<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_01_221252</id>
	<title>"Patent Markings" Lawsuits Could Run Into the Trillions</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267444860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bizwriter writes <i>"The latest legal bugaboo facing manufacturers is the <a href="http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10005686/the-new-trillion-dollar-patent-trolls-false-patent-markings/">false patent marking suit</a>. Using what has been until recently an obscure type of legal action, individuals and enterprising law firms have targeted large manufacturers with lawsuits that can easily run million of dollars &mdash; in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer, over $10 trillion &mdash; for incorrectly including patent numbers on products. Some companies named in such suits are 3M, Cisco, Pfizer, Monster Cable, and Merck. Even expired patent numbers can be actionable."</i> Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate. What do you think the chances are? Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the <a href="http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/">Readability bookmarklet</a>, this is it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>bizwriter writes " The latest legal bugaboo facing manufacturers is the false patent marking suit .
Using what has been until recently an obscure type of legal action , individuals and enterprising law firms have targeted large manufacturers with lawsuits that can easily run million of dollars    in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer , over $ 10 trillion    for incorrectly including patent numbers on products .
Some companies named in such suits are 3M , Cisco , Pfizer , Monster Cable , and Merck .
Even expired patent numbers can be actionable .
" Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate .
What do you think the chances are ?
Note : if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readability bookmarklet , this is it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bizwriter writes "The latest legal bugaboo facing manufacturers is the false patent marking suit.
Using what has been until recently an obscure type of legal action, individuals and enterprising law firms have targeted large manufacturers with lawsuits that can easily run million of dollars — in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer, over $10 trillion — for incorrectly including patent numbers on products.
Some companies named in such suits are 3M, Cisco, Pfizer, Monster Cable, and Merck.
Even expired patent numbers can be actionable.
" Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate.
What do you think the chances are?
Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readability bookmarklet, this is it.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325218</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>nasch</author>
	<datestamp>1267453980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Organizations are always claiming 1) copyright on stuff they don't have the copyright to and 2) rights that copyright law does not actually accord them.  Like the NFL example given above - "pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the permission of the NFL are prohibited."  Copyright does not give them the right to prohibit descriptions or accounts of the copyrighted broadcast, so that copyright notice should be illegal and they should be substantially fined for it.  CDs would commonly prohibit lending on the copyright notice, which is also not permitted.  There are many other examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Organizations are always claiming 1 ) copyright on stuff they do n't have the copyright to and 2 ) rights that copyright law does not actually accord them .
Like the NFL example given above - " pictures , descriptions or accounts of the game without the permission of the NFL are prohibited .
" Copyright does not give them the right to prohibit descriptions or accounts of the copyrighted broadcast , so that copyright notice should be illegal and they should be substantially fined for it .
CDs would commonly prohibit lending on the copyright notice , which is also not permitted .
There are many other examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Organizations are always claiming 1) copyright on stuff they don't have the copyright to and 2) rights that copyright law does not actually accord them.
Like the NFL example given above - "pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the permission of the NFL are prohibited.
"  Copyright does not give them the right to prohibit descriptions or accounts of the copyrighted broadcast, so that copyright notice should be illegal and they should be substantially fined for it.
CDs would commonly prohibit lending on the copyright notice, which is also not permitted.
There are many other examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324786</id>
	<title>Re:Silly editor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267450800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts?</p><p>Because the USA, like its progenitor culture in Britain, is a [Common Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_law) system and the vast bulk of the law is [Casuistry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuistry) ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts ? Because the USA , like its progenitor culture in Britain , is a [ Common Law ] ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common \ _law ) system and the vast bulk of the law is [ Casuistry ] ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuistry ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts?Because the USA, like its progenitor culture in Britain, is a [Common Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common\_law) system and the vast bulk of the law is [Casuistry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuistry) ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324564</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1267449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There's no such thing as a questionable copyright notice,  since copyrights are automatic and don't have to be registered, it is almost always possible for a legitimate copyright claim to be made by the manufacturer  (even if in reality, their only creation is cover art and their process of selecting public domain material to fit in the middle ---   their choices of which public domain materials to include in an anthology or collection are in fact copyrightable).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no such thing as a questionable copyright notice , since copyrights are automatic and do n't have to be registered , it is almost always possible for a legitimate copyright claim to be made by the manufacturer ( even if in reality , their only creation is cover art and their process of selecting public domain material to fit in the middle --- their choices of which public domain materials to include in an anthology or collection are in fact copyrightable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There's no such thing as a questionable copyright notice,  since copyrights are automatic and don't have to be registered, it is almost always possible for a legitimate copyright claim to be made by the manufacturer  (even if in reality, their only creation is cover art and their process of selecting public domain material to fit in the middle ---   their choices of which public domain materials to include in an anthology or collection are in fact copyrightable).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324612</id>
	<title>Monster Cable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean you can patent snake oil?</p><p>Wikipedia entry," In one experiment, audiophile listeners could not distinguish between short Monster cables and ordinary coat hangers.[8] Another reviewer concluded that "16-gauge lamp cord and Monster [speaker] cable are indistinguishable from each other with music."[9]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean you can patent snake oil ? Wikipedia entry , " In one experiment , audiophile listeners could not distinguish between short Monster cables and ordinary coat hangers .
[ 8 ] Another reviewer concluded that " 16-gauge lamp cord and Monster [ speaker ] cable are indistinguishable from each other with music .
" [ 9 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean you can patent snake oil?Wikipedia entry," In one experiment, audiophile listeners could not distinguish between short Monster cables and ordinary coat hangers.
[8] Another reviewer concluded that "16-gauge lamp cord and Monster [speaker] cable are indistinguishable from each other with music.
"[9]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325746</id>
	<title>Re:Don't "lose track". Don't "forget".</title>
	<author>eggnoglatte</author>
	<datestamp>1267458420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Or don't mark (it isn't required).</p> </div><p>Yeah, but is that really what we want? At least if they include markings, they let you know that they think this product is covered by a patent. That is much better than a submarine patent that is hidden somewhere in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet.</p><p>Since you have the relevant patent numbers, any semi-competent competitor can go online, look up the patent, and see what exactly is covered by it. If the patent is expired, or simply doesn't apply to your competing product, you'll be able to see it right there. Basically, there is no harm done, so I don't see how you could ask for millions or billions of damage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or do n't mark ( it is n't required ) .
Yeah , but is that really what we want ?
At least if they include markings , they let you know that they think this product is covered by a patent .
That is much better than a submarine patent that is hidden somewhere in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet.Since you have the relevant patent numbers , any semi-competent competitor can go online , look up the patent , and see what exactly is covered by it .
If the patent is expired , or simply does n't apply to your competing product , you 'll be able to see it right there .
Basically , there is no harm done , so I do n't see how you could ask for millions or billions of damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Or don't mark (it isn't required).
Yeah, but is that really what we want?
At least if they include markings, they let you know that they think this product is covered by a patent.
That is much better than a submarine patent that is hidden somewhere in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet.Since you have the relevant patent numbers, any semi-competent competitor can go online, look up the patent, and see what exactly is covered by it.
If the patent is expired, or simply doesn't apply to your competing product, you'll be able to see it right there.
Basically, there is no harm done, so I don't see how you could ask for millions or billions of damage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31332174</id>
	<title>You have a better idea?</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1267555200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants?</p></div><p>So how do you propose to make large companies pay attention to their bad behavior?  The medical bills are pocket change and a company doesn't have a sense of ethics.  They exist to make money.  That is the ONLY reason most of them exist.  If a company misbehaves one way to punish the company is to do so financially - hence, punitive damages.</p><p>If you have a better idea I'm sure lots of people would be interested but I'm pretty sure you don't.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.</p></div><p>Which is an approach that potentially rewards large companies for bad behavior.  If the benefit of the bad behavior outweighs the financial cost, the company is going to behave badly.  People have died because of this sort of cost/benefit analysis.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment.</p></div><p>Agreed but you don't seem to have a very clear idea of what reasonable might be.  A $50,000 fine to McDonalds is not a punishment.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.</p></div><p>Why is the state any more deserving?  Besides, the state will take much of it in taxes anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding " punitive damages " , or whatever it is called in cases like these , to claimants ? So how do you propose to make large companies pay attention to their bad behavior ?
The medical bills are pocket change and a company does n't have a sense of ethics .
They exist to make money .
That is the ONLY reason most of them exist .
If a company misbehaves one way to punish the company is to do so financially - hence , punitive damages.If you have a better idea I 'm sure lots of people would be interested but I 'm pretty sure you do n't.In some countries , like the one I live in , payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees , maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.Which is an approach that potentially rewards large companies for bad behavior .
If the benefit of the bad behavior outweighs the financial cost , the company is going to behave badly .
People have died because of this sort of cost/benefit analysis.And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products , they should received reasonable punishment.Agreed but you do n't seem to have a very clear idea of what reasonable might be .
A $ 50,000 fine to McDonalds is not a punishment.Some of these amounts sound excessive , and in any case , they should be treated as fines and go to the state , not to some random claimant.Why is the state any more deserving ?
Besides , the state will take much of it in taxes anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants?So how do you propose to make large companies pay attention to their bad behavior?
The medical bills are pocket change and a company doesn't have a sense of ethics.
They exist to make money.
That is the ONLY reason most of them exist.
If a company misbehaves one way to punish the company is to do so financially - hence, punitive damages.If you have a better idea I'm sure lots of people would be interested but I'm pretty sure you don't.In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.Which is an approach that potentially rewards large companies for bad behavior.
If the benefit of the bad behavior outweighs the financial cost, the company is going to behave badly.
People have died because of this sort of cost/benefit analysis.And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment.Agreed but you don't seem to have a very clear idea of what reasonable might be.
A $50,000 fine to McDonalds is not a punishment.Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.Why is the state any more deserving?
Besides, the state will take much of it in taxes anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324844</id>
	<title>Re:Silly editor</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1267451160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can impose limits based on common sense, as allowed by BMW v. Gore.</p><p>However, you're right in that there should be a legislative fix.  California used to have a mechanism whereby someone could be sued by an unaffected person when that suit was "in the public interest."  As an example, places of business were sued because the restroom door was perhaps one-half of an inch too narrow according to statute for wheelchair-accessible restrooms.  Thousands of others were filed asking for damages of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.  Most settled, because the costs of going into court were too high.  In virtually all cases, the suits were filed by someone who was not in any way disabled, and in many cases settled out of court.  The plaintiff was also often an attorney, meaning every dime awarded was personally kept.</p><p>This seems like one of those things that should be able to sail through Congress on voice vote in about an hour for each house.  Maybe the $10 trillion maximum price tag will gather someone's interest there and spark the necessary bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can impose limits based on common sense , as allowed by BMW v. Gore.However , you 're right in that there should be a legislative fix .
California used to have a mechanism whereby someone could be sued by an unaffected person when that suit was " in the public interest .
" As an example , places of business were sued because the restroom door was perhaps one-half of an inch too narrow according to statute for wheelchair-accessible restrooms .
Thousands of others were filed asking for damages of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars .
Most settled , because the costs of going into court were too high .
In virtually all cases , the suits were filed by someone who was not in any way disabled , and in many cases settled out of court .
The plaintiff was also often an attorney , meaning every dime awarded was personally kept.This seems like one of those things that should be able to sail through Congress on voice vote in about an hour for each house .
Maybe the $ 10 trillion maximum price tag will gather someone 's interest there and spark the necessary bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can impose limits based on common sense, as allowed by BMW v. Gore.However, you're right in that there should be a legislative fix.
California used to have a mechanism whereby someone could be sued by an unaffected person when that suit was "in the public interest.
"  As an example, places of business were sued because the restroom door was perhaps one-half of an inch too narrow according to statute for wheelchair-accessible restrooms.
Thousands of others were filed asking for damages of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
Most settled, because the costs of going into court were too high.
In virtually all cases, the suits were filed by someone who was not in any way disabled, and in many cases settled out of court.
The plaintiff was also often an attorney, meaning every dime awarded was personally kept.This seems like one of those things that should be able to sail through Congress on voice vote in about an hour for each house.
Maybe the $10 trillion maximum price tag will gather someone's interest there and spark the necessary bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324626</id>
