<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_25_1733229</id>
	<title>Beware the King of the Patent Trolls</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269540660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>superapecommando writes <i>"If you haven't heard of Intellectual Ventures, you may want to check this out. Set up by ex-Microsoftie Nathan Myhrvold, with investments from Microsoft among others, it is basically <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2863">a patenting machine</a> &ndash; filing and buying them in huge quantities. Note that it doesn't actually <em>use</em> these patents &ndash; except to threaten people with. In other words, Intellectual Ventures is a patent troll &ndash; or, rather the King of the Patent Trolls. So I was interested to come across this <a href="http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/economist-article-on-iv.htm">extremely positive blog post on the company</a>. That it is so positive is hardly surprising, since the blog is called 'Tangible IP,' and subtitled 'ipVA's blog on adding value through intellectual property.' Nonetheless, it provides valuable insights into the mindset of fans of intellectual monopolies. Here's what it says about Intellectual Ventures: 'They are an invention house, and have adopted and reinvented leading edge patent strategies to create a portfolio of their own IP which, in its own, would be of high high worth.' They don't <em>invent</em> anything in the proper, deep sense of the word; they merely file and buy patents &ndash; with no intent of ever making stuff or solving real-life problems."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>superapecommando writes " If you have n't heard of Intellectual Ventures , you may want to check this out .
Set up by ex-Microsoftie Nathan Myhrvold , with investments from Microsoft among others , it is basically a patenting machine    filing and buying them in huge quantities .
Note that it does n't actually use these patents    except to threaten people with .
In other words , Intellectual Ventures is a patent troll    or , rather the King of the Patent Trolls .
So I was interested to come across this extremely positive blog post on the company .
That it is so positive is hardly surprising , since the blog is called 'Tangible IP, ' and subtitled 'ipVA 's blog on adding value through intellectual property .
' Nonetheless , it provides valuable insights into the mindset of fans of intellectual monopolies .
Here 's what it says about Intellectual Ventures : 'They are an invention house , and have adopted and reinvented leading edge patent strategies to create a portfolio of their own IP which , in its own , would be of high high worth .
' They do n't invent anything in the proper , deep sense of the word ; they merely file and buy patents    with no intent of ever making stuff or solving real-life problems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>superapecommando writes "If you haven't heard of Intellectual Ventures, you may want to check this out.
Set up by ex-Microsoftie Nathan Myhrvold, with investments from Microsoft among others, it is basically a patenting machine – filing and buying them in huge quantities.
Note that it doesn't actually use these patents – except to threaten people with.
In other words, Intellectual Ventures is a patent troll – or, rather the King of the Patent Trolls.
So I was interested to come across this extremely positive blog post on the company.
That it is so positive is hardly surprising, since the blog is called 'Tangible IP,' and subtitled 'ipVA's blog on adding value through intellectual property.
' Nonetheless, it provides valuable insights into the mindset of fans of intellectual monopolies.
Here's what it says about Intellectual Ventures: 'They are an invention house, and have adopted and reinvented leading edge patent strategies to create a portfolio of their own IP which, in its own, would be of high high worth.
' They don't invent anything in the proper, deep sense of the word; they merely file and buy patents – with no intent of ever making stuff or solving real-life problems.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614582</id>
	<title>Re:You will do!</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1269544500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My brain read that as "International Vultures"</p><p>Well... I guess that is pretty close.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My brain read that as " International Vultures " Well... I guess that is pretty close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brain read that as "International Vultures"Well... I guess that is pretty close.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616336</id>
	<title>IP stands for "imaginary property."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269550260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent system has no value to society.<br>Patents never incentivize R&amp;D.<br>The patent system is irrevocably broken and should be dismantled.<br>Anyone who files a patent application must be engaged in the manufacture of a tangible product that embodies the invention, otherwise the applicant is a patent troll.<br>It *might* be ok to file for a patent if you have a worthy invention AND you manufacture an embodiment, so long as you never sue or threaten to sue anyone.<br>If we do decide to keep the patent system, patents should not be transferrable.<br>Only the inventor(s) should be allowed to own the patents, and never sell or license their invention to anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent system has no value to society.Patents never incentivize R&amp;D.The patent system is irrevocably broken and should be dismantled.Anyone who files a patent application must be engaged in the manufacture of a tangible product that embodies the invention , otherwise the applicant is a patent troll.It * might * be ok to file for a patent if you have a worthy invention AND you manufacture an embodiment , so long as you never sue or threaten to sue anyone.If we do decide to keep the patent system , patents should not be transferrable.Only the inventor ( s ) should be allowed to own the patents , and never sell or license their invention to anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent system has no value to society.Patents never incentivize R&amp;D.The patent system is irrevocably broken and should be dismantled.Anyone who files a patent application must be engaged in the manufacture of a tangible product that embodies the invention, otherwise the applicant is a patent troll.It *might* be ok to file for a patent if you have a worthy invention AND you manufacture an embodiment, so long as you never sue or threaten to sue anyone.If we do decide to keep the patent system, patents should not be transferrable.Only the inventor(s) should be allowed to own the patents, and never sell or license their invention to anyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614736</id>
	<title>Yet another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet another reason to completely scrap the patent process as the original intent of patents has been completely corrupted by lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet another reason to completely scrap the patent process as the original intent of patents has been completely corrupted by lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet another reason to completely scrap the patent process as the original intent of patents has been completely corrupted by lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615408</id>
	<title>Re:summary flat-out wrong: IV *does* make things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269547140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not defending IP hoarders, and I think the general idea that Intellectual Ventures is pursuing is abhorrent. </p></div><p>Because they do NOT indeed make things.</p><p>The mosquito article you mention... speciifcally mentions they have NO intention iof actually making them. They just want you to pay them if you happen to want to end malaria in beach resorts, Africa, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not defending IP hoarders , and I think the general idea that Intellectual Ventures is pursuing is abhorrent .
Because they do NOT indeed make things.The mosquito article you mention... speciifcally mentions they have NO intention iof actually making them .
They just want you to pay them if you happen to want to end malaria in beach resorts , Africa , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not defending IP hoarders, and I think the general idea that Intellectual Ventures is pursuing is abhorrent.
Because they do NOT indeed make things.The mosquito article you mention... speciifcally mentions they have NO intention iof actually making them.
They just want you to pay them if you happen to want to end malaria in beach resorts, Africa, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618492</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>FireFury03</author>
	<datestamp>1269515220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Huh?</p><p>If someone invents something, patents it, makes it, and then markets it, you get to decide its value by buying it our not. You vote with your money.</p></div><p>You get to determine the value of the physical product that results from the development of the patented idea.  However, the value of the patent itself (which, whilst not physical, can still be bought and sold) is determined by several factors:</p><ul><li>The sale value of current products that were developed from the patent.</li><li>The potential sale value of future products that will be developed from the patent.</li><li>The potential losses averted by the ability to use that patent for cross-licensing in defence of a (possibly unrelated) patent lawsuit.</li><li>The potential profit created by suing someone who infringes the patent (the profit could be what you win in the lawsuit, or extra money you get in the long term by keeping your competitors from gaining a foothold in the market).</li></ul><p>Yes, some of these factors are pretty degenerate, but that's the sad reality of the current patent system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ? If someone invents something , patents it , makes it , and then markets it , you get to decide its value by buying it our not .
You vote with your money.You get to determine the value of the physical product that results from the development of the patented idea .
However , the value of the patent itself ( which , whilst not physical , can still be bought and sold ) is determined by several factors : The sale value of current products that were developed from the patent.The potential sale value of future products that will be developed from the patent.The potential losses averted by the ability to use that patent for cross-licensing in defence of a ( possibly unrelated ) patent lawsuit.The potential profit created by suing someone who infringes the patent ( the profit could be what you win in the lawsuit , or extra money you get in the long term by keeping your competitors from gaining a foothold in the market ) .Yes , some of these factors are pretty degenerate , but that 's the sad reality of the current patent system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?If someone invents something, patents it, makes it, and then markets it, you get to decide its value by buying it our not.
You vote with your money.You get to determine the value of the physical product that results from the development of the patented idea.
However, the value of the patent itself (which, whilst not physical, can still be bought and sold) is determined by several factors:The sale value of current products that were developed from the patent.The potential sale value of future products that will be developed from the patent.The potential losses averted by the ability to use that patent for cross-licensing in defence of a (possibly unrelated) patent lawsuit.The potential profit created by suing someone who infringes the patent (the profit could be what you win in the lawsuit, or extra money you get in the long term by keeping your competitors from gaining a foothold in the market).Yes, some of these factors are pretty degenerate, but that's the sad reality of the current patent system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614860</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269545280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone explain this stuff to me? Can you really patent ideas for things? Like, can I patent "A method of energy production whereby isotopes of hydrogen and helium are fused to release heat" without ever working out the details? If so, where's the monetary incentive to make ideas work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone explain this stuff to me ?
Can you really patent ideas for things ?
Like , can I patent " A method of energy production whereby isotopes of hydrogen and helium are fused to release heat " without ever working out the details ?
If so , where 's the monetary incentive to make ideas work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone explain this stuff to me?
Can you really patent ideas for things?
Like, can I patent "A method of energy production whereby isotopes of hydrogen and helium are fused to release heat" without ever working out the details?
If so, where's the monetary incentive to make ideas work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615346</id>
	<title>HBR write-up on Intellectual Ventures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269546960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://hbr.org/2010/03/the-big-idea-funding-eureka/ar/1</p><p>Apart from the obvious anti-patent bias of your post (IV != SCO), I think you are conflating invention with manufacture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //hbr.org/2010/03/the-big-idea-funding-eureka/ar/1Apart from the obvious anti-patent bias of your post ( IV ! = SCO ) , I think you are conflating invention with manufacture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://hbr.org/2010/03/the-big-idea-funding-eureka/ar/1Apart from the obvious anti-patent bias of your post (IV != SCO), I think you are conflating invention with manufacture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614516</id>
	<title>You will do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excellent first sentence, really gets that article off to an awesome start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent first sentence , really gets that article off to an awesome start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent first sentence, really gets that article off to an awesome start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615970</id>
	<title>IV is one of our clients</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269549060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've written multiple patent applications for IV and can testify that subject matter of most applications have extensive merit.  I've written 2 apps from inventors' doctorate thesis.  There were a bitch to write.  I can't go into details obviously but, if you're interested, do a search on IV patents in uspto, and read up their content.  And, don't believe everything you read in slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've written multiple patent applications for IV and can testify that subject matter of most applications have extensive merit .
I 've written 2 apps from inventors ' doctorate thesis .
There were a bitch to write .
I ca n't go into details obviously but , if you 're interested , do a search on IV patents in uspto , and read up their content .
And , do n't believe everything you read in slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've written multiple patent applications for IV and can testify that subject matter of most applications have extensive merit.
I've written 2 apps from inventors' doctorate thesis.
There were a bitch to write.
I can't go into details obviously but, if you're interested, do a search on IV patents in uspto, and read up their content.
And, don't believe everything you read in slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616150</id>
	<title>Narrow view of invention</title>
	<author>cenobyte40k</author>
	<datestamp>1269549720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because you never make anything and don't ever solve a real world problem doesn't mean you didn't invent something. If I design something that does something in a new way or does something not done before I have invented something. Even if I take that design and lock it away in a draw for all time, I still invented it. You might not like thier business model, you might not like what they do to IP, but to say the never invented anything just because they don't make anything is a pretty narrow view of invention yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you never make anything and do n't ever solve a real world problem does n't mean you did n't invent something .
