<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_24_022209</id>
	<title>Tridgell Recommends Reading Software Patents</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269455700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>H4x0r Jim Duggan writes <i>"Andrew Tridgell <a href="http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/">rejected the common fears about triple damages</a>: 'If you've got one lot of damages for patent infringement, what would happen to the project? It's dead. If it gets three lots of damages for patent infringement, what happens to the project? It's still dead.'  Tridge then explains the right way to read a patent and build a legal defense: 'That first type of defence is really the one you want, it's called: non-infringement. And that is: "we don't do that. The patent says X, we don't do X, therefore go away, sue someone else, it's not relevant for us." That's the defence you want. [...] Next one, prior art: [...] Basically the argument is: somebody else did that before. It's a very, very tricky argument to get right. Extremely tricky, and it is the most common argument bandied about in the free software community. And if you see it in the primary defence against a patent, you should cringe because it is an extremely unsafe way of doing things.' There are even some tips in the talk specifically for Slashdotters."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>H4x0r Jim Duggan writes " Andrew Tridgell rejected the common fears about triple damages : 'If you 've got one lot of damages for patent infringement , what would happen to the project ?
It 's dead .
If it gets three lots of damages for patent infringement , what happens to the project ?
It 's still dead .
' Tridge then explains the right way to read a patent and build a legal defense : 'That first type of defence is really the one you want , it 's called : non-infringement .
And that is : " we do n't do that .
The patent says X , we do n't do X , therefore go away , sue someone else , it 's not relevant for us .
" That 's the defence you want .
[ ... ] Next one , prior art : [ ... ] Basically the argument is : somebody else did that before .
It 's a very , very tricky argument to get right .
Extremely tricky , and it is the most common argument bandied about in the free software community .
And if you see it in the primary defence against a patent , you should cringe because it is an extremely unsafe way of doing things .
' There are even some tips in the talk specifically for Slashdotters .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "Andrew Tridgell rejected the common fears about triple damages: 'If you've got one lot of damages for patent infringement, what would happen to the project?
It's dead.
If it gets three lots of damages for patent infringement, what happens to the project?
It's still dead.
'  Tridge then explains the right way to read a patent and build a legal defense: 'That first type of defence is really the one you want, it's called: non-infringement.
And that is: "we don't do that.
The patent says X, we don't do X, therefore go away, sue someone else, it's not relevant for us.
" That's the defence you want.
[...] Next one, prior art: [...] Basically the argument is: somebody else did that before.
It's a very, very tricky argument to get right.
Extremely tricky, and it is the most common argument bandied about in the free software community.
And if you see it in the primary defence against a patent, you should cringe because it is an extremely unsafe way of doing things.
' There are even some tips in the talk specifically for Slashdotters.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31598244</id>
	<title>So you are saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that the best way to handle a problem is to fold around it?</p><p>And how many times are we supposed to do that before giving up, once the options are exhausted?</p><p>I think the best way to handle a problem is to remove it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the best way to handle a problem is to fold around it ? And how many times are we supposed to do that before giving up , once the options are exhausted ? I think the best way to handle a problem is to remove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the best way to handle a problem is to fold around it?And how many times are we supposed to do that before giving up, once the options are exhausted?I think the best way to handle a problem is to remove it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597086</id>
	<title>Re:I choose to publish my "inventions" at Usenet n</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1269443280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However, it's quite common for the patent to hinge on a handful of claims and if you can prove that you don't do just one of the independent claims, you're free.</p></div></blockquote><p>Whoa!  No!<br>Pretty good post up until there..  Not sure where you could get that idea..<br>If you infringe even ONE claim (independent or dependent) you are liable for patent infringement.<br>(Perhaps you were thinking of the rule that infringement of a claim requires all the limitations of that claim).</p><p>The reason patentees include dependent claims is that even if you can invalidate the broader independent claims with a prior art reference, they can still fall back on a dependent claim.  Thus, you might invalidate claims 1-36 based on prior art, but still be found to infringe claim 37 (dependent from claim 1).</p><p>Also, a real analysis of a patent requires looking at the (usually very long) prosecution history of the patent (the communications between the applicant and the USPTO).</p><p>Bottom line:  Hire a really smart patent attorney who understands the technology.</p><p>-Patent attorney</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , it 's quite common for the patent to hinge on a handful of claims and if you can prove that you do n't do just one of the independent claims , you 're free.Whoa !
No ! Pretty good post up until there.. Not sure where you could get that idea..If you infringe even ONE claim ( independent or dependent ) you are liable for patent infringement .
( Perhaps you were thinking of the rule that infringement of a claim requires all the limitations of that claim ) .The reason patentees include dependent claims is that even if you can invalidate the broader independent claims with a prior art reference , they can still fall back on a dependent claim .
Thus , you might invalidate claims 1-36 based on prior art , but still be found to infringe claim 37 ( dependent from claim 1 ) .Also , a real analysis of a patent requires looking at the ( usually very long ) prosecution history of the patent ( the communications between the applicant and the USPTO ) .Bottom line : Hire a really smart patent attorney who understands the technology.-Patent attorney</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, it's quite common for the patent to hinge on a handful of claims and if you can prove that you don't do just one of the independent claims, you're free.Whoa!
No!Pretty good post up until there..  Not sure where you could get that idea..If you infringe even ONE claim (independent or dependent) you are liable for patent infringement.
(Perhaps you were thinking of the rule that infringement of a claim requires all the limitations of that claim).The reason patentees include dependent claims is that even if you can invalidate the broader independent claims with a prior art reference, they can still fall back on a dependent claim.
Thus, you might invalidate claims 1-36 based on prior art, but still be found to infringe claim 37 (dependent from claim 1).Also, a real analysis of a patent requires looking at the (usually very long) prosecution history of the patent (the communications between the applicant and the USPTO).Bottom line:  Hire a really smart patent attorney who understands the technology.-Patent attorney
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596354</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a better idea</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1269439020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the best algorithms are *already* kept secret.<br>Or as secret as they can be given that there's hordes of people with talents with debuggers.</p><p>a distressing number of software patents completely fail to contain any source code or even decent pseudocode.</p><p>I can imagine rare situations where a patent on software might be justified but as it stands there's no requirement that source code be provided.<br>Instead they patent the general idea and use vague flowcharts instead of explicit code.</p><p>It's possible to innovate your way around a novel break design.<br>It's impossible to innovate your way around a box in a spreadsheet reading "slows car down"</p><p>plus there's a load of other stuff about how patents work well for centralised industries dominated by large companies(the legal teams can keep up with all recent patents) but utterly terrible for a decentralised industry where trying to make useful things becomes like playing Russian roulette since no one person can keep up with all the recent patents and shouldn't try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the best algorithms are * already * kept secret.Or as secret as they can be given that there 's hordes of people with talents with debuggers.a distressing number of software patents completely fail to contain any source code or even decent pseudocode.I can imagine rare situations where a patent on software might be justified but as it stands there 's no requirement that source code be provided.Instead they patent the general idea and use vague flowcharts instead of explicit code.It 's possible to innovate your way around a novel break design.It 's impossible to innovate your way around a box in a spreadsheet reading " slows car down " plus there 's a load of other stuff about how patents work well for centralised industries dominated by large companies ( the legal teams can keep up with all recent patents ) but utterly terrible for a decentralised industry where trying to make useful things becomes like playing Russian roulette since no one person can keep up with all the recent patents and should n't try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the best algorithms are *already* kept secret.Or as secret as they can be given that there's hordes of people with talents with debuggers.a distressing number of software patents completely fail to contain any source code or even decent pseudocode.I can imagine rare situations where a patent on software might be justified but as it stands there's no requirement that source code be provided.Instead they patent the general idea and use vague flowcharts instead of explicit code.It's possible to innovate your way around a novel break design.It's impossible to innovate your way around a box in a spreadsheet reading "slows car down"plus there's a load of other stuff about how patents work well for centralised industries dominated by large companies(the legal teams can keep up with all recent patents) but utterly terrible for a decentralised industry where trying to make useful things becomes like playing Russian roulette since no one person can keep up with all the recent patents and shouldn't try.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594824</id>
	<title>I choose to publish my "inventions" at Usenet news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269463440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Latest was on 20th juli 2009 and it started like this<blockquote><div><p> <b>Dear all reading professional(;as described in patent regulations)</b> <br> <br>

I would like you to remember reading this text as prior art, when someone
will try to patent a similar method or a device arrangement, that is
using the techniques shown below.<br> <br>

<b>TITLE: Method and device arrangement for creating audio visual designs</b> <br> <br>

<b>now unPatentable claims</b> <br>
1) A method that is using an evolution based approach for improving or
creating audio and / or visual designs k n o w n for it utilizing a
computer software that generates a set of audio and or visual designs for
the user of the system so that the user can select best design or designs
according to his/her liking the properties present or absent among the
presented set of designs.<br> <br>

2) A device arrangement and a method according to claim 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
bla bla bla<br> <br>
(this Patent Buster: was first published on 19-7-2009 8:20 pm GMT at <a href="http://www.colordev.com/" title="colordev.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.colordev.com/</a> [colordev.com] )</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

