<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_1331256</id>
	<title>BetaNet Sues Everyone For Remote SW Activation</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1260971460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Not to be <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/15/001212/Eolas-Sues-World--Dog-For-AJAX-Patent">out patent trolled by Eolas</a>, a mystery company named 'BetaNet, LLC' is <a href="http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/texas/txedce/2:2009cv00384/120134/">suing</a>: Adobe Systems, Inc, Apple, Inc., Arial Software, LLC, Autodesk, Inc.,, CARBONITE, INC., Corel Corp., Eastman Kodak Co., International Business Machines Corp., Intuit, Inc., Microsoft Corp., McAfee, Inc., Oracle Corp., Rockwell Automation, Inc., Rosetta Stone, Inc., SAP America, Inc., Siemens Corp. and Sony Creative Software, Inc. for <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/mongo\_patent\_infringement\_suit/">infringement</a> of their patent entitled <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&amp;Sect2=HITOFF&amp;p=1&amp;u=\%2Fnetahtml\%2FPTO\%2Fsearch-bool.html&amp;r=1&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=5222134.PN.&amp;OS=PN/5222134&amp;RS=PN/5222134">Secure system for activating personal computer software at remote locations</a>.  And of course, this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places: Marshall, TX (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_District\_Court\_for\_the\_Eastern\_District\_of\_Texas#Patent\_litigation">Texas Eastern District Court</a>)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Not to be out patent trolled by Eolas , a mystery company named 'BetaNet , LLC ' is suing : Adobe Systems , Inc , Apple , Inc. , Arial Software , LLC , Autodesk , Inc., , CARBONITE , INC. , Corel Corp. , Eastman Kodak Co. , International Business Machines Corp. , Intuit , Inc. , Microsoft Corp. , McAfee , Inc. , Oracle Corp. , Rockwell Automation , Inc. , Rosetta Stone , Inc. , SAP America , Inc. , Siemens Corp. and Sony Creative Software , Inc. for infringement of their patent entitled Secure system for activating personal computer software at remote locations .
And of course , this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places : Marshall , TX ( Texas Eastern District Court ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Not to be out patent trolled by Eolas, a mystery company named 'BetaNet, LLC' is suing: Adobe Systems, Inc, Apple, Inc., Arial Software, LLC, Autodesk, Inc.,, CARBONITE, INC., Corel Corp., Eastman Kodak Co., International Business Machines Corp., Intuit, Inc., Microsoft Corp., McAfee, Inc., Oracle Corp., Rockwell Automation, Inc., Rosetta Stone, Inc., SAP America, Inc., Siemens Corp. and Sony Creative Software, Inc. for infringement of their patent entitled Secure system for activating personal computer software at remote locations.
And of course, this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places: Marshall, TX (Texas Eastern District Court).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457900</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are NOT stupid. They are corrupt. The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration.</p></div><p>They are not corporate puppets, they are party puppets.  The old canard about votes being bought makes good press, sells newspapers (and karma apparently), but show me the evidence.</p><p>You don't have to know a damn thing to get elected, you only need to regurgitate party talking points.  It's the political parties that get politicians elected, not corporations.  It's the political parties that are responsible for the dumbing down of civil discourse.  It is political party affiliation that determines how congressmen vote.  Vote against a few corporate sponsors, and you'll be just fine.  Vote against your party and you will be squashed.</p><p>Show me anyone in congress who can extemporize intelligently on the pros and cons of copyright and patent law.  Find a scrap of evidence, any evidence at all - a scrap of writing, a news report, anything - that indicates just one person on the hill knows anything at all about these issues.  I'm sticking with "stupid", until someone can provide some evidence to the contrary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are NOT stupid .
They are corrupt .
The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions , not on any moral or logical consideration.They are not corporate puppets , they are party puppets .
The old canard about votes being bought makes good press , sells newspapers ( and karma apparently ) , but show me the evidence.You do n't have to know a damn thing to get elected , you only need to regurgitate party talking points .
It 's the political parties that get politicians elected , not corporations .
It 's the political parties that are responsible for the dumbing down of civil discourse .
It is political party affiliation that determines how congressmen vote .
Vote against a few corporate sponsors , and you 'll be just fine .
Vote against your party and you will be squashed.Show me anyone in congress who can extemporize intelligently on the pros and cons of copyright and patent law .
Find a scrap of evidence , any evidence at all - a scrap of writing , a news report , anything - that indicates just one person on the hill knows anything at all about these issues .
I 'm sticking with " stupid " , until someone can provide some evidence to the contrary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are NOT stupid.
They are corrupt.
The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration.They are not corporate puppets, they are party puppets.
The old canard about votes being bought makes good press, sells newspapers (and karma apparently), but show me the evidence.You don't have to know a damn thing to get elected, you only need to regurgitate party talking points.
It's the political parties that get politicians elected, not corporations.
It's the political parties that are responsible for the dumbing down of civil discourse.
It is political party affiliation that determines how congressmen vote.
Vote against a few corporate sponsors, and you'll be just fine.
Vote against your party and you will be squashed.Show me anyone in congress who can extemporize intelligently on the pros and cons of copyright and patent law.
Find a scrap of evidence, any evidence at all - a scrap of writing, a news report, anything - that indicates just one person on the hill knows anything at all about these issues.
I'm sticking with "stupid", until someone can provide some evidence to the contrary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1259680440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?</p></div><p>If I may opine my nonprofessional perspective from the software field, patents (and really the copyrighting/property concept applied to ideas in general) are a fuzzy field of law.  Meaning that in most of the cases, the common sense rule doesn't work.  I mean that if you approached a large number of citizens, their response could vary depending on their political direction, their previous personal experiences with companies or even how you present the case.  You'll notice that I came out in this summary screaming--in a very nonprofessional way--that BetaNet is a patent troll.  Makes it obvious who to side with, right?  But given the letter of the law, it's not that simple.  Given United States legal code, there are cases when patent litigation is the answer (in my opinion rarely if ever in software but that's another topic altogether).  <br> <br>

Now, if you can establish that it's a hazy field and outcomes are tied to differences in regions of the United States, you can also establish that there will <i>always</i> be a local maximum for percentages of cases awarded one way or the other.  That's why Marshall, TX is so popular for the trolls.  And if Marshall, TX had a mission statement tomorrow to shut down patent trolls from the get go then the next statistic maximum would be your preferred place of patent trolling.  <br> <br>

What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom?  Neither of you claim offices here or even do business here so go back to where one of you operate."  Sometimes this happens but really I think this needs to be done more often.  In my opinion, the solution isn't to stop Marshall, TX; it's to fix the <i>patent system</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should , if they 're not idiots or in league with these trolls , realize that the reason they 're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they 're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing ? If I may opine my nonprofessional perspective from the software field , patents ( and really the copyrighting/property concept applied to ideas in general ) are a fuzzy field of law .
Meaning that in most of the cases , the common sense rule does n't work .
I mean that if you approached a large number of citizens , their response could vary depending on their political direction , their previous personal experiences with companies or even how you present the case .
You 'll notice that I came out in this summary screaming--in a very nonprofessional way--that BetaNet is a patent troll .
Makes it obvious who to side with , right ?
But given the letter of the law , it 's not that simple .
Given United States legal code , there are cases when patent litigation is the answer ( in my opinion rarely if ever in software but that 's another topic altogether ) .
Now , if you can establish that it 's a hazy field and outcomes are tied to differences in regions of the United States , you can also establish that there will always be a local maximum for percentages of cases awarded one way or the other .
That 's why Marshall , TX is so popular for the trolls .
And if Marshall , TX had a mission statement tomorrow to shut down patent trolls from the get go then the next statistic maximum would be your preferred place of patent trolling .
What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas ' Courts is that they do n't say , " What the hell is this doing in my courtroom ?
Neither of you claim offices here or even do business here so go back to where one of you operate .
" Sometimes this happens but really I think this needs to be done more often .
In my opinion , the solution is n't to stop Marshall , TX ; it 's to fix the patent system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?If I may opine my nonprofessional perspective from the software field, patents (and really the copyrighting/property concept applied to ideas in general) are a fuzzy field of law.
Meaning that in most of the cases, the common sense rule doesn't work.
I mean that if you approached a large number of citizens, their response could vary depending on their political direction, their previous personal experiences with companies or even how you present the case.
You'll notice that I came out in this summary screaming--in a very nonprofessional way--that BetaNet is a patent troll.
Makes it obvious who to side with, right?
But given the letter of the law, it's not that simple.
Given United States legal code, there are cases when patent litigation is the answer (in my opinion rarely if ever in software but that's another topic altogether).
Now, if you can establish that it's a hazy field and outcomes are tied to differences in regions of the United States, you can also establish that there will always be a local maximum for percentages of cases awarded one way or the other.
That's why Marshall, TX is so popular for the trolls.
And if Marshall, TX had a mission statement tomorrow to shut down patent trolls from the get go then the next statistic maximum would be your preferred place of patent trolling.
What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom?
Neither of you claim offices here or even do business here so go back to where one of you operate.
"  Sometimes this happens but really I think this needs to be done more often.
In my opinion, the solution isn't to stop Marshall, TX; it's to fix the patent system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458326</id>
	<title>Re:The mostest</title>
	<author>GrantRobertson</author>
	<datestamp>1259685780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or we could build a <a href="http://www.ideationizing.com/2009/07/prior-art-combinator-tool-to.html" title="ideationizing.com" rel="nofollow">Prior Art Combinator:</a> [ideationizing.com] A tool to preemptively invalidate troll patents.

Granted, it wouldn't be effective against all the vague and generic patents that were filed 10 years ago. But it might cut down on the new filings of troll patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or we could build a Prior Art Combinator : [ ideationizing.com ] A tool to preemptively invalidate troll patents .
Granted , it would n't be effective against all the vague and generic patents that were filed 10 years ago .
But it might cut down on the new filings of troll patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or we could build a Prior Art Combinator: [ideationizing.com] A tool to preemptively invalidate troll patents.
Granted, it wouldn't be effective against all the vague and generic patents that were filed 10 years ago.
But it might cut down on the new filings of troll patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457078</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1259680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I wonder... why is it that companies are allowed to cherrypick the court to hear their case anyways?
</p><p>
I think it's an unfair advantage in favor of the prosecution that they somehow get to <b>pick</b> which court will be reviewing their case.
</p><p>
They should have to prove that the "selected court" is the closest one to where their company was headquartered at the time of the alleged abuse.
</p><p>
Or better yet...  determine the court that is closest to an equal distance away from the place the defendant and the place the prosecutor were headquartered at.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder... why is it that companies are allowed to cherrypick the court to hear their case anyways ?
I think it 's an unfair advantage in favor of the prosecution that they somehow get to pick which court will be reviewing their case .
They should have to prove that the " selected court " is the closest one to where their company was headquartered at the time of the alleged abuse .
Or better yet... determine the court that is closest to an equal distance away from the place the defendant and the place the prosecutor were headquartered at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I wonder... why is it that companies are allowed to cherrypick the court to hear their case anyways?
I think it's an unfair advantage in favor of the prosecution that they somehow get to pick which court will be reviewing their case.
They should have to prove that the "selected court" is the closest one to where their company was headquartered at the time of the alleged abuse.
Or better yet...  determine the court that is closest to an equal distance away from the place the defendant and the place the prosecutor were headquartered at.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</id>
	<title>RTFP</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1259682420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(read the fucking patent)</p><p>Actually, it's not that straightforward, and I'm not certain there will be much prior art. The patent doesn't just say "call here to verify your registration number".<br>First, it's from 1991. Remember that year? That's 4 years before win95 came to the market <b>without a TCP/IP stack</b>. A network-based software activation was certainly a couple years ahead.<br>Two, it isn't your "set a flag in config.ini" type of activation, either. The patent speaks about the construction of a tamperproof overlay program containing core parts of the actual application. In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it <b>and</b> they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.</p><p>That's pretty advanced for 1991, "software as a service" didn't become a buzzword until 10 years later.</p><p>Disclaimer: Doesn't mean I like software patents. I don't. But some are more obviously trivial nonsense than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( read the fucking patent ) Actually , it 's not that straightforward , and I 'm not certain there will be much prior art .
The patent does n't just say " call here to verify your registration number " .First , it 's from 1991 .
Remember that year ?
That 's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stack .
A network-based software activation was certainly a couple years ahead.Two , it is n't your " set a flag in config.ini " type of activation , either .
The patent speaks about the construction of a tamperproof overlay program containing core parts of the actual application .
In other words , you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel , but also in a way that you ca n't mess around with it and they can take it away again after , say , your subscription period ends.That 's pretty advanced for 1991 , " software as a service " did n't become a buzzword until 10 years later.Disclaimer : Does n't mean I like software patents .
I do n't .
But some are more obviously trivial nonsense than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(read the fucking patent)Actually, it's not that straightforward, and I'm not certain there will be much prior art.
The patent doesn't just say "call here to verify your registration number".First, it's from 1991.
Remember that year?
That's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stack.
A network-based software activation was certainly a couple years ahead.Two, it isn't your "set a flag in config.ini" type of activation, either.
The patent speaks about the construction of a tamperproof overlay program containing core parts of the actual application.
In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.That's pretty advanced for 1991, "software as a service" didn't become a buzzword until 10 years later.Disclaimer: Doesn't mean I like software patents.
I don't.
But some are more obviously trivial nonsense than others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457248</id>
	<title>UUCP - prior art</title>
	<author>tg123</author>
	<datestamp>1259681160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UUCP is prior art.</p><p>UUCP (unix to unix copy protocol ) has been doing this since at least the 1980's.</p><p>Admittedly its usually used to transfer files but uucp can still log in to a shell and remotely activate software.<br>( you usually have a script prepared to do this for you.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UUCP is prior art.UUCP ( unix to unix copy protocol ) has been doing this since at least the 1980 's.Admittedly its usually used to transfer files but uucp can still log in to a shell and remotely activate software .
( you usually have a script prepared to do this for you .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UUCP is prior art.UUCP (unix to unix copy protocol ) has been doing this since at least the 1980's.Admittedly its usually used to transfer files but uucp can still log in to a shell and remotely activate software.