If I design something that does something in a new way or does something not done before I have invented something .
Even if I take that design and lock it away in a draw for all time , I still invented it .
You might not like thier business model , you might not like what they do to IP , but to say the never invented anything just because they do n't make anything is a pretty narrow view of invention yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you never make anything and don't ever solve a real world problem doesn't mean you didn't invent something.
If I design something that does something in a new way or does something not done before I have invented something.
Even if I take that design and lock it away in a draw for all time, I still invented it.
You might not like thier business model, you might not like what they do to IP, but to say the never invented anything just because they don't make anything is a pretty narrow view of invention yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615682</id>
	<title>Re:summary flat-out wrong: IV *does* make things</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269548040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If anyone would like to read a somewhat middle-of-the-road (neither "IV IS GREAT!" nor "IP is the DEVIL!") </i></p><p>As a Satanist, I would like to say that I find your usage of those two ideas as extreme opposites offensive.</p><p>However, as a Satanist, I find causing offense to be commendable.  So, carry on!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone would like to read a somewhat middle-of-the-road ( neither " IV IS GREAT !
" nor " IP is the DEVIL !
" ) As a Satanist , I would like to say that I find your usage of those two ideas as extreme opposites offensive.However , as a Satanist , I find causing offense to be commendable .
So , carry on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone would like to read a somewhat middle-of-the-road (neither "IV IS GREAT!
" nor "IP is the DEVIL!
") As a Satanist, I would like to say that I find your usage of those two ideas as extreme opposites offensive.However, as a Satanist, I find causing offense to be commendable.
So, carry on!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614790</id>
	<title>http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Intellectual\_Ventures</title>
	<author>ciaran\_o\_riordan</author>
	<datestamp>1269545100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please help document there here:</p><p><a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Intellectual\_Ventures" title="swpat.org">http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Intellectual\_Ventures</a> [swpat.org]</p><p>en.swpat.org is a way to build a wealth of info for when we need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please help document there here : http : //en.swpat.org/wiki/Intellectual \ _Ventures [ swpat.org ] en.swpat.org is a way to build a wealth of info for when we need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please help document there here:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Intellectual\_Ventures [swpat.org]en.swpat.org is a way to build a wealth of info for when we need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616806</id>
	<title>Patent Trolls are Douchebags</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patent reform is coming, and it's scumbags like Myhrvold that are hastening its arrival.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patent reform is coming , and it 's scumbags like Myhrvold that are hastening its arrival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patent reform is coming, and it's scumbags like Myhrvold that are hastening its arrival.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614654</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1269544680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a middle ground between 'every idea or work of art is free' and 'we've patented inspirating oxygenated air through an orifice, now pay up.' And no, it is NOT how capitalism works, it is how government granted monopolies work, that's about as far from real capitalism as you can get. As intellectual property is imaginary, made up by people using legislation, not the free market, for OUR benefit, not the inventor's, WE get to decide what's acceptable and what's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a middle ground between 'every idea or work of art is free ' and 'we 've patented inspirating oxygenated air through an orifice , now pay up .
' And no , it is NOT how capitalism works , it is how government granted monopolies work , that 's about as far from real capitalism as you can get .
As intellectual property is imaginary , made up by people using legislation , not the free market , for OUR benefit , not the inventor 's , WE get to decide what 's acceptable and what 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a middle ground between 'every idea or work of art is free' and 'we've patented inspirating oxygenated air through an orifice, now pay up.
' And no, it is NOT how capitalism works, it is how government granted monopolies work, that's about as far from real capitalism as you can get.
As intellectual property is imaginary, made up by people using legislation, not the free market, for OUR benefit, not the inventor's, WE get to decide what's acceptable and what's not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615312</id>
	<title>That's voiding the patent!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269546840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don&rsquo;t know how it is in the US, but in Germany, if you don&rsquo;t actually use a patent, then after a specific time, your patent automatically becomes void.<br>This is to stop people who aren&rsquo;t serious about doing something with it. Because then, the original point of the patent goes away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I don    t know how it is in the US , but in Germany , if you don    t actually use a patent , then after a specific time , your patent automatically becomes void.This is to stop people who aren    t serious about doing something with it .
Because then , the original point of the patent goes away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don’t know how it is in the US, but in Germany, if you don’t actually use a patent, then after a specific time, your patent automatically becomes void.This is to stop people who aren’t serious about doing something with it.
Because then, the original point of the patent goes away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615826</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1269548520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's a middle ground between 'every idea or work of art is free' and 'we've patented inspirating oxygenated air through an orifice, now pay up.'</p></div></blockquote><p>Our society doesn't work that way anymore. We can't find any common ground because once one side gains prominence, they use rhetoric and apathy to slowly move society to the more radical position. We have lost the ability to apply common sense, particularly where it comes to the interpretation of the law.</p><p>The very existence of a company like Intellectual Ventures is proof of how the systems we create degenerate to an extreme. The copyright status of the song "Happy Birthday" is another. In the sphere of commerce, the collapse of Enron and Lehman Brothers provide yet more. The overfishing of Tuna, the property bubble, the California amendment system, the punishment of sex offenders, the decline of the media, the war on terrorism with its extraordinary renditions and torture, the filtering/monitoring of the internet, etc, etc.</p><p>The old Anglo-Saxon model of government was that of recognition of both written law and public custom (i.e. common sense). Somewhere along the way, the system lost sight of both. It didn't gravitate towards an Irish model (Less law and more custom) or towards a French one (More law and less custom). The system just degenerated. Right now in the US you can't take pictures of many public monuments or buy your children proper chemistry sets. What frightens me is how much the US model is influencing the rest of the Anglophone world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a middle ground between 'every idea or work of art is free ' and 'we 've patented inspirating oxygenated air through an orifice , now pay up .
'Our society does n't work that way anymore .
We ca n't find any common ground because once one side gains prominence , they use rhetoric and apathy to slowly move society to the more radical position .
We have lost the ability to apply common sense , particularly where it comes to the interpretation of the law.The very existence of a company like Intellectual Ventures is proof of how the systems we create degenerate to an extreme .
The copyright status of the song " Happy Birthday " is another .
In the sphere of commerce , the collapse of Enron and Lehman Brothers provide yet more .
The overfishing of Tuna , the property bubble , the California amendment system , the punishment of sex offenders , the decline of the media , the war on terrorism with its extraordinary renditions and torture , the filtering/monitoring of the internet , etc , etc.The old Anglo-Saxon model of government was that of recognition of both written law and public custom ( i.e .
common sense ) .
Somewhere along the way , the system lost sight of both .
It did n't gravitate towards an Irish model ( Less law and more custom ) or towards a French one ( More law and less custom ) .
The system just degenerated .
Right now in the US you ca n't take pictures of many public monuments or buy your children proper chemistry sets .
What frightens me is how much the US model is influencing the rest of the Anglophone world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a middle ground between 'every idea or work of art is free' and 'we've patented inspirating oxygenated air through an orifice, now pay up.
'Our society doesn't work that way anymore.
We can't find any common ground because once one side gains prominence, they use rhetoric and apathy to slowly move society to the more radical position.
We have lost the ability to apply common sense, particularly where it comes to the interpretation of the law.The very existence of a company like Intellectual Ventures is proof of how the systems we create degenerate to an extreme.
The copyright status of the song "Happy Birthday" is another.
In the sphere of commerce, the collapse of Enron and Lehman Brothers provide yet more.
The overfishing of Tuna, the property bubble, the California amendment system, the punishment of sex offenders, the decline of the media, the war on terrorism with its extraordinary renditions and torture, the filtering/monitoring of the internet, etc, etc.The old Anglo-Saxon model of government was that of recognition of both written law and public custom (i.e.
common sense).
Somewhere along the way, the system lost sight of both.
It didn't gravitate towards an Irish model (Less law and more custom) or towards a French one (More law and less custom).
The system just degenerated.
Right now in the US you can't take pictures of many public monuments or buy your children proper chemistry sets.
What frightens me is how much the US model is influencing the rest of the Anglophone world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618918</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1269517560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whenever a capitalist talks about "adding value" or "creating wealth", they're really talking about creating scarcity.</p></div><p>No. That's what a <b>monopolist</b> means. There are other sorts of capitalist too.</p><p>If I buy wood, make tables from it, and sell those tables on, I'm adding value. I'm hardly creating scarcity in any meaningful way that you care about. (You don't want me to have a monopoly on table-making; I'm terrible at woodworking.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever a capitalist talks about " adding value " or " creating wealth " , they 're really talking about creating scarcity.No .
That 's what a monopolist means .
There are other sorts of capitalist too.If I buy wood , make tables from it , and sell those tables on , I 'm adding value .
I 'm hardly creating scarcity in any meaningful way that you care about .
( You do n't want me to have a monopoly on table-making ; I 'm terrible at woodworking .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever a capitalist talks about "adding value" or "creating wealth", they're really talking about creating scarcity.No.
That's what a monopolist means.
There are other sorts of capitalist too.If I buy wood, make tables from it, and sell those tables on, I'm adding value.
I'm hardly creating scarcity in any meaningful way that you care about.
(You don't want me to have a monopoly on table-making; I'm terrible at woodworking.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615250</id>
	<title>Look, we dont like patent trolls but....</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1269546600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They *paid* money to someone for their invention.     Someone, supposedly,<br>figured out something interesting, and, for whatever reason, decided<br>to take his money and run rather than let the invention stagnate.</p><p>Now, I don't like it when the patents are not for anything interesting<br>or novel, but simply being a patent troll is not a bad thing.   Being a patent<br>troll of "obvious stupid" patents does seem like a bad thing<br>and is more of a fault of the people who *granted* the patent<br>to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They * paid * money to someone for their invention .
Someone , supposedly,figured out something interesting , and , for whatever reason , decidedto take his money and run rather than let the invention stagnate.Now , I do n't like it when the patents are not for anything interestingor novel , but simply being a patent troll is not a bad thing .
Being a patenttroll of " obvious stupid " patents does seem like a bad thingand is more of a fault of the people who * granted * the patentto begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They *paid* money to someone for their invention.
Someone, supposedly,figured out something interesting, and, for whatever reason, decidedto take his money and run rather than let the invention stagnate.Now, I don't like it when the patents are not for anything interestingor novel, but simply being a patent troll is not a bad thing.
Being a patenttroll of "obvious stupid" patents does seem like a bad thingand is more of a fault of the people who *granted* the patentto begin with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615910</id>
	<title>Change to Patent Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269548820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to see patents have two protection periods. A short period if you don't productize the patent and a longer life if you do. This would force companies to either license, productize or lose patents and may actually mean better products get to market faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see patents have two protection periods .
A short period if you do n't productize the patent and a longer life if you do .
This would force companies to either license , productize or lose patents and may actually mean better products get to market faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see patents have two protection periods.
A short period if you don't productize the patent and a longer life if you do.
This would force companies to either license, productize or lose patents and may actually mean better products get to market faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614808</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269545160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As intellectual property is imaginary, made up by people using legislation, <b>not the free market, for OUR benefit, not the inventor's, WE get to decide what's acceptable and what's not</b>.</p></div><p>Huh?</p><p>If someone invents something, patents it, makes it, and then markets it, you get to decide its value by buying it our not. You vote with your money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As intellectual property is imaginary , made up by people using legislation , not the free market , for OUR benefit , not the inventor 's , WE get to decide what 's acceptable and what 's not.Huh ? If someone invents something , patents it , makes it , and then markets it , you get to decide its value by buying it our not .