I think more independent software inventors should do the same i.e publish the patentable details, as it will create submarine patent-eliminators against the patent trolls. Ultimately no one will know what really has been published, or if any software patent will hold in court. For example if I 5 years a from now will read about a patent troll suing someone and I know I have the prior art, well I'll be happy to be the expert witness invalidating the patent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Latest was on 20th juli 2009 and it started like this Dear all reading professional ( ; as described in patent regulations ) I would like you to remember reading this text as prior art , when someone will try to patent a similar method or a device arrangement , that is using the techniques shown below .
TITLE : Method and device arrangement for creating audio visual designs now unPatentable claims 1 ) A method that is using an evolution based approach for improving or creating audio and / or visual designs k n o w n for it utilizing a computer software that generates a set of audio and or visual designs for the user of the system so that the user can select best design or designs according to his/her liking the properties present or absent among the presented set of designs .
2 ) A device arrangement and a method according to claim 1 .. . bla bla bla ( this Patent Buster : was first published on 19-7-2009 8 : 20 pm GMT at http : //www.colordev.com/ [ colordev.com ] ) I think more independent software inventors should do the same i.e publish the patentable details , as it will create submarine patent-eliminators against the patent trolls .
Ultimately no one will know what really has been published , or if any software patent will hold in court .
For example if I 5 years a from now will read about a patent troll suing someone and I know I have the prior art , well I 'll be happy to be the expert witness invalidating the patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Latest was on 20th juli 2009 and it started like this Dear all reading professional(;as described in patent regulations)  

I would like you to remember reading this text as prior art, when someone
will try to patent a similar method or a device arrangement, that is
using the techniques shown below.
TITLE: Method and device arrangement for creating audio visual designs  

now unPatentable claims 
1) A method that is using an evolution based approach for improving or
creating audio and / or visual designs k n o w n for it utilizing a
computer software that generates a set of audio and or visual designs for
the user of the system so that the user can select best design or designs
according to his/her liking the properties present or absent among the
presented set of designs.
2) A device arrangement and a method according to claim 1 ...
bla bla bla 
(this Patent Buster: was first published on 19-7-2009 8:20 pm GMT at http://www.colordev.com/ [colordev.com] )


I think more independent software inventors should do the same i.e publish the patentable details, as it will create submarine patent-eliminators against the patent trolls.
Ultimately no one will know what really has been published, or if any software patent will hold in court.
For example if I 5 years a from now will read about a patent troll suing someone and I know I have the prior art, well I'll be happy to be the expert witness invalidating the patent.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31608244</id>
	<title>Petition to stop software patents</title>
	<author>ogai</author>
	<datestamp>1269512220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software patents are evil. Accepting them and trying to circunvent them is not going to help. You cannot circunvent what you cannot be aware of (hundreds of thousands of software patents waiting to bite you as soon as you have enough money for them)

More or less one year ago I started the petition: <a href="http://petition.stopsoftwarepatents.eu/" title="stopsoftwarepatents.eu" rel="nofollow">http://petition.stopsoftwarepatents.eu/</a> [stopsoftwarepatents.eu]

More than 50.000 people and 3.000 companies have signed, but many haven't. I have spoken with some in the later group and their reasons are very different from each other. And that is the problem to stop software patents: many think approach a) or b) are not a good idea (or are useless). But that is wrong. All approaches against software patents must be supported (specially if they don't cost you too much). Go and sign the petition now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) (even if you are non-european)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software patents are evil .
Accepting them and trying to circunvent them is not going to help .
You can not circunvent what you can not be aware of ( hundreds of thousands of software patents waiting to bite you as soon as you have enough money for them ) More or less one year ago I started the petition : http : //petition.stopsoftwarepatents.eu/ [ stopsoftwarepatents.eu ] More than 50.000 people and 3.000 companies have signed , but many have n't .
I have spoken with some in the later group and their reasons are very different from each other .
And that is the problem to stop software patents : many think approach a ) or b ) are not a good idea ( or are useless ) .
But that is wrong .
All approaches against software patents must be supported ( specially if they do n't cost you too much ) .
Go and sign the petition now ; - ) ( even if you are non-european )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software patents are evil.
Accepting them and trying to circunvent them is not going to help.
You cannot circunvent what you cannot be aware of (hundreds of thousands of software patents waiting to bite you as soon as you have enough money for them)

More or less one year ago I started the petition: http://petition.stopsoftwarepatents.eu/ [stopsoftwarepatents.eu]

More than 50.000 people and 3.000 companies have signed, but many haven't.
I have spoken with some in the later group and their reasons are very different from each other.
And that is the problem to stop software patents: many think approach a) or b) are not a good idea (or are useless).
But that is wrong.
All approaches against software patents must be supported (specially if they don't cost you too much).
Go and sign the petition now ;-) (even if you are non-european)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597440</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In an ideal world, you could just write code yourself and that would be it.  Just use basic computer algorithms like binary trees, linked lists, queues, etc.  You know, the things that are given and have been around a LONG time before the internet.</p><p>Oh yea, don't forget hash tables.  And you'll probably want to interact with the internet somehow.</p><p>Oh, but you can't.  That's right, you're risking a lawsuit if you do the above.  BDE/Altnet has a patent on "the use of hash tables in relation to the internet", as of 1996.  You know, because the hash table was being used back in the early 70s and all, they MUST have invented it.</p><p>And yes, I was on the receiving end of this and it's exactly what the problem is.  Basic code, given run-of-the-mill algorithms, and you can't even do it without risking a lawsuit.</p><p>so, no, you can't just use your brain and write your own code.  <b>This is exactly where the system has been abused and stifles new work</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an ideal world , you could just write code yourself and that would be it .
Just use basic computer algorithms like binary trees , linked lists , queues , etc .
You know , the things that are given and have been around a LONG time before the internet.Oh yea , do n't forget hash tables .
And you 'll probably want to interact with the internet somehow.Oh , but you ca n't .
That 's right , you 're risking a lawsuit if you do the above .
BDE/Altnet has a patent on " the use of hash tables in relation to the internet " , as of 1996 .
You know , because the hash table was being used back in the early 70s and all , they MUST have invented it.And yes , I was on the receiving end of this and it 's exactly what the problem is .
Basic code , given run-of-the-mill algorithms , and you ca n't even do it without risking a lawsuit.so , no , you ca n't just use your brain and write your own code .
This is exactly where the system has been abused and stifles new work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an ideal world, you could just write code yourself and that would be it.
Just use basic computer algorithms like binary trees, linked lists, queues, etc.
You know, the things that are given and have been around a LONG time before the internet.Oh yea, don't forget hash tables.
And you'll probably want to interact with the internet somehow.Oh, but you can't.
That's right, you're risking a lawsuit if you do the above.
BDE/Altnet has a patent on "the use of hash tables in relation to the internet", as of 1996.
You know, because the hash table was being used back in the early 70s and all, they MUST have invented it.And yes, I was on the receiving end of this and it's exactly what the problem is.
Basic code, given run-of-the-mill algorithms, and you can't even do it without risking a lawsuit.so, no, you can't just use your brain and write your own code.
This is exactly where the system has been abused and stifles new work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595838</id>
	<title>Why not just prior art everything?</title>
	<author>rcragun</author>
	<datestamp>1269435480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This post reminds me of an idea I had recently.  If patents are based on the idea that this is a new invention, something that is novel, but they are also contingent upon their not being "prior art," then why not just create the "prior art of everything"?   What do I mean?  I'm not a programmer, but from what little I know about programming, I'm guessing a programmer could relatively easily grab an electronic dictionary and using the logic in the article linked to in this post, wordscramble every noun with every adjective in the dictionary to create the prior art of everything.  For example:
<p>Claim 1) A [noun] consisting of:

</p><p>    * a [adjective] [noun],
</p><p>    * with [adjective] [noun] [noun]

</p><p>You then use software to fill in the blanks with every possible word option:
</p><p>Claim 1) A [computer] consisting of:

</p><p>    * a [grumpy] [fish],
</p><p>    * with [cloudy] [metal] [socks]

</p><p>Run all of these permutations through, post them online with a time stamp and under the GPL code, et voila, the prior art of everything!  Wait a year and a day and you can now claim every software patent is worthless because there is "prior art" - and all you have to do is reference the website that has the "prior art of everything."  Hell, that should be the website: "priorartofeverything.com"

</p><p>Then, whenever anyone files a software patent, point to "priorartofeverything.com" and say, "Nope.  Someone already had that idea."

</p><p>The end of software patents....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post reminds me of an idea I had recently .
If patents are based on the idea that this is a new invention , something that is novel , but they are also contingent upon their not being " prior art , " then why not just create the " prior art of everything " ?
What do I mean ?
I 'm not a programmer , but from what little I know about programming , I 'm guessing a programmer could relatively easily grab an electronic dictionary and using the logic in the article linked to in this post , wordscramble every noun with every adjective in the dictionary to create the prior art of everything .
For example : Claim 1 ) A [ noun ] consisting of : * a [ adjective ] [ noun ] , * with [ adjective ] [ noun ] [ noun ] You then use software to fill in the blanks with every possible word option : Claim 1 ) A [ computer ] consisting of : * a [ grumpy ] [ fish ] , * with [ cloudy ] [ metal ] [ socks ] Run all of these permutations through , post them online with a time stamp and under the GPL code , et voila , the prior art of everything !
Wait a year and a day and you can now claim every software patent is worthless because there is " prior art " - and all you have to do is reference the website that has the " prior art of everything .
" Hell , that should be the website : " priorartofeverything.com " Then , whenever anyone files a software patent , point to " priorartofeverything.com " and say , " Nope .
Someone already had that idea .
" The end of software patents... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post reminds me of an idea I had recently.
If patents are based on the idea that this is a new invention, something that is novel, but they are also contingent upon their not being "prior art," then why not just create the "prior art of everything"?
What do I mean?
I'm not a programmer, but from what little I know about programming, I'm guessing a programmer could relatively easily grab an electronic dictionary and using the logic in the article linked to in this post, wordscramble every noun with every adjective in the dictionary to create the prior art of everything.
For example:
Claim 1) A [noun] consisting of:

    * a [adjective] [noun],
    * with [adjective] [noun] [noun]

You then use software to fill in the blanks with every possible word option:
Claim 1) A [computer] consisting of:

    * a [grumpy] [fish],
    * with [cloudy] [metal] [socks]