( you usually have a script prepared to do this for you.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460136</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259692260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rubber-stamping patent troll lawsuits is direct evidence of judicial corruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rubber-stamping patent troll lawsuits is direct evidence of judicial corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rubber-stamping patent troll lawsuits is direct evidence of judicial corruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456888</id>
	<title>lulz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first post!1111111111</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first post ! 1111111111</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first post!1111111111</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457274</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259681340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should be investigated to see if they are on the take.</p><p>Just the pressure alone could have a chilling effect, and all is fair in war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should be investigated to see if they are on the take.Just the pressure alone could have a chilling effect , and all is fair in war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should be investigated to see if they are on the take.Just the pressure alone could have a chilling effect, and all is fair in war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458618</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>stoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259686800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, you youngsters, 1991 wasn't the Bronze Age.</p><p>I was a systems manager 1990 for a site that used the then new Sun Sparc "pizzaboxes". They ran a CAD package that had a humngous key encoding numbers of licenses for subpackages and their expiry dates. And yes, it was painful to have those keys dictated over the telephone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , you youngsters , 1991 was n't the Bronze Age.I was a systems manager 1990 for a site that used the then new Sun Sparc " pizzaboxes " .
They ran a CAD package that had a humngous key encoding numbers of licenses for subpackages and their expiry dates .
And yes , it was painful to have those keys dictated over the telephone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, you youngsters, 1991 wasn't the Bronze Age.I was a systems manager 1990 for a site that used the then new Sun Sparc "pizzaboxes".
They ran a CAD package that had a humngous key encoding numbers of licenses for subpackages and their expiry dates.
And yes, it was painful to have those keys dictated over the telephone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458858</id>
	<title>Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1259687760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads, and says, "Well, let's take a look at YOUR infringements."</p></div><p>IF we ever get real patent reform in place that may happen to include proving the actual USE of patents you own, corporations like IBM would likely lose 99.999\% of their patent portfolio.</p><p>Sorry, I just have issues with corps. like IBM filing 1,000 patents a month for the last 20 years for nothing more than a tax writeoff and "because we can" bullshit.  Prove you USE the patents you own to avoid monopolistic empires in the patent world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads , and says , " Well , let 's take a look at YOUR infringements .
" IF we ever get real patent reform in place that may happen to include proving the actual USE of patents you own , corporations like IBM would likely lose 99.999 \ % of their patent portfolio.Sorry , I just have issues with corps .
like IBM filing 1,000 patents a month for the last 20 years for nothing more than a tax writeoff and " because we can " bullshit .
Prove you USE the patents you own to avoid monopolistic empires in the patent world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads, and says, "Well, let's take a look at YOUR infringements.
"IF we ever get real patent reform in place that may happen to include proving the actual USE of patents you own, corporations like IBM would likely lose 99.999\% of their patent portfolio.Sorry, I just have issues with corps.
like IBM filing 1,000 patents a month for the last 20 years for nothing more than a tax writeoff and "because we can" bullshit.
Prove you USE the patents you own to avoid monopolistic empires in the patent world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457028</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or is it a revenue stream for them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is it a revenue stream for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is it a revenue stream for them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458130</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1259685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely at some point the judge/judges <b>in that small corner of Texas</b> should, if they're <b>not idiots</b> or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?</p><p>But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..</p><p>/Mikael</p></div><p>
Not a dream world, my friend, just the real world where the two highlighted phrases above aren't mutually exclusive, as they <b>are</b> in most parts of East Texas. Don't get me wrong, there's corruption aplenty there too, but (yes, I am making a rather sweeping generalization) that neighborhood isn't exactly known for a high average IQ. In your dream (real) world, judges are typically very well educated and possessed of a keen sense of right and wrong. One or the other is clearly missing here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should , if they 're not idiots or in league with these trolls , realize that the reason they 're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they 're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing ? But maybe I 'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges are n't incompetent or evil../Mikael Not a dream world , my friend , just the real world where the two highlighted phrases above are n't mutually exclusive , as they are in most parts of East Texas .
Do n't get me wrong , there 's corruption aplenty there too , but ( yes , I am making a rather sweeping generalization ) that neighborhood is n't exactly known for a high average IQ .
In your dream ( real ) world , judges are typically very well educated and possessed of a keen sense of right and wrong .
One or the other is clearly missing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil../Mikael
Not a dream world, my friend, just the real world where the two highlighted phrases above aren't mutually exclusive, as they are in most parts of East Texas.
Don't get me wrong, there's corruption aplenty there too, but (yes, I am making a rather sweeping generalization) that neighborhood isn't exactly known for a high average IQ.
In your dream (real) world, judges are typically very well educated and possessed of a keen sense of right and wrong.
One or the other is clearly missing here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457040</id>
	<title>Re:The mostest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good idea. Why not have all interested slashdotters form a 501(c) to patent patent trolling and countersue everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good idea .
Why not have all interested slashdotters form a 501 ( c ) to patent patent trolling and countersue everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good idea.
Why not have all interested slashdotters form a 501(c) to patent patent trolling and countersue everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458092</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1259684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(read the fucking patent)</i></p><p>I did. There are two independent claims (1 and 9) both dealing with the generation of an "overlay" (shades of RT-11) that contains the actual program code based on information the user provides through a "shell" program that they run initially.</p><p>On my reading, this is irrelevant to any activation system that deals solely with the data segment, so almost all conventional licence management systems are not covered.  Some stuff MS does might be, but I've never used a license manger that does anything remotely similar to what's described in this patent:  these days  we deliver the full program, and unlock it based on data, whereas the patent covers delivering a partial program and generating a new program based on user-supplied data.  That's unrelated to software-as-service implementations because there is no new "overlay"--whatever that might be construed to mean in this context--being generated by the delivery process:  when I run something in my browser it isn't a custom copy newly compiled from source incorporating information I've provided.  It's a bog-standard copy that may have restricted functionality based on data that is downloaded with it, a totally different thing.</p><p>So yeah, there's not that much prior art, but there's not that much "posterior art", either.</p><p>Some idiot on the bench in Marshal, Texas may of course disagree with this view, but that's based on how corrupt they are, not on how the patent reads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( read the fucking patent ) I did .
There are two independent claims ( 1 and 9 ) both dealing with the generation of an " overlay " ( shades of RT-11 ) that contains the actual program code based on information the user provides through a " shell " program that they run initially.On my reading , this is irrelevant to any activation system that deals solely with the data segment , so almost all conventional licence management systems are not covered .
Some stuff MS does might be , but I 've never used a license manger that does anything remotely similar to what 's described in this patent : these days we deliver the full program , and unlock it based on data , whereas the patent covers delivering a partial program and generating a new program based on user-supplied data .
That 's unrelated to software-as-service implementations because there is no new " overlay " --whatever that might be construed to mean in this context--being generated by the delivery process : when I run something in my browser it is n't a custom copy newly compiled from source incorporating information I 've provided .
It 's a bog-standard copy that may have restricted functionality based on data that is downloaded with it , a totally different thing.So yeah , there 's not that much prior art , but there 's not that much " posterior art " , either.Some idiot on the bench in Marshal , Texas may of course disagree with this view , but that 's based on how corrupt they are , not on how the patent reads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(read the fucking patent)I did.
There are two independent claims (1 and 9) both dealing with the generation of an "overlay" (shades of RT-11) that contains the actual program code based on information the user provides through a "shell" program that they run initially.On my reading, this is irrelevant to any activation system that deals solely with the data segment, so almost all conventional licence management systems are not covered.
Some stuff MS does might be, but I've never used a license manger that does anything remotely similar to what's described in this patent:  these days  we deliver the full program, and unlock it based on data, whereas the patent covers delivering a partial program and generating a new program based on user-supplied data.
That's unrelated to software-as-service implementations because there is no new "overlay"--whatever that might be construed to mean in this context--being generated by the delivery process:  when I run something in my browser it isn't a custom copy newly compiled from source incorporating information I've provided.
It's a bog-standard copy that may have restricted functionality based on data that is downloaded with it, a totally different thing.So yeah, there's not that much prior art, but there's not that much "posterior art", either.Some idiot on the bench in Marshal, Texas may of course disagree with this view, but that's based on how corrupt they are, not on how the patent reads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457662</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Samuar</author>
	<datestamp>1259683260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up! Good common sense should prevail, but rarely does. <br> <br>
Actually, I don't understand the legal system in the US. It seems rather complicated and time consuming. I'm not an expect in the UK either, but we don't appear to have the same high-octane/hollywood-blockbuster-action-film-like corporate law suit actions on a semi regular basis.<br> <br>
Software patents seem to just suck. (NB - I am very biased, i.e. I don't have any software patents)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up !
Good common sense should prevail , but rarely does .
Actually , I do n't understand the legal system in the US .
It seems rather complicated and time consuming .
I 'm not an expect in the UK either , but we do n't appear to have the same high-octane/hollywood-blockbuster-action-film-like corporate law suit actions on a semi regular basis .
Software patents seem to just suck .
( NB - I am very biased , i.e .
I do n't have any software patents )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!
Good common sense should prevail, but rarely does.
Actually, I don't understand the legal system in the US.
It seems rather complicated and time consuming.
I'm not an expect in the UK either, but we don't appear to have the same high-octane/hollywood-blockbuster-action-film-like corporate law suit actions on a semi regular basis.
Software patents seem to just suck.
(NB - I am very biased, i.e.
I don't have any software patents)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458294</id>
	<title>patented in 1993</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1259685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was patented in 1993.  Presumably the patent was filed for earlier.  While innovative in that time period I seem to recall that there were many licesnce servers back then.  So I don't think it will stand up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was patented in 1993 .
Presumably the patent was filed for earlier .
While innovative in that time period I seem to recall that there were many licesnce servers back then .
So I do n't think it will stand up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was patented in 1993.
Presumably the patent was filed for earlier.
While innovative in that time period I seem to recall that there were many licesnce servers back then.
So I don't think it will stand up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30462576</id>
	<title>Prior Art.... BBS Software</title>
	<author>TrenchWarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259700780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long before the commercial internet the network of places of interests were held together by *gasp* modem and phone line. Then<br>came ISDN , then DSL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... all ran over the same copper.</p><p>MUSTANG SOFTWARE wrote a BBS package called Wildcat, which interestingly is still a viable product. Product is now supported by Santronics.<br>They used dialup (network) registration along with an auto-patching and updating for new features. The software would not run unless you registered it via dial up (later the internet) as critical components to running were uploaded at the time of registration.  This system ran on DOS and little later Windows NT 3, which I believe predates the 1991"patent". The Wildcat BBS was started in 1986.</p><p>tw</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long before the commercial internet the network of places of interests were held together by * gasp * modem and phone line .
Thencame ISDN , then DSL ... all ran over the same copper.MUSTANG SOFTWARE wrote a BBS package called Wildcat , which interestingly is still a viable product .
Product is now supported by Santronics.They used dialup ( network ) registration along with an auto-patching and updating for new features .
The software would not run unless you registered it via dial up ( later the internet ) as critical components to running were uploaded at the time of registration .
This system ran on DOS and little later Windows NT 3 , which I believe predates the 1991 " patent " .
The Wildcat BBS was started in 1986.tw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long before the commercial internet the network of places of interests were held together by *gasp* modem and phone line.
Thencame ISDN , then DSL ... all ran over the same copper.MUSTANG SOFTWARE wrote a BBS package called Wildcat, which interestingly is still a viable product.
Product is now supported by Santronics.They used dialup (network) registration along with an auto-patching and updating for new features.
The software would not run unless you registered it via dial up (later the internet) as critical components to running were uploaded at the time of registration.
This system ran on DOS and little later Windows NT 3, which I believe predates the 1991"patent".
The Wildcat BBS was started in 1986.tw</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460796</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>pipatron</author>
	<datestamp>1259694600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this part covers that:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This does not apply if you sell a product that makes use of your patented technology, or if you license it to others that do.</p></div><p>If you don't sell a product using the technology, you obviously don't care about it. This could of course be circumvented easily by creating a product and claiming to sell it in your own office, for a price that no one would ever pay. Then there's no need to spend much money on anything, perhaps a small ad on a website to make it look like you're still actively pushing the technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this part covers that : This does not apply if you sell a product that makes use of your patented technology , or if you license it to others that do.If you do n't sell a product using the technology , you obviously do n't care about it .
This could of course be circumvented easily by creating a product and claiming to sell it in your own office , for a price that no one would ever pay .
Then there 's no need to spend much money on anything , perhaps a small ad on a website to make it look like you 're still actively pushing the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this part covers that:This does not apply if you sell a product that makes use of your patented technology, or if you license it to others that do.If you don't sell a product using the technology, you obviously don't care about it.
This could of course be circumvented easily by creating a product and claiming to sell it in your own office, for a price that no one would ever pay.
Then there's no need to spend much money on anything, perhaps a small ad on a website to make it look like you're still actively pushing the technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458360</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>MachineShedFred</author>
	<datestamp>1259685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't disagree with you, but here's the counterargument that would make your plan never happen:</p><p>"<b>Congress shall make no law</b> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or <b>abridging the freedom of speech</b>, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."</p><p>I've bolded the relevant bits.  There's also been some case law where the Supreme Court has ruled on campaign donations as free speech in the context of campaign finance reform laws in the past, but I'm no lawyer and don't pretend to understand how that affects things.  Either way, such legislation would turn into a First Amendment issue overnight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't disagree with you , but here 's the counterargument that would make your plan never happen : " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances .
" I 've bolded the relevant bits .
There 's also been some case law where the Supreme Court has ruled on campaign donations as free speech in the context of campaign finance reform laws in the past , but I 'm no lawyer and do n't pretend to understand how that affects things .
Either way , such legislation would turn into a First Amendment issue overnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't disagree with you, but here's the counterargument that would make your plan never happen:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"I've bolded the relevant bits.
There's also been some case law where the Supreme Court has ruled on campaign donations as free speech in the context of campaign finance reform laws in the past, but I'm no lawyer and don't pretend to understand how that affects things.
Either way, such legislation would turn into a First Amendment issue overnight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458338</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1259685840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you stop the Dutch auction problem?  That's to say that if potential licensees know there's a deadline at which they can get it for nothing, they can simply wait out the patent holder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you stop the Dutch auction problem ?
That 's to say that if potential licensees know there 's a deadline at which they can get it for nothing , they can simply wait out the patent holder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you stop the Dutch auction problem?
That's to say that if potential licensees know there's a deadline at which they can get it for nothing, they can simply wait out the patent holder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30461594</id>
	<title>Re:Not the same thing.</title>
	<author>DeadPixels</author>
	<datestamp>1259697720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to discourage most of the patent trolls.  But don't worry, soon enough they'll start suing each other and everything will be okay.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , that does n't seem to discourage most of the patent trolls .
But do n't worry , soon enough they 'll start suing each other and everything will be okay .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to discourage most of the patent trolls.