You vote with your money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As intellectual property is imaginary, made up by people using legislation, not the free market, for OUR benefit, not the inventor's, WE get to decide what's acceptable and what's not.Huh?If someone invents something, patents it, makes it, and then markets it, you get to decide its value by buying it our not.
You vote with your money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614528</id>
	<title>You will do!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you haven't heard of Intellectual Ventures, you will do.</p></div><p>Is that some sort of threat?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have n't heard of Intellectual Ventures , you will do.Is that some sort of threat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you haven't heard of Intellectual Ventures, you will do.Is that some sort of threat?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615008</id>
	<title>summary flat-out wrong: IV *does* make things</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1269545760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not defending IP hoarders, and I think the general idea that Intellectual Ventures is pursuing is abhorrent, but they do indeed make things.  Two weeks ago, Slashdot had a front-page article about <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/03/16/1339217/New-Laser-System-Targets-Mosquitoes" title="slashdot.org">a mosquito-killing laser system</a> [slashdot.org] intended to be placed remotely and autonomously wipe out mosquitos, in an attempt to reduce malaria.  Intellectual Ventures designed and built the functional system, which they've displayed in several places.<p>
If anyone would like to read a somewhat middle-of-the-road (neither "IV IS GREAT!" nor "IP is the DEVIL!") discussion of Intellectual Ventures, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa\_fact\_gladwell" title="newyorker.com">The New Yorker did a somewhat in-depth article on them last year</a> [newyorker.com] that I thought was interesting.  I (being of the IP is the DEVIL! mindset) don't think he addressed the problems to society at large with having companies that primarily chew up intellectual advancement space by pre-emptive patenting.  But, on the other hand, patents are time-limited, and if they patent lots and lots of stuff that just isn't feasible given current tech, in 20 years when it IS feasible, there will be prior art and the areas won't be patentable, so that could be a plus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not defending IP hoarders , and I think the general idea that Intellectual Ventures is pursuing is abhorrent , but they do indeed make things .
Two weeks ago , Slashdot had a front-page article about a mosquito-killing laser system [ slashdot.org ] intended to be placed remotely and autonomously wipe out mosquitos , in an attempt to reduce malaria .
Intellectual Ventures designed and built the functional system , which they 've displayed in several places .
If anyone would like to read a somewhat middle-of-the-road ( neither " IV IS GREAT !
" nor " IP is the DEVIL !
" ) discussion of Intellectual Ventures , The New Yorker did a somewhat in-depth article on them last year [ newyorker.com ] that I thought was interesting .
I ( being of the IP is the DEVIL !
mindset ) do n't think he addressed the problems to society at large with having companies that primarily chew up intellectual advancement space by pre-emptive patenting .
But , on the other hand , patents are time-limited , and if they patent lots and lots of stuff that just is n't feasible given current tech , in 20 years when it IS feasible , there will be prior art and the areas wo n't be patentable , so that could be a plus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not defending IP hoarders, and I think the general idea that Intellectual Ventures is pursuing is abhorrent, but they do indeed make things.
Two weeks ago, Slashdot had a front-page article about a mosquito-killing laser system [slashdot.org] intended to be placed remotely and autonomously wipe out mosquitos, in an attempt to reduce malaria.
Intellectual Ventures designed and built the functional system, which they've displayed in several places.
If anyone would like to read a somewhat middle-of-the-road (neither "IV IS GREAT!
" nor "IP is the DEVIL!
") discussion of Intellectual Ventures, The New Yorker did a somewhat in-depth article on them last year [newyorker.com] that I thought was interesting.
I (being of the IP is the DEVIL!
mindset) don't think he addressed the problems to society at large with having companies that primarily chew up intellectual advancement space by pre-emptive patenting.
But, on the other hand, patents are time-limited, and if they patent lots and lots of stuff that just isn't feasible given current tech, in 20 years when it IS feasible, there will be prior art and the areas won't be patentable, so that could be a plus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615334</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1269546900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm for rolling back patents to the duration that our first patent laws granted, which as I recall was fourteen years.  The purpose of patents, is that the state grants a monopoly on their use to the inventor <i>in exchange for disclosure</i>, so  that inventors have a reason to tell the public how to do something instead of keeping them as trade secrets which may be forgotten when the inventor dies or goes out of business.</p><p>I'd say it was a mistake to ever consider a patent a form of <i>property</i>, as opposed to a <i>contract</i> between the inventor and the public.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm for rolling back patents to the duration that our first patent laws granted , which as I recall was fourteen years .
The purpose of patents , is that the state grants a monopoly on their use to the inventor in exchange for disclosure , so that inventors have a reason to tell the public how to do something instead of keeping them as trade secrets which may be forgotten when the inventor dies or goes out of business.I 'd say it was a mistake to ever consider a patent a form of property , as opposed to a contract between the inventor and the public.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm for rolling back patents to the duration that our first patent laws granted, which as I recall was fourteen years.
The purpose of patents, is that the state grants a monopoly on their use to the inventor in exchange for disclosure, so  that inventors have a reason to tell the public how to do something instead of keeping them as trade secrets which may be forgotten when the inventor dies or goes out of business.I'd say it was a mistake to ever consider a patent a form of property, as opposed to a contract between the inventor and the public.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617764</id>
	<title>two words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269512160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interval Research</p><p>Started by a different ex-microsoft guy.  Hired tons of smart people.  Paranoid secretive culture.  Never sold a single product.  Blew like a billion or two in the process.  This smells like the same hubris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interval ResearchStarted by a different ex-microsoft guy .
Hired tons of smart people .
Paranoid secretive culture .
Never sold a single product .
Blew like a billion or two in the process .
This smells like the same hubris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interval ResearchStarted by a different ex-microsoft guy.
Hired tons of smart people.
Paranoid secretive culture.
Never sold a single product.
Blew like a billion or two in the process.
This smells like the same hubris.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614616</id>
	<title>jebus' advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem lies with profit, man.  It's evil to want to be paid.  In the new reality, right-thinking people give away everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem lies with profit , man .
It 's evil to want to be paid .
In the new reality , right-thinking people give away everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem lies with profit, man.
It's evil to want to be paid.
In the new reality, right-thinking people give away everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618164</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269513840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whenever a capitalist talks about "adding value" or "creating wealth", they're really talking about creating scarcity.</p></div><p>This is about the dumbest comment I've seen in a while.  If you had said "sometimes when a capitalist talks about......" you might have had a defendable point, but all anyone has to do is find one counter-example to prove you wrong.<br> <br>
And frankly I don't see how anyone could possibly think that everyone who talks about 'creating wealth' is really talking about creating scarcity, especially when they are typing on a computer in a house with a toilet, air conditioning and a microwave.  This is wealth, and it is not a stretch to say you live more comfortably than some kings of 300 years ago.  And it is wealth that wasn't created, built, or installed by people who were trying to create scarcity, it was built by people who were trying to create wealth. And did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever a capitalist talks about " adding value " or " creating wealth " , they 're really talking about creating scarcity.This is about the dumbest comment I 've seen in a while .
If you had said " sometimes when a capitalist talks about...... " you might have had a defendable point , but all anyone has to do is find one counter-example to prove you wrong .
And frankly I do n't see how anyone could possibly think that everyone who talks about 'creating wealth ' is really talking about creating scarcity , especially when they are typing on a computer in a house with a toilet , air conditioning and a microwave .
This is wealth , and it is not a stretch to say you live more comfortably than some kings of 300 years ago .
And it is wealth that was n't created , built , or installed by people who were trying to create scarcity , it was built by people who were trying to create wealth .
And did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever a capitalist talks about "adding value" or "creating wealth", they're really talking about creating scarcity.This is about the dumbest comment I've seen in a while.
If you had said "sometimes when a capitalist talks about......" you might have had a defendable point, but all anyone has to do is find one counter-example to prove you wrong.
And frankly I don't see how anyone could possibly think that everyone who talks about 'creating wealth' is really talking about creating scarcity, especially when they are typing on a computer in a house with a toilet, air conditioning and a microwave.
This is wealth, and it is not a stretch to say you live more comfortably than some kings of 300 years ago.
And it is wealth that wasn't created, built, or installed by people who were trying to create scarcity, it was built by people who were trying to create wealth.
And did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617876</id>
	<title>Reduced to Practice?</title>
	<author>Erich</author>
	<datestamp>1269512580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they've reduced their ideas to practice, then hooray for them.  More ideas that must be licensed on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory grounds.
<p>
If they haven't, then their patents may not be valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 've reduced their ideas to practice , then hooray for them .
More ideas that must be licensed on Fair , Reasonable , and Non-Discriminatory grounds .
If they have n't , then their patents may not be valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they've reduced their ideas to practice, then hooray for them.
More ideas that must be licensed on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory grounds.
If they haven't, then their patents may not be valid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614846</id>
	<title>Economist Article is better</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1269545280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Instead of clicking through to the patent blog, <a href="http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=15570585" title="economist.com">here's the economist article that started the debate.</a> [economist.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of clicking through to the patent blog , here 's the economist article that started the debate .
[ economist.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of clicking through to the patent blog, here's the economist article that started the debate.
[economist.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620780</id>
	<title>"The Road Ahead": Deliberately crafted scam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269528120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The book seemed to me to be a scam. Reviewers wouldn't know enough about technology to realize that the book wasn't interesting. At the time, Bill Gates and Microsoft were often in the news. So, it is easy to imagine that people bought the book, thinking that they would get something useful. A lot of copies were sold to people, apparently, who predictably would never guess that the book was, in my opinion, worthless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The book seemed to me to be a scam .
Reviewers would n't know enough about technology to realize that the book was n't interesting .
At the time , Bill Gates and Microsoft were often in the news .
So , it is easy to imagine that people bought the book , thinking that they would get something useful .
A lot of copies were sold to people , apparently , who predictably would never guess that the book was , in my opinion , worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The book seemed to me to be a scam.
Reviewers wouldn't know enough about technology to realize that the book wasn't interesting.
At the time, Bill Gates and Microsoft were often in the news.
So, it is easy to imagine that people bought the book, thinking that they would get something useful.
A lot of copies were sold to people, apparently, who predictably would never guess that the book was, in my opinion, worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31619994</id>
	<title>Q: is there a way to GPL ideas instead of patent?</title>
	<author>uslurper</author>
	<datestamp>1269523200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets say I were to invent something for the benefit of society. And I wanted to share my idea freely with the world so that everyone can benefit from it.<br>Patents are expensive me being a poor Joe, and just wanting to share my idea, I'm not going to patent something just to give it away for free.<br>If I just told everyone I knew, what would stop them from taking that idea and patenting it and thus 'owning' the idea?</p><p>Is there a way to freely publish an idea in such a way that it will not be patentable? -similar to say the GPL software licence but with allowance for the 3rd party to profit?</p><p>Is there an organization that can review these public ideas for possible applications?<br>Perhaps this organization could even award prize money for worthy ideas, such as the nobel prize system? (on a much smaller scale)<br>And what if this organization was well funded and actively sought IP rights for the explicit purpose of releasing them to the public?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets say I were to invent something for the benefit of society .
And I wanted to share my idea freely with the world so that everyone can benefit from it.Patents are expensive me being a poor Joe , and just wanting to share my idea , I 'm not going to patent something just to give it away for free.If I just told everyone I knew , what would stop them from taking that idea and patenting it and thus 'owning ' the idea ? Is there a way to freely publish an idea in such a way that it will not be patentable ?
