Troll)".</htmltext>
<tokenext>You post has been processed and stored .
The activity to be displayed is : " Mods : Mod parent Karma Whore ( Troll ) " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You post has been processed and stored.
The activity to be displayed is: "Mods: Mod parent Karma Whore (Troll)".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291806</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1267185360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what they invented is a couple of WHERE and ORDER BY clauses in a sql query <b>based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user</b>?</p></div><p>Maybe it's the algorithm part that's different here and not the SQL?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what they invented is a couple of WHERE and ORDER BY clauses in a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user ? Maybe it 's the algorithm part that 's different here and not the SQL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what they invented is a couple of WHERE and ORDER BY clauses in a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user?Maybe it's the algorithm part that's different here and not the SQL?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291342</id>
	<title>Re:Lazy Patent Agents</title>
	<author>operator\_error</author>
	<datestamp>1267182660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or RSS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or RSS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or RSS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291640</id>
	<title>Re:Lazy Patent Agents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267184460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only they had some kind of live 'feed' that could show them patent requests in order as they come in...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only they had some kind of live 'feed ' that could show them patent requests in order as they come in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only they had some kind of live 'feed' that could show them patent requests in order as they come in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291196</id>
	<title>my name is ASS POS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267181700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and only get my fr0sty p1sses by cheating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and only get my fr0sty p1sses by cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and only get my fr0sty p1sses by cheating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31294512</id>
	<title>broke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267204440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>too bad it's broke all the dam time</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>too bad it 's broke all the dam time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>too bad it's broke all the dam time</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290834</id>
	<title>Good news</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267179780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If its patented and only usable by one company the idea of everyone aware of the actions of the friends of your friends, then that privacy nightmare will became unpopular.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If its patented and only usable by one company the idea of everyone aware of the actions of the friends of your friends , then that privacy nightmare will became unpopular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If its patented and only usable by one company the idea of everyone aware of the actions of the friends of your friends, then that privacy nightmare will became unpopular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292006</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267186500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This description sounds like they patented<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This description sounds like they patented / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This description sounds like they patented /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291064</id>
	<title>Re:The real funny meat of the article!</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1267181040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They used open-source code, namely JavaScript, which is open and free and created a process by leveraging existing technology.</i></p><p>While I think the patent in question (and virtually all software patents) is bullshit, this part of the argument above is utterly absurd.</p><p>Even the most legitimate patents trivially fall into this category of things developed using other things that already exist by leveraging existing technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They used open-source code , namely JavaScript , which is open and free and created a process by leveraging existing technology.While I think the patent in question ( and virtually all software patents ) is bullshit , this part of the argument above is utterly absurd.Even the most legitimate patents trivially fall into this category of things developed using other things that already exist by leveraging existing technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They used open-source code, namely JavaScript, which is open and free and created a process by leveraging existing technology.While I think the patent in question (and virtually all software patents) is bullshit, this part of the argument above is utterly absurd.Even the most legitimate patents trivially fall into this category of things developed using other things that already exist by leveraging existing technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291318</id>
	<title>Re:The real funny meat of the article!</title>
	<author>Sepodati</author>
	<datestamp>1267182420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me<br>&gt;&gt; as clearly violating this patent.</p><p>Where does Buzz or Twitter automatically generate news items based on the activities of other users and include a link so that you can also participate in those activities?</p><p>This basically patents the part I hate the most about Facebook. Stupid updates about people feeding the Aquarium Fish or playing Mafia Wars and a link so you can play, too. If this stops other social media sites/apps from adding these stupid games and just sticking to status updates, links, pictures, etc., I'm all for it. I'll switch to one of them, eventually.</p><p>-John</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me &gt; &gt; as clearly violating this patent.Where does Buzz or Twitter automatically generate news items based on the activities of other users and include a link so that you can also participate in those activities ? This basically patents the part I hate the most about Facebook .
Stupid updates about people feeding the Aquarium Fish or playing Mafia Wars and a link so you can play , too .
If this stops other social media sites/apps from adding these stupid games and just sticking to status updates , links , pictures , etc. , I 'm all for it .
I 'll switch to one of them , eventually.-John</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me&gt;&gt; as clearly violating this patent.Where does Buzz or Twitter automatically generate news items based on the activities of other users and include a link so that you can also participate in those activities?This basically patents the part I hate the most about Facebook.
Stupid updates about people feeding the Aquarium Fish or playing Mafia Wars and a link so you can play, too.
If this stops other social media sites/apps from adding these stupid games and just sticking to status updates, links, pictures, etc., I'm all for it.
I'll switch to one of them, eventually.-John</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31295324</id>
	<title>Should not be patentable in the first place</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1267302300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's merely an algorithm... reducible to pure maths.
<p>
I wish people would stop trying to defeat software patents on the basis of prior art and instead work on defeating them as un-patentable in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's merely an algorithm... reducible to pure maths .
I wish people would stop trying to defeat software patents on the basis of prior art and instead work on defeating them as un-patentable in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's merely an algorithm... reducible to pure maths.
I wish people would stop trying to defeat software patents on the basis of prior art and instead work on defeating them as un-patentable in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290856</id>
	<title>This isn't possible and this is what it means</title>
	<author>Kanel</author>
	<datestamp>1267179900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't patent something that has already been published or is out in the open. The Facebook news is well known so this means one of two things:</p><p>1) This is a patent that was filed years ago, before facebook launched the feed. In the years since the filing, facebook has probably developed their feed away from the original proposal in the patent</p><p>2) The patent contains something new that facebook has not implemented in today's facebook and which is not published elsewhere. In that case, what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't patent something that has already been published or is out in the open .