But don't worry, soon enough they'll start suing each other and everything will be okay.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457440</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1259682360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's always what goes on with these kinds of patents, and it is how you know they are bullshit.</p><p>Personally I think a "Use it or lose it," provision needs to be added to the patent system, and would fix a large number of the problems we have. Basically I'd have it work as such:</p><p>If you have a patent, and a product comes out on to the market that uses its technology, you have one year from the time you should reasonably be aware it is for sale (more or less meaning when it is on the mass market) to contact the company about licensing. Failure to do so means your patent is invalidated. This does not apply if you sell a product that makes use of your patented technology, or if you license it to others that do. However if the patent was previously unused in any product, you've got 12 months to contact them about licensing, or it is assumed that you do not wish to collect fees and your patent is now null.</p><p>In this way, patent holders still have their rights protected for legit patents. If you have a patent and sell a product that uses it, you can stop others from doing so as long as your patent is in force. Likewise if you license your tech out, you can make sure that only those you wish to license it to can use it. However, if you aren't currently using the patent and someone starts to, well then you either have to start actively using it, or you lose it.</p><p>That would make it so companies couldn't sit on patents until the technology is very popular and widespread and then try to use the patent as a weapon to extort people, because it is too late to go back. Someone rolls out a product, you have to contact them for licensing. If they don't like your terms, then ok they have to stop selling the product that infringes but it is still in the early stages. They and others can make sure to develop products that don't infringe on your IP without massive financial harm. If you tried to sit quietly on the patent and jump on people years later, all they'd have to do is show that their product was widely available more than a year ago and you never contacted them.</p><p>I think patents are necessary, for a number of reasons, and I think this would be a good balance between them protecting rights and not being abused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's always what goes on with these kinds of patents , and it is how you know they are bullshit.Personally I think a " Use it or lose it , " provision needs to be added to the patent system , and would fix a large number of the problems we have .
Basically I 'd have it work as such : If you have a patent , and a product comes out on to the market that uses its technology , you have one year from the time you should reasonably be aware it is for sale ( more or less meaning when it is on the mass market ) to contact the company about licensing .
Failure to do so means your patent is invalidated .
This does not apply if you sell a product that makes use of your patented technology , or if you license it to others that do .
However if the patent was previously unused in any product , you 've got 12 months to contact them about licensing , or it is assumed that you do not wish to collect fees and your patent is now null.In this way , patent holders still have their rights protected for legit patents .
If you have a patent and sell a product that uses it , you can stop others from doing so as long as your patent is in force .
Likewise if you license your tech out , you can make sure that only those you wish to license it to can use it .
However , if you are n't currently using the patent and someone starts to , well then you either have to start actively using it , or you lose it.That would make it so companies could n't sit on patents until the technology is very popular and widespread and then try to use the patent as a weapon to extort people , because it is too late to go back .
Someone rolls out a product , you have to contact them for licensing .
If they do n't like your terms , then ok they have to stop selling the product that infringes but it is still in the early stages .
They and others can make sure to develop products that do n't infringe on your IP without massive financial harm .
If you tried to sit quietly on the patent and jump on people years later , all they 'd have to do is show that their product was widely available more than a year ago and you never contacted them.I think patents are necessary , for a number of reasons , and I think this would be a good balance between them protecting rights and not being abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's always what goes on with these kinds of patents, and it is how you know they are bullshit.Personally I think a "Use it or lose it," provision needs to be added to the patent system, and would fix a large number of the problems we have.
Basically I'd have it work as such:If you have a patent, and a product comes out on to the market that uses its technology, you have one year from the time you should reasonably be aware it is for sale (more or less meaning when it is on the mass market) to contact the company about licensing.
Failure to do so means your patent is invalidated.
This does not apply if you sell a product that makes use of your patented technology, or if you license it to others that do.
However if the patent was previously unused in any product, you've got 12 months to contact them about licensing, or it is assumed that you do not wish to collect fees and your patent is now null.In this way, patent holders still have their rights protected for legit patents.
If you have a patent and sell a product that uses it, you can stop others from doing so as long as your patent is in force.
Likewise if you license your tech out, you can make sure that only those you wish to license it to can use it.
However, if you aren't currently using the patent and someone starts to, well then you either have to start actively using it, or you lose it.That would make it so companies couldn't sit on patents until the technology is very popular and widespread and then try to use the patent as a weapon to extort people, because it is too late to go back.
Someone rolls out a product, you have to contact them for licensing.
If they don't like your terms, then ok they have to stop selling the product that infringes but it is still in the early stages.
They and others can make sure to develop products that don't infringe on your IP without massive financial harm.
If you tried to sit quietly on the patent and jump on people years later, all they'd have to do is show that their product was widely available more than a year ago and you never contacted them.I think patents are necessary, for a number of reasons, and I think this would be a good balance between them protecting rights and not being abused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459054</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1259688600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they do realize that, what they see from their end is called "precedent".  That is, the best they can do is look at it and say, "Oops!  We screwed up.  Oh well, to late now.  We've already stated how the law is supposed to be interpreted, and it looks bad when we change our minds."</p><p>It will stay that way until it is overturned by a higher court.  Then it isn't "we changed our minds", it's "we were told we were wrong."  Somehow, the legal profession prefers the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do realize that , what they see from their end is called " precedent " .
That is , the best they can do is look at it and say , " Oops !
We screwed up .
Oh well , to late now .
We 've already stated how the law is supposed to be interpreted , and it looks bad when we change our minds .
" It will stay that way until it is overturned by a higher court .
Then it is n't " we changed our minds " , it 's " we were told we were wrong .
" Somehow , the legal profession prefers the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they do realize that, what they see from their end is called "precedent".
That is, the best they can do is look at it and say, "Oops!
We screwed up.
Oh well, to late now.
We've already stated how the law is supposed to be interpreted, and it looks bad when we change our minds.
"It will stay that way until it is overturned by a higher court.
Then it isn't "we changed our minds", it's "we were told we were wrong.
"  Somehow, the legal profession prefers the former.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457918</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259684340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point, can we just give Texas back to Mexico? Or let them go back to being "The Republic of Texas", where the teabaggers and Dittoheads run free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , can we just give Texas back to Mexico ?
Or let them go back to being " The Republic of Texas " , where the teabaggers and Dittoheads run free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, can we just give Texas back to Mexico?
Or let them go back to being "The Republic of Texas", where the teabaggers and Dittoheads run free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460368</id>
	<title>Re:Patent doesn't apply to a lot of software</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259693100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something like that was done with some DOS-era software -- the free part was a sort of launcher and demo, but to get the functioning innards you had to pay, and receive either another install disk or a download. Needless to say such apps did not become widespread in userland. Not sure about commercial/enterprise-level apps, tho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something like that was done with some DOS-era software -- the free part was a sort of launcher and demo , but to get the functioning innards you had to pay , and receive either another install disk or a download .
Needless to say such apps did not become widespread in userland .
Not sure about commercial/enterprise-level apps , tho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something like that was done with some DOS-era software -- the free part was a sort of launcher and demo, but to get the functioning innards you had to pay, and receive either another install disk or a download.
Needless to say such apps did not become widespread in userland.
Not sure about commercial/enterprise-level apps, tho.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457740</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would not stop the owners of corporations from making campaign contributions with the "understanding" that the recieving politician act and vote in their favor. Stopping that would require an upper limit on the size of individual campaign contributions, say $ 5.000, and a law to prevent straw man contributions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would not stop the owners of corporations from making campaign contributions with the " understanding " that the recieving politician act and vote in their favor .
Stopping that would require an upper limit on the size of individual campaign contributions , say $ 5.000 , and a law to prevent straw man contributions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would not stop the owners of corporations from making campaign contributions with the "understanding" that the recieving politician act and vote in their favor.
Stopping that would require an upper limit on the size of individual campaign contributions, say $ 5.000, and a law to prevent straw man contributions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459438</id>
	<title>Re:patented in 1993</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1259689920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There might have been some license servers, but there won't have been many.  It takes 2-3 years typically between granting and allocating a patent.  It was probably filed before the first commercial connection to the Internet, if not then within a few months of it.  License servers would have run on proprietary BBSs, including things like CompuServe, or on private dial-up servers.  The former is not ideal because there were a lot of competing systems and you might have selected CompuServe, but your customers might be on AOL, MSN, and so on.  A dial-up system might work, but you'd need one in each country and that would get expensive, not to mention the fact that your customers might object to the telephone costs whenever your software decided to authenticate itself.  It was only the widespread adoption of the Internet that made the idea useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There might have been some license servers , but there wo n't have been many .
It takes 2-3 years typically between granting and allocating a patent .
It was probably filed before the first commercial connection to the Internet , if not then within a few months of it .
License servers would have run on proprietary BBSs , including things like CompuServe , or on private dial-up servers .
The former is not ideal because there were a lot of competing systems and you might have selected CompuServe , but your customers might be on AOL , MSN , and so on .
A dial-up system might work , but you 'd need one in each country and that would get expensive , not to mention the fact that your customers might object to the telephone costs whenever your software decided to authenticate itself .
It was only the widespread adoption of the Internet that made the idea useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There might have been some license servers, but there won't have been many.
It takes 2-3 years typically between granting and allocating a patent.
It was probably filed before the first commercial connection to the Internet, if not then within a few months of it.
License servers would have run on proprietary BBSs, including things like CompuServe, or on private dial-up servers.
The former is not ideal because there were a lot of competing systems and you might have selected CompuServe, but your customers might be on AOL, MSN, and so on.
A dial-up system might work, but you'd need one in each country and that would get expensive, not to mention the fact that your customers might object to the telephone costs whenever your software decided to authenticate itself.
It was only the widespread adoption of the Internet that made the idea useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456970</id>
	<title>Actually good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, free software doesn't need any "activations". So it'll hurt a bit  some proprietary makers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , free software does n't need any " activations " .
So it 'll hurt a bit some proprietary makers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, free software doesn't need any "activations".
So it'll hurt a bit  some proprietary makers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458152</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UK Acorn BBC magazine "A &amp; B computing" from 1987 contained a demo disk version of the<br>puzzle game "Xor". You could play the first few levels to see if you liked it. If you wanted to buy<br>the game, you rang a phone number (the NETWORK), gave the unique serial number of the disk<br>and credit card details - and in return they calculated a rather long registration string, which actually<br>comprised of hex 6502 op-codes (the OVERLAY program). This patched an incomplete decryption<br>algorithm in the game - based on your unique serial number, unlocking the full version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UK Acorn BBC magazine " A &amp; B computing " from 1987 contained a demo disk version of thepuzzle game " Xor " .
You could play the first few levels to see if you liked it .
If you wanted to buythe game , you rang a phone number ( the NETWORK ) , gave the unique serial number of the diskand credit card details - and in return they calculated a rather long registration string , which actuallycomprised of hex 6502 op-codes ( the OVERLAY program ) .
This patched an incomplete decryptionalgorithm in the game - based on your unique serial number , unlocking the full version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UK Acorn BBC magazine "A &amp; B computing" from 1987 contained a demo disk version of thepuzzle game "Xor".
You could play the first few levels to see if you liked it.
If you wanted to buythe game, you rang a phone number (the NETWORK), gave the unique serial number of the diskand credit card details - and in return they calculated a rather long registration string, which actuallycomprised of hex 6502 op-codes (the OVERLAY program).
This patched an incomplete decryptionalgorithm in the game - based on your unique serial number, unlocking the full version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457894</id>
	<title>Not campaign contributions alone</title>
	<author>chfriley</author>
	<datestamp>1259684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Campaign contributions are small potatoes compared to the power of disbursing trillions of tax dollars taken from one group to another group.  This gives the politician power over both the group they are taking from (some minority of voters, typically some small minority of 'the rich') by hitting them up to get the burden reduced and power over the group getting the money for fear of cutting them off.  Dependence on the largess of politicians and government makes everyone beholden to them which is the goal.</p><p>This is not about money alone or even primarily, it is about the power that control over tax dollars brings.  You could eliminate all private funding of elections and you would be in no better shape because campaign contributions are only a very limited part of the problem.</p><p>Until people realize that this is about power, the wrong issues will be tackled.  Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Acton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Campaign contributions are small potatoes compared to the power of disbursing trillions of tax dollars taken from one group to another group .
This gives the politician power over both the group they are taking from ( some minority of voters , typically some small minority of 'the rich ' ) by hitting them up to get the burden reduced and power over the group getting the money for fear of cutting them off .
Dependence on the largess of politicians and government makes everyone beholden to them which is the goal.This is not about money alone or even primarily , it is about the power that control over tax dollars brings .
You could eliminate all private funding of elections and you would be in no better shape because campaign contributions are only a very limited part of the problem.Until people realize that this is about power , the wrong issues will be tackled .
Power corrupts ; absolute power corrupts absolutely .
- Acton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Campaign contributions are small potatoes compared to the power of disbursing trillions of tax dollars taken from one group to another group.
This gives the politician power over both the group they are taking from (some minority of voters, typically some small minority of 'the rich') by hitting them up to get the burden reduced and power over the group getting the money for fear of cutting them off.
Dependence on the largess of politicians and government makes everyone beholden to them which is the goal.This is not about money alone or even primarily, it is about the power that control over tax dollars brings.
You could eliminate all private funding of elections and you would be in no better shape because campaign contributions are only a very limited part of the problem.Until people realize that this is about power, the wrong issues will be tackled.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- Acton</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463154</id>
	<title>Re:patented in 1993</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1259659380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Demon was the first commercial consumer ISP in Britain, and that started in June 1992.  There was Pipex before that in 1990 providing full internet access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Demon was the first commercial consumer ISP in Britain , and that started in June 1992 .
There was Pipex before that in 1990 providing full internet access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Demon was the first commercial consumer ISP in Britain, and that started in June 1992.
There was Pipex before that in 1990 providing full internet access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463190</id>
	<title>Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1259659560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that isn't true.  IBM can use defensive patents against its competitors, other tech companies that actually sell products, but as there aren't any patents on sending out nastygrams and taking people to court, they are unable to use this strategy against patent trolls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that is n't true .
IBM can use defensive patents against its competitors , other tech companies that actually sell products , but as there are n't any patents on sending out nastygrams and taking people to court , they are unable to use this strategy against patent trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that isn't true.
IBM can use defensive patents against its competitors, other tech companies that actually sell products, but as there aren't any patents on sending out nastygrams and taking people to court, they are unable to use this strategy against patent trolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457268</id>
	<title>Qualification to be on Jury for patent case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be allowed to do most of the things in this world, you have to meet some qualifications.  How come that people can sit on Jury which sometimes deal with multi $100Ms verdicts without understanding anything about problems involved?  Most of patent cases are based on "prior art" or luck of it.  You have to be able to understand a LOT of things to be able to see that something was (or was not) prior art.  I am sure that Marshal, TX is wonderful city, but I have serious doubts that it has many citizens who are up to speed with all modern technologies to be able to serve efficiently on Jury bench in all these patent cases.

