<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_31_0450201</id>
	<title>NZ Draft Bill Rules Out Software Patents</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1270026720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Korgan writes <i>"In what must be a first in the face of ACTA and US trade negotiations pressure, a Parliamentary select committee has <a href="http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2008/0235/latest/whole.html#dlm1419043">released a draft bill</a> that explicitly declares that <a href="http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-patents-in-nz">software will no longer be patentable in New Zealand</a>. FTA: 'Open source software champions have been influential in excluding software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be patentable and includes the sub-clause "a computer program is not a patentable invention."'" </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Korgan writes " In what must be a first in the face of ACTA and US trade negotiations pressure , a Parliamentary select committee has released a draft bill that explicitly declares that software will no longer be patentable in New Zealand .
FTA : 'Open source software champions have been influential in excluding software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill .
Clause 15 of the draft Bill , as reported back from the Commerce Select Committee , lists a number of classes of invention which should not be patentable and includes the sub-clause " a computer program is not a patentable invention .
" ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Korgan writes "In what must be a first in the face of ACTA and US trade negotiations pressure, a Parliamentary select committee has released a draft bill that explicitly declares that software will no longer be patentable in New Zealand.
FTA: 'Open source software champions have been influential in excluding software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.
Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be patentable and includes the sub-clause "a computer program is not a patentable invention.
"'" </sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685116</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270034940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, some poor sucker programmer, living in his mom's basement, could come up with the same idea tomorrow, and find a way to make it work so much better.But the poor sod, who has no idea that the base for his work has a patent on it, will have his ass kicked for his hard work.</p><p>Patents STOP progress, and are rewarding the WRONG people.. They should be kept out of the incredibly fast paced world of computer software.</p><p>If you can't capitalize on your idea fast enough, tough freaking biscuits..</p><p>Copyright on the other hand is a useful protective tool. It stops people stealing your work byte for byte, note for note, word for word... But even that has been abused by insane time limits.</p><p>I am a programmer, and what I'd give to have free reign over my creative process... what I could accomplish without having to worry about the bullshit associated with software patents in the Divided States of Assholica. Seriously, please someone nuke those jerks, starting with their patent offices..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , some poor sucker programmer , living in his mom 's basement , could come up with the same idea tomorrow , and find a way to make it work so much better.But the poor sod , who has no idea that the base for his work has a patent on it , will have his ass kicked for his hard work.Patents STOP progress , and are rewarding the WRONG people.. They should be kept out of the incredibly fast paced world of computer software.If you ca n't capitalize on your idea fast enough , tough freaking biscuits..Copyright on the other hand is a useful protective tool .
It stops people stealing your work byte for byte , note for note , word for word... But even that has been abused by insane time limits.I am a programmer , and what I 'd give to have free reign over my creative process... what I could accomplish without having to worry about the bullshit associated with software patents in the Divided States of Assholica .
Seriously , please someone nuke those jerks , starting with their patent offices. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, some poor sucker programmer, living in his mom's basement, could come up with the same idea tomorrow, and find a way to make it work so much better.But the poor sod, who has no idea that the base for his work has a patent on it, will have his ass kicked for his hard work.Patents STOP progress, and are rewarding the WRONG people.. They should be kept out of the incredibly fast paced world of computer software.If you can't capitalize on your idea fast enough, tough freaking biscuits..Copyright on the other hand is a useful protective tool.
It stops people stealing your work byte for byte, note for note, word for word... But even that has been abused by insane time limits.I am a programmer, and what I'd give to have free reign over my creative process... what I could accomplish without having to worry about the bullshit associated with software patents in the Divided States of Assholica.
Seriously, please someone nuke those jerks, starting with their patent offices..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685088</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Becausegodhasmademe</author>
	<datestamp>1270034640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Patents were not intended to provide protection to investors. The patent system was initially devised to spread scientific knowledge, allowing interested parties access to the technical information behind new innovations. Such a shame that they're main use now is to stifle the very thing they were intended to promote..!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents were not intended to provide protection to investors .
The patent system was initially devised to spread scientific knowledge , allowing interested parties access to the technical information behind new innovations .
Such a shame that they 're main use now is to stifle the very thing they were intended to promote.. !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents were not intended to provide protection to investors.
The patent system was initially devised to spread scientific knowledge, allowing interested parties access to the technical information behind new innovations.
Such a shame that they're main use now is to stifle the very thing they were intended to promote..!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31697090</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1270053720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation. (My money is on 'hinder'.)</i></p><p>Some <a href="http://endsoftpatents.org/resources-for-economists" title="endsoftpatents.org">economists</a> [endsoftpatents.org] agree, patents hinder progress.  And for <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=economics+innovation+patents&amp;hl=en&amp;as\_sdt=0&amp;as\_vis=1&amp;oi=scholart" title="google.com">patents</a> [google.com] other than just software.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation .
( My money is on 'hinder' .
) Some economists [ endsoftpatents.org ] agree , patents hinder progress .
And for patents [ google.com ] other than just software .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation.
(My money is on 'hinder'.
)Some economists [endsoftpatents.org] agree, patents hinder progress.
And for patents [google.com] other than just software.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685696</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270040160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because creating software is quick and easy compared to the material sciences, it's not like you need some extra ingenuity to prevent a stuck "if" statement or something... It just isn't worth it for society to grant you a 17 year monopoly on something that took you less than 5 months of simple work to create (\_and\_ on anything else like it, whether you created it or not - that's the real problem).</p><p>Moreover, most software will be created regardless of whether it is patentable or not (witness the non-US world without software patents - and the US without software patents in the past), so why distort the market? Don't fix what isn't broken.</p><p>&gt;So I don't really see many advantages to destroying the current system</p><p>Well, you are in the US, so as long as we don't have to pay attention to your software patents, I say more power to you.</p><p>&gt; a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream. You could put in time and effort to research it, hone it, prove that it works, and prepare your product.<br>&gt;In a world with a functioning software patent system, you can then sell your IP to Google</p><p>In a world with a functioning software patent system, Google sues you because in the process of creating your app you violated 2832 of their patents and you settle, getting nothing in return but your peace.</p><p>That's what the patent system is supposed to do, so that's "functioning".</p><p>&gt;Without patents, you could put in all that time and effort, but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitor</p><p>yes.</p><p>&gt; and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it (again, good luck).</p><p>How would they do that when you secure your servers?</p><p>You put it like software is somehow hard to create or non-obvious. My experience in the last 10 years has been the opposite - software is painstakingly obvious, simple, easy to create, most of the time there is one and only one good way to write it, which by extension means if someone stranded on an island without internet creates a program to solve the same problem that yours solves he probably uses mostly the same (at least high-level) steps to do so and hence would automagically be violating your patent.</p><p>For contrast, try building a transistor from scratch. Good luck.</p><p>cheers,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Danny</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because creating software is quick and easy compared to the material sciences , it 's not like you need some extra ingenuity to prevent a stuck " if " statement or something... It just is n't worth it for society to grant you a 17 year monopoly on something that took you less than 5 months of simple work to create ( \ _and \ _ on anything else like it , whether you created it or not - that 's the real problem ) .Moreover , most software will be created regardless of whether it is patentable or not ( witness the non-US world without software patents - and the US without software patents in the past ) , so why distort the market ?
Do n't fix what is n't broken. &gt; So I do n't really see many advantages to destroying the current systemWell , you are in the US , so as long as we do n't have to pay attention to your software patents , I say more power to you. &gt; a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream .
You could put in time and effort to research it , hone it , prove that it works , and prepare your product. &gt; In a world with a functioning software patent system , you can then sell your IP to GoogleIn a world with a functioning software patent system , Google sues you because in the process of creating your app you violated 2832 of their patents and you settle , getting nothing in return but your peace.That 's what the patent system is supposed to do , so that 's " functioning " . &gt; Without patents , you could put in all that time and effort , but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitoryes. &gt; and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it ( again , good luck ) .How would they do that when you secure your servers ? You put it like software is somehow hard to create or non-obvious .
My experience in the last 10 years has been the opposite - software is painstakingly obvious , simple , easy to create , most of the time there is one and only one good way to write it , which by extension means if someone stranded on an island without internet creates a program to solve the same problem that yours solves he probably uses mostly the same ( at least high-level ) steps to do so and hence would automagically be violating your patent.For contrast , try building a transistor from scratch .
Good luck.cheers ,         Danny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because creating software is quick and easy compared to the material sciences, it's not like you need some extra ingenuity to prevent a stuck "if" statement or something... It just isn't worth it for society to grant you a 17 year monopoly on something that took you less than 5 months of simple work to create (\_and\_ on anything else like it, whether you created it or not - that's the real problem).Moreover, most software will be created regardless of whether it is patentable or not (witness the non-US world without software patents - and the US without software patents in the past), so why distort the market?
Don't fix what isn't broken.&gt;So I don't really see many advantages to destroying the current systemWell, you are in the US, so as long as we don't have to pay attention to your software patents, I say more power to you.&gt; a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream.
You could put in time and effort to research it, hone it, prove that it works, and prepare your product.&gt;In a world with a functioning software patent system, you can then sell your IP to GoogleIn a world with a functioning software patent system, Google sues you because in the process of creating your app you violated 2832 of their patents and you settle, getting nothing in return but your peace.That's what the patent system is supposed to do, so that's "functioning".&gt;Without patents, you could put in all that time and effort, but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitoryes.&gt; and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it (again, good luck).How would they do that when you secure your servers?You put it like software is somehow hard to create or non-obvious.
My experience in the last 10 years has been the opposite - software is painstakingly obvious, simple, easy to create, most of the time there is one and only one good way to write it, which by extension means if someone stranded on an island without internet creates a program to solve the same problem that yours solves he probably uses mostly the same (at least high-level) steps to do so and hence would automagically be violating your patent.For contrast, try building a transistor from scratch.
Good luck.cheers,
        Danny</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687644</id>
	<title>Re:Slash-doppers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Anyone can explain me WHY protecting new can opener is OK and new algorythm is not?"</p><p>Two straight off the top of my head:</p><p>1) An algorithm is maths and maths is not patentable. Fatality.<br>2) The new can opener has to deal with reality, with all it's unknown unknowns and known unknowns, etc. Your software algorithm doesn't have to deal with reality, just the limited ideality that is your mathematics. Therefore the can opener needs innovation in bringing it from concept to reality. For the algorithm, there is no difference between concept and reality.</p><p>Oh, if you want a third:</p><p>3) your can opener can be seen in full detail with all operations delineated EXACTLY and you can see exactly how they solved the problem in detail. Software patents do not come with source code so hide all operations and therefore you do not learn how they solved the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anyone can explain me WHY protecting new can opener is OK and new algorythm is not ?
" Two straight off the top of my head : 1 ) An algorithm is maths and maths is not patentable .
Fatality.2 ) The new can opener has to deal with reality , with all it 's unknown unknowns and known unknowns , etc .
Your software algorithm does n't have to deal with reality , just the limited ideality that is your mathematics .
Therefore the can opener needs innovation in bringing it from concept to reality .
For the algorithm , there is no difference between concept and reality.Oh , if you want a third : 3 ) your can opener can be seen in full detail with all operations delineated EXACTLY and you can see exactly how they solved the problem in detail .
Software patents do not come with source code so hide all operations and therefore you do not learn how they solved the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anyone can explain me WHY protecting new can opener is OK and new algorythm is not?
"Two straight off the top of my head:1) An algorithm is maths and maths is not patentable.
Fatality.2) The new can opener has to deal with reality, with all it's unknown unknowns and known unknowns, etc.
Your software algorithm doesn't have to deal with reality, just the limited ideality that is your mathematics.
Therefore the can opener needs innovation in bringing it from concept to reality.
For the algorithm, there is no difference between concept and reality.Oh, if you want a third:3) your can opener can be seen in full detail with all operations delineated EXACTLY and you can see exactly how they solved the problem in detail.
Software patents do not come with source code so hide all operations and therefore you do not learn how they solved the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685190</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1270035600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the real argument is that many patents for obvious algorithms have been granted. Even the simple GIF format, which wasn't particularly clever at all, got a patent. Open source advocates are against these kinds of patents because they can't distribute software freely if their software must use the patents, because there's no obvious way to pay royalties on the patents. I completely agree that these kinds of patents should be stopped. I disagree that the best solution is to abolish all patents on any algorithms, no matter how clever and useful. Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm cannot be patented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real argument is that many patents for obvious algorithms have been granted .
Even the simple GIF format , which was n't particularly clever at all , got a patent .
Open source advocates are against these kinds of patents because they ca n't distribute software freely if their software must use the patents , because there 's no obvious way to pay royalties on the patents .
I completely agree that these kinds of patents should be stopped .
I disagree that the best solution is to abolish all patents on any algorithms , no matter how clever and useful .
Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm can not be patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real argument is that many patents for obvious algorithms have been granted.
Even the simple GIF format, which wasn't particularly clever at all, got a patent.
Open source advocates are against these kinds of patents because they can't distribute software freely if their software must use the patents, because there's no obvious way to pay royalties on the patents.
I completely agree that these kinds of patents should be stopped.
I disagree that the best solution is to abolish all patents on any algorithms, no matter how clever and useful.
Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm cannot be patented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685922</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>codegen</author>