	<title>Isn't this more like anti-patent trolling?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1267449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article, these are suits against companies claiming patent protection on products when they don't in fact have it.</p><p>That's the opposite of claiming patent protection for something you don't have rights to, ie, patent trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article , these are suits against companies claiming patent protection on products when they do n't in fact have it.That 's the opposite of claiming patent protection for something you do n't have rights to , ie , patent trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article, these are suits against companies claiming patent protection on products when they don't in fact have it.That's the opposite of claiming patent protection for something you don't have rights to, ie, patent trolling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324554</id>
	<title>Not the court's job.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1267449180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to<br>&gt; inject some sense into the debate.</p><p>No, it's a perfect opportunity for an enlightened Congress to correct the law.  Oh.  Wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to &gt; inject some sense into the debate.No , it 's a perfect opportunity for an enlightened Congress to correct the law .
Oh. Wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to&gt; inject some sense into the debate.No, it's a perfect opportunity for an enlightened Congress to correct the law.
Oh.  Wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324948</id>
	<title>Re:Not so bad....</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1267451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really see no value in patents? It seems to me that as a society that we want to reward people who invent things. If we reward people for inventing things, it seems logical to punish people who lie about inventing things (eg false patent claims).</p><p>Certainly one can argue that the way we implement this is badly broken ( I think it is), but the basic idea seems sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really see no value in patents ?
It seems to me that as a society that we want to reward people who invent things .
If we reward people for inventing things , it seems logical to punish people who lie about inventing things ( eg false patent claims ) .Certainly one can argue that the way we implement this is badly broken ( I think it is ) , but the basic idea seems sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really see no value in patents?
It seems to me that as a society that we want to reward people who invent things.
If we reward people for inventing things, it seems logical to punish people who lie about inventing things (eg false patent claims).Certainly one can argue that the way we implement this is badly broken ( I think it is), but the basic idea seems sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329790</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267545060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other side, there was also a failure of common sense. If you take a paper or styrofoam cup and hold it in your hand, you can squeeze it flat fairly easily; the rim of the cup distorts with very little effort. If you put a lid on the cup, the lid holds the rim of the cup rigidly, which makes the cup resist deformation.</p><p>Consider the position involved in sticking a cup between your thighs to hold it while you're sitting in a car. The cup is full, so you have to press inward on the cup with your legs to keep it from dropping to the floor of the car. Now you reach down to pry the lid off the cup. As soon as the lid comes off the cup, you've removed the structural component keeping the cup from deforming under pressure from the sides; unless you're <b>very</b> careful about how you are holding the cup (i.e., keeping most of the pressure down at the bottom of the cup where its base keeps it from deforming), as soon as the lid comes off, the pressure of your thighs against the sides of the cup <b>will</b> squeeze the cup flat to a greater or lesser extent; if the cup was full before this occurred, it <b>will</b> slop its contents onto your legs. Doing this in a moving car compounds the problem; without a lid, bumps and swaying will slosh the liquid in the cup, likely causing <i>more</i> slop out onto your legs.</p><p>If you're going to take the lid off a full cup of hot coffee, the <b>sensible</b> way to do it is to either wait until you're stopped at a light and hold the cup in one hand while removing the lid with the other, or put it in a cup-holder to do it. Sticking the cup between your legs to peel the lid off is <b>asking</b> to have the contents of the cup splashed all over your legs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other side , there was also a failure of common sense .
If you take a paper or styrofoam cup and hold it in your hand , you can squeeze it flat fairly easily ; the rim of the cup distorts with very little effort .
If you put a lid on the cup , the lid holds the rim of the cup rigidly , which makes the cup resist deformation.Consider the position involved in sticking a cup between your thighs to hold it while you 're sitting in a car .
The cup is full , so you have to press inward on the cup with your legs to keep it from dropping to the floor of the car .
Now you reach down to pry the lid off the cup .
As soon as the lid comes off the cup , you 've removed the structural component keeping the cup from deforming under pressure from the sides ; unless you 're very careful about how you are holding the cup ( i.e. , keeping most of the pressure down at the bottom of the cup where its base keeps it from deforming ) , as soon as the lid comes off , the pressure of your thighs against the sides of the cup will squeeze the cup flat to a greater or lesser extent ; if the cup was full before this occurred , it will slop its contents onto your legs .
Doing this in a moving car compounds the problem ; without a lid , bumps and swaying will slosh the liquid in the cup , likely causing more slop out onto your legs.If you 're going to take the lid off a full cup of hot coffee , the sensible way to do it is to either wait until you 're stopped at a light and hold the cup in one hand while removing the lid with the other , or put it in a cup-holder to do it .
Sticking the cup between your legs to peel the lid off is asking to have the contents of the cup splashed all over your legs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other side, there was also a failure of common sense.
If you take a paper or styrofoam cup and hold it in your hand, you can squeeze it flat fairly easily; the rim of the cup distorts with very little effort.
If you put a lid on the cup, the lid holds the rim of the cup rigidly, which makes the cup resist deformation.Consider the position involved in sticking a cup between your thighs to hold it while you're sitting in a car.
The cup is full, so you have to press inward on the cup with your legs to keep it from dropping to the floor of the car.
Now you reach down to pry the lid off the cup.
As soon as the lid comes off the cup, you've removed the structural component keeping the cup from deforming under pressure from the sides; unless you're very careful about how you are holding the cup (i.e., keeping most of the pressure down at the bottom of the cup where its base keeps it from deforming), as soon as the lid comes off, the pressure of your thighs against the sides of the cup will squeeze the cup flat to a greater or lesser extent; if the cup was full before this occurred, it will slop its contents onto your legs.
Doing this in a moving car compounds the problem; without a lid, bumps and swaying will slosh the liquid in the cup, likely causing more slop out onto your legs.If you're going to take the lid off a full cup of hot coffee, the sensible way to do it is to either wait until you're stopped at a light and hold the cup in one hand while removing the lid with the other, or put it in a cup-holder to do it.
Sticking the cup between your legs to peel the lid off is asking to have the contents of the cup splashed all over your legs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324678</id>
	<title>Not trolling.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove numbers of patents that had expired.</p></div><p>I see no reason to claim this is trolling as the article does (yeah i read it, find the guy that patented RTFA and have him sue me).  Marking a product with a patent number is a claim not that you will sue someone for producing a similar item, but a claim that you clearly have legal grounds to do so.  Marking a product with an irrelevant patent number then is essentially extortion (i'm unsure if the term 'extortion' can apply to pressuring one into inaction.  If there is a more appropriate term, let me know please).  Any company putting a patent number on a product has a responsibility to make sure their claim is valid.  Not updating packaging perfectly on time should certainly be a more forgivable offense, but totally forgetting what patents cover your products is just unacceptable.  How many seperate patents or products could any given company have?  I realize the number could get quite high, but nothing a simple database even such as SQlite can't handle.  Patents are a legal construct designed to give an innovator a monopoly long enough to capitalize on innovations.  I don't know why it would ever need to even be said explicitly but if you are unsure, don't make claims that have legal implications.</p><p>The real trolls here are the companies putting false numbers on products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents cover a given product , or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove numbers of patents that had expired.I see no reason to claim this is trolling as the article does ( yeah i read it , find the guy that patented RTFA and have him sue me ) .
Marking a product with a patent number is a claim not that you will sue someone for producing a similar item , but a claim that you clearly have legal grounds to do so .
Marking a product with an irrelevant patent number then is essentially extortion ( i 'm unsure if the term 'extortion ' can apply to pressuring one into inaction .
If there is a more appropriate term , let me know please ) .
Any company putting a patent number on a product has a responsibility to make sure their claim is valid .
Not updating packaging perfectly on time should certainly be a more forgivable offense , but totally forgetting what patents cover your products is just unacceptable .
How many seperate patents or products could any given company have ?
I realize the number could get quite high , but nothing a simple database even such as SQlite ca n't handle .
Patents are a legal construct designed to give an innovator a monopoly long enough to capitalize on innovations .
I do n't know why it would ever need to even be said explicitly but if you are unsure , do n't make claims that have legal implications.The real trolls here are the companies putting false numbers on products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove numbers of patents that had expired.I see no reason to claim this is trolling as the article does (yeah i read it, find the guy that patented RTFA and have him sue me).
Marking a product with a patent number is a claim not that you will sue someone for producing a similar item, but a claim that you clearly have legal grounds to do so.
Marking a product with an irrelevant patent number then is essentially extortion (i'm unsure if the term 'extortion' can apply to pressuring one into inaction.
If there is a more appropriate term, let me know please).
Any company putting a patent number on a product has a responsibility to make sure their claim is valid.
Not updating packaging perfectly on time should certainly be a more forgivable offense, but totally forgetting what patents cover your products is just unacceptable.
How many seperate patents or products could any given company have?
I realize the number could get quite high, but nothing a simple database even such as SQlite can't handle.
Patents are a legal construct designed to give an innovator a monopoly long enough to capitalize on innovations.
I don't know why it would ever need to even be said explicitly but if you are unsure, don't make claims that have legal implications.The real trolls here are the companies putting false numbers on products.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326274</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1267463580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would need to go back to a system of copyright registration (which I would support) to make this work for copyright. You know if a patent exists by seeing if it has been issued; generally the only way to know if a copyright exists is to go to court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would need to go back to a system of copyright registration ( which I would support ) to make this work for copyright .
You know if a patent exists by seeing if it has been issued ; generally the only way to know if a copyright exists is to go to court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would need to go back to a system of copyright registration (which I would support) to make this work for copyright.
You know if a patent exists by seeing if it has been issued; generally the only way to know if a copyright exists is to go to court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325482</id>
	<title>That's the whole point of qui tam</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1267456200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole point of qui tam actions are to encourage people to bring the suits in the first place. They do this with Medicaid fraud in many states, for example. The state might not have the resources to closely examine all possible instances of fraud, or private parties might have better information. So by giving people a cut off the award, you give them an incentive to look for the  fraud and to bring it to the government's attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of qui tam actions are to encourage people to bring the suits in the first place .
They do this with Medicaid fraud in many states , for example .
The state might not have the resources to closely examine all possible instances of fraud , or private parties might have better information .
So by giving people a cut off the award , you give them an incentive to look for the fraud and to bring it to the government 's attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of qui tam actions are to encourage people to bring the suits in the first place.
They do this with Medicaid fraud in many states, for example.
The state might not have the resources to closely examine all possible instances of fraud, or private parties might have better information.
So by giving people a cut off the award, you give them an incentive to look for the  fraud and to bring it to the government's attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327430</id>
	<title>Re:Claim a patent (pending or issued) when it's n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267521540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Complying with the law has always been optional. Consequences are another matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Complying with the law has always been optional .
Consequences are another matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complying with the law has always been optional.
Consequences are another matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325056</id>
	<title>Re:Silly editor</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1267452780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts? This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something. Like what? They get to rule based on law. If we need the law changed, the court can't do that - it needs to go to the legislative branch for that.</p></div><p>I don't think the law is bad, it was just never written to take into account 21 billion counts of false marking.</p><p>So while I can't see how any court would strike down the law as unconstitutional,<br>a judge could certainly declare the statuatory damages to be unconstitutional.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts ?
This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something .
Like what ?
They get to rule based on law .
If we need the law changed , the court ca n't do that - it needs to go to the legislative branch for that.I do n't think the law is bad , it was just never written to take into account 21 billion counts of false marking.So while I ca n't see how any court would strike down the law as unconstitutional,a judge could certainly declare the statuatory damages to be unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts?
This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something.
Like what?
They get to rule based on law.
If we need the law changed, the court can't do that - it needs to go to the legislative branch for that.I don't think the law is bad, it was just never written to take into account 21 billion counts of false marking.So while I can't see how any court would strike down the law as unconstitutional,a judge could certainly declare the statuatory damages to be unconstitutional.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325576</id>
	<title>Some more details about the Solo case</title>
	<author>bartwol</author>
	<datestamp>1267457280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/law/pequignot.solocup.pdf" title="patentlyo.com">Here</a> [patentlyo.com] is a link to the court's decision. It is not a judgment against Solo, but a denial of their request to dismiss the case.
</p><p>The judge argues the problem of incorrect markings here:</p><blockquote><div><p>Congress has given to the inventor opportunity to secure the material rewards for his invention for a limited time [...] Patent markings are an essential component of this system. The "Patent No. XXX" imprint is, in effect, a "no trespassing" sign.</p></div></blockquote><p>The plaintiff, i.e. the "troll", has not yet made his case. In order to prevail he has to prove that Solo used the incorrect markings "for the purpose of deceiving the public." That remains to be determined.