Andrei</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be allowed to do most of the things in this world , you have to meet some qualifications .
How come that people can sit on Jury which sometimes deal with multi $ 100Ms verdicts without understanding anything about problems involved ?
Most of patent cases are based on " prior art " or luck of it .
You have to be able to understand a LOT of things to be able to see that something was ( or was not ) prior art .
I am sure that Marshal , TX is wonderful city , but I have serious doubts that it has many citizens who are up to speed with all modern technologies to be able to serve efficiently on Jury bench in all these patent cases .
Andrei</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be allowed to do most of the things in this world, you have to meet some qualifications.
How come that people can sit on Jury which sometimes deal with multi $100Ms verdicts without understanding anything about problems involved?
Most of patent cases are based on "prior art" or luck of it.
You have to be able to understand a LOT of things to be able to see that something was (or was not) prior art.
I am sure that Marshal, TX is wonderful city, but I have serious doubts that it has many citizens who are up to speed with all modern technologies to be able to serve efficiently on Jury bench in all these patent cases.
Andrei</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457628</id>
	<title>Re:Filed in Nov., 1990</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1259683140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Filed in Nov., 1990, and they're just noticing these alleged "infringements" now, 19 years later? So, they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big. This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists. The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them.</p></div><p>You're off by six months. Prior to 1995, patent terms were 17 years from issue. This issued in June, 1993, so it's up in June, 2010.  Not a big change, however.</p><p>
Also, no, the laches defense requires an affirmative action on the patent owner's part - I send you a notice of infringement, you reply back with a request for a license, and I... disappear. If I never put you on notice, I haven't started the clock ticking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Filed in Nov. , 1990 , and they 're just noticing these alleged " infringements " now , 19 years later ?
So , they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big .
This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists .
The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them.You 're off by six months .
Prior to 1995 , patent terms were 17 years from issue .
This issued in June , 1993 , so it 's up in June , 2010 .
Not a big change , however .
Also , no , the laches defense requires an affirmative action on the patent owner 's part - I send you a notice of infringement , you reply back with a request for a license , and I... disappear. If I never put you on notice , I have n't started the clock ticking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filed in Nov., 1990, and they're just noticing these alleged "infringements" now, 19 years later?
So, they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big.
This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists.
The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them.You're off by six months.
Prior to 1995, patent terms were 17 years from issue.
This issued in June, 1993, so it's up in June, 2010.
Not a big change, however.
Also, no, the laches defense requires an affirmative action on the patent owner's part - I send you a notice of infringement, you reply back with a request for a license, and I... disappear. If I never put you on notice, I haven't started the clock ticking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459338</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously never had big box experience. IBM have been doing this for at least 30 years on mainframes. You don't need TCP for this. All big boxes had a modem that called IBM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously never had big box experience .
IBM have been doing this for at least 30 years on mainframes .
You do n't need TCP for this .
All big boxes had a modem that called IBM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously never had big box experience.
IBM have been doing this for at least 30 years on mainframes.
You don't need TCP for this.
All big boxes had a modem that called IBM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458070</id>
	<title>Re:Filed in Nov., 1990</title>
	<author>chfriley</author>
	<datestamp>1259684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding of laches is NOT that it requires an affirmative action on the patent owners part.  It could be a different defense in patent law, but if so I am not aware of it.<br>And IAAA (I am an attorney) who took a number of IP law classes but does not practice in that area.  My understanding is that in US Federal Courts submarine patents may have a good laches defense.  As I said though, this is not an area of expertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding of laches is NOT that it requires an affirmative action on the patent owners part .
It could be a different defense in patent law , but if so I am not aware of it.And IAAA ( I am an attorney ) who took a number of IP law classes but does not practice in that area .
My understanding is that in US Federal Courts submarine patents may have a good laches defense .
As I said though , this is not an area of expertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding of laches is NOT that it requires an affirmative action on the patent owners part.
It could be a different defense in patent law, but if so I am not aware of it.And IAAA (I am an attorney) who took a number of IP law classes but does not practice in that area.
My understanding is that in US Federal Courts submarine patents may have a good laches defense.
As I said though, this is not an area of expertise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458102</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Mishotaki</author>
	<datestamp>1259684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe they just are threatened by all those patent trolls... and they do kill them if they don't listen, just look at the list of judges for that district! only 2 of them have ever retired! one was reappointed and one... we have no idea what happened to him... </p><p>So, in Texas, you either judge people or die judging...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe they just are threatened by all those patent trolls... and they do kill them if they do n't listen , just look at the list of judges for that district !
only 2 of them have ever retired !
one was reappointed and one... we have no idea what happened to him... So , in Texas , you either judge people or die judging.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe they just are threatened by all those patent trolls... and they do kill them if they don't listen, just look at the list of judges for that district!
only 2 of them have ever retired!
one was reappointed and one... we have no idea what happened to him... So, in Texas, you either judge people or die judging...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are NOT stupid.  They are corrupt.  The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration.  That is why I feel that modifying campaign finance laws so that you can only give money to a candidate for whom you can cast a vote would go a long ways toward cleaning up this mess.  This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are NOT stupid .
They are corrupt .
The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions , not on any moral or logical consideration .
That is why I feel that modifying campaign finance laws so that you can only give money to a candidate for whom you can cast a vote would go a long ways toward cleaning up this mess .
This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities can not cast a vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are NOT stupid.
They are corrupt.
The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration.
That is why I feel that modifying campaign finance laws so that you can only give money to a candidate for whom you can cast a vote would go a long ways toward cleaning up this mess.
This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30462564</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259700780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG, will we have no remote software activation?!!  My goodness, would we have to all switch to OpenSource software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG , will we have no remote software activation ? ! !
My goodness , would we have to all switch to OpenSource software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG, will we have no remote software activation?!!
My goodness, would we have to all switch to OpenSource software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458724</id>
	<title>Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .</title>
	<author>just fiddling around</author>
	<datestamp>1259687220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does not work with patent trolls, because they do nothing, so even IBM has nothing to throw at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does not work with patent trolls , because they do nothing , so even IBM has nothing to throw at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does not work with patent trolls, because they do nothing, so even IBM has nothing to throw at them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463474</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>fiendo</author>
	<datestamp>1259660460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know how the judges rationalize it but the <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1202423817064&amp;slreturn=1&amp;hbxlogin=1" title="law.com" rel="nofollow">spin from the lawyers</a> [law.com] is that "the Eastern District is 'a great venue,' because the judges there are experts on patent matters, and there is always a pool of experienced patent lawyers available to serve as local counsel". I guess it's just Eastern Texas good fortune to have this natural resource of patent lawyer pools.

Another lawyer shares this insight into his clients motivations "they prefer to go to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... where the judges have the expertise"

So the story goes that the ED of Texas gets so many patent cases because they're so experienced and they got this expertise from doing so many patent cases. Rinse, lather, repeat! Ain't circular logic fun?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how the judges rationalize it but the spin from the lawyers [ law.com ] is that " the Eastern District is 'a great venue, ' because the judges there are experts on patent matters , and there is always a pool of experienced patent lawyers available to serve as local counsel " .
I guess it 's just Eastern Texas good fortune to have this natural resource of patent lawyer pools .
Another lawyer shares this insight into his clients motivations " they prefer to go to ... where the judges have the expertise " So the story goes that the ED of Texas gets so many patent cases because they 're so experienced and they got this expertise from doing so many patent cases .
Rinse , lather , repeat !
Ai n't circular logic fun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how the judges rationalize it but the spin from the lawyers [law.com] is that "the Eastern District is 'a great venue,' because the judges there are experts on patent matters, and there is always a pool of experienced patent lawyers available to serve as local counsel".
I guess it's just Eastern Texas good fortune to have this natural resource of patent lawyer pools.
Another lawyer shares this insight into his clients motivations "they prefer to go to ... where the judges have the expertise"

So the story goes that the ED of Texas gets so many patent cases because they're so experienced and they got this expertise from doing so many patent cases.
Rinse, lather, repeat!
Ain't circular logic fun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458084</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1259684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tamperproof? Ha! Does this not invalidate the claim as most activation schemes can be bypassed by a sufficiently determined hacker (or anyone who can follow directions of said hacker)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tamperproof ?
Ha ! Does this not invalidate the claim as most activation schemes can be bypassed by a sufficiently determined hacker ( or anyone who can follow directions of said hacker ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tamperproof?
Ha! Does this not invalidate the claim as most activation schemes can be bypassed by a sufficiently determined hacker (or anyone who can follow directions of said hacker)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457140</id>
	<title>Filed in Nov., 1990</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1259680560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filed in Nov., 1990, and they're just noticing these alleged "infringements" now, 19 years later? So, they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big. This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists. The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filed in Nov. , 1990 , and they 're just noticing these alleged " infringements " now , 19 years later ?
So , they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big .
This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists .
The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filed in Nov., 1990, and they're just noticing these alleged "infringements" now, 19 years later?
So, they waited until just before 20 years were up in order to submarine this and collect big.
This is the kind of douchebag move is exactly why the laches defense exists.
The execs of BetaNet deserve to have their collective asses handed to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459446</id>
	<title>Re:countersuit</title>
	<author>interploy</author>
	<datestamp>1259689980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh God, when companies start suing other companies because they weren't sued by that company, it's officially the apocalypse. Cue the Ghostbusters quotes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh God , when companies start suing other companies because they were n't sued by that company , it 's officially the apocalypse .
Cue the Ghostbusters quotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh God, when companies start suing other companies because they weren't sued by that company, it's officially the apocalypse.
Cue the Ghostbusters quotes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30464172</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1259663040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So yeah, there's not that much prior art, but there's not that much "posterior art", either.</p></div><p>I haven't read the patent but judging by the comments of the posters who appear to have done so (like yourself), it is not too far-fetched to have an activation system where a significant functionality of a program is delivered during such process. This is especially true if a software product is employing a plugin-type system where a user can purchase/acquire a registration code, enter it in the existing software package and download the plugin.</p><p>I can't remember personally using such activation process, but it wouldn't be shocking to me if one was able to download one of Eclipse's 3rd party proprietary plugins this way, or MS Visual Studio, some Adobe products. Or self-updating programs like anti-virus where once it has run out of the initial registration period, you re-activate it some time (maybe weeks/months) later, and the software updates both virus definition data and runnable binaries during the process. The same may be true for Apple's Quicktime for Windows upgrade to Pro mechanism, and other similar products.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So yeah , there 's not that much prior art , but there 's not that much " posterior art " , either.I have n't read the patent but judging by the comments of the posters who appear to have done so ( like yourself ) , it is not too far-fetched to have an activation system where a significant functionality of a program is delivered during such process .
This is especially true if a software product is employing a plugin-type system where a user can purchase/acquire a registration code , enter it in the existing software package and download the plugin.I ca n't remember personally using such activation process , but it would n't be shocking to me if one was able to download one of Eclipse 's 3rd party proprietary plugins this way , or MS Visual Studio , some Adobe products .
Or self-updating programs like anti-virus where once it has run out of the initial registration period , you re-activate it some time ( maybe weeks/months ) later , and the software updates both virus definition data and runnable binaries during the process .
The same may be true for Apple 's Quicktime for Windows upgrade to Pro mechanism , and other similar products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So yeah, there's not that much prior art, but there's not that much "posterior art", either.I haven't read the patent but judging by the comments of the posters who appear to have done so (like yourself), it is not too far-fetched to have an activation system where a significant functionality of a program is delivered during such process.
This is especially true if a software product is employing a plugin-type system where a user can purchase/acquire a registration code, enter it in the existing software package and download the plugin.I can't remember personally using such activation process, but it wouldn't be shocking to me if one was able to download one of Eclipse's 3rd party proprietary plugins this way, or MS Visual Studio, some Adobe products.
Or self-updating programs like anti-virus where once it has run out of the initial registration period, you re-activate it some time (maybe weeks/months) later, and the software updates both virus definition data and runnable binaries during the process.
The same may be true for Apple's Quicktime for Windows upgrade to Pro mechanism, and other similar products.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458260</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1259685600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom?</p><p>Err, these judges know exactly why they are there and the judges are happy to push their pro-business conservative mentality by legislating from the bench.  Its pretty obvious that this district is proudly pro-IP law to the point of absurdity. To a lot of people, strong IP is an ideology that trumps common sense, especially in GOP heavy conservative districts (Hello Texas!).  Everything else stinks of sharing, socialism, and communism. Its pretty much a Tea Bagger for a judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas ' Courts is that they do n't say , " What the hell is this doing in my courtroom ? Err , these judges know exactly why they are there and the judges are happy to push their pro-business conservative mentality by legislating from the bench .
Its pretty obvious that this district is proudly pro-IP law to the point of absurdity .
To a lot of people , strong IP is an ideology that trumps common sense , especially in GOP heavy conservative districts ( Hello Texas ! ) .
Everything else stinks of sharing , socialism , and communism .
Its pretty much a Tea Bagger for a judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;What disappoints me most about Eastern Texas' Courts is that they don't say, "What the hell is this doing in my courtroom?Err, these judges know exactly why they are there and the judges are happy to push their pro-business conservative mentality by legislating from the bench.
Its pretty obvious that this district is proudly pro-IP law to the point of absurdity.
To a lot of people, strong IP is an ideology that trumps common sense, especially in GOP heavy conservative districts (Hello Texas!).
Everything else stinks of sharing, socialism, and communism.
Its pretty much a Tea Bagger for a judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463890</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>fiendo</author>
	<datestamp>1259662140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The judges will respond to motions from the defendants to transfer, but in this district Judges Everingham and Ward default to favoring the plaintiff's choice and have consistenly applied a stringent test to those requests. Only if the defendants can show by predefined factors that their proposed venue is "clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff will they allow a transfer <a href="http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern\_district\_of\_texas/judge\_everingham\_cases" title="blogs.com" rel="nofollow">(here's a blog that tracks the court's activity)</a> [blogs.com].

The judges don't seem to mind the extra load. In fact they pride themselves how their "streamlining" of the process for trying patent cases has drawn in so much activity. They've fondly nicknamed their court <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1202423817064&amp;slreturn=1&amp;hbxlogin=1" title="law.com" rel="nofollow">"the rocket docket"</a> [law.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The judges will respond to motions from the defendants to transfer , but in this district Judges Everingham and Ward default to favoring the plaintiff 's choice and have consistenly applied a stringent test to those requests .