The Facebook news is well known so this means one of two things : 1 ) This is a patent that was filed years ago , before facebook launched the feed .
In the years since the filing , facebook has probably developed their feed away from the original proposal in the patent2 ) The patent contains something new that facebook has not implemented in today 's facebook and which is not published elsewhere .
In that case , what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't patent something that has already been published or is out in the open.
The Facebook news is well known so this means one of two things:1) This is a patent that was filed years ago, before facebook launched the feed.
In the years since the filing, facebook has probably developed their feed away from the original proposal in the patent2) The patent contains something new that facebook has not implemented in today's facebook and which is not published elsewhere.
In that case, what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291442</id>
	<title>Does Slashdot violate the patent?</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1267183260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If not, let's patent the 'hide user comments for a score less than'!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If not , let 's patent the 'hide user comments for a score less than ' !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If not, let's patent the 'hide user comments for a score less than'!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291170</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>Dachannien</author>
	<datestamp>1267181580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed when you did your copy-and-paste.  Here's what you should have quoted:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1. A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed when you did your copy-and-paste .
Here 's what you should have quoted : 1 .
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment , the method comprising : monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment ; storing the plurality of activities in a database ; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities , wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user ; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user ; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users ; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed when you did your copy-and-paste.
Here's what you should have quoted:1.
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291536</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't possible and this is what it means</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267183860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't patent something that has already been published or is out in the open. The Facebook news is well known so this means one of two things:</p><p>1) This is a patent that was filed years ago, before facebook launched the feed. In the years since the filing, facebook has probably developed their feed away from the original proposal in the patent</p></div><p>The patent was filed August 11, 2006. Facebook opened itself to the public on Sept 26, 2006, although it was open to college students prior to that. If Facebook didn't add this feature until the Sept 26, 2006 relaunch, then the application pre-dates the public use, and the patent isn't removing something from the public domain.</p><p>
Additionally, under 35 USC 102(b), you actually have an entire year to use your invention before you have to file. It's a grace period. So they could have implemented the feature at any point up to August 11, 2005.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't patent something that has already been published or is out in the open .
The Facebook news is well known so this means one of two things : 1 ) This is a patent that was filed years ago , before facebook launched the feed .
In the years since the filing , facebook has probably developed their feed away from the original proposal in the patentThe patent was filed August 11 , 2006 .
Facebook opened itself to the public on Sept 26 , 2006 , although it was open to college students prior to that .
If Facebook did n't add this feature until the Sept 26 , 2006 relaunch , then the application pre-dates the public use , and the patent is n't removing something from the public domain .
Additionally , under 35 USC 102 ( b ) , you actually have an entire year to use your invention before you have to file .
It 's a grace period .
So they could have implemented the feature at any point up to August 11 , 2005 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't patent something that has already been published or is out in the open.
The Facebook news is well known so this means one of two things:1) This is a patent that was filed years ago, before facebook launched the feed.
In the years since the filing, facebook has probably developed their feed away from the original proposal in the patentThe patent was filed August 11, 2006.
Facebook opened itself to the public on Sept 26, 2006, although it was open to college students prior to that.
If Facebook didn't add this feature until the Sept 26, 2006 relaunch, then the application pre-dates the public use, and the patent isn't removing something from the public domain.
Additionally, under 35 USC 102(b), you actually have an entire year to use your invention before you have to file.
It's a grace period.
So they could have implemented the feature at any point up to August 11, 2005.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291562</id>
	<title>Go with this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267183980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>claim 1:<br>1. A method for reviewing the reccommendations of countless months of volunteer collaboration on methods and implementation suggestions of standardizing computational algorithms to be implemented by adopting parties for a specific communication method -- hyper text transfer protocol -- where the result of stable, accurate, efficient and less-prone-to-error -- that is, less prone to not-follow-the-standards supposedly adopted by affectively neglected voluntarily by adopting agent -- results in a processed medium from it's origination -- device (a) be it a computer or hard disk drive -- to desitination -- device (b) be it a computer or hard disk drive -- with the ultimate conclusing being something that began centuries ago when the \_Printing\_Press\_ was invented.</p><p>claim 2:<br>2. That we can duplicate this across all mediums without the need for a client (c) to fulfill a voluntary action to complete the process.</p><p>claim 3:<br>3. Claim 2 would be invalidated as well as all other claims within this patent if (c) does no longer wish to engage in the completion or acitivation or "start" of the communicative procedure to ensure the completion of claim 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>claim 1 : 1 .
A method for reviewing the reccommendations of countless months of volunteer collaboration on methods and implementation suggestions of standardizing computational algorithms to be implemented by adopting parties for a specific communication method -- hyper text transfer protocol -- where the result of stable , accurate , efficient and less-prone-to-error -- that is , less prone to not-follow-the-standards supposedly adopted by affectively neglected voluntarily by adopting agent -- results in a processed medium from it 's origination -- device ( a ) be it a computer or hard disk drive -- to desitination -- device ( b ) be it a computer or hard disk drive -- with the ultimate conclusing being something that began centuries ago when the \ _Printing \ _Press \ _ was invented.claim 2 : 2 .
That we can duplicate this across all mediums without the need for a client ( c ) to fulfill a voluntary action to complete the process.claim 3 : 3 .
Claim 2 would be invalidated as well as all other claims within this patent if ( c ) does no longer wish to engage in the completion or acitivation or " start " of the communicative procedure to ensure the completion of claim 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>claim 1:1.