-similar to say the GPL software licence but with allowance for the 3rd party to profit ? Is there an organization that can review these public ideas for possible applications ? Perhaps this organization could even award prize money for worthy ideas , such as the nobel prize system ?
( on a much smaller scale ) And what if this organization was well funded and actively sought IP rights for the explicit purpose of releasing them to the public ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets say I were to invent something for the benefit of society.
And I wanted to share my idea freely with the world so that everyone can benefit from it.Patents are expensive me being a poor Joe, and just wanting to share my idea, I'm not going to patent something just to give it away for free.If I just told everyone I knew, what would stop them from taking that idea and patenting it and thus 'owning' the idea?Is there a way to freely publish an idea in such a way that it will not be patentable?
-similar to say the GPL software licence but with allowance for the 3rd party to profit?Is there an organization that can review these public ideas for possible applications?Perhaps this organization could even award prize money for worthy ideas, such as the nobel prize system?
(on a much smaller scale)And what if this organization was well funded and actively sought IP rights for the explicit purpose of releasing them to the public?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615114</id>
	<title>What if...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1269546120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if you could only own a patent if you manufactured something that used it?  That would mean old unused patents would become public domain once they weren't needed (as determined by the market - if nobody was buying things that used it, and nobody made anything that used it, then the inventor could not hold the patent)  Similarly, it means no one could buy a patent unless they were actively using it.  It would remain with the original owner, or revert to the public domain if they went out of business.</p><p>I guess you might need protections then, to keep companies from just destroying another company to force the patents into the public domain.  That could get sticky.</p><p>Could we do this with copyrights too?  Ex: If you stop selling a book or piece of music, or stop selling a piece of software, it becomes public domain.  That would help a lot with old video games.  Hmm... what about art, where the artist doesn't want to make copies.  Hmm....</p><p>Thoughts anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you could only own a patent if you manufactured something that used it ?
That would mean old unused patents would become public domain once they were n't needed ( as determined by the market - if nobody was buying things that used it , and nobody made anything that used it , then the inventor could not hold the patent ) Similarly , it means no one could buy a patent unless they were actively using it .
It would remain with the original owner , or revert to the public domain if they went out of business.I guess you might need protections then , to keep companies from just destroying another company to force the patents into the public domain .
That could get sticky.Could we do this with copyrights too ?
Ex : If you stop selling a book or piece of music , or stop selling a piece of software , it becomes public domain .
That would help a lot with old video games .
Hmm... what about art , where the artist does n't want to make copies .
Hmm....Thoughts anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you could only own a patent if you manufactured something that used it?
That would mean old unused patents would become public domain once they weren't needed (as determined by the market - if nobody was buying things that used it, and nobody made anything that used it, then the inventor could not hold the patent)  Similarly, it means no one could buy a patent unless they were actively using it.
It would remain with the original owner, or revert to the public domain if they went out of business.I guess you might need protections then, to keep companies from just destroying another company to force the patents into the public domain.
That could get sticky.Could we do this with copyrights too?
Ex: If you stop selling a book or piece of music, or stop selling a piece of software, it becomes public domain.
That would help a lot with old video games.
Hmm... what about art, where the artist doesn't want to make copies.
Hmm....Thoughts anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615774</id>
	<title>Re:summary flat-out wrong: IV *does* make things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269548340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they might have just outsourced it, maybe someone with them had the idea of something like that, and they gave it to an external engineering company.<br>Look at there PB address via streetview.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they might have just outsourced it , maybe someone with them had the idea of something like that , and they gave it to an external engineering company.Look at there PB address via streetview .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they might have just outsourced it, maybe someone with them had the idea of something like that, and they gave it to an external engineering company.Look at there PB address via streetview.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616054</id>
	<title>Re:You will do</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1269549420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not entirely unusual grammar in UK English, if somewhat informal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not entirely unusual grammar in UK English , if somewhat informal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not entirely unusual grammar in UK English, if somewhat informal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>Necron69</author>
	<datestamp>1269511260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so per your argument, Apple hasn't "created wealth" with the iPhone, they've really just created an "iPhone scarcity"? Someone had better tell Steve Jobs and Apple shareholders this...</p><p>While I'm not a fan of patent trolls, economics is not a zero sum game and wealth is most definitely something that can be created (or destroyed). Here's some reading for you to start fixing your woeful lack of education on this subject: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy/dp/0465002609" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy/dp/0465002609</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>Necron69</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so per your argument , Apple has n't " created wealth " with the iPhone , they 've really just created an " iPhone scarcity " ?
Someone had better tell Steve Jobs and Apple shareholders this...While I 'm not a fan of patent trolls , economics is not a zero sum game and wealth is most definitely something that can be created ( or destroyed ) .
Here 's some reading for you to start fixing your woeful lack of education on this subject : http : //www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy/dp/0465002609 [ amazon.com ] Necron69</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so per your argument, Apple hasn't "created wealth" with the iPhone, they've really just created an "iPhone scarcity"?
Someone had better tell Steve Jobs and Apple shareholders this...While I'm not a fan of patent trolls, economics is not a zero sum game and wealth is most definitely something that can be created (or destroyed).
Here's some reading for you to start fixing your woeful lack of education on this subject: http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy/dp/0465002609 [amazon.com]Necron69</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614812</id>
	<title>All in one place, so one grenade gets them all</title>
	<author>DCFusor</author>
	<datestamp>1269545160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What more need I say?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What more need I say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What more need I say?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615052</id>
	<title>The UBER-KING Of Patent Trolls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269545880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"with no intent of ever making stuff or solving real-life problems" which is exactly what <a href="http:www.microsoft" title="www.microsoft" rel="nofollow">MicroSLOP</a> [www.microsoft] does.</p><p>Yours In Akademgorodok,<br>Kilgore Trout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" with no intent of ever making stuff or solving real-life problems " which is exactly what MicroSLOP [ www.microsoft ] does.Yours In Akademgorodok,Kilgore Trout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"with no intent of ever making stuff or solving real-life problems" which is exactly what MicroSLOP [www.microsoft] does.Yours In Akademgorodok,Kilgore Trout.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31623942</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269605280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ok, so per your argument, Apple hasn't "created wealth" with the iPhone, they've really just created an "iPhone scarcity"?</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, they do. And not only with the phone itself (exclusive deals with carriers, patent attacks to other phone builders), but with the applications tjey run too (that's what the "store" is all about).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so per your argument , Apple has n't " created wealth " with the iPhone , they 've really just created an " iPhone scarcity " ? Well , they do .
And not only with the phone itself ( exclusive deals with carriers , patent attacks to other phone builders ) , but with the applications tjey run too ( that 's what the " store " is all about ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so per your argument, Apple hasn't "created wealth" with the iPhone, they've really just created an "iPhone scarcity"?Well, they do.
And not only with the phone itself (exclusive deals with carriers, patent attacks to other phone builders), but with the applications tjey run too (that's what the "store" is all about).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31622662</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269546480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read his argument again. Creating the iPhone itself has nothing to do with the parent post, as parent is talking about intellectual property.</p><p>Apple isn't trying to create an "iPhone scarcity" by using its IP portfolio against HTC. It is trying to create scarcity in the market such that the only source of such phones is the iPhone, as compared to a market containing many similar phones that are sold not just by Apple itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read his argument again .
Creating the iPhone itself has nothing to do with the parent post , as parent is talking about intellectual property.Apple is n't trying to create an " iPhone scarcity " by using its IP portfolio against HTC .
It is trying to create scarcity in the market such that the only source of such phones is the iPhone , as compared to a market containing many similar phones that are sold not just by Apple itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read his argument again.
Creating the iPhone itself has nothing to do with the parent post, as parent is talking about intellectual property.Apple isn't trying to create an "iPhone scarcity" by using its IP portfolio against HTC.
It is trying to create scarcity in the market such that the only source of such phones is the iPhone, as compared to a market containing many similar phones that are sold not just by Apple itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618312</id>
	<title>No soul required.</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1269514380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main requirement for entering this business--inventing things--is a complete lack of a soul (or conscience, if you'd rather).</p><p>It is pure greed and power mongering the way things stand and in the end the result is LESS innovation.</p><p>When I was 20, I used to do Q/A for a company that made lancets (a device to prick the skin to draw a drop of blood for analysis, usually blood sugar levels). One day I realized that there was a better way. The device I was inspecting daily had over 30 parts and ended up costing the retail customer around $35. They still had to purchase disposable tips that were one-use only and had to be safely discarded so as not to infect others.</p><p>In less then a week I had a flawlessly-working prototype of a disposable, single-use device that not only was sterile (didn't rely on packaging to achieve), but also cost less then $.10 to make and had ONE moving part (for a total of three parts in its entirety) and was completely safe to simply throw away (the needle that did the actual pricking was drawn back inside the case after it did it's thing), making it particularly attractive to hospitals.</p><p>I tried to shop the idea to my employer who seemed totally unimpressed and never brought it up again. I then tried to shop it to Becton-Dickenson (the worlds largest maker of syringes) and was pretty much told they didn't accept submissions from outside their own R/D dept.</p><p>A few months ago my mother hands me one. The device I designed. It turns out the doctor she saw that day had used it on her and she decided to keep it and show it to me. It was essentially my design with the sterility factor removed. They relied on the packaging to keep the device sterile until used.</p><p>After some research, it turns out that not only did my ex-employer have his name on the patent for it, but also the guy I spoke to on the phone at Becton-Dickinson. They had somehow both found out the other knew about the idea, waited 7 years to patent (since I did not patent it in that time) then simply co-submitted the patent, then went into production. They sell it to this day.</p><p>In short, they could have written me a check for $5k (I was hurting for tuition back then and could REALLY have used it), had full rights to the idea and not had to wait 7 years. Instead, they CHOSE to simply fuck me over. Nice guys.</p><p>Now, I ask you slash-dotters, what fucking incentive do I have to EVER bother trying my hand at inventing again? The knowledge that my idea at least made it to people that can use it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main requirement for entering this business--inventing things--is a complete lack of a soul ( or conscience , if you 'd rather ) .It is pure greed and power mongering the way things stand and in the end the result is LESS innovation.When I was 20 , I used to do Q/A for a company that made lancets ( a device to prick the skin to draw a drop of blood for analysis , usually blood sugar levels ) .
One day I realized that there was a better way .
The device I was inspecting daily had over 30 parts and ended up costing the retail customer around $ 35 .
They still had to purchase disposable tips that were one-use only and had to be safely discarded so as not to infect others.In less then a week I had a flawlessly-working prototype of a disposable , single-use device that not only was sterile ( did n't rely on packaging to achieve ) , but also cost less then $ .10 to make and had ONE moving part ( for a total of three parts in its entirety ) and was completely safe to simply throw away ( the needle that did the actual pricking was drawn back inside the case after it did it 's thing ) , making it particularly attractive to hospitals.I tried to shop the idea to my employer who seemed totally unimpressed and never brought it up again .
I then tried to shop it to Becton-Dickenson ( the worlds largest maker of syringes ) and was pretty much told they did n't accept submissions from outside their own R/D dept.A few months ago my mother hands me one .
The device I designed .
It turns out the doctor she saw that day had used it on her and she decided to keep it and show it to me .
It was essentially my design with the sterility factor removed .
They relied on the packaging to keep the device sterile until used.After some research , it turns out that not only did my ex-employer have his name on the patent for it , but also the guy I spoke to on the phone at Becton-Dickinson .
They had somehow both found out the other knew about the idea , waited 7 years to patent ( since I did not patent it in that time ) then simply co-submitted the patent , then went into production .