</p><p>But therein, it is not clear to me what's really going on here with Solo (for example). It seems that laziness about cleaning up one's patent markings has a distinct reward, i.e. to scare off copy-cat competitors (which is exactly the kind of subsequent activity that the publicly filed/expired patent is intended to encourage). I'm not so sure that these are just mistakes, and in fact, I find it unlikely that there isn't some willfulness here. The corporate counsels that insist on taking advantage of adding the patent markings don't consider the correctness of removing them once they are no longer valid???

</p><p>It may take a crack of the whip to clean up the rampant "laziness" that leaves these wrong and discouraging markings in use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ patentlyo.com ] is a link to the court 's decision .
It is not a judgment against Solo , but a denial of their request to dismiss the case .
The judge argues the problem of incorrect markings here : Congress has given to the inventor opportunity to secure the material rewards for his invention for a limited time [ ... ] Patent markings are an essential component of this system .
The " Patent No .
XXX " imprint is , in effect , a " no trespassing " sign.The plaintiff , i.e .
the " troll " , has not yet made his case .
In order to prevail he has to prove that Solo used the incorrect markings " for the purpose of deceiving the public .
" That remains to be determined .
But therein , it is not clear to me what 's really going on here with Solo ( for example ) .
It seems that laziness about cleaning up one 's patent markings has a distinct reward , i.e .
to scare off copy-cat competitors ( which is exactly the kind of subsequent activity that the publicly filed/expired patent is intended to encourage ) .
I 'm not so sure that these are just mistakes , and in fact , I find it unlikely that there is n't some willfulness here .
The corporate counsels that insist on taking advantage of adding the patent markings do n't consider the correctness of removing them once they are no longer valid ? ? ?
It may take a crack of the whip to clean up the rampant " laziness " that leaves these wrong and discouraging markings in use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Here [patentlyo.com] is a link to the court's decision.
It is not a judgment against Solo, but a denial of their request to dismiss the case.
The judge argues the problem of incorrect markings here:Congress has given to the inventor opportunity to secure the material rewards for his invention for a limited time [...] Patent markings are an essential component of this system.
The "Patent No.
XXX" imprint is, in effect, a "no trespassing" sign.The plaintiff, i.e.
the "troll", has not yet made his case.
In order to prevail he has to prove that Solo used the incorrect markings "for the purpose of deceiving the public.
" That remains to be determined.
But therein, it is not clear to me what's really going on here with Solo (for example).
It seems that laziness about cleaning up one's patent markings has a distinct reward, i.e.
to scare off copy-cat competitors (which is exactly the kind of subsequent activity that the publicly filed/expired patent is intended to encourage).
I'm not so sure that these are just mistakes, and in fact, I find it unlikely that there isn't some willfulness here.
The corporate counsels that insist on taking advantage of adding the patent markings don't consider the correctness of removing them once they are no longer valid???
It may take a crack of the whip to clean up the rampant "laziness" that leaves these wrong and discouraging markings in use.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324530</id>
	<title>Great math in TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At $500 each, that would be $500 million. Get to 10 million and you&rsquo;re at $1 billion."</p><p>I never knew that 5,000 million was 1 billion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At $ 500 each , that would be $ 500 million .
Get to 10 million and you    re at $ 1 billion .
" I never knew that 5,000 million was 1 billion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At $500 each, that would be $500 million.
Get to 10 million and you’re at $1 billion.
"I never knew that 5,000 million was 1 billion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31330386</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1267547880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wish (US) copyright law worked this way around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... right now there's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>Maybe that's because virtually everything is copyrighted the moment it's created? Not everything is patented, which might be a reason for putting a notice on things that are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish ( US ) copyright law worked this way around ... right now there 's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice .
Maybe that 's because virtually everything is copyrighted the moment it 's created ?
Not everything is patented , which might be a reason for putting a notice on things that are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish (US) copyright law worked this way around ... right now there's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice.
Maybe that's because virtually everything is copyrighted the moment it's created?
Not everything is patented, which might be a reason for putting a notice on things that are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324946</id>
	<title>So award damages to the government not lawyer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the premise of the whole thing is that the plaintiff is a friend of "our Lord the King" or the US Government and the defendant submitted false claims to it, and the plaintiff is not personally harmed, there is no need to award the plaintiff any damages. Problems solved, just rule that any damages awarded will go to the aggrieved party, or the US government in this case. Once the lawyers know they are not going to be getting a piece of the award, they will go find some one else to screw^h^h^h^h^h sue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the premise of the whole thing is that the plaintiff is a friend of " our Lord the King " or the US Government and the defendant submitted false claims to it , and the plaintiff is not personally harmed , there is no need to award the plaintiff any damages .
Problems solved , just rule that any damages awarded will go to the aggrieved party , or the US government in this case .
Once the lawyers know they are not going to be getting a piece of the award , they will go find some one else to screw ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h sue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the premise of the whole thing is that the plaintiff is a friend of "our Lord the King" or the US Government and the defendant submitted false claims to it, and the plaintiff is not personally harmed, there is no need to award the plaintiff any damages.
Problems solved, just rule that any damages awarded will go to the aggrieved party, or the US government in this case.
Once the lawyers know they are not going to be getting a piece of the award, they will go find some one else to screw^h^h^h^h^h sue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325468</id>
	<title>Re:$10 trillion?</title>
	<author>RealGrouchy</author>
	<datestamp>1267456080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody can sue anybody for anything, and seek any amount in damages. The issues are: will the case be accepted by the courts, is the defendant found guilty, and are the damages awarded as highly as sought?</p><p>- RG&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody can sue anybody for anything , and seek any amount in damages .
The issues are : will the case be accepted by the courts , is the defendant found guilty , and are the damages awarded as highly as sought ? - RG &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody can sue anybody for anything, and seek any amount in damages.
The issues are: will the case be accepted by the courts, is the defendant found guilty, and are the damages awarded as highly as sought?- RG&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326016</id>
	<title>Re:expired?</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1267460940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you don't have to make new dies, just have someone dremel the existing die to scratch out the number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you do n't have to make new dies , just have someone dremel the existing die to scratch out the number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you don't have to make new dies, just have someone dremel the existing die to scratch out the number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329706</id>
	<title>Re:Amen!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267544700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd hope the court awards Attorney Matthew Pequignot a couple million dollars, but not more.</p></div><p> <i> <b>21 billion</b> </i> lids... even if the judge says, "This is utterly absurd, but true nonetheless; as such I'm awarding damages of only $0.01 per infraction.", the litigant still walks away with <i>210 <b>million</b> </i> dollars...</p><p>I'm not certain the judge can award less than a penny per infraction... but IA(definitely)NAL..</p><p>-AC</p><p>LoL: Captcha: "Prospers"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hope the court awards Attorney Matthew Pequignot a couple million dollars , but not more .
21 billion lids... even if the judge says , " This is utterly absurd , but true nonetheless ; as such I 'm awarding damages of only $ 0.01 per infraction .
" , the litigant still walks away with 210 million dollars...I 'm not certain the judge can award less than a penny per infraction... but IA ( definitely ) NAL..-ACLoL : Captcha : " Prospers "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hope the court awards Attorney Matthew Pequignot a couple million dollars, but not more.
21 billion  lids... even if the judge says, "This is utterly absurd, but true nonetheless; as such I'm awarding damages of only $0.01 per infraction.
", the litigant still walks away with 210 million  dollars...I'm not certain the judge can award less than a penny per infraction... but IA(definitely)NAL..-ACLoL: Captcha: "Prospers"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324698</id>
	<title>Not so bad....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267450140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no sympathy with those who claim intellectual property - sure, these lawsuits are filed by scum, but they're filed against people who claim to own ideas. I hope these are long, plentiful, painful lawsuits for both sides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no sympathy with those who claim intellectual property - sure , these lawsuits are filed by scum , but they 're filed against people who claim to own ideas .
I hope these are long , plentiful , painful lawsuits for both sides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no sympathy with those who claim intellectual property - sure, these lawsuits are filed by scum, but they're filed against people who claim to own ideas.
I hope these are long, plentiful, painful lawsuits for both sides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329696</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267544640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well most people think that spilling a cup of coffee in your lap is not a big deal, that's why they are so dismissive of this case.  But that is exactly the point here with McD's.  No reasonable person would expect skin grafts after spilling a cup of coffee in their lap.  McDonald's was not only aware, but were defiant in changing their policies (I suspect largely because cooling their coffee to a temperature at which you could taste it would have a significant negative impact on sales).  And this is why we NEED large damage awards in certain cases, because the calculus of actual damages does not serve as a deterrent.  McDonald's still got off easy here.  The root problem is our twisted notion of corporate person-hood here in the U.S. where corporations have the all of the rights of citizens and none of the responsibilities.  If I set a pot of boiling water on my porch to deter salesman and some GirlScout got 3rd degree burns stepping in it, I might not face criminal charges the first or second time, but eventually I am going to be arrested for reckless endangerment.  And if it turned up at trial that I decided to keep putting the pot out there because the cost of the civil suits was worth the decrease in the number of solicitations that I receive, well that would be an aggravating factor earning me more time in the pokey.  This is the exact same calculation that McDonald's and countless other companies have used to continue engaging in dangerous behavior, usually with no repercussions.</p><p>McDonald's (or rather corporations in general) has/have no motivation to behave in a socially acceptable manner because, with the rare exception, we do not prosecute corporate executives for the same behavior that has sent many a private citizen to prison.  By putting Inc. after your actions your are indemnified against the ramifications of the most egregious behavior.  Until that is changed (and you will need some warm socks on that day) the only method of recourse to check corporate behavior is extreme punitive damages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well most people think that spilling a cup of coffee in your lap is not a big deal , that 's why they are so dismissive of this case .
But that is exactly the point here with McD 's .
No reasonable person would expect skin grafts after spilling a cup of coffee in their lap .
McDonald 's was not only aware , but were defiant in changing their policies ( I suspect largely because cooling their coffee to a temperature at which you could taste it would have a significant negative impact on sales ) .
And this is why we NEED large damage awards in certain cases , because the calculus of actual damages does not serve as a deterrent .
McDonald 's still got off easy here .
The root problem is our twisted notion of corporate person-hood here in the U.S. where corporations have the all of the rights of citizens and none of the responsibilities .
If I set a pot of boiling water on my porch to deter salesman and some GirlScout got 3rd degree burns stepping in it , I might not face criminal charges the first or second time , but eventually I am going to be arrested for reckless endangerment .
And if it turned up at trial that I decided to keep putting the pot out there because the cost of the civil suits was worth the decrease in the number of solicitations that I receive , well that would be an aggravating factor earning me more time in the pokey .
This is the exact same calculation that McDonald 's and countless other companies have used to continue engaging in dangerous behavior , usually with no repercussions.McDonald 's ( or rather corporations in general ) has/have no motivation to behave in a socially acceptable manner because , with the rare exception , we do not prosecute corporate executives for the same behavior that has sent many a private citizen to prison .
By putting Inc. after your actions your are indemnified against the ramifications of the most egregious behavior .
Until that is changed ( and you will need some warm socks on that day ) the only method of recourse to check corporate behavior is extreme punitive damages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well most people think that spilling a cup of coffee in your lap is not a big deal, that's why they are so dismissive of this case.
But that is exactly the point here with McD's.
No reasonable person would expect skin grafts after spilling a cup of coffee in their lap.
McDonald's was not only aware, but were defiant in changing their policies (I suspect largely because cooling their coffee to a temperature at which you could taste it would have a significant negative impact on sales).
And this is why we NEED large damage awards in certain cases, because the calculus of actual damages does not serve as a deterrent.
McDonald's still got off easy here.