	<datestamp>1270042080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The major problem (as I see it) is the doctorine of sufficient change can't apply to software. In the case of your physical device (an array of levers and cogs), I can potentially come up with an alternate means of doing the same thing that is not covered by the patent. For example, when James Watt was improving the Steam Engine, the crank was patented by James Pickard, so he came up with planetary gears. Both were means of converting linear back and forth motion to rotary motion. It is a fundamental principle of patents that you don't get to patent the idea, you get to patent the implementation of the idea. That way there is an incentive to other inventors to improve the implementation of the idea and the idea does not stagnate. James Pickard did not get to patent converting linear motion to rotation, he got to patent a particular way of converting linear motion to rotation. The planetary gears or a rack and pinion set were not covered by his patent. Similarly the first fax machine patent didn't get to cover all means of transmitting an image over a wire, but a single implementation of transmitting an image over a wire, etc.</p><p>The problem is that software is infinitely expressible. There are any number of ways in which to accomplish the same goal. Consider the number of different sorting algorithms. For any patent on software to have any teeth, it has to cover all of the implementations. That is, it must cover the idea not the implementation. And if you look at the software patents, you see this is exactly the approach that they take. But that approach bars all other inventors from improving on the implementation.</p><p>For example, if someone patents network access to a database (such a patent does exist by the way) and only provide a very poor implementation such as transmitting string representations of SQL over the link, then another inventor(i.e. IBM) creates another implementations that provide client side tokenization, analysis and optimization of the queries (i.e. DRDA) infringes on the patent. Thus the entire purpose of the patent system which is to promote progress is defeated. The only reason the database patent didn't prevent IBM from developing DRDA was that the original 'inventors' never tried to enforce it until much later, and then only against small websites that had a database in them.</p><p>The other issue is that of obviousness. Patents are supposed to advance the state of the art. When confronted with a given problem in the software realm, there is usually a strait forward way for someone skilled in the state of the art to solve that problem. Thus any software patent has to advance the state of the art allowing one to solve such problems in a way not obvious to one skilled in the state of the art.The idea is not to reward the first person who stumbles upon the problem with a locked in monopoly on all solutions to the problem for the next 20 years. Most software patents that I have seen fall into this category, they are all a reward for the first person to encounter the problem and apply the current state of the art to find a solution. If the patent office was to actually hold software patents to innovations in the state of art of software, not just the obvious solution to a new problem, then you might have an argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The major problem ( as I see it ) is the doctorine of sufficient change ca n't apply to software .
In the case of your physical device ( an array of levers and cogs ) , I can potentially come up with an alternate means of doing the same thing that is not covered by the patent .
For example , when James Watt was improving the Steam Engine , the crank was patented by James Pickard , so he came up with planetary gears .
Both were means of converting linear back and forth motion to rotary motion .
It is a fundamental principle of patents that you do n't get to patent the idea , you get to patent the implementation of the idea .
That way there is an incentive to other inventors to improve the implementation of the idea and the idea does not stagnate .
James Pickard did not get to patent converting linear motion to rotation , he got to patent a particular way of converting linear motion to rotation .
The planetary gears or a rack and pinion set were not covered by his patent .
Similarly the first fax machine patent did n't get to cover all means of transmitting an image over a wire , but a single implementation of transmitting an image over a wire , etc.The problem is that software is infinitely expressible .
There are any number of ways in which to accomplish the same goal .
Consider the number of different sorting algorithms .
For any patent on software to have any teeth , it has to cover all of the implementations .
That is , it must cover the idea not the implementation .
And if you look at the software patents , you see this is exactly the approach that they take .
But that approach bars all other inventors from improving on the implementation.For example , if someone patents network access to a database ( such a patent does exist by the way ) and only provide a very poor implementation such as transmitting string representations of SQL over the link , then another inventor ( i.e .
IBM ) creates another implementations that provide client side tokenization , analysis and optimization of the queries ( i.e .
DRDA ) infringes on the patent .
Thus the entire purpose of the patent system which is to promote progress is defeated .
The only reason the database patent did n't prevent IBM from developing DRDA was that the original 'inventors ' never tried to enforce it until much later , and then only against small websites that had a database in them.The other issue is that of obviousness .
Patents are supposed to advance the state of the art .
When confronted with a given problem in the software realm , there is usually a strait forward way for someone skilled in the state of the art to solve that problem .
Thus any software patent has to advance the state of the art allowing one to solve such problems in a way not obvious to one skilled in the state of the art.The idea is not to reward the first person who stumbles upon the problem with a locked in monopoly on all solutions to the problem for the next 20 years .
Most software patents that I have seen fall into this category , they are all a reward for the first person to encounter the problem and apply the current state of the art to find a solution .
If the patent office was to actually hold software patents to innovations in the state of art of software , not just the obvious solution to a new problem , then you might have an argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The major problem (as I see it) is the doctorine of sufficient change can't apply to software.
In the case of your physical device (an array of levers and cogs), I can potentially come up with an alternate means of doing the same thing that is not covered by the patent.
For example, when James Watt was improving the Steam Engine, the crank was patented by James Pickard, so he came up with planetary gears.
Both were means of converting linear back and forth motion to rotary motion.
It is a fundamental principle of patents that you don't get to patent the idea, you get to patent the implementation of the idea.
That way there is an incentive to other inventors to improve the implementation of the idea and the idea does not stagnate.
James Pickard did not get to patent converting linear motion to rotation, he got to patent a particular way of converting linear motion to rotation.
The planetary gears or a rack and pinion set were not covered by his patent.
Similarly the first fax machine patent didn't get to cover all means of transmitting an image over a wire, but a single implementation of transmitting an image over a wire, etc.The problem is that software is infinitely expressible.
There are any number of ways in which to accomplish the same goal.
Consider the number of different sorting algorithms.
For any patent on software to have any teeth, it has to cover all of the implementations.
That is, it must cover the idea not the implementation.
And if you look at the software patents, you see this is exactly the approach that they take.
But that approach bars all other inventors from improving on the implementation.For example, if someone patents network access to a database (such a patent does exist by the way) and only provide a very poor implementation such as transmitting string representations of SQL over the link, then another inventor(i.e.
IBM) creates another implementations that provide client side tokenization, analysis and optimization of the queries (i.e.
DRDA) infringes on the patent.
Thus the entire purpose of the patent system which is to promote progress is defeated.
The only reason the database patent didn't prevent IBM from developing DRDA was that the original 'inventors' never tried to enforce it until much later, and then only against small websites that had a database in them.The other issue is that of obviousness.
Patents are supposed to advance the state of the art.
When confronted with a given problem in the software realm, there is usually a strait forward way for someone skilled in the state of the art to solve that problem.
Thus any software patent has to advance the state of the art allowing one to solve such problems in a way not obvious to one skilled in the state of the art.The idea is not to reward the first person who stumbles upon the problem with a locked in monopoly on all solutions to the problem for the next 20 years.
Most software patents that I have seen fall into this category, they are all a reward for the first person to encounter the problem and apply the current state of the art to find a solution.
If the patent office was to actually hold software patents to innovations in the state of art of software, not just the obvious solution to a new problem, then you might have an argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687260</id>
	<title>Re:That's a relief</title>
	<author>forebees</author>
	<datestamp>1270048860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah to this idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah to this idea : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah to this idea :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685666</id>
	<title>Re:Bad wording?</title>
	<author>mabinogi</author>
	<datestamp>1270039920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you cannot patent concepts in the first place.  You can patent inventions.<br>Whilst some companies like to act like they have a patent on a concept, what they really have is a patent on a specific implementation of that concept (which may or may have some overly broad language that got past the examiners).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can not patent concepts in the first place .
You can patent inventions.Whilst some companies like to act like they have a patent on a concept , what they really have is a patent on a specific implementation of that concept ( which may or may have some overly broad language that got past the examiners ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you cannot patent concepts in the first place.
You can patent inventions.Whilst some companies like to act like they have a patent on a concept, what they really have is a patent on a specific implementation of that concept (which may or may have some overly broad language that got past the examiners).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684748</id>
	<title>Keep up the pressure.</title>
	<author>BiggerIsBetter</author>
	<datestamp>1270030980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's still only a draft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's still only a draft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's still only a draft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687798</id>
	<title>nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270050720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programming is problem solving and the solution to many problems is rather straight forward. Come up with your own idea or take some books or lend some ideas from some mathematicians, which have done the main work already...<br>Once the problem is there and there is the pressure to find a solution, people will find one quite fast. We really don't need patents there to encourage people to come up with ideas and solve problems, they do it all the time, it's their job. Software patents just hinder others, because they solve those problems themselves and then they find out that some clown has been granted a patent for that solutions already. It's stupid.</p><p>Generally I think that more and more inventions in the future will be done by machines anyway like via ai approaches. That will lead to more and more inventions in a rather short time and since the companies can claim patents for those inventions,  it probably becomes a self-accelerating process by reinvesting the money into better ai's, who spit out even more inventions/time and finally it might lead to most sectors of technology completely controlled by only a few companies.<br>As invention speed increases and inventing gets more and more easily, I think the patents should generally run out a lot faster and then be in the public domain for everyone to build on. The whole system will become rediculous as invention speed increases and machines do more and more of the job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programming is problem solving and the solution to many problems is rather straight forward .
Come up with your own idea or take some books or lend some ideas from some mathematicians , which have done the main work already...Once the problem is there and there is the pressure to find a solution , people will find one quite fast .
We really do n't need patents there to encourage people to come up with ideas and solve problems , they do it all the time , it 's their job .
Software patents just hinder others , because they solve those problems themselves and then they find out that some clown has been granted a patent for that solutions already .
It 's stupid.Generally I think that more and more inventions in the future will be done by machines anyway like via ai approaches .
That will lead to more and more inventions in a rather short time and since the companies can claim patents for those inventions , it probably becomes a self-accelerating process by reinvesting the money into better ai 's , who spit out even more inventions/time and finally it might lead to most sectors of technology completely controlled by only a few companies.As invention speed increases and inventing gets more and more easily , I think the patents should generally run out a lot faster and then be in the public domain for everyone to build on .
The whole system will become rediculous as invention speed increases and machines do more and more of the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programming is problem solving and the solution to many problems is rather straight forward.
Come up with your own idea or take some books or lend some ideas from some mathematicians, which have done the main work already...Once the problem is there and there is the pressure to find a solution, people will find one quite fast.
We really don't need patents there to encourage people to come up with ideas and solve problems, they do it all the time, it's their job.
Software patents just hinder others, because they solve those problems themselves and then they find out that some clown has been granted a patent for that solutions already.
It's stupid.Generally I think that more and more inventions in the future will be done by machines anyway like via ai approaches.
That will lead to more and more inventions in a rather short time and since the companies can claim patents for those inventions,  it probably becomes a self-accelerating process by reinvesting the money into better ai's, who spit out even more inventions/time and finally it might lead to most sectors of technology completely controlled by only a few companies.As invention speed increases and inventing gets more and more easily, I think the patents should generally run out a lot faster and then be in the public domain for everyone to build on.
The whole system will become rediculous as invention speed increases and machines do more and more of the job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686746</id>
	<title>+1 for New Zealand!</title>
	<author>cfriedt</author>
	<datestamp>1270046520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The best thing to come out of New Zealand since Brett and Jermaine!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best thing to come out of New Zealand since Brett and Jermaine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best thing to come out of New Zealand since Brett and Jermaine!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31688972</id>
	<title>Welcome to the club!</title>
	<author>mdm42</author>
	<datestamp>1270055520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully this bill makes it through NZ's legislature reasonably intact. Be very sure that a huge amount of pressure will be brought to bear on legislators in the meantime.
<p>
But... if it finally does pass, <b>Welcome To The Club, NZ!</b>
</p><p>
South Africa's IP law explicitly states that software is unpatentable. Not that this stops the like of MS trying anyway... This leads to some bizarre circumstances... about 10 years ago I spent several months doing development work in Switzerland for a South African client, all because the Swiss Canton I was required to work in has (had?) particular laws around software patents that were evidently favourable to the legal prick running the company. And I was not permitted to do <i>any</i> of the work anywhere else. In fact I was not allowed to carry any of the laptops outside the jursidiction of this one particular Canton, and <i>specifically</i> forbidden from carrying any of the code, documentation or anything back home to South Africa with me. Weird shit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this bill makes it through NZ 's legislature reasonably intact .
Be very sure that a huge amount of pressure will be brought to bear on legislators in the meantime .
But... if it finally does pass , Welcome To The Club , NZ !
South Africa 's IP law explicitly states that software is unpatentable .
Not that this stops the like of MS trying anyway... This leads to some bizarre circumstances... about 10 years ago I spent several months doing development work in Switzerland for a South African client , all because the Swiss Canton I was required to work in has ( had ?
) particular laws around software patents that were evidently favourable to the legal prick running the company .
And I was not permitted to do any of the work anywhere else .
In fact I was not allowed to carry any of the laptops outside the jursidiction of this one particular Canton , and specifically forbidden from carrying any of the code , documentation or anything back home to South Africa with me .
Weird shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this bill makes it through NZ's legislature reasonably intact.
Be very sure that a huge amount of pressure will be brought to bear on legislators in the meantime.
But... if it finally does pass, Welcome To The Club, NZ!
South Africa's IP law explicitly states that software is unpatentable.
Not that this stops the like of MS trying anyway... This leads to some bizarre circumstances... about 10 years ago I spent several months doing development work in Switzerland for a South African client, all because the Swiss Canton I was required to work in has (had?
) particular laws around software patents that were evidently favourable to the legal prick running the company.
And I was not permitted to do any of the work anywhere else.
In fact I was not allowed to carry any of the laptops outside the jursidiction of this one particular Canton, and specifically forbidden from carrying any of the code, documentation or anything back home to South Africa with me.
Weird shit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684684</id>
	<title>Hello@!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270030380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First post! From Auckland</htmltext>
<tokenext>First post !
From Auckland</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post!
From Auckland</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31697746</id>
	<title>NZ Polly's</title>
	<author>swjenner</author>
	<datestamp>1270061760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has to be patentable...