Run all of these permutations through, post them online with a time stamp and under the GPL code, et voila, the prior art of everything!
Wait a year and a day and you can now claim every software patent is worthless because there is "prior art" - and all you have to do is reference the website that has the "prior art of everything.
"  Hell, that should be the website: "priorartofeverything.com"

Then, whenever anyone files a software patent, point to "priorartofeverything.com" and say, "Nope.
Someone already had that idea.
"

The end of software patents....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31606338</id>
	<title>Re:Why not just prior art everything?</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1269441060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see you are not a programmer. You need a course on algorithms complexity*. You'd need a helish big server.</p><p>* Or simply make the calculations on how many combinations of nearly 10k words you can fit on 15-40 pages. Make sure to calculate the log, you won't be able to deal with the full numbers. Oh, and make sure to get a scientific calculator, or you won't be able to get the full log.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see you are not a programmer .
You need a course on algorithms complexity * .
You 'd need a helish big server .
* Or simply make the calculations on how many combinations of nearly 10k words you can fit on 15-40 pages .
Make sure to calculate the log , you wo n't be able to deal with the full numbers .
Oh , and make sure to get a scientific calculator , or you wo n't be able to get the full log .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see you are not a programmer.
You need a course on algorithms complexity*.
You'd need a helish big server.
* Or simply make the calculations on how many combinations of nearly 10k words you can fit on 15-40 pages.
Make sure to calculate the log, you won't be able to deal with the full numbers.
Oh, and make sure to get a scientific calculator, or you won't be able to get the full log.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31606364</id>
	<title>Re:I see nobody read the article.</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1269441300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called "slashdot effect", you can search it on Wikipedia. The page is said to be "slashdoted". That happens because several people do RTFA, some of them even comment after reading (diferently from me, as I often comment before reading...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " slashdot effect " , you can search it on Wikipedia .
The page is said to be " slashdoted " .
That happens because several people do RTFA , some of them even comment after reading ( diferently from me , as I often comment before reading... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "slashdot effect", you can search it on Wikipedia.
The page is said to be "slashdoted".
That happens because several people do RTFA, some of them even comment after reading (diferently from me, as I often comment before reading...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31599714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594710</id>
	<title>Hidden costs</title>
	<author>pablodiazgutierrez</author>
	<datestamp>1269461520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cost of searching for patents whenever you're doing something, anything, really, is a huge burden on any R&amp;D department. By forbidding employees to look at patents, companies make then focus on the important stuff: making things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cost of searching for patents whenever you 're doing something , anything , really , is a huge burden on any R&amp;D department .
By forbidding employees to look at patents , companies make then focus on the important stuff : making things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cost of searching for patents whenever you're doing something, anything, really, is a huge burden on any R&amp;D department.
By forbidding employees to look at patents, companies make then focus on the important stuff: making things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597462</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid System</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1269444960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shoot, you got my wheels turning...</p><p>Definitions:</p><ul><li>A=Activity</li><li>K=Knows that P might reasonably apply to A</li><li>O=P is to obvious to be valid.</li><li>B=P is to broad to be valid.</li><li>E=Earlier prior art invalidates P</li><li>P=Valid Patent: Courts assume True if has been issued going forward, but can be negated if at least one O, B, or E successfully argued before court.</li><li>I(A)=Infringement: True if (A infringes on P)</li><li>Li=Liable for innovent infringement:True if (P &amp; I(A) &amp; !K)</li><li>Lw=Liable for willful infringement: True if (P &amp; I(A) &amp; K)</li></ul><p>Plaintiff asserts:</p><ul><li>P</li><li>I(A)</li><li>If K then Lw, else Li</li></ul><p>Defenses:<br>Either...</p><ul> <li>!I(A) therefore !or(Li,Lw)</li><li># Article suggests K may make it possible to proactively engineer A such that this is the case.</li><li># Easiest to prove if dominion of P is clear and concise, but many patents are not so.</li></ul><p>Or...</p><ul> <li>or(O,B,E), therefore !P</li><li>!P therefore !or(Li,Lw)</li><li># More difficult to prove, as the court must assume !or(O,B,E) based on P having been granted in the first place.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shoot , you got my wheels turning...Definitions : A = ActivityK = Knows that P might reasonably apply to AO = P is to obvious to be valid.B = P is to broad to be valid.E = Earlier prior art invalidates PP = Valid Patent : Courts assume True if has been issued going forward , but can be negated if at least one O , B , or E successfully argued before court.I ( A ) = Infringement : True if ( A infringes on P ) Li = Liable for innovent infringement : True if ( P &amp; I ( A ) &amp; ! K ) Lw = Liable for willful infringement : True if ( P &amp; I ( A ) &amp; K ) Plaintiff asserts : PI ( A ) If K then Lw , else LiDefenses : Either... ! I ( A ) therefore ! or ( Li,Lw ) # Article suggests K may make it possible to proactively engineer A such that this is the case. # Easiest to prove if dominion of P is clear and concise , but many patents are not so.Or... or ( O,B,E ) , therefore ! P ! P therefore ! or ( Li,Lw ) # More difficult to prove , as the court must assume ! or ( O,B,E ) based on P having been granted in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shoot, you got my wheels turning...Definitions:A=ActivityK=Knows that P might reasonably apply to AO=P is to obvious to be valid.B=P is to broad to be valid.E=Earlier prior art invalidates PP=Valid Patent: Courts assume True if has been issued going forward, but can be negated if at least one O, B, or E successfully argued before court.I(A)=Infringement: True if (A infringes on P)Li=Liable for innovent infringement:True if (P &amp; I(A) &amp; !K)Lw=Liable for willful infringement: True if (P &amp; I(A) &amp; K)Plaintiff asserts:PI(A)If K then Lw, else LiDefenses:Either... !I(A) therefore !or(Li,Lw)# Article suggests K may make it possible to proactively engineer A such that this is the case.# Easiest to prove if dominion of P is clear and concise, but many patents are not so.Or... or(O,B,E), therefore !P!P therefore !or(Li,Lw)# More difficult to prove, as the court must assume !or(O,B,E) based on P having been granted in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594598</id>
	<title>There is always another patent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269373140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the same way that there is always a bigger fish.</p><p>And what you have to fear are overly broad patents and patent trolls.</p><p>Many patents are there not for suing the ass off the competition but to protect yourself from getting attacked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the same way that there is always a bigger fish.And what you have to fear are overly broad patents and patent trolls.Many patents are there not for suing the ass off the competition but to protect yourself from getting attacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the same way that there is always a bigger fish.And what you have to fear are overly broad patents and patent trolls.Many patents are there not for suing the ass off the competition but to protect yourself from getting attacked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31599714</id>
	<title>I see nobody read the article.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1269453360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The link in the Slashdot "article" isn't valid. No one seems to have noticed this.  No, they just blither away in ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The link in the Slashdot " article " is n't valid .
No one seems to have noticed this .
No , they just blither away in ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The link in the Slashdot "article" isn't valid.
No one seems to have noticed this.
No, they just blither away in ignorance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596176</id>
	<title>Re:I choose to publish my "inventions" at Usenet n</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1269437700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason prior art is risky is because it's an affirmative defense that the defendant, not the plaintiff, bears the burden of proof for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason prior art is risky is because it 's an affirmative defense that the defendant , not the plaintiff , bears the burden of proof for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason prior art is risky is because it's an affirmative defense that the defendant, not the plaintiff, bears the burden of proof for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31608816</id>
	<title>Explain that to me again, but slowly</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1269521820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let p' be "not p".  What's the difference between showing "not p'" and "not q"?  Why can't the patent owner say "We'll try to show Not-p'" rather than "[...] Not-Q"?  Why don't they say "OK, P-And-Q so we can't enforce patent"?</p><p>You say something about legal wrangling, without any details.  I don't think you can argue that one works better than the other based solely based on propositional (or if you prefer, second order prepositional) logic---at least not the kind of logic that deals with what is true rather than what is convincing.</p><p>I think you need to argue from the realities of court rooms and court cases: that based on historical evidence we know that one kind of argument convinces people and another kind of argument does so too but less often.  Maybe you can argue based on what the law says: that "it has been done before" isn't enough to constitute prior art, and therefore Q is a necessary but not sufficient condition for defending yourself (that makes your second scenario, juxtaposed with your first, make sense).</p><p>But calling the claims one-letter names and formalizing the structure of the argument, what exactly has that gained you?  Exactly what are you claiming here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let p ' be " not p " .
What 's the difference between showing " not p ' " and " not q " ?
Why ca n't the patent owner say " We 'll try to show Not-p ' " rather than " [ ... ] Not-Q " ?
Why do n't they say " OK , P-And-Q so we ca n't enforce patent " ? You say something about legal wrangling , without any details .
I do n't think you can argue that one works better than the other based solely based on propositional ( or if you prefer , second order prepositional ) logic---at least not the kind of logic that deals with what is true rather than what is convincing.I think you need to argue from the realities of court rooms and court cases : that based on historical evidence we know that one kind of argument convinces people and another kind of argument does so too but less often .
Maybe you can argue based on what the law says : that " it has been done before " is n't enough to constitute prior art , and therefore Q is a necessary but not sufficient condition for defending yourself ( that makes your second scenario , juxtaposed with your first , make sense ) .But calling the claims one-letter names and formalizing the structure of the argument , what exactly has that gained you ?
Exactly what are you claiming here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let p' be "not p".
What's the difference between showing "not p'" and "not q"?
Why can't the patent owner say "We'll try to show Not-p'" rather than "[...] Not-Q"?
Why don't they say "OK, P-And-Q so we can't enforce patent"?You say something about legal wrangling, without any details.
I don't think you can argue that one works better than the other based solely based on propositional (or if you prefer, second order prepositional) logic---at least not the kind of logic that deals with what is true rather than what is convincing.I think you need to argue from the realities of court rooms and court cases: that based on historical evidence we know that one kind of argument convinces people and another kind of argument does so too but less often.
Maybe you can argue based on what the law says: that "it has been done before" isn't enough to constitute prior art, and therefore Q is a necessary but not sufficient condition for defending yourself (that makes your second scenario, juxtaposed with your first, make sense).But calling the claims one-letter names and formalizing the structure of the argument, what exactly has that gained you?
Exactly what are you claiming here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596888</id>
	<title>Invalidity \_can\_ work</title>
	<author>rogerz</author>
	<datestamp>1269442380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he's wrong equivocating the invalidity defense with the prior art defense. My understanding is a patent can be invalidated - and rendered completely ineffective -  if you can show that it doesn't actually teach a practicable implementation of a way to achieve the claims.</p><p>I had experience with this.  We received a cease and desist letter from a (large) company saying we were infringing a patent they had claiming synchronizing audio playback with the movement of a cursor.  After carefully reading the description, we realized that they were actually describing doing this synchronization by assuming that the real-time clock signal was all that you needed to know how much of the wave file had been sent to the audio output<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and we knew that this could not actually work.  It didn't account for processing delays owing to CPU/memory/bandwidth limitations.   Our lawyer wrote a letter back to them saying this and we never heard from them again.</p><p>Note that the \_claims\_ themselves did not describe the synchronization method - they were claiming the generality of doing the synchronization.  It was in the \_description\_ that they explained \_how\_ to do the synchronization and this is where we found the flaw which invalidated the entire patent.  I should note also that the description included words indicating that the method they were describing was "essential" to the invention - so it was actually a badly written patent.  If they had carefully qualified the description with words like "this is one possible method<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there are others known to those skilled in the arts", we might not have been able to make this defense.  And, of course, this never went to court (probably because they realized how badly the description had been written).  But, I've seen other such flaws in patent descriptions - you'd be surprised how often lawyers make stupid mistakes like this.</p><p>And, if you do find such a mistake, you will have helped to move toward invalidating the entire patent, as opposed to just avoiding the particular infringement suit.   It is lots more work to wade through entire descriptions, and I wouldn't recommend doing it unless, as the speaker indicates, you are in the cross-hairs of an infringement suit.    But, it can be a very good feeling if you succeed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he 's wrong equivocating the invalidity defense with the prior art defense .