The root problem is our twisted notion of corporate person-hood here in the U.S. where corporations have the all of the rights of citizens and none of the responsibilities.
If I set a pot of boiling water on my porch to deter salesman and some GirlScout got 3rd degree burns stepping in it, I might not face criminal charges the first or second time, but eventually I am going to be arrested for reckless endangerment.
And if it turned up at trial that I decided to keep putting the pot out there because the cost of the civil suits was worth the decrease in the number of solicitations that I receive, well that would be an aggravating factor earning me more time in the pokey.
This is the exact same calculation that McDonald's and countless other companies have used to continue engaging in dangerous behavior, usually with no repercussions.McDonald's (or rather corporations in general) has/have no motivation to behave in a socially acceptable manner because, with the rare exception, we do not prosecute corporate executives for the same behavior that has sent many a private citizen to prison.
By putting Inc. after your actions your are indemnified against the ramifications of the most egregious behavior.
Until that is changed (and you will need some warm socks on that day) the only method of recourse to check corporate behavior is extreme punitive damages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327164</id>
	<title>Re:$10 trillion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267560300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends, did they download more than 50 songs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends , did they download more than 50 songs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends, did they download more than 50 songs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325030</id>
	<title>Claim a patent (pending or issued) when it's not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267452420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what us old-timers call fraud. It's not OK, no matter how the apologists here may try to spin it. Yes, sometimes it's not cheap or easy to comply with the law - but that doesn't make complying with the law optional no matter how much you wish it was.</p><p>
Sometimes I wonder if the people who post here think about what they're saying - or if they just scan the article enough to formulate a (weak) opposing point and rush to post it. There's only one thing worse than a patent troll and that's corporations trolling with patents they don't own. If corporations can destroy people for violating their patents, what do you think should be the proper punishment for claiming patents that you don't own?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what us old-timers call fraud .
It 's not OK , no matter how the apologists here may try to spin it .
Yes , sometimes it 's not cheap or easy to comply with the law - but that does n't make complying with the law optional no matter how much you wish it was .
Sometimes I wonder if the people who post here think about what they 're saying - or if they just scan the article enough to formulate a ( weak ) opposing point and rush to post it .
There 's only one thing worse than a patent troll and that 's corporations trolling with patents they do n't own .
If corporations can destroy people for violating their patents , what do you think should be the proper punishment for claiming patents that you do n't own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what us old-timers call fraud.
It's not OK, no matter how the apologists here may try to spin it.
Yes, sometimes it's not cheap or easy to comply with the law - but that doesn't make complying with the law optional no matter how much you wish it was.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who post here think about what they're saying - or if they just scan the article enough to formulate a (weak) opposing point and rush to post it.
There's only one thing worse than a patent troll and that's corporations trolling with patents they don't own.
If corporations can destroy people for violating their patents, what do you think should be the proper punishment for claiming patents that you don't own?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324772</id>
	<title>fags eat shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>their tongues swirl around their fuck buddy's anus and they eat shit. you know it's true and if you're a fag you're a shit eater.<br>
&nbsp; <br>just remember the next time you talk to a fag that his mouth has been in contact with another man's ass. eating all that shit up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>their tongues swirl around their fuck buddy 's anus and they eat shit .
you know it 's true and if you 're a fag you 're a shit eater .
  just remember the next time you talk to a fag that his mouth has been in contact with another man 's ass .
eating all that shit up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>their tongues swirl around their fuck buddy's anus and they eat shit.
you know it's true and if you're a fag you're a shit eater.
  just remember the next time you talk to a fag that his mouth has been in contact with another man's ass.
eating all that shit up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31343174</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267618320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't seem to understand how copyright works.</p><p>If a copyright is 'questionable' then there must be either</p><p>a. another entity who owns said copyright, in which case they can sue the people who placed the 'questionable' copyright on the art, or</p><p>b. prior art in the public domain, in which case people can ignore the 'questionable' copyright notice and make copies of the work in question themselves.  In the case of point b, if the entity who put the 'questionable' copyright notice on a work try to sue, then all that needs to happen is proof of the prior art.</p><p>In the case of point a. the risk of the 'questionable' copyright is being sued into oblivion by the copyright owner.</p><p>In the case of point b. the risk is<br>1. being unable to enforce said copyright, in which case anyone can copy the work and they [the 'questionable' copyright entity] don't take any action or<br>2. trying to take action and being left with a hefty bill from the court and possible damages to the defendant.</p><p>The trick is often distinguishing what exactly is copyrighted.<br>For instance, I can make a sound recording of myself playing a piece by Bach.  The actual Bach piece is in public domain, the copyright on the sound recording belongs to me.  If someone then uses that recording without permission in an advert and put their own 'questionable' copyright notice on it, I can't sue them for the copyright on the piece of music, that's in public domain.  I can however sue them for using my sound recording.<br>If they pay someone else to perform the Bach piece and use that recording in an advert, then I have no course to sue them at all.<br>If they place a copyright notice on their recording of the Bach piece, then it only covers their recording of it.  If they try to sue people for using the Bach piece, it is already in Public domain and they will lose the court case (unless the person being sued is a moron and doesn't prove the prior art).</p><p>This of course doesn't mean I think copyright laws are perfect, but there certainly is risk in placing 'questionable' copyright notices on things.  Copyright laws are pretty specific about what can and can't be copyrighted.  If an entity places a copyright notice on something which is not covered by copyright laws, then they hold no copyright on it.  If they place it on something which can be copyrighted, and they are legally entitled to hold that copyright, then the copyright is valid (and not 'questionable').</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't seem to understand how copyright works.If a copyright is 'questionable ' then there must be eithera .
another entity who owns said copyright , in which case they can sue the people who placed the 'questionable ' copyright on the art , orb .
prior art in the public domain , in which case people can ignore the 'questionable ' copyright notice and make copies of the work in question themselves .
In the case of point b , if the entity who put the 'questionable ' copyright notice on a work try to sue , then all that needs to happen is proof of the prior art.In the case of point a. the risk of the 'questionable ' copyright is being sued into oblivion by the copyright owner.In the case of point b. the risk is1 .
being unable to enforce said copyright , in which case anyone can copy the work and they [ the 'questionable ' copyright entity ] do n't take any action or2 .
trying to take action and being left with a hefty bill from the court and possible damages to the defendant.The trick is often distinguishing what exactly is copyrighted.For instance , I can make a sound recording of myself playing a piece by Bach .
The actual Bach piece is in public domain , the copyright on the sound recording belongs to me .
If someone then uses that recording without permission in an advert and put their own 'questionable ' copyright notice on it , I ca n't sue them for the copyright on the piece of music , that 's in public domain .
I can however sue them for using my sound recording.If they pay someone else to perform the Bach piece and use that recording in an advert , then I have no course to sue them at all.If they place a copyright notice on their recording of the Bach piece , then it only covers their recording of it .
If they try to sue people for using the Bach piece , it is already in Public domain and they will lose the court case ( unless the person being sued is a moron and does n't prove the prior art ) .This of course does n't mean I think copyright laws are perfect , but there certainly is risk in placing 'questionable ' copyright notices on things .
Copyright laws are pretty specific about what can and ca n't be copyrighted .
If an entity places a copyright notice on something which is not covered by copyright laws , then they hold no copyright on it .
If they place it on something which can be copyrighted , and they are legally entitled to hold that copyright , then the copyright is valid ( and not 'questionable ' ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't seem to understand how copyright works.If a copyright is 'questionable' then there must be eithera.
another entity who owns said copyright, in which case they can sue the people who placed the 'questionable' copyright on the art, orb.
prior art in the public domain, in which case people can ignore the 'questionable' copyright notice and make copies of the work in question themselves.
In the case of point b, if the entity who put the 'questionable' copyright notice on a work try to sue, then all that needs to happen is proof of the prior art.In the case of point a. the risk of the 'questionable' copyright is being sued into oblivion by the copyright owner.In the case of point b. the risk is1.
being unable to enforce said copyright, in which case anyone can copy the work and they [the 'questionable' copyright entity] don't take any action or2.
trying to take action and being left with a hefty bill from the court and possible damages to the defendant.The trick is often distinguishing what exactly is copyrighted.For instance, I can make a sound recording of myself playing a piece by Bach.
The actual Bach piece is in public domain, the copyright on the sound recording belongs to me.
If someone then uses that recording without permission in an advert and put their own 'questionable' copyright notice on it, I can't sue them for the copyright on the piece of music, that's in public domain.
I can however sue them for using my sound recording.If they pay someone else to perform the Bach piece and use that recording in an advert, then I have no course to sue them at all.If they place a copyright notice on their recording of the Bach piece, then it only covers their recording of it.
If they try to sue people for using the Bach piece, it is already in Public domain and they will lose the court case (unless the person being sued is a moron and doesn't prove the prior art).This of course doesn't mean I think copyright laws are perfect, but there certainly is risk in placing 'questionable' copyright notices on things.
Copyright laws are pretty specific about what can and can't be copyrighted.
If an entity places a copyright notice on something which is not covered by copyright laws, then they hold no copyright on it.
If they place it on something which can be copyrighted, and they are legally entitled to hold that copyright, then the copyright is valid (and not 'questionable').</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324700</id>
	<title>Why Couldn't They?</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1267450140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Specifically if the RIAA issues a DMCA takedown notice because they noticed that your garage band's website has MP3s on it, but they were your garage band's songs, you should be able to sue them for $500 for every file they claimed was infringing! I wonder if you could get away with it under this law...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically if the RIAA issues a DMCA takedown notice because they noticed that your garage band 's website has MP3s on it , but they were your garage band 's songs , you should be able to sue them for $ 500 for every file they claimed was infringing !
I wonder if you could get away with it under this law.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically if the RIAA issues a DMCA takedown notice because they noticed that your garage band's website has MP3s on it, but they were your garage band's songs, you should be able to sue them for $500 for every file they claimed was infringing!
I wonder if you could get away with it under this law...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324538</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate. What do you think the chances are?</p></div></blockquote><p>Never going to happen.</p><p>In the eyes of the Federal Gov, upholding patents and IPs are so important, it would be <b>considered National Security</b> to protect them. Seriously, what the hell does America have that's worth selling? Nothing except services and IP. We hardly manufacture anything anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate .
What do you think the chances are ? Never going to happen.In the eyes of the Federal Gov , upholding patents and IPs are so important , it would be considered National Security to protect them .
Seriously , what the hell does America have that 's worth selling ?
Nothing except services and IP .
We hardly manufacture anything anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate.
What do you think the chances are?Never going to happen.In the eyes of the Federal Gov, upholding patents and IPs are so important, it would be considered National Security to protect them.
Seriously, what the hell does America have that's worth selling?
Nothing except services and IP.
We hardly manufacture anything anymore.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500</id>
	<title>Silly editor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts? This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something. Like what? They get to rule based on law. If we need the law changed, the court can't do that - it needs to go to  the legislative branch for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts ?
This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something .
Like what ?
They get to rule based on law .
If we need the law changed , the court ca n't do that - it needs to go to the legislative branch for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts?
This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something.
Like what?
They get to rule based on law.
If we need the law changed, the court can't do that - it needs to go to  the legislative branch for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329310</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>rjr3</author>
	<datestamp>1267542780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because without punitive damages companies will - boy, oh boy are there oodles of examples - just do wrong until they get caught<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if they get caught and only have to pay some potential small fine.

