<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_14_1941208</id>
	<title>Kodak Sues Apple &amp; RIM Over Preview In Cameras</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263456180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.cs.unc.edu/~knott" rel="nofollow">Dave Knott</a> writes <i>"Kodak is suing Apple and Research In Motion over technology related to digital cameras in their iPhone and BlackBerry smart phones.  The complaint specifically relates to <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/kodak-sues-apple-rim-over-camera-technology/article1431066/">photo preview functionality which Kodak claims infringes on their patents</a>.  The company is asking for unspecified monetary damages and a court order to end the disputed practices.  Kodak has amassed more than 1,000 digital-imaging patents, and almost all of today's digital cameras rely on that technology.  Kodak has licensed digital-imaging technology to about 30 companies, including mobile-device makers such as LG Electronics Inc., Motorola Inc., Nokia Corp. and Sony Ericsson, all of which pay royalties to Kodak."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dave Knott writes " Kodak is suing Apple and Research In Motion over technology related to digital cameras in their iPhone and BlackBerry smart phones .
The complaint specifically relates to photo preview functionality which Kodak claims infringes on their patents .
The company is asking for unspecified monetary damages and a court order to end the disputed practices .
Kodak has amassed more than 1,000 digital-imaging patents , and almost all of today 's digital cameras rely on that technology .
Kodak has licensed digital-imaging technology to about 30 companies , including mobile-device makers such as LG Electronics Inc. , Motorola Inc. , Nokia Corp. and Sony Ericsson , all of which pay royalties to Kodak .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dave Knott writes "Kodak is suing Apple and Research In Motion over technology related to digital cameras in their iPhone and BlackBerry smart phones.
The complaint specifically relates to photo preview functionality which Kodak claims infringes on their patents.
The company is asking for unspecified monetary damages and a court order to end the disputed practices.
Kodak has amassed more than 1,000 digital-imaging patents, and almost all of today's digital cameras rely on that technology.
Kodak has licensed digital-imaging technology to about 30 companies, including mobile-device makers such as LG Electronics Inc., Motorola Inc., Nokia Corp. and Sony Ericsson, all of which pay royalties to Kodak.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770060</id>
	<title>Re:Off the cuff, knee jerk..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263461100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Plus, it's something that everyone since the personal camera came out wanted. I remember when you had to wait to develop a whole roll of film and hope that the exposure/lighting was correct while thinking to yourself, "Man, I wish i could see the photo i just took without taking it to the store and getting it developed."</i></p><p>You know that a reaction like that is EXACTLY why someone would invent it and patent it.</p><p>If EVERYONE agrees that there is a problem, and then someone goes out and invents something that fixes that problem, isn't that exactly what the patent process is meant to encourage?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , it 's something that everyone since the personal camera came out wanted .
I remember when you had to wait to develop a whole roll of film and hope that the exposure/lighting was correct while thinking to yourself , " Man , I wish i could see the photo i just took without taking it to the store and getting it developed .
" You know that a reaction like that is EXACTLY why someone would invent it and patent it.If EVERYONE agrees that there is a problem , and then someone goes out and invents something that fixes that problem , is n't that exactly what the patent process is meant to encourage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, it's something that everyone since the personal camera came out wanted.
I remember when you had to wait to develop a whole roll of film and hope that the exposure/lighting was correct while thinking to yourself, "Man, I wish i could see the photo i just took without taking it to the store and getting it developed.
"You know that a reaction like that is EXACTLY why someone would invent it and patent it.If EVERYONE agrees that there is a problem, and then someone goes out and invents something that fixes that problem, isn't that exactly what the patent process is meant to encourage?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770906</id>
	<title>Re:No way to tell</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1263464100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed an important point - <em>The Slashdot community</em> leans so far towards believing all patents are useless that it's virtually assumed anyone suing over a patent is wrong.  It's not about (rather rare) pointless patent trolls at all.  It's the rabid reactions of idealists who want everything to be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed an important point - The Slashdot community leans so far towards believing all patents are useless that it 's virtually assumed anyone suing over a patent is wrong .
It 's not about ( rather rare ) pointless patent trolls at all .
It 's the rabid reactions of idealists who want everything to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed an important point - The Slashdot community leans so far towards believing all patents are useless that it's virtually assumed anyone suing over a patent is wrong.
It's not about (rather rare) pointless patent trolls at all.
It's the rabid reactions of idealists who want everything to be free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770038</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In general, patents can't generally patent a general idea."</p><p>-General Patent</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In general , patents ca n't generally patent a general idea .
" -General Patent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In general, patents can't generally patent a general idea.
"-General Patent</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771026</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263464520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Kodak is not a patent troll. They do real work, good work, and file patents on it to protect their inventions.</p><p>If there was ever a patent to assume is valid and in good standing, it would be a digital imaging patent, filed by a company that specializes in Imaging (and these days, Digital imaging).</p></div><p>So a patent's validity can be inferred from the holding company's past reputation? Thanks I didn't know that.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Kodak is not evil. If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does, they need to think again.</p></div><p>And here is why this patent should not be valid. If the implementation of something is trivial and only the will to do it is necessary, there is nothing worth protecting. Image preview on a digital device (in other words, a computer) is exactly like this. Or what kind of mystery did Kodak unravel, that made photo preview possible where it previously wasn't?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>An out of court settlement with both companies.</p></div><p>It's certainly what will happen, since settling out of court is the cheaper option, even if Apple and RIM had all the evidence to invalidate Kodak's patent on hand. The patent system is beyond hope at this point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodak is not a patent troll .
They do real work , good work , and file patents on it to protect their inventions.If there was ever a patent to assume is valid and in good standing , it would be a digital imaging patent , filed by a company that specializes in Imaging ( and these days , Digital imaging ) .So a patent 's validity can be inferred from the holding company 's past reputation ?
Thanks I did n't know that.Kodak is not evil .
If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does , they need to think again.And here is why this patent should not be valid .
If the implementation of something is trivial and only the will to do it is necessary , there is nothing worth protecting .
Image preview on a digital device ( in other words , a computer ) is exactly like this .
Or what kind of mystery did Kodak unravel , that made photo preview possible where it previously was n't ? An out of court settlement with both companies.It 's certainly what will happen , since settling out of court is the cheaper option , even if Apple and RIM had all the evidence to invalidate Kodak 's patent on hand .
The patent system is beyond hope at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodak is not a patent troll.
They do real work, good work, and file patents on it to protect their inventions.If there was ever a patent to assume is valid and in good standing, it would be a digital imaging patent, filed by a company that specializes in Imaging (and these days, Digital imaging).So a patent's validity can be inferred from the holding company's past reputation?
Thanks I didn't know that.Kodak is not evil.
If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does, they need to think again.And here is why this patent should not be valid.
If the implementation of something is trivial and only the will to do it is necessary, there is nothing worth protecting.
Image preview on a digital device (in other words, a computer) is exactly like this.
Or what kind of mystery did Kodak unravel, that made photo preview possible where it previously wasn't?An out of court settlement with both companies.It's certainly what will happen, since settling out of court is the cheaper option, even if Apple and RIM had all the evidence to invalidate Kodak's patent on hand.
The patent system is beyond hope at this point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771476</id>
	<title>Scott</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Company alleges technology used in BlackBerrys, iPhones, infringe on a Kodak patent covering technology for previewing photos".</p><p>It does not appear to be the fact that they have a preview, it's the technology behind how they do the preview seems to be in question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Company alleges technology used in BlackBerrys , iPhones , infringe on a Kodak patent covering technology for previewing photos " .It does not appear to be the fact that they have a preview , it 's the technology behind how they do the preview seems to be in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Company alleges technology used in BlackBerrys, iPhones, infringe on a Kodak patent covering technology for previewing photos".It does not appear to be the fact that they have a preview, it's the technology behind how they do the preview seems to be in question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771002</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1263464460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because it's Kodak, a "not evil" company, doesn't mean they aren't patent trolling. In what way is "preview in cameras" not an obvious feature?</p><p>Classic apologist post BTW. If you were writing the same words defending Apple, you can bet that you'd be modded down like hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because it 's Kodak , a " not evil " company , does n't mean they are n't patent trolling .
In what way is " preview in cameras " not an obvious feature ? Classic apologist post BTW .
If you were writing the same words defending Apple , you can bet that you 'd be modded down like hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because it's Kodak, a "not evil" company, doesn't mean they aren't patent trolling.
In what way is "preview in cameras" not an obvious feature?Classic apologist post BTW.
If you were writing the same words defending Apple, you can bet that you'd be modded down like hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771308</id>
	<title>Re:Apple = Lame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263465540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but Apple is the reason Android doesn't have multitouch in the US.</p><p>What's good for the gas chamber is good for the <b>Jew</b></p><p>I hope Apple is sued in to bankruptcy for their Jewish business practices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but Apple is the reason Android does n't have multitouch in the US.What 's good for the gas chamber is good for the JewI hope Apple is sued in to bankruptcy for their Jewish business practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but Apple is the reason Android doesn't have multitouch in the US.What's good for the gas chamber is good for the JewI hope Apple is sued in to bankruptcy for their Jewish business practices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770202</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1263461520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm assuming that this is a pretty old patent, so what seems obvious now because it is mainstream wasn't obvious at all when it came out (before we had digital cameras for instance).</p><p>Being able to see your picture on a screen before pressing a button and taking it was a pretty innovative concept and that's why Kodak patented it. Kodak invented the concept, they didn't take something existing (like the breathing example another poster gave) and then patented it.</p><p>All the other phone makers licensed the tech, why shouldn't RIM and Apple?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming that this is a pretty old patent , so what seems obvious now because it is mainstream was n't obvious at all when it came out ( before we had digital cameras for instance ) .Being able to see your picture on a screen before pressing a button and taking it was a pretty innovative concept and that 's why Kodak patented it .
Kodak invented the concept , they did n't take something existing ( like the breathing example another poster gave ) and then patented it.All the other phone makers licensed the tech , why should n't RIM and Apple ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming that this is a pretty old patent, so what seems obvious now because it is mainstream wasn't obvious at all when it came out (before we had digital cameras for instance).Being able to see your picture on a screen before pressing a button and taking it was a pretty innovative concept and that's why Kodak patented it.
Kodak invented the concept, they didn't take something existing (like the breathing example another poster gave) and then patented it.All the other phone makers licensed the tech, why shouldn't RIM and Apple?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770342</id>
	<title>Re:Off the cuff, knee jerk..</title>
	<author>green1</author>
	<datestamp>1263462180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the patent process is meant to encourage patenting of the specific method used to solve the problem, not the general end goal of having the problem solved.</p><p>As things are, I could patent teleportation, and even though I haven't come up with how to do it, I could claim royalties from anyone in the future who does.</p><p>The system is badly broken. We badly need to get back to the idea that you can't patent anything unless you have a device that performs the function, and then only that method can be patented, any other method of achieving the same goal would still be valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the patent process is meant to encourage patenting of the specific method used to solve the problem , not the general end goal of having the problem solved.As things are , I could patent teleportation , and even though I have n't come up with how to do it , I could claim royalties from anyone in the future who does.The system is badly broken .
We badly need to get back to the idea that you ca n't patent anything unless you have a device that performs the function , and then only that method can be patented , any other method of achieving the same goal would still be valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the patent process is meant to encourage patenting of the specific method used to solve the problem, not the general end goal of having the problem solved.As things are, I could patent teleportation, and even though I haven't come up with how to do it, I could claim royalties from anyone in the future who does.The system is badly broken.
We badly need to get back to the idea that you can't patent anything unless you have a device that performs the function, and then only that method can be patented, any other method of achieving the same goal would still be valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770514</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1263462780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company's research.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Strip away the detailed descriptions of the prior art and claim 1 covers having a button to take a photo while seeing a live preview.  That's not a "real patent designed to incentivise R&amp;D", that's patenting a feature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company 's research .
Strip away the detailed descriptions of the prior art and claim 1 covers having a button to take a photo while seeing a live preview .
That 's not a " real patent designed to incentivise R&amp;D " , that 's patenting a feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company's research.
Strip away the detailed descriptions of the prior art and claim 1 covers having a button to take a photo while seeing a live preview.
That's not a "real patent designed to incentivise R&amp;D", that's patenting a feature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776366</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1263547860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital cameras are used to acquire digital images. That's pretty obvious.<br>Digital images are meant to be displayed. On screens.</p><p>Redirect the acquired image to a screen instead of memory device. That's the subject of the patent.</p><p>I fail to understand the non-obviousness part of this one.</p><p>The fact a company does various research and has actual valuable patents on various advanced technologies, doesn't mean they can't do some typical "patent troll" shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital cameras are used to acquire digital images .
That 's pretty obvious.Digital images are meant to be displayed .
On screens.Redirect the acquired image to a screen instead of memory device .