My understanding is a patent can be invalidated - and rendered completely ineffective - if you can show that it does n't actually teach a practicable implementation of a way to achieve the claims.I had experience with this .
We received a cease and desist letter from a ( large ) company saying we were infringing a patent they had claiming synchronizing audio playback with the movement of a cursor .
After carefully reading the description , we realized that they were actually describing doing this synchronization by assuming that the real-time clock signal was all that you needed to know how much of the wave file had been sent to the audio output ... and we knew that this could not actually work .
It did n't account for processing delays owing to CPU/memory/bandwidth limitations .
Our lawyer wrote a letter back to them saying this and we never heard from them again.Note that the \ _claims \ _ themselves did not describe the synchronization method - they were claiming the generality of doing the synchronization .
It was in the \ _description \ _ that they explained \ _how \ _ to do the synchronization and this is where we found the flaw which invalidated the entire patent .
I should note also that the description included words indicating that the method they were describing was " essential " to the invention - so it was actually a badly written patent .
If they had carefully qualified the description with words like " this is one possible method ... there are others known to those skilled in the arts " , we might not have been able to make this defense .
And , of course , this never went to court ( probably because they realized how badly the description had been written ) .
But , I 've seen other such flaws in patent descriptions - you 'd be surprised how often lawyers make stupid mistakes like this.And , if you do find such a mistake , you will have helped to move toward invalidating the entire patent , as opposed to just avoiding the particular infringement suit .
It is lots more work to wade through entire descriptions , and I would n't recommend doing it unless , as the speaker indicates , you are in the cross-hairs of an infringement suit .
But , it can be a very good feeling if you succeed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he's wrong equivocating the invalidity defense with the prior art defense.
My understanding is a patent can be invalidated - and rendered completely ineffective -  if you can show that it doesn't actually teach a practicable implementation of a way to achieve the claims.I had experience with this.
We received a cease and desist letter from a (large) company saying we were infringing a patent they had claiming synchronizing audio playback with the movement of a cursor.
After carefully reading the description, we realized that they were actually describing doing this synchronization by assuming that the real-time clock signal was all that you needed to know how much of the wave file had been sent to the audio output ... and we knew that this could not actually work.
It didn't account for processing delays owing to CPU/memory/bandwidth limitations.
Our lawyer wrote a letter back to them saying this and we never heard from them again.Note that the \_claims\_ themselves did not describe the synchronization method - they were claiming the generality of doing the synchronization.
It was in the \_description\_ that they explained \_how\_ to do the synchronization and this is where we found the flaw which invalidated the entire patent.
I should note also that the description included words indicating that the method they were describing was "essential" to the invention - so it was actually a badly written patent.
If they had carefully qualified the description with words like "this is one possible method ... there are others known to those skilled in the arts", we might not have been able to make this defense.
And, of course, this never went to court (probably because they realized how badly the description had been written).
But, I've seen other such flaws in patent descriptions - you'd be surprised how often lawyers make stupid mistakes like this.And, if you do find such a mistake, you will have helped to move toward invalidating the entire patent, as opposed to just avoiding the particular infringement suit.
It is lots more work to wade through entire descriptions, and I wouldn't recommend doing it unless, as the speaker indicates, you are in the cross-hairs of an infringement suit.
But, it can be a very good feeling if you succeed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594794</id>
	<title>We need obviousness reinterpreted for sw patents</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1269463080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the best overall defense is if someone can take a case all the way to the supreme court, and argue that the threshold for obviousness<br>is way out of whack in the granting of software and business process patents.</p><p>The goal should be to get a test mandated by the supreme court along the lines of: If three out of four average 3rd year comp sci students<br>could design and code it up in a month, having heard only the requirements and not the design, then it's f***ing obvious to a competent practitioner<br>in the field, and should be dismissed.</p><p>Who knows. There may actually be algorithms clever enough to deserve patent protection for 5 years or so. But right now those would probably be<br>1 out of 100 of the patents granted, so the whole system is in total disrepute and it is the duty of a responsible practitioner in the field, as a protest,<br>to ignore and not view and thus not heed any USPTO software or business process patents, until they entirely revamp the standards and<br>throw out all patents granted under the existing broken standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the best overall defense is if someone can take a case all the way to the supreme court , and argue that the threshold for obviousnessis way out of whack in the granting of software and business process patents.The goal should be to get a test mandated by the supreme court along the lines of : If three out of four average 3rd year comp sci studentscould design and code it up in a month , having heard only the requirements and not the design , then it 's f * * * ing obvious to a competent practitionerin the field , and should be dismissed.Who knows .
There may actually be algorithms clever enough to deserve patent protection for 5 years or so .
But right now those would probably be1 out of 100 of the patents granted , so the whole system is in total disrepute and it is the duty of a responsible practitioner in the field , as a protest,to ignore and not view and thus not heed any USPTO software or business process patents , until they entirely revamp the standards andthrow out all patents granted under the existing broken standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the best overall defense is if someone can take a case all the way to the supreme court, and argue that the threshold for obviousnessis way out of whack in the granting of software and business process patents.The goal should be to get a test mandated by the supreme court along the lines of: If three out of four average 3rd year comp sci studentscould design and code it up in a month, having heard only the requirements and not the design, then it's f***ing obvious to a competent practitionerin the field, and should be dismissed.Who knows.
There may actually be algorithms clever enough to deserve patent protection for 5 years or so.
But right now those would probably be1 out of 100 of the patents granted, so the whole system is in total disrepute and it is the duty of a responsible practitioner in the field, as a protest,to ignore and not view and thus not heed any USPTO software or business process patents, until they entirely revamp the standards andthrow out all patents granted under the existing broken standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31605006</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269431580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could have just said "because non-techie Judges are stupid as shit" and it would've accomplished the same goal, y'know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have just said " because non-techie Judges are stupid as shit " and it would 've accomplished the same goal , y'know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have just said "because non-techie Judges are stupid as shit" and it would've accomplished the same goal, y'know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597236</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid System</title>
	<author>31415926535897</author>
	<datestamp>1269444060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In criminal defense, you can use multiple strategies to try to show innocence, even if those arguments are not mutually exclusive:</p><p>For example, if you were trying to defend yourself against a murder charge, I believe you can argue the following:<br>1. I wasn't even there<br>2. Even if I was there, I wasn't the actual person to killed him<br>3. Even if I did kill him, it was an accident</p><p>If any one of those holds, you're a free man, but logically you can't argue all three (from a non-legal perspective). In the court room, however, you're free to make these arguments (of course you have to weigh this against the intelligence of the jury, but we've all heard who comprises a jury).</p><p>I keep hearing things that seem to exclude this option from a civil suit.  Why is that?  What can't you argue:</p><p>1. We are not infringing (~P)<br>2. Even if we were infringing, there is prior art, so your patent is invalid (Q)</p><p>And in this case, ~P ^ Q is not even a logical contradiction.</p><p>You've got to love the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In criminal defense , you can use multiple strategies to try to show innocence , even if those arguments are not mutually exclusive : For example , if you were trying to defend yourself against a murder charge , I believe you can argue the following : 1 .
I was n't even there2 .
Even if I was there , I was n't the actual person to killed him3 .
Even if I did kill him , it was an accidentIf any one of those holds , you 're a free man , but logically you ca n't argue all three ( from a non-legal perspective ) .
In the court room , however , you 're free to make these arguments ( of course you have to weigh this against the intelligence of the jury , but we 've all heard who comprises a jury ) .I keep hearing things that seem to exclude this option from a civil suit .
Why is that ?
What ca n't you argue : 1 .
We are not infringing ( ~ P ) 2 .
Even if we were infringing , there is prior art , so your patent is invalid ( Q ) And in this case , ~ P ^ Q is not even a logical contradiction.You 've got to love the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In criminal defense, you can use multiple strategies to try to show innocence, even if those arguments are not mutually exclusive:For example, if you were trying to defend yourself against a murder charge, I believe you can argue the following:1.
I wasn't even there2.
Even if I was there, I wasn't the actual person to killed him3.
Even if I did kill him, it was an accidentIf any one of those holds, you're a free man, but logically you can't argue all three (from a non-legal perspective).
In the court room, however, you're free to make these arguments (of course you have to weigh this against the intelligence of the jury, but we've all heard who comprises a jury).I keep hearing things that seem to exclude this option from a civil suit.
Why is that?
What can't you argue:1.
We are not infringing (~P)2.
Even if we were infringing, there is prior art, so your patent is invalid (Q)And in this case, ~P ^ Q is not even a logical contradiction.You've got to love the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595152</id>
	<title>Re:There is always another patent.</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1269427980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, the real defence is moving to a (software patent) free country.</p></div><p>I hear Somaiia has quite a lackadasical Software Patent system at the moment. As long as you're willing to harbour a few pirates (no inverted commas here!) you're pretty much ok to go!<br> <br>Enjoy your new haven<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , the real defence is moving to a ( software patent ) free country.I hear Somaiia has quite a lackadasical Software Patent system at the moment .
As long as you 're willing to harbour a few pirates ( no inverted commas here !
) you 're pretty much ok to go !
Enjoy your new haven : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, the real defence is moving to a (software patent) free country.I hear Somaiia has quite a lackadasical Software Patent system at the moment.
As long as you're willing to harbour a few pirates (no inverted commas here!
) you're pretty much ok to go!
Enjoy your new haven :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594784</id>
	<title>Re:Here's a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269462780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I'm writing code, I don't have to worry about patent infringement, because the stuff isn't patentable</p></div><p>I don't think software patents need to go away altogether, it just needs a bit of reform.  Software engineering is a very complex, confusing, and quickly growing field.  Without patents, the best algorithms are going to be kept secret and that helps no one  Copyright protection doesn't cut it if I can rewrite your concept in language foo and claim it as my own.  Whether you're selling something for $1,000,000 or $0 dollars, the same rules apply; legally use someone else's patented ideas or come up with your own.  If the free software bunch has to develop new unpatented methods to accomplish their goals, well the system worked, bravo.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> That way I can write code just like you write anything else; without looking over your shoulder.</p></div><p>It sounds like you want complete freedom to give away anything you want for any price.  Why shouldn't it be protected so a market can form?  Our patent system needs to be less burdensome, not nonexistent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm writing code , I do n't have to worry about patent infringement , because the stuff is n't patentableI do n't think software patents need to go away altogether , it just needs a bit of reform .