Punitive damages punish those who did wrong on purpose.

<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/01/1782803/nearly-2-million-awarded-to-blue.html" title="kansascity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/01/1782803/nearly-2-million-awarded-to-blue.html</a> [kansascity.com]

This car dealer KNOWLINGLY sold a previously damages car to a young couple without disclosing it.  The damage was not readily visible to a non technical car person.
The car dealer refused to cover issues with the car UNDER WARRANTY THEY SOLD.

Yeah, they got hit with punitive damages.  And maybe, maybe they won't do it again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because without punitive damages companies will - boy , oh boy are there oodles of examples - just do wrong until they get caught ... if they get caught and only have to pay some potential small fine .
Punitive damages punish those who did wrong on purpose .
http : //www.kansascity.com/2010/03/01/1782803/nearly-2-million-awarded-to-blue.html [ kansascity.com ] This car dealer KNOWLINGLY sold a previously damages car to a young couple without disclosing it .
The damage was not readily visible to a non technical car person .
The car dealer refused to cover issues with the car UNDER WARRANTY THEY SOLD .
Yeah , they got hit with punitive damages .
And maybe , maybe they wo n't do it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because without punitive damages companies will - boy, oh boy are there oodles of examples - just do wrong until they get caught ... if they get caught and only have to pay some potential small fine.
Punitive damages punish those who did wrong on purpose.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/01/1782803/nearly-2-million-awarded-to-blue.html [kansascity.com]

This car dealer KNOWLINGLY sold a previously damages car to a young couple without disclosing it.
The damage was not readily visible to a non technical car person.
The car dealer refused to cover issues with the car UNDER WARRANTY THEY SOLD.
Yeah, they got hit with punitive damages.
And maybe, maybe they won't do it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324768</id>
	<title>This could stop patent trolls</title>
	<author>WarpedMind</author>
	<datestamp>1267450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These suits are against companies asserting patent rights over things that the DO NOT own patents for. The basic defense being offered is "I've done it so much, I couldn't possibly pay the penalty. So the only option is to not hold me accountable!" That basically says that if a robber robs enough people he shouldn't be put in prison. (Sort of the like the banks in America.)</p><p>This puts a penalty on asserting patent rights all over the place when you don't have them. Asserting a patent right, blocks competitors who might produce the same thing cheaper.</p><p>If companies have to pay a penalty for not keeping track of their patent assertions, then they will be more circumspect in asserting them. That means less frivolous patents.</p><p>Substantive, meaningful patents actually work well. The problem is incentives to overwhelm the system which is what is currently being done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These suits are against companies asserting patent rights over things that the DO NOT own patents for .
The basic defense being offered is " I 've done it so much , I could n't possibly pay the penalty .
So the only option is to not hold me accountable !
" That basically says that if a robber robs enough people he should n't be put in prison .
( Sort of the like the banks in America .
) This puts a penalty on asserting patent rights all over the place when you do n't have them .
Asserting a patent right , blocks competitors who might produce the same thing cheaper.If companies have to pay a penalty for not keeping track of their patent assertions , then they will be more circumspect in asserting them .
That means less frivolous patents.Substantive , meaningful patents actually work well .
The problem is incentives to overwhelm the system which is what is currently being done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These suits are against companies asserting patent rights over things that the DO NOT own patents for.
The basic defense being offered is "I've done it so much, I couldn't possibly pay the penalty.
So the only option is to not hold me accountable!
" That basically says that if a robber robs enough people he shouldn't be put in prison.
(Sort of the like the banks in America.
)This puts a penalty on asserting patent rights all over the place when you don't have them.
Asserting a patent right, blocks competitors who might produce the same thing cheaper.If companies have to pay a penalty for not keeping track of their patent assertions, then they will be more circumspect in asserting them.
That means less frivolous patents.Substantive, meaningful patents actually work well.
The problem is incentives to overwhelm the system which is what is currently being done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325390</id>
	<title>Large manufacturers, huh?</title>
	<author>bistromath007</author>
	<datestamp>1267455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Live by the sword, die by the sword.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Live by the sword , die by the sword .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live by the sword, die by the sword.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325632</id>
	<title>Re:Not so bad....</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1267457700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a bit of sympathy for Lessig's idea that we could make do with weaker protections, provided we make it clear that it is not actually property and we stop treating it so similarly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a bit of sympathy for Lessig 's idea that we could make do with weaker protections , provided we make it clear that it is not actually property and we stop treating it so similarly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a bit of sympathy for Lessig's idea that we could make do with weaker protections, provided we make it clear that it is not actually property and we stop treating it so similarly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324528</id>
	<title>See?  The system works</title>
	<author>overshoot</author>
	<datestamp>1267449060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Patents <b>do</b> produce innovation!<p>

I'm just wondering who patented this business method.  Sheer brilliance, proving that American ingenuity still leads the world.</p><p>

Oh, and you people who think a court is going to shoot this down?  Only of the judges aren't lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents do produce innovation !
I 'm just wondering who patented this business method .
Sheer brilliance , proving that American ingenuity still leads the world .
Oh , and you people who think a court is going to shoot this down ?
Only of the judges are n't lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents do produce innovation!
I'm just wondering who patented this business method.
Sheer brilliance, proving that American ingenuity still leads the world.
Oh, and you people who think a court is going to shoot this down?
Only of the judges aren't lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>JaredOfEuropa</author>
	<datestamp>1267451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants?  In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.  That lady who sued McDonalds over scalding coffee should at most have gotten her medical and legals bills refunded, with perhaps a couple thousand thrown in for her trouble.  That's what she'd get over here (and if I remember correctly, that's what she originally sued McD for).  Make no mistake though, actual damages in case of severe injuries can run into millions as well...  but we do not reward people for a bit of bad luck or for finding some obscure legal technicality that does not affect anyone.  Slipping on the pavement in front of a fancy restaurant should not turn into a windfall, neither should this new form of patent trolling.
<br> <br>
If a claimant can prove actual damages caused by improper patent marking, then by all means should they be able to sue for these damages.  And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment.  Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding " punitive damages " , or whatever it is called in cases like these , to claimants ?
In some countries , like the one I live in , payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees , maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress .
That lady who sued McDonalds over scalding coffee should at most have gotten her medical and legals bills refunded , with perhaps a couple thousand thrown in for her trouble .
That 's what she 'd get over here ( and if I remember correctly , that 's what she originally sued McD for ) .
Make no mistake though , actual damages in case of severe injuries can run into millions as well... but we do not reward people for a bit of bad luck or for finding some obscure legal technicality that does not affect anyone .
Slipping on the pavement in front of a fancy restaurant should not turn into a windfall , neither should this new form of patent trolling .
If a claimant can prove actual damages caused by improper patent marking , then by all means should they be able to sue for these damages .
And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products , they should received reasonable punishment .
Some of these amounts sound excessive , and in any case , they should be treated as fines and go to the state , not to some random claimant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants?
In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.
That lady who sued McDonalds over scalding coffee should at most have gotten her medical and legals bills refunded, with perhaps a couple thousand thrown in for her trouble.
That's what she'd get over here (and if I remember correctly, that's what she originally sued McD for).
Make no mistake though, actual damages in case of severe injuries can run into millions as well...  but we do not reward people for a bit of bad luck or for finding some obscure legal technicality that does not affect anyone.
Slipping on the pavement in front of a fancy restaurant should not turn into a windfall, neither should this new form of patent trolling.
If a claimant can prove actual damages caused by improper patent marking, then by all means should they be able to sue for these damages.
And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment.
Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326108</id>
	<title>Re:$10 trillion?</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1267462020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fact checking please?</p></div></blockquote><p>You must be knew here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact checking please ? You must be knew here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact checking please?You must be knew here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326038</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>nido</author>
	<datestamp>1267461060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We hardly manufacture anything anymore.</p></div><p>The U.S. hardly manufactures anything that requires lots of human labor. If the manufacturing process can be automated, companies will keep the manufacturing here.</p><p>Look at the tags on your clothes. I bet you have at least one item that says "made in Honduras/Mexico/etc of U.S. Material". Stitching is labor intensive, whereas turning raw materials into fabric is mostly done by machine.</p><p>With that said, there's still a ton of manufacturing in the U.S. - computers and robots have just replaced humans as the machine operators.</p><p>The problem for the U.S. working class is that it's expensive to employ them - wages, social security tax, medicare tax, benefits, unemployment tax, worker's compensation insurance, etc. It's much more profitable for Wall Street to hire foreigners and pocket the difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We hardly manufacture anything anymore.The U.S. hardly manufactures anything that requires lots of human labor .
If the manufacturing process can be automated , companies will keep the manufacturing here.Look at the tags on your clothes .
I bet you have at least one item that says " made in Honduras/Mexico/etc of U.S. Material " . Stitching is labor intensive , whereas turning raw materials into fabric is mostly done by machine.With that said , there 's still a ton of manufacturing in the U.S. - computers and robots have just replaced humans as the machine operators.The problem for the U.S. working class is that it 's expensive to employ them - wages , social security tax , medicare tax , benefits , unemployment tax , worker 's compensation insurance , etc .
It 's much more profitable for Wall Street to hire foreigners and pocket the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We hardly manufacture anything anymore.The U.S. hardly manufactures anything that requires lots of human labor.
If the manufacturing process can be automated, companies will keep the manufacturing here.Look at the tags on your clothes.
I bet you have at least one item that says "made in Honduras/Mexico/etc of U.S. Material". Stitching is labor intensive, whereas turning raw materials into fabric is mostly done by machine.With that said, there's still a ton of manufacturing in the U.S. - computers and robots have just replaced humans as the machine operators.The problem for the U.S. working class is that it's expensive to employ them - wages, social security tax, medicare tax, benefits, unemployment tax, worker's compensation insurance, etc.
It's much more profitable for Wall Street to hire foreigners and pocket the difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324942</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1267451760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please explain in detail what a "questionable copyright notice" is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please explain in detail what a " questionable copyright notice " is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please explain in detail what a "questionable copyright notice" is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326256</id>
	<title>Re:Amen!</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1267463340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many people were wrongfully dissuaded from creating competing lids?</p></div><p>The damages might be more than you think: How many people paid more for lids due to a lack of competition?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people were wrongfully dissuaded from creating competing lids ? The damages might be more than you think : How many people paid more for lids due to a lack of competition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people were wrongfully dissuaded from creating competing lids?The damages might be more than you think: How many people paid more for lids due to a lack of competition?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325464</id>
	<title>the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267456080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>since the slave script is all worthless unbacked stuff anyway why not have the Solo cup company issue a "10 trillon" note and give it to the us treasury. better a worthless note from a reputable us company than from that IMF/UN cabal. Solo goes about business as usual, the "national debt" gets paid off and everyone walks away happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since the slave script is all worthless unbacked stuff anyway why not have the Solo cup company issue a " 10 trillon " note and give it to the us treasury .
better a worthless note from a reputable us company than from that IMF/UN cabal .
Solo goes about business as usual , the " national debt " gets paid off and everyone walks away happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since the slave script is all worthless unbacked stuff anyway why not have the Solo cup company issue a "10 trillon" note and give it to the us treasury.
better a worthless note from a reputable us company than from that IMF/UN cabal.
Solo goes about business as usual, the "national debt" gets paid off and everyone walks away happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31344222</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1267625820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>McSolution1 McDonalds should only serve cold coffee
<p>
McSolution 2. All cups should come with a warning label: Danger, do not use your crotch as a holding mechanism for this cup.
</p><p>
McSolution 3 Warning label 2: Items that are above or below your body temperature may cause discomfort. If it's hot, it may burn, if it's cold, it may freeze.
</p><p>
McSolution 4 remove all ice from products, because ice can not only cause surfaces to become cold, possibly casing circulation issues,  the sharp edges of Ice cubes can cause cuts(I have experience in this)
</p><p>
I once spilled a cup of very hot coffee into my sock, silly as that sounds. I also had an elastic ankle brace on at the time, and by the time I got the sock off, I had a second degree burn, Painful big blister,  and I was not walking much for the next several days.
</p><p>
But it was MY fault. I reached for the cup, and misjudged, knocking the thing over. Then I grabbed for it and the lid came off, spilling the contents into my sock. It isn't fashionable, but I take responsibility for my own actions.
</p><p>