That 's the subject of the patent.I fail to understand the non-obviousness part of this one.The fact a company does various research and has actual valuable patents on various advanced technologies , does n't mean they ca n't do some typical " patent troll " shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital cameras are used to acquire digital images.
That's pretty obvious.Digital images are meant to be displayed.
On screens.Redirect the acquired image to a screen instead of memory device.
That's the subject of the patent.I fail to understand the non-obviousness part of this one.The fact a company does various research and has actual valuable patents on various advanced technologies, doesn't mean they can't do some typical "patent troll" shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771254</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263465360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent in question covers the circuit design for avoiding encoding and then decoding an NTSC signal that can be used to generate the real-time and preview time image from the camera.  It isn't just a patent that says "we patent the idea of previewing an image", it is quite specific in the diagrams and even the background of the invention.</p><p>Patent #6292218</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent in question covers the circuit design for avoiding encoding and then decoding an NTSC signal that can be used to generate the real-time and preview time image from the camera .
It is n't just a patent that says " we patent the idea of previewing an image " , it is quite specific in the diagrams and even the background of the invention.Patent # 6292218</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent in question covers the circuit design for avoiding encoding and then decoding an NTSC signal that can be used to generate the real-time and preview time image from the camera.
It isn't just a patent that says "we patent the idea of previewing an image", it is quite specific in the diagrams and even the background of the invention.Patent #6292218</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770462</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263462600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D</p> </div><p>I can't believe this is a real word. I actually looked it up, and it actually exists.<br>What's wrong with "encourage"? Not HR approved?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D I ca n't believe this is a real word .
I actually looked it up , and it actually exists.What 's wrong with " encourage " ?
Not HR approved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D I can't believe this is a real word.
I actually looked it up, and it actually exists.What's wrong with "encourage"?
Not HR approved?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769998</id>
	<title>Silly Kodak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't they know that Apple is above the law. sheesh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they know that Apple is above the law .
sheesh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they know that Apple is above the law.
sheesh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770096</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>Synchis</author>
	<datestamp>1263461160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kodak is not a company that is widely known for frivolous lawsuits. If I had to guess, I would say their lawyers likely know what they're doing.</p><p>Keep in mind:</p><p>Digital Cameras (including smartphones/cellphones) != Film Cameras.</p><p>Thus, no prior art.</p><p>Oh, and I love your example... a Polaroid camera... which just happens to be a Kodak product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodak is not a company that is widely known for frivolous lawsuits .
If I had to guess , I would say their lawyers likely know what they 're doing.Keep in mind : Digital Cameras ( including smartphones/cellphones ) ! = Film Cameras.Thus , no prior art.Oh , and I love your example... a Polaroid camera... which just happens to be a Kodak product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodak is not a company that is widely known for frivolous lawsuits.
If I had to guess, I would say their lawyers likely know what they're doing.Keep in mind:Digital Cameras (including smartphones/cellphones) != Film Cameras.Thus, no prior art.Oh, and I love your example... a Polaroid camera... which just happens to be a Kodak product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772494</id>
	<title>Buy-out; license to self; Spin-off</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263471060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RIM or Apple should BUY out Eastman Kodak; license all photo technology to themselves for nominal consideration; fire all underperforming execs; clean up the company; and spin-off as "new" Eastman Kodak, except leaner and meaner and make a profit off the IPO!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RIM or Apple should BUY out Eastman Kodak ; license all photo technology to themselves for nominal consideration ; fire all underperforming execs ; clean up the company ; and spin-off as " new " Eastman Kodak , except leaner and meaner and make a profit off the IPO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RIM or Apple should BUY out Eastman Kodak; license all photo technology to themselves for nominal consideration; fire all underperforming execs; clean up the company; and spin-off as "new" Eastman Kodak, except leaner and meaner and make a profit off the IPO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772958</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a patent for breathing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263473340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can make such an artificial device, and there's no prior art....go right ahead.    Especially if you can actually put it in the body.  That'd probably make you a lot of money.  A lot of people have breathing problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can make such an artificial device , and there 's no prior art....go right ahead .
Especially if you can actually put it in the body .
That 'd probably make you a lot of money .
A lot of people have breathing problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can make such an artificial device, and there's no prior art....go right ahead.
Especially if you can actually put it in the body.
That'd probably make you a lot of money.
A lot of people have breathing problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771608</id>
	<title>Well, is it ... yeah, it must be</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha, iPhone seems to be a StealPhone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Copied everything others had done, added own (?) UI and started billing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , iPhone seems to be a StealPhone ... Copied everything others had done , added own ( ?
) UI and started billing .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, iPhone seems to be a StealPhone ... Copied everything others had done, added own (?
) UI and started billing ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770406</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263462360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as we heard that cameras were digital, we pretty much immediately thought, "Oh I can't wait until we can have tiny screens to see what we're taking/took".  It's the natural extension of the technology.  If my dad can think of this, and I can, it's pretty obvious.  The implementation of that, and the techniques you use to do it, should be patentable, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... isn't the existence of a preview screen something that pretty much any camera-user would have thought of?  What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as we heard that cameras were digital , we pretty much immediately thought , " Oh I ca n't wait until we can have tiny screens to see what we 're taking/took " .
It 's the natural extension of the technology .
If my dad can think of this , and I can , it 's pretty obvious .
The implementation of that , and the techniques you use to do it , should be patentable , but ... is n't the existence of a preview screen something that pretty much any camera-user would have thought of ?
What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as we heard that cameras were digital, we pretty much immediately thought, "Oh I can't wait until we can have tiny screens to see what we're taking/took".
It's the natural extension of the technology.
If my dad can think of this, and I can, it's pretty obvious.
The implementation of that, and the techniques you use to do it, should be patentable, but ... isn't the existence of a preview screen something that pretty much any camera-user would have thought of?
What am I missing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773256</id>
	<title>Patent might be less obvious then you think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263474900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Knowing abit about camera's i know that what you see on the LCD isn't exactly what you would get from just piping out the output of the sensor to the screen, there is alot of proccessing involved to give you that 'live view' picture on the screen.<br>
<br>
Two Things that need to be compensated for (at a minimum):<br>
- Shutterspeed: While using live-view light constantly floods the sensor, however, when you take the actual picture, the sensor will only receive light for the set speed, this can be anything between for instance 1/4000 of a second to 30 seconds or more, you need to process the live-view 'feed' from the sensor to show you how the actual picture would look<br>
- ISO sensitivity: Your sensor can operate on multiple sensitivity settings, depending on the setting the sensor will be more or less sensitive to light<br>
<br>
The above had to be done in real time, digital camera's 10 years ago didn't have the horse power to do that in software alone, nor do they have that kind of horse power now, that's why you have hardware assisted designs &amp; chips, like for instance the EXPEED chip</htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing abit about camera 's i know that what you see on the LCD is n't exactly what you would get from just piping out the output of the sensor to the screen , there is alot of proccessing involved to give you that 'live view ' picture on the screen .
Two Things that need to be compensated for ( at a minimum ) : - Shutterspeed : While using live-view light constantly floods the sensor , however , when you take the actual picture , the sensor will only receive light for the set speed , this can be anything between for instance 1/4000 of a second to 30 seconds or more , you need to process the live-view 'feed ' from the sensor to show you how the actual picture would look - ISO sensitivity : Your sensor can operate on multiple sensitivity settings , depending on the setting the sensor will be more or less sensitive to light The above had to be done in real time , digital camera 's 10 years ago did n't have the horse power to do that in software alone , nor do they have that kind of horse power now , that 's why you have hardware assisted designs &amp; chips , like for instance the EXPEED chip</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing abit about camera's i know that what you see on the LCD isn't exactly what you would get from just piping out the output of the sensor to the screen, there is alot of proccessing involved to give you that 'live view' picture on the screen.
Two Things that need to be compensated for (at a minimum):
- Shutterspeed: While using live-view light constantly floods the sensor, however, when you take the actual picture, the sensor will only receive light for the set speed, this can be anything between for instance 1/4000 of a second to 30 seconds or more, you need to process the live-view 'feed' from the sensor to show you how the actual picture would look
- ISO sensitivity: Your sensor can operate on multiple sensitivity settings, depending on the setting the sensor will be more or less sensitive to light

The above had to be done in real time, digital camera's 10 years ago didn't have the horse power to do that in software alone, nor do they have that kind of horse power now, that's why you have hardware assisted designs &amp; chips, like for instance the EXPEED chip</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30774494</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest evidence that this is a BS lawsuit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but when was the actual lawsuit filed? Not only that, many people are saying "well the preview has been around... look at the view finder..." etc. I have an older digital camera, not extremely  old, just a few years (maybe from 2003?). It's a FujiFilm, and after taking a picture, you'd have to switch over to "play" mode to view the picture you just took. I believe this patent would have to do with taking the photo, and then the phone showing you what was actually captured, after processing and all that... such as on the BB Storm where after you take a picture it shows the actual captured image in all it's glory (blurry, flash washed it out, etc) and asks if you'd like to save or delete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but when was the actual lawsuit filed ?
Not only that , many people are saying " well the preview has been around... look at the view finder... " etc .
I have an older digital camera , not extremely old , just a few years ( maybe from 2003 ? ) .
It 's a FujiFilm , and after taking a picture , you 'd have to switch over to " play " mode to view the picture you just took .
I believe this patent would have to do with taking the photo , and then the phone showing you what was actually captured , after processing and all that... such as on the BB Storm where after you take a picture it shows the actual captured image in all it 's glory ( blurry , flash washed it out , etc ) and asks if you 'd like to save or delete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but when was the actual lawsuit filed?
Not only that, many people are saying "well the preview has been around... look at the view finder..." etc.
I have an older digital camera, not extremely  old, just a few years (maybe from 2003?).
It's a FujiFilm, and after taking a picture, you'd have to switch over to "play" mode to view the picture you just took.
I believe this patent would have to do with taking the photo, and then the phone showing you what was actually captured, after processing and all that... such as on the BB Storm where after you take a picture it shows the actual captured image in all it's glory (blurry, flash washed it out, etc) and asks if you'd like to save or delete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770350</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>sohmc</author>
	<datestamp>1263462240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A thought-out response!  Wow, a first for me!</p><p>I agree with you, Synchis.  It sounds like Kodak tried to reach some sort of settlement in terms of licensing, but weren't able to.  So they've lit the perverbial fire underneith them and hopefully that will be enough for apple to come to terms with them.</p><p>I'm sure Kodak isn't asking for gobs of money since it already licenses their patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A thought-out response !
Wow , a first for me ! I agree with you , Synchis .
It sounds like Kodak tried to reach some sort of settlement in terms of licensing , but were n't able to .
So they 've lit the perverbial fire underneith them and hopefully that will be enough for apple to come to terms with them.I 'm sure Kodak is n't asking for gobs of money since it already licenses their patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A thought-out response!
Wow, a first for me!I agree with you, Synchis.
It sounds like Kodak tried to reach some sort of settlement in terms of licensing, but weren't able to.
So they've lit the perverbial fire underneith them and hopefully that will be enough for apple to come to terms with them.I'm sure Kodak isn't asking for gobs of money since it already licenses their patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769930</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1263460680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but you have it wrong. Apple is always an innovator.<br> <br>
The iSlate is going to have shark-mounted lasers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but you have it wrong .
Apple is always an innovator .
The iSlate is going to have shark-mounted lasers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but you have it wrong.
Apple is always an innovator.
The iSlate is going to have shark-mounted lasers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770364</id>
	<title>The biggest evidence that this is a BS lawsuit...</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1263462300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is how long the iPhone and such have been on the market already. If someone markets a product in violation of your patent, especially when it is so popular as the iPhone, then you best ship up pretty quick and get it cleared up instead of waiting a couple years to make a fuss. That just shows that you finally realized you could make a quick buck and not that you just realized the patent was being violated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is how long the iPhone and such have been on the market already .
If someone markets a product in violation of your patent , especially when it is so popular as the iPhone , then you best ship up pretty quick and get it cleared up instead of waiting a couple years to make a fuss .
That just shows that you finally realized you could make a quick buck and not that you just realized the patent was being violated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is how long the iPhone and such have been on the market already.
If someone markets a product in violation of your patent, especially when it is so popular as the iPhone, then you best ship up pretty quick and get it cleared up instead of waiting a couple years to make a fuss.
That just shows that you finally realized you could make a quick buck and not that you just realized the patent was being violated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771052</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1263464640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably tried to patent the design of the human eye and God (big JuJu, whatever you call it) sued as prior art.</p><p>I am in a quandary over the entire patent vs. copyright issue. If you could patent a book then you could lock out all of your competition from writing about "Westerns involving horses and indians". In a patent you are going after an idea or design.</p><p>To me, software is a creative work more akin to a copyright. If someone wants to mimic your idea using a different software platform and uniquely created code they are free to do so. I know that is a contestable issue amongst this crowd but I am adverse to the pressures moving prior art into patentable works where you can sue the asses off of anyone who has deployed it in the past 20 years.</p><p>There is a movement afoot amongst many companies to patent the obvious. It may just be my sensitivity to the issue but it seems to come from companies that feel beset upon by all sides and are languishing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably tried to patent the design of the human eye and God ( big JuJu , whatever you call it ) sued as prior art.I am in a quandary over the entire patent vs. copyright issue .