Software engineering is a very complex , confusing , and quickly growing field .
Without patents , the best algorithms are going to be kept secret and that helps no one Copyright protection does n't cut it if I can rewrite your concept in language foo and claim it as my own .
Whether you 're selling something for $ 1,000,000 or $ 0 dollars , the same rules apply ; legally use someone else 's patented ideas or come up with your own .
If the free software bunch has to develop new unpatented methods to accomplish their goals , well the system worked , bravo .
That way I can write code just like you write anything else ; without looking over your shoulder.It sounds like you want complete freedom to give away anything you want for any price .
Why should n't it be protected so a market can form ?
Our patent system needs to be less burdensome , not nonexistent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm writing code, I don't have to worry about patent infringement, because the stuff isn't patentableI don't think software patents need to go away altogether, it just needs a bit of reform.
Software engineering is a very complex, confusing, and quickly growing field.
Without patents, the best algorithms are going to be kept secret and that helps no one  Copyright protection doesn't cut it if I can rewrite your concept in language foo and claim it as my own.
Whether you're selling something for $1,000,000 or $0 dollars, the same rules apply; legally use someone else's patented ideas or come up with your own.
If the free software bunch has to develop new unpatented methods to accomplish their goals, well the system worked, bravo.
That way I can write code just like you write anything else; without looking over your shoulder.It sounds like you want complete freedom to give away anything you want for any price.
Why shouldn't it be protected so a market can form?
Our patent system needs to be less burdensome, not nonexistent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31599262</id>
	<title>What's the societal interest in patents?</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1269451620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Article 1, section 8, clause 8, reads, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."</p><p>It does NOT read "to make money for the creators for themselves and their families in perpertua".</p><p>Furthermore, esp. in software, where something may easily be obsolescent in five years, to grant a patent that lasts 17 is to *not* promote the progress of science", but rather to restrict it.</p><p>But we've seen plenty of folks (gee, boyos and grllls, can you say 'SCO'? Or 'RIAA'?) who think it means the latter.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Article 1 , section 8 , clause 8 , reads , " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries .
" It does NOT read " to make money for the creators for themselves and their families in perpertua " .Furthermore , esp .
in software , where something may easily be obsolescent in five years , to grant a patent that lasts 17 is to * not * promote the progress of science " , but rather to restrict it.But we 've seen plenty of folks ( gee , boyos and grllls , can you say 'SCO ' ?
Or 'RIAA ' ?
) who think it means the latter .
                    mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article 1, section 8, clause 8, reads, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
"It does NOT read "to make money for the creators for themselves and their families in perpertua".Furthermore, esp.
in software, where something may easily be obsolescent in five years, to grant a patent that lasts 17 is to *not* promote the progress of science", but rather to restrict it.But we've seen plenty of folks (gee, boyos and grllls, can you say 'SCO'?
Or 'RIAA'?
) who think it means the latter.
                    mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31607346</id>
	<title>Re:an idea, or 1 implementation of an idea?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269453360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SCO's cases have been all about copyright not patent. The only patent claims in the SCO saga were IBM's counterclaims (but maybe IBM withdrew those?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SCO 's cases have been all about copyright not patent .
The only patent claims in the SCO saga were IBM 's counterclaims ( but maybe IBM withdrew those ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCO's cases have been all about copyright not patent.
The only patent claims in the SCO saga were IBM's counterclaims (but maybe IBM withdrew those?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596334</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269438900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patent searches may not be cost-effectife; this is second hand info so of course be wrong (sometimes I'm wrong with 1st hand info), but a fellow I knew several years ago (actually my ex-wife's brother in law) worked at a place where they manufactured mechanical gizmos. His boss would bring a competetitor's gizmo and ask "can you make one of these?" Once he asked his boss "can't we get in trouble for violating their patent?"</p><p>The answer was "that's why we have lawyers on the payroll."</p><p>He said that often they could get around the patent by (for instance) using brass instead of copper. This sort of thing would be easier with software.</p><p>But IMO patents aren't such a problem; they only last twenty years. I know that's a lifetime for someone in college, but you would be amazed how fast twenty years goes by. Someone mentioned GIF vs PNG earlier, the patent on GIF is almost over.</p><p>A bigger problem is copyrights. If copyrights only lasted as long as patents, Windows 95, Duke Nukem, and Wolfenstein would be free in 2015. If patents lasted as long as copyrights, technological progress would come to a standstill, and I posit that creative arts are being greatly harmed by the excessive copyright lengths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent searches may not be cost-effectife ; this is second hand info so of course be wrong ( sometimes I 'm wrong with 1st hand info ) , but a fellow I knew several years ago ( actually my ex-wife 's brother in law ) worked at a place where they manufactured mechanical gizmos .
His boss would bring a competetitor 's gizmo and ask " can you make one of these ?
" Once he asked his boss " ca n't we get in trouble for violating their patent ?
" The answer was " that 's why we have lawyers on the payroll .
" He said that often they could get around the patent by ( for instance ) using brass instead of copper .
This sort of thing would be easier with software.But IMO patents are n't such a problem ; they only last twenty years .
I know that 's a lifetime for someone in college , but you would be amazed how fast twenty years goes by .
Someone mentioned GIF vs PNG earlier , the patent on GIF is almost over.A bigger problem is copyrights .
If copyrights only lasted as long as patents , Windows 95 , Duke Nukem , and Wolfenstein would be free in 2015 .
If patents lasted as long as copyrights , technological progress would come to a standstill , and I posit that creative arts are being greatly harmed by the excessive copyright lengths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent searches may not be cost-effectife; this is second hand info so of course be wrong (sometimes I'm wrong with 1st hand info), but a fellow I knew several years ago (actually my ex-wife's brother in law) worked at a place where they manufactured mechanical gizmos.
His boss would bring a competetitor's gizmo and ask "can you make one of these?
" Once he asked his boss "can't we get in trouble for violating their patent?
"The answer was "that's why we have lawyers on the payroll.
"He said that often they could get around the patent by (for instance) using brass instead of copper.
This sort of thing would be easier with software.But IMO patents aren't such a problem; they only last twenty years.
I know that's a lifetime for someone in college, but you would be amazed how fast twenty years goes by.
Someone mentioned GIF vs PNG earlier, the patent on GIF is almost over.A bigger problem is copyrights.
If copyrights only lasted as long as patents, Windows 95, Duke Nukem, and Wolfenstein would be free in 2015.
If patents lasted as long as copyrights, technological progress would come to a standstill, and I posit that creative arts are being greatly harmed by the excessive copyright lengths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595062</id>
	<title>Risk of large costs</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1269426720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He made some assertions whose validity is questionable for small companies, and which are generally false for larger companies with deep pockets.<p><div class="quote"><p>'If you've got one lot of damages for patent infringement, what would happen to the project? It's dead.</p></div><p>Not necessarily, since the product may already be released, and the project to create it may be already completed. The damages award is typically made after lengthy legal proceedings, and it's not likely that the development project is still active. Those involved have probably moved on to other projects, been promoted, or changed employer. Paying tens or hundreds of millions in damages is not fatal to large companies, but the risk of such a cost is definitely a risk to be minimized.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If it gets three lots of damages for patent infringement, what happens to the project? It's still dead.</p></div><p>Not necessarily, if the product has already been released, and the project to create it has already been completed. But the court's interpretation of a patent is often baffling to an engineer, who cannot therefore assess whether a risk of infringement really exists. However, by being aware of the patent, the potential cost of an infringement is tripled. This is why large corporations do not encourage their developers to do exhaustive patent searches.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He made some assertions whose validity is questionable for small companies , and which are generally false for larger companies with deep pockets .
'If you 've got one lot of damages for patent infringement , what would happen to the project ?
It 's dead.Not necessarily , since the product may already be released , and the project to create it may be already completed .
The damages award is typically made after lengthy legal proceedings , and it 's not likely that the development project is still active .
Those involved have probably moved on to other projects , been promoted , or changed employer .
Paying tens or hundreds of millions in damages is not fatal to large companies , but the risk of such a cost is definitely a risk to be minimized.If it gets three lots of damages for patent infringement , what happens to the project ?
It 's still dead.Not necessarily , if the product has already been released , and the project to create it has already been completed .
But the court 's interpretation of a patent is often baffling to an engineer , who can not therefore assess whether a risk of infringement really exists .
However , by being aware of the patent , the potential cost of an infringement is tripled .
This is why large corporations do not encourage their developers to do exhaustive patent searches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He made some assertions whose validity is questionable for small companies, and which are generally false for larger companies with deep pockets.
'If you've got one lot of damages for patent infringement, what would happen to the project?
It's dead.Not necessarily, since the product may already be released, and the project to create it may be already completed.
The damages award is typically made after lengthy legal proceedings, and it's not likely that the development project is still active.
Those involved have probably moved on to other projects, been promoted, or changed employer.
Paying tens or hundreds of millions in damages is not fatal to large companies, but the risk of such a cost is definitely a risk to be minimized.If it gets three lots of damages for patent infringement, what happens to the project?
It's still dead.Not necessarily, if the product has already been released, and the project to create it has already been completed.
But the court's interpretation of a patent is often baffling to an engineer, who cannot therefore assess whether a risk of infringement really exists.
However, by being aware of the patent, the potential cost of an infringement is tripled.
This is why large corporations do not encourage their developers to do exhaustive patent searches.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597628</id>
	<title>Complicated System</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1269445620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is the legal system so fucked up that it's easier to win with "We don't do X" instead of "X has been done before" when it's extremely obvious that X <b>has</b> been done before?</p></div><p>Because "we don't do X" is a very easy, black and white conclusion. Whether something is obvious or not is a very difficult analysis, requiring examining multiple factors, the state of the art at the time of invention, the ease of combining different prior art references without undue experimentation, how skilled the average person in the profession is, etc. Compare it to other areas in the legal system - it's much easier to beat a murder rap if the victim is still alive, than to try to show that your questionable alibi is more persuasive than the questionable witness testimony.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the legal system so fucked up that it 's easier to win with " We do n't do X " instead of " X has been done before " when it 's extremely obvious that X has been done before ? Because " we do n't do X " is a very easy , black and white conclusion .
Whether something is obvious or not is a very difficult analysis , requiring examining multiple factors , the state of the art at the time of invention , the ease of combining different prior art references without undue experimentation , how skilled the average person in the profession is , etc .
Compare it to other areas in the legal system - it 's much easier to beat a murder rap if the victim is still alive , than to try to show that your questionable alibi is more persuasive than the questionable witness testimony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the legal system so fucked up that it's easier to win with "We don't do X" instead of "X has been done before" when it's extremely obvious that X has been done before?Because "we don't do X" is a very easy, black and white conclusion.
Whether something is obvious or not is a very difficult analysis, requiring examining multiple factors, the state of the art at the time of invention, the ease of combining different prior art references without undue experimentation, how skilled the average person in the profession is, etc.
Compare it to other areas in the legal system - it's much easier to beat a murder rap if the victim is still alive, than to try to show that your questionable alibi is more persuasive than the questionable witness testimony.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595572</id>
	<title>an idea, or 1 implementation of an idea?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269432600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see several problems with Tridgell's approach.