I mean a WHOLE committee of reasonably intelligent politicians. There is certainly novelty in this!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be patentable.. . I mean a WHOLE committee of reasonably intelligent politicians .
There is certainly novelty in this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be patentable...

I mean a WHOLE committee of reasonably intelligent politicians.
There is certainly novelty in this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685082</id>
	<title>Re:Thumbs up for NZ common sense !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270034580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why am I not living in NZ, yet ?</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, first you need a visa.  Which probably requires a job or student-status.  You haven't applied for that.  I expect you'll also need a passport, which you <i>still</i> haven't applied for even though I've been reminding you for months.  I mean, jeeze, you can get a passport photo at freakin' <i>WALMART</i>.  So really it's just that you can't be bothered to start making progress on it.</p><p>Oh, and your mom called.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why am I not living in NZ , yet ? Well , first you need a visa .
Which probably requires a job or student-status .
You have n't applied for that .
I expect you 'll also need a passport , which you still have n't applied for even though I 've been reminding you for months .
I mean , jeeze , you can get a passport photo at freakin ' WALMART .
So really it 's just that you ca n't be bothered to start making progress on it.Oh , and your mom called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why am I not living in NZ, yet ?Well, first you need a visa.
Which probably requires a job or student-status.
You haven't applied for that.
I expect you'll also need a passport, which you still haven't applied for even though I've been reminding you for months.
I mean, jeeze, you can get a passport photo at freakin' WALMART.
So really it's just that you can't be bothered to start making progress on it.Oh, and your mom called.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685086</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Pinky's Brain</author>
	<datestamp>1270034640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I complete agree in preserving the current system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which in my neighbourhood means software is unpatentable.</p><p>Once patents stop being absolute monopolies and lasting 20 years we can start talking about extending it to algorithms,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I complete agree in preserving the current system ... which in my neighbourhood means software is unpatentable.Once patents stop being absolute monopolies and lasting 20 years we can start talking about extending it to algorithms,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I complete agree in preserving the current system ... which in my neighbourhood means software is unpatentable.Once patents stop being absolute monopolies and lasting 20 years we can start talking about extending it to algorithms,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685548</id>
	<title>Draft only</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1270039020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Draft bill.  Not final.  Not to worry.  An army of lobbyists is already on a flight to NZ to "correct" the situation before it passes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Draft bill .
Not final .
Not to worry .
An army of lobbyists is already on a flight to NZ to " correct " the situation before it passes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Draft bill.
Not final.
Not to worry.
An army of lobbyists is already on a flight to NZ to "correct" the situation before it passes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687992</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For example, let's say that tonight a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream. You could put in time and effort to research it, hone it, prove that it works, and prepare your product. In a world with a functioning software patent system, you can then sell your IP to Google and live out your days on a private island populated entirely by scantily-clad people of whatever gender floats your boat. Without patents, you could put in all that time and effort, but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitor (good luck) and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it (again, good luck).</p></div></blockquote><p>Ok, let's look further at that world without patents.  You don't see the benefit of starting your Google competitor?  Then don't do it.   (That's ok, I understand.  <em>I'm</em> not very entrepreneurial either.) Here's what's funny, though: plenty of people <em>will</em> see the benefit, because unlike the mid-1800s, there are <em>millions</em> of professional full-time inventors; we call them "software developers."  And even if 99\% of them share your opinion that it's not worth the risk (spending the development capital and then got getting the monopoly), the invention ends up happening anyway.  Why? Because there <em>isn't</em> really any significant development capital.  A radical new process came to you in a dream?  50 man-hours later, a crude version is <em>implemented</em>, using $1000 worth of equipment whose cost has been amortized over hundreds of projects.</p><p>Now let's look at the world where there <em>are</em> patents.  Suppose your idea isn't a search process, but instead, it's just about anything involving interoperability, such as a multimedia codec or networking protocol.  Great, now society has to wait 20 years before anyone can bother to use your idea.  So much for promoting the progress of the useful arts and sciences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , let 's say that tonight a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream .
You could put in time and effort to research it , hone it , prove that it works , and prepare your product .
In a world with a functioning software patent system , you can then sell your IP to Google and live out your days on a private island populated entirely by scantily-clad people of whatever gender floats your boat .
Without patents , you could put in all that time and effort , but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitor ( good luck ) and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it ( again , good luck ) .Ok , let 's look further at that world without patents .
You do n't see the benefit of starting your Google competitor ?
Then do n't do it .
( That 's ok , I understand .
I 'm not very entrepreneurial either .
) Here 's what 's funny , though : plenty of people will see the benefit , because unlike the mid-1800s , there are millions of professional full-time inventors ; we call them " software developers .
" And even if 99 \ % of them share your opinion that it 's not worth the risk ( spending the development capital and then got getting the monopoly ) , the invention ends up happening anyway .
Why ? Because there is n't really any significant development capital .
A radical new process came to you in a dream ?
50 man-hours later , a crude version is implemented , using $ 1000 worth of equipment whose cost has been amortized over hundreds of projects.Now let 's look at the world where there are patents .
Suppose your idea is n't a search process , but instead , it 's just about anything involving interoperability , such as a multimedia codec or networking protocol .
Great , now society has to wait 20 years before anyone can bother to use your idea .
So much for promoting the progress of the useful arts and sciences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, let's say that tonight a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream.
You could put in time and effort to research it, hone it, prove that it works, and prepare your product.
In a world with a functioning software patent system, you can then sell your IP to Google and live out your days on a private island populated entirely by scantily-clad people of whatever gender floats your boat.
Without patents, you could put in all that time and effort, but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitor (good luck) and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it (again, good luck).Ok, let's look further at that world without patents.
You don't see the benefit of starting your Google competitor?
Then don't do it.
(That's ok, I understand.
I'm not very entrepreneurial either.
) Here's what's funny, though: plenty of people will see the benefit, because unlike the mid-1800s, there are millions of professional full-time inventors; we call them "software developers.
"  And even if 99\% of them share your opinion that it's not worth the risk (spending the development capital and then got getting the monopoly), the invention ends up happening anyway.
Why? Because there isn't really any significant development capital.
A radical new process came to you in a dream?
50 man-hours later, a crude version is implemented, using $1000 worth of equipment whose cost has been amortized over hundreds of projects.Now let's look at the world where there are patents.
Suppose your idea isn't a search process, but instead, it's just about anything involving interoperability, such as a multimedia codec or networking protocol.
Great, now society has to wait 20 years before anyone can bother to use your idea.
So much for promoting the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686978</id>
	<title>Re:Don't cheer yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270047600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all countries have a giant lobbying problem...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all countries have a giant lobbying problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all countries have a giant lobbying problem...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685250</id>
	<title>Rules of patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270036260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's two things that I don't get about patents at the moment. Firstly, the innovation behind a patent must be novel. From memory the test involves asking an expert in the field. It seems that most patents that make the news fail that test for a start. I guess it's arguable, the one-click patent being a good example. I'd argue that this is obvious, but I can see there is room for debate here.</p><p>The second thing, that I learned at University, and I can't remember the exact term, but the patent must be put to use by the owner of the patent, or else they lose it. This should make life difficult for patent trolls. I don't know how these shell companies created by Intellectual Ventures get around this rule? I guess that licensing the patent to someone else that makes use of it counts as use, but if everyone refuses to license it, and the company that owns the patent does not have the resources to actually produce something, then this should make being a patent troll really difficult.</p><p>Maybe the real problem with the patent system is that the rules are not being enforced in the right way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's two things that I do n't get about patents at the moment .
Firstly , the innovation behind a patent must be novel .
From memory the test involves asking an expert in the field .
It seems that most patents that make the news fail that test for a start .
I guess it 's arguable , the one-click patent being a good example .
I 'd argue that this is obvious , but I can see there is room for debate here.The second thing , that I learned at University , and I ca n't remember the exact term , but the patent must be put to use by the owner of the patent , or else they lose it .
This should make life difficult for patent trolls .
I do n't know how these shell companies created by Intellectual Ventures get around this rule ?
I guess that licensing the patent to someone else that makes use of it counts as use , but if everyone refuses to license it , and the company that owns the patent does not have the resources to actually produce something , then this should make being a patent troll really difficult.Maybe the real problem with the patent system is that the rules are not being enforced in the right way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's two things that I don't get about patents at the moment.
Firstly, the innovation behind a patent must be novel.
From memory the test involves asking an expert in the field.
It seems that most patents that make the news fail that test for a start.
I guess it's arguable, the one-click patent being a good example.
I'd argue that this is obvious, but I can see there is room for debate here.The second thing, that I learned at University, and I can't remember the exact term, but the patent must be put to use by the owner of the patent, or else they lose it.
This should make life difficult for patent trolls.
I don't know how these shell companies created by Intellectual Ventures get around this rule?
I guess that licensing the patent to someone else that makes use of it counts as use, but if everyone refuses to license it, and the company that owns the patent does not have the resources to actually produce something, then this should make being a patent troll really difficult.Maybe the real problem with the patent system is that the rules are not being enforced in the right way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686004</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>dk90406</author>
	<datestamp>1270042620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a step, but not perfect. "Embedded software" will be patentable. So put your software in a dedicated device (e.g. iPhone or temperature regulator) an you can patent it. But generic computer programs cannot be patented.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a step , but not perfect .
" Embedded software " will be patentable .
So put your software in a dedicated device ( e.g .
iPhone or temperature regulator ) an you can patent it .
But generic computer programs can not be patented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a step, but not perfect.
"Embedded software" will be patentable.
So put your software in a dedicated device (e.g.
iPhone or temperature regulator) an you can patent it.
But generic computer programs cannot be patented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685296</id>
	<title>Slash-doppers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270036560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>RIP for independent developers. Readers of this site are moslty overceffeinated IT monkeys. Without IP protection what are the chances for the small team or an individual to create their own company? Once invention (and many software enginners did created amazing inventions) can be freely copied by anyone (including Misrosoft, IBM or Baidu, or sorry, Baidu is from country where you can copy anything) - goodbye independent development. There is no reward for sleepless nigths (unless you are writing viruses and getting paid by criminals or NSA). Oh, yeah, you can get bonus - 1/100 of your boss if he's in good mood. Everyone coding will become slave of those holding money. Anyone can explain me WHY protecting new can opener is OK and  new algorythm is not? Both require some knowledge and (to be desired by others) need to be better then existing  ones - which means sofistincation and hard work of the creator.

Socialists and likes - please see great "success" of late USSR and China until both got opened for foreign innovations. Both countries where stack with outdated technologies and where spending hughe money to COPY what West (in IT it meant - US, whether Old World likes it or not) had created. And all this despite huge intellectuall potential! The fact that you have stupid patents does not mean you do not want to protect those who have creative mind. Bad judge decisions does not mean you need to rely on stoning pepole. Economical recession does not mean you need thos leave in 1984.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RIP for independent developers .
Readers of this site are moslty overceffeinated IT monkeys .
Without IP protection what are the chances for the small team or an individual to create their own company ?
Once invention ( and many software enginners did created amazing inventions ) can be freely copied by anyone ( including Misrosoft , IBM or Baidu , or sorry , Baidu is from country where you can copy anything ) - goodbye independent development .
There is no reward for sleepless nigths ( unless you are writing viruses and getting paid by criminals or NSA ) .
Oh , yeah , you can get bonus - 1/100 of your boss if he 's in good mood .
Everyone coding will become slave of those holding money .
Anyone can explain me WHY protecting new can opener is OK and new algorythm is not ?
Both require some knowledge and ( to be desired by others ) need to be better then existing ones - which means sofistincation and hard work of the creator .
Socialists and likes - please see great " success " of late USSR and China until both got opened for foreign innovations .
Both countries where stack with outdated technologies and where spending hughe money to COPY what West ( in IT it meant - US , whether Old World likes it or not ) had created .
And all this despite huge intellectuall potential !
The fact that you have stupid patents does not mean you do not want to protect those who have creative mind .
Bad judge decisions does not mean you need to rely on stoning pepole .
Economical recession does not mean you need thos leave in 1984 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIP for independent developers.
Readers of this site are moslty overceffeinated IT monkeys.
Without IP protection what are the chances for the small team or an individual to create their own company?
Once invention (and many software enginners did created amazing inventions) can be freely copied by anyone (including Misrosoft, IBM or Baidu, or sorry, Baidu is from country where you can copy anything) - goodbye independent development.
There is no reward for sleepless nigths (unless you are writing viruses and getting paid by criminals or NSA).
Oh, yeah, you can get bonus - 1/100 of your boss if he's in good mood.
Everyone coding will become slave of those holding money.
Anyone can explain me WHY protecting new can opener is OK and  new algorythm is not?
Both require some knowledge and (to be desired by others) need to be better then existing  ones - which means sofistincation and hard work of the creator.
Socialists and likes - please see great "success" of late USSR and China until both got opened for foreign innovations.
Both countries where stack with outdated technologies and where spending hughe money to COPY what West (in IT it meant - US, whether Old World likes it or not) had created.
And all this despite huge intellectuall potential!
The fact that you have stupid patents does not mean you do not want to protect those who have creative mind.
Bad judge decisions does not mean you need to rely on stoning pepole.
Economical recession does not mean you need thos leave in 1984.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686454</id>
	<title>Re:Don't cheer yet</title>
	<author>Korgan</author>
	<datestamp>1270045260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Completely pedantic of me, but relevant. In New Zealand a Bill is always a draft. There is no difference between a "draft bill" and a "bill." Once the Bill passes its 3rd and final reading in the House, it becomes an Act at which point it is law.</p><p>In regards to your comment about "Big Money," New Zealand is very small, but it doesn't really have the same problems with lobbyists that the US or other large nations do. In fact, the majority of lobbyists in New Zealand are Greenies and Climate Change doomsayers trying to save each and every tree, bug or animal. Well, them and media companies trying to get nasty copyright law changes made.</p><p>Fortunately, while NZ is based on the Westminster model of Parliament, but with Europe's MMP, its sufficiently different enough that its not quite so easy to game. And with only 120 Members of Parliament, lobbyists tend to have to convince an entire political party rather than just a few members with seats in the Parliament.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Completely pedantic of me , but relevant .
In New Zealand a Bill is always a draft .
There is no difference between a " draft bill " and a " bill .
" Once the Bill passes its 3rd and final reading in the House , it becomes an Act at which point it is law.In regards to your comment about " Big Money , " New Zealand is very small , but it does n't really have the same problems with lobbyists that the US or other large nations do .
In fact , the majority of lobbyists in New Zealand are Greenies and Climate Change doomsayers trying to save each and every tree , bug or animal .
Well , them and media companies trying to get nasty copyright law changes made.Fortunately , while NZ is based on the Westminster model of Parliament , but with Europe 's MMP , its sufficiently different enough that its not quite so easy to game .
And with only 120 Members of Parliament , lobbyists tend to have to convince an entire political party rather than just a few members with seats in the Parliament .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Completely pedantic of me, but relevant.
In New Zealand a Bill is always a draft.
There is no difference between a "draft bill" and a "bill.
" Once the Bill passes its 3rd and final reading in the House, it becomes an Act at which point it is law.In regards to your comment about "Big Money," New Zealand is very small, but it doesn't really have the same problems with lobbyists that the US or other large nations do.
In fact, the majority of lobbyists in New Zealand are Greenies and Climate Change doomsayers trying to save each and every tree, bug or animal.
Well, them and media companies trying to get nasty copyright law changes made.Fortunately, while NZ is based on the Westminster model of Parliament, but with Europe's MMP, its sufficiently different enough that its not quite so easy to game.
And with only 120 Members of Parliament, lobbyists tend to have to convince an entire political party rather than just a few members with seats in the Parliament.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685964</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>eugene2k</author>
	<datestamp>1270042320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;why not push for a better-administered system<br>Because no one ever came up with the definition of what patentable matter is, such that it would exclude things like "using levers" without being vague about what is to be excluded and what isn't. And in software world R&amp;D costs very little. There isn't one software patent out there where the developers have ever "put loads of time and effort into" coming up with an algorithm.</p><p>If you ever come up with a clear definition of which algorithms should be patentable and which should not, I'd be interested to know it. My personal efforts have been futile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; why not push for a better-administered systemBecause no one ever came up with the definition of what patentable matter is , such that it would exclude things like " using levers " without being vague about what is to be excluded and what is n't .
And in software world R&amp;D costs very little .
There is n't one software patent out there where the developers have ever " put loads of time and effort into " coming up with an algorithm.If you ever come up with a clear definition of which algorithms should be patentable and which should not , I 'd be interested to know it .
My personal efforts have been futile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;why not push for a better-administered systemBecause no one ever came up with the definition of what patentable matter is, such that it would exclude things like "using levers" without being vague about what is to be excluded and what isn't.
And in software world R&amp;D costs very little.
There isn't one software patent out there where the developers have ever "put loads of time and effort into" coming up with an algorithm.If you ever come up with a clear definition of which algorithms should be patentable and which should not, I'd be interested to know it.
My personal efforts have been futile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685390</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1270037580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even the simple GIF format, which wasn't particularly clever at all, got a patent.</p></div><p>No.  Terry Welch's improvement on Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv's LZ78 algorithm was patented, making the LZW algorithm used for compressing the data in a GIF file a patented process.  The GIF file format was never patented (I don't think that's even possible, but IANAL).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the simple GIF format , which was n't particularly clever at all , got a patent.No .
Terry Welch 's improvement on Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv 's LZ78 algorithm was patented , making the LZW algorithm used for compressing the data in a GIF file a patented process .
The GIF file format was never patented ( I do n't think that 's even possible , but IANAL ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the simple GIF format, which wasn't particularly clever at all, got a patent.No.
Terry Welch's improvement on Abraham Lempel and Jacob Ziv's LZ78 algorithm was patented, making the LZW algorithm used for compressing the data in a GIF file a patented process.
The GIF file format was never patented (I don't think that's even possible, but IANAL).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686354</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270044600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're making the mistake of thinking about the hard work of the inventor/author.  Patents and copyright are not about rewarding hard work; this is well documented in case law.  Instead, they reward innovation and creativity, regardless of the time and effort invested.</p><p>Additionally, patents do not stop progress.  One is always able to patent an invention that is an improvement on an invention that is currently patented, so long as that improvement is patentably distinguishable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making the mistake of thinking about the hard work of the inventor/author .
Patents and copyright are not about rewarding hard work ; this is well documented in case law .
Instead , they reward innovation and creativity , regardless of the time and effort invested.Additionally , patents do not stop progress .
One is always able to patent an invention that is an improvement on an invention that is currently patented , so long as that improvement is patentably distinguishable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making the mistake of thinking about the hard work of the inventor/author.
Patents and copyright are not about rewarding hard work; this is well documented in case law.
Instead, they reward innovation and creativity, regardless of the time and effort invested.Additionally, patents do not stop progress.
One is always able to patent an invention that is an improvement on an invention that is currently patented, so long as that improvement is patentably distinguishable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686680</id>
	<title>Re:Don't cheer yet</title>
	<author>dingram17</author>
	<datestamp>1270046280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bill has passed through the Select Committee stage and is now ready for its second reading (from TFA).