If you could patent a book then you could lock out all of your competition from writing about " Westerns involving horses and indians " .
In a patent you are going after an idea or design.To me , software is a creative work more akin to a copyright .
If someone wants to mimic your idea using a different software platform and uniquely created code they are free to do so .
I know that is a contestable issue amongst this crowd but I am adverse to the pressures moving prior art into patentable works where you can sue the asses off of anyone who has deployed it in the past 20 years.There is a movement afoot amongst many companies to patent the obvious .
It may just be my sensitivity to the issue but it seems to come from companies that feel beset upon by all sides and are languishing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably tried to patent the design of the human eye and God (big JuJu, whatever you call it) sued as prior art.I am in a quandary over the entire patent vs. copyright issue.
If you could patent a book then you could lock out all of your competition from writing about "Westerns involving horses and indians".
In a patent you are going after an idea or design.To me, software is a creative work more akin to a copyright.
If someone wants to mimic your idea using a different software platform and uniquely created code they are free to do so.
I know that is a contestable issue amongst this crowd but I am adverse to the pressures moving prior art into patentable works where you can sue the asses off of anyone who has deployed it in the past 20 years.There is a movement afoot amongst many companies to patent the obvious.
It may just be my sensitivity to the issue but it seems to come from companies that feel beset upon by all sides and are languishing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770936</id>
	<title>Hindsight is clear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263464160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that pretty much every digicam has an LCD it makes perfect sense to us that you'd put one there. But this patent could easily have been 'Virtual headset to preview photos' or 'Electronic Viewfinder' or something like that. Back when the Apple QuickTake was around (judging by the comments half of the commenters most of you wouldn't remember such old times) it was exciting that you could see the pictures on your COMPUTER screen, you didn't think much about seeing them *on the camera*.</p><p>The polariod wasn't a 'preview' either - it was actually a printed photograph with resource cost each time. People who say that was innovative should surely recognise the innovation in putting a display on the camera for a live preview!</p><p>It's something that seems trivial now, but it's certainly a lot more valid than a lot of patents out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that pretty much every digicam has an LCD it makes perfect sense to us that you 'd put one there .
But this patent could easily have been 'Virtual headset to preview photos ' or 'Electronic Viewfinder ' or something like that .
Back when the Apple QuickTake was around ( judging by the comments half of the commenters most of you would n't remember such old times ) it was exciting that you could see the pictures on your COMPUTER screen , you did n't think much about seeing them * on the camera * .The polariod was n't a 'preview ' either - it was actually a printed photograph with resource cost each time .
People who say that was innovative should surely recognise the innovation in putting a display on the camera for a live preview ! It 's something that seems trivial now , but it 's certainly a lot more valid than a lot of patents out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that pretty much every digicam has an LCD it makes perfect sense to us that you'd put one there.
But this patent could easily have been 'Virtual headset to preview photos' or 'Electronic Viewfinder' or something like that.
Back when the Apple QuickTake was around (judging by the comments half of the commenters most of you wouldn't remember such old times) it was exciting that you could see the pictures on your COMPUTER screen, you didn't think much about seeing them *on the camera*.The polariod wasn't a 'preview' either - it was actually a printed photograph with resource cost each time.
People who say that was innovative should surely recognise the innovation in putting a display on the camera for a live preview!It's something that seems trivial now, but it's certainly a lot more valid than a lot of patents out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848</id>
	<title>Off the cuff, knee jerk..</title>
	<author>assemblyronin</author>
	<datestamp>1263460320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My knee jerk reaction to this (no patent is given directly in TFA) is this:  How is the act of previewing a photo novel? I could see that having a *specific technology* that enables this patented, but not the act of allowing the user to preview the photo.  Plus, it's something that everyone since the personal camera came out wanted.  I remember when you had to wait to develop a whole roll of film and hope that the exposure/lighting was correct while thinking to yourself, "Man, I wish i could see the photo i just took without taking it to the store and getting it developed."</p><p>Prior art on the analog side? Polaroid allowed 'photo preview' with their cameras before it was available in a digital format</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My knee jerk reaction to this ( no patent is given directly in TFA ) is this : How is the act of previewing a photo novel ?
I could see that having a * specific technology * that enables this patented , but not the act of allowing the user to preview the photo .
Plus , it 's something that everyone since the personal camera came out wanted .
I remember when you had to wait to develop a whole roll of film and hope that the exposure/lighting was correct while thinking to yourself , " Man , I wish i could see the photo i just took without taking it to the store and getting it developed .
" Prior art on the analog side ?
Polaroid allowed 'photo preview ' with their cameras before it was available in a digital format</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My knee jerk reaction to this (no patent is given directly in TFA) is this:  How is the act of previewing a photo novel?
I could see that having a *specific technology* that enables this patented, but not the act of allowing the user to preview the photo.
Plus, it's something that everyone since the personal camera came out wanted.
I remember when you had to wait to develop a whole roll of film and hope that the exposure/lighting was correct while thinking to yourself, "Man, I wish i could see the photo i just took without taking it to the store and getting it developed.
"Prior art on the analog side?
Polaroid allowed 'photo preview' with their cameras before it was available in a digital format</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770900</id>
	<title>Workaround much?</title>
	<author>MacGyver2210</author>
	<datestamp>1263464040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't they just make it save the image to the HDD/Flash Mem displaying it from there, and say "We're not previewing an image after we took it, we're displaying an image from our devices storage to the screen." Then they can just claim that the camera only stores images without preview and use the phone's OS to preview stored images.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just make it save the image to the HDD/Flash Mem displaying it from there , and say " We 're not previewing an image after we took it , we 're displaying an image from our devices storage to the screen .
" Then they can just claim that the camera only stores images without preview and use the phone 's OS to preview stored images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just make it save the image to the HDD/Flash Mem displaying it from there, and say "We're not previewing an image after we took it, we're displaying an image from our devices storage to the screen.
" Then they can just claim that the camera only stores images without preview and use the phone's OS to preview stored images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770512</id>
	<title>No way to tell</title>
	<author>LarrySDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1263462780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The story omits the rather important detail of the patent number. Without it (and a link wouldn't hurt) it's rather hard to tell how much merit there is.

On a broader scale, it goes to show how messed up the patent system is. The scales lean so far toward "pointless patent trolls" that it's virtually assumed anyone suing over a patent is wrong. Kodak do hold several well-earned patents (though not photostatic copies - nya nya nya) and it's not a bad idea to get people paid for coming up with good ideas. Then again, you can't expect to get paid forever or for something that is blatantly obvious given the tech at hand at time of "discovery". The balance is horrible right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The story omits the rather important detail of the patent number .
Without it ( and a link would n't hurt ) it 's rather hard to tell how much merit there is .
On a broader scale , it goes to show how messed up the patent system is .
The scales lean so far toward " pointless patent trolls " that it 's virtually assumed anyone suing over a patent is wrong .
Kodak do hold several well-earned patents ( though not photostatic copies - nya nya nya ) and it 's not a bad idea to get people paid for coming up with good ideas .
Then again , you ca n't expect to get paid forever or for something that is blatantly obvious given the tech at hand at time of " discovery " .
The balance is horrible right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story omits the rather important detail of the patent number.
Without it (and a link wouldn't hurt) it's rather hard to tell how much merit there is.
On a broader scale, it goes to show how messed up the patent system is.
The scales lean so far toward "pointless patent trolls" that it's virtually assumed anyone suing over a patent is wrong.
Kodak do hold several well-earned patents (though not photostatic copies - nya nya nya) and it's not a bad idea to get people paid for coming up with good ideas.
Then again, you can't expect to get paid forever or for something that is blatantly obvious given the tech at hand at time of "discovery".
The balance is horrible right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773688</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1263477240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Kodak is not a company that is widely known for frivolous lawsuits.</p></div><p>Well, let it be known then... </p><p>I didn't find the actual 'preview' patent we're discussing, but here is another one by Kodak and that one is a doozy. Take a look at its claims especially.</p><p>
<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=43&amp;f=G&amp;l=50&amp;co1=AND&amp;d=PTXT&amp;s1=kodak&amp;s2=preview&amp;OS=kodak+AND+preview&amp;RS=kodak+AND+preview" title="uspto.gov">Capturing digital images to be transferred to an e-mail address -- US Patent no 7,453,605</a> [uspto.gov] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodak is not a company that is widely known for frivolous lawsuits.Well , let it be known then... I did n't find the actual 'preview ' patent we 're discussing , but here is another one by Kodak and that one is a doozy .
Take a look at its claims especially .
Capturing digital images to be transferred to an e-mail address -- US Patent no 7,453,605 [ uspto.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodak is not a company that is widely known for frivolous lawsuits.Well, let it be known then... I didn't find the actual 'preview' patent we're discussing, but here is another one by Kodak and that one is a doozy.
Take a look at its claims especially.
Capturing digital images to be transferred to an e-mail address -- US Patent no 7,453,605 [uspto.gov] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30778434</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>NekSnappa</author>
	<datestamp>1263568500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , there is no difference between theory and practice .
But in practice there is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But in practice there is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771348</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1263465720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> apple isnt using kodiak hardware.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a bear faced lie!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>apple isnt using kodiak hardware.That 's a bear faced lie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> apple isnt using kodiak hardware.That's a bear faced lie!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769838</id>
	<title>desperate times...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing this is the part right before Kodak goes belly up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing this is the part right before Kodak goes belly up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing this is the part right before Kodak goes belly up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769828</id>
	<title>Is there a patent for breathing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there a patent for breathing, something like "A way to create a vacuum inside the human body in order to force external air inside the lungs, so oxygen can be transferred to the blood." <br> <br>

I'd love to patent it, then charge something like 0,0001$ per breathe per individual. At 12 breathes per minute * 6 billion humans, it's something like 36 000$ per hour.<br> <br>

What's great is that it would cost every human ONLY 52.56$ per year. Pretty reasonnable!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a patent for breathing , something like " A way to create a vacuum inside the human body in order to force external air inside the lungs , so oxygen can be transferred to the blood .
" I 'd love to patent it , then charge something like 0,0001 $ per breathe per individual .
At 12 breathes per minute * 6 billion humans , it 's something like 36 000 $ per hour .
What 's great is that it would cost every human ONLY 52.56 $ per year .
Pretty reasonnable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a patent for breathing, something like "A way to create a vacuum inside the human body in order to force external air inside the lungs, so oxygen can be transferred to the blood.
"  

I'd love to patent it, then charge something like 0,0001$ per breathe per individual.
At 12 breathes per minute * 6 billion humans, it's something like 36 000$ per hour.
What's great is that it would cost every human ONLY 52.56$ per year.
Pretty reasonnable!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773188</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263474420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I highly doubt that cameras and cell phones these days are using NTSC signals, even for video.  In fact I would not be surprised if digital video cameras had abandoned NTSC internally, and only used it to output to composite video jacks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I highly doubt that cameras and cell phones these days are using NTSC signals , even for video .
In fact I would not be surprised if digital video cameras had abandoned NTSC internally , and only used it to output to composite video jacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I highly doubt that cameras and cell phones these days are using NTSC signals, even for video.
In fact I would not be surprised if digital video cameras had abandoned NTSC internally, and only used it to output to composite video jacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770070</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about the stock price?</title>
	<author>WinPimp2K</author>
	<datestamp>1263461100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"snapshot" of the stock price.</p><p>I suspect that is pretty much part of the "bible" for writing a business article like that - if you mention a company doing something, then you have to mention the stock price so the business weenies reading it can nod sagely as they see how htis bit of business news has impacted the value of the company.</p><p>But how many patents can you get for "previewing" a picture anyways? And what does "previewing mean? - is it emulating a viewfinder, or is it deciding whether or not to "keep" the picture after you take it?</p><p>Viewfinders have been around long enough that any patents that might have been issued would have lapsed by now. Even "electronic" viewfinders based on CCD devices. Camcorders had a "viewfinder" that was a small display that was active regardless of whether or not you were recording to tape. And if "previewing" means deciding to keep the shot, well that is simply moving the contents of memory from one location to another - in this case from dynamic to static RAM. I'm pretty sure the MOV instruction has been around longer than digital photography. (or a "write" command if you want to get picky)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" snapshot " of the stock price.I suspect that is pretty much part of the " bible " for writing a business article like that - if you mention a company doing something , then you have to mention the stock price so the business weenies reading it can nod sagely as they see how htis bit of business news has impacted the value of the company.But how many patents can you get for " previewing " a picture anyways ?
And what does " previewing mean ?
- is it emulating a viewfinder , or is it deciding whether or not to " keep " the picture after you take it ? Viewfinders have been around long enough that any patents that might have been issued would have lapsed by now .