A method for reviewing the reccommendations of countless months of volunteer collaboration on methods and implementation suggestions of standardizing computational algorithms to be implemented by adopting parties for a specific communication method -- hyper text transfer protocol -- where the result of stable, accurate, efficient and less-prone-to-error -- that is, less prone to not-follow-the-standards supposedly adopted by affectively neglected voluntarily by adopting agent -- results in a processed medium from it's origination -- device (a) be it a computer or hard disk drive -- to desitination -- device (b) be it a computer or hard disk drive -- with the ultimate conclusing being something that began centuries ago when the \_Printing\_Press\_ was invented.claim 2:2.
That we can duplicate this across all mediums without the need for a client (c) to fulfill a voluntary action to complete the process.claim 3:3.
Claim 2 would be invalidated as well as all other claims within this patent if (c) does no longer wish to engage in the completion or acitivation or "start" of the communicative procedure to ensure the completion of claim 1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31295444</id>
	<title>Flickr as prior art (2004)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267304340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really use Flickr, so I don't remember this, but possible (and clear) prior art: <a href="http://twitter.com/kellan/status/9651902873" title="twitter.com" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/kellan/status/9651902873</a> [twitter.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really use Flickr , so I do n't remember this , but possible ( and clear ) prior art : http : //twitter.com/kellan/status/9651902873 [ twitter.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really use Flickr, so I don't remember this, but possible (and clear) prior art: http://twitter.com/kellan/status/9651902873 [twitter.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290892</id>
	<title>Re:The real funny meat of the article!</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1267180140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me as clearly violating this patent.</p><p>Facebook would probably not try to exercise this patent outside of their narrow sphere.  The problem comes when they sell this to some patent troll who uses it to try to shut down the next big thing that comes along.</p><p>Combined with a couple dozen different patents it presents the appearance of an insurmountable roadblock, even if several of the pieces are fluff patents.</p><p>Even if we can't knock some sense into the patent office and expect them to find every existing example,  we can extract a pound of flesh from those that apply for patents already in common usage, by imposing mind numbingly sever financial penalties for failing to mention and dispose of existing art in common usage at the time of application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me as clearly violating this patent.Facebook would probably not try to exercise this patent outside of their narrow sphere .
The problem comes when they sell this to some patent troll who uses it to try to shut down the next big thing that comes along.Combined with a couple dozen different patents it presents the appearance of an insurmountable roadblock , even if several of the pieces are fluff patents.Even if we ca n't knock some sense into the patent office and expect them to find every existing example , we can extract a pound of flesh from those that apply for patents already in common usage , by imposing mind numbingly sever financial penalties for failing to mention and dispose of existing art in common usage at the time of application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me as clearly violating this patent.Facebook would probably not try to exercise this patent outside of their narrow sphere.
The problem comes when they sell this to some patent troll who uses it to try to shut down the next big thing that comes along.Combined with a couple dozen different patents it presents the appearance of an insurmountable roadblock, even if several of the pieces are fluff patents.Even if we can't knock some sense into the patent office and expect them to find every existing example,  we can extract a pound of flesh from those that apply for patents already in common usage, by imposing mind numbingly sever financial penalties for failing to mention and dispose of existing art in common usage at the time of application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292032</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1267186620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Sounds like this is the second coming of Einstein.</p><p>He's gone around the universe already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Sounds like this is the second coming of Einstein.He 's gone around the universe already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Sounds like this is the second coming of Einstein.He's gone around the universe already?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291296</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267182300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> We're in a death-spiral where all companies patent everything, because everybody else is doing it.  Welcome to government sanctioned anti-competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're in a death-spiral where all companies patent everything , because everybody else is doing it .
Welcome to government sanctioned anti-competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We're in a death-spiral where all companies patent everything, because everybody else is doing it.
Welcome to government sanctioned anti-competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291240</id>
	<title>Re:Should not be big.</title>
	<author>FredFredrickson</author>
	<datestamp>1267182000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention, it's just plainly stating what happened to who.
<br> <br>
I would like to patent "stating the truth in a list." Isn't that basically what they're doing?<br> <br>What if I started publishing a list that my program generated telling you of all the activities of a group of people? Would I have to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Lie about it as to not cross this patent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention , it 's just plainly stating what happened to who .
I would like to patent " stating the truth in a list .
" Is n't that basically what they 're doing ?
What if I started publishing a list that my program generated telling you of all the activities of a group of people ?
Would I have to .. Lie about it as to not cross this patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention, it's just plainly stating what happened to who.
I would like to patent "stating the truth in a list.
" Isn't that basically what they're doing?
What if I started publishing a list that my program generated telling you of all the activities of a group of people?
Would I have to .. Lie about it as to not cross this patent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290732</id>
	<title>RSS</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1267179360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't the news feed very similar to aggregated RSS feeds from multiple sources?  Not necessarily technically, but from a "process" standpoint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the news feed very similar to aggregated RSS feeds from multiple sources ?
Not necessarily technically , but from a " process " standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the news feed very similar to aggregated RSS feeds from multiple sources?
Not necessarily technically, but from a "process" standpoint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31297686</id>
	<title>I have less competitors then I guess</title>
	<author>Heddahenrik</author>
	<datestamp>1267295700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As my sites aren't based in the USA, but in EU, this basically only means that I'll get fewer competitors from the USA and that the ones I have will spend more money on lawyers and less on development. I don't see how reading a patent would help me implement this though, but there might be something smart in there that I can't see by simply using Facebook and think.