</p><p>1st, his talk assumes patents cover only a specific, narrow implementations of ideas.  And if some patent troll challenges you, all you have to do is show your idea is slightly different.  He says we've gotten it all wrong, because there isn't any such thing as an overly broad patent.  I don't know.  Isn't the point of a patent to cover an idea, no matter how it is implemented?  What is a business method patent, if not that?  But if he's right, then RIM really blew it.  All they had to do was show that NTP's patents don't cover exactly, precisely what they did and the way they did it.  That should have been easy, because they came up with their own system.  Somehow, I think that if it had been that easy, RIM would have found the way.  Instead RIM tried what he strongly recommends against, that is, they tried to show prior art.  There was just this minor problem that their legal team foolishly hoked up some fakery on that point.

</p><p>2nd, he assumes too much about the methods of the patent trolls.  Sure, it all comes down to making money, but the straightforward approach of attempting to collect license fees isn't the only way to use a patent to that end.  There's the use of patents to stifle competition.  That's why MS supported SCO, not to profit off of licensing fees for Linux, but to hurt Window's biggest competitor.  Then there's the shakedown, as IBM once did to Sun over 7 patents, including the infamous "fat lines" one.  Sun did exactly what Tridgell says to do.  They demolished IBM's claims of infringement.  And it didn't work because IBM pointed out that they have over 10000 other patents.  "Do you really want us to go back to Armonk and find 7 patents you do infringe?"  Well, maybe Sun shouldn't have caved.  And, there's harassment of the sort SCO did.  They knew they didn't have a case-- they were just making a big legal stink in hopes their victims would decide it's cheaper to buy them off than fight them in court.  How did PJ tear SCO's case apart?  The way Tridgell recommends?  Yes, but that was only a part of it.  There was also effort to throw the validity of SCO's patents into question by showing prior art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see several problems with Tridgell 's approach .
1st , his talk assumes patents cover only a specific , narrow implementations of ideas .
And if some patent troll challenges you , all you have to do is show your idea is slightly different .
He says we 've gotten it all wrong , because there is n't any such thing as an overly broad patent .
I do n't know .
Is n't the point of a patent to cover an idea , no matter how it is implemented ?
What is a business method patent , if not that ?
But if he 's right , then RIM really blew it .
All they had to do was show that NTP 's patents do n't cover exactly , precisely what they did and the way they did it .
That should have been easy , because they came up with their own system .
Somehow , I think that if it had been that easy , RIM would have found the way .
Instead RIM tried what he strongly recommends against , that is , they tried to show prior art .
There was just this minor problem that their legal team foolishly hoked up some fakery on that point .
2nd , he assumes too much about the methods of the patent trolls .
Sure , it all comes down to making money , but the straightforward approach of attempting to collect license fees is n't the only way to use a patent to that end .
There 's the use of patents to stifle competition .
That 's why MS supported SCO , not to profit off of licensing fees for Linux , but to hurt Window 's biggest competitor .
Then there 's the shakedown , as IBM once did to Sun over 7 patents , including the infamous " fat lines " one .
Sun did exactly what Tridgell says to do .
They demolished IBM 's claims of infringement .
And it did n't work because IBM pointed out that they have over 10000 other patents .
" Do you really want us to go back to Armonk and find 7 patents you do infringe ?
" Well , maybe Sun should n't have caved .
And , there 's harassment of the sort SCO did .
They knew they did n't have a case-- they were just making a big legal stink in hopes their victims would decide it 's cheaper to buy them off than fight them in court .
How did PJ tear SCO 's case apart ?
The way Tridgell recommends ?
Yes , but that was only a part of it .
There was also effort to throw the validity of SCO 's patents into question by showing prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see several problems with Tridgell's approach.
1st, his talk assumes patents cover only a specific, narrow implementations of ideas.
And if some patent troll challenges you, all you have to do is show your idea is slightly different.
He says we've gotten it all wrong, because there isn't any such thing as an overly broad patent.
I don't know.
Isn't the point of a patent to cover an idea, no matter how it is implemented?
What is a business method patent, if not that?
But if he's right, then RIM really blew it.
All they had to do was show that NTP's patents don't cover exactly, precisely what they did and the way they did it.
That should have been easy, because they came up with their own system.
Somehow, I think that if it had been that easy, RIM would have found the way.
Instead RIM tried what he strongly recommends against, that is, they tried to show prior art.
There was just this minor problem that their legal team foolishly hoked up some fakery on that point.
2nd, he assumes too much about the methods of the patent trolls.
Sure, it all comes down to making money, but the straightforward approach of attempting to collect license fees isn't the only way to use a patent to that end.
There's the use of patents to stifle competition.
That's why MS supported SCO, not to profit off of licensing fees for Linux, but to hurt Window's biggest competitor.
Then there's the shakedown, as IBM once did to Sun over 7 patents, including the infamous "fat lines" one.
Sun did exactly what Tridgell says to do.
They demolished IBM's claims of infringement.
And it didn't work because IBM pointed out that they have over 10000 other patents.
"Do you really want us to go back to Armonk and find 7 patents you do infringe?
"  Well, maybe Sun shouldn't have caved.
And, there's harassment of the sort SCO did.
They knew they didn't have a case-- they were just making a big legal stink in hopes their victims would decide it's cheaper to buy them off than fight them in court.
How did PJ tear SCO's case apart?
The way Tridgell recommends?
Yes, but that was only a part of it.
There was also effort to throw the validity of SCO's patents into question by showing prior art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595102</id>
	<title>A non-profit anti-patent union is the way to go</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269427200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The union goes around aquiring as many patents up as possible, and agrees to use the patent portfolio to help defend any of its members who are threatened with patent legal action. All members agree to not to sue each other. Maybe a fee is required to join, or patent donations. Maybe a cross between insurance and a union. If it gets powerful enough, it could make patents irrelevant.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or are people already trying to do this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The union goes around aquiring as many patents up as possible , and agrees to use the patent portfolio to help defend any of its members who are threatened with patent legal action .
All members agree to not to sue each other .
Maybe a fee is required to join , or patent donations .
Maybe a cross between insurance and a union .
If it gets powerful enough , it could make patents irrelevant .
... or are people already trying to do this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The union goes around aquiring as many patents up as possible, and agrees to use the patent portfolio to help defend any of its members who are threatened with patent legal action.
All members agree to not to sue each other.
Maybe a fee is required to join, or patent donations.
Maybe a cross between insurance and a union.
If it gets powerful enough, it could make patents irrelevant.
... or are people already trying to do this</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269461100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it is as close as anyone is going to get as far as logical watertightness goes.  Let P be "You are using a patented idea" and Q be "It's been done before". Enforcing a patent requires P.</p><p>Patent owner: "P is true of you." (Initial threat)<br>You: In fact Not-P is true of us.<br>Patent owner: OK, Not-P so we can't enforce patent.</p><p>vs</p><p>Patent owner: "P is true of you."<br>You: P is true but Q is true also. (You try to stop legal wrangling with Q.)<br>Patent owner: OK, P so we can try to enforce patent, regardless of Q. We'll try to show Not-Q.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it is as close as anyone is going to get as far as logical watertightness goes .
Let P be " You are using a patented idea " and Q be " It 's been done before " .
Enforcing a patent requires P.Patent owner : " P is true of you .
" ( Initial threat ) You : In fact Not-P is true of us.Patent owner : OK , Not-P so we ca n't enforce patent.vsPatent owner : " P is true of you .
" You : P is true but Q is true also .
( You try to stop legal wrangling with Q .
) Patent owner : OK , P so we can try to enforce patent , regardless of Q. We 'll try to show Not-Q .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it is as close as anyone is going to get as far as logical watertightness goes.
Let P be "You are using a patented idea" and Q be "It's been done before".
Enforcing a patent requires P.Patent owner: "P is true of you.
" (Initial threat)You: In fact Not-P is true of us.Patent owner: OK, Not-P so we can't enforce patent.vsPatent owner: "P is true of you.
"You: P is true but Q is true also.
(You try to stop legal wrangling with Q.
)Patent owner: OK, P so we can try to enforce patent, regardless of Q. We'll try to show Not-Q.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595522</id>
	<title>Re:We need obviousness reinterpreted for sw patent</title>
	<author>kbg</author>
	<datestamp>1269431940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, there are no algorithms clever enough to deserve patent protection. What is an algorithm in a computer? It is just math by another name. Software is made up of mathematical principles, math is not patentable, and therefore software shouldn't be, end of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , there are no algorithms clever enough to deserve patent protection .
What is an algorithm in a computer ?
It is just math by another name .
Software is made up of mathematical principles , math is not patentable , and therefore software should n't be , end of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, there are no algorithms clever enough to deserve patent protection.
What is an algorithm in a computer?
It is just math by another name.
Software is made up of mathematical principles, math is not patentable, and therefore software shouldn't be, end of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594614</id>
	<title>Here's a better idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269373380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I'm writing code, I don't have to worry about patent infringement, because the stuff isn't patentable. That way I can write code just like you write anything else; without looking over your shoulder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm writing code , I do n't have to worry about patent infringement , because the stuff is n't patentable .
That way I can write code just like you write anything else ; without looking over your shoulder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm writing code, I don't have to worry about patent infringement, because the stuff isn't patentable.
That way I can write code just like you write anything else; without looking over your shoulder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595822</id>