That's a real Bill, on its way to being an Act. For those a little less familiar with the New Zealand legislative process, here's a handy <a href="http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/FactSheets/6/1/5/00HOOOCPubResAboutFactSheetsProcess1-Parliament-Brief-The-legislative.htm#\_Toc143945580" title="parliament.nz" rel="nofollow">Factsheet</a> [parliament.nz] from the <a href="http://www.parliament.nz/" title="parliament.nz" rel="nofollow">New Zealand Parliament</a> [parliament.nz].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bill has passed through the Select Committee stage and is now ready for its second reading ( from TFA ) .
That 's a real Bill , on its way to being an Act .
For those a little less familiar with the New Zealand legislative process , here 's a handy Factsheet [ parliament.nz ] from the New Zealand Parliament [ parliament.nz ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bill has passed through the Select Committee stage and is now ready for its second reading (from TFA).
That's a real Bill, on its way to being an Act.
For those a little less familiar with the New Zealand legislative process, here's a handy Factsheet [parliament.nz] from the New Zealand Parliament [parliament.nz].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684930</id>
	<title>Thumbs up for NZ common sense !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270032780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the Draft Bill:
"(...) as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques. In general we accept this position."

Why am I not living in NZ, yet ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Draft Bill : " ( ... ) as software patents can stifle innovation and competition , and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques .
In general we accept this position .
" Why am I not living in NZ , yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Draft Bill:
"(...) as software patents can stifle innovation and competition, and can be granted for trivial or existing techniques.
In general we accept this position.
"

Why am I not living in NZ, yet ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31695526</id>
	<title>Re:Don't cheer yet</title>
	<author>foxylad</author>
	<datestamp>1270040760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just maybe our government actually listened to submissions (including mine) that explained how destructive this would be to our software development industry.</p><p>One of the advantages of living in a tiny slip of a country is that we are well connected with our representatives. They aren't hidden behind campaign managers and handlers, and it is easy to phone them up or meet them for a wee chat. Democracy still works here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just maybe our government actually listened to submissions ( including mine ) that explained how destructive this would be to our software development industry.One of the advantages of living in a tiny slip of a country is that we are well connected with our representatives .
They are n't hidden behind campaign managers and handlers , and it is easy to phone them up or meet them for a wee chat .
Democracy still works here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just maybe our government actually listened to submissions (including mine) that explained how destructive this would be to our software development industry.One of the advantages of living in a tiny slip of a country is that we are well connected with our representatives.
They aren't hidden behind campaign managers and handlers, and it is easy to phone them up or meet them for a wee chat.
Democracy still works here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31695316</id>
	<title>H'mm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270039560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I work my A$\% off for ten years, create this great piece of work that starts to sell like hot cakes, then some oxygen thieving bludger comes along does a quick mod and steals the food from your mouth, is that what where all advocating. This does appear to be the trend in a part of society, someone else does the work and you get the benifits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I work my A $ \ % off for ten years , create this great piece of work that starts to sell like hot cakes , then some oxygen thieving bludger comes along does a quick mod and steals the food from your mouth , is that what where all advocating .
This does appear to be the trend in a part of society , someone else does the work and you get the benifits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I work my A$\% off for ten years, create this great piece of work that starts to sell like hot cakes, then some oxygen thieving bludger comes along does a quick mod and steals the food from your mouth, is that what where all advocating.
This does appear to be the trend in a part of society, someone else does the work and you get the benifits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685970</id>
	<title>Commentary from NZ-based law firm</title>
	<author>smeg</author>
	<datestamp>1270042380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a brief commentary from Baldwins, a NZ-based law firm, at <a href="http://www.baldwins.com/select-committee-reports-on-new-patents-bill-in-new-zealand/" title="baldwins.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.baldwins.com/select-committee-reports-on-new-patents-bill-in-new-zealand/</a> [baldwins.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact the Patent Office previously granted patents for non-meritorious inventions is not surprising.  Historically examiners have only been able to rely on publications in New Zealand for novelty of the application.  The Patent Office did not consider the ground of inventive step in examination.  However, this is the case for all forms of technology in New Zealand, not just software, under the existing Act.</p><p>The previous version of the Bill addressed these failings by introducing absolute novelty, examination for inventive step and no longer giving applicants the benefit of the doubt.  It is not clear why the Committee put in an exclusion of software or why the Committee treated software differently to other forms of technology.  This is in clear conflict with the review performed earlier in 2005.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a brief commentary from Baldwins , a NZ-based law firm , at http : //www.baldwins.com/select-committee-reports-on-new-patents-bill-in-new-zealand/ [ baldwins.com ] The fact the Patent Office previously granted patents for non-meritorious inventions is not surprising .
Historically examiners have only been able to rely on publications in New Zealand for novelty of the application .
The Patent Office did not consider the ground of inventive step in examination .
However , this is the case for all forms of technology in New Zealand , not just software , under the existing Act.The previous version of the Bill addressed these failings by introducing absolute novelty , examination for inventive step and no longer giving applicants the benefit of the doubt .
It is not clear why the Committee put in an exclusion of software or why the Committee treated software differently to other forms of technology .
This is in clear conflict with the review performed earlier in 2005 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a brief commentary from Baldwins, a NZ-based law firm, at http://www.baldwins.com/select-committee-reports-on-new-patents-bill-in-new-zealand/ [baldwins.com] The fact the Patent Office previously granted patents for non-meritorious inventions is not surprising.
Historically examiners have only been able to rely on publications in New Zealand for novelty of the application.
The Patent Office did not consider the ground of inventive step in examination.
However, this is the case for all forms of technology in New Zealand, not just software, under the existing Act.The previous version of the Bill addressed these failings by introducing absolute novelty, examination for inventive step and no longer giving applicants the benefit of the doubt.
It is not clear why the Committee put in an exclusion of software or why the Committee treated software differently to other forms of technology.
This is in clear conflict with the review performed earlier in 2005.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686638</id>
	<title>Re:Slash-doppers</title>
	<author>Korgan</author>
	<datestamp>1270046100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are confusing patent protection with copyright protection. Software is still covered by copyright law, and the licensing agreements you choose to put on your software product is still what defines how people can use your software product, and what their access to that software is.</p><p>If I write a program and release it under a license that does not allow access to the source code, and does not allow users to distribute it further, that is still perfectly valid. But if someone decides that they want to write their own software that does the same thing, as long as they do not use anything from my product, they are well within their rights to do so.</p><p>UNIX platforms have been around for 50 years and the model they use has become essentially a standard. But until recently, UNIX was costly and the licensing was rather prohibitive. So in the 1980s, this man decided that he'd like to write his own version of a UNIX-like platform, and release it freely and openly for everyone to use. That platform was GNU and the man that started it was Richard Stallman. GNU is now one of the most widely used platforms on the market. Even some UNIX vendors use some of the GNU utilities themselves. It also became the system that sits on top of the Linux kernel.</p><p>But while GNU replicates a lot of the functionality from UNIX utilities, it uses absolutely none of the code from UNIX. It was written independently to ensure that it was freely available to everyone.</p><p>That hasn't stopped UNIX platforms from continuing to be sold, or continuing to be innovative. But it has pushed UNIX vendor to improve their platform significantly to differentiate themselves from the free platforms.</p><p>Software Patents would not have allowed GNU to exist at all. Software patents are, without exception, patenting ideas rather than implementation. This means that if one entity holds a patent for an idea, no other entity can come up with an alternate way of achieving the same/similar end result. This gives the patent holder an extended monopoly on an idea and stifles innovation in the software industry.</p><p>Software copyrights allow you to release and protect your software from blatant copying, while still allowing people to improve upon and innovate beyond your original idea. Software patents do not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are confusing patent protection with copyright protection .
Software is still covered by copyright law , and the licensing agreements you choose to put on your software product is still what defines how people can use your software product , and what their access to that software is.If I write a program and release it under a license that does not allow access to the source code , and does not allow users to distribute it further , that is still perfectly valid .
But if someone decides that they want to write their own software that does the same thing , as long as they do not use anything from my product , they are well within their rights to do so.UNIX platforms have been around for 50 years and the model they use has become essentially a standard .
But until recently , UNIX was costly and the licensing was rather prohibitive .
So in the 1980s , this man decided that he 'd like to write his own version of a UNIX-like platform , and release it freely and openly for everyone to use .
That platform was GNU and the man that started it was Richard Stallman .
GNU is now one of the most widely used platforms on the market .
Even some UNIX vendors use some of the GNU utilities themselves .
It also became the system that sits on top of the Linux kernel.But while GNU replicates a lot of the functionality from UNIX utilities , it uses absolutely none of the code from UNIX .
It was written independently to ensure that it was freely available to everyone.That has n't stopped UNIX platforms from continuing to be sold , or continuing to be innovative .
But it has pushed UNIX vendor to improve their platform significantly to differentiate themselves from the free platforms.Software Patents would not have allowed GNU to exist at all .
Software patents are , without exception , patenting ideas rather than implementation .
This means that if one entity holds a patent for an idea , no other entity can come up with an alternate way of achieving the same/similar end result .
This gives the patent holder an extended monopoly on an idea and stifles innovation in the software industry.Software copyrights allow you to release and protect your software from blatant copying , while still allowing people to improve upon and innovate beyond your original idea .
Software patents do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are confusing patent protection with copyright protection.
Software is still covered by copyright law, and the licensing agreements you choose to put on your software product is still what defines how people can use your software product, and what their access to that software is.If I write a program and release it under a license that does not allow access to the source code, and does not allow users to distribute it further, that is still perfectly valid.
But if someone decides that they want to write their own software that does the same thing, as long as they do not use anything from my product, they are well within their rights to do so.UNIX platforms have been around for 50 years and the model they use has become essentially a standard.
But until recently, UNIX was costly and the licensing was rather prohibitive.
So in the 1980s, this man decided that he'd like to write his own version of a UNIX-like platform, and release it freely and openly for everyone to use.
That platform was GNU and the man that started it was Richard Stallman.
GNU is now one of the most widely used platforms on the market.
Even some UNIX vendors use some of the GNU utilities themselves.
It also became the system that sits on top of the Linux kernel.But while GNU replicates a lot of the functionality from UNIX utilities, it uses absolutely none of the code from UNIX.
It was written independently to ensure that it was freely available to everyone.That hasn't stopped UNIX platforms from continuing to be sold, or continuing to be innovative.
But it has pushed UNIX vendor to improve their platform significantly to differentiate themselves from the free platforms.Software Patents would not have allowed GNU to exist at all.
Software patents are, without exception, patenting ideas rather than implementation.
This means that if one entity holds a patent for an idea, no other entity can come up with an alternate way of achieving the same/similar end result.
This gives the patent holder an extended monopoly on an idea and stifles innovation in the software industry.Software copyrights allow you to release and protect your software from blatant copying, while still allowing people to improve upon and innovate beyond your original idea.
Software patents do not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31696622</id>
	<title>Because software doesn't need patent protection.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1270049700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents. I'm not trolling here, please help me understand.</i></p><p>Building and marketing a hardware product ("an arrangement of matter") requires a large investment and considerable time.  Cost recovery takes a while once it comes to market and second-movers already making similar things have a major advantage:  They can quickly clone the improvement represented by the invention, come to market, and suck out the profit needed by the inventor and his supporters.  Good for the consumer - for THIS invention.  Bad for the consumer because this means nobody does much inventing because there's no money in it.  And inventions in matter arrangement tend to have a long time before obsolescence.  So granting a limited-time monopoly to the inventor in return for general availability of the invention's technique once the patent expires is believed to do more general good by incentiveizing than it does harm by restricting and impeding other designers.</p><p>Software has a much faster timescale and much lower production and distribution costs.  It's already (more than) adequately protected against straightforward cloning by copyright:  A potential competitor must redesign or clean-room reverse engineer rather than copying the distribution medium.  This typically takes months - enough time for a good software product to pay off the investment with a huge profit and establish a long-term market presence.  This provides more than adequate incentive to build new and better software inventions without government invention.</p><p>By the time a patent on software expires the original products are mostly long obsolete.  Meanwhile, many generations of software must be written avoiding this patented technique - and every OTHER patented technique.  This quickly creates an impassible "MINE field" where anyone writing new software will unavoidably infringe a large number of patents and be chased by patent holders yelling "MINE!".  Most software construction consists of combining existing techniques in useful new ways with perhaps a small amount of new ideas incorporated.</p><p>So not only are software patents unnecessary, they retard progress far more by blocking new uses of existing ideas than they encourage development and release of new ideas that wouldn't be pursued without them.  They're an economic disaster for the people of any country that is suckered into granting them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents .
I 'm not trolling here , please help me understand.Building and marketing a hardware product ( " an arrangement of matter " ) requires a large investment and considerable time .
Cost recovery takes a while once it comes to market and second-movers already making similar things have a major advantage : They can quickly clone the improvement represented by the invention , come to market , and suck out the profit needed by the inventor and his supporters .
Good for the consumer - for THIS invention .
Bad for the consumer because this means nobody does much inventing because there 's no money in it .
And inventions in matter arrangement tend to have a long time before obsolescence .
So granting a limited-time monopoly to the inventor in return for general availability of the invention 's technique once the patent expires is believed to do more general good by incentiveizing than it does harm by restricting and impeding other designers.Software has a much faster timescale and much lower production and distribution costs .
It 's already ( more than ) adequately protected against straightforward cloning by copyright : A potential competitor must redesign or clean-room reverse engineer rather than copying the distribution medium .
This typically takes months - enough time for a good software product to pay off the investment with a huge profit and establish a long-term market presence .
This provides more than adequate incentive to build new and better software inventions without government invention.By the time a patent on software expires the original products are mostly long obsolete .
Meanwhile , many generations of software must be written avoiding this patented technique - and every OTHER patented technique .
This quickly creates an impassible " MINE field " where anyone writing new software will unavoidably infringe a large number of patents and be chased by patent holders yelling " MINE ! " .
Most software construction consists of combining existing techniques in useful new ways with perhaps a small amount of new ideas incorporated.So not only are software patents unnecessary , they retard progress far more by blocking new uses of existing ideas than they encourage development and release of new ideas that would n't be pursued without them .
They 're an economic disaster for the people of any country that is suckered into granting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents.
I'm not trolling here, please help me understand.Building and marketing a hardware product ("an arrangement of matter") requires a large investment and considerable time.
Cost recovery takes a while once it comes to market and second-movers already making similar things have a major advantage:  They can quickly clone the improvement represented by the invention, come to market, and suck out the profit needed by the inventor and his supporters.
Good for the consumer - for THIS invention.
Bad for the consumer because this means nobody does much inventing because there's no money in it.
And inventions in matter arrangement tend to have a long time before obsolescence.
So granting a limited-time monopoly to the inventor in return for general availability of the invention's technique once the patent expires is believed to do more general good by incentiveizing than it does harm by restricting and impeding other designers.Software has a much faster timescale and much lower production and distribution costs.
It's already (more than) adequately protected against straightforward cloning by copyright:  A potential competitor must redesign or clean-room reverse engineer rather than copying the distribution medium.
This typically takes months - enough time for a good software product to pay off the investment with a huge profit and establish a long-term market presence.
This provides more than adequate incentive to build new and better software inventions without government invention.By the time a patent on software expires the original products are mostly long obsolete.
Meanwhile, many generations of software must be written avoiding this patented technique - and every OTHER patented technique.
This quickly creates an impassible "MINE field" where anyone writing new software will unavoidably infringe a large number of patents and be chased by patent holders yelling "MINE!".
Most software construction consists of combining existing techniques in useful new ways with perhaps a small amount of new ideas incorporated.So not only are software patents unnecessary, they retard progress far more by blocking new uses of existing ideas than they encourage development and release of new ideas that wouldn't be pursued without them.
They're an economic disaster for the people of any country that is suckered into granting them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685422</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1270037880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Patenting an algorithm is not really like patenting an invention.  It's more like patenting a mathematical law or a scientific discovery.  If someone comes up with a new way to factor large numbers, they should get a Nobel Prize, not a market monopoly and a private island (unless you can buy a private island for cost of your Nobel Prize award).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Patenting an algorithm is not really like patenting an invention .
It 's more like patenting a mathematical law or a scientific discovery .
If someone comes up with a new way to factor large numbers , they should get a Nobel Prize , not a market monopoly and a private island ( unless you can buy a private island for cost of your Nobel Prize award ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patenting an algorithm is not really like patenting an invention.
It's more like patenting a mathematical law or a scientific discovery.
If someone comes up with a new way to factor large numbers, they should get a Nobel Prize, not a market monopoly and a private island (unless you can buy a private island for cost of your Nobel Prize award).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690002</id>
	<title>Re:Beauregard</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1270060020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Additionally, it will likely be getting harder (if even still possible at all) to patent software at all once SCOTUS rules on Bilski (expected in June 2010).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , it will likely be getting harder ( if even still possible at all ) to patent software at all once SCOTUS rules on Bilski ( expected in June 2010 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, it will likely be getting harder (if even still possible at all) to patent software at all once SCOTUS rules on Bilski (expected in June 2010).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684778</id>
	<title>Freelance Projects for PHP Developers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270031220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freelance programmers and web designers. Get custom web design. Freelancers bid on outsourced projects. Outsourcing to India, Romania, Ukraine and many other countries. Outsource your project and let web developers bid on it.</p><p> <a href="http://freelance-jobs.expert-columns.com/" title="expert-columns.com" rel="nofollow">Freelance Projects for PHP Developers</a> [expert-columns.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freelance programmers and web designers .
Get custom web design .
Freelancers bid on outsourced projects .
Outsourcing to India , Romania , Ukraine and many other countries .
Outsource your project and let web developers bid on it .
Freelance Projects for PHP Developers [ expert-columns.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freelance programmers and web designers.
Get custom web design.
Freelancers bid on outsourced projects.
Outsourcing to India, Romania, Ukraine and many other countries.
Outsource your project and let web developers bid on it.
Freelance Projects for PHP Developers [expert-columns.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685700</id>
	<title>http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New\_Zealand</title>
	<author>ciaran\_o\_riordan</author>
	<datestamp>1270040160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Documentation of this has been ongoing for a few months now:</p><p><a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New\_Zealand" title="swpat.org">http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New\_Zealand</a> [swpat.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Documentation of this has been ongoing for a few months now : http : //en.swpat.org/wiki/New \ _Zealand [ swpat.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Documentation of this has been ongoing for a few months now:http://en.swpat.org/wiki/New\_Zealand [swpat.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685576</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>bit01</author>
	<datestamp>1270039200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>If I invent a new physical device -- an array of levers and cogs to build something, or a new chemical process to manufacture something -- I can patent it.</em> </p><p>I start a new hardware store in a growing town. It's a physical construction that nobody has done in that town before. Why can't I patent that idea and stop other people starting a competing hardware store when they see it's a success? Think carefully about your answer.</p><p>Personally, I am thoroughly sick of people who automatically assume that patents, a massive government interference in citizens minding their own business, will encourage innovation in every area of human endeavour when it's quite clear they don't. If they're going to argue for this government interference then they should at least have some scientific evidence that it is a net positive in any particular area. Not the usual childish handwaving about how an inventor won't invent without patents (history shows this is nonsense) and that patents have no harmful effect on society and the free exchange of ideas (also nonsense).</p><p> <em>Conversely, there do seem to be advatages to keeping software patents.</em> </p><p>A patent stops billions of people from using an idea that's probably going to be independently re-invented many times so that one (1) person can have <em>additional</em> incentive to invent something. Explain to me why this is a net positive? Particularly for software industry where the entry cost is so low? Keep in mind I'm well aware of patent proponents usual handwaving excuses.</p><p>Your example is just sad. The vast majority of inventors will never get that break and in addition they'll be held back by the patent portfolios of large companies. Patents are just a tool, large companies have more of them and patents in no way change the balance of power between corporations and individuals.</p><p> <em>The software patent system may be in need of repair, but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater?</em> </p><p>There is no baby. Your automatic assumption there must be without evidence is telling.</p><p>In addition to the above the patent system is based on very shaky intellectual foundations. They can't even objectively decide whether two shades of the color orange are the same or different, let alone whether two ideas are the same or different, a far more complex question and at the heart of deciding whether something is new.</p><p>---</p><p> <em>Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.</em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I invent a new physical device -- an array of levers and cogs to build something , or a new chemical process to manufacture something -- I can patent it .
I start a new hardware store in a growing town .
It 's a physical construction that nobody has done in that town before .
Why ca n't I patent that idea and stop other people starting a competing hardware store when they see it 's a success ?
Think carefully about your answer.Personally , I am thoroughly sick of people who automatically assume that patents , a massive government interference in citizens minding their own business , will encourage innovation in every area of human endeavour when it 's quite clear they do n't .
If they 're going to argue for this government interference then they should at least have some scientific evidence that it is a net positive in any particular area .
Not the usual childish handwaving about how an inventor wo n't invent without patents ( history shows this is nonsense ) and that patents have no harmful effect on society and the free exchange of ideas ( also nonsense ) .
Conversely , there do seem to be advatages to keeping software patents .
A patent stops billions of people from using an idea that 's probably going to be independently re-invented many times so that one ( 1 ) person can have additional incentive to invent something .
Explain to me why this is a net positive ?
Particularly for software industry where the entry cost is so low ?
Keep in mind I 'm well aware of patent proponents usual handwaving excuses.Your example is just sad .
The vast majority of inventors will never get that break and in addition they 'll be held back by the patent portfolios of large companies .
Patents are just a tool , large companies have more of them and patents in no way change the balance of power between corporations and individuals .
The software patent system may be in need of repair , but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater ?
There is no baby .
Your automatic assumption there must be without evidence is telling.In addition to the above the patent system is based on very shaky intellectual foundations .
They ca n't even objectively decide whether two shades of the color orange are the same or different , let alone whether two ideas are the same or different , a far more complex question and at the heart of deciding whether something is new.--- Every new patent is a new law ; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If I invent a new physical device -- an array of levers and cogs to build something, or a new chemical process to manufacture something -- I can patent it.
I start a new hardware store in a growing town.
It's a physical construction that nobody has done in that town before.
Why can't I patent that idea and stop other people starting a competing hardware store when they see it's a success?
Think carefully about your answer.Personally, I am thoroughly sick of people who automatically assume that patents, a massive government interference in citizens minding their own business, will encourage innovation in every area of human endeavour when it's quite clear they don't.
If they're going to argue for this government interference then they should at least have some scientific evidence that it is a net positive in any particular area.
Not the usual childish handwaving about how an inventor won't invent without patents (history shows this is nonsense) and that patents have no harmful effect on society and the free exchange of ideas (also nonsense).
Conversely, there do seem to be advatages to keeping software patents.
A patent stops billions of people from using an idea that's probably going to be independently re-invented many times so that one (1) person can have additional incentive to invent something.
Explain to me why this is a net positive?
Particularly for software industry where the entry cost is so low?
Keep in mind I'm well aware of patent proponents usual handwaving excuses.Your example is just sad.
The vast majority of inventors will never get that break and in addition they'll be held back by the patent portfolios of large companies.
Patents are just a tool, large companies have more of them and patents in no way change the balance of power between corporations and individuals.
The software patent system may be in need of repair, but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
There is no baby.
Your automatic assumption there must be without evidence is telling.In addition to the above the patent system is based on very shaky intellectual foundations.
They can't even objectively decide whether two shades of the color orange are the same or different, let alone whether two ideas are the same or different, a far more complex question and at the heart of deciding whether something is new.--- Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685122</id>
	<title>The Patent Troll Business Model is Subprime</title>
	<author>NZheretic</author>
	<datestamp>1270035000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 2000-2010 "Intellectual Property" boom is about to go the way of the "Subprime"  Mortgage, Dot-Com vapor startup,  Junk bond and Dutch Tulip futures.
The Patent Troll Business Model is inherently flawed, and just like the aforementioned others, add nothing to a nations REAL economy.
<p>
Let the <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=183391&amp;cid=15147127" title="slashdot.org">lawsuit mushroom clouds rise over the remains of USA's Tech industries</a> [slashdot.org] the rest of the world will go their own free way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 2000-2010 " Intellectual Property " boom is about to go the way of the " Subprime " Mortgage , Dot-Com vapor startup , Junk bond and Dutch Tulip futures .
The Patent Troll Business Model is inherently flawed , and just like the aforementioned others , add nothing to a nations REAL economy .
Let the lawsuit mushroom clouds rise over the remains of USA 's Tech industries [ slashdot.org ] the rest of the world will go their own free way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 2000-2010 "Intellectual Property" boom is about to go the way of the "Subprime"  Mortgage, Dot-Com vapor startup,  Junk bond and Dutch Tulip futures.
The Patent Troll Business Model is inherently flawed, and just like the aforementioned others, add nothing to a nations REAL economy.
Let the lawsuit mushroom clouds rise over the remains of USA's Tech industries [slashdot.org] the rest of the world will go their own free way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774</id>
	<title>Bad wording?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270031220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA and TFS:<p><div class="quote"><p>a computer program is not a patentable invention</p></div><p>OK, but what about a software <b>concept</b>? Can someone still patent "A method for preventing unauthorised access to files and system features through the use of a personal identification and verification system", as long as they don't have a single piece of software for this idea?<br> <br>