<p>

Yes, I run sites similar to Facebook and I'm about to implement that kind of news-feed. Different, but similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As my sites are n't based in the USA , but in EU , this basically only means that I 'll get fewer competitors from the USA and that the ones I have will spend more money on lawyers and less on development .
I do n't see how reading a patent would help me implement this though , but there might be something smart in there that I ca n't see by simply using Facebook and think .
Yes , I run sites similar to Facebook and I 'm about to implement that kind of news-feed .
Different , but similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As my sites aren't based in the USA, but in EU, this basically only means that I'll get fewer competitors from the USA and that the ones I have will spend more money on lawyers and less on development.
I don't see how reading a patent would help me implement this though, but there might be something smart in there that I can't see by simply using Facebook and think.
Yes, I run sites similar to Facebook and I'm about to implement that kind of news-feed.
Different, but similar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290998</id>
	<title>Should not be big.</title>
	<author>Ceriel Nosforit</author>
	<datestamp>1267180620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should not be patented. Newsfeed is needed for human survival. It should not carry a price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should not be patented .
Newsfeed is needed for human survival .
It should not carry a price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should not be patented.
Newsfeed is needed for human survival.
It should not carry a price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</id>
	<title>where and order by</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1267178700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=Facebook.ASNM.&amp;OS=AN/Facebook&amp;RS=AN/Facebook" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">Here's the patent info</a> [uspto.gov].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There are existing mechanisms that allow a user to display information about other users. Some mechanisms may allow the user to select particular news items for immediate viewing. Typically, however, these news items are disparate and disorganized. In other words, the user must spend time researching a news topic by searching for, identifying, and reading individual news items that are not presented in a coherent, consolidated manner. Often, many of the news are not relevant to the user. Just as often, the user remains unaware of the existence of some news items that were not captured in the user's research. What is needed is an automatically generated display that contains information relevant to a user about another user of a social network.</p></div><p>So what they invented is a couple of WHERE and ORDER BY clauses in a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user?</p><p>Sounds like this is the second coming of Einstein.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the patent info [ uspto.gov ] .There are existing mechanisms that allow a user to display information about other users .
Some mechanisms may allow the user to select particular news items for immediate viewing .
Typically , however , these news items are disparate and disorganized .
In other words , the user must spend time researching a news topic by searching for , identifying , and reading individual news items that are not presented in a coherent , consolidated manner .
Often , many of the news are not relevant to the user .
Just as often , the user remains unaware of the existence of some news items that were not captured in the user 's research .
What is needed is an automatically generated display that contains information relevant to a user about another user of a social network.So what they invented is a couple of WHERE and ORDER BY clauses in a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user ? Sounds like this is the second coming of Einstein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the patent info [uspto.gov].There are existing mechanisms that allow a user to display information about other users.
Some mechanisms may allow the user to select particular news items for immediate viewing.
Typically, however, these news items are disparate and disorganized.
In other words, the user must spend time researching a news topic by searching for, identifying, and reading individual news items that are not presented in a coherent, consolidated manner.
Often, many of the news are not relevant to the user.
Just as often, the user remains unaware of the existence of some news items that were not captured in the user's research.
What is needed is an automatically generated display that contains information relevant to a user about another user of a social network.So what they invented is a couple of WHERE and ORDER BY clauses in a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user?Sounds like this is the second coming of Einstein.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292254</id>
	<title>Re:The real funny meat of the article!</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1267187580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me as clearly violating this patent.</p></div><p>Really?  I bill tens of hours carefully picking over the specification, the claims, the prosecution history, and the prior art before I ever give my clients an opinion like that, and I never use the word "clearly."  "Likely" is about the strongest commitment you'll get, because you don't really know until you've taken the thing to trial and exhausted your appeals.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem comes when they sell this to some patent troll who uses it to try to shut down the next big thing that comes along.</p></div><p>Why would they do that if it's as valuable as you think it is?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if we can't knock some sense into the patent office and expect them to find every existing example, we can extract a pound of flesh from those that apply for patents already in common usage, by imposing mind numbingly sever financial penalties for failing to mention and dispose of existing art in common usage at the time of application.</p></div><p>Patent applicants and their attorneys are already required to disclose to the patent office any relevant prior art that they're aware of (look up "inequitable conduct").  The penalty for failing to do so is a void patent.  If a patentee intentionally held back prior art and then sued a competitor on the bad patent, the trial court could very easily award stiff sanctions.  There is absolutely <strong>no</strong> incentive for holding back known art.  Patent attorneys are paranoid about this.  If anything, we err far on the side of disclosing stuff that's only marginally relevant rather than be found to have held back prior art.  I myself have withdrawn (on the client's instructions) applications that had <em>already been allowed</em> so that we could submit art that we weren't even sure was relevant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me as clearly violating this patent.Really ?
I bill tens of hours carefully picking over the specification , the claims , the prosecution history , and the prior art before I ever give my clients an opinion like that , and I never use the word " clearly .
" " Likely " is about the strongest commitment you 'll get , because you do n't really know until you 've taken the thing to trial and exhausted your appeals.The problem comes when they sell this to some patent troll who uses it to try to shut down the next big thing that comes along.Why would they do that if it 's as valuable as you think it is ? Even if we ca n't knock some sense into the patent office and expect them to find every existing example , we can extract a pound of flesh from those that apply for patents already in common usage , by imposing mind numbingly sever financial penalties for failing to mention and dispose of existing art in common usage at the time of application.Patent applicants and their attorneys are already required to disclose to the patent office any relevant prior art that they 're aware of ( look up " inequitable conduct " ) .