They sell it to this day.In short , they could have written me a check for $ 5k ( I was hurting for tuition back then and could REALLY have used it ) , had full rights to the idea and not had to wait 7 years .
Instead , they CHOSE to simply fuck me over .
Nice guys.Now , I ask you slash-dotters , what fucking incentive do I have to EVER bother trying my hand at inventing again ?
The knowledge that my idea at least made it to people that can use it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main requirement for entering this business--inventing things--is a complete lack of a soul (or conscience, if you'd rather).It is pure greed and power mongering the way things stand and in the end the result is LESS innovation.When I was 20, I used to do Q/A for a company that made lancets (a device to prick the skin to draw a drop of blood for analysis, usually blood sugar levels).
One day I realized that there was a better way.
The device I was inspecting daily had over 30 parts and ended up costing the retail customer around $35.
They still had to purchase disposable tips that were one-use only and had to be safely discarded so as not to infect others.In less then a week I had a flawlessly-working prototype of a disposable, single-use device that not only was sterile (didn't rely on packaging to achieve), but also cost less then $.10 to make and had ONE moving part (for a total of three parts in its entirety) and was completely safe to simply throw away (the needle that did the actual pricking was drawn back inside the case after it did it's thing), making it particularly attractive to hospitals.I tried to shop the idea to my employer who seemed totally unimpressed and never brought it up again.
I then tried to shop it to Becton-Dickenson (the worlds largest maker of syringes) and was pretty much told they didn't accept submissions from outside their own R/D dept.A few months ago my mother hands me one.
The device I designed.
It turns out the doctor she saw that day had used it on her and she decided to keep it and show it to me.
It was essentially my design with the sterility factor removed.
They relied on the packaging to keep the device sterile until used.After some research, it turns out that not only did my ex-employer have his name on the patent for it, but also the guy I spoke to on the phone at Becton-Dickinson.
They had somehow both found out the other knew about the idea, waited 7 years to patent (since I did not patent it in that time) then simply co-submitted the patent, then went into production.
They sell it to this day.In short, they could have written me a check for $5k (I was hurting for tuition back then and could REALLY have used it), had full rights to the idea and not had to wait 7 years.
Instead, they CHOSE to simply fuck me over.
Nice guys.Now, I ask you slash-dotters, what fucking incentive do I have to EVER bother trying my hand at inventing again?
The knowledge that my idea at least made it to people that can use it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616648</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1269508080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whenever a capitalist talks about "adding value" or "creating wealth", they're really talking about creating scarcity.</p></div><p>Yes, that's true for companies that build "brands", rather than making a better product.
<br> <br>
But, for Adam Smithites, anything you do to a product to make it more salable is "adding value."
<br> <br>
For instance, you could grow trees, but most people don't have a use for a full grown tree.  If you cut it into firewood, you've added value to the tree, and more people will pay you more money for the firewood, than for a full sized tree.  If you instead turn the trees into fine furniture, you can get paid even more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever a capitalist talks about " adding value " or " creating wealth " , they 're really talking about creating scarcity.Yes , that 's true for companies that build " brands " , rather than making a better product .
But , for Adam Smithites , anything you do to a product to make it more salable is " adding value .
" For instance , you could grow trees , but most people do n't have a use for a full grown tree .
If you cut it into firewood , you 've added value to the tree , and more people will pay you more money for the firewood , than for a full sized tree .
If you instead turn the trees into fine furniture , you can get paid even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever a capitalist talks about "adding value" or "creating wealth", they're really talking about creating scarcity.Yes, that's true for companies that build "brands", rather than making a better product.
But, for Adam Smithites, anything you do to a product to make it more salable is "adding value.
"
 
For instance, you could grow trees, but most people don't have a use for a full grown tree.
If you cut it into firewood, you've added value to the tree, and more people will pay you more money for the firewood, than for a full sized tree.
If you instead turn the trees into fine furniture, you can get paid even more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614744</id>
	<title>The case against intellectual property</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm" title="ucla.edu">http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm</a> [ucla.edu]</p><p>And, and a tip of my hat to Microsoft "innovation".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm [ ucla.edu ] And , and a tip of my hat to Microsoft " innovation " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm [ucla.edu]And, and a tip of my hat to Microsoft "innovation".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31619076</id>
	<title>You can add value, but these examples are bad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269518460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPhone itself is a real good (not an imaginary one).  In his example, he said that creating patents (which are restrictions on what other people can build--you know, government granted monopolies on devices embodying the patented idea) does not add value.  This is true.  They create more restrictions.  The people who add value have to license those patents (or avoid actually adding value in any way that infringes upon the patent claims).</p><p>There ARE ways to add value, but they involve using IP, not creating it.  That's why we have IP laws, to expand the pool available for use.  But these laws have an enforcement cost and behavior, like that of many companies, causes some of us to think that the enforcement costs outweigh the value added, particularly with all the crazy extensions people have added with the goal of rent-seeking.</p><p>My biggest problem with IP is that at some point, the lawmakers decided that profit was more important (and easier to measure) than innovation, and so they changed the laws to make IP more profitable, rather than making it more conductive to innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone itself is a real good ( not an imaginary one ) .
In his example , he said that creating patents ( which are restrictions on what other people can build--you know , government granted monopolies on devices embodying the patented idea ) does not add value .
This is true .
They create more restrictions .
The people who add value have to license those patents ( or avoid actually adding value in any way that infringes upon the patent claims ) .There ARE ways to add value , but they involve using IP , not creating it .
That 's why we have IP laws , to expand the pool available for use .
But these laws have an enforcement cost and behavior , like that of many companies , causes some of us to think that the enforcement costs outweigh the value added , particularly with all the crazy extensions people have added with the goal of rent-seeking.My biggest problem with IP is that at some point , the lawmakers decided that profit was more important ( and easier to measure ) than innovation , and so they changed the laws to make IP more profitable , rather than making it more conductive to innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone itself is a real good (not an imaginary one).
In his example, he said that creating patents (which are restrictions on what other people can build--you know, government granted monopolies on devices embodying the patented idea) does not add value.
This is true.
They create more restrictions.
The people who add value have to license those patents (or avoid actually adding value in any way that infringes upon the patent claims).There ARE ways to add value, but they involve using IP, not creating it.
That's why we have IP laws, to expand the pool available for use.
But these laws have an enforcement cost and behavior, like that of many companies, causes some of us to think that the enforcement costs outweigh the value added, particularly with all the crazy extensions people have added with the goal of rent-seeking.My biggest problem with IP is that at some point, the lawmakers decided that profit was more important (and easier to measure) than innovation, and so they changed the laws to make IP more profitable, rather than making it more conductive to innovation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614810</id>
	<title>Counter Sue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269545160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Suppose you have a patent in a field that IV has patents and IV licensed it's IP to others.  Is there a novel way to go after those other companies who have licensed from IV?  By forming an alliance have they all become responsible for the actions of another? Is there a way to make it a bad idea to work with IV? <p>

Posting as an AC for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose you have a patent in a field that IV has patents and IV licensed it 's IP to others .
Is there a novel way to go after those other companies who have licensed from IV ?
By forming an alliance have they all become responsible for the actions of another ?
Is there a way to make it a bad idea to work with IV ?
Posting as an AC for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose you have a patent in a field that IV has patents and IV licensed it's IP to others.
Is there a novel way to go after those other companies who have licensed from IV?
By forming an alliance have they all become responsible for the actions of another?
Is there a way to make it a bad idea to work with IV?
Posting as an AC for a reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615650</id>
	<title>Re:You will do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269547920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone else read that line with Yoda's voice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else read that line with Yoda 's voice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else read that line with Yoda's voice?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616580</id>
	<title>Re:That's voiding the patent!</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1269507900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, you are mistaken here - you think of trademarks, which have to be used. There is no such clause for patents. (Disclaimer: Currently working at a patent law firm in Germany. IANAL, and especially not yours, this is no legal advice;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , you are mistaken here - you think of trademarks , which have to be used .
There is no such clause for patents .
( Disclaimer : Currently working at a patent law firm in Germany .
IANAL , and especially not yours , this is no legal advice ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, you are mistaken here - you think of trademarks, which have to be used.
There is no such clause for patents.
(Disclaimer: Currently working at a patent law firm in Germany.
IANAL, and especially not yours, this is no legal advice;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620384</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269525480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and wealth is most definitely something that can be created (or destroyed)."</p><p>Which is a complete lie, all people do is re-arrange matter and energy.  All wealth exists, the iron in the earth before it is smelted is a \_store\_ of all the wealth that will be \_Released\_ when it is re-arranged into a product.</p><p>To put it another way \_without the sun\_ there would be no "wealth".  I really hate you blind idealogical free market types you are so ignorant of science and nature it's disturbing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and wealth is most definitely something that can be created ( or destroyed ) .
" Which is a complete lie , all people do is re-arrange matter and energy .
All wealth exists , the iron in the earth before it is smelted is a \ _store \ _ of all the wealth that will be \ _Released \ _ when it is re-arranged into a product.To put it another way \ _without the sun \ _ there would be no " wealth " .
I really hate you blind idealogical free market types you are so ignorant of science and nature it 's disturbing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and wealth is most definitely something that can be created (or destroyed).
"Which is a complete lie, all people do is re-arrange matter and energy.
All wealth exists, the iron in the earth before it is smelted is a \_store\_ of all the wealth that will be \_Released\_ when it is re-arranged into a product.To put it another way \_without the sun\_ there would be no "wealth".
I really hate you blind idealogical free market types you are so ignorant of science and nature it's disturbing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616084</id>
	<title>TerraPower</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1269549480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Intellectual Ventures is the parent of TerraPower, which  we discussed here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. a few days ago.  You may recall:  <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/10/03/23/1323204/Bill-Gates-May-Build-Small-Nuclear-Reactor" title="slashdot.org"> Bill Gates May Build Small Nuclear Reactor.</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Intellectual Ventures is the parent of TerraPower , which we discussed here on / .
a few days ago .
You may recall : Bill Gates May Build Small Nuclear Reactor .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intellectual Ventures is the parent of TerraPower, which  we discussed here on /.
a few days ago.
You may recall:   Bill Gates May Build Small Nuclear Reactor.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616024</id>
	<title>"Against intellectual property" is copyrighted.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1269549240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280/ref=pd\_bbs\_sr\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1215809988&amp;sr=8-1#reader\_0521879280" title="amazon.com">book mentioned is copyrighted:</a> [amazon.com]
</p><p> <b>

&copy; Michele Bouldrin and Daniel K. Levine 2008.
<br>
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exemption and the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. </b>
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The book mentioned is copyrighted : [ amazon.com ]   Michele Bouldrin and Daniel K. Levine 2008 .
This publication is in copyright .
Subject to statutory exemption and the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements , no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The book mentioned is copyrighted: [amazon.com]
 

© Michele Bouldrin and Daniel K. Levine 2008.
This publication is in copyright.
Subject to statutory exemption and the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. 
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31623472</id>
	<title>Re:The case against intellectual property</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately a lot of that book is questionable.  The authors start out making the claim about a Nobel prize for Economics.  There isn't one, however much some try to pretend.  There aren't any Nobel prizes for professional wrestling or astrology either, not to knock on pro wrestling by comparing it to economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately a lot of that book is questionable .
The authors start out making the claim about a Nobel prize for Economics .
There is n't one , however much some try to pretend .
There are n't any Nobel prizes for professional wrestling or astrology either , not to knock on pro wrestling by comparing it to economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately a lot of that book is questionable.