That imaginary patent was about password protection in case anyone missed it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA and TFS : a computer program is not a patentable inventionOK , but what about a software concept ?
Can someone still patent " A method for preventing unauthorised access to files and system features through the use of a personal identification and verification system " , as long as they do n't have a single piece of software for this idea ?
That imaginary patent was about password protection in case anyone missed it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA and TFS:a computer program is not a patentable inventionOK, but what about a software concept?
Can someone still patent "A method for preventing unauthorised access to files and system features through the use of a personal identification and verification system", as long as they don't have a single piece of software for this idea?
That imaginary patent was about password protection in case anyone missed it...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31696644</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1270050000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm cannot be patented.</i></p><p>Hay, that sounds like closed source proprietary software.  CA, Microsoft, and Oracle all make money selling  closed source proprietary software.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm can not be patented.Hay , that sounds like closed source proprietary software .
CA , Microsoft , and Oracle all make money selling closed source proprietary software .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone who develops the ultimate AI algorithm will likely just keep it a secret instead of allowing the idea to spread if the algorithm cannot be patented.Hay, that sounds like closed source proprietary software.
CA, Microsoft, and Oracle all make money selling  closed source proprietary software.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31689620</id>
	<title>This proposal is too narrow by a mile</title>
	<author>Compuser</author>
	<datestamp>1270058340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "a computer program is not a patentable invention."</p><p>That's a useless declaration. What we need is a clear statement that "an algorithm is not a patentable invention."<br>We need to make sure thing like RSA cannot be patented. Banning specific crypto stack implementations from<br>being patentable is crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a computer program is not a patentable invention .
" That 's a useless declaration .
What we need is a clear statement that " an algorithm is not a patentable invention .
" We need to make sure thing like RSA can not be patented .
Banning specific crypto stack implementations frombeing patentable is crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "a computer program is not a patentable invention.
"That's a useless declaration.
What we need is a clear statement that "an algorithm is not a patentable invention.
"We need to make sure thing like RSA cannot be patented.
Banning specific crypto stack implementations frombeing patentable is crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684812</id>
	<title>I don't see it getting through...</title>
	<author>lightspeedius</author>
	<datestamp>1270031640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't see it passing the second reading. It was probably just included in the draft to make the idea more public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see it passing the second reading .
It was probably just included in the draft to make the idea more public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see it passing the second reading.
It was probably just included in the draft to make the idea more public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685130</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270035060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's far too easy to accidentally create a program that infringes on a patent, most software are made up of basic building blocks that together make a unique product, so if anything should be patentable it should be the building blocks, and only the ones that are not trivial, but who gets to decide this? Which means that we end up in court, which costs a lot of money and opens up for trolls.</p><p>Copyright (a short, say 2-5 years depending on product) and trademark should be enough to discourage competition, if competition can make a program just like yours without copying you and still sell it at a lower cost then you are doing something wrong or your product just wasn't unique enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's far too easy to accidentally create a program that infringes on a patent , most software are made up of basic building blocks that together make a unique product , so if anything should be patentable it should be the building blocks , and only the ones that are not trivial , but who gets to decide this ?
Which means that we end up in court , which costs a lot of money and opens up for trolls.Copyright ( a short , say 2-5 years depending on product ) and trademark should be enough to discourage competition , if competition can make a program just like yours without copying you and still sell it at a lower cost then you are doing something wrong or your product just was n't unique enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's far too easy to accidentally create a program that infringes on a patent, most software are made up of basic building blocks that together make a unique product, so if anything should be patentable it should be the building blocks, and only the ones that are not trivial, but who gets to decide this?
Which means that we end up in court, which costs a lot of money and opens up for trolls.Copyright (a short, say 2-5 years depending on product) and trademark should be enough to discourage competition, if competition can make a program just like yours without copying you and still sell it at a lower cost then you are doing something wrong or your product just wasn't unique enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</id>
	<title>Why Not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270033620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents. I'm not trolling here, please help me understand.<br> <br>