The penalty for failing to do so is a void patent .
If a patentee intentionally held back prior art and then sued a competitor on the bad patent , the trial court could very easily award stiff sanctions .
There is absolutely no incentive for holding back known art .
Patent attorneys are paranoid about this .
If anything , we err far on the side of disclosing stuff that 's only marginally relevant rather than be found to have held back prior art .
I myself have withdrawn ( on the client 's instructions ) applications that had already been allowed so that we could submit art that we were n't even sure was relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a minimum Google Buzz and Twitter strike me as clearly violating this patent.Really?
I bill tens of hours carefully picking over the specification, the claims, the prosecution history, and the prior art before I ever give my clients an opinion like that, and I never use the word "clearly.
"  "Likely" is about the strongest commitment you'll get, because you don't really know until you've taken the thing to trial and exhausted your appeals.The problem comes when they sell this to some patent troll who uses it to try to shut down the next big thing that comes along.Why would they do that if it's as valuable as you think it is?Even if we can't knock some sense into the patent office and expect them to find every existing example, we can extract a pound of flesh from those that apply for patents already in common usage, by imposing mind numbingly sever financial penalties for failing to mention and dispose of existing art in common usage at the time of application.Patent applicants and their attorneys are already required to disclose to the patent office any relevant prior art that they're aware of (look up "inequitable conduct").
The penalty for failing to do so is a void patent.
If a patentee intentionally held back prior art and then sued a competitor on the bad patent, the trial court could very easily award stiff sanctions.
There is absolutely no incentive for holding back known art.
Patent attorneys are paranoid about this.
If anything, we err far on the side of disclosing stuff that's only marginally relevant rather than be found to have held back prior art.
I myself have withdrawn (on the client's instructions) applications that had already been allowed so that we could submit art that we weren't even sure was relevant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291202</id>
	<title>Re:Lazy Patent Agents</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1267181760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The USPO is getting lazy</i> <br> <br>
I am going to be a bit more pragmatic and look at the cause. At my work, we all appear to be lazy, ie timelines are pushed, things get pushed off the list, and, in a less-than-ideal-world way we are under performance pressure. This results in  what I call the 80-20 result. Things get done to 80\% and are called finished.
<br> <br> I suspect an employees KPI's are calculated on "Applications processed" rather than some other measure. <br> <br>The only savior to the USPO in when the Govt decides there is international strategic advantage to a robust IP system.<br> <br>Which could be sooner rather than later. I predict IP will become the new oil reserves. When a country is invaded for IP disputes, we know we are home. The USPO will dance a happy jig as they get Homeland Security like funding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The USPO is getting lazy I am going to be a bit more pragmatic and look at the cause .
At my work , we all appear to be lazy , ie timelines are pushed , things get pushed off the list , and , in a less-than-ideal-world way we are under performance pressure .
This results in what I call the 80-20 result .
Things get done to 80 \ % and are called finished .
I suspect an employees KPI 's are calculated on " Applications processed " rather than some other measure .
The only savior to the USPO in when the Govt decides there is international strategic advantage to a robust IP system .
Which could be sooner rather than later .
I predict IP will become the new oil reserves .
When a country is invaded for IP disputes , we know we are home .
The USPO will dance a happy jig as they get Homeland Security like funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USPO is getting lazy  
I am going to be a bit more pragmatic and look at the cause.
At my work, we all appear to be lazy, ie timelines are pushed, things get pushed off the list, and, in a less-than-ideal-world way we are under performance pressure.
This results in  what I call the 80-20 result.
Things get done to 80\% and are called finished.
I suspect an employees KPI's are calculated on "Applications processed" rather than some other measure.
The only savior to the USPO in when the Govt decides there is international strategic advantage to a robust IP system.
Which could be sooner rather than later.
I predict IP will become the new oil reserves.
When a country is invaded for IP disputes, we know we are home.
The USPO will dance a happy jig as they get Homeland Security like funding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290708</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267179240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are existing mechanisms that allow a user to display information about other users. Some mechanisms may allow the user to select particular news items for immediate viewing. Typically, however, these <b>news items are disparate and disorganized</b>. In other words, the user must spend time researching a news topic by searching for, identifying, and reading individual news items that are <b>not presented in a coherent, consolidated manner</b>. Often, many of the news are <b>not relevant to the user</b>. Just as often, the <b>user remains unaware</b> of the existence of some news items that were not captured in the user's research. What is needed is an automatically generated display that contains information relevant to a user about another user of a social network.</p></div><p>Is it just me or are the parts I emphasized here simply describing how facebook works?</p><p>Having news presented to me sorted by what order my "friends" happened to stumble upon it seems quite  "disparate and disorganized" to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are existing mechanisms that allow a user to display information about other users .
Some mechanisms may allow the user to select particular news items for immediate viewing .
Typically , however , these news items are disparate and disorganized .
In other words , the user must spend time researching a news topic by searching for , identifying , and reading individual news items that are not presented in a coherent , consolidated manner .
Often , many of the news are not relevant to the user .
Just as often , the user remains unaware of the existence of some news items that were not captured in the user 's research .
What is needed is an automatically generated display that contains information relevant to a user about another user of a social network.Is it just me or are the parts I emphasized here simply describing how facebook works ? Having news presented to me sorted by what order my " friends " happened to stumble upon it seems quite " disparate and disorganized " to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are existing mechanisms that allow a user to display information about other users.