Now if the cup blew up or the printing on the side of it was poison, then hurt me,  that would be an actionable offense against someone.
</p><p> If I store a hot substance near my genitals I know it's hot,  What ever could go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>McSolution1 McDonalds should only serve cold coffee McSolution 2 .
All cups should come with a warning label : Danger , do not use your crotch as a holding mechanism for this cup .
McSolution 3 Warning label 2 : Items that are above or below your body temperature may cause discomfort .
If it 's hot , it may burn , if it 's cold , it may freeze .
McSolution 4 remove all ice from products , because ice can not only cause surfaces to become cold , possibly casing circulation issues , the sharp edges of Ice cubes can cause cuts ( I have experience in this ) I once spilled a cup of very hot coffee into my sock , silly as that sounds .
I also had an elastic ankle brace on at the time , and by the time I got the sock off , I had a second degree burn , Painful big blister , and I was not walking much for the next several days .
But it was MY fault .
I reached for the cup , and misjudged , knocking the thing over .
Then I grabbed for it and the lid came off , spilling the contents into my sock .
It is n't fashionable , but I take responsibility for my own actions .
Now if the cup blew up or the printing on the side of it was poison , then hurt me , that would be an actionable offense against someone .
If I store a hot substance near my genitals I know it 's hot , What ever could go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McSolution1 McDonalds should only serve cold coffee

McSolution 2.
All cups should come with a warning label: Danger, do not use your crotch as a holding mechanism for this cup.
McSolution 3 Warning label 2: Items that are above or below your body temperature may cause discomfort.
If it's hot, it may burn, if it's cold, it may freeze.
McSolution 4 remove all ice from products, because ice can not only cause surfaces to become cold, possibly casing circulation issues,  the sharp edges of Ice cubes can cause cuts(I have experience in this)

I once spilled a cup of very hot coffee into my sock, silly as that sounds.
I also had an elastic ankle brace on at the time, and by the time I got the sock off, I had a second degree burn, Painful big blister,  and I was not walking much for the next several days.
But it was MY fault.
I reached for the cup, and misjudged, knocking the thing over.
Then I grabbed for it and the lid came off, spilling the contents into my sock.
It isn't fashionable, but I take responsibility for my own actions.
Now if the cup blew up or the printing on the side of it was poison, then hurt me,  that would be an actionable offense against someone.
If I store a hot substance near my genitals I know it's hot,  What ever could go wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325342</id>
	<title>Amen!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267454880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these qui tam actions might be lawyers trying to make a buck, but I feel they are basically beneficial because :<br>(a) they help out small producers that actually know their own patents, and<br>(b) they highlight the underlying meaninglessness of the patent system.</p><p>We must also remember that judges will weigh the social costs for the various violations.  For example, I'd expect that the 21 billion Solo Cup lids case is rather "open and shut", as all those lids were falsely market, but the actual damages are rather small.  How many people were wrongfully dissuaded from creating competing lids?  I'd hope the court awards Attorney Matthew Pequignot a couple million dollars, but not more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these qui tam actions might be lawyers trying to make a buck , but I feel they are basically beneficial because : ( a ) they help out small producers that actually know their own patents , and ( b ) they highlight the underlying meaninglessness of the patent system.We must also remember that judges will weigh the social costs for the various violations .
For example , I 'd expect that the 21 billion Solo Cup lids case is rather " open and shut " , as all those lids were falsely market , but the actual damages are rather small .
How many people were wrongfully dissuaded from creating competing lids ?
I 'd hope the court awards Attorney Matthew Pequignot a couple million dollars , but not more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these qui tam actions might be lawyers trying to make a buck, but I feel they are basically beneficial because :(a) they help out small producers that actually know their own patents, and(b) they highlight the underlying meaninglessness of the patent system.We must also remember that judges will weigh the social costs for the various violations.
For example, I'd expect that the 21 billion Solo Cup lids case is rather "open and shut", as all those lids were falsely market, but the actual damages are rather small.
How many people were wrongfully dissuaded from creating competing lids?
I'd hope the court awards Attorney Matthew Pequignot a couple million dollars, but not more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</id>
	<title>Copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267448760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish (US) copyright law worked this way around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... right now there's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish ( US ) copyright law worked this way around ... right now there 's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish (US) copyright law worked this way around ... right now there's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324766</id>
	<title>So we have your blessing</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1267450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to read Slashdot with an ad-blocker, then?  That's basically what you're advocating with your "readability" bookmarklet.</p><p>Note: I agree that their site is unbearable to read as-is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to read Slashdot with an ad-blocker , then ?
That 's basically what you 're advocating with your " readability " bookmarklet.Note : I agree that their site is unbearable to read as-is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to read Slashdot with an ad-blocker, then?
That's basically what you're advocating with your "readability" bookmarklet.Note: I agree that their site is unbearable to read as-is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>DarKnyht</author>
	<datestamp>1267464660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It still drives me nuts when people point to that case as evidence that our legal system is broke.  It is broke, I don't deny but that case is not one to use.  Here are some facts about that particular case and why the jury awarded such a large fine (that was later reduced by a judge):  (from <a href="http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm" title="lawandhelp.com">http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm</a> [lawandhelp.com] in case you want to look yourself).</p><p>McFact No. 1:  For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.</p><p>McFact No. 2:  McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.</p><p>McFact No. 3:  The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.</p><p>McFact No. 4:  The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.</p><p>McFact No. 5:  A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.</p><p>McFact No. 6:  After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)</p><p>McFact No. 7:  On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.</p><p>McFact No. 8:  A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It still drives me nuts when people point to that case as evidence that our legal system is broke .
It is broke , I do n't deny but that case is not one to use .
Here are some facts about that particular case and why the jury awarded such a large fine ( that was later reduced by a judge ) : ( from http : //lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm [ lawandhelp.com ] in case you want to look yourself ) .McFact No .
1 : For years , McDonald 's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter ( at least 20 degrees more so ) than at other restaurants.McFact No .
2 : McDonald 's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.McFact No .
3 : The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin , thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.McFact No .
4 : The woman , an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone , said she would n't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald 's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.McFact No .
5 : A McDonald 's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns , even though most customers would n't think it was possible.McFact No .
6 : After careful deliberation , the jury found McDonald 's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company .
When it came to the punitive damages , the jury found that McDonald 's had engaged in willful , reckless , malicious , or wanton conduct , and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars .
( The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales , McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee , selling 1 billion cups each year .
) McFact No .
7 : On appeal , a judge lowered the award to $ 480,000 , a fact not widely publicized in the media.McFact No .
8 : A report in Liability Week , September 29 , 1997 , indicated that Kathleen Gilliam , 73 , suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap .
Reports also indicate that McDonald 's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees , still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants .
Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds , requiring skin grafting , debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement , extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months , and in some cases , years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still drives me nuts when people point to that case as evidence that our legal system is broke.
It is broke, I don't deny but that case is not one to use.
Here are some facts about that particular case and why the jury awarded such a large fine (that was later reduced by a judge):  (from http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm [lawandhelp.com] in case you want to look yourself).McFact No.
1:  For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.McFact No.
2:  McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.McFact No.
3:  The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.McFact No.
4:  The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.McFact No.
5:  A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.McFact No.
6:  After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company.
When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars.
(The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.
)McFact No.
7:  On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.McFact No.
8:  A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap.
Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants.
Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324742</id>
	<title>expired?</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1267450500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand the hubbub about expired patent markings.  (1) It costs $ to create new dies for production, so such a requirement just costs companies more, which they have to pass along to customers.  (2) Someone looking up the patent can see that it's expired, or is going to expire soon, and hey, here's a large part of the engineering behind the product, we can copy this instead of re-engineering it.  That's part of why patents exist, to make that information public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the hubbub about expired patent markings .
( 1 ) It costs $ to create new dies for production , so such a requirement just costs companies more , which they have to pass along to customers .
( 2 ) Someone looking up the patent can see that it 's expired , or is going to expire soon , and hey , here 's a large part of the engineering behind the product , we can copy this instead of re-engineering it .
That 's part of why patents exist , to make that information public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the hubbub about expired patent markings.
(1) It costs $ to create new dies for production, so such a requirement just costs companies more, which they have to pass along to customers.
(2) Someone looking up the patent can see that it's expired, or is going to expire soon, and hey, here's a large part of the engineering behind the product, we can copy this instead of re-engineering it.
That's part of why patents exist, to make that information public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324756</id>
	<title>What's wrong with this?</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1267450560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see what's objectionable here?
<p>
If a company falsely labels its products with imaginary patent numbers, they deserve to be sued into oblivion. It's
outright lying to the public, and an attempt at intimidating would-be competitors. It's wrong and should be punished harshly.
</p><p>
Patents are overused as is, and one of the reasons they are often misused (eg against open source) is because it's easy and relatively risk free. If the costs
of misuse can be increased dramatically, many companies may think twice before doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see what 's objectionable here ?
If a company falsely labels its products with imaginary patent numbers , they deserve to be sued into oblivion .
It 's outright lying to the public , and an attempt at intimidating would-be competitors .
It 's wrong and should be punished harshly .
Patents are overused as is , and one of the reasons they are often misused ( eg against open source ) is because it 's easy and relatively risk free .
If the costs of misuse can be increased dramatically , many companies may think twice before doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see what's objectionable here?
If a company falsely labels its products with imaginary patent numbers, they deserve to be sued into oblivion.
It's
outright lying to the public, and an attempt at intimidating would-be competitors.
It's wrong and should be punished harshly.
Patents are overused as is, and one of the reasons they are often misused (eg against open source) is because it's easy and relatively risk free.
If the costs
of misuse can be increased dramatically, many companies may think twice before doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325314</id>
	<title>$10 trillion?</title>
	<author>abshnasko</author>
	<datestamp>1267454760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> <p><div class="quote"><p>in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer, over $10 trillion</p> </div><p>Fact checking please? Do we really think it's possible that a lawsuit against a drink cup manufacturer can equate roughly 3/4ths of the GDP of the United States economy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer , over $ 10 trillion Fact checking please ?
Do we really think it 's possible that a lawsuit against a drink cup manufacturer can equate roughly 3/4ths of the GDP of the United States economy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer, over $10 trillion Fact checking please?
Do we really think it's possible that a lawsuit against a drink cup manufacturer can equate roughly 3/4ths of the GDP of the United States economy?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325396</id>
	<title>I agree, but ..</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1267455360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. copyrights never expire.</p><p>I'm sure you can sue for false DMCA takedown notices, but tracking down all those false ones will require more than $500 per incident.  Imagine a false DMCA takedown notice earns the victim $10k just like abusive collections practices do.  We'd most likely still see most victims just sit around and suffer quietly rather than fight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. copyrights never expire.I 'm sure you can sue for false DMCA takedown notices , but tracking down all those false ones will require more than $ 500 per incident .
Imagine a false DMCA takedown notice earns the victim $ 10k just like abusive collections practices do .
We 'd most likely still see most victims just sit around and suffer quietly rather than fight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. copyrights never expire.I'm sure you can sue for false DMCA takedown notices, but tracking down all those false ones will require more than $500 per incident.
Imagine a false DMCA takedown notice earns the victim $10k just like abusive collections practices do.
We'd most likely still see most victims just sit around and suffer quietly rather than fight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31340852</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>lonecrow</author>
	<datestamp>1267555140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not sure I understand.  Copyright is automatic. The only reason to include a copyright notice is to make absolutely sure the person doesn't assume the work is public.
<br> <br>
So what would a questionable copyright look like?  Would it be if I said something was my copyrighted property when it was not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure I understand .
Copyright is automatic .
The only reason to include a copyright notice is to make absolutely sure the person does n't assume the work is public .
So what would a questionable copyright look like ?
Would it be if I said something was my copyrighted property when it was not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure I understand.
Copyright is automatic.
The only reason to include a copyright notice is to make absolutely sure the person doesn't assume the work is public.
So what would a questionable copyright look like?
Would it be if I said something was my copyrighted property when it was not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327162</id>
	<title>Re:Don't "lose track". Don't "forget".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267560120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Don't "lose track". Don't "forget". Or don't mark (it isn't required). Problem solved.</p><p>It's not that easy.  If you don't mark it, you are not actively protecting your patent and that potentially limits your claims in case some one infringes the patent.  Marking the item with the patent # is like erecting a 'Private Property, No Trespassing' sign</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Do n't " lose track " .
Do n't " forget " .
Or do n't mark ( it is n't required ) .
Problem solved.It 's not that easy .
If you do n't mark it , you are not actively protecting your patent and that potentially limits your claims in case some one infringes the patent .
Marking the item with the patent # is like erecting a 'Private Property , No Trespassing ' sign</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Don't "lose track".
Don't "forget".
Or don't mark (it isn't required).
Problem solved.It's not that easy.
If you don't mark it, you are not actively protecting your patent and that potentially limits your claims in case some one infringes the patent.
Marking the item with the patent # is like erecting a 'Private Property, No Trespassing' sign</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329460</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>rjr3</author>
	<datestamp>1267543560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For clarification - the McDonalds hot coffee women did get a dramatically reduced amount of money. However before you pass judgement on her case you may wish to review the facts of the case.  There was/were a reason(s) ( unknown by you ) that the jury initially awarded the large sum and it was not that their parking ticket was not validated that day at the county court house.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck\_v.\_McDonald's\_Restaurants" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck\_v.\_McDonald's\_Restaurants</a> [wikipedia.org]