Even " electronic " viewfinders based on CCD devices .
Camcorders had a " viewfinder " that was a small display that was active regardless of whether or not you were recording to tape .
And if " previewing " means deciding to keep the shot , well that is simply moving the contents of memory from one location to another - in this case from dynamic to static RAM .
I 'm pretty sure the MOV instruction has been around longer than digital photography .
( or a " write " command if you want to get picky )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"snapshot" of the stock price.I suspect that is pretty much part of the "bible" for writing a business article like that - if you mention a company doing something, then you have to mention the stock price so the business weenies reading it can nod sagely as they see how htis bit of business news has impacted the value of the company.But how many patents can you get for "previewing" a picture anyways?
And what does "previewing mean?
- is it emulating a viewfinder, or is it deciding whether or not to "keep" the picture after you take it?Viewfinders have been around long enough that any patents that might have been issued would have lapsed by now.
Even "electronic" viewfinders based on CCD devices.
Camcorders had a "viewfinder" that was a small display that was active regardless of whether or not you were recording to tape.
And if "previewing" means deciding to keep the shot, well that is simply moving the contents of memory from one location to another - in this case from dynamic to static RAM.
I'm pretty sure the MOV instruction has been around longer than digital photography.
(or a "write" command if you want to get picky)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771338</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1263465660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember, before digital cameras caught on, seeing a film camera that would show you a digital preview of the picture you just took.  You couldn't do anything with it other than see that you'd framed things right.  I don't know how it worked, but I would guess there was some sort of crappy CCD that took an extremely low res picture at the same time you pressed the button for the film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember , before digital cameras caught on , seeing a film camera that would show you a digital preview of the picture you just took .
You could n't do anything with it other than see that you 'd framed things right .
I do n't know how it worked , but I would guess there was some sort of crappy CCD that took an extremely low res picture at the same time you pressed the button for the film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember, before digital cameras caught on, seeing a film camera that would show you a digital preview of the picture you just took.
You couldn't do anything with it other than see that you'd framed things right.
I don't know how it worked, but I would guess there was some sort of crappy CCD that took an extremely low res picture at the same time you pressed the button for the film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30779458</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1263574020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, we can pretend that a viewfinder does the same thing as the digital preview.  It doesn't matter.  I don't know why people can't grasp this, but <b>you do not patent "doing something"; you patent <i>a method of</i> doing something, or a <i>device that</i> does something, etc.</b></p><p>I'm reasonably certain that there is no similarity between a viewfinder and the patented material related to digital preview when it comes to their structure and how they operate.</p><p>In short, it may be obvious that you would want a digital preview feature, but that has nothing to do with patentability.  The question would have to be, is the method of providing that feature obvious.  To say that an optical viewfinder makes the process of producing a digital preview "obvious" is clearly nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , we can pretend that a viewfinder does the same thing as the digital preview .
It does n't matter .
I do n't know why people ca n't grasp this , but you do not patent " doing something " ; you patent a method of doing something , or a device that does something , etc.I 'm reasonably certain that there is no similarity between a viewfinder and the patented material related to digital preview when it comes to their structure and how they operate.In short , it may be obvious that you would want a digital preview feature , but that has nothing to do with patentability .
The question would have to be , is the method of providing that feature obvious .
To say that an optical viewfinder makes the process of producing a digital preview " obvious " is clearly nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, we can pretend that a viewfinder does the same thing as the digital preview.
It doesn't matter.
I don't know why people can't grasp this, but you do not patent "doing something"; you patent a method of doing something, or a device that does something, etc.I'm reasonably certain that there is no similarity between a viewfinder and the patented material related to digital preview when it comes to their structure and how they operate.In short, it may be obvious that you would want a digital preview feature, but that has nothing to do with patentability.
The question would have to be, is the method of providing that feature obvious.
To say that an optical viewfinder makes the process of producing a digital preview "obvious" is clearly nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771532</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's one of two possible things that happened here.  Either at the dawn of digital photography it was so blindingly obvious to everyone investigating the technology to put an LCD screen on the camera so that you could preview the shot you just took that no one bothered to patent it, or Kodak got there first and everyone else adopted the concept after it was unveiled.</p><p>If everyone was working on the concept around the same time as Kodak, I would think the likes of Nikon and Cannon would move to have this patent thrown out as obvious - as evidenced by their internal documentation on previewing the photo before Kodak published their patent application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one of two possible things that happened here .
Either at the dawn of digital photography it was so blindingly obvious to everyone investigating the technology to put an LCD screen on the camera so that you could preview the shot you just took that no one bothered to patent it , or Kodak got there first and everyone else adopted the concept after it was unveiled.If everyone was working on the concept around the same time as Kodak , I would think the likes of Nikon and Cannon would move to have this patent thrown out as obvious - as evidenced by their internal documentation on previewing the photo before Kodak published their patent application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one of two possible things that happened here.
Either at the dawn of digital photography it was so blindingly obvious to everyone investigating the technology to put an LCD screen on the camera so that you could preview the shot you just took that no one bothered to patent it, or Kodak got there first and everyone else adopted the concept after it was unveiled.If everyone was working on the concept around the same time as Kodak, I would think the likes of Nikon and Cannon would move to have this patent thrown out as obvious - as evidenced by their internal documentation on previewing the photo before Kodak published their patent application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770590</id>
	<title>Oh no!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1263463080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean it will now be harder to get a RIM job?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean it will now be harder to get a RIM job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean it will now be harder to get a RIM job?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772540</id>
	<title>Re:Is there a patent for breathing?</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1263471300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The joke's on you at the end of the year, when you find out the credit card company charges you $5.00 per transaction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The joke 's on you at the end of the year , when you find out the credit card company charges you $ 5.00 per transaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The joke's on you at the end of the year, when you find out the credit card company charges you $5.00 per transaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</id>
	<title>Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As other posters have already pointed out, we don't have much detail at this time.  But let us assume for a moment that the Kodak patent in question is over the ability to preview a picture taken....</p><p>We have had thumbnail representations of pictures for much longer than 20 years.</p><p>And given a digital camera, the first thing you might want, after you take a picture, is to see what the picture looks like.</p><p>If this isn't obvious, what is?</p><p>And exactly how does it advance the technology to have every company pay a "tax" to Kodak who makes a camera with preview ?</p><p>Toss obvious patents!  Cut the lifetime of the rest to 5 years!</p><p>If we really wanted free markets, competition,  and growth of technology, the goal would be to cut the number of patents filed in the U.S. by 75 percent!  Big companies use patents to tax others, and to crowd out competition.  Do we really think Kodak had to come around and invent preview for digital cameras?  Hogwash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As other posters have already pointed out , we do n't have much detail at this time .
But let us assume for a moment that the Kodak patent in question is over the ability to preview a picture taken....We have had thumbnail representations of pictures for much longer than 20 years.And given a digital camera , the first thing you might want , after you take a picture , is to see what the picture looks like.If this is n't obvious , what is ? And exactly how does it advance the technology to have every company pay a " tax " to Kodak who makes a camera with preview ? Toss obvious patents !
Cut the lifetime of the rest to 5 years ! If we really wanted free markets , competition , and growth of technology , the goal would be to cut the number of patents filed in the U.S. by 75 percent !
Big companies use patents to tax others , and to crowd out competition .
Do we really think Kodak had to come around and invent preview for digital cameras ?
Hogwash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As other posters have already pointed out, we don't have much detail at this time.
But let us assume for a moment that the Kodak patent in question is over the ability to preview a picture taken....We have had thumbnail representations of pictures for much longer than 20 years.And given a digital camera, the first thing you might want, after you take a picture, is to see what the picture looks like.If this isn't obvious, what is?And exactly how does it advance the technology to have every company pay a "tax" to Kodak who makes a camera with preview ?Toss obvious patents!
Cut the lifetime of the rest to 5 years!If we really wanted free markets, competition,  and growth of technology, the goal would be to cut the number of patents filed in the U.S. by 75 percent!
Big companies use patents to tax others, and to crowd out competition.
Do we really think Kodak had to come around and invent preview for digital cameras?
Hogwash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771196</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about the stock price?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1263465180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WHY do these "reporter" insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time?</p> </div><p>Because there's a patent on reporting on business news -without- giving the stock price.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WHY do these " reporter " insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time ?
Because there 's a patent on reporting on business news -without- giving the stock price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHY do these "reporter" insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time?
Because there's a patent on reporting on business news -without- giving the stock price.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771304</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1263465540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do you really want Apple to own a patent on photo previewing</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd rather nobody did, because it's an idea (a WIBNI), not an implementation.</p><p>Talking of an implementation, how long have polaroid backs for medium/large format cameras been around?  Forever, that's how long.  Kodak can eat shit and die.  Unless they made the polaroid backs, in which case they still can on general principle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really want Apple to own a patent on photo previewingI 'd rather nobody did , because it 's an idea ( a WIBNI ) , not an implementation.Talking of an implementation , how long have polaroid backs for medium/large format cameras been around ?
Forever , that 's how long .
Kodak can eat shit and die .
Unless they made the polaroid backs , in which case they still can on general principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really want Apple to own a patent on photo previewingI'd rather nobody did, because it's an idea (a WIBNI), not an implementation.Talking of an implementation, how long have polaroid backs for medium/large format cameras been around?
Forever, that's how long.
Kodak can eat shit and die.
Unless they made the polaroid backs, in which case they still can on general principle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770386</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>GreyBear</author>
	<datestamp>1263462300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of points;</p><p>1. Kodak *used* to do "real work, good work".<br>2. Yes Kodak has multiple digital imagin patents, but trying to claim they invented the preview? They might as well claim to have invented the human eye.<br>3. I agree Kodak is not evil, but licensing isn't the only response to a claim of patent infringement. Perhaps Apple should pull a Doctorow and buy Kodak. At least then they could re-purpose the infrastructure and talent for more creative purposes....</p><p>Greybear</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of points ; 1 .
Kodak * used * to do " real work , good work " .2 .
Yes Kodak has multiple digital imagin patents , but trying to claim they invented the preview ?
They might as well claim to have invented the human eye.3 .
I agree Kodak is not evil , but licensing is n't the only response to a claim of patent infringement .
Perhaps Apple should pull a Doctorow and buy Kodak .
At least then they could re-purpose the infrastructure and talent for more creative purposes....Greybear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of points;1.
Kodak *used* to do "real work, good work".2.
Yes Kodak has multiple digital imagin patents, but trying to claim they invented the preview?
They might as well claim to have invented the human eye.3.
I agree Kodak is not evil, but licensing isn't the only response to a claim of patent infringement.
Perhaps Apple should pull a Doctorow and buy Kodak.
At least then they could re-purpose the infrastructure and talent for more creative purposes....Greybear</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771116</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263464880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just add on a computer over the internet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just add on a computer over the internet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just add on a computer over the internet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30778006</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>LMacG</author>
	<datestamp>1263565800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We don't know much"</p><p>"Let us assume"</p><p>DIATRIBE!!</p><p>Why it's the Slashdot posting methodology in a nutshell!  Maybe I should patent it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We do n't know much " " Let us assume " DIATRIBE !
! Why it 's the Slashdot posting methodology in a nutshell !
Maybe I should patent it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We don't know much""Let us assume"DIATRIBE!
!Why it's the Slashdot posting methodology in a nutshell!
Maybe I should patent it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776336</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1263547440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Judging by the number of companies paying them they're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt?</p></div><p>What's the matter are you homophobic or something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging by the number of companies paying them they 're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt ? What 's the matter are you homophobic or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging by the number of companies paying them they're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt?What's the matter are you homophobic or something?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770534</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest evidence that this is a BS lawsuit.</title>
	<author>caladine</author>
	<datestamp>1263462840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... Or more likely they've been talking with Apple and RIM for a while now, and the negotiations broke down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Or more likely they 've been talking with Apple and RIM for a while now , and the negotiations broke down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Or more likely they've been talking with Apple and RIM for a while now, and the negotiations broke down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30785390</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>LionMage</author>
	<datestamp>1263557280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'see, Kodak is patenting what is known as an electronic viewfinder.  It's not that they have patented the idea of hooking up a display device to a sensor and then displaying what the sensor "sees" -- there's plenty of prior art for that!  No, they're patenting the obvious idea of using a sensor and a display device to take the place of a traditional viewfinder as you might find in an SLR camera (where there's an array of mirrors and prisms to accomplish this goal).</p><p>Yes, Kodak has invented plenty of useful things that deserve patent protection, including the mosaic pattern on digital camera sensors to obtain color images.  This viewfinder thing, though, isn't worthy of patent protection -- because it's obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'see , Kodak is patenting what is known as an electronic viewfinder .
It 's not that they have patented the idea of hooking up a display device to a sensor and then displaying what the sensor " sees " -- there 's plenty of prior art for that !