As I understand it, the idea behind a patent is to encourage an inventor to invest resources in R&amp;D and then to share their new techniology with society, in return for a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that new technology. This is arguably a bit broken at the moment -- largely because patents seem to be overly broad and to last too long -- but the basic idea seems sound.<br> <br>

If I invent a new physical device -- an array of levers and cogs to build something, or a new chemical process to manufacture something -- I can patent it. I've put loads of time and effort into finding a new way to manipulate physical objects to either perform a new process on them, or to peform a new function. If it's useful and novel,.I can submit my plans and society grants me a patent.<br> <br>

However, if I invent a new algorithm or piece of software, society isn't willing to make the same deal with me. I see these as analogous to inventing a new machine part or a new device for someone's home. My invention is manipulating information instead of physical objects, but it's still useful and novel, and it's still improving a process or performing a new function. It's also still the result of considerable investment of time and resources.<br> <br>

I've seen the argument that information isn't patentable because it's easily copied; This doesn't work because it's the plans that are patented, and the blueprints for a machine part are as easiliy copied as a new algorithm or search routine. I've also seen the argument that patenting an algorithm harms companies that need to use that algorithm in their products, but I don't understand that either: obviously a really broad patent for e.g. "using subroutines" shouldn't be awarded any more than one for "using levers" in a physical device. However, a new technique for manipulating information with a specific and narrowly-defined purpose seems more analogous to patenting the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escapement#Co-axial\_escapement" title="wikipedia.org">coaxial escapement</a> [wikipedia.org], an innovative improvement to the efficiency of a machine part with wide application. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Finally, I've seen the argument that the field of software development moves too quickly for patents to have a net benefit effect; this may be true, but seems like an argument to shorten patent life rather than abolish them entirely. All the other arguments I've seen are basically along the lines that the system is poorly administered and should therefore be removed entirely; why not push for a better-administered system, instead of pushing the baby out with the bathwater?<br> <br>

So I don't really see many advantages to destroying the current system, but for improving it instead. Conversely, there do seem to be advatages to keeping software patents. For example, let's say that tonight a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream. You could put in time and effort to research it, hone it, prove that it works, and prepare your product. In a world with a functioning software patent system, you can then sell your IP to Google and live out your days on a private island populated entirely by scantily-clad people of whatever gender floats your boat. Without patents, you could put in all that time and effort, but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitor (good luck) and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it (again, good luck).<br> <br>

The software patent system may be in need of repair, but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents .
I 'm not trolling here , please help me understand .
As I understand it , the idea behind a patent is to encourage an inventor to invest resources in R&amp;D and then to share their new techniology with society , in return for a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that new technology .
This is arguably a bit broken at the moment -- largely because patents seem to be overly broad and to last too long -- but the basic idea seems sound .
If I invent a new physical device -- an array of levers and cogs to build something , or a new chemical process to manufacture something -- I can patent it .
I 've put loads of time and effort into finding a new way to manipulate physical objects to either perform a new process on them , or to peform a new function .
If it 's useful and novel,.I can submit my plans and society grants me a patent .
However , if I invent a new algorithm or piece of software , society is n't willing to make the same deal with me .
I see these as analogous to inventing a new machine part or a new device for someone 's home .
My invention is manipulating information instead of physical objects , but it 's still useful and novel , and it 's still improving a process or performing a new function .
It 's also still the result of considerable investment of time and resources .
I 've seen the argument that information is n't patentable because it 's easily copied ; This does n't work because it 's the plans that are patented , and the blueprints for a machine part are as easiliy copied as a new algorithm or search routine .
I 've also seen the argument that patenting an algorithm harms companies that need to use that algorithm in their products , but I do n't understand that either : obviously a really broad patent for e.g .
" using subroutines " should n't be awarded any more than one for " using levers " in a physical device .
However , a new technique for manipulating information with a specific and narrowly-defined purpose seems more analogous to patenting the coaxial escapement [ wikipedia.org ] , an innovative improvement to the efficiency of a machine part with wide application .
That seems pretty reasonable to me .
Finally , I 've seen the argument that the field of software development moves too quickly for patents to have a net benefit effect ; this may be true , but seems like an argument to shorten patent life rather than abolish them entirely .
All the other arguments I 've seen are basically along the lines that the system is poorly administered and should therefore be removed entirely ; why not push for a better-administered system , instead of pushing the baby out with the bathwater ?
So I do n't really see many advantages to destroying the current system , but for improving it instead .
Conversely , there do seem to be advatages to keeping software patents .
For example , let 's say that tonight a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream .
You could put in time and effort to research it , hone it , prove that it works , and prepare your product .
In a world with a functioning software patent system , you can then sell your IP to Google and live out your days on a private island populated entirely by scantily-clad people of whatever gender floats your boat .
Without patents , you could put in all that time and effort , but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitor ( good luck ) and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it ( again , good luck ) .
The software patent system may be in need of repair , but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents.
I'm not trolling here, please help me understand.
As I understand it, the idea behind a patent is to encourage an inventor to invest resources in R&amp;D and then to share their new techniology with society, in return for a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that new technology.
This is arguably a bit broken at the moment -- largely because patents seem to be overly broad and to last too long -- but the basic idea seems sound.
If I invent a new physical device -- an array of levers and cogs to build something, or a new chemical process to manufacture something -- I can patent it.
I've put loads of time and effort into finding a new way to manipulate physical objects to either perform a new process on them, or to peform a new function.
If it's useful and novel,.I can submit my plans and society grants me a patent.
However, if I invent a new algorithm or piece of software, society isn't willing to make the same deal with me.
I see these as analogous to inventing a new machine part or a new device for someone's home.
My invention is manipulating information instead of physical objects, but it's still useful and novel, and it's still improving a process or performing a new function.
It's also still the result of considerable investment of time and resources.
I've seen the argument that information isn't patentable because it's easily copied; This doesn't work because it's the plans that are patented, and the blueprints for a machine part are as easiliy copied as a new algorithm or search routine.
I've also seen the argument that patenting an algorithm harms companies that need to use that algorithm in their products, but I don't understand that either: obviously a really broad patent for e.g.
"using subroutines" shouldn't be awarded any more than one for "using levers" in a physical device.
However, a new technique for manipulating information with a specific and narrowly-defined purpose seems more analogous to patenting the coaxial escapement [wikipedia.org], an innovative improvement to the efficiency of a machine part with wide application.
That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Finally, I've seen the argument that the field of software development moves too quickly for patents to have a net benefit effect; this may be true, but seems like an argument to shorten patent life rather than abolish them entirely.
All the other arguments I've seen are basically along the lines that the system is poorly administered and should therefore be removed entirely; why not push for a better-administered system, instead of pushing the baby out with the bathwater?
So I don't really see many advantages to destroying the current system, but for improving it instead.
Conversely, there do seem to be advatages to keeping software patents.
For example, let's say that tonight a radical new process for handling search results comes to you in a dream.
You could put in time and effort to research it, hone it, prove that it works, and prepare your product.
In a world with a functioning software patent system, you can then sell your IP to Google and live out your days on a private island populated entirely by scantily-clad people of whatever gender floats your boat.
Without patents, you could put in all that time and effort, but the only way you could benefit from it is by starting your own google competitor (good luck) and praying that no-one else ever works out or steals your algorithm to immediately copy it (again, good luck).
The software patent system may be in need of repair, but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31689036</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?   It's all obvious.</title>
	<author>Teunis</author>
	<datestamp>1270055760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Basically - it's all obvious.<br><br>I've ended up homeless and unable to get a job on multiple occasions because there were -threats- that the stuff I was doing might be patented.  I had no way to know and no way to find out - and everything I was doing was mathematically obvious.  After all is said and done - the patents I -have- seen paperwork for - are all obvious processes.   I haven't seen a patent for anything that wasn't obvious for a mathematically-able diligent mind.<br><br>To sort of expound my feelings on this: software patents create thoughtcrimes.   It makes into criminals those who think and the gedunken (computer software) that is working these thoughts out.    I know this is an emotional response.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically - it 's all obvious.I 've ended up homeless and unable to get a job on multiple occasions because there were -threats- that the stuff I was doing might be patented .
I had no way to know and no way to find out - and everything I was doing was mathematically obvious .
After all is said and done - the patents I -have- seen paperwork for - are all obvious processes .
I have n't seen a patent for anything that was n't obvious for a mathematically-able diligent mind.To sort of expound my feelings on this : software patents create thoughtcrimes .
It makes into criminals those who think and the gedunken ( computer software ) that is working these thoughts out .
I know this is an emotional response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically - it's all obvious.I've ended up homeless and unable to get a job on multiple occasions because there were -threats- that the stuff I was doing might be patented.
I had no way to know and no way to find out - and everything I was doing was mathematically obvious.
After all is said and done - the patents I -have- seen paperwork for - are all obvious processes.
I haven't seen a patent for anything that wasn't obvious for a mathematically-able diligent mind.To sort of expound my feelings on this: software patents create thoughtcrimes.
It makes into criminals those who think and the gedunken (computer software) that is working these thoughts out.
I know this is an emotional response.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684938</id>
	<title>Re:Bad wording?</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1270032900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That imaginary patent was about password protection in case anyone missed it...</p></div></blockquote><p>And, as the title says, your patent is badly worded (in a good way for a company) since it also probably covers other methods of ID/verification (central logon via something Active Directory-esque, biometrics, etc)!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That imaginary patent was about password protection in case anyone missed it...And , as the title says , your patent is badly worded ( in a good way for a company ) since it also probably covers other methods of ID/verification ( central logon via something Active Directory-esque , biometrics , etc ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That imaginary patent was about password protection in case anyone missed it...And, as the title says, your patent is badly worded (in a good way for a company) since it also probably covers other methods of ID/verification (central logon via something Active Directory-esque, biometrics, etc)!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684728</id>
	<title>Someone seeing sense at last i see</title>
	<author>cheezegeezer</author>
	<datestamp>1270030860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And about time too    , But of course you know who will be getting their collective panties in a big mother of a bunch right about now   of course the same ones that support jerks like the RIAA  MPAA and this recent bunch of tossers .</p><p>Keep it up NZ  at least someone has got the balls to face up to the red white and blue bully boys</p><p>starts and stripes more like scars and strife<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And about time too , But of course you know who will be getting their collective panties in a big mother of a bunch right about now of course the same ones that support jerks like the RIAA MPAA and this recent bunch of tossers .Keep it up NZ at least someone has got the balls to face up to the red white and blue bully boysstarts and stripes more like scars and strife : - ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And about time too    , But of course you know who will be getting their collective panties in a big mother of a bunch right about now   of course the same ones that support jerks like the RIAA  MPAA and this recent bunch of tossers .Keep it up NZ  at least someone has got the balls to face up to the red white and blue bully boysstarts and stripes more like scars and strife :-) .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686018</id>
	<title>Re:Rules of patents</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1270042740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The second thing, that I learned at University, and I can't remember the exact term, but the patent must be put to use by the owner of the patent, or else they lose it.</p></div><p>IIRC That's trademarks, not patents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The second thing , that I learned at University , and I ca n't remember the exact term , but the patent must be put to use by the owner of the patent , or else they lose it.IIRC That 's trademarks , not patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second thing, that I learned at University, and I can't remember the exact term, but the patent must be put to use by the owner of the patent, or else they lose it.IIRC That's trademarks, not patents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690030</id>
	<title>OK, but what about a software concept?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1270060140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Originally to be granted a patent in the US a working model had to be submitted to the patent office, so no a concept wasn't patentable.  Only specific implementations were.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Originally to be granted a patent in the US a working model had to be submitted to the patent office , so no a concept was n't patentable .
Only specific implementations were .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Originally to be granted a patent in the US a working model had to be submitted to the patent office, so no a concept wasn't patentable.
Only specific implementations were.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685142</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1270035180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software (meaning the code) is copyrightable and should not be patentable. <br> <br>
Let me give you an oversimplified example:
<br>* Take 100 programmers from this website (rookies, dinosaurs and everything in between)
<br>* Assign them all the exact same task: write software to solve a specific business problem
<br>* Require them all to work in isolation so there can be no sharing of ideas or solutions
<br>* On your marks, get ready, go!
<br> <br>
Chances are that most (if not all) will come up with a solution that addresses the specific problem that needed to be solved (as well as assorted other features and functionality because, hey, we <b>are</b> programmers). There is also a very good chance that more than one will come up with the same solution, or similar enough that it would "qualify" as a patent violation. So, who gets the patent?
<br>* Is it the first person to finish, even if their solution is clumsy or inelegant or inefficient?
<br>* Is it the best solution? Who judges this?
<br>* What about the people who came up with the same (or similar) solutions independently?
<br>* Should whomever gets the patent be able to sue the other 99 people for patent infringement just because they arrived at a similar or different business solution independently?
<br> <br>
That's one of the basic problems with software patents. And that alone is enough to make me think software patents are just a bad idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software ( meaning the code ) is copyrightable and should not be patentable .
Let me give you an oversimplified example : * Take 100 programmers from this website ( rookies , dinosaurs and everything in between ) * Assign them all the exact same task : write software to solve a specific business problem * Require them all to work in isolation so there can be no sharing of ideas or solutions * On your marks , get ready , go !
Chances are that most ( if not all ) will come up with a solution that addresses the specific problem that needed to be solved ( as well as assorted other features and functionality because , hey , we are programmers ) .
There is also a very good chance that more than one will come up with the same solution , or similar enough that it would " qualify " as a patent violation .
So , who gets the patent ?
* Is it the first person to finish , even if their solution is clumsy or inelegant or inefficient ?
* Is it the best solution ?
Who judges this ?
* What about the people who came up with the same ( or similar ) solutions independently ?
* Should whomever gets the patent be able to sue the other 99 people for patent infringement just because they arrived at a similar or different business solution independently ?
That 's one of the basic problems with software patents .
And that alone is enough to make me think software patents are just a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software (meaning the code) is copyrightable and should not be patentable.
Let me give you an oversimplified example:
* Take 100 programmers from this website (rookies, dinosaurs and everything in between)
* Assign them all the exact same task: write software to solve a specific business problem
* Require them all to work in isolation so there can be no sharing of ideas or solutions
* On your marks, get ready, go!
Chances are that most (if not all) will come up with a solution that addresses the specific problem that needed to be solved (as well as assorted other features and functionality because, hey, we are programmers).
There is also a very good chance that more than one will come up with the same solution, or similar enough that it would "qualify" as a patent violation.
So, who gets the patent?
* Is it the first person to finish, even if their solution is clumsy or inelegant or inefficient?
* Is it the best solution?
Who judges this?
* What about the people who came up with the same (or similar) solutions independently?
* Should whomever gets the patent be able to sue the other 99 people for patent infringement just because they arrived at a similar or different business solution independently?
That's one of the basic problems with software patents.
And that alone is enough to make me think software patents are just a bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685760</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270040820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I say we patent this type of solution and then release it under a [insert name of least controversial open source license here] license so it can spread like Gonorrhea throughout other governments.</p></div></blockquote><p>In this case, only the GPL would be appropriate. The Gonorrhea Pubic License...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we patent this type of solution and then release it under a [ insert name of least controversial open source license here ] license so it can spread like Gonorrhea throughout other governments.In this case , only the GPL would be appropriate .
The Gonorrhea Pubic License.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we patent this type of solution and then release it under a [insert name of least controversial open source license here] license so it can spread like Gonorrhea throughout other governments.In this case, only the GPL would be appropriate.
The Gonorrhea Pubic License...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685068</id>
	<title>Innovation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270034280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation.  (My money is on 'hinder'.)</p><p>However, some people measure innovation via the number of patents issued.  NZ's bill might make their developers / computer scientists more productive, while ironically making it harder to convince people of that fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation .
( My money is on 'hinder' .
) However , some people measure innovation via the number of patents issued .
NZ 's bill might make their developers / computer scientists more productive , while ironically making it harder to convince people of that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been curious about the degree to which software patents help or hinder software / computer science innovation.
(My money is on 'hinder'.
)However, some people measure innovation via the number of patents issued.
NZ's bill might make their developers / computer scientists more productive, while ironically making it harder to convince people of that fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685096</id>
	<title>Beauregard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270034760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, software isn't patentable directly, either.  If you claim "a program which causes a processor to perform the steps of...", then you get yourself a rejection under 35 USC 101, because a program isn't a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter.</p><p>One way that lawyers get around this is by claiming "a computer-readable storage medium storing a program which, when executed, causes a processor to perform the steps of...."  A computer-readable storage medium (e.g., a hard drive) is generally considered to be an article of manufacture.  This almost got tested in court several years ago, in <i>In re Beauregard</i>, but the USPTO decided to withdraw its rejection and issue the patent before the court got a chance to weigh in on it, and nobody has brought up the topic in litigation since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , software is n't patentable directly , either .
If you claim " a program which causes a processor to perform the steps of... " , then you get yourself a rejection under 35 USC 101 , because a program is n't a process , machine , article of manufacture , or composition of matter.One way that lawyers get around this is by claiming " a computer-readable storage medium storing a program which , when executed , causes a processor to perform the steps of.... " A computer-readable storage medium ( e.g. , a hard drive ) is generally considered to be an article of manufacture .
This almost got tested in court several years ago , in In re Beauregard , but the USPTO decided to withdraw its rejection and issue the patent before the court got a chance to weigh in on it , and nobody has brought up the topic in litigation since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, software isn't patentable directly, either.
If you claim "a program which causes a processor to perform the steps of...", then you get yourself a rejection under 35 USC 101, because a program isn't a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter.One way that lawyers get around this is by claiming "a computer-readable storage medium storing a program which, when executed, causes a processor to perform the steps of...."  A computer-readable storage medium (e.g., a hard drive) is generally considered to be an article of manufacture.
This almost got tested in court several years ago, in In re Beauregard, but the USPTO decided to withdraw its rejection and issue the patent before the court got a chance to weigh in on it, and nobody has brought up the topic in litigation since then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684858</id>
	<title>Re:Bad wording?</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1270032060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I imagine you could still patent the concept as long as it was implemented as firmware but I assume the patent could not be used to stop others implementing the concept in software.
<br> <br>
Standard disclaimers - IANAL. I haven't RTFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine you could still patent the concept as long as it was implemented as firmware but I assume the patent could not be used to stop others implementing the concept in software .
Standard disclaimers - IANAL .
I have n't RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine you could still patent the concept as long as it was implemented as firmware but I assume the patent could not be used to stop others implementing the concept in software.
Standard disclaimers - IANAL.
I haven't RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687812</id>
	<title>Re:Someone seeing sense at last i see</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1270050780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there should be a Godwin-type law for patent discussions: ""As an online discussion about patents grow longer, the probability of confusion with copyrights, and/or a comparison to (RI|MP)AA approaches 1."   Corollary: As an online discussion of copyrights grows longer, the probability of confusion with trademarks approaches 1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there should be a Godwin-type law for patent discussions : " " As an online discussion about patents grow longer , the probability of confusion with copyrights , and/or a comparison to ( RI | MP ) AA approaches 1 .
" Corollary : As an online discussion of copyrights grows longer , the probability of confusion with trademarks approaches 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there should be a Godwin-type law for patent discussions: ""As an online discussion about patents grow longer, the probability of confusion with copyrights, and/or a comparison to (RI|MP)AA approaches 1.
"   Corollary: As an online discussion of copyrights grows longer, the probability of confusion with trademarks approaches 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686520</id>
	<title>A response to 'it's just a Draft' comments</title>
	<author>Ænertia</author>
	<datestamp>1270045560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone deeply involved in the Patents Act process in NZ (I wrote my thesis on it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  <a href="http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1027?show=full" title="vuw.ac.nz" rel="nofollow">http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1027?show=full</a> [vuw.ac.nz]