I will help you out with a line from the wiki .
 Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180&ndash;190 F (82&ndash;88 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

My home hot water heater was government limited ( I have to override the configuration with the vendor on the phone to get the proper instructions AND I need an updated thermostat ( I have a Rheem tankless ) to 120 degrees because any higher can cause burns.
McDonalds was 60 degrees hotter.

Read the wiki and then come back and say she did not deserve; all she initially wanted was the medical bills paid - for her skin grafts ( whooo, thats a fun thing to fake to collect some extra money if you are an 80 year old lady<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... ).</htmltext>
<tokenext>For clarification - the McDonalds hot coffee women did get a dramatically reduced amount of money .
However before you pass judgement on her case you may wish to review the facts of the case .
There was/were a reason ( s ) ( unknown by you ) that the jury initially awarded the large sum and it was not that their parking ticket was not validated that day at the county court house .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck \ _v. \ _McDonald 's \ _Restaurants [ wikipedia.org ] I will help you out with a line from the wiki .
Liebeck 's attorneys discovered that McDonald 's required franchises to serve coffee at 180    190 F ( 82    88 C ) .
At that temperature , the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds .
My home hot water heater was government limited ( I have to override the configuration with the vendor on the phone to get the proper instructions AND I need an updated thermostat ( I have a Rheem tankless ) to 120 degrees because any higher can cause burns .
McDonalds was 60 degrees hotter .
Read the wiki and then come back and say she did not deserve ; all she initially wanted was the medical bills paid - for her skin grafts ( whooo , thats a fun thing to fake to collect some extra money if you are an 80 year old lady .... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For clarification - the McDonalds hot coffee women did get a dramatically reduced amount of money.
However before you pass judgement on her case you may wish to review the facts of the case.
There was/were a reason(s) ( unknown by you ) that the jury initially awarded the large sum and it was not that their parking ticket was not validated that day at the county court house.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck\_v.\_McDonald's\_Restaurants [wikipedia.org]