No , they 're patenting the obvious idea of using a sensor and a display device to take the place of a traditional viewfinder as you might find in an SLR camera ( where there 's an array of mirrors and prisms to accomplish this goal ) .Yes , Kodak has invented plenty of useful things that deserve patent protection , including the mosaic pattern on digital camera sensors to obtain color images .
This viewfinder thing , though , is n't worthy of patent protection -- because it 's obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'see, Kodak is patenting what is known as an electronic viewfinder.
It's not that they have patented the idea of hooking up a display device to a sensor and then displaying what the sensor "sees" -- there's plenty of prior art for that!
No, they're patenting the obvious idea of using a sensor and a display device to take the place of a traditional viewfinder as you might find in an SLR camera (where there's an array of mirrors and prisms to accomplish this goal).Yes, Kodak has invented plenty of useful things that deserve patent protection, including the mosaic pattern on digital camera sensors to obtain color images.
This viewfinder thing, though, isn't worthy of patent protection -- because it's obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770288</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263461940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering with a film camera, how you manage a preview???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering with a film camera , how you manage a preview ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering with a film camera, how you manage a preview??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770894</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Tikkun</author>
	<datestamp>1263464040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company's research.</p></div><p>We don't need more coachwhip makers. If Kodak is incapable of delivering products that people want to buy in an environment where their cash cow has been destroyed, they don't need to exist.<br> <br>

tl;dr Kodak: don't innovate, legislate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company 's research.We do n't need more coachwhip makers .
If Kodak is incapable of delivering products that people want to buy in an environment where their cash cow has been destroyed , they do n't need to exist .
tl ; dr Kodak : do n't innovate , legislate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company's research.We don't need more coachwhip makers.
If Kodak is incapable of delivering products that people want to buy in an environment where their cash cow has been destroyed, they don't need to exist.
tl;dr Kodak: don't innovate, legislate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771938</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so.</p><p>The French pioneered. Maybe you think you should be paying royalties to them?</p><p>And a logical question: because some suckers paid protection, should I throw some money at them without thinking?</p><p>A lot of things do previews. Does M$ Word pays them when you click "print preview"?</p><p>Who said I want to <i>incentivise</i> their R&amp;D? Fsck them! They don't <i>incentivise</i> me at all.</p><p>Besides, this is their business which they freely chose -- nobody wasn't pointing a gun at them. Why should they need <i>incentivising</i> to to what they want? Please, I want to get that girl and I think paying a luxurious dinner might increase my chances... I need to further this line of research. Please <i>incentivise</i> me.</p><p>If I get the woman, you can put a sticker on your car: "AC inside!"</p><p>TIA.</p><p>BTW,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. says "Logged-in users aren't forced to preview their comments." Dunno, but I think they're asking for it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ... a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so.The French pioneered .
Maybe you think you should be paying royalties to them ? And a logical question : because some suckers paid protection , should I throw some money at them without thinking ? A lot of things do previews .
Does M $ Word pays them when you click " print preview " ? Who said I want to incentivise their R&amp;D ?
Fsck them !
They do n't incentivise me at all.Besides , this is their business which they freely chose -- nobody was n't pointing a gun at them .
Why should they need incentivising to to what they want ?
Please , I want to get that girl and I think paying a luxurious dinner might increase my chances... I need to further this line of research .
Please incentivise me.If I get the woman , you can put a sticker on your car : " AC inside !
" TIA.BTW , / .
says " Logged-in users are n't forced to preview their comments .
" Dunno , but I think they 're asking for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ... a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so.The French pioneered.
Maybe you think you should be paying royalties to them?And a logical question: because some suckers paid protection, should I throw some money at them without thinking?A lot of things do previews.
Does M$ Word pays them when you click "print preview"?Who said I want to incentivise their R&amp;D?
Fsck them!
They don't incentivise me at all.Besides, this is their business which they freely chose -- nobody wasn't pointing a gun at them.
Why should they need incentivising to to what they want?
Please, I want to get that girl and I think paying a luxurious dinner might increase my chances... I need to further this line of research.
Please incentivise me.If I get the woman, you can put a sticker on your car: "AC inside!
"TIA.BTW, /.
says "Logged-in users aren't forced to preview their comments.
" Dunno, but I think they're asking for it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770870</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1263463920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>God forbid that a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so.</p></div><p>They did get paid for it, for the last hundred or so years.  That wasn't enough?  Well then they should come up with more pioneering stuff rather than claiming the obvious is theirs.  Being able to preview the picture you've taken on a digital camera isn't a pioneering innovation that should be specially awarded.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>God forbid that a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so.They did get paid for it , for the last hundred or so years .
That was n't enough ?
Well then they should come up with more pioneering stuff rather than claiming the obvious is theirs .
Being able to preview the picture you 've taken on a digital camera is n't a pioneering innovation that should be specially awarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God forbid that a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so.They did get paid for it, for the last hundred or so years.
That wasn't enough?
Well then they should come up with more pioneering stuff rather than claiming the obvious is theirs.
Being able to preview the picture you've taken on a digital camera isn't a pioneering innovation that should be specially awarded.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770138</id>
	<title>Nuke their idiocy!</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1263461280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because looking at what you're taking a picture of is completely non-obvious.</p><p>Presumably everyone with at least one working eye will be sued next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because looking at what you 're taking a picture of is completely non-obvious.Presumably everyone with at least one working eye will be sued next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because looking at what you're taking a picture of is completely non-obvious.Presumably everyone with at least one working eye will be sued next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773374</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263475560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They even had "preview" before cameras existed! You set up the subject, adjusted it until it looked right (real-time preview), and then had the artist start depicting it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They even had " preview " before cameras existed !
You set up the subject , adjusted it until it looked right ( real-time preview ) , and then had the artist start depicting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They even had "preview" before cameras existed!
You set up the subject, adjusted it until it looked right (real-time preview), and then had the artist start depicting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</id>
	<title>I foresee...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An out of court settlement with both companies.</p><p>The first thing I see amongst comments here is a bunch of stuff about invalid patents.</p><p>What the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community needs to understand, is that not *every* patent is invalid just because its being used to sue.</p><p>Kodak is not a patent troll. They do real work, good work, and file patents on it to protect their inventions.</p><p>If there was ever a patent to assume is valid and in good standing, it would be a digital imaging patent, filed by a company that specializes in Imaging (and these days, Digital imaging).</p><p>Kodak is not evil. If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does, they need to think again. Everyone else is licensing the technology. If they are not, then they are infringing, and deserve to be sued.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An out of court settlement with both companies.The first thing I see amongst comments here is a bunch of stuff about invalid patents.What the / .
community needs to understand , is that not * every * patent is invalid just because its being used to sue.Kodak is not a patent troll .
They do real work , good work , and file patents on it to protect their inventions.If there was ever a patent to assume is valid and in good standing , it would be a digital imaging patent , filed by a company that specializes in Imaging ( and these days , Digital imaging ) .Kodak is not evil .
If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does , they need to think again .
Everyone else is licensing the technology .
If they are not , then they are infringing , and deserve to be sued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An out of court settlement with both companies.The first thing I see amongst comments here is a bunch of stuff about invalid patents.What the /.
community needs to understand, is that not *every* patent is invalid just because its being used to sue.Kodak is not a patent troll.
They do real work, good work, and file patents on it to protect their inventions.If there was ever a patent to assume is valid and in good standing, it would be a digital imaging patent, filed by a company that specializes in Imaging (and these days, Digital imaging).Kodak is not evil.
If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does, they need to think again.
Everyone else is licensing the technology.
If they are not, then they are infringing, and deserve to be sued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769980</id>
	<title>The reason why retail cell phone prices are high</title>
	<author>SomeoneGotMyNick</author>
	<datestamp>1263460800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.....is not because the service provider wants to "encourage" you to sign up for a two year contract, it's because of all the stacked tech licensing fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.....is not because the service provider wants to " encourage " you to sign up for a two year contract , it 's because of all the stacked tech licensing fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....is not because the service provider wants to "encourage" you to sign up for a two year contract, it's because of all the stacked tech licensing fees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30774708</id>
	<title>Reign-in patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263484920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely, surely, - it is time to reign-in patents. It is simply not being a "team-player" to try to own an idea, and hold other over a barrel over it! How did this get this bad?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely , surely , - it is time to reign-in patents .
It is simply not being a " team-player " to try to own an idea , and hold other over a barrel over it !
How did this get this bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely, surely, - it is time to reign-in patents.
It is simply not being a "team-player" to try to own an idea, and hold other over a barrel over it!
How did this get this bad?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802</id>
	<title>Obvious</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1263460080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obvious patent is obviously invalid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obvious patent is obviously invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obvious patent is obviously invalid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769792</id>
	<title>Apple = Lame.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is a shit of a company.  using others technology without paying (not just kodak but nokia too). if there were more companies like this less R&amp;D would be done and we be further back in technological progress.  not only this but apple SUCKS HARD at collaboration and is extremely secretive.  Fuck apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is a shit of a company .
using others technology without paying ( not just kodak but nokia too ) .
if there were more companies like this less R&amp;D would be done and we be further back in technological progress .
not only this but apple SUCKS HARD at collaboration and is extremely secretive .
Fuck apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is a shit of a company.
using others technology without paying (not just kodak but nokia too).
if there were more companies like this less R&amp;D would be done and we be further back in technological progress.
not only this but apple SUCKS HARD at collaboration and is extremely secretive.
Fuck apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30774478</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm.. what R&amp;D?  Kodak was late to the Digital camera game, but apparently not late to the OMG lets file patents on every obvious thing we can think of game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm.. what R&amp;D ?
Kodak was late to the Digital camera game , but apparently not late to the OMG lets file patents on every obvious thing we can think of game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm.. what R&amp;D?
Kodak was late to the Digital camera game, but apparently not late to the OMG lets file patents on every obvious thing we can think of game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771530</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263466440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol yea, they innovated a pc running unix, or before that they innovated the mp3 player, and before that they innovated the pci bus</p><p>sorry chief but apple has this thing going where they use already existing ideas, make it pretty and slick, add marketing then act like it didn't exist before they came along</p><p>which drives all you fanboi's into a tizzy thinking your "special", when the truth is apple hasnt done anything innovative since the first mac<br>(unless you count taking an AIO G3 shoving it into a translucent case and calling it another name)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol yea , they innovated a pc running unix , or before that they innovated the mp3 player , and before that they innovated the pci bussorry chief but apple has this thing going where they use already existing ideas , make it pretty and slick , add marketing then act like it did n't exist before they came alongwhich drives all you fanboi 's into a tizzy thinking your " special " , when the truth is apple hasnt done anything innovative since the first mac ( unless you count taking an AIO G3 shoving it into a translucent case and calling it another name )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol yea, they innovated a pc running unix, or before that they innovated the mp3 player, and before that they innovated the pci bussorry chief but apple has this thing going where they use already existing ideas, make it pretty and slick, add marketing then act like it didn't exist before they came alongwhich drives all you fanboi's into a tizzy thinking your "special", when the truth is apple hasnt done anything innovative since the first mac(unless you count taking an AIO G3 shoving it into a translucent case and calling it another name)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>mejogid</author>
	<datestamp>1263460800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>God forbid that a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so.  These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company's research.  Judging by the number of companies paying them they're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt?</htmltext>
<tokenext>God forbid that a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so .
These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company 's research .
Judging by the number of companies paying them they 're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God forbid that a company that helped pioneer photography for the last hundred or so years be paid for doing so.
These are real patents designed to incentivise R&amp;D and prevent competitors cashing in on another company's research.
Judging by the number of companies paying them they're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770808</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1263463680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community needs to understand, is that not *every* patent is invalid just because its being used to sue.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps not, but that's the way to bet.</p><p>Given that you already have<br>1) The technology for a digital still camera<br>2) The technology for a digital movie camera</p><p>is it really patent worthy to have a device which works like a movie camera until a button is pressed, at which point it takes a picture like a still camera?  Because that's what Claim 1 of patent 6292218 covers.  Oddly enough it only covers it for cameras with mosaic sensors, so you can use the same technology in a camera with a Foveon sensor, or with a monochrome camera, with no patent issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the / .
community needs to understand , is that not * every * patent is invalid just because its being used to sue.Perhaps not , but that 's the way to bet.Given that you already have1 ) The technology for a digital still camera2 ) The technology for a digital movie camerais it really patent worthy to have a device which works like a movie camera until a button is pressed , at which point it takes a picture like a still camera ?
Because that 's what Claim 1 of patent 6292218 covers .
Oddly enough it only covers it for cameras with mosaic sensors , so you can use the same technology in a camera with a Foveon sensor , or with a monochrome camera , with no patent issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the /.
community needs to understand, is that not *every* patent is invalid just because its being used to sue.Perhaps not, but that's the way to bet.Given that you already have1) The technology for a digital still camera2) The technology for a digital movie camerais it really patent worthy to have a device which works like a movie camera until a button is pressed, at which point it takes a picture like a still camera?