	<title>Aggressive defense</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1269435300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course prior art is a more popular argument in the free software community because it is a more aggressive defense. It's an attack against the patent itself. The free software movement is keen to destroy patents they consider unjust (which for broad and vague patents such as "taking online orders with a single click" or "online course management" is a given), and merely avoiding the damage from lawsuits may look like a "weak" move.</p><p>(Which is probably par for the course in law: Clients resent their lawyer's advice when they counsel against an aggressive course of action. Their rights were violated, dammit, and they want to see vindication. Even when the slower and less flashy strategy, even settlement, can have the better ultimate outcome.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course prior art is a more popular argument in the free software community because it is a more aggressive defense .
It 's an attack against the patent itself .
The free software movement is keen to destroy patents they consider unjust ( which for broad and vague patents such as " taking online orders with a single click " or " online course management " is a given ) , and merely avoiding the damage from lawsuits may look like a " weak " move .
( Which is probably par for the course in law : Clients resent their lawyer 's advice when they counsel against an aggressive course of action .
Their rights were violated , dammit , and they want to see vindication .
Even when the slower and less flashy strategy , even settlement , can have the better ultimate outcome .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course prior art is a more popular argument in the free software community because it is a more aggressive defense.
It's an attack against the patent itself.
The free software movement is keen to destroy patents they consider unjust (which for broad and vague patents such as "taking online orders with a single click" or "online course management" is a given), and merely avoiding the damage from lawsuits may look like a "weak" move.
(Which is probably par for the course in law: Clients resent their lawyer's advice when they counsel against an aggressive course of action.
Their rights were violated, dammit, and they want to see vindication.
Even when the slower and less flashy strategy, even settlement, can have the better ultimate outcome.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594730</id>
	<title>Re:There is always another patent.</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1269461700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be great then to come to an understanding with companies regarding patents that if they ever attempt to enforce (or transfer their patent to another to enforce) a single patent, we will take notice and consider them hostile to our interests. Defensive patents, sure, we can live with that.</p><p>I think some earlier drafts of the GPL3 attempted to have this kind of reasoning - I think those clauses were removed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be great then to come to an understanding with companies regarding patents that if they ever attempt to enforce ( or transfer their patent to another to enforce ) a single patent , we will take notice and consider them hostile to our interests .
Defensive patents , sure , we can live with that.I think some earlier drafts of the GPL3 attempted to have this kind of reasoning - I think those clauses were removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be great then to come to an understanding with companies regarding patents that if they ever attempt to enforce (or transfer their patent to another to enforce) a single patent, we will take notice and consider them hostile to our interests.
Defensive patents, sure, we can live with that.I think some earlier drafts of the GPL3 attempted to have this kind of reasoning - I think those clauses were removed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594696</id>
	<title>Re:There is always another patent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269461160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Many patents are there not for suing the ass off the competition but to protect yourself from getting attacked.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And since free software competing with yours is definitely an attack, why not attack? The very idea of patents, after all, is to encourage people to share their inventions by protecting them from competition in turn. That failed miserably, but can't be helped anymore, there's too many financial interests milking the current system for all its worth.</p><p>Anyway, the <em>real</em> defence is moving to a (software patent) free country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many patents are there not for suing the ass off the competition but to protect yourself from getting attacked .
And since free software competing with yours is definitely an attack , why not attack ?
The very idea of patents , after all , is to encourage people to share their inventions by protecting them from competition in turn .
That failed miserably , but ca n't be helped anymore , there 's too many financial interests milking the current system for all its worth.Anyway , the real defence is moving to a ( software patent ) free country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many patents are there not for suing the ass off the competition but to protect yourself from getting attacked.
And since free software competing with yours is definitely an attack, why not attack?
The very idea of patents, after all, is to encourage people to share their inventions by protecting them from competition in turn.
That failed miserably, but can't be helped anymore, there's too many financial interests milking the current system for all its worth.Anyway, the real defence is moving to a (software patent) free country.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594646</id>
	<title>References to Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269373980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are along the lines of "Don't be casual and informal and creative with logic like Slashdot".  He mentions Slashdot in the context of reading the abstract and not reading the actual thing, much like this very thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are along the lines of " Do n't be casual and informal and creative with logic like Slashdot " .
He mentions Slashdot in the context of reading the abstract and not reading the actual thing , much like this very thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are along the lines of "Don't be casual and informal and creative with logic like Slashdot".
He mentions Slashdot in the context of reading the abstract and not reading the actual thing, much like this very thread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636</id>
	<title>Stupid System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269373860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is the legal system so fucked up that it's easier to win with "We don't do X" instead of "X has been done before" when it's extremely obvious that X <b>has</b> been done before?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the legal system so fucked up that it 's easier to win with " We do n't do X " instead of " X has been done before " when it 's extremely obvious that X has been done before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the legal system so fucked up that it's easier to win with "We don't do X" instead of "X has been done before" when it's extremely obvious that X has been done before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596220</id>
	<title>Why companies patent....</title>
	<author>originalhack</author>
	<datestamp>1269438000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the days of dial-up modems, Hayes tried to force Motorola to license the (pause)+++(pause) escape sequence [Heatherington].<br><br>The response was swift...  Motorola looked in their own collection of patents to see what Hayes probably infringed....<br><br>To paraphrase, the response started with "You use wire, don't you?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the days of dial-up modems , Hayes tried to force Motorola to license the ( pause ) + + + ( pause ) escape sequence [ Heatherington ] .The response was swift... Motorola looked in their own collection of patents to see what Hayes probably infringed....To paraphrase , the response started with " You use wire , do n't you ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the days of dial-up modems, Hayes tried to force Motorola to license the (pause)+++(pause) escape sequence [Heatherington].The response was swift...  Motorola looked in their own collection of patents to see what Hayes probably infringed....To paraphrase, the response started with "You use wire, don't you?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594888</id>
	<title>Has he patented it?</title>
	<author>nikanth</author>
	<datestamp>1269421380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has Tridgell patented, the techniques to defend patent attacks? Or is this going to be a prior-art for a later patent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Tridgell patented , the techniques to defend patent attacks ?
Or is this going to be a prior-art for a later patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Tridgell patented, the techniques to defend patent attacks?
Or is this going to be a prior-art for a later patent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595928</id>
	<title>Get advice from a master - PhD thesis and patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269436380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Tridgell must know something about reading software patents. Take his PhD thesis for instance, which is "based" to a large extent on one of the IBM patents he references. Well I guess that one must fall into the first category he mentions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Tridgell must know something about reading software patents .
Take his PhD thesis for instance , which is " based " to a large extent on one of the IBM patents he references .
Well I guess that one must fall into the first category he mentions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Tridgell must know something about reading software patents.
Take his PhD thesis for instance, which is "based" to a large extent on one of the IBM patents he references.
Well I guess that one must fall into the first category he mentions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595028</id>
	<title>Bah Humbug</title>
	<author>baadfood</author>
	<datestamp>1269426240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading patents with an eye to identifying "Technologies" to use is an exercise in futility:<br>Most are stupidly obvious. The others written in leagalease.</p><p>Reading patents with an eye to identifying "technologies" to avoid is also an excercise in futility. Again, you need the mind of a lawyer, combined with the approach of a security researcher, to "see" the ways a patent could be exploited to somehow map to your own problem domain. That you were happily solving without resorting to the giant database of solutions to micro problems no one is interested in.</p><p>Next, theres just too damned many of them. If anyone took the time out to exhaustively read and analyse each patent enough to determine if the possibility for collision existed, well they wouldn't have a problem with patents as they'd never write any code.</p><p>Lastly, it takes courts a long time to determine if a particular product does conflict with a patent. This means theres a lot of grey area around the edges of a patent to determine if a particular approach is covered or not. Which means, of necessity, that, like Chinese ISPs, developers who read a patent would have to defensively eliminate huge swathes of potential solution space from their investigations, to avoid getting "too damned close".<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading patents with an eye to identifying " Technologies " to use is an exercise in futility : Most are stupidly obvious .