I will help you out with a line from the wiki .
Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 F (82–88 C).
At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.
My home hot water heater was government limited ( I have to override the configuration with the vendor on the phone to get the proper instructions AND I need an updated thermostat ( I have a Rheem tankless ) to 120 degrees because any higher can cause burns.
McDonalds was 60 degrees hotter.
Read the wiki and then come back and say she did not deserve; all she initially wanted was the medical bills paid - for her skin grafts ( whooo, thats a fun thing to fake to collect some extra money if you are an 80 year old lady .... ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324496</id>
	<title>Don't "lose track".  Don't "forget".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents<br>&gt; cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove<br>&gt; numbers of patents that had expired.</p><p>Don't "lose track".  Don't "forget".  Or don't mark (it isn't required).  Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents &gt; cover a given product , or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove &gt; numbers of patents that had expired.Do n't " lose track " .
Do n't " forget " .
Or do n't mark ( it is n't required ) .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents&gt; cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove&gt; numbers of patents that had expired.Don't "lose track".
Don't "forget".
Or don't mark (it isn't required).
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327848</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>profplump</author>
	<datestamp>1267528020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>McFact No. 1:  For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.</p></div><p>McObviousNegativeFraming No. 1: Noting that McDonald's "had known they had a problem" and then pretending to support that assertion with an unrelated statement about the relative temperature of their coffee.</p><p>McObviousNegativeFraming No. 2: Noting that McDonald's "had known they had a problem" and then stating the very next McFact that they had actually never consulted an expert to confirm any such problem. It might be fair to suggest that they could "know" without an expert, but if you're going to note their failure to consult and expert as negligence then you can't simultaneously claim that they "knew" any related fact.</p><p>McObviousNegativeFraming No. 3: Putting a warning about potential burns in small letters on the side of a cup passed through a car window does nothing to protect coffee drinkers, particularly those involved in accidental spill; it only protects McDonalds against lawsuits. Claiming that their failure to include such a warning is negligent only exemplifies the retardedness of this sort of lawsuit.</p><p>McObviousNegativeFraming No. 4: Citing revenue numbers and not profits is just a low blow. I know coffee is cheap, but time, labor, energy, buildings, equipment, management, and lawyers are not. McDonald's does not "make" $1.3M/day selling coffee, they just collect that much, based on estimates of annualized sales and the list price of a cup of coffee. And even "collect" is a stretch, because not every cup of coffee sells at list price, and not every cent of every transaction is necessarily collected by McDonalds (e.g. credit card processing fees).</p><p>Now it's possible that McDonald's really deserved to lose this case. I'm not convinced of that, but I'm not convinced they weren't negligent either. But your attempt to re-frame the issue is poor at best, and if some lawyer made your argument to me I'd be included to find against them just because of the bad logic and abuse of statistics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>McFact No .
1 : For years , McDonald 's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter ( at least 20 degrees more so ) than at other restaurants.McObviousNegativeFraming No .
1 : Noting that McDonald 's " had known they had a problem " and then pretending to support that assertion with an unrelated statement about the relative temperature of their coffee.McObviousNegativeFraming No .
2 : Noting that McDonald 's " had known they had a problem " and then stating the very next McFact that they had actually never consulted an expert to confirm any such problem .
It might be fair to suggest that they could " know " without an expert , but if you 're going to note their failure to consult and expert as negligence then you ca n't simultaneously claim that they " knew " any related fact.McObviousNegativeFraming No .
3 : Putting a warning about potential burns in small letters on the side of a cup passed through a car window does nothing to protect coffee drinkers , particularly those involved in accidental spill ; it only protects McDonalds against lawsuits .
Claiming that their failure to include such a warning is negligent only exemplifies the retardedness of this sort of lawsuit.McObviousNegativeFraming No .
4 : Citing revenue numbers and not profits is just a low blow .
I know coffee is cheap , but time , labor , energy , buildings , equipment , management , and lawyers are not .
McDonald 's does not " make " $ 1.3M/day selling coffee , they just collect that much , based on estimates of annualized sales and the list price of a cup of coffee .
And even " collect " is a stretch , because not every cup of coffee sells at list price , and not every cent of every transaction is necessarily collected by McDonalds ( e.g .
credit card processing fees ) .Now it 's possible that McDonald 's really deserved to lose this case .
I 'm not convinced of that , but I 'm not convinced they were n't negligent either .
But your attempt to re-frame the issue is poor at best , and if some lawyer made your argument to me I 'd be included to find against them just because of the bad logic and abuse of statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McFact No.
1:  For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.McObviousNegativeFraming No.
1: Noting that McDonald's "had known they had a problem" and then pretending to support that assertion with an unrelated statement about the relative temperature of their coffee.McObviousNegativeFraming No.
2: Noting that McDonald's "had known they had a problem" and then stating the very next McFact that they had actually never consulted an expert to confirm any such problem.
It might be fair to suggest that they could "know" without an expert, but if you're going to note their failure to consult and expert as negligence then you can't simultaneously claim that they "knew" any related fact.McObviousNegativeFraming No.
3: Putting a warning about potential burns in small letters on the side of a cup passed through a car window does nothing to protect coffee drinkers, particularly those involved in accidental spill; it only protects McDonalds against lawsuits.
Claiming that their failure to include such a warning is negligent only exemplifies the retardedness of this sort of lawsuit.McObviousNegativeFraming No.
4: Citing revenue numbers and not profits is just a low blow.
I know coffee is cheap, but time, labor, energy, buildings, equipment, management, and lawyers are not.
McDonald's does not "make" $1.3M/day selling coffee, they just collect that much, based on estimates of annualized sales and the list price of a cup of coffee.
And even "collect" is a stretch, because not every cup of coffee sells at list price, and not every cent of every transaction is necessarily collected by McDonalds (e.g.
credit card processing fees).Now it's possible that McDonald's really deserved to lose this case.
I'm not convinced of that, but I'm not convinced they weren't negligent either.
But your attempt to re-frame the issue is poor at best, and if some lawyer made your argument to me I'd be included to find against them just because of the bad logic and abuse of statistics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326268</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1267463460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya! We hardly manufacture anything. I mean we are only the very top manufactured goods producer in the whole world!</p><p>Yes really, the US still leads the entire world in manufactured goods. Now, China is on track to become the leader. If things keep going as they are in 5-7 years China will take over as the top, but because their production is growing so fast not because the US's is shrinking. That would still leave the US in a commanding second position.</p><p>So sorry, try your argument again. While the US undoubtedly produces tons of IP, it also produces lots of physical goods, often very high tech.</p><p>One example would be computer processors. The US produces a very large amount of the processors in the world. Most of the CPU companies are American: Intel, AMD, IBM, Motorola, Freescale. Hitachi is probably the only big one that isn't. So they only design them here right? Wrong, much of the production is here. Most of Intel's fabs are American. They've got a few overseas ones, Ireland, Israel and China that I'm aware of, but the vast majority are in the US.</p><p>There are also other situations where the US manufactures something for a foreign company. Toyota has a number of US plants. This isn't just because they sell a lot in the US market, some of their cars are produced exclusively in the US and shipped everywhere else for various reasons. So while the company is foreign and most of the design isn't done in the US, the US still doe a lot of the manufacturing.</p><p>The US manufactures a LOT of stuff, more than any other country presently. If you don't know what, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you haven't done your homework.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya !
We hardly manufacture anything .
I mean we are only the very top manufactured goods producer in the whole world ! Yes really , the US still leads the entire world in manufactured goods .
Now , China is on track to become the leader .
If things keep going as they are in 5-7 years China will take over as the top , but because their production is growing so fast not because the US 's is shrinking .
That would still leave the US in a commanding second position.So sorry , try your argument again .
While the US undoubtedly produces tons of IP , it also produces lots of physical goods , often very high tech.One example would be computer processors .
The US produces a very large amount of the processors in the world .
Most of the CPU companies are American : Intel , AMD , IBM , Motorola , Freescale .
Hitachi is probably the only big one that is n't .
So they only design them here right ?
Wrong , much of the production is here .
Most of Intel 's fabs are American .
They 've got a few overseas ones , Ireland , Israel and China that I 'm aware of , but the vast majority are in the US.There are also other situations where the US manufactures something for a foreign company .
Toyota has a number of US plants .
This is n't just because they sell a lot in the US market , some of their cars are produced exclusively in the US and shipped everywhere else for various reasons .
So while the company is foreign and most of the design is n't done in the US , the US still doe a lot of the manufacturing.The US manufactures a LOT of stuff , more than any other country presently .
If you do n't know what , that does n't mean it does n't exist , it means you have n't done your homework .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya!
We hardly manufacture anything.
I mean we are only the very top manufactured goods producer in the whole world!Yes really, the US still leads the entire world in manufactured goods.
Now, China is on track to become the leader.
If things keep going as they are in 5-7 years China will take over as the top, but because their production is growing so fast not because the US's is shrinking.
That would still leave the US in a commanding second position.So sorry, try your argument again.
While the US undoubtedly produces tons of IP, it also produces lots of physical goods, often very high tech.One example would be computer processors.
The US produces a very large amount of the processors in the world.
Most of the CPU companies are American: Intel, AMD, IBM, Motorola, Freescale.
Hitachi is probably the only big one that isn't.
So they only design them here right?
Wrong, much of the production is here.
Most of Intel's fabs are American.
They've got a few overseas ones, Ireland, Israel and China that I'm aware of, but the vast majority are in the US.There are also other situations where the US manufactures something for a foreign company.
Toyota has a number of US plants.
This isn't just because they sell a lot in the US market, some of their cars are produced exclusively in the US and shipped everywhere else for various reasons.
So while the company is foreign and most of the design isn't done in the US, the US still doe a lot of the manufacturing.The US manufactures a LOT of stuff, more than any other country presently.
If you don't know what, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means you haven't done your homework.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324736</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267450380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because under US law, every work(piece of art, music, etc) is automatically copyrighted. if you make something, you can copyright it simply by putting a copyright notice on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because under US law , every work ( piece of art , music , etc ) is automatically copyrighted .
if you make something , you can copyright it simply by putting a copyright notice on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because under US law, every work(piece of art, music, etc) is automatically copyrighted.
if you make something, you can copyright it simply by putting a copyright notice on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31338360</id>
	<title>Re:What's wrong with this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267535460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many of these cases the companies aren't making up numbers out of thin air &ndash; they really do own a patent with that number, but it expired and they forgot to remove it from some of their product packaging.  Stupid mistake, yes, but I wouldn't call that "outright lying to the public."  And not worthy of super-harsh punishment.  You might think patents in general are bad, and that's fine... but these cases don't seem to present a terrible abuse of the existing system as it stands today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many of these cases the companies are n't making up numbers out of thin air    they really do own a patent with that number , but it expired and they forgot to remove it from some of their product packaging .
Stupid mistake , yes , but I would n't call that " outright lying to the public .
" And not worthy of super-harsh punishment .
You might think patents in general are bad , and that 's fine... but these cases do n't seem to present a terrible abuse of the existing system as it stands today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many of these cases the companies aren't making up numbers out of thin air – they really do own a patent with that number, but it expired and they forgot to remove it from some of their product packaging.
Stupid mistake, yes, but I wouldn't call that "outright lying to the public.
"  And not worthy of super-harsh punishment.
You might think patents in general are bad, and that's fine... but these cases don't seem to present a terrible abuse of the existing system as it stands today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324544</id>
	<title>all this patent chaos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's hope all this patents chaos in the US (and the US trying to push their patents in other countries) doesn't end up in war in some years. I'll like to see US enforcing their patents this way on Russia / China / etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope all this patents chaos in the US ( and the US trying to push their patents in other countries ) does n't end up in war in some years .
I 'll like to see US enforcing their patents this way on Russia / China / etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope all this patents chaos in the US (and the US trying to push their patents in other countries) doesn't end up in war in some years.
I'll like to see US enforcing their patents this way on Russia / China / etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426</id>
	<title>How about....</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1267448580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about we look over patents carefully and allow -anyone- to file a prior art question without going to court but rather put all patent applications online for say ~30 days and open it up to debates for anyone to say that its had prior art which gets looked through before it becomes approved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we look over patents carefully and allow -anyone- to file a prior art question without going to court but rather put all patent applications online for say ~ 30 days and open it up to debates for anyone to say that its had prior art which gets looked through before it becomes approved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we look over patents carefully and allow -anyone- to file a prior art question without going to court but rather put all patent applications online for say ~30 days and open it up to debates for anyone to say that its had prior art which gets looked through before it becomes approved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324510</id>
	<title>Still...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still say Monster Cable deserves to be sued to bankrupcy. Same with Best Buy (Worst Buy) and Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still say Monster Cable deserves to be sued to bankrupcy .
Same with Best Buy ( Worst Buy ) and Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still say Monster Cable deserves to be sued to bankrupcy.
Same with Best Buy (Worst Buy) and Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324556</id>
	<title>Re:How about....</title>
	<author>Koby77</author>
	<datestamp>1267449180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even better, rather than limiting lawyers to sue for false patent marketing for expired patents or patents which were never filed, we allow lawyers to sue current patents which are obvious or already covered by prior art?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better , rather than limiting lawyers to sue for false patent marketing for expired patents or patents which were never filed , we allow lawyers to sue current patents which are obvious or already covered by prior art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better, rather than limiting lawyers to sue for false patent marketing for expired patents or patents which were never filed, we allow lawyers to sue current patents which are obvious or already covered by prior art?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324740</id>
	<title>Readibility</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1267450500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readibility bookmarklet, this is it.</p></div><p>Just skimmed over this: looks pretty awesome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note : if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readibility bookmarklet , this is it.Just skimmed over this : looks pretty awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readibility bookmarklet, this is it.Just skimmed over this: looks pretty awesome.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325394</id>
	<title>Re:Readibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Click it when viewing this page<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the comments disappear! It's perfect!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Click it when viewing this page ... the comments disappear !
It 's perfect !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click it when viewing this page ... the comments disappear!
It's perfect!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324730</id>
	<title>Re:Silly editor</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1267450380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silly AC: there's this thing called "case law" in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly AC : there 's this thing called " case law " in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly AC: there's this thing called "case law" in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325198</id>
	<title>Reasonable Fees</title>
	<author>Dthief</author>
	<datestamp>1267453860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As seems will be the case with the Tennenbaum vs RIAA case, these companies will probably be able to argue that the amounts are unreasonable and unconstitutional, so although these values seem ridiculous and inflated there are some nets in place to manage the claim amounts. And although this may require large legal fees, the companies that are shipping millions or billions of a product should be large enough to absorb this, or have legal teams on hand already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As seems will be the case with the Tennenbaum vs RIAA case , these companies will probably be able to argue that the amounts are unreasonable and unconstitutional , so although these values seem ridiculous and inflated there are some nets in place to manage the claim amounts .
And although this may require large legal fees , the companies that are shipping millions or billions of a product should be large enough to absorb this , or have legal teams on hand already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As seems will be the case with the Tennenbaum vs RIAA case, these companies will probably be able to argue that the amounts are unreasonable and unconstitutional, so although these values seem ridiculous and inflated there are some nets in place to manage the claim amounts.
And although this may require large legal fees, the companies that are shipping millions or billions of a product should be large enough to absorb this, or have legal teams on hand already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325474</id>
	<title>wrong</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1267456140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these qui tam cases actually benefit society by making companies comply with the laws, the only problem is lawyers are going after poorly labeled cups instead of Amazon's 1-click patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these qui tam cases actually benefit society by making companies comply with the laws , the only problem is lawyers are going after poorly labeled cups instead of Amazon 's 1-click patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these qui tam cases actually benefit society by making companies comply with the laws, the only problem is lawyers are going after poorly labeled cups instead of Amazon's 1-click patent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324646</id>
	<title>Re:Copyrights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267449660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless it's plagiarism, in which case... it's plagiarism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless it 's plagiarism , in which case... it 's plagiarism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless it's plagiarism, in which case... it's plagiarism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324564</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31338360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31330386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31332174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31340852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31343174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31344222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_221252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31343174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31330386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31340852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31338360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31332174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329790
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327848
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31344222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31329310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31324946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_221252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31325468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31326108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_221252.31327164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