Because that's what Claim 1 of patent 6292218 covers.
Oddly enough it only covers it for cameras with mosaic sensors, so you can use the same technology in a camera with a Foveon sensor, or with a monochrome camera, with no patent issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770776</id>
	<title>Re:The biggest evidence that this is a BS lawsuit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you might not think that Kodak has been talking to Apple about licensing? That is after all cheaper than court action, so they might give that a fairly long attempt.
No no, instead they cunningly wait until products are hit and then take them to court as very first action...
Funny how we didn't hear about Nokia, Sony-Ericssn etc getting sued
<br>
<br>
-- This post may contain traces of sarcasm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you might not think that Kodak has been talking to Apple about licensing ?
That is after all cheaper than court action , so they might give that a fairly long attempt .
No no , instead they cunningly wait until products are hit and then take them to court as very first action.. . Funny how we did n't hear about Nokia , Sony-Ericssn etc getting sued -- This post may contain traces of sarcasm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you might not think that Kodak has been talking to Apple about licensing?
That is after all cheaper than court action, so they might give that a fairly long attempt.
No no, instead they cunningly wait until products are hit and then take them to court as very first action...
Funny how we didn't hear about Nokia, Sony-Ericssn etc getting sued


-- This post may contain traces of sarcasm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771174</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263465120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was voted insightful? He's begging the question*!</p><p>*<i>Assume</i> that Kodak has done X, then complain that Kodak has done X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was voted insightful ?
He 's begging the question * !
* Assume that Kodak has done X , then complain that Kodak has done X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was voted insightful?
He's begging the question*!
*Assume that Kodak has done X, then complain that Kodak has done X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771792</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1263467700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"actually it sounds more like patent squatting. the idea of previewing a picture before taking it should not be patentable"</p><p>EXACTLY. It is an idea anybody familiar with an SLR camera would know about.</p><p>The hardware, controlling software, and exact design specification should be patentable. The idea itself, should not.</p><p>And that's one thing that fucked our patent system. That goddamned commercial on TV "Have an idea? Patent it!" No. It should be "Have a unique invention/device? Patent it!" Ideas should not be patentable, as anybody with enough experience in the field should be able to come up with the same idea.</p><p>Machine or Transformation, not thoughts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" actually it sounds more like patent squatting .
the idea of previewing a picture before taking it should not be patentable " EXACTLY .
It is an idea anybody familiar with an SLR camera would know about.The hardware , controlling software , and exact design specification should be patentable .
The idea itself , should not.And that 's one thing that fucked our patent system .
That goddamned commercial on TV " Have an idea ?
Patent it !
" No .
It should be " Have a unique invention/device ?
Patent it !
" Ideas should not be patentable , as anybody with enough experience in the field should be able to come up with the same idea.Machine or Transformation , not thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"actually it sounds more like patent squatting.
the idea of previewing a picture before taking it should not be patentable"EXACTLY.
It is an idea anybody familiar with an SLR camera would know about.The hardware, controlling software, and exact design specification should be patentable.
The idea itself, should not.And that's one thing that fucked our patent system.
That goddamned commercial on TV "Have an idea?
Patent it!
" No.
It should be "Have a unique invention/device?
Patent it!
" Ideas should not be patentable, as anybody with enough experience in the field should be able to come up with the same idea.Machine or Transformation, not thoughts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obvious was my first thought as well. How long have cameras had a "preview"? Let's see, the very first camera I can remember was a Polaroid with the instant pictures. That camera had a view finder that showed you what to expect to see in the final picture. Every film camera I have every used had a "preview." Why was this patent granted? Just because it is a digital camera does that negate the decades of prior art in film cameras?</p><p>Cheers,<br>the\_crowbar</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obvious was my first thought as well .
How long have cameras had a " preview " ?
Let 's see , the very first camera I can remember was a Polaroid with the instant pictures .
That camera had a view finder that showed you what to expect to see in the final picture .
Every film camera I have every used had a " preview .
" Why was this patent granted ?
Just because it is a digital camera does that negate the decades of prior art in film cameras ? Cheers,the \ _crowbar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obvious was my first thought as well.
How long have cameras had a "preview"?
Let's see, the very first camera I can remember was a Polaroid with the instant pictures.
That camera had a view finder that showed you what to expect to see in the final picture.
Every film camera I have every used had a "preview.
" Why was this patent granted?
Just because it is a digital camera does that negate the decades of prior art in film cameras?Cheers,the\_crowbar</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771672</id>
	<title>Enough is enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263467040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we tolerate so many opinions from those who nothing about patent law and even less about the specific patents involved?<br>Just another example of the fact the less you know about something the more you have a strong opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we tolerate so many opinions from those who nothing about patent law and even less about the specific patents involved ? Just another example of the fact the less you know about something the more you have a strong opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we tolerate so many opinions from those who nothing about patent law and even less about the specific patents involved?Just another example of the fact the less you know about something the more you have a strong opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770996</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263464400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cutting the patent expiry to less than 5 years will hurt smaller patent holders more than larger ones. A startup with a bunch of patents will likely take at least 5 years just to get in the black, never mind recoup its investment on the patent. Making patents that short will just ensure that all innovation will come from large companies (if they bother to innovate at all).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cutting the patent expiry to less than 5 years will hurt smaller patent holders more than larger ones .
A startup with a bunch of patents will likely take at least 5 years just to get in the black , never mind recoup its investment on the patent .
Making patents that short will just ensure that all innovation will come from large companies ( if they bother to innovate at all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cutting the patent expiry to less than 5 years will hurt smaller patent holders more than larger ones.
A startup with a bunch of patents will likely take at least 5 years just to get in the black, never mind recoup its investment on the patent.
Making patents that short will just ensure that all innovation will come from large companies (if they bother to innovate at all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770262</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263461820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>actually it sounds more like patent squatting. the idea of previewing a picture before taking it should not be patentable. The hardware/software to do so might, however, apple isnt using kodiak hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>actually it sounds more like patent squatting .
the idea of previewing a picture before taking it should not be patentable .
The hardware/software to do so might , however , apple isnt using kodiak hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually it sounds more like patent squatting.
the idea of previewing a picture before taking it should not be patentable.
The hardware/software to do so might, however, apple isnt using kodiak hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771404</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1263465960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounded to me like an "on a computer" patent.  Like Amazon one-click patenting "put it on my tab" + "on a computer."  This is patenting "viewfinder" + "on a computer."<br> <br>I think that obviousness/prior art should fail if the patent is something that existed before, but is now the same thing "on a computer."  Unfortunately, the patent office and courts don't seem to agree with me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounded to me like an " on a computer " patent .
Like Amazon one-click patenting " put it on my tab " + " on a computer .
" This is patenting " viewfinder " + " on a computer .
" I think that obviousness/prior art should fail if the patent is something that existed before , but is now the same thing " on a computer .
" Unfortunately , the patent office and courts do n't seem to agree with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounded to me like an "on a computer" patent.
Like Amazon one-click patenting "put it on my tab" + "on a computer.
"  This is patenting "viewfinder" + "on a computer.
" I think that obviousness/prior art should fail if the patent is something that existed before, but is now the same thing "on a computer.
"  Unfortunately, the patent office and courts don't seem to agree with me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770972</id>
	<title>I remember the day...</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1263464280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The day when patents were used to promote innovation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The day when patents were used to promote innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The day when patents were used to promote innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773238</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263474720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it being obvious that having a preview of the picture you just took, or are about to take is a good thing to have, but how to make it happen might not be obvious.  wihch is the real criteria for patentability (right?).  however with the nature of digital technology, and how each piece is encapsulated, passing data to the next.  i don't see how NOT to end up with a digital camera that has preview, as long as it's aimed at the price range required to turn a profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it being obvious that having a preview of the picture you just took , or are about to take is a good thing to have , but how to make it happen might not be obvious .
wihch is the real criteria for patentability ( right ? ) .
however with the nature of digital technology , and how each piece is encapsulated , passing data to the next .
i do n't see how NOT to end up with a digital camera that has preview , as long as it 's aimed at the price range required to turn a profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it being obvious that having a preview of the picture you just took, or are about to take is a good thing to have, but how to make it happen might not be obvious.
wihch is the real criteria for patentability (right?).
however with the nature of digital technology, and how each piece is encapsulated, passing data to the next.
i don't see how NOT to end up with a digital camera that has preview, as long as it's aimed at the price range required to turn a profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772524</id>
	<title>Hundreds. Literally.</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1263471240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know how many breaths people take every year? Hundreds. Literally hundreds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know how many breaths people take every year ?
Hundreds. Literally hundreds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know how many breaths people take every year?
Hundreds. Literally hundreds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800</id>
	<title>Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about Apple use some of that pocket change they have laying around and do a little hostile takeover of Kodak. Then Steve Jobs can use their ancient camaras as target practice with his iSlate gesture controlled laser mounted sharks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Apple use some of that pocket change they have laying around and do a little hostile takeover of Kodak .
Then Steve Jobs can use their ancient camaras as target practice with his iSlate gesture controlled laser mounted sharks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Apple use some of that pocket change they have laying around and do a little hostile takeover of Kodak.
Then Steve Jobs can use their ancient camaras as target practice with his iSlate gesture controlled laser mounted sharks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769886</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How about Apple use some of that pocket change they have laying around and do a little hostile takeover of Kodak.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you <i>really</i> want Apple to own a patent on photo previewing, and a thousand others? I'm sure they'll be kind and let RIM and Samsung and HTC and Motorola use those technologies at a very reasonable cost. Be careful what you ask for.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Apple use some of that pocket change they have laying around and do a little hostile takeover of Kodak.Do you really want Apple to own a patent on photo previewing , and a thousand others ?
I 'm sure they 'll be kind and let RIM and Samsung and HTC and Motorola use those technologies at a very reasonable cost .
Be careful what you ask for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Apple use some of that pocket change they have laying around and do a little hostile takeover of Kodak.Do you really want Apple to own a patent on photo previewing, and a thousand others?
I'm sure they'll be kind and let RIM and Samsung and HTC and Motorola use those technologies at a very reasonable cost.
Be careful what you ask for.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770438</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263462540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Functionality is not a technology, it's a concept. The means to accomplish that functionality is technology. When the concept is as obvious as a preview on a camera, it <i>shouldn't</i> be patentable. It's just common sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Functionality is not a technology , it 's a concept .
The means to accomplish that functionality is technology .
When the concept is as obvious as a preview on a camera , it should n't be patentable .
It 's just common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Functionality is not a technology, it's a concept.
The means to accomplish that functionality is technology.
When the concept is as obvious as a preview on a camera, it shouldn't be patentable.
It's just common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770798</id>
	<title>Get off my lawn kid!</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1263463620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Judging by the number of companies paying them they're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt?"</p></div></blockquote><p>He never said Apple was or should be "exempt".  He suggested it might be a better deal for Apple to buy the whole company and reap the associated profits.  You are so busy being anti-pro-Apple accusing someone of being pro-Apple, you didn't stop to read what was wrote and think about it apparently.  That's OK.  Judging by your 7 digit SlashID, you're young.  You'll learn<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Judging by the number of companies paying them they 're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt ?
" He never said Apple was or should be " exempt " .
He suggested it might be a better deal for Apple to buy the whole company and reap the associated profits .
You are so busy being anti-pro-Apple accusing someone of being pro-Apple , you did n't stop to read what was wrote and think about it apparently .
That 's OK. Judging by your 7 digit SlashID , you 're young .
You 'll learn .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Judging by the number of companies paying them they're not without merit - why should Apple be exempt?
"He never said Apple was or should be "exempt".
He suggested it might be a better deal for Apple to buy the whole company and reap the associated profits.
You are so busy being anti-pro-Apple accusing someone of being pro-Apple, you didn't stop to read what was wrote and think about it apparently.
That's OK.  Judging by your 7 digit SlashID, you're young.
You'll learn ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30774608</id>
	<title>Uh, yeah</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1263484020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, yeah. So, like previewing and reviewing images on a camera which uses a computerized display in place of a viewfinder isn't obvious to those skilled in the trade?</p><p>oooookay, then. This is a USPTO fail. Yet again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , yeah .
So , like previewing and reviewing images on a camera which uses a computerized display in place of a viewfinder is n't obvious to those skilled in the trade ? oooookay , then .
This is a USPTO fail .
Yet again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, yeah.
So, like previewing and reviewing images on a camera which uses a computerized display in place of a viewfinder isn't obvious to those skilled in the trade?oooookay, then.
This is a USPTO fail.
Yet again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770028</id>
	<title>Deserves them right</title>
	<author>mrwolf007</author>
	<datestamp>1263460980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean Apples multi-touch patent?<br>
Lets see, multi touch was used before that on touchpads.<br>
Capactitive touchscreens existed prior to the patent.<br>
But for some reason Apple get a patent to use multi touch on a touchscreen, thereby forcing other vendors to filter and ignore data delivered by the touch screen.<br>
Not enforcable in Europe, beeing a pure software patent and i cant see how such a patent can be granted since its it actually places restrictions on the interpretation of data provided by a hardware device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean Apples multi-touch patent ?