Only if the defendants can show by predefined factors that their proposed venue is " clearly more convenient " than the venue chosen by the plaintiff will they allow a transfer ( here 's a blog that tracks the court 's activity ) [ blogs.com ] .
The judges do n't seem to mind the extra load .
In fact they pride themselves how their " streamlining " of the process for trying patent cases has drawn in so much activity .
They 've fondly nicknamed their court " the rocket docket " [ law.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judges will respond to motions from the defendants to transfer, but in this district Judges Everingham and Ward default to favoring the plaintiff's choice and have consistenly applied a stringent test to those requests.
Only if the defendants can show by predefined factors that their proposed venue is "clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff will they allow a transfer (here's a blog that tracks the court's activity) [blogs.com].
The judges don't seem to mind the extra load.
In fact they pride themselves how their "streamlining" of the process for trying patent cases has drawn in so much activity.
They've fondly nicknamed their court "the rocket docket" [law.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457942</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1259684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to be difficult, I'd like to point out that you'd see the same correlation of voting records to contributions if the system were working exactly as intended.  That is, companies are more likely to support politicians whose views are in line with their business interests.  People often assume that the correlation automatically implies causation the other way, that contributions buy votes, but that isn't *necessarily* the case.  I'm not saying that it never is the case, just that the correlation can lead to more than one conclusion which are both equally valid.  The exception to this argument is when a new issue comes up and companies dump money into campaign funds and the congress-critters suddenly see the other side of the issue.  It's that kind of behavior that we should be watching for and it;s shocking to me that it isn't pointed out during the campaigns (probably because 'everyone' does it, so don't rock the boat).</p><p>As for your plan of getting rid of corporate and union contributions, they are already significantly limited.  These limitations are worked around by setting up Political Action Committees, which employees/members are 'encouraged' to donate money to.  And in theory it makes sense, a person often wants to support politicians that will help the company they work for succeed, but in reality it ends up being the same old system that was in place before they had limitations on corporate contributions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to be difficult , I 'd like to point out that you 'd see the same correlation of voting records to contributions if the system were working exactly as intended .
That is , companies are more likely to support politicians whose views are in line with their business interests .
People often assume that the correlation automatically implies causation the other way , that contributions buy votes , but that is n't * necessarily * the case .
I 'm not saying that it never is the case , just that the correlation can lead to more than one conclusion which are both equally valid .
The exception to this argument is when a new issue comes up and companies dump money into campaign funds and the congress-critters suddenly see the other side of the issue .
It 's that kind of behavior that we should be watching for and it ; s shocking to me that it is n't pointed out during the campaigns ( probably because 'everyone ' does it , so do n't rock the boat ) .As for your plan of getting rid of corporate and union contributions , they are already significantly limited .
These limitations are worked around by setting up Political Action Committees , which employees/members are 'encouraged ' to donate money to .
And in theory it makes sense , a person often wants to support politicians that will help the company they work for succeed , but in reality it ends up being the same old system that was in place before they had limitations on corporate contributions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to be difficult, I'd like to point out that you'd see the same correlation of voting records to contributions if the system were working exactly as intended.
That is, companies are more likely to support politicians whose views are in line with their business interests.
People often assume that the correlation automatically implies causation the other way, that contributions buy votes, but that isn't *necessarily* the case.
I'm not saying that it never is the case, just that the correlation can lead to more than one conclusion which are both equally valid.
The exception to this argument is when a new issue comes up and companies dump money into campaign funds and the congress-critters suddenly see the other side of the issue.
It's that kind of behavior that we should be watching for and it;s shocking to me that it isn't pointed out during the campaigns (probably because 'everyone' does it, so don't rock the boat).As for your plan of getting rid of corporate and union contributions, they are already significantly limited.
These limitations are worked around by setting up Political Action Committees, which employees/members are 'encouraged' to donate money to.
And in theory it makes sense, a person often wants to support politicians that will help the company they work for succeed, but in reality it ends up being the same old system that was in place before they had limitations on corporate contributions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457038</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Dystopian Rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1259679960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil</p></div></blockquote><p>You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe I 'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges are n't incompetent or evilYou take the blue pill - the story ends , you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evilYou take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30465170</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the case of the people vs russia it would be tried in the court of the arctic ocean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the case of the people vs russia it would be tried in the court of the arctic ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the case of the people vs russia it would be tried in the court of the arctic ocean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458190</id>
	<title>Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .</title>
	<author>ben\_white</author>
	<datestamp>1259685300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NO, this is exactly why the patent trolls can get away with this.  You are correct about the patent game between "real" companies.  But the patent troll companies aren't real. They don't produce anything except for lawsuits, so IBM can't counter-sue them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>NO , this is exactly why the patent trolls can get away with this .
You are correct about the patent game between " real " companies .
But the patent troll companies are n't real .
They do n't produce anything except for lawsuits , so IBM ca n't counter-sue them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO, this is exactly why the patent trolls can get away with this.
You are correct about the patent game between "real" companies.
But the patent troll companies aren't real.
They don't produce anything except for lawsuits, so IBM can't counter-sue them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457000</id>
	<title>WOL previous art?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, BIOS is software.  WOL wakes up a computer, thus starting the BIOS.</p><p>Thus WOL violates this patent.</p><p>How long has WOL been around again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , BIOS is software .
WOL wakes up a computer , thus starting the BIOS.Thus WOL violates this patent.How long has WOL been around again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, BIOS is software.
WOL wakes up a computer, thus starting the BIOS.Thus WOL violates this patent.How long has WOL been around again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457160</id>
	<title>Patent doesn't apply to a lot of software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent specifically mentions that the registration server has to create and send down a customized app that contains "critical portions" of the software that's being registered - presumably, so that without registration, it's impossible to crack the protection scheme as vital parts of the code are simply missing. Most software today doesn't use activation in this manner. We have trial periods, even with MS Windows, so all critical portions of the software must be present for these full-featured trials to work. Even when the trials are functionally limited, in most cases the extra functionality is still there, but locked out until the software considers itself to be registered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent specifically mentions that the registration server has to create and send down a customized app that contains " critical portions " of the software that 's being registered - presumably , so that without registration , it 's impossible to crack the protection scheme as vital parts of the code are simply missing .
Most software today does n't use activation in this manner .
We have trial periods , even with MS Windows , so all critical portions of the software must be present for these full-featured trials to work .
Even when the trials are functionally limited , in most cases the extra functionality is still there , but locked out until the software considers itself to be registered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent specifically mentions that the registration server has to create and send down a customized app that contains "critical portions" of the software that's being registered - presumably, so that without registration, it's impossible to crack the protection scheme as vital parts of the code are simply missing.
Most software today doesn't use activation in this manner.
We have trial periods, even with MS Windows, so all critical portions of the software must be present for these full-featured trials to work.
Even when the trials are functionally limited, in most cases the extra functionality is still there, but locked out until the software considers itself to be registered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30461014</id>
	<title>Re:Actually good.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1259695500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but in my opinion "activation" is a pretty evil development in software distribution, and I wouldn't mind someone making it more difficult or unattractive for companies to use it.
</p><p>Whenever possible, I avoid using software that requires activation.  I don't pirate, but if I buy a piece of software, I don't want someone monitoring every  time I install it.  I want to be able to use imaging on my computers without worrying whether the software will disable itself.  I don't want some company to be able to say, "Um, nope.  You'd installed this a couple times already.  We're too lazy to check whether you're installing it on the same computer or connection from the same IP, so we're just going to disable it.  If this is our fault in any way, sorry, but you'll have to call us and spend an hour on hold."  Or what happens if they disable their activation servers in 5 years?  Are you simply not allowed to install it anymore?
</p><p>Sorry, no.  No activations.  I'll sooner tolerate DRM on all my media than DRM on all my software.
</p><p>&lt;/rant&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but in my opinion " activation " is a pretty evil development in software distribution , and I would n't mind someone making it more difficult or unattractive for companies to use it .
Whenever possible , I avoid using software that requires activation .
I do n't pirate , but if I buy a piece of software , I do n't want someone monitoring every time I install it .
I want to be able to use imaging on my computers without worrying whether the software will disable itself .
I do n't want some company to be able to say , " Um , nope .
You 'd installed this a couple times already .
We 're too lazy to check whether you 're installing it on the same computer or connection from the same IP , so we 're just going to disable it .
If this is our fault in any way , sorry , but you 'll have to call us and spend an hour on hold .
" Or what happens if they disable their activation servers in 5 years ?
Are you simply not allowed to install it anymore ?
Sorry , no .
No activations .
I 'll sooner tolerate DRM on all my media than DRM on all my software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but in my opinion "activation" is a pretty evil development in software distribution, and I wouldn't mind someone making it more difficult or unattractive for companies to use it.
Whenever possible, I avoid using software that requires activation.
I don't pirate, but if I buy a piece of software, I don't want someone monitoring every  time I install it.
I want to be able to use imaging on my computers without worrying whether the software will disable itself.
I don't want some company to be able to say, "Um, nope.
You'd installed this a couple times already.
We're too lazy to check whether you're installing it on the same computer or connection from the same IP, so we're just going to disable it.
If this is our fault in any way, sorry, but you'll have to call us and spend an hour on hold.
"  Or what happens if they disable their activation servers in 5 years?
Are you simply not allowed to install it anymore?
Sorry, no.
No activations.
I'll sooner tolerate DRM on all my media than DRM on all my software.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458124</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1259685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.</p></div><p>And I haven't seen many products that still use that method of activation.<br>Certainly no products from any companies in their list, except IBM.</p><p>These days you get the entire car with a lock on your steering wheel, and the activation code removes the lock for the feature that was already there.<br>No need to obtain a steering wheel during activation like this patent covers, so (other than maybe IBM) none of those companies are violating it.</p><p>And IBM even was doing this with mainframes decades before 1990.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel , but also in a way that you ca n't mess around with it and they can take it away again after , say , your subscription period ends.And I have n't seen many products that still use that method of activation.Certainly no products from any companies in their list , except IBM.These days you get the entire car with a lock on your steering wheel , and the activation code removes the lock for the feature that was already there.No need to obtain a steering wheel during activation like this patent covers , so ( other than maybe IBM ) none of those companies are violating it.And IBM even was doing this with mainframes decades before 1990 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, you actually bought a car without a steering wheel and activation not only gives you a wheel, but also in a way that you can't mess around with it and they can take it away again after, say, your subscription period ends.And I haven't seen many products that still use that method of activation.Certainly no products from any companies in their list, except IBM.These days you get the entire car with a lock on your steering wheel, and the activation code removes the lock for the feature that was already there.No need to obtain a steering wheel during activation like this patent covers, so (other than maybe IBM) none of those companies are violating it.And IBM even was doing this with mainframes decades before 1990.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946</id>
	<title>Not the same thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The registration process that was patented involves transferring over new features to the registered user.  Most shareware programs simply ship the whole shebang and the registration is just entered in as data.  Conditional checks in the application then handle the data.</p><p>This patent isn't even relevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The registration process that was patented involves transferring over new features to the registered user .
Most shareware programs simply ship the whole shebang and the registration is just entered in as data .
Conditional checks in the application then handle the data.This patent is n't even relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The registration process that was patented involves transferring over new features to the registered user.
Most shareware programs simply ship the whole shebang and the registration is just entered in as data.
Conditional checks in the application then handle the data.This patent isn't even relevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458646</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>greensoap</author>
	<datestamp>1259686860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that the favorable juries are why plaintiffs tend to sue in the E.D. of Tex.  The relatively high value of property rights (just look at the laws for using deadly force to protect property in Texas) and the lower average education level of the jurors leads to higher percentages of verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs and much higher damages calculations.<br> <br>  The other factor, is that the judges tend to fast track the patent dockets so from start to finish the average time spend on trial is much shorter in the E.D. of Tex. than in other districts (though there are faster places, but not many).</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that the favorable juries are why plaintiffs tend to sue in the E.D .
of Tex .
The relatively high value of property rights ( just look at the laws for using deadly force to protect property in Texas ) and the lower average education level of the jurors leads to higher percentages of verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs and much higher damages calculations .
The other factor , is that the judges tend to fast track the patent dockets so from start to finish the average time spend on trial is much shorter in the E.D .
of Tex .
than in other districts ( though there are faster places , but not many ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that the favorable juries are why plaintiffs tend to sue in the E.D.
of Tex.
The relatively high value of property rights (just look at the laws for using deadly force to protect property in Texas) and the lower average education level of the jurors leads to higher percentages of verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs and much higher damages calculations.
The other factor, is that the judges tend to fast track the patent dockets so from start to finish the average time spend on trial is much shorter in the E.D.
of Tex.
than in other districts (though there are faster places, but not many).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30462024</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter what the claims say, trolls win.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These guys win no matter what the claims say (within reason).</p><p>If the patent is at all plausible, and can't be defeated at a summary judgement stage, then all the companies will settle, because the troll will make it worth it to settle.</p><p>We always here about the big cases, like EOLAS, or RIM, or whatever.  The more normal MO of these guys is to offer to settle.  And how do they set the price of that settlement?  Not by the actual value of their software invention (as they see it), but rather the cost to the software company for litigation.  So, if I'm a troll, and I estimate it's going to cost Big Software Company X $700,000 to take the case to trial at the district level, I offer a settlement at around $500,000.  And the big software company rolls over and pays.</p><p>In this particular case, even though us software types think it's as clear as day that we don't infringe because we're not sending real executing code to the client, and we're only sending some encrypted keys, do you really want to try to explain that to some hillbillies in Texas?  My guess is that you've got  a 50-50 chance of succeeding even with a watertight argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys win no matter what the claims say ( within reason ) .If the patent is at all plausible , and ca n't be defeated at a summary judgement stage , then all the companies will settle , because the troll will make it worth it to settle.We always here about the big cases , like EOLAS , or RIM , or whatever .
The more normal MO of these guys is to offer to settle .
And how do they set the price of that settlement ?
Not by the actual value of their software invention ( as they see it ) , but rather the cost to the software company for litigation .
So , if I 'm a troll , and I estimate it 's going to cost Big Software Company X $ 700,000 to take the case to trial at the district level , I offer a settlement at around $ 500,000 .
And the big software company rolls over and pays.In this particular case , even though us software types think it 's as clear as day that we do n't infringe because we 're not sending real executing code to the client , and we 're only sending some encrypted keys , do you really want to try to explain that to some hillbillies in Texas ?