Some mechanisms may allow the user to select particular news items for immediate viewing.
Typically, however, these news items are disparate and disorganized.
In other words, the user must spend time researching a news topic by searching for, identifying, and reading individual news items that are not presented in a coherent, consolidated manner.
Often, many of the news are not relevant to the user.
Just as often, the user remains unaware of the existence of some news items that were not captured in the user's research.
What is needed is an automatically generated display that contains information relevant to a user about another user of a social network.Is it just me or are the parts I emphasized here simply describing how facebook works?Having news presented to me sorted by what order my "friends" happened to stumble upon it seems quite  "disparate and disorganized" to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290658</id>
	<title>The real funny meat of the article!</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1267179060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA: Bajarin agrees that the patent is yet another sign of the need for patent reform. "This is one of those disappointing actions by the patent department and demonstrates their weakness when it comes to technology," Bajarin said. "It is not clear that Facebook actually invented anything unique or proprietary in order to get this patent. They used open-source code, namely JavaScript, which is open and free and created a process by leveraging existing technology."</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : Bajarin agrees that the patent is yet another sign of the need for patent reform .
" This is one of those disappointing actions by the patent department and demonstrates their weakness when it comes to technology , " Bajarin said .
" It is not clear that Facebook actually invented anything unique or proprietary in order to get this patent .
They used open-source code , namely JavaScript , which is open and free and created a process by leveraging existing technology .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: Bajarin agrees that the patent is yet another sign of the need for patent reform.
"This is one of those disappointing actions by the patent department and demonstrates their weakness when it comes to technology," Bajarin said.
"It is not clear that Facebook actually invented anything unique or proprietary in order to get this patent.
They used open-source code, namely JavaScript, which is open and free and created a process by leveraging existing technology.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292220</id>
	<title>If it stops others...</title>
	<author>wrook</author>
	<datestamp>1267187460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it stops others from implementing this abomination, I'm all for it.  As embarrassed as I am to admit that I use FB I have to say that the News Feed is horrible.  I guess they were trying to find a way to show me what I'm interested in without showing me a whole bunch of garbage.  They failed utterly.  News Feed has some random kind of order that I can't fathom.  It mainly shows me things I've already seen without showing me new stuff.  And it seems I can't permanently turn it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it stops others from implementing this abomination , I 'm all for it .
As embarrassed as I am to admit that I use FB I have to say that the News Feed is horrible .
I guess they were trying to find a way to show me what I 'm interested in without showing me a whole bunch of garbage .
They failed utterly .
News Feed has some random kind of order that I ca n't fathom .
It mainly shows me things I 've already seen without showing me new stuff .
And it seems I ca n't permanently turn it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it stops others from implementing this abomination, I'm all for it.
As embarrassed as I am to admit that I use FB I have to say that the News Feed is horrible.
I guess they were trying to find a way to show me what I'm interested in without showing me a whole bunch of garbage.
They failed utterly.
News Feed has some random kind of order that I can't fathom.
It mainly shows me things I've already seen without showing me new stuff.
And it seems I can't permanently turn it off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290982</id>
	<title>reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267180560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is claim 1<br>1. A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.</p><p>In patents, you are allowed EXACTLY what you claim, no more and no less; while in some cases you can read claims as english, in other cases, you have to read them understanding that the legal profession uses words differently.<br>There have been whole court cases over what exactly "the' in a claim meant, because the precise meaning can influence exactly what the claim means</p><p>I don't know enough about network patents to comment, but perhaps a knowledgable person can comment on the second clause "monitoring a plurality..."<br>it seems to me tht it might be easy to write a new patent that avoids this part of the claim and therefor makes this patent worthelss</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is claim 11 .
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment , the method comprising : monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment ; storing the plurality of activities in a database ; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities , wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user ; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user ; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users ; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.In patents , you are allowed EXACTLY what you claim , no more and no less ; while in some cases you can read claims as english , in other cases , you have to read them understanding that the legal profession uses words differently.There have been whole court cases over what exactly " the ' in a claim meant , because the precise meaning can influence exactly what the claim meansI do n't know enough about network patents to comment , but perhaps a knowledgable person can comment on the second clause " monitoring a plurality... " it seems to me tht it might be easy to write a new patent that avoids this part of the claim and therefor makes this patent worthelss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is claim 11.
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.In patents, you are allowed EXACTLY what you claim, no more and no less; while in some cases you can read claims as english, in other cases, you have to read them understanding that the legal profession uses words differently.There have been whole court cases over what exactly "the' in a claim meant, because the precise meaning can influence exactly what the claim meansI don't know enough about network patents to comment, but perhaps a knowledgable person can comment on the second clause "monitoring a plurality..."it seems to me tht it might be easy to write a new patent that avoids this part of the claim and therefor makes this patent worthelss</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290764</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267179540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news Microsoft today was granted patents for the application for, approving of, and legal protection provided by documented inventions. The expected lawsuit of every government in the world is expected shortly. When reached for comment the head of the U.S. patent office was found to be a small gremlin like creature living in a dark cave beneath Congress who's only response was something about Sarah Palin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news Microsoft today was granted patents for the application for , approving of , and legal protection provided by documented inventions .
The expected lawsuit of every government in the world is expected shortly .
When reached for comment the head of the U.S. patent office was found to be a small gremlin like creature living in a dark cave beneath Congress who 's only response was something about Sarah Palin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news Microsoft today was granted patents for the application for, approving of, and legal protection provided by documented inventions.
The expected lawsuit of every government in the world is expected shortly.