Lets see , multi touch was used before that on touchpads .
Capactitive touchscreens existed prior to the patent .
But for some reason Apple get a patent to use multi touch on a touchscreen , thereby forcing other vendors to filter and ignore data delivered by the touch screen .
Not enforcable in Europe , beeing a pure software patent and i cant see how such a patent can be granted since its it actually places restrictions on the interpretation of data provided by a hardware device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean Apples multi-touch patent?
Lets see, multi touch was used before that on touchpads.
Capactitive touchscreens existed prior to the patent.
But for some reason Apple get a patent to use multi touch on a touchscreen, thereby forcing other vendors to filter and ignore data delivered by the touch screen.
Not enforcable in Europe, beeing a pure software patent and i cant see how such a patent can be granted since its it actually places restrictions on the interpretation of data provided by a hardware device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772032</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1263468900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>laser mounted sharks?</p></div><p>Putting the sharks on the lasers?  I don't know how that would even work, unless they kinda scissored, or something...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>laser mounted sharks ? Putting the sharks on the lasers ?
I do n't know how that would even work , unless they kinda scissored , or something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>laser mounted sharks?Putting the sharks on the lasers?
I don't know how that would even work, unless they kinda scissored, or something...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770480</id>
	<title>Re:Off the cuff, knee jerk..</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1263462660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didnt invent something that fixes the problem. That concept was around long before the technology to do so. They just invented one (or more) ways to accomplish that concept. If someone comes along and designs something that does the same thing in a completely different method, then that is their invention and not yous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They didnt invent something that fixes the problem .
That concept was around long before the technology to do so .
They just invented one ( or more ) ways to accomplish that concept .
If someone comes along and designs something that does the same thing in a completely different method , then that is their invention and not yous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didnt invent something that fixes the problem.
That concept was around long before the technology to do so.
They just invented one (or more) ways to accomplish that concept.
If someone comes along and designs something that does the same thing in a completely different method, then that is their invention and not yous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771552</id>
	<title>Re:Here is an idea</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1263466560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, these are patents on ideas which are obvious.  Its just often cheaper to licence the patent than fight it in court.
</p><p>It's pretty obvious there would be much more R&amp;D without any of this patent nonsense.  Instead of money going to useless blood sucking lawyers, the money could be going to researchers.  Not to mention the redirection of effort from patenting nonsense to real research and problem solving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , these are patents on ideas which are obvious .
Its just often cheaper to licence the patent than fight it in court .
It 's pretty obvious there would be much more R&amp;D without any of this patent nonsense .
Instead of money going to useless blood sucking lawyers , the money could be going to researchers .
Not to mention the redirection of effort from patenting nonsense to real research and problem solving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, these are patents on ideas which are obvious.
Its just often cheaper to licence the patent than fight it in court.
It's pretty obvious there would be much more R&amp;D without any of this patent nonsense.
Instead of money going to useless blood sucking lawyers, the money could be going to researchers.
Not to mention the redirection of effort from patenting nonsense to real research and problem solving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769832</id>
	<title>Big company has lots of patents</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1263460260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about dumb, obvious stuff. Let's talk about it.</p><p>In the meantime, Apple and RIM will probably just pay Kodak for the right to use the silly patents which shouldn't exist in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about dumb , obvious stuff .
Let 's talk about it.In the meantime , Apple and RIM will probably just pay Kodak for the right to use the silly patents which should n't exist in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about dumb, obvious stuff.
Let's talk about it.In the meantime, Apple and RIM will probably just pay Kodak for the right to use the silly patents which shouldn't exist in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771528</id>
	<title>Apple doesn't make camera sensors</title>
	<author>BearRanger</author>
	<datestamp>1263466440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it possible that the manufacturer of the camera used in the iPhone pays royalties to Kodak already?  Wouldn't that indemnify them?  Or is Kodak allowed to collect royalties all along the chain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it possible that the manufacturer of the camera used in the iPhone pays royalties to Kodak already ?
Would n't that indemnify them ?
Or is Kodak allowed to collect royalties all along the chain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it possible that the manufacturer of the camera used in the iPhone pays royalties to Kodak already?
Wouldn't that indemnify them?
Or is Kodak allowed to collect royalties all along the chain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771964</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263468660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how today seeing a preview on the back of a digital camera is obvious. About 10 years ago this utterly blew my mind. It was absolutely incredible. Also there were MANY digital cameras released before one came with an instant preview.</p><p>By your logic, the use of photosites laid out in a grid connected to an analogue to digital converter inorder to create a digital representation of an image projected onto a small surface would be obvious too. That doesn't change the fact that Kodak spent many years of R&amp;D on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how today seeing a preview on the back of a digital camera is obvious .
About 10 years ago this utterly blew my mind .
It was absolutely incredible .
Also there were MANY digital cameras released before one came with an instant preview.By your logic , the use of photosites laid out in a grid connected to an analogue to digital converter inorder to create a digital representation of an image projected onto a small surface would be obvious too .
That does n't change the fact that Kodak spent many years of R&amp;D on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how today seeing a preview on the back of a digital camera is obvious.
About 10 years ago this utterly blew my mind.
It was absolutely incredible.
Also there were MANY digital cameras released before one came with an instant preview.By your logic, the use of photosites laid out in a grid connected to an analogue to digital converter inorder to create a digital representation of an image projected onto a small surface would be obvious too.
That doesn't change the fact that Kodak spent many years of R&amp;D on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771168</id>
	<title>lolpatent</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1263465060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the patent should obviously be overturned, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Apple revealed they plan upon suing everyone for infringing upon their equally obvious multi-touch patents.  Also, Apple always acts like other people's patents are irrelevant while their own matter.  So please do make Apple sweat a little first.</p><p>I'll be happiest if Apple's own successful arguments here are eventually used to help overturn their own silly patents.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the patent should obviously be overturned , but ...Apple revealed they plan upon suing everyone for infringing upon their equally obvious multi-touch patents .
Also , Apple always acts like other people 's patents are irrelevant while their own matter .
So please do make Apple sweat a little first.I 'll be happiest if Apple 's own successful arguments here are eventually used to help overturn their own silly patents .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the patent should obviously be overturned, but ...Apple revealed they plan upon suing everyone for infringing upon their equally obvious multi-touch patents.
Also, Apple always acts like other people's patents are irrelevant while their own matter.
So please do make Apple sweat a little first.I'll be happiest if Apple's own successful arguments here are eventually used to help overturn their own silly patents.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771364</id>
	<title>Re:Is there any doubt about what Patents Do?</title>
	<author>flatrock</author>
	<datestamp>1263465780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 years?  Many technologies take longer than 5 years to bring to market.  Why invest millions in research to develop new technologies when you can just take what other people have developed once it starts to mature?</p><p>Your idea won't cause a growth of technology, it will absolutely destroy the profitibility of doing real research into new technologies.</p><p>I agree that there sure seems to be a lot of obvious patents that have been granted, though most are far more narrowly defined than you would think from just reading an abstract, or even worse the title of an article.</p><p>Patent reform is a good idea.  Gutting the patent system is an absolutely horrible idea that would have far worse results than the mess we have now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 years ?
Many technologies take longer than 5 years to bring to market .
Why invest millions in research to develop new technologies when you can just take what other people have developed once it starts to mature ? Your idea wo n't cause a growth of technology , it will absolutely destroy the profitibility of doing real research into new technologies.I agree that there sure seems to be a lot of obvious patents that have been granted , though most are far more narrowly defined than you would think from just reading an abstract , or even worse the title of an article.Patent reform is a good idea .
Gutting the patent system is an absolutely horrible idea that would have far worse results than the mess we have now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 years?
Many technologies take longer than 5 years to bring to market.
Why invest millions in research to develop new technologies when you can just take what other people have developed once it starts to mature?Your idea won't cause a growth of technology, it will absolutely destroy the profitibility of doing real research into new technologies.I agree that there sure seems to be a lot of obvious patents that have been granted, though most are far more narrowly defined than you would think from just reading an abstract, or even worse the title of an article.Patent reform is a good idea.
Gutting the patent system is an absolutely horrible idea that would have far worse results than the mess we have now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771786</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263467640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does, they need to think again.</p></div><p>I guess its a philosophy thing, but I disagree with this premise on a fundamental level.    I think one test for the validity of a patent, is if a reasonable person working independently on the same or a similar problem would come up with the same solution.    The law may not be on the same page as this premise, but IMO that just makes the law wrong.</p><p>PS:  I would feel totally different if the patent they was suing over had to do with the way the digital image was actually generated from the sensors, especially if it involved hardware and not just software.     But if your talking about using an LCD as a digitial view finder, that's pretty darn obvious as an idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does , they need to think again.I guess its a philosophy thing , but I disagree with this premise on a fundamental level .
I think one test for the validity of a patent , is if a reasonable person working independently on the same or a similar problem would come up with the same solution .
The law may not be on the same page as this premise , but IMO that just makes the law wrong.PS : I would feel totally different if the patent they was suing over had to do with the way the digital image was actually generated from the sensors , especially if it involved hardware and not just software .
But if your talking about using an LCD as a digitial view finder , that 's pretty darn obvious as an idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these companies think they can implement functionality in their devices just because everyone else does, they need to think again.I guess its a philosophy thing, but I disagree with this premise on a fundamental level.
I think one test for the validity of a patent, is if a reasonable person working independently on the same or a similar problem would come up with the same solution.
The law may not be on the same page as this premise, but IMO that just makes the law wrong.PS:  I would feel totally different if the patent they was suing over had to do with the way the digital image was actually generated from the sensors, especially if it involved hardware and not just software.
But if your talking about using an LCD as a digitial view finder, that's pretty darn obvious as an idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776092</id>
	<title>Re:I foresee...</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1263587220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As soon as we heard that cameras were digital, we pretty much immediately thought, "Oh I can't wait until we can have tiny screens to see what we're taking/took.</p></div></blockquote><p>I was a hobby film photographer at the time closely following the development of digital cameras in the early 1990s.  I can tell you no, the first thing to cross everyone's mid was <i>not</i> the ability to review the picture you just took.  Everyone was used to the film workflow process (take picture, develop, print negatives or review slides).  Back in those days, just decompressing a 640x480 jpeg took 5-15 seconds on a PC (the processing power required for JPEGs was a big disadvantage vs. GIF at the time).  So the digital workflow was similar - look through viewfinder, take photo, camera writes to hard drive/memory card, download to PC, review photos.  It was not at all obvious at the time that we'd be able to quickly review photos in the camera immediately after we took them.
<br> <br>
The first <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak\_DCS-100" title="wikipedia.org">digital SLR</a> [wikipedia.org]released in 1991 followed this workflow model.  So did the first consumer-grade <a href="http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9604ihs.html" title="epi-centre.com">digital</a> [epi-centre.com] <a href="http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9403cdi.html" title="epi-centre.com">cameras</a> [epi-centre.com] released in 1994.  The first digital camera I can recall which had an LCD to review picutres (not sure if you could preview them with a live feed) was the <a href="http://www.casio.com/products/archive/Cameras/QV\_Series/QV-11/" title="casio.com">Casio QV-11</a> [casio.com] released in 1995.  I recall lots of comments from photographers and reviewers about how innovative that concept was (but the camera's crappy resolution and toy lens killed it in the market).  You have to remember that back in those days, most LCDs on laptops were greyscale.  The few which were color were split-screen passive matrix with poor color reproduction and fidelity.  CRTs were vastly superior and still dominated the desktop, so it never occurred to most people that they would want eventually want to review the picture they just took on a LCD built into the camera.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as we heard that cameras were digital , we pretty much immediately thought , " Oh I ca n't wait until we can have tiny screens to see what we 're taking/took.I was a hobby film photographer at the time closely following the development of digital cameras in the early 1990s .
I can tell you no , the first thing to cross everyone 's mid was not the ability to review the picture you just took .
Everyone was used to the film workflow process ( take picture , develop , print negatives or review slides ) .
Back in those days , just decompressing a 640x480 jpeg took 5-15 seconds on a PC ( the processing power required for JPEGs was a big disadvantage vs. GIF at the time ) .
So the digital workflow was similar - look through viewfinder , take photo , camera writes to hard drive/memory card , download to PC , review photos .
It was not at all obvious at the time that we 'd be able to quickly review photos in the camera immediately after we took them .
The first digital SLR [ wikipedia.org ] released in 1991 followed this workflow model .
So did the first consumer-grade digital [ epi-centre.com ] cameras [ epi-centre.com ] released in 1994 .
The first digital camera I can recall which had an LCD to review picutres ( not sure if you could preview them with a live feed ) was the Casio QV-11 [ casio.com ] released in 1995 .