My guess is that you 've got a 50-50 chance of succeeding even with a watertight argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys win no matter what the claims say (within reason).If the patent is at all plausible, and can't be defeated at a summary judgement stage, then all the companies will settle, because the troll will make it worth it to settle.We always here about the big cases, like EOLAS, or RIM, or whatever.
The more normal MO of these guys is to offer to settle.
And how do they set the price of that settlement?
Not by the actual value of their software invention (as they see it), but rather the cost to the software company for litigation.
So, if I'm a troll, and I estimate it's going to cost Big Software Company X $700,000 to take the case to trial at the district level, I offer a settlement at around $500,000.
And the big software company rolls over and pays.In this particular case, even though us software types think it's as clear as day that we don't infringe because we're not sending real executing code to the client, and we're only sending some encrypted keys, do you really want to try to explain that to some hillbillies in Texas?
My guess is that you've got  a 50-50 chance of succeeding even with a watertight argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459362</id>
	<title>The one troll I'm almost rooting for</title>
	<author>TomXP411</author>
	<datestamp>1259689680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I almost want these guys to win just to see the "remote product activation" go away... I activate a Windows installation once every 3 or 4 months, on average, and I'm concerned about running out of activations, even though I have paid for all of my Windows licenses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I almost want these guys to win just to see the " remote product activation " go away... I activate a Windows installation once every 3 or 4 months , on average , and I 'm concerned about running out of activations , even though I have paid for all of my Windows licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I almost want these guys to win just to see the "remote product activation" go away... I activate a Windows installation once every 3 or 4 months, on average, and I'm concerned about running out of activations, even though I have paid for all of my Windows licenses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is good.  Our politicians are far too fucking stupid to establish how misguided our current patent and copyright system is without being intellectually bludgeoned.  The more egregiously bad consequences of the current system we have to endure, the better.  In the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is good .
Our politicians are far too fucking stupid to establish how misguided our current patent and copyright system is without being intellectually bludgeoned .
The more egregiously bad consequences of the current system we have to endure , the better .
In the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is good.
Our politicians are far too fucking stupid to establish how misguided our current patent and copyright system is without being intellectually bludgeoned.
The more egregiously bad consequences of the current system we have to endure, the better.
In the long run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457046</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1259680020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>considering the standard programmer's logic, yes.<br>That is if they were not idiots or in league with these trolls, they certainly would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>considering the standard programmer 's logic , yes.That is if they were not idiots or in league with these trolls , they certainly would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>considering the standard programmer's logic, yes.That is if they were not idiots or in league with these trolls, they certainly would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457868</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>jnowlan</author>
	<datestamp>1259684160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great idea. It really fits in, but nicely counterbalances,  the whole corporation as legal individual idea (albeit a psychopath - <a href="http://www.thecorporation.com/" title="thecorporation.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thecorporation.com/</a> [thecorporation.com])
<br>
At least from my gut reaction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea .
It really fits in , but nicely counterbalances , the whole corporation as legal individual idea ( albeit a psychopath - http : //www.thecorporation.com/ [ thecorporation.com ] ) At least from my gut reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea.
It really fits in, but nicely counterbalances,  the whole corporation as legal individual idea (albeit a psychopath - http://www.thecorporation.com/ [thecorporation.com])

At least from my gut reaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458412</id>
	<title>Secret Ballot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you intend to enforce that?</p><p>Secret ballots are important to prevent powerful from forcing weak to vote according to powerful's wishes. Currently, one can promise<br>powerful and then vote one's conscious in the booth because the ballot is secret. So it seems with your modifacation all powerful would have to do is say "Donate to my favorite candidate or your fired (or they boys will visit you, or the code enforcement people will find your business in violation...)</p><p>If I donate to a particular candidate and then I am automatically forced to vote for that candidate then my vote is no longer secret.</p><p>(How do they do it - Captcha = Discreet...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you intend to enforce that ? Secret ballots are important to prevent powerful from forcing weak to vote according to powerful 's wishes .
Currently , one can promisepowerful and then vote one 's conscious in the booth because the ballot is secret .
So it seems with your modifacation all powerful would have to do is say " Donate to my favorite candidate or your fired ( or they boys will visit you , or the code enforcement people will find your business in violation... ) If I donate to a particular candidate and then I am automatically forced to vote for that candidate then my vote is no longer secret .
( How do they do it - Captcha = Discreet... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you intend to enforce that?Secret ballots are important to prevent powerful from forcing weak to vote according to powerful's wishes.
Currently, one can promisepowerful and then vote one's conscious in the booth because the ballot is secret.
So it seems with your modifacation all powerful would have to do is say "Donate to my favorite candidate or your fired (or they boys will visit you, or the code enforcement people will find your business in violation...)If I donate to a particular candidate and then I am automatically forced to vote for that candidate then my vote is no longer secret.
(How do they do it - Captcha = Discreet...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30468430</id>
	<title>Marshall Texas Judges are greedy geeks</title>
	<author>DontLickJesus</author>
	<datestamp>1259683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> Once I enjoyed the life of developing software that helped Mesothelioma victims get what they justly deserved, their day in court, dead or alive. Once I knew of a wonderful little place in West Texas that, unlike California courts, allowed video and technology in their court rooms. The court saw the tremendous benefit it provided to both presenting cases and to expediting the process, and so brought on more.
<br>
  I grew to know a city government run over by tech vendors, which, realizing a very real and honest opportunity to present technology to legislative America, let the salesmen loose and forgot to teach their customers how to use products.
<br>
  I now know a city that legislates shady tech patents in order to pay for all the pretty toys that they continually need new versions of. This little town became Silicon Valley to the legal world, and if they let that escape, the town will bust.
<br>
  I bear no sympathy for them, even the judges know what they are doing is wrong. The fruitage of the tech industry's loins, prior art, will arise to take it's place. In the mean time the court, the vendors, and the lawyers, win or lose, will all rape the industry of much needed R&amp;D funds from creative people by telling those creative people exactly what they want to hear:
<br>
<br>
"You're absolutely right, we should sue them!"
<br>
<br>
Patent trolls are a leach on our way of life. Bleed your clients, your employers, the judicial system, and the rights of all those who worked to get their product out, and it won't mean a thing. In the end you still can't come up with your own ideas, and trying to buy them all will get you no where. History does not remember the first man who bought the cotton gin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once I enjoyed the life of developing software that helped Mesothelioma victims get what they justly deserved , their day in court , dead or alive .
Once I knew of a wonderful little place in West Texas that , unlike California courts , allowed video and technology in their court rooms .
The court saw the tremendous benefit it provided to both presenting cases and to expediting the process , and so brought on more .
I grew to know a city government run over by tech vendors , which , realizing a very real and honest opportunity to present technology to legislative America , let the salesmen loose and forgot to teach their customers how to use products .
I now know a city that legislates shady tech patents in order to pay for all the pretty toys that they continually need new versions of .
This little town became Silicon Valley to the legal world , and if they let that escape , the town will bust .
I bear no sympathy for them , even the judges know what they are doing is wrong .
The fruitage of the tech industry 's loins , prior art , will arise to take it 's place .
In the mean time the court , the vendors , and the lawyers , win or lose , will all rape the industry of much needed R&amp;D funds from creative people by telling those creative people exactly what they want to hear : " You 're absolutely right , we should sue them !
" Patent trolls are a leach on our way of life .
Bleed your clients , your employers , the judicial system , and the rights of all those who worked to get their product out , and it wo n't mean a thing .
In the end you still ca n't come up with your own ideas , and trying to buy them all will get you no where .
History does not remember the first man who bought the cotton gin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Once I enjoyed the life of developing software that helped Mesothelioma victims get what they justly deserved, their day in court, dead or alive.
Once I knew of a wonderful little place in West Texas that, unlike California courts, allowed video and technology in their court rooms.
The court saw the tremendous benefit it provided to both presenting cases and to expediting the process, and so brought on more.
I grew to know a city government run over by tech vendors, which, realizing a very real and honest opportunity to present technology to legislative America, let the salesmen loose and forgot to teach their customers how to use products.
I now know a city that legislates shady tech patents in order to pay for all the pretty toys that they continually need new versions of.
This little town became Silicon Valley to the legal world, and if they let that escape, the town will bust.
I bear no sympathy for them, even the judges know what they are doing is wrong.
The fruitage of the tech industry's loins, prior art, will arise to take it's place.
In the mean time the court, the vendors, and the lawyers, win or lose, will all rape the industry of much needed R&amp;D funds from creative people by telling those creative people exactly what they want to hear:


"You're absolutely right, we should sue them!
"


Patent trolls are a leach on our way of life.
Bleed your clients, your employers, the judicial system, and the rights of all those who worked to get their product out, and it won't mean a thing.
In the end you still can't come up with your own ideas, and trying to buy them all will get you no where.
History does not remember the first man who bought the cotton gin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458866</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1259687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
All good points, but they're suing people for doing the straight forward flag in config.ini stuff, too.  Adobe Photoshop doesn't have an overlay that Adobe sends you, you just enter a fucking key.  Windows activates over the network, but there's no overlay program, you enter a key, it handshakes with the servers and makes sure that key isn't in use/marked as pirated, and then it sets a flag somewhere marking it as registered.  I bet most of the plantiffs WISH they had a system that works like the one described, it would make it harder to pirate them.  As it is, snooze, all those companies with their "bulletproof" online registration are trivially hacked.  Adobe gives you a car, but they put an ignition system that doesn't work, unless you use the key they gave you, or if you slice it open and just short the wires.
</p><p>
They're just relying on the fact that the Marshall, TX judge always ALWAYS finds in favor of the plaintiff.  That or they're trying to argue that technically a registration CD Key is technically a "code" and therefore an "overlay program" that the main program doesn't function without.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All good points , but they 're suing people for doing the straight forward flag in config.ini stuff , too .
Adobe Photoshop does n't have an overlay that Adobe sends you , you just enter a fucking key .
Windows activates over the network , but there 's no overlay program , you enter a key , it handshakes with the servers and makes sure that key is n't in use/marked as pirated , and then it sets a flag somewhere marking it as registered .
I bet most of the plantiffs WISH they had a system that works like the one described , it would make it harder to pirate them .
As it is , snooze , all those companies with their " bulletproof " online registration are trivially hacked .
Adobe gives you a car , but they put an ignition system that does n't work , unless you use the key they gave you , or if you slice it open and just short the wires .
They 're just relying on the fact that the Marshall , TX judge always ALWAYS finds in favor of the plaintiff .
That or they 're trying to argue that technically a registration CD Key is technically a " code " and therefore an " overlay program " that the main program does n't function without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
All good points, but they're suing people for doing the straight forward flag in config.ini stuff, too.
Adobe Photoshop doesn't have an overlay that Adobe sends you, you just enter a fucking key.
Windows activates over the network, but there's no overlay program, you enter a key, it handshakes with the servers and makes sure that key isn't in use/marked as pirated, and then it sets a flag somewhere marking it as registered.
I bet most of the plantiffs WISH they had a system that works like the one described, it would make it harder to pirate them.
As it is, snooze, all those companies with their "bulletproof" online registration are trivially hacked.
Adobe gives you a car, but they put an ignition system that doesn't work, unless you use the key they gave you, or if you slice it open and just short the wires.
They're just relying on the fact that the Marshall, TX judge always ALWAYS finds in favor of the plaintiff.
That or they're trying to argue that technically a registration CD Key is technically a "code" and therefore an "overlay program" that the main program doesn't function without.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460510</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Surt</author>
	<datestamp>1259693640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are in league.  They get all sorts of filing fees and court fees. They make thousands in profit per case for their city.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are in league .
They get all sorts of filing fees and court fees .
They make thousands in profit per case for their city .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are in league.
They get all sorts of filing fees and court fees.
They make thousands in profit per case for their city.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457288</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is actually just one judge who seems to be hearing these lawsuits and just about every time sides with the patent holder</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is actually just one judge who seems to be hearing these lawsuits and just about every time sides with the patent holder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is actually just one judge who seems to be hearing these lawsuits and just about every time sides with the patent holder</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458538</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1259686500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I wonder if Lap-Link could be sited as pior art for this.<br>And early version of Lap-Link had the user a way for the user to copy from the serial port to a file so lap-link could send the lap-link program to the target PC over the serial cable.<br>That would seem to send the "overlay" over the network to activate the software.<br>It wasn't used for security which may not make it valid in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I wonder if Lap-Link could be sited as pior art for this.And early version of Lap-Link had the user a way for the user to copy from the serial port to a file so lap-link could send the lap-link program to the target PC over the serial cable.That would seem to send the " overlay " over the network to activate the software.It was n't used for security which may not make it valid in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I wonder if Lap-Link could be sited as pior art for this.And early version of Lap-Link had the user a way for the user to copy from the serial port to a file so lap-link could send the lap-link program to the target PC over the serial cable.That would seem to send the "overlay" over the network to activate the software.It wasn't used for security which may not make it valid in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457148</id>
	<title>Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1259680620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, IBM is certainly a beast that you do not want to wake up.<br>
IBM doesn't tend to stir up trouble,<br>
but if you go looking for it the dragon will definitely bite your a**</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , IBM is certainly a beast that you do not want to wake up .
IBM does n't tend to stir up trouble , but if you go looking for it the dragon will definitely bite your a * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, IBM is certainly a beast that you do not want to wake up.
IBM doesn't tend to stir up trouble,
but if you go looking for it the dragon will definitely bite your a**</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459868</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Companies like Sun, FTP Software and Beame &amp; Whiteside were selling lots of TCP/IP products for PC's at that time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies like Sun , FTP Software and Beame &amp; Whiteside were selling lots of TCP/IP products for PC 's at that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies like Sun, FTP Software and Beame &amp; Whiteside were selling lots of TCP/IP products for PC's at that time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457496</id>
	<title>Non-tech lawyers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's interesting in this one is that you got a bunch of lawyers that are clearly not techies, that possibly got some bad advice and then ran with it.<br>If you read the patent, nobody does it the way claim 1 and 9 say anymore. If you don't violate the independent claims then you're generally good.<br>The patent is worthless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's interesting in this one is that you got a bunch of lawyers that are clearly not techies , that possibly got some bad advice and then ran with it.If you read the patent , nobody does it the way claim 1 and 9 say anymore .
If you do n't violate the independent claims then you 're generally good.The patent is worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's interesting in this one is that you got a bunch of lawyers that are clearly not techies, that possibly got some bad advice and then ran with it.If you read the patent, nobody does it the way claim 1 and 9 say anymore.