The authors start out making the claim about a Nobel prize for Economics.
There isn't one, however much some try to pretend.
There aren't any Nobel prizes for professional wrestling or astrology either, not to knock on pro wrestling by comparing it to economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614842</id>
	<title>You will said?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269545220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will hear have not of these trolling patents are, and I resent have maybe the implication that I will do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will hear have not of these trolling patents are , and I resent have maybe the implication that I will do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will hear have not of these trolling patents are, and I resent have maybe the implication that I will do!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616786</id>
	<title>Your sig</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269508680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually universal health care IS socialist. It's still a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually universal health care IS socialist .
It 's still a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually universal health care IS socialist.
It's still a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616154</id>
	<title>IV exploits a government-created catastrophe</title>
	<author>time961</author>
	<datestamp>1269549720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't crossed paths (yet) with IV, but I do believe that they are fundamentally evil. They're a natural consequence of bad laws and legal practice.
<br>
<br>
They like to describe their model as "Hey, Mr. Inventor, we'll buy your patents, or help you patent your stuff, and even pay you to work on it". This approach is appealing in principle, and to be sure, it does put some money in the hands of those inventors.
<br>
<br>
The problem is that what the Patent Office treats as an "invention" is almost completely unrelated to what constitutes an "invention" in the real world of commerce. A patent-office invention is just an idea. It doesn't have to be manufacturable, it doesn't have to be a viable product, it even doesn't have to work. It just has to be interesting and complicated enough that a relatively unskilled patent examiner cannot find a good reason to deny a patent. And since the examiner has only limited time (small number of hours) to examine each invention, and he's goaled on patents <i>issued</i>, not denied, well, pretty much anything can be patented.
<br>
<br>
(When I refer to examiners as "relatively unskilled", I don't mean that they're dummies--but rather, that they are generally less practiced in the art of patent management than the high-powered patent attorneys who craft the applications they're reading. Indeed, an awful lot of good examiners end up turning into those high-paid attorneys, after taking a few yeas of "training" at the Patent Office.)
<br>
<br>
A real-world invention, on the other hand, has to be something that makes money. It has to work. It has to be manufacturable. It has to be sufficiently well-developed as a product that people want to buy it. And getting to there from the idea stage requires real resources: money to pay engineers, money to advertise and market, etc. And ultimately, of course, a real-world invention has to make a <b>profit</b>: the costs ought not to exceed the revenues.
<br>
<br>
So what IV is mostly doing is creating or buying patent-office inventions and using those to extract money from entrepreneurs and companies that are trying to create real-world inventions. They're a tax on the real resources that are required to turn an invention into a product, and in that role, they far more often <b>prevent</b> useful products from reaching the market, by increasing their development costs too much for a profitable result. Sure, there are a few poster-child inventions where IV has invested their own resources, or where someone else's profit is feasible even at IV's royalty rates, but those cases are rare--and exist for press releases.
<br>
<br>
IV's costs are minimal, because they mostly just get smart people together to brainstorm. The ideas are copied down by patent attorneys, turned into applications by IV's legal team, and pushed through the Patent Office. Once issued, a patent is presumptively valid, and fighting it is a crapshoot. So if IV comes to you, you either license or fold, because they have more and better lawyers. They generally do <b>nothing</b> to turn an IV patent into a real-world invention, and they bear none of those real costs.
<br>
<br>
It <b>is</b> a brilliant business model. At minimal costs, IV exploits a fundamental and likely unfixable problem with the patent process, namely that most modern inventions are too sophisticated, complex, and interrelated for the process to address--yet the government <b>guarantees</b> a monopoly, so you have to play within the system, or be subject to patent litigation that is completely unpredictable (except for its multi-million dollar cost). The patent "reform" proposals floating around just nibble at the edges; the system itself is fundamentally broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't crossed paths ( yet ) with IV , but I do believe that they are fundamentally evil .
They 're a natural consequence of bad laws and legal practice .
They like to describe their model as " Hey , Mr. Inventor , we 'll buy your patents , or help you patent your stuff , and even pay you to work on it " .
This approach is appealing in principle , and to be sure , it does put some money in the hands of those inventors .
The problem is that what the Patent Office treats as an " invention " is almost completely unrelated to what constitutes an " invention " in the real world of commerce .
A patent-office invention is just an idea .
It does n't have to be manufacturable , it does n't have to be a viable product , it even does n't have to work .
It just has to be interesting and complicated enough that a relatively unskilled patent examiner can not find a good reason to deny a patent .
And since the examiner has only limited time ( small number of hours ) to examine each invention , and he 's goaled on patents issued , not denied , well , pretty much anything can be patented .
( When I refer to examiners as " relatively unskilled " , I do n't mean that they 're dummies--but rather , that they are generally less practiced in the art of patent management than the high-powered patent attorneys who craft the applications they 're reading .
Indeed , an awful lot of good examiners end up turning into those high-paid attorneys , after taking a few yeas of " training " at the Patent Office .
) A real-world invention , on the other hand , has to be something that makes money .
It has to work .
It has to be manufacturable .
It has to be sufficiently well-developed as a product that people want to buy it .
And getting to there from the idea stage requires real resources : money to pay engineers , money to advertise and market , etc .
And ultimately , of course , a real-world invention has to make a profit : the costs ought not to exceed the revenues .
So what IV is mostly doing is creating or buying patent-office inventions and using those to extract money from entrepreneurs and companies that are trying to create real-world inventions .
They 're a tax on the real resources that are required to turn an invention into a product , and in that role , they far more often prevent useful products from reaching the market , by increasing their development costs too much for a profitable result .
Sure , there are a few poster-child inventions where IV has invested their own resources , or where someone else 's profit is feasible even at IV 's royalty rates , but those cases are rare--and exist for press releases .
IV 's costs are minimal , because they mostly just get smart people together to brainstorm .
The ideas are copied down by patent attorneys , turned into applications by IV 's legal team , and pushed through the Patent Office .
Once issued , a patent is presumptively valid , and fighting it is a crapshoot .
So if IV comes to you , you either license or fold , because they have more and better lawyers .
They generally do nothing to turn an IV patent into a real-world invention , and they bear none of those real costs .
It is a brilliant business model .
At minimal costs , IV exploits a fundamental and likely unfixable problem with the patent process , namely that most modern inventions are too sophisticated , complex , and interrelated for the process to address--yet the government guarantees a monopoly , so you have to play within the system , or be subject to patent litigation that is completely unpredictable ( except for its multi-million dollar cost ) .
The patent " reform " proposals floating around just nibble at the edges ; the system itself is fundamentally broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't crossed paths (yet) with IV, but I do believe that they are fundamentally evil.
They're a natural consequence of bad laws and legal practice.
They like to describe their model as "Hey, Mr. Inventor, we'll buy your patents, or help you patent your stuff, and even pay you to work on it".
This approach is appealing in principle, and to be sure, it does put some money in the hands of those inventors.
The problem is that what the Patent Office treats as an "invention" is almost completely unrelated to what constitutes an "invention" in the real world of commerce.
A patent-office invention is just an idea.
It doesn't have to be manufacturable, it doesn't have to be a viable product, it even doesn't have to work.
It just has to be interesting and complicated enough that a relatively unskilled patent examiner cannot find a good reason to deny a patent.
And since the examiner has only limited time (small number of hours) to examine each invention, and he's goaled on patents issued, not denied, well, pretty much anything can be patented.
(When I refer to examiners as "relatively unskilled", I don't mean that they're dummies--but rather, that they are generally less practiced in the art of patent management than the high-powered patent attorneys who craft the applications they're reading.
Indeed, an awful lot of good examiners end up turning into those high-paid attorneys, after taking a few yeas of "training" at the Patent Office.
)


A real-world invention, on the other hand, has to be something that makes money.
It has to work.
It has to be manufacturable.
It has to be sufficiently well-developed as a product that people want to buy it.
And getting to there from the idea stage requires real resources: money to pay engineers, money to advertise and market, etc.
And ultimately, of course, a real-world invention has to make a profit: the costs ought not to exceed the revenues.
So what IV is mostly doing is creating or buying patent-office inventions and using those to extract money from entrepreneurs and companies that are trying to create real-world inventions.
They're a tax on the real resources that are required to turn an invention into a product, and in that role, they far more often prevent useful products from reaching the market, by increasing their development costs too much for a profitable result.
Sure, there are a few poster-child inventions where IV has invested their own resources, or where someone else's profit is feasible even at IV's royalty rates, but those cases are rare--and exist for press releases.
IV's costs are minimal, because they mostly just get smart people together to brainstorm.
The ideas are copied down by patent attorneys, turned into applications by IV's legal team, and pushed through the Patent Office.
Once issued, a patent is presumptively valid, and fighting it is a crapshoot.
So if IV comes to you, you either license or fold, because they have more and better lawyers.
They generally do nothing to turn an IV patent into a real-world invention, and they bear none of those real costs.
It is a brilliant business model.
At minimal costs, IV exploits a fundamental and likely unfixable problem with the patent process, namely that most modern inventions are too sophisticated, complex, and interrelated for the process to address--yet the government guarantees a monopoly, so you have to play within the system, or be subject to patent litigation that is completely unpredictable (except for its multi-million dollar cost).
The patent "reform" proposals floating around just nibble at the edges; the system itself is fundamentally broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912</id>
	<title>Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269545460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever a capitalist talks about "adding value" or "creating wealth", they're really talking about creating scarcity. "Intellectual property" is the purest form of artificial scarcity, restricting the use of ideas, which otherwise can travel freely from mind to mind with negligible actual cost. A more mundane example is the way building houses drives up the cost of property by reducing the pool of available (or at least desirable) undeveloped property. (The housing bubble pushed this past the point of viability by building more houses than there were buyers for, but between inevitable population growth and the physical decline of abandoned houses, the situation will eventually return to normal.)</p><p>We end up with deceptive terms like "creating wealth" because few people would be enthusiastic about creating scarcity except, of course, for the people who already own the commodity being made scarce. Everyone else just ends up paying more for less. Intellectual property is particularly egregious in this sense because the scarcity is completely artificial, as opposed to real estate, where there really is a limited supply of raw material. Ideas, even good ones, are cheap and plentiful and very seldom actually unique; "ownership" is rather arbitrarily awarded to the company that has the resources to afford the patent process and gets it through the door first, with a strong incentive to do so as vaguely and broadly as possible so as to throttle as much actual creativity as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever a capitalist talks about " adding value " or " creating wealth " , they 're really talking about creating scarcity .
" Intellectual property " is the purest form of artificial scarcity , restricting the use of ideas , which otherwise can travel freely from mind to mind with negligible actual cost .
A more mundane example is the way building houses drives up the cost of property by reducing the pool of available ( or at least desirable ) undeveloped property .
( The housing bubble pushed this past the point of viability by building more houses than there were buyers for , but between inevitable population growth and the physical decline of abandoned houses , the situation will eventually return to normal .
) We end up with deceptive terms like " creating wealth " because few people would be enthusiastic about creating scarcity except , of course , for the people who already own the commodity being made scarce .
Everyone else just ends up paying more for less .
Intellectual property is particularly egregious in this sense because the scarcity is completely artificial , as opposed to real estate , where there really is a limited supply of raw material .
Ideas , even good ones , are cheap and plentiful and very seldom actually unique ; " ownership " is rather arbitrarily awarded to the company that has the resources to afford the patent process and gets it through the door first , with a strong incentive to do so as vaguely and broadly as possible so as to throttle as much actual creativity as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever a capitalist talks about "adding value" or "creating wealth", they're really talking about creating scarcity.