When reached for comment the head of the U.S. patent office was found to be a small gremlin like creature living in a dark cave beneath Congress who's only response was something about Sarah Palin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291490</id>
	<title>Not Google News</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1267183560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The USPO is getting lazy. There is quite a few examples of prior art which would extinguish this useless patent, namely Google News.</p></div><p>Uh, no. Here's the claim:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1. A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising:<br>
monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment;<br>
storing the plurality of activities in a database;<br>
generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user;<br>
attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user;<br>
limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and<br>
displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.</p></div><p>Hint: Just because it says the word "news" doesn't mean that anything involving news is prior art. For instance, Google News doesn't present items relating to activities performed by another Google News user.</p><p>
I wouldn't throw stones at the USPTO for being lazy when you can't even be bothered to read the patent claims.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The USPO is getting lazy .
There is quite a few examples of prior art which would extinguish this useless patent , namely Google News.Uh , no .
Here 's the claim : 1 .
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment , the method comprising : monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment ; storing the plurality of activities in a database ; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities , wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user ; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user ; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users ; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.Hint : Just because it says the word " news " does n't mean that anything involving news is prior art .
For instance , Google News does n't present items relating to activities performed by another Google News user .
I would n't throw stones at the USPTO for being lazy when you ca n't even be bothered to read the patent claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USPO is getting lazy.
There is quite a few examples of prior art which would extinguish this useless patent, namely Google News.Uh, no.
Here's the claim:1.
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising:
monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment;
storing the plurality of activities in a database;
generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user;
attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user;
limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and
displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.Hint: Just because it says the word "news" doesn't mean that anything involving news is prior art.
For instance, Google News doesn't present items relating to activities performed by another Google News user.
I wouldn't throw stones at the USPTO for being lazy when you can't even be bothered to read the patent claims.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290726</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>magsol</author>
	<datestamp>1267179360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet again, it would appear that the US patent system is being used to stifle competition, as opposed to stimulating innovation.<br> <br>

And here I was, thinking the patent application I submitted while interning at IBM which was a new ways of providing recommendations to users was actually a good idea. It's apparent to me now which of these two patents was clearly more original.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet again , it would appear that the US patent system is being used to stifle competition , as opposed to stimulating innovation .
And here I was , thinking the patent application I submitted while interning at IBM which was a new ways of providing recommendations to users was actually a good idea .
It 's apparent to me now which of these two patents was clearly more original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet again, it would appear that the US patent system is being used to stifle competition, as opposed to stimulating innovation.
And here I was, thinking the patent application I submitted while interning at IBM which was a new ways of providing recommendations to users was actually a good idea.
It's apparent to me now which of these two patents was clearly more original.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290790</id>
	<title>Re:where and order by</title>
	<author>Michael Kristopeit</author>
	<datestamp>1267179600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user?</p></div><p>not "user"... it's "user of a social network".  TOTALLY different.  there is obvious prior art showing this for general "users"... facebook's new INVENTION applies the concept in a proprietary process to "users of social network".  where is the shame for the investors that are probably stuck $100k on fees and salary to get this filed?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user ? not " user " ... it 's " user of a social network " .
TOTALLY different .
there is obvious prior art showing this for general " users " ... facebook 's new INVENTION applies the concept in a proprietary process to " users of social network " .
where is the shame for the investors that are probably stuck $ 100k on fees and salary to get this filed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a sql query based on what the algorithm thinks is relevant to the user?not "user"... it's "user of a social network".
TOTALLY different.
there is obvious prior art showing this for general "users"... facebook's new INVENTION applies the concept in a proprietary process to "users of social network".
where is the shame for the investors that are probably stuck $100k on fees and salary to get this filed?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291026</id>
	<title>Software patents are evil</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1267180860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another example of why software patents are a threat to the health of the republic. The sad thing is that Facebook probably actually thinks this is an "invention".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another example of why software patents are a threat to the health of the republic .
The sad thing is that Facebook probably actually thinks this is an " invention " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another example of why software patents are a threat to the health of the republic.
The sad thing is that Facebook probably actually thinks this is an "invention".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291302</id>
	<title>Really Simple Syndication</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1267182300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've just patented RSS feeds. Idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've just patented RSS feeds .
Idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've just patented RSS feeds.
Idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31300226</id>
	<title>Jewbook is fucking retarded</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267270980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck these fucking kike books</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck these fucking kike books</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck these fucking kike books</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291368</id>
	<title>Re:RSS</title>
	<author>Sepodati</author>
	<datestamp>1267182720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key to the patent is that news items are generated automatically based on the activities of other users (your friends) and the news items have a link in them so that you can participate in the same activity. Add in security for who sees the news, ordering, database, etc, and you've got the patent.</p><p>I don't see how this relates to an RSS feed at all.</p><p>Not saying this is particularly novel, either, but that's what it is. It's not a patent on a "news feed". Typical slashdot summary.</p><p>-John</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key to the patent is that news items are generated automatically based on the activities of other users ( your friends ) and the news items have a link in them so that you can participate in the same activity .
Add in security for who sees the news , ordering , database , etc , and you 've got the patent.I do n't see how this relates to an RSS feed at all.Not saying this is particularly novel , either , but that 's what it is .
It 's not a patent on a " news feed " .
Typical slashdot summary.-John</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key to the patent is that news items are generated automatically based on the activities of other users (your friends) and the news items have a link in them so that you can participate in the same activity.