If you don't violate the independent claims then you're generally good.The patent is worthless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457240</id>
	<title>Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .</title>
	<author>3.14159265</author>
	<datestamp>1259681160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they don't actually sell a product then they're not infringing anything, and they can invest everything on litigation. Great business model, really.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't actually sell a product then they 're not infringing anything , and they can invest everything on litigation .
Great business model , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't actually sell a product then they're not infringing anything, and they can invest everything on litigation.
Great business model, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458766</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>greensoap</author>
	<datestamp>1259687340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jurisdiction can be based on where the harm occurs.  Has anyone purchased software product (*pick one from above*) in the E.D. of Texas?  Then infringement happened there and jurisdiction is proper.  Are the companies selling their products in Bestbuys, Walmarts, or other retailer located in the E.D. Texas?  Do they advertise there?   Maintaining an office in the jurisdiction is just one of the factors, but for patent infringement it is pretty easy to meet the test for jurisdiction in just about every district in the U.S.  I imagine for software, it would even easier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jurisdiction can be based on where the harm occurs .
Has anyone purchased software product ( * pick one from above * ) in the E.D .
of Texas ?
Then infringement happened there and jurisdiction is proper .
Are the companies selling their products in Bestbuys , Walmarts , or other retailer located in the E.D .
Texas ? Do they advertise there ?
Maintaining an office in the jurisdiction is just one of the factors , but for patent infringement it is pretty easy to meet the test for jurisdiction in just about every district in the U.S. I imagine for software , it would even easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jurisdiction can be based on where the harm occurs.
Has anyone purchased software product (*pick one from above*) in the E.D.
of Texas?
Then infringement happened there and jurisdiction is proper.
Are the companies selling their products in Bestbuys, Walmarts, or other retailer located in the E.D.
Texas?  Do they advertise there?
Maintaining an office in the jurisdiction is just one of the factors, but for patent infringement it is pretty easy to meet the test for jurisdiction in just about every district in the U.S.  I imagine for software, it would even easier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457736</id>
	<title>Re:Not the same thing.</title>
	<author>Amouth</author>
	<datestamp>1259683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea i noticed that too in the abstract</p><p>" a tamperproof overlay program is constructed at the registration computer and transferred to the personal computer. The tamperproof overlay includes critical portions of the main program, without which the main program would not operate and also contains licensee identification and license control data."</p><p>while someone could say that the activation code COULD be the tamper proof critical portion - the fact that they broke that out into an overlay of the mail program and licensee identification and control means it is not.</p><p>So while the activation code would be the control data there wouldn't be any "overlay" so this patent is only half passable at current activation schemes.</p><p>i doubt this will make it that far other than where they filed it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea i noticed that too in the abstract " a tamperproof overlay program is constructed at the registration computer and transferred to the personal computer .
The tamperproof overlay includes critical portions of the main program , without which the main program would not operate and also contains licensee identification and license control data .
" while someone could say that the activation code COULD be the tamper proof critical portion - the fact that they broke that out into an overlay of the mail program and licensee identification and control means it is not.So while the activation code would be the control data there would n't be any " overlay " so this patent is only half passable at current activation schemes.i doubt this will make it that far other than where they filed it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea i noticed that too in the abstract" a tamperproof overlay program is constructed at the registration computer and transferred to the personal computer.
The tamperproof overlay includes critical portions of the main program, without which the main program would not operate and also contains licensee identification and license control data.
"while someone could say that the activation code COULD be the tamper proof critical portion - the fact that they broke that out into an overlay of the mail program and licensee identification and control means it is not.So while the activation code would be the control data there wouldn't be any "overlay" so this patent is only half passable at current activation schemes.i doubt this will make it that far other than where they filed it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457050</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259680080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More likely, the judges in question take their popularity as an indication that they're doing the right thing, and keep at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely , the judges in question take their popularity as an indication that they 're doing the right thing , and keep at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely, the judges in question take their popularity as an indication that they're doing the right thing, and keep at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459084</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1259688660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's an age-old tradition in the law that the first person to court gets first crack at venue.  But there are limits, like the court has to be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and even if it can, the defendant can try to get the case transferred if they can prove there is a better venue.  The problem is that when you sue 20 defendants that are scattered all over the county and that sell their products in all 50 states, it's hard to identify one single place that would definitely be the "best" venue for the case.  So the Eastern District ends up being pretty much as good as any other random place, and that's where the case was filed, so that's where it stays</p><p>That said, some recent case law from the Federal Circuit has tightened up the venue requirements, so there actually are more cases getting transferred out of Marshall than there used to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an age-old tradition in the law that the first person to court gets first crack at venue .
But there are limits , like the court has to be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants , and even if it can , the defendant can try to get the case transferred if they can prove there is a better venue .
The problem is that when you sue 20 defendants that are scattered all over the county and that sell their products in all 50 states , it 's hard to identify one single place that would definitely be the " best " venue for the case .
So the Eastern District ends up being pretty much as good as any other random place , and that 's where the case was filed , so that 's where it staysThat said , some recent case law from the Federal Circuit has tightened up the venue requirements , so there actually are more cases getting transferred out of Marshall than there used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an age-old tradition in the law that the first person to court gets first crack at venue.
But there are limits, like the court has to be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and even if it can, the defendant can try to get the case transferred if they can prove there is a better venue.
The problem is that when you sue 20 defendants that are scattered all over the county and that sell their products in all 50 states, it's hard to identify one single place that would definitely be the "best" venue for the case.
So the Eastern District ends up being pretty much as good as any other random place, and that's where the case was filed, so that's where it staysThat said, some recent case law from the Federal Circuit has tightened up the venue requirements, so there actually are more cases getting transferred out of Marshall than there used to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458486</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259686320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?</p><p>But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..</p></div><p>Or maybe they do not consider politics. I cannot say either way whether these judges are right or wrong on any case, but, if a judge were to just wake up one morning and say "too many people are suing for <em>x</em>...From now on, I'm going to make it much harder to win for <em>x</em>", I'd want the guy disbarred. The law simply doesn't work that way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should , if they 're not idiots or in league with these trolls , realize that the reason they 're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they 're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing ? But maybe I 'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges are n't incompetent or evil..Or maybe they do not consider politics .
I can not say either way whether these judges are right or wrong on any case , but , if a judge were to just wake up one morning and say " too many people are suing for x...From now on , I 'm going to make it much harder to win for x " , I 'd want the guy disbarred .
The law simply does n't work that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..Or maybe they do not consider politics.
I cannot say either way whether these judges are right or wrong on any case, but, if a judge were to just wake up one morning and say "too many people are suing for x...From now on, I'm going to make it much harder to win for x", I'd want the guy disbarred.
The law simply doesn't work that way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458850</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1259687760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's good because I hope it means they all just drop remote software activation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p><p>It's been one of the biggest ball aches in software in the last 10 years or so, their servers go down? no internet access? tough shit, you can't use the product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's good because I hope it means they all just drop remote software activation : pIt 's been one of the biggest ball aches in software in the last 10 years or so , their servers go down ?
no internet access ?
tough shit , you ca n't use the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's good because I hope it means they all just drop remote software activation :pIt's been one of the biggest ball aches in software in the last 10 years or so, their servers go down?
no internet access?
tough shit, you can't use the product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30467074</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't you use Slashdot's sig field like a normal person who insists on repeating his username in the signature line. God I'm sick of seeing your slash/name over and over and over and over and over again in the body of every single one of your fucking posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't you use Slashdot 's sig field like a normal person who insists on repeating his username in the signature line .
God I 'm sick of seeing your slash/name over and over and over and over and over again in the body of every single one of your fucking posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't you use Slashdot's sig field like a normal person who insists on repeating his username in the signature line.
God I'm sick of seeing your slash/name over and over and over and over and over again in the body of every single one of your fucking posts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460274</id>
	<title>Re:IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259692740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Along similar lines of thought, it occurred to me: the patent is 16 years old. It will run out soon. It must not have been enforceable against common practices, or they WOULD have been going after the big companies for the past 5 or 6 years at least, since remote activation became common.</p><p>Therefore I conclude that this is a last-ditch effort to make money (if only via "please go away' settlements made out of court) from a patent that doesn't really apply in the real world and had no actual value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along similar lines of thought , it occurred to me : the patent is 16 years old .
It will run out soon .
It must not have been enforceable against common practices , or they WOULD have been going after the big companies for the past 5 or 6 years at least , since remote activation became common.Therefore I conclude that this is a last-ditch effort to make money ( if only via " please go away ' settlements made out of court ) from a patent that does n't really apply in the real world and had no actual value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along similar lines of thought, it occurred to me: the patent is 16 years old.
It will run out soon.
It must not have been enforceable against common practices, or they WOULD have been going after the big companies for the past 5 or 6 years at least, since remote activation became common.Therefore I conclude that this is a last-ditch effort to make money (if only via "please go away' settlements made out of court) from a patent that doesn't really apply in the real world and had no actual value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058</id>
	<title>IBM has an excellant defense strategy . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259680080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . they have a mighty frighteningly patent portfolio.  If someone crops up, and slaps a ten page patent on their desk, claiming infringement . . . IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads, and says, "Well, let's take a look at YOUR infringements."
</p><p>It's all part of the patent game that corporations play today.  Patent trolls can shake down small companies, but not the big ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
they have a mighty frighteningly patent portfolio .
If someone crops up , and slaps a ten page patent on their desk , claiming infringement .
. .
IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads , and says , " Well , let 's take a look at YOUR infringements .
" It 's all part of the patent game that corporations play today .
Patent trolls can shake down small companies , but not the big ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
they have a mighty frighteningly patent portfolio.
If someone crops up, and slaps a ten page patent on their desk, claiming infringement .
. .
IBM slams a stack of patents the size of 50 Manhattan telephone books on their heads, and says, "Well, let's take a look at YOUR infringements.
"
It's all part of the patent game that corporations play today.
Patent trolls can shake down small companies, but not the big ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457350</id>
	<title>Im tired of this</title>
	<author>Lazypete</author>
	<datestamp>1259681880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should burn those patent trolls on the stake and rejoice in having rid the world of such evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should burn those patent trolls on the stake and rejoice in having rid the world of such evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should burn those patent trolls on the stake and rejoice in having rid the world of such evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456896</id>
	<title>BRUCE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perens move quick, they stole your stuff!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perens move quick , they stole your stuff !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perens move quick, they stole your stuff!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457842</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1259683980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stack</p></div></blockquote><p>When Windows 95 was in very early Beta I was on the phone with Microsoft tech support trying to get SLIP to work with a proprietary system - with Microsoft's TCP/IP stack. I don't remember having had to install anything extra to get it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stackWhen Windows 95 was in very early Beta I was on the phone with Microsoft tech support trying to get SLIP to work with a proprietary system - with Microsoft 's TCP/IP stack .
I do n't remember having had to install anything extra to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's 4 years before win95 came to the market without a TCP/IP stackWhen Windows 95 was in very early Beta I was on the phone with Microsoft tech support trying to get SLIP to work with a proprietary system - with Microsoft's TCP/IP stack.
I don't remember having had to install anything extra to get it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457688</id>
	<title>Re:Qualification to be on Jury for patent case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all these patent cases, who knows, maybe they are starting to get an extensive, in court, education on the matter. Fortunately this education is at the hand of lawyers, who we all know can be trusted implicitly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all these patent cases , who knows , maybe they are starting to get an extensive , in court , education on the matter .
Fortunately this education is at the hand of lawyers , who we all know can be trusted implicitly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all these patent cases, who knows, maybe they are starting to get an extensive, in court, education on the matter.
Fortunately this education is at the hand of lawyers, who we all know can be trusted implicitly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459244</id>
	<title>Good News?</title>
	<author>zzsmirkzz</author>
	<datestamp>1259689260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can think of a good outcome of this. They win, they get injunctions and then refuse to license the IP so all software activations go away. In this case, if they win, we win. <p>NOTE: I do not condone patent trolling, but as king one must find the good in any situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of a good outcome of this .
They win , they get injunctions and then refuse to license the IP so all software activations go away .
In this case , if they win , we win .
NOTE : I do not condone patent trolling , but as king one must find the good in any situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of a good outcome of this.
They win, they get injunctions and then refuse to license the IP so all software activations go away.
In this case, if they win, we win.
NOTE: I do not condone patent trolling, but as king one must find the good in any situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457034</id>
	<title>countersuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think any software company that <i>wasn't</i> named in this suit should sue for defamation.  Since this is a "Who's Who" of software developers, being left out implies that they aren't important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think any software company that was n't named in this suit should sue for defamation .
Since this is a " Who 's Who " of software developers , being left out implies that they are n't important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think any software company that wasn't named in this suit should sue for defamation.
Since this is a "Who's Who" of software developers, being left out implies that they aren't important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457286</id>
	<title>Re:Not the same thing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most <strong>shareware</strong> programs simply ship the whole shebang and the registration is just entered in as data.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Go back to the 80's, grandpa.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most shareware programs simply ship the whole shebang and the registration is just entered in as data .
Go back to the 80 's , grandpa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most shareware programs simply ship the whole shebang and the registration is just entered in as data.
Go back to the 80's, grandpa.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457856</id>
	<title>Any sufficiently advanced corruption...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259684040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is indistinguishable from stupidity?</p><p>(Sorry, Robert Heinlein)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is indistinguishable from stupidity ?
( Sorry , Robert Heinlein )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is indistinguishable from stupidity?
(Sorry, Robert Heinlein)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457754</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1259683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.</p></div><p>It's already illegal.  Corporations are barred from donating to any specific candidate...  BUT they can donate all they want to a party fund.</p><p>That doesn't prevent it from happening....Members of those organizations can donate, so corporations tent to find a way to make sure their members "volunteer" to donate all that money.  It's been done before, it'll be done again.</p><p><a href="http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=116&amp;sid=1817887" title="wtopnews.com">Example</a> [wtopnews.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities can not cast a vote.It 's already illegal .
Corporations are barred from donating to any specific candidate... BUT they can donate all they want to a party fund.That does n't prevent it from happening....Members of those organizations can donate , so corporations tent to find a way to make sure their members " volunteer " to donate all that money .
It 's been done before , it 'll be done again.Example [ wtopnews.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.It's already illegal.
Corporations are barred from donating to any specific candidate...  BUT they can donate all they want to a party fund.That doesn't prevent it from happening....Members of those organizations can donate, so corporations tent to find a way to make sure their members "volunteer" to donate all that money.