"Intellectual property" is the purest form of artificial scarcity, restricting the use of ideas, which otherwise can travel freely from mind to mind with negligible actual cost.
A more mundane example is the way building houses drives up the cost of property by reducing the pool of available (or at least desirable) undeveloped property.
(The housing bubble pushed this past the point of viability by building more houses than there were buyers for, but between inevitable population growth and the physical decline of abandoned houses, the situation will eventually return to normal.
)We end up with deceptive terms like "creating wealth" because few people would be enthusiastic about creating scarcity except, of course, for the people who already own the commodity being made scarce.
Everyone else just ends up paying more for less.
Intellectual property is particularly egregious in this sense because the scarcity is completely artificial, as opposed to real estate, where there really is a limited supply of raw material.
Ideas, even good ones, are cheap and plentiful and very seldom actually unique; "ownership" is rather arbitrarily awarded to the company that has the resources to afford the patent process and gets it through the door first, with a strong incentive to do so as vaguely and broadly as possible so as to throttle as much actual creativity as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570</id>
	<title>devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269544500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone invented something which otherwise would not have existed, and in return they got paid money in a chain of payments which ended up with this company. That's how capitalism works - the free trade of commodities.</p><p>The problem lies with the original inventor, if you want: the guy who wanted to be paid for an idea, rather than giving it to the public domain. How many good ideas have you given to the public domain, reader?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone invented something which otherwise would not have existed , and in return they got paid money in a chain of payments which ended up with this company .
That 's how capitalism works - the free trade of commodities.The problem lies with the original inventor , if you want : the guy who wanted to be paid for an idea , rather than giving it to the public domain .
How many good ideas have you given to the public domain , reader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone invented something which otherwise would not have existed, and in return they got paid money in a chain of payments which ended up with this company.
That's how capitalism works - the free trade of commodities.The problem lies with the original inventor, if you want: the guy who wanted to be paid for an idea, rather than giving it to the public domain.
How many good ideas have you given to the public domain, reader?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617746</id>
	<title>And if felt like a brick to the face</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1269512040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The accountants don't explain it, shareholders don't ask about it, most business leaders don't understand it.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazingly though almost nobody outside of the IP community...</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask people who know anything and they'd say that if IV breathes in your direction, take a license.</p></div><p>Emperror's clothes are awesome aren't they?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What is believed though is that this number puts them in the Premier league (up there with IBM, Nokia, Qualcomm and others) in terms of IP influence.</p></div><p>The same way Enron was at the top of their game?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some say they have 30,000 patent families, but it is impossible to know exactly how many.</p></div><p>Bet you can't.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But they don't want to see seen to be litigators...that's bad for reputation so they outsource that part to others who aren't so bothered about what the outside world thinks of them.</p></div><p>You mean like the guy from Buffalo who keeps calling, threatening to sue me for an old debt? The same guy who for the sake of his own life can't tell me what the dept was for, who bought it, whose behalf he is suing me on or why he isn't instead suing the guy who had my phone number 8 years ago and incurred the actual debt, but dammit, he is going to find truth and justice just as soon as I write him a check for whatever sum he can squeeze out of me? Yeah, I wouldn't want that guy's reputation either.</p><p>Still, I'll give him credit, he filled out a page without resorting to righteous indignation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The accountants do n't explain it , shareholders do n't ask about it , most business leaders do n't understand it.Amazingly though almost nobody outside of the IP community...Ask people who know anything and they 'd say that if IV breathes in your direction , take a license.Emperror 's clothes are awesome are n't they ? What is believed though is that this number puts them in the Premier league ( up there with IBM , Nokia , Qualcomm and others ) in terms of IP influence.The same way Enron was at the top of their game ? Some say they have 30,000 patent families , but it is impossible to know exactly how many.Bet you ca n't.But they do n't want to see seen to be litigators...that 's bad for reputation so they outsource that part to others who are n't so bothered about what the outside world thinks of them.You mean like the guy from Buffalo who keeps calling , threatening to sue me for an old debt ?
The same guy who for the sake of his own life ca n't tell me what the dept was for , who bought it , whose behalf he is suing me on or why he is n't instead suing the guy who had my phone number 8 years ago and incurred the actual debt , but dammit , he is going to find truth and justice just as soon as I write him a check for whatever sum he can squeeze out of me ?
Yeah , I would n't want that guy 's reputation either.Still , I 'll give him credit , he filled out a page without resorting to righteous indignation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The accountants don't explain it, shareholders don't ask about it, most business leaders don't understand it.Amazingly though almost nobody outside of the IP community...Ask people who know anything and they'd say that if IV breathes in your direction, take a license.Emperror's clothes are awesome aren't they?What is believed though is that this number puts them in the Premier league (up there with IBM, Nokia, Qualcomm and others) in terms of IP influence.The same way Enron was at the top of their game?Some say they have 30,000 patent families, but it is impossible to know exactly how many.Bet you can't.But they don't want to see seen to be litigators...that's bad for reputation so they outsource that part to others who aren't so bothered about what the outside world thinks of them.You mean like the guy from Buffalo who keeps calling, threatening to sue me for an old debt?
The same guy who for the sake of his own life can't tell me what the dept was for, who bought it, whose behalf he is suing me on or why he isn't instead suing the guy who had my phone number 8 years ago and incurred the actual debt, but dammit, he is going to find truth and justice just as soon as I write him a check for whatever sum he can squeeze out of me?
Yeah, I wouldn't want that guy's reputation either.Still, I'll give him credit, he filled out a page without resorting to righteous indignation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615134</id>
	<title>Re:jebus' advocate</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1269546180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question I have is how many of these things are down to earth inventions, and how many are just academic ideas that they just decided to patent?  When I say academic idea, I mean something along the lines of "Hrm, an observer model would be good for notifying an application about a change in a sensor".  Even if nobody had done it before, does that make it an invention that should be patentable?  And what about the delineation between method and implementation?  You can increase the power band of a car engine by using variable valve timing.  Should that in and of itself be patentable?  What about the specific method that uses oil under pressure to laterally move the camshaft along a threaded "valley" to alter the timing (Basically Honda's V-Tech)?  One is an idea/concept, and the other is an implementation.  IMHO, an idea is useless without a specific implementation, and ideas should not be patentable.  The problem with this, is that most of the software patents I've seen patent the idea, not the implementation.  Now sure, with software the line between idea and implementation is much finer, but that's more of an argument towards the patent-ability of software in general, not what constitutes an implementation...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question I have is how many of these things are down to earth inventions , and how many are just academic ideas that they just decided to patent ?
When I say academic idea , I mean something along the lines of " Hrm , an observer model would be good for notifying an application about a change in a sensor " .
Even if nobody had done it before , does that make it an invention that should be patentable ?
And what about the delineation between method and implementation ?
You can increase the power band of a car engine by using variable valve timing .
Should that in and of itself be patentable ?
What about the specific method that uses oil under pressure to laterally move the camshaft along a threaded " valley " to alter the timing ( Basically Honda 's V-Tech ) ?
One is an idea/concept , and the other is an implementation .
IMHO , an idea is useless without a specific implementation , and ideas should not be patentable .
The problem with this , is that most of the software patents I 've seen patent the idea , not the implementation .
Now sure , with software the line between idea and implementation is much finer , but that 's more of an argument towards the patent-ability of software in general , not what constitutes an implementation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question I have is how many of these things are down to earth inventions, and how many are just academic ideas that they just decided to patent?
When I say academic idea, I mean something along the lines of "Hrm, an observer model would be good for notifying an application about a change in a sensor".
Even if nobody had done it before, does that make it an invention that should be patentable?
And what about the delineation between method and implementation?
You can increase the power band of a car engine by using variable valve timing.
Should that in and of itself be patentable?
What about the specific method that uses oil under pressure to laterally move the camshaft along a threaded "valley" to alter the timing (Basically Honda's V-Tech)?
One is an idea/concept, and the other is an implementation.
IMHO, an idea is useless without a specific implementation, and ideas should not be patentable.
The problem with this, is that most of the software patents I've seen patent the idea, not the implementation.
Now sure, with software the line between idea and implementation is much finer, but that's more of an argument towards the patent-ability of software in general, not what constitutes an implementation...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31621352</id>
	<title>Has Anyone Tried</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1269532560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... patenting the business model of a patent troll?</p><p>If the right person pulled it off, they could use it to shut all the others down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... patenting the business model of a patent troll ? If the right person pulled it off , they could use it to shut all the others down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... patenting the business model of a patent troll?If the right person pulled it off, they could use it to shut all the others down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616072</id>
	<title>The only way he knows to make money is evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269549480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nathan Myhrvold is a friend of Bill Gates. They wrote a book together, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Road-Ahead-Bill-Gates/dp/0670861448/ref=tmm\_hrd\_title\_0" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">The Road Ahead</a> [amazon.com].

<br> <br>It seems to me that abusiveness is their business. They feel they have to be against something to make money. They scrupulously avoid doing something positive.

<br> <br>The book was an example of that. It was amazing. It seemed as though several editors went through the book carefully and removed any information that might be of interest. I say that because I don't think anyone could write a rough draft of such a long book that was entirely free of anything useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nathan Myhrvold is a friend of Bill Gates .
They wrote a book together , The Road Ahead [ amazon.com ] .
It seems to me that abusiveness is their business .
They feel they have to be against something to make money .
They scrupulously avoid doing something positive .
The book was an example of that .
It was amazing .
It seemed as though several editors went through the book carefully and removed any information that might be of interest .
I say that because I do n't think anyone could write a rough draft of such a long book that was entirely free of anything useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nathan Myhrvold is a friend of Bill Gates.
They wrote a book together, The Road Ahead [amazon.com].
It seems to me that abusiveness is their business.
They feel they have to be against something to make money.
They scrupulously avoid doing something positive.
The book was an example of that.
It was amazing.
It seemed as though several editors went through the book carefully and removed any information that might be of interest.
I say that because I don't think anyone could write a rough draft of such a long book that was entirely free of anything useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620954</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269529140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple hasn't "created wealth" with the iPhone, they've really just created an "iPhone scarcity"?</p></div><p> <i>Artificial</i> scarcity. Apple controls access to the iPhone in the same way that diamond mining firms control access to diamonds: strictly, for the sole purpose of inflating prices. If other companies were allowed to manufacture iPhones, they wouldn't be locked into AT&amp;T, and they wouldn't be $200. The mechanisms keeping the price high and the product locked down &amp; in are referred to generally as "intellectual property rights."</p><p>Wealth <i>can</i> be created, but only through labor. Extra work put into a product always adds value (however you want to define value). The people who actually developed features for, and who physically construct, the iPhone are the ones who create the iPhone's value. Apple Computer, Inc.? Not so much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has n't " created wealth " with the iPhone , they 've really just created an " iPhone scarcity " ?
Artificial scarcity .
Apple controls access to the iPhone in the same way that diamond mining firms control access to diamonds : strictly , for the sole purpose of inflating prices .
If other companies were allowed to manufacture iPhones , they would n't be locked into AT&amp;T , and they would n't be $ 200 .
The mechanisms keeping the price high and the product locked down &amp; in are referred to generally as " intellectual property rights .
" Wealth can be created , but only through labor .
Extra work put into a product always adds value ( however you want to define value ) .
The people who actually developed features for , and who physically construct , the iPhone are the ones who create the iPhone 's value .