Add in security for who sees the news, ordering, database, etc, and you've got the patent.I don't see how this relates to an RSS feed at all.Not saying this is particularly novel, either, but that's what it is.
It's not a patent on a "news feed".
Typical slashdot summary.-John</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292990</id>
	<title>I can't be the only one who remembers pointcast.</title>
	<author>jamesccostello</author>
	<datestamp>1267191840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how is this any different than pointcast?  I wonder if they are still around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how is this any different than pointcast ?
I wonder if they are still around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is this any different than pointcast?
I wonder if they are still around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292744</id>
	<title>Database</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1267190460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When my patent on relation databases goes through I'm going to own this rock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When my patent on relation databases goes through I 'm going to own this rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my patent on relation databases goes through I'm going to own this rock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808</id>
	<title>Lazy Patent Agents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267179660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The USPO is getting lazy. There is quite a few examples of prior art which would extinguish this useless patent, namely Google News.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The USPO is getting lazy .
There is quite a few examples of prior art which would extinguish this useless patent , namely Google News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USPO is getting lazy.
There is quite a few examples of prior art which would extinguish this useless patent, namely Google News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31294178</id>
	<title>Slashdot Story + Patent = FAIL</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1267200900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again we have a Slashdot story on patents that is a complete FAIL.</p><p>THE ABSTRACT IS NOT WHAT THE PATENT COVERS. It is the first claim that is the patented material, to whit:</p><p>1. A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.</p><p>So really this is an attempt to make a news feed relevant to the structure of a social network. While I don't know what the prior art on this is, it is clearly not patenting RSS feeds, news feeds etc., and it may actually be something novel and non-obvious. Or not. But part of this implies limiting access to mews items to a set of users. From my own work I happen to know that access control within social networks is an area of current academic research. I happened to run into a recent presentation by Tim Berners-Lee on that very topic where he claimed it was an unsolved problem.</p><p>So what do we have here as far as Slashdot goes?</p><p>1. Story is wrong in particulars of patent coverage.<br>2. Story is probably wrong on issue of prior art.<br>3. Story is definitely wrong on issue of obviousness question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again we have a Slashdot story on patents that is a complete FAIL.THE ABSTRACT IS NOT WHAT THE PATENT COVERS .
It is the first claim that is the patented material , to whit : 1 .
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment , the method comprising : monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment ; storing the plurality of activities in a database ; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities , wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user ; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user ; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users ; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.So really this is an attempt to make a news feed relevant to the structure of a social network .
While I do n't know what the prior art on this is , it is clearly not patenting RSS feeds , news feeds etc. , and it may actually be something novel and non-obvious .
Or not .
But part of this implies limiting access to mews items to a set of users .
From my own work I happen to know that access control within social networks is an area of current academic research .
I happened to run into a recent presentation by Tim Berners-Lee on that very topic where he claimed it was an unsolved problem.So what do we have here as far as Slashdot goes ? 1 .
Story is wrong in particulars of patent coverage.2 .
Story is probably wrong on issue of prior art.3 .
Story is definitely wrong on issue of obviousness question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again we have a Slashdot story on patents that is a complete FAIL.THE ABSTRACT IS NOT WHAT THE PATENT COVERS.
It is the first claim that is the patented material, to whit:1.
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.So really this is an attempt to make a news feed relevant to the structure of a social network.
While I don't know what the prior art on this is, it is clearly not patenting RSS feeds, news feeds etc., and it may actually be something novel and non-obvious.
Or not.
But part of this implies limiting access to mews items to a set of users.
From my own work I happen to know that access control within social networks is an area of current academic research.
I happened to run into a recent presentation by Tim Berners-Lee on that very topic where he claimed it was an unsolved problem.So what do we have here as far as Slashdot goes?1.
Story is wrong in particulars of patent coverage.2.
Story is probably wrong on issue of prior art.3.
Story is definitely wrong on issue of obviousness question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291246</id>
	<title>Just to deter newcomers...</title>
	<author>Last\_Available\_Usern</author>
	<datestamp>1267182060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Facebook would lose a lot of face (pardon the pun) if they tried to act on this patent.  I personally don't think they intend to.  They just want to deter the "next big thing" from even seeing the light of day.  Everyone who enters this aerna would be walking onto a trap door that Facebook controls the lever of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook would lose a lot of face ( pardon the pun ) if they tried to act on this patent .
I personally do n't think they intend to .
They just want to deter the " next big thing " from even seeing the light of day .
Everyone who enters this aerna would be walking onto a trap door that Facebook controls the lever of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Facebook would lose a lot of face (pardon the pun) if they tried to act on this patent.
I personally don't think they intend to.
They just want to deter the "next big thing" from even seeing the light of day.
Everyone who enters this aerna would be walking onto a trap door that Facebook controls the lever of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292556</id>
	<title>But it doesn't work</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1267189320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they've patented the biggest thing they broke when they upgraded the site a few weeks back? They are most welcome to patent it, though they are wasting their time and money -- it does not work properly. No-one is going to copy it... no-one in their right minds anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they 've patented the biggest thing they broke when they upgraded the site a few weeks back ?
They are most welcome to patent it , though they are wasting their time and money -- it does not work properly .
No-one is going to copy it... no-one in their right minds anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they've patented the biggest thing they broke when they upgraded the site a few weeks back?
They are most welcome to patent it, though they are wasting their time and money -- it does not work properly.
No-one is going to copy it... no-one in their right minds anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_26_1926257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31295324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31294178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31291318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31292254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_26_1926257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_26_1926257.31290982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