I recall lots of comments from photographers and reviewers about how innovative that concept was ( but the camera 's crappy resolution and toy lens killed it in the market ) .
You have to remember that back in those days , most LCDs on laptops were greyscale .
The few which were color were split-screen passive matrix with poor color reproduction and fidelity .
CRTs were vastly superior and still dominated the desktop , so it never occurred to most people that they would want eventually want to review the picture they just took on a LCD built into the camera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as we heard that cameras were digital, we pretty much immediately thought, "Oh I can't wait until we can have tiny screens to see what we're taking/took.I was a hobby film photographer at the time closely following the development of digital cameras in the early 1990s.
I can tell you no, the first thing to cross everyone's mid was not the ability to review the picture you just took.
Everyone was used to the film workflow process (take picture, develop, print negatives or review slides).
Back in those days, just decompressing a 640x480 jpeg took 5-15 seconds on a PC (the processing power required for JPEGs was a big disadvantage vs. GIF at the time).
So the digital workflow was similar - look through viewfinder, take photo, camera writes to hard drive/memory card, download to PC, review photos.
It was not at all obvious at the time that we'd be able to quickly review photos in the camera immediately after we took them.
The first digital SLR [wikipedia.org]released in 1991 followed this workflow model.
So did the first consumer-grade digital [epi-centre.com] cameras [epi-centre.com] released in 1994.
The first digital camera I can recall which had an LCD to review picutres (not sure if you could preview them with a live feed) was the Casio QV-11 [casio.com] released in 1995.
I recall lots of comments from photographers and reviewers about how innovative that concept was (but the camera's crappy resolution and toy lens killed it in the market).
You have to remember that back in those days, most LCDs on laptops were greyscale.
The few which were color were split-screen passive matrix with poor color reproduction and fidelity.
CRTs were vastly superior and still dominated the desktop, so it never occurred to most people that they would want eventually want to review the picture they just took on a LCD built into the camera.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769934</id>
	<title>Patent number</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least one of the patents is 6292218.</p><p>Claim 1 is a nice example of patenting the goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least one of the patents is 6292218.Claim 1 is a nice example of patenting the goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least one of the patents is 6292218.Claim 1 is a nice example of patenting the goal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770436</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares about the stock price?</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1263462540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Okay, the article has almost no information. All we know is that Kodak has asked that the offending devices not be shipped into the US. The other piece of information that we have is the stock prices of the three companies. <b>WHY</b> do these "reporter" insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time? It has absolutely no value whatsoever yet they insist on putting it in. Totally meaningless and was one of the only factual items in the article. I hope I never understand business types....</p></div><p>You do know that the reporter is probably not a "business type"? There are very few reporters who have a clue about business. The reporter probably included the stock prices because it was one of the few facts he/she had.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , the article has almost no information .
All we know is that Kodak has asked that the offending devices not be shipped into the US .
The other piece of information that we have is the stock prices of the three companies .
WHY do these " reporter " insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time ?
It has absolutely no value whatsoever yet they insist on putting it in .
Totally meaningless and was one of the only factual items in the article .
I hope I never understand business types....You do know that the reporter is probably not a " business type " ?
There are very few reporters who have a clue about business .
The reporter probably included the stock prices because it was one of the few facts he/she had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, the article has almost no information.
All we know is that Kodak has asked that the offending devices not be shipped into the US.
The other piece of information that we have is the stock prices of the three companies.
WHY do these "reporter" insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time?
It has absolutely no value whatsoever yet they insist on putting it in.
Totally meaningless and was one of the only factual items in the article.
I hope I never understand business types....You do know that the reporter is probably not a "business type"?
There are very few reporters who have a clue about business.
The reporter probably included the stock prices because it was one of the few facts he/she had.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769812</id>
	<title>Who cares about the stock price?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, the article has almost no information. All we know is that Kodak has asked that the offending devices not be shipped into the US. The other piece of information that we have is the stock prices of the three companies. <b>WHY</b> do these "reporter" insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time? It has absolutely no value whatsoever yet they insist on putting it in. Totally meaningless and was one of the only factual items in the article. I hope I never understand business types....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , the article has almost no information .
All we know is that Kodak has asked that the offending devices not be shipped into the US .
The other piece of information that we have is the stock prices of the three companies .
WHY do these " reporter " insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time ?
It has absolutely no value whatsoever yet they insist on putting it in .
Totally meaningless and was one of the only factual items in the article .
I hope I never understand business types... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, the article has almost no information.
All we know is that Kodak has asked that the offending devices not be shipped into the US.
The other piece of information that we have is the stock prices of the three companies.
WHY do these "reporter" insist on putting in a snapshot of the stock price at that moment in time?
It has absolutely no value whatsoever yet they insist on putting it in.
Totally meaningless and was one of the only factual items in the article.
I hope I never understand business types....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770026</id>
	<title>Kodak could be easily taken over: the numbers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I'll be! I was researching some facts to karma slut (I'm an AC so karma doesn't matter) and I found that the market cap of <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ek" title="marketwatch.com" rel="nofollow">Kodak is 1.36 Billion!</a> [marketwatch.com] and Apple has over 5 billion in cash. </p><p>I didn't realize that Kodak was sucking wind so much. They used to be such a power house. </p><p>Looking at Kodak, it just might be a decent hostile takeover target - look at its cash balance <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=EK&amp;annual" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">Over 2 billion</a> [yahoo.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'll be !
I was researching some facts to karma slut ( I 'm an AC so karma does n't matter ) and I found that the market cap of Kodak is 1.36 Billion !
[ marketwatch.com ] and Apple has over 5 billion in cash .
I did n't realize that Kodak was sucking wind so much .
They used to be such a power house .
Looking at Kodak , it just might be a decent hostile takeover target - look at its cash balance Over 2 billion [ yahoo.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'll be!
I was researching some facts to karma slut (I'm an AC so karma doesn't matter) and I found that the market cap of Kodak is 1.36 Billion!
[marketwatch.com] and Apple has over 5 billion in cash.
I didn't realize that Kodak was sucking wind so much.
They used to be such a power house.
Looking at Kodak, it just might be a decent hostile takeover target - look at its cash balance Over 2 billion [yahoo.com]!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770862</id>
	<title>Re:desperate times...</title>
	<author>businessnerd</author>
	<datestamp>1263463860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Kodak is collecting royalties from every digital camera manufacturer and every cameraphone manufacturer (except Apple and RIM), then I would guess they are doing pretty well.  There are lots of companies out there whose largest source of revenue has nothing to do with what the company is commonly known for.<br> <br>

It may not still be the case, but at leat at one point, Google's largest source of revenue was not from advertising, but from selling it's search technology to power other people's sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Kodak is collecting royalties from every digital camera manufacturer and every cameraphone manufacturer ( except Apple and RIM ) , then I would guess they are doing pretty well .
There are lots of companies out there whose largest source of revenue has nothing to do with what the company is commonly known for .
It may not still be the case , but at leat at one point , Google 's largest source of revenue was not from advertising , but from selling it 's search technology to power other people 's sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Kodak is collecting royalties from every digital camera manufacturer and every cameraphone manufacturer (except Apple and RIM), then I would guess they are doing pretty well.
There are lots of companies out there whose largest source of revenue has nothing to do with what the company is commonly known for.
It may not still be the case, but at leat at one point, Google's largest source of revenue was not from advertising, but from selling it's search technology to power other people's sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769996</id>
	<title>Re:Off the cuff, knee jerk..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Prior art on the analog side? Polaroid allowed 'photo preview' with their cameras before it was available in a digital format</p></div><p>Ironically, Kodak was forced to stop selling instant cameras after Polaroid brought a patent-infringement lawsuit against them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior art on the analog side ?
Polaroid allowed 'photo preview ' with their cameras before it was available in a digital formatIronically , Kodak was forced to stop selling instant cameras after Polaroid brought a patent-infringement lawsuit against them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior art on the analog side?
Polaroid allowed 'photo preview' with their cameras before it was available in a digital formatIronically, Kodak was forced to stop selling instant cameras after Polaroid brought a patent-infringement lawsuit against them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770002</id>
	<title>Ah yes...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263460860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kodak, makers of the Apple QuickTake 100 and 150 are suing Apple...good thing the QuickTake didn't have a preview mode!

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_QuickTake" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_QuickTake</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodak , makers of the Apple QuickTake 100 and 150 are suing Apple...good thing the QuickTake did n't have a preview mode !
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple \ _QuickTake [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodak, makers of the Apple QuickTake 100 and 150 are suing Apple...good thing the QuickTake didn't have a preview mode!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_QuickTake [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770492</id>
	<title>Re:Off the cuff, knee jerk..</title>
	<author>assemblyronin</author>
	<datestamp>1263462720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that's how patents are intended, most definitely.  I've just become jaded by the industry standard practice to file a patent for something obvious and non-novel, and then sue the heck out of companies actually doing something.  As it turns out my knee jerk reaction was exactly as advertised.</p><p>After reading the abstract, background, and summary of the invention it appears that Kodak 'built a better mouse trap', and then patented it.  Also, TFS doesn't properly define the 'preview' functionality, Kodak uses 'preview' in the sense that you use the eye viewfinder to 'preview' your photo before it is taken.  So what they really patented was a method in the hardware to deliver quickly and efficiently the image you're about to capture to a low-res LCD, and then use a more power-intensive algorithm to generate the high-res still photo.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The advantage of the invention is that the two modes can be tailored for a relatively low quality "motion" mode and a much higher quality "still" mode. The motion mode images from the CCD sensor are processed by a hardwired digital signal processing circuit that generates low resolution, spatially subsampled digital image data which can directly drive the relatively low resolution LCD display. <i>This reduces the complexity and clock frequency of the required circuitry, compared to generating an NTSC format signal, as is normally done in the prior art.</i>  The still mode image from the CCD sensor is processed by a general purpose processor (CPU) which executes an image processing software program in order to produce a high quality digital still image.</p></div><p>(Emphasis mine)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that 's how patents are intended , most definitely .
I 've just become jaded by the industry standard practice to file a patent for something obvious and non-novel , and then sue the heck out of companies actually doing something .
As it turns out my knee jerk reaction was exactly as advertised.After reading the abstract , background , and summary of the invention it appears that Kodak 'built a better mouse trap ' , and then patented it .
Also , TFS does n't properly define the 'preview ' functionality , Kodak uses 'preview ' in the sense that you use the eye viewfinder to 'preview ' your photo before it is taken .
So what they really patented was a method in the hardware to deliver quickly and efficiently the image you 're about to capture to a low-res LCD , and then use a more power-intensive algorithm to generate the high-res still photo.The advantage of the invention is that the two modes can be tailored for a relatively low quality " motion " mode and a much higher quality " still " mode .
The motion mode images from the CCD sensor are processed by a hardwired digital signal processing circuit that generates low resolution , spatially subsampled digital image data which can directly drive the relatively low resolution LCD display .
This reduces the complexity and clock frequency of the required circuitry , compared to generating an NTSC format signal , as is normally done in the prior art .
The still mode image from the CCD sensor is processed by a general purpose processor ( CPU ) which executes an image processing software program in order to produce a high quality digital still image .
( Emphasis mine )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that's how patents are intended, most definitely.
I've just become jaded by the industry standard practice to file a patent for something obvious and non-novel, and then sue the heck out of companies actually doing something.
As it turns out my knee jerk reaction was exactly as advertised.After reading the abstract, background, and summary of the invention it appears that Kodak 'built a better mouse trap', and then patented it.
Also, TFS doesn't properly define the 'preview' functionality, Kodak uses 'preview' in the sense that you use the eye viewfinder to 'preview' your photo before it is taken.
So what they really patented was a method in the hardware to deliver quickly and efficiently the image you're about to capture to a low-res LCD, and then use a more power-intensive algorithm to generate the high-res still photo.The advantage of the invention is that the two modes can be tailored for a relatively low quality "motion" mode and a much higher quality "still" mode.
The motion mode images from the CCD sensor are processed by a hardwired digital signal processing circuit that generates low resolution, spatially subsampled digital image data which can directly drive the relatively low resolution LCD display.
This reduces the complexity and clock frequency of the required circuitry, compared to generating an NTSC format signal, as is normally done in the prior art.
The still mode image from the CCD sensor is processed by a general purpose processor (CPU) which executes an image processing software program in order to produce a high quality digital still image.
(Emphasis mine)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770852</id>
	<title>Re:Off the cuff, knee jerk..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Off the cuff, knee jerk</p></div><p>I *love* to see how you put on your shirts</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Off the cuff , knee jerkI * love * to see how you put on your shirts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off the cuff, knee jerkI *love* to see how you put on your shirts
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30774478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30779458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30778434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30774494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30785390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30778006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_14_1941208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30785390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30774478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770262
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771348
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30772540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30774494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30778006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30776366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770288
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30779458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30773374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770038
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30778434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30770906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_14_1941208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30769792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_14_1941208.30771308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