And presented to Parliament on the Act; I can tell you that the Select Committee report is the final stages before the Bill is either passed in Parlimentary Session or thrown out for another full round (considering the current Draft on the Table started in 2002 I doubt that will happen).</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone deeply involved in the Patents Act process in NZ ( I wrote my thesis on it ; - ) http : //researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1027 ? show = full [ vuw.ac.nz ] And presented to Parliament on the Act ; I can tell you that the Select Committee report is the final stages before the Bill is either passed in Parlimentary Session or thrown out for another full round ( considering the current Draft on the Table started in 2002 I doubt that will happen ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone deeply involved in the Patents Act process in NZ (I wrote my thesis on it ;-)  http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1027?show=full [vuw.ac.nz]

And presented to Parliament on the Act; I can tell you that the Select Committee report is the final stages before the Bill is either passed in Parlimentary Session or thrown out for another full round (considering the current Draft on the Table started in 2002 I doubt that will happen).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690410</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1270061760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents.</i> </p><p>One measure of ethics, is what would happen if everyone did it?</p><p>If all software was patented, there would BE no WWW.  You couldn't just say there would instead be a "Microsoft Web" and an "Apple Web" and a "Linux Web" that couldn't all talk to each other because it would require violating software patents to do so, because each of them would be a "web" and someone would have that patented as well.   At best, you'd end up with them all agreeing to license from each other making a cartel that will shut-out the up-and-coming little guys, because the barrier to entry would be too expensive.   And of course, "free software" would be an oxymoron.</p><p>Software patents throw a huge monkey wrench into interoperability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents .
One measure of ethics , is what would happen if everyone did it ? If all software was patented , there would BE no WWW .
You could n't just say there would instead be a " Microsoft Web " and an " Apple Web " and a " Linux Web " that could n't all talk to each other because it would require violating software patents to do so , because each of them would be a " web " and someone would have that patented as well .
At best , you 'd end up with them all agreeing to license from each other making a cartel that will shut-out the up-and-coming little guys , because the barrier to entry would be too expensive .
And of course , " free software " would be an oxymoron.Software patents throw a huge monkey wrench into interoperability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents.
One measure of ethics, is what would happen if everyone did it?If all software was patented, there would BE no WWW.
You couldn't just say there would instead be a "Microsoft Web" and an "Apple Web" and a "Linux Web" that couldn't all talk to each other because it would require violating software patents to do so, because each of them would be a "web" and someone would have that patented as well.
At best, you'd end up with them all agreeing to license from each other making a cartel that will shut-out the up-and-coming little guys, because the barrier to entry would be too expensive.
And of course, "free software" would be an oxymoron.Software patents throw a huge monkey wrench into interoperability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685242</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270036080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's do it just like any other invention patent.</p><p>To patent software you must provide the plans of this software (aka. source code), so that others can see if it is useful and novel.</p><p>Make it law and just watch how corporations stop filing patents in less time than you can say 'Patent'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's do it just like any other invention patent.To patent software you must provide the plans of this software ( aka .
source code ) , so that others can see if it is useful and novel.Make it law and just watch how corporations stop filing patents in less time than you can say 'Patent' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's do it just like any other invention patent.To patent software you must provide the plans of this software (aka.
source code), so that others can see if it is useful and novel.Make it law and just watch how corporations stop filing patents in less time than you can say 'Patent'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684798</id>
	<title>That's a relief</title>
	<author>some\_guy\_88</author>
	<datestamp>1270031460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so used to loading slashdot and reading <i>bad</i> news. It's a breath of fresh air to read something like this. Good job everyone from New Zealand.</p><p>Hope some of that common sense washes over to Aussie shores</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so used to loading slashdot and reading bad news .
It 's a breath of fresh air to read something like this .
Good job everyone from New Zealand.Hope some of that common sense washes over to Aussie shores</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so used to loading slashdot and reading bad news.
It's a breath of fresh air to read something like this.
Good job everyone from New Zealand.Hope some of that common sense washes over to Aussie shores</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686448</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>deblike</author>
	<datestamp>1270045200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good idea, politicians (hence government) are more permeable to gonorrhea than common sense or people's needs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good idea , politicians ( hence government ) are more permeable to gonorrhea than common sense or people 's needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good idea, politicians (hence government) are more permeable to gonorrhea than common sense or people's needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686896</id>
	<title>Not quite just a draft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270047240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been sent to the select committee which makes it highly likely to pass. To get to the select committee stage in NZ a bill has to pass the first reading in the house, doing so means that is has the support of at least half of parliament and can thus be made into law.<br>In the select committee stage MPs from each party discuss the bill, define the details and hear submissions. The submissions are problematic as that's when lobbyists can get their foot in the door to have it changed (the only real opportunity for lobbying within NZ really). But submissions mainly come from interested members of the public and groups like the NZ Law Society who are concerned with technicalities.<br>The Select Committee has the power to make recommendations to the house. When the bill comes out of Select Committee (normally in 6 months) it has the second reading in the house, select committee recommendations are nearly always voted in. Then there's the committee of the whole house which essentially a parliament wide debate on the impacts of the bill and the chance for MPs to get noticed. Then there is the Third Reading (which is a formality) and the bill gets the stamp of the governor-general and becomes an Act of Parliament.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/NZ politics and constitutional law student</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been sent to the select committee which makes it highly likely to pass .
To get to the select committee stage in NZ a bill has to pass the first reading in the house , doing so means that is has the support of at least half of parliament and can thus be made into law.In the select committee stage MPs from each party discuss the bill , define the details and hear submissions .
The submissions are problematic as that 's when lobbyists can get their foot in the door to have it changed ( the only real opportunity for lobbying within NZ really ) .
But submissions mainly come from interested members of the public and groups like the NZ Law Society who are concerned with technicalities.The Select Committee has the power to make recommendations to the house .
When the bill comes out of Select Committee ( normally in 6 months ) it has the second reading in the house , select committee recommendations are nearly always voted in .
Then there 's the committee of the whole house which essentially a parliament wide debate on the impacts of the bill and the chance for MPs to get noticed .
Then there is the Third Reading ( which is a formality ) and the bill gets the stamp of the governor-general and becomes an Act of Parliament .
/NZ politics and constitutional law student</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been sent to the select committee which makes it highly likely to pass.
To get to the select committee stage in NZ a bill has to pass the first reading in the house, doing so means that is has the support of at least half of parliament and can thus be made into law.In the select committee stage MPs from each party discuss the bill, define the details and hear submissions.
The submissions are problematic as that's when lobbyists can get their foot in the door to have it changed (the only real opportunity for lobbying within NZ really).
But submissions mainly come from interested members of the public and groups like the NZ Law Society who are concerned with technicalities.The Select Committee has the power to make recommendations to the house.
When the bill comes out of Select Committee (normally in 6 months) it has the second reading in the house, select committee recommendations are nearly always voted in.
Then there's the committee of the whole house which essentially a parliament wide debate on the impacts of the bill and the chance for MPs to get noticed.
Then there is the Third Reading (which is a formality) and the bill gets the stamp of the governor-general and becomes an Act of Parliament.
/NZ politics and constitutional law student</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31689352</id>
	<title>Don't stop at software patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270057200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to put an end to "business method" patents as well.</p><p>It is arguable that you could trademark a service, but you certainly shouldn't be able to patent it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to put an end to " business method " patents as well.It is arguable that you could trademark a service , but you certainly should n't be able to patent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to put an end to "business method" patents as well.It is arguable that you could trademark a service, but you certainly shouldn't be able to patent it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686828</id>
	<title>Re:Bad wording?</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1270046880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Active Directory-esque"? Is that what the kids are calling LDAP these days?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Active Directory-esque " ?
Is that what the kids are calling LDAP these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Active Directory-esque"?
Is that what the kids are calling LDAP these days?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686382</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270044900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S Patent office allows some absurd patents as well,  just because it is on a computer. Additionally software patents usually fail the obviousness clause. If I can come up with the Idea, it definitely shouldn't be patentable.</p><p>"One click shopping"</p><p>Floating point "textures" on a graphics card. (also applies to the driver or to the "textures" themselves) A graphic texture is really just a structure or array, and floating point math arrays &amp; calculation actually predate electronic (including vacuum tube tech) computers. Additionally, floating point "textures" (arrays really) is used for things already commonly done in CPU based raytracing. but SGI got the patent because it's "on the graphics card"</p><p>S3 texture compression. another on that fails the obviousness test. Modem communication was already using compression, cslip, zmodem and the ilk. Its not a huge strech to see that the bandwidth saveings in communication could  save bandwidth in gpu to memory, or cpu to gpu over any bus.</p><p>Phil Zimmerman vs. RSA Inc. Phil independently came up with basically the same algorithm as RSA patented. Public key encryption.<br>I need a new "This Shirt is a Munition" shirt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S Patent office allows some absurd patents as well , just because it is on a computer .
Additionally software patents usually fail the obviousness clause .
If I can come up with the Idea , it definitely should n't be patentable .
" One click shopping " Floating point " textures " on a graphics card .
( also applies to the driver or to the " textures " themselves ) A graphic texture is really just a structure or array , and floating point math arrays &amp; calculation actually predate electronic ( including vacuum tube tech ) computers .
Additionally , floating point " textures " ( arrays really ) is used for things already commonly done in CPU based raytracing .
but SGI got the patent because it 's " on the graphics card " S3 texture compression .
another on that fails the obviousness test .
Modem communication was already using compression , cslip , zmodem and the ilk .
Its not a huge strech to see that the bandwidth saveings in communication could save bandwidth in gpu to memory , or cpu to gpu over any bus.Phil Zimmerman vs. RSA Inc. Phil independently came up with basically the same algorithm as RSA patented .
Public key encryption.I need a new " This Shirt is a Munition " shirt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S Patent office allows some absurd patents as well,  just because it is on a computer.
Additionally software patents usually fail the obviousness clause.
If I can come up with the Idea, it definitely shouldn't be patentable.
"One click shopping"Floating point "textures" on a graphics card.
(also applies to the driver or to the "textures" themselves) A graphic texture is really just a structure or array, and floating point math arrays &amp; calculation actually predate electronic (including vacuum tube tech) computers.
Additionally, floating point "textures" (arrays really) is used for things already commonly done in CPU based raytracing.
but SGI got the patent because it's "on the graphics card"S3 texture compression.
another on that fails the obviousness test.
Modem communication was already using compression, cslip, zmodem and the ilk.
Its not a huge strech to see that the bandwidth saveings in communication could  save bandwidth in gpu to memory, or cpu to gpu over any bus.Phil Zimmerman vs. RSA Inc. Phil independently came up with basically the same algorithm as RSA patented.
Public key encryption.I need a new "This Shirt is a Munition" shirt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685882</id>
	<title>"first" in the face</title>
	<author>idji</author>
	<datestamp>1270041720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or "fist" in the face?</htmltext>
<tokenext>or " fist " in the face ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or "fist" in the face?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290</id>
	<title>Don't cheer yet</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1270036500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a DRAFT of a bill.  It's not even a bill yet.  And while some are speculating that this is intended to get more public attention, I think it may be intended to get more private (funds) attention.  With all the high pressure lobbying [read "involves a lot of money"] I imagine NZ's government may be feeling they aren't getting their share of attention from those in support of software patentability.  The inclusion of this may only be there to rattle some cages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a DRAFT of a bill .
It 's not even a bill yet .
And while some are speculating that this is intended to get more public attention , I think it may be intended to get more private ( funds ) attention .
With all the high pressure lobbying [ read " involves a lot of money " ] I imagine NZ 's government may be feeling they are n't getting their share of attention from those in support of software patentability .
The inclusion of this may only be there to rattle some cages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a DRAFT of a bill.
It's not even a bill yet.
And while some are speculating that this is intended to get more public attention, I think it may be intended to get more private (funds) attention.
With all the high pressure lobbying [read "involves a lot of money"] I imagine NZ's government may be feeling they aren't getting their share of attention from those in support of software patentability.
The inclusion of this may only be there to rattle some cages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31692818</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>ThunderDan</author>
	<datestamp>1270027620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I am thoroughly sick of people who automatically assume that patents, a massive government interference in citizens minding their own business, will encourage innovation in every area of human endeavour when it's quite clear they don't. If they're going to argue for this government interference then they should at least have some scientific evidence that it is a net positive in any particular area. Not the usual childish handwaving about how an inventor won't invent without patents (history shows this is nonsense) and that patents have no harmful effect on society and the free exchange of ideas (also nonsense).</p></div><p>Nobody suggests that all inventors will stop inventing without a patent system.  The idea of a garage inventor is reasonably argued as not significantly motivated by the hope of obtaining a patent.  I argue against this position, for I know if I were such an inventor and saw an invention I was the first to invent in Walmart without any compensation to me, I would feel wronged.