It's been done before, it'll be done again.Example [wtopnews.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457846</id>
	<title>Marshall, TX?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone please explain to be how a court like that one in Marshall, TX can legitimately continue to exist, when it's fairly obvious that it's a biased patent trolling court? By now, I'd have expected government intervention of some sort!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please explain to be how a court like that one in Marshall , TX can legitimately continue to exist , when it 's fairly obvious that it 's a biased patent trolling court ?
By now , I 'd have expected government intervention of some sort !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please explain to be how a court like that one in Marshall, TX can legitimately continue to exist, when it's fairly obvious that it's a biased patent trolling court?
By now, I'd have expected government intervention of some sort!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458120</id>
	<title>Re:RTFP</title>
	<author>kbg</author>
	<datestamp>1259685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think this is advanced then you obviously aren't a software engineer. There is nothing complex about this, this is basic stuff, it isn't like computers and software engineering was suddenly invented in 1991. If you have a computer and some type of connection to another computer you can do this, you don't need a TCP/IP stack. Like all software patents this is trivial nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think this is advanced then you obviously are n't a software engineer .
There is nothing complex about this , this is basic stuff , it is n't like computers and software engineering was suddenly invented in 1991 .
If you have a computer and some type of connection to another computer you can do this , you do n't need a TCP/IP stack .
Like all software patents this is trivial nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think this is advanced then you obviously aren't a software engineer.
There is nothing complex about this, this is basic stuff, it isn't like computers and software engineering was suddenly invented in 1991.
If you have a computer and some type of connection to another computer you can do this, you don't need a TCP/IP stack.
Like all software patents this is trivial nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459030</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>notaspy</author>
	<datestamp>1259688480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) is apparantly getting a bit fed up with the EDTX Court. In In Re Hoffman-Laroche (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-M911.pdf), they slapped them around for not transferring the case to a District (EDNC) which actually had a "meaningful local interest" in the dispute.  Here's a quote which hints at their annoyance (plus the fact that it's kind of a slap in the face to highlight a spelling/grammar error when quoting from a lower Court's opinion).</p><p>The Eastern District of North Carolina's interest in this matter is self-evident. Meanwhile, it is undisputed that this case has no relevant factual connection to the Eastern District of Texas. The district court ignored this significant contrast, reasoning that "where a number of private interest factors weigh heavily in one direction, that venue has a slightly greater local interest," but "[w]here, however, the factors do not weigh heavily in one direction of [sic] the other, no one venue has more or less a meaningful connection to the case than any other." By relying exclusively on how other forum non conveniens factors weigh, rather than assessing the locale's connection to the cause of action, the district court essentially rendered this factor meaningless. Therefore, because the Eastern District of North Carolina has a meaningful local interest in adjudicating the dispute and no meaningful connection exists with the Eastern District of Texas, this factor also favors transfer.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and this one</p><p>Meanwhile, there appears to be no connection between this case and the Eastern District of Texas except that in anticipation of this litigation, Novartis' counsel in California converted into electronic format 75,000 pages of documents demonstrating conception and reduction to practice and transferred them to the offices of its litigation counsel in Texas. But, if not for this litigation, it appears that the documents would have remained a source of proof in California. Thus, the assertion that these documents are "Texas" documents is a fiction which appears to be have been created to manipulate the propriety of venue.<br>This type of tactic was clearly counseled against in Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964). There, the Supreme Court explained that Section 1404(a) "should be construed to prevent parties who are opposed to a change of venue from defeating a transfer which, but for their own deliberate acts or omissions, would be proper, convenient and just." Id. at 625. A plaintiff's attempts to manipulate venue in anticipation of litigation or a motion to transfer falls squarely within these prohibited activities. The district court's contrary position here has no legally rational basis and prevents  1404(a) from carrying "out its design to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.</p><p>Add to this decision (handed down 12/2), the even more recent decision H-P v. Acceleron (12/4, Fed. Cir.) which makes it easier to file for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement (in your choice of Court) if you are -ahem- "threatened" by a patent troll, and it seems that the Fed Circuit it trying rein in what may be considered a rogue court.  Note that these decisions don't really concern EDTX's disposition of the cases, but the question "WTF is this case doing in Marshall, Texas?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CAFC ( Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ) is apparantly getting a bit fed up with the EDTX Court .
In In Re Hoffman-Laroche ( http : //www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-M911.pdf ) , they slapped them around for not transferring the case to a District ( EDNC ) which actually had a " meaningful local interest " in the dispute .
Here 's a quote which hints at their annoyance ( plus the fact that it 's kind of a slap in the face to highlight a spelling/grammar error when quoting from a lower Court 's opinion ) .The Eastern District of North Carolina 's interest in this matter is self-evident .
Meanwhile , it is undisputed that this case has no relevant factual connection to the Eastern District of Texas .
The district court ignored this significant contrast , reasoning that " where a number of private interest factors weigh heavily in one direction , that venue has a slightly greater local interest , " but " [ w ] here , however , the factors do not weigh heavily in one direction of [ sic ] the other , no one venue has more or less a meaningful connection to the case than any other .
" By relying exclusively on how other forum non conveniens factors weigh , rather than assessing the locale 's connection to the cause of action , the district court essentially rendered this factor meaningless .
Therefore , because the Eastern District of North Carolina has a meaningful local interest in adjudicating the dispute and no meaningful connection exists with the Eastern District of Texas , this factor also favors transfer .
        and this oneMeanwhile , there appears to be no connection between this case and the Eastern District of Texas except that in anticipation of this litigation , Novartis ' counsel in California converted into electronic format 75,000 pages of documents demonstrating conception and reduction to practice and transferred them to the offices of its litigation counsel in Texas .
But , if not for this litigation , it appears that the documents would have remained a source of proof in California .
Thus , the assertion that these documents are " Texas " documents is a fiction which appears to be have been created to manipulate the propriety of venue.This type of tactic was clearly counseled against in Van Dusen v. Barrack , 376 U.S. 612 ( 1964 ) .
There , the Supreme Court explained that Section 1404 ( a ) " should be construed to prevent parties who are opposed to a change of venue from defeating a transfer which , but for their own deliberate acts or omissions , would be proper , convenient and just .
" Id .
at 625 .
A plaintiff 's attempts to manipulate venue in anticipation of litigation or a motion to transfer falls squarely within these prohibited activities .
The district court 's contrary position here has no legally rational basis and prevents 1404 ( a ) from carrying " out its design to protect litigants , witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.Add to this decision ( handed down 12/2 ) , the even more recent decision H-P v. Acceleron ( 12/4 , Fed .
Cir. ) which makes it easier to file for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement ( in your choice of Court ) if you are -ahem- " threatened " by a patent troll , and it seems that the Fed Circuit it trying rein in what may be considered a rogue court .
Note that these decisions do n't really concern EDTX 's disposition of the cases , but the question " WTF is this case doing in Marshall , Texas ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) is apparantly getting a bit fed up with the EDTX Court.
In In Re Hoffman-Laroche (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-M911.pdf), they slapped them around for not transferring the case to a District (EDNC) which actually had a "meaningful local interest" in the dispute.
Here's a quote which hints at their annoyance (plus the fact that it's kind of a slap in the face to highlight a spelling/grammar error when quoting from a lower Court's opinion).The Eastern District of North Carolina's interest in this matter is self-evident.
Meanwhile, it is undisputed that this case has no relevant factual connection to the Eastern District of Texas.
The district court ignored this significant contrast, reasoning that "where a number of private interest factors weigh heavily in one direction, that venue has a slightly greater local interest," but "[w]here, however, the factors do not weigh heavily in one direction of [sic] the other, no one venue has more or less a meaningful connection to the case than any other.
" By relying exclusively on how other forum non conveniens factors weigh, rather than assessing the locale's connection to the cause of action, the district court essentially rendered this factor meaningless.
Therefore, because the Eastern District of North Carolina has a meaningful local interest in adjudicating the dispute and no meaningful connection exists with the Eastern District of Texas, this factor also favors transfer.
        and this oneMeanwhile, there appears to be no connection between this case and the Eastern District of Texas except that in anticipation of this litigation, Novartis' counsel in California converted into electronic format 75,000 pages of documents demonstrating conception and reduction to practice and transferred them to the offices of its litigation counsel in Texas.
But, if not for this litigation, it appears that the documents would have remained a source of proof in California.
Thus, the assertion that these documents are "Texas" documents is a fiction which appears to be have been created to manipulate the propriety of venue.This type of tactic was clearly counseled against in Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964).
There, the Supreme Court explained that Section 1404(a) "should be construed to prevent parties who are opposed to a change of venue from defeating a transfer which, but for their own deliberate acts or omissions, would be proper, convenient and just.
" Id.
at 625.
A plaintiff's attempts to manipulate venue in anticipation of litigation or a motion to transfer falls squarely within these prohibited activities.
The district court's contrary position here has no legally rational basis and prevents  1404(a) from carrying "out its design to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.Add to this decision (handed down 12/2), the even more recent decision H-P v. Acceleron (12/4, Fed.
Cir.) which makes it easier to file for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement (in your choice of Court) if you are -ahem- "threatened" by a patent troll, and it seems that the Fed Circuit it trying rein in what may be considered a rogue court.
Note that these decisions don't really concern EDTX's disposition of the cases, but the question "WTF is this case doing in Marshall, Texas?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459492</id>
	<title>Re:Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1259690160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome patent trolls... it slows the coming singularity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome patent trolls... it slows the coming singularity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome patent trolls... it slows the coming singularity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457252</id>
	<title>I for one</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1259681220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... welcome our new monkeys welding patents of mass destruction overlords.

The  more they come, the closest we are to the point that is evident for really everyone that software patents (and probably not so software ones) are technology's suicide pill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... welcome our new monkeys welding patents of mass destruction overlords .
The more they come , the closest we are to the point that is evident for really everyone that software patents ( and probably not so software ones ) are technology 's suicide pill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... welcome our new monkeys welding patents of mass destruction overlords.
The  more they come, the closest we are to the point that is evident for really everyone that software patents (and probably not so software ones) are technology's suicide pill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456956</id>
	<title>The mostest</title>
	<author>electricbern</author>
	<datestamp>1259679480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And of course, this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places: Marshall, TX</p> </div><p>So this is the mostest patent-trolliest of companies? Yay!<br>
When are they going to patent "patent trolling"? It would be nice to counter-sue a patent troll with a patent trolling patent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course , this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places : Marshall , TX So this is the mostest patent-trolliest of companies ?
Yay ! When are they going to patent " patent trolling " ?
It would be nice to counter-sue a patent troll with a patent trolling patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course, this was filed in our favoritest of favorite places: Marshall, TX So this is the mostest patent-trolliest of companies?
Yay!
When are they going to patent "patent trolling"?
It would be nice to counter-sue a patent troll with a patent trolling patent.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457910</id>
	<title>Yo0 fail It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259684280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fanatic known personal rivalries in 4osting a GNAA</htmltext>
<tokenext>fanatic known personal rivalries in 4osting a GNAA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fanatic known personal rivalries in 4osting a GNAA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30461252</id>
	<title>Yep, trolling away</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1259696280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, the 1980s called and they want their copy protection techniques back.  I doubt this was novel and non-obvious even in 1990, unless you subscribed to the very broad notion that if A,B, and D have been done, as have A,B, and C, and A,C, and D, and B,C and D, then doing A,B,C, and D is still novel and non-obvious.</p><p>Second, nearly all product activation nowadays is non-infringing.  The system described in this patent is one in which some critical portion of the program code is withheld and not provided until registration time.  Most product activation systems do not work that way; the entire program is provided and activation just requires a code.  That sort of system is specifically mentioned in the patent as prior art (and covered by patent 4,740,890, which I believe is expired), and therefore not covered by the patent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , the 1980s called and they want their copy protection techniques back .
I doubt this was novel and non-obvious even in 1990 , unless you subscribed to the very broad notion that if A,B , and D have been done , as have A,B , and C , and A,C , and D , and B,C and D , then doing A,B,C , and D is still novel and non-obvious.Second , nearly all product activation nowadays is non-infringing .
The system described in this patent is one in which some critical portion of the program code is withheld and not provided until registration time .
Most product activation systems do not work that way ; the entire program is provided and activation just requires a code .
That sort of system is specifically mentioned in the patent as prior art ( and covered by patent 4,740,890 , which I believe is expired ) , and therefore not covered by the patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, the 1980s called and they want their copy protection techniques back.
I doubt this was novel and non-obvious even in 1990, unless you subscribed to the very broad notion that if A,B, and D have been done, as have A,B, and C, and A,C, and D, and B,C and D, then doing A,B,C, and D is still novel and non-obvious.Second, nearly all product activation nowadays is non-infringing.
The system described in this patent is one in which some critical portion of the program code is withheld and not provided until registration time.
Most product activation systems do not work that way; the entire program is provided and activation just requires a code.
That sort of system is specifically mentioned in the patent as prior art (and covered by patent 4,740,890, which I believe is expired), and therefore not covered by the patent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30462816</id>
	<title>Re:Actually good.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It hurts two things: it hurts companies that use onerous software "activation" schemes (awesome), and it hurts the case for software patents since it puts the big guys in an arm lock (even more awesome).</p><p>Keep coming out of the woodwork, patent trolls. You're doing <i>EVERYTHING</i> I hoped you would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It hurts two things : it hurts companies that use onerous software " activation " schemes ( awesome ) , and it hurts the case for software patents since it puts the big guys in an arm lock ( even more awesome ) .Keep coming out of the woodwork , patent trolls .
You 're doing EVERYTHING I hoped you would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It hurts two things: it hurts companies that use onerous software "activation" schemes (awesome), and it hurts the case for software patents since it puts the big guys in an arm lock (even more awesome).Keep coming out of the woodwork, patent trolls.
You're doing EVERYTHING I hoped you would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932</id>
	<title>Marshall, TX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?</p><p>But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil..</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should , if they 're not idiots or in league with these trolls , realize that the reason they 're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they 're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing ? But maybe I 'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges are n't incompetent or evil../Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely at some point the judge/judges in that small corner of Texas should, if they're not idiots or in league with these trolls, realize that the reason they're getting so many patent lawsuits filed in their jurisdiction is because they're considered to be overly in favor of the people who are suing?But maybe I'm just living in some sort of dreamworld where judges aren't incompetent or evil../Mikael</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30465170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30462816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30461014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30462564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30467074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30464172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30461594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1331256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30462816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30461014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30464172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30467074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30462564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30465170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30460796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30456946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30458294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30459438
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30463154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30461594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1331256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1331256.30457688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