The others written in leagalease.Reading patents with an eye to identifying " technologies " to avoid is also an excercise in futility .
Again , you need the mind of a lawyer , combined with the approach of a security researcher , to " see " the ways a patent could be exploited to somehow map to your own problem domain .
That you were happily solving without resorting to the giant database of solutions to micro problems no one is interested in.Next , theres just too damned many of them .
If anyone took the time out to exhaustively read and analyse each patent enough to determine if the possibility for collision existed , well they would n't have a problem with patents as they 'd never write any code.Lastly , it takes courts a long time to determine if a particular product does conflict with a patent .
This means theres a lot of grey area around the edges of a patent to determine if a particular approach is covered or not .
Which means , of necessity , that , like Chinese ISPs , developers who read a patent would have to defensively eliminate huge swathes of potential solution space from their investigations , to avoid getting " too damned close " .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading patents with an eye to identifying "Technologies" to use is an exercise in futility:Most are stupidly obvious.
The others written in leagalease.Reading patents with an eye to identifying "technologies" to avoid is also an excercise in futility.
Again, you need the mind of a lawyer, combined with the approach of a security researcher, to "see" the ways a patent could be exploited to somehow map to your own problem domain.
That you were happily solving without resorting to the giant database of solutions to micro problems no one is interested in.Next, theres just too damned many of them.
If anyone took the time out to exhaustively read and analyse each patent enough to determine if the possibility for collision existed, well they wouldn't have a problem with patents as they'd never write any code.Lastly, it takes courts a long time to determine if a particular product does conflict with a patent.
This means theres a lot of grey area around the edges of a patent to determine if a particular approach is covered or not.
Which means, of necessity, that, like Chinese ISPs, developers who read a patent would have to defensively eliminate huge swathes of potential solution space from their investigations, to avoid getting "too damned close".
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594704</id>
	<title>I've heard that defense before...</title>
	<author>Guido del Confuso</author>
	<datestamp>1269461340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"we don't do that. The patent says X, we don't do X, therefore go away, sue someone else, it's not relevant for us." </i></p><p>"Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" we do n't do that .
The patent says X , we do n't do X , therefore go away , sue someone else , it 's not relevant for us .
" " Look... me and the McDonald 's people got this little misunderstanding .
See , they 're McDonald 's... I 'm McDowell 's .
They got the Golden Arches , mine is the Golden Arcs .
They got the Big Mac , I got the Big Mick .
We both got two all-beef patties , special sauce , lettuce , cheese , pickles and onions , but their buns have sesame seeds .
My buns have no seeds .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we don't do that.
The patent says X, we don't do X, therefore go away, sue someone else, it's not relevant for us.
" "Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding.
See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's.
They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs.
They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick.
We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds.
My buns have no seeds.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596290</id>
	<title>Wait a second... software patents...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1269438480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We&rsquo;re actually supposed to <em>read</em> those?</p><p>But this is Slashdot. We don&rsquo;t even read TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We    re actually supposed to read those ? But this is Slashdot .
We don    t even read TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We’re actually supposed to read those?But this is Slashdot.
We don’t even read TFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595068</id>
	<title>Re:I choose to publish my "inventions" at Usenet n</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1269426780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could have at least read the summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Next one, prior art: [...] Basically the argument is: somebody else did that before. It's a very, very tricky argument to get right. Extremely tricky, and it is the most common argument bandied about in the free software community. And if you see it in the primary defence against a patent, you should cringe because it is an extremely unsafe way of doing things.'</p></div><p>The reason why prior art is difficult to get right is explained in TFA:  a patent consists of a number of (likely very long and complicated) interdependent claims which are likely to be interpreted quite narrowly.  In order to work, a prior art defence has to exist for each and every one of those claims in the same interpretation as that intended when the patent was granted.  So you have to go through the entire patent from beginning to end, look at each claim and think "Is there prior art for this?  Is the prior art exactly the same idea or is it just roughly the same sort of thing?  If the latter, that's a Very Bad Thing for the defence".</p><p>However, it's quite common for the patent to hinge on a handful of claims and if you can prove that you don't do just <b>one</b> of the independent claims, you're free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have at least read the summary : Next one , prior art : [ ... ] Basically the argument is : somebody else did that before .
It 's a very , very tricky argument to get right .
Extremely tricky , and it is the most common argument bandied about in the free software community .
And if you see it in the primary defence against a patent , you should cringe because it is an extremely unsafe way of doing things .
'The reason why prior art is difficult to get right is explained in TFA : a patent consists of a number of ( likely very long and complicated ) interdependent claims which are likely to be interpreted quite narrowly .
In order to work , a prior art defence has to exist for each and every one of those claims in the same interpretation as that intended when the patent was granted .
So you have to go through the entire patent from beginning to end , look at each claim and think " Is there prior art for this ?
Is the prior art exactly the same idea or is it just roughly the same sort of thing ?
If the latter , that 's a Very Bad Thing for the defence " .However , it 's quite common for the patent to hinge on a handful of claims and if you can prove that you do n't do just one of the independent claims , you 're free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have at least read the summary:Next one, prior art: [...] Basically the argument is: somebody else did that before.
It's a very, very tricky argument to get right.
Extremely tricky, and it is the most common argument bandied about in the free software community.
And if you see it in the primary defence against a patent, you should cringe because it is an extremely unsafe way of doing things.
'The reason why prior art is difficult to get right is explained in TFA:  a patent consists of a number of (likely very long and complicated) interdependent claims which are likely to be interpreted quite narrowly.
In order to work, a prior art defence has to exist for each and every one of those claims in the same interpretation as that intended when the patent was granted.
So you have to go through the entire patent from beginning to end, look at each claim and think "Is there prior art for this?
Is the prior art exactly the same idea or is it just roughly the same sort of thing?
If the latter, that's a Very Bad Thing for the defence".However, it's quite common for the patent to hinge on a handful of claims and if you can prove that you don't do just one of the independent claims, you're free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597014</id>
	<title>Re:I choose to publish my "inventions" at Usenet n</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1269442980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, would an infringer have to infringe on all of those claims as narrowly interpreted? If so, it seems like one could avoid patents by making some trivial changes to the code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , would an infringer have to infringe on all of those claims as narrowly interpreted ?
If so , it seems like one could avoid patents by making some trivial changes to the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, would an infringer have to infringe on all of those claims as narrowly interpreted?
If so, it seems like one could avoid patents by making some trivial changes to the code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594806</id>
	<title>Widen and shortern</title>
	<author>zlel</author>
	<datestamp>1269463200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we just allow companies to patent everything they want and let them be effective for like only 5 years so we can all get on with life? Innovators should not be rewarded for how "clever" they are, but rather compensated for how much it costs to do R&amp;D. Patent duration should depend on the costs associated with innovation in each industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we just allow companies to patent everything they want and let them be effective for like only 5 years so we can all get on with life ?
Innovators should not be rewarded for how " clever " they are , but rather compensated for how much it costs to do R&amp;D .
Patent duration should depend on the costs associated with innovation in each industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we just allow companies to patent everything they want and let them be effective for like only 5 years so we can all get on with life?
Innovators should not be rewarded for how "clever" they are, but rather compensated for how much it costs to do R&amp;D.
Patent duration should depend on the costs associated with innovation in each industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31605006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31607346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31606338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31608816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31606364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31599714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_022209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31607346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31606338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31599714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31606364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31595522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31608244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31608816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31605006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_022209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31597440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31594784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_022209.31596354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