However, thinking about areas of science and technology where the cost of entry is high, the need for patent protection becomes clearer.  Without sufficient protection, products that require substantial R&amp;D expenditures are less likely to be developed because the developed product can then be produced by competitors.  This is most evident in the field of pharmaceuticals, with the constant push-and-shove between developers and generics.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A patent stops billions of people from using an idea that's probably going to be independently re-invented many times so that one (1) person can have <em>additional</em> incentive to invent something. Explain to me why this is a net positive?</p></div><p>I'll gladly respond.  First, your presumption that an idea that is going to be independently re-invented is already addressed in the patent code, specifically 35 U.S.C. 103, not allowing patents that are obvious.  Given the expansive interpretation given to this section by the Supreme Court in <em>KSR v. Teleflex</em>, examiners are given the ammunition to reject claims for inventions that are likely to be independently re-invented, as these inventions are likely obvious.  This is so because inventions that are likely to be independently re-invented are just that because there is a market demand for an invention, there is an associated motivation for an inventor to satisfy that demand.  Hence, obvious.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Particularly for software industry where the entry cost is so low?</p></div><p>Fair enough.  However, the cost of entry is not considered in the patenting process.  A fair remedy could be to have different standards of non-obviousness for some areas where entry costs (can) be low, i.e. software and mechanical applications, and another standard for areas where entry costs are high, i.e. pharmaceuticals.

However, I would argue that this is unnecessary.  If an examiner is truly an expert in the field, as they are presumed to be, they will be able to recognize those pieces of software which are obvious and those which are not, keeping in mind the inherent standards of obviousness for their area/art unit.  I guess you call this hand-waving; I call this understanding the patent prosecution process.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.</em></p> </div><p>If you feel that way, I encourage you to write your congressional representatives for a repeal of the patent system.  Don't be too surprised if your view doesn't gather too much support.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I am thoroughly sick of people who automatically assume that patents , a massive government interference in citizens minding their own business , will encourage innovation in every area of human endeavour when it 's quite clear they do n't .
If they 're going to argue for this government interference then they should at least have some scientific evidence that it is a net positive in any particular area .
Not the usual childish handwaving about how an inventor wo n't invent without patents ( history shows this is nonsense ) and that patents have no harmful effect on society and the free exchange of ideas ( also nonsense ) .Nobody suggests that all inventors will stop inventing without a patent system .
The idea of a garage inventor is reasonably argued as not significantly motivated by the hope of obtaining a patent .
I argue against this position , for I know if I were such an inventor and saw an invention I was the first to invent in Walmart without any compensation to me , I would feel wronged .
However , thinking about areas of science and technology where the cost of entry is high , the need for patent protection becomes clearer .
Without sufficient protection , products that require substantial R&amp;D expenditures are less likely to be developed because the developed product can then be produced by competitors .
This is most evident in the field of pharmaceuticals , with the constant push-and-shove between developers and generics.A patent stops billions of people from using an idea that 's probably going to be independently re-invented many times so that one ( 1 ) person can have additional incentive to invent something .
Explain to me why this is a net positive ? I 'll gladly respond .
First , your presumption that an idea that is going to be independently re-invented is already addressed in the patent code , specifically 35 U.S.C .
103 , not allowing patents that are obvious .
Given the expansive interpretation given to this section by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex , examiners are given the ammunition to reject claims for inventions that are likely to be independently re-invented , as these inventions are likely obvious .
This is so because inventions that are likely to be independently re-invented are just that because there is a market demand for an invention , there is an associated motivation for an inventor to satisfy that demand .
Hence , obvious.Particularly for software industry where the entry cost is so low ? Fair enough .
However , the cost of entry is not considered in the patenting process .
A fair remedy could be to have different standards of non-obviousness for some areas where entry costs ( can ) be low , i.e .
software and mechanical applications , and another standard for areas where entry costs are high , i.e .
pharmaceuticals . However , I would argue that this is unnecessary .
If an examiner is truly an expert in the field , as they are presumed to be , they will be able to recognize those pieces of software which are obvious and those which are not , keeping in mind the inherent standards of obviousness for their area/art unit .
I guess you call this hand-waving ; I call this understanding the patent prosecution process .
Every new patent is a new law ; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community .
If you feel that way , I encourage you to write your congressional representatives for a repeal of the patent system .
Do n't be too surprised if your view does n't gather too much support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I am thoroughly sick of people who automatically assume that patents, a massive government interference in citizens minding their own business, will encourage innovation in every area of human endeavour when it's quite clear they don't.
If they're going to argue for this government interference then they should at least have some scientific evidence that it is a net positive in any particular area.
Not the usual childish handwaving about how an inventor won't invent without patents (history shows this is nonsense) and that patents have no harmful effect on society and the free exchange of ideas (also nonsense).Nobody suggests that all inventors will stop inventing without a patent system.
The idea of a garage inventor is reasonably argued as not significantly motivated by the hope of obtaining a patent.
I argue against this position, for I know if I were such an inventor and saw an invention I was the first to invent in Walmart without any compensation to me, I would feel wronged.
However, thinking about areas of science and technology where the cost of entry is high, the need for patent protection becomes clearer.
Without sufficient protection, products that require substantial R&amp;D expenditures are less likely to be developed because the developed product can then be produced by competitors.
This is most evident in the field of pharmaceuticals, with the constant push-and-shove between developers and generics.A patent stops billions of people from using an idea that's probably going to be independently re-invented many times so that one (1) person can have additional incentive to invent something.
Explain to me why this is a net positive?I'll gladly respond.
First, your presumption that an idea that is going to be independently re-invented is already addressed in the patent code, specifically 35 U.S.C.
103, not allowing patents that are obvious.
Given the expansive interpretation given to this section by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, examiners are given the ammunition to reject claims for inventions that are likely to be independently re-invented, as these inventions are likely obvious.
This is so because inventions that are likely to be independently re-invented are just that because there is a market demand for an invention, there is an associated motivation for an inventor to satisfy that demand.
Hence, obvious.Particularly for software industry where the entry cost is so low?Fair enough.
However, the cost of entry is not considered in the patenting process.
A fair remedy could be to have different standards of non-obviousness for some areas where entry costs (can) be low, i.e.
software and mechanical applications, and another standard for areas where entry costs are high, i.e.
pharmaceuticals.

However, I would argue that this is unnecessary.
If an examiner is truly an expert in the field, as they are presumed to be, they will be able to recognize those pieces of software which are obvious and those which are not, keeping in mind the inherent standards of obviousness for their area/art unit.
I guess you call this hand-waving; I call this understanding the patent prosecution process.
Every new patent is a new law; another opportunity for a lawyer to make money at the expense of the wider community.
If you feel that way, I encourage you to write your congressional representatives for a repeal of the patent system.
Don't be too surprised if your view doesn't gather too much support.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687534</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270049880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's good enough IMHO.  Remind me, what exactly is the problem with embedded device patents?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's good enough IMHO .
Remind me , what exactly is the problem with embedded device patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's good enough IMHO.
Remind me, what exactly is the problem with embedded device patents?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684716</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270030740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say we patent this type of solution and then release it under a [insert name of least controversial open source license here] license so it can spread like <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/31/0118202/Gonorrhea-As-the-Next-Superbug" title="slashdot.org">Gonorrhea</a> [slashdot.org] throughout other governments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we patent this type of solution and then release it under a [ insert name of least controversial open source license here ] license so it can spread like Gonorrhea [ slashdot.org ] throughout other governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we patent this type of solution and then release it under a [insert name of least controversial open source license here] license so it can spread like Gonorrhea [slashdot.org] throughout other governments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684856</id>
	<title>New Zealand takes one more step towards being a ba</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270032060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, even if you are anti-patents, read their argument it is laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , even if you are anti-patents , read their argument it is laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, even if you are anti-patents, read their argument it is laughable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685196</id>
	<title>Re:Why Not?</title>
	<author>Drishmung</author>
	<datestamp>1270035660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents. I'm not trolling here, please help me understand.



As I understand it, the idea behind a patent is to encourage an inventor to invest resources in R&amp;D and then to share their new techniology with society, in return for a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that new technology. This is arguably a bit broken at the moment -- largely because patents seem to be overly broad and to last too long -- but the basic idea seems sound.</p></div><p>See <a href="http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/03/19/software-patents/" title="redmonk.com">http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/03/19/software-patents/</a> [redmonk.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The software patent system may be in need of repair, but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater?</p></div><p>It's too broken, too fundamentally broken, to fix.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents .
I 'm not trolling here , please help me understand .
As I understand it , the idea behind a patent is to encourage an inventor to invest resources in R&amp;D and then to share their new techniology with society , in return for a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that new technology .
This is arguably a bit broken at the moment -- largely because patents seem to be overly broad and to last too long -- but the basic idea seems sound.See http : //redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/03/19/software-patents/ [ redmonk.com ] The software patent system may be in need of repair , but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater ? It 's too broken , too fundamentally broken , to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never really followed the arguments behind why everyone hates software patents.
I'm not trolling here, please help me understand.
As I understand it, the idea behind a patent is to encourage an inventor to invest resources in R&amp;D and then to share their new techniology with society, in return for a time-limited monopoly on exploiting that new technology.
This is arguably a bit broken at the moment -- largely because patents seem to be overly broad and to last too long -- but the basic idea seems sound.See http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/03/19/software-patents/ [redmonk.com] The software patent system may be in need of repair, but is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater?It's too broken, too fundamentally broken, to fix.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685832</id>
	<title>Re:Innovation?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1270041420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your Apple, Adobe, MS or any of the big hardware/software players - help/hinder/slow software / computer science "innovation" can all be very helpful.<br>
Say Adobe comes out with the next new 'font' thing and Apple and MS dont want to pay?<br>
Say MS does not want to pay for some fancy digital optical storage format on its loss leader game units.<br>
Say MS has a codec that ships with every fancy digital optical storage format?<br>
Software patents are wonderful legal tools to tap into generational revenue streams or let you out flank a competitors lock in efforts.<br>
Or swapped with friends and locked out via buy outs of start up competitors.<br>
They can also totally lock out 'basement' backed 'Unix' funded per seat coding efforts.<br>
Throw in the interests of the US gov, taxpayers, big media, military industrial lobby ect. you have a potent mix to ensure the US always wins.<br>
NZ will be offered the 2nd world deal.  Sign up and your artist/developers will be protected and can profit from world wide access to the US.<br>
Make waves on the international stage by saying 'no' and NZ slides to 3rd world status.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your Apple , Adobe , MS or any of the big hardware/software players - help/hinder/slow software / computer science " innovation " can all be very helpful .
Say Adobe comes out with the next new 'font ' thing and Apple and MS dont want to pay ?
Say MS does not want to pay for some fancy digital optical storage format on its loss leader game units .
Say MS has a codec that ships with every fancy digital optical storage format ?
Software patents are wonderful legal tools to tap into generational revenue streams or let you out flank a competitors lock in efforts .
Or swapped with friends and locked out via buy outs of start up competitors .
They can also totally lock out 'basement ' backed 'Unix ' funded per seat coding efforts .
Throw in the interests of the US gov , taxpayers , big media , military industrial lobby ect .
you have a potent mix to ensure the US always wins .
NZ will be offered the 2nd world deal .
Sign up and your artist/developers will be protected and can profit from world wide access to the US .
Make waves on the international stage by saying 'no ' and NZ slides to 3rd world status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your Apple, Adobe, MS or any of the big hardware/software players - help/hinder/slow software / computer science "innovation" can all be very helpful.
Say Adobe comes out with the next new 'font' thing and Apple and MS dont want to pay?
Say MS does not want to pay for some fancy digital optical storage format on its loss leader game units.
Say MS has a codec that ships with every fancy digital optical storage format?
Software patents are wonderful legal tools to tap into generational revenue streams or let you out flank a competitors lock in efforts.
Or swapped with friends and locked out via buy outs of start up competitors.
They can also totally lock out 'basement' backed 'Unix' funded per seat coding efforts.
Throw in the interests of the US gov, taxpayers, big media, military industrial lobby ect.
you have a potent mix to ensure the US always wins.
NZ will be offered the 2nd world deal.
Sign up and your artist/developers will be protected and can profit from world wide access to the US.
Make waves on the international stage by saying 'no' and NZ slides to 3rd world status.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31694132</id>
	<title>Re:Slash-doppers</title>
	<author>ThunderDan</author>
	<datestamp>1270033560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then again, any patent on UNIX would have expired decades ago...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again , any patent on UNIX would have expired decades ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again, any patent on UNIX would have expired decades ago...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686638</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31694132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31689036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31695526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31696644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31696622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31697090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31692818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_31_0450201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31694132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31697090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31696644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31696622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31690410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31689036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31692818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31684728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31687812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_31_0450201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31685290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31686680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_31_0450201.31695526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