Apple Computer , Inc. ?
Not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple hasn't "created wealth" with the iPhone, they've really just created an "iPhone scarcity"?
Artificial scarcity.
Apple controls access to the iPhone in the same way that diamond mining firms control access to diamonds: strictly, for the sole purpose of inflating prices.
If other companies were allowed to manufacture iPhones, they wouldn't be locked into AT&amp;T, and they wouldn't be $200.
The mechanisms keeping the price high and the product locked down &amp; in are referred to generally as "intellectual property rights.
"Wealth can be created, but only through labor.
Extra work put into a product always adds value (however you want to define value).
The people who actually developed features for, and who physically construct, the iPhone are the ones who create the iPhone's value.
Apple Computer, Inc.?
Not so much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615220</id>
	<title>mod do3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269546540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">of Walnut Creek, leaving core. I risk looking even later seen in I ever did. It to stick something you should bring are She had taken up today!  If you of America (GNAA) America. You, by BSDI who sel7 with process and the goodwill are about 7000/5 future at all OS don't fear the and financial do and doing what At least.' Nobody moronic, dilettante anyone that thinks GNAA and support things in are tied up in us the courtesy And she ran future at all get tough. I hope and some of the so that you don't me if you'd like, win out; either the prima donnas, and Smith only serve Creek, abysmal So on, FreeBSD went Visions going Minutes. At home, Stupid.  To the and building is megs of ram runs</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>of Walnut Creek , leaving core .
I risk looking even later seen in I ever did .
It to stick something you should bring are She had taken up today !
If you of America ( GNAA ) America .
You , by BSDI who sel7 with process and the goodwill are about 7000/5 future at all OS do n't fear the and financial do and doing what At least .
' Nobody moronic , dilettante anyone that thinks GNAA and support things in are tied up in us the courtesy And she ran future at all get tough .
I hope and some of the so that you do n't me if you 'd like , win out ; either the prima donnas , and Smith only serve Creek , abysmal So on , FreeBSD went Visions going Minutes .
At home , Stupid .
To the and building is megs of ram runs [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of Walnut Creek, leaving core.
I risk looking even later seen in I ever did.
It to stick something you should bring are She had taken up today!
If you of America (GNAA) America.
You, by BSDI who sel7 with process and the goodwill are about 7000/5 future at all OS don't fear the and financial do and doing what At least.
' Nobody moronic, dilettante anyone that thinks GNAA and support things in are tied up in us the courtesy And she ran future at all get tough.
I hope and some of the so that you don't me if you'd like, win out; either the prima donnas, and Smith only serve Creek, abysmal So on, FreeBSD went Visions going Minutes.
At home, Stupid.
To the and building is megs of ram runs [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31622978</id>
	<title>Re:Adding value and other oxymorons</title>
	<author>khchung</author>
	<datestamp>1269594300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok, so per your argument, Apple hasn't "created wealth" with the iPhone, they've really just created an "iPhone scarcity"? Someone had better tell Steve Jobs and Apple shareholders this...</p></div><p>Yes, much as I like the iPhone, that is exactly what Apple did. By using trademarks, patents and copyright laws, Apple DID created an artificial scarcity of iPhones (ie, no other company can build and sell iPhones to you!), and they have profitted greatly from that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so per your argument , Apple has n't " created wealth " with the iPhone , they 've really just created an " iPhone scarcity " ?
Someone had better tell Steve Jobs and Apple shareholders this...Yes , much as I like the iPhone , that is exactly what Apple did .
By using trademarks , patents and copyright laws , Apple DID created an artificial scarcity of iPhones ( ie , no other company can build and sell iPhones to you !
) , and they have profitted greatly from that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so per your argument, Apple hasn't "created wealth" with the iPhone, they've really just created an "iPhone scarcity"?
Someone had better tell Steve Jobs and Apple shareholders this...Yes, much as I like the iPhone, that is exactly what Apple did.
By using trademarks, patents and copyright laws, Apple DID created an artificial scarcity of iPhones (ie, no other company can build and sell iPhones to you!
), and they have profitted greatly from that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618118</id>
	<title>beg to differ</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1269513600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppose I cut down a tree.  I can sell the log, or else I can mill the logs, turn them into wood, build something with the wood, and sell it as furniture.</p><p>Each of those steps "adds value" because there is profit to be made at each step.</p><p>Similarly, if I suck up oil from the ground I can sell the raw crude, or I can refine it and sell various types of distillates for significantly more money.  More value added.</p><p>I agree that there are problems with the current intellectual property system...but to claim that all forms of value add are due to scarcity is just wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose I cut down a tree .
I can sell the log , or else I can mill the logs , turn them into wood , build something with the wood , and sell it as furniture.Each of those steps " adds value " because there is profit to be made at each step.Similarly , if I suck up oil from the ground I can sell the raw crude , or I can refine it and sell various types of distillates for significantly more money .
More value added.I agree that there are problems with the current intellectual property system...but to claim that all forms of value add are due to scarcity is just wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose I cut down a tree.
I can sell the log, or else I can mill the logs, turn them into wood, build something with the wood, and sell it as furniture.Each of those steps "adds value" because there is profit to be made at each step.Similarly, if I suck up oil from the ground I can sell the raw crude, or I can refine it and sell various types of distillates for significantly more money.
More value added.I agree that there are problems with the current intellectual property system...but to claim that all forms of value add are due to scarcity is just wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31619344</id>
	<title>More like beware the FUD of the poster...</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1269519840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an inventor in the IntVen network.  It means that a few times a month I get a list of dozens - or hundreds - of problems to address.  They're well worked out, not the "we need a better energy system" type question but real-world, grounded, well-defined problems with existing art, marketing, and business cases needed.  And when I come up with an idea, the IntVen team hashes it over quite thoroughly, expecting detailed drawings, concepts, descriptions, and - in one case - modeling simulations to prove the idea would work.
<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>
They pay for ideas accepted (that they will then patent), and they share in the royalties of patents licensed.  They don't just patent anything; I've had about 20\% of my ideas actually accepted usually because others were seen as outside a large-enough need base (meaning not enough licensing opportunities - reduce to practice here) or not an area of interest for them.  It's actually a great way to be compensated for tinkering outside your main area of expertise and income, and earn a little bit of cash for it.
</p><p>
And yes, they have a full lab/workshop that can be available to inventors for R&amp;D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an inventor in the IntVen network .
It means that a few times a month I get a list of dozens - or hundreds - of problems to address .
They 're well worked out , not the " we need a better energy system " type question but real-world , grounded , well-defined problems with existing art , marketing , and business cases needed .
And when I come up with an idea , the IntVen team hashes it over quite thoroughly , expecting detailed drawings , concepts , descriptions , and - in one case - modeling simulations to prove the idea would work .
. They pay for ideas accepted ( that they will then patent ) , and they share in the royalties of patents licensed .
They do n't just patent anything ; I 've had about 20 \ % of my ideas actually accepted usually because others were seen as outside a large-enough need base ( meaning not enough licensing opportunities - reduce to practice here ) or not an area of interest for them .
It 's actually a great way to be compensated for tinkering outside your main area of expertise and income , and earn a little bit of cash for it .
And yes , they have a full lab/workshop that can be available to inventors for R&amp;D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an inventor in the IntVen network.
It means that a few times a month I get a list of dozens - or hundreds - of problems to address.
They're well worked out, not the "we need a better energy system" type question but real-world, grounded, well-defined problems with existing art, marketing, and business cases needed.
And when I come up with an idea, the IntVen team hashes it over quite thoroughly, expecting detailed drawings, concepts, descriptions, and - in one case - modeling simulations to prove the idea would work.
.
They pay for ideas accepted (that they will then patent), and they share in the royalties of patents licensed.
They don't just patent anything; I've had about 20\% of my ideas actually accepted usually because others were seen as outside a large-enough need base (meaning not enough licensing opportunities - reduce to practice here) or not an area of interest for them.
It's actually a great way to be compensated for tinkering outside your main area of expertise and income, and earn a little bit of cash for it.
And yes, they have a full lab/workshop that can be available to inventors for R&amp;D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614642</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>longfalcon</author>
	<datestamp>1269544680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's a really simple principle:</p><p>if i invent something, i am entitled to as much money from it as i can get. if someone else invents something, it should be free for me to license.</p><p>that should describe the resulting discussion....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a really simple principle : if i invent something , i am entitled to as much money from it as i can get .
if someone else invents something , it should be free for me to license.that should describe the resulting discussion... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a really simple principle:if i invent something, i am entitled to as much money from it as i can get.
if someone else invents something, it should be free for me to license.that should describe the resulting discussion....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616438</id>
	<title>Lucrative business.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1269550620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Owning patents is a very lucrative business beyond merely patent trolling. I've worked with a number of clients who own a bunch of patents, ranging from a handful up to a few hundred. They're routinely traded, sold or licensed. Sometimes I'm left with the impression that it's like trading Pokemon or baseball cards. Its basically trading in information. In one particular case the patents all fall under a range of related of technologies and services which the company is actively developing. In other cases it seems like investors pick and choose patents they consider to have potential and develop the technology to a point where it can be sold off for a hefty sum to another company.</p><p>To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about it. In many of these cases they end up doing something with the patents but there's something about this that leaves me with the impression that it's violating the spirit and intent of the patent system. But one thing is certain, we're unlikely to see any substantial and profound changes in the patent system because too many people have too much to gain from the system in its current form. And I think one of the underlying problems here is the litigious nature of this country. Perhaps we need a loser-pays system introduced?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Owning patents is a very lucrative business beyond merely patent trolling .
I 've worked with a number of clients who own a bunch of patents , ranging from a handful up to a few hundred .
They 're routinely traded , sold or licensed .
Sometimes I 'm left with the impression that it 's like trading Pokemon or baseball cards .
Its basically trading in information .
In one particular case the patents all fall under a range of related of technologies and services which the company is actively developing .
In other cases it seems like investors pick and choose patents they consider to have potential and develop the technology to a point where it can be sold off for a hefty sum to another company.To be honest , I 'm not sure how I feel about it .
In many of these cases they end up doing something with the patents but there 's something about this that leaves me with the impression that it 's violating the spirit and intent of the patent system .
But one thing is certain , we 're unlikely to see any substantial and profound changes in the patent system because too many people have too much to gain from the system in its current form .
And I think one of the underlying problems here is the litigious nature of this country .
Perhaps we need a loser-pays system introduced ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Owning patents is a very lucrative business beyond merely patent trolling.
I've worked with a number of clients who own a bunch of patents, ranging from a handful up to a few hundred.
They're routinely traded, sold or licensed.
Sometimes I'm left with the impression that it's like trading Pokemon or baseball cards.
Its basically trading in information.
In one particular case the patents all fall under a range of related of technologies and services which the company is actively developing.
In other cases it seems like investors pick and choose patents they consider to have potential and develop the technology to a point where it can be sold off for a hefty sum to another company.To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about it.
In many of these cases they end up doing something with the patents but there's something about this that leaves me with the impression that it's violating the spirit and intent of the patent system.
But one thing is certain, we're unlikely to see any substantial and profound changes in the patent system because too many people have too much to gain from the system in its current form.
And I think one of the underlying problems here is the litigious nature of this country.
Perhaps we need a loser-pays system introduced?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31622978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31623942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31619076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31623472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_25_1733229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31622662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31623472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31619344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31622662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31623942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31619076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31620384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31622978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31618118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31617876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31616580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31615774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_25_1733229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_25_1733229.31614582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
