decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple too busy patenting to innovate | 381 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corrections hier ----->>corrections here
Authored by: webster on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:36 PM EDT
.

Naturlich.

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj
Authored by: rps on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:59 PM EDT
I was going to comment on this but I need to go vomit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:03 AM EDT
u mad?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:03 AM EDT
Again, go to my old Treo to see if that functionality existed.
Yup. Missed calls, select the one I missed, show the details, call back/txt.
All standard stuff.

Oh, wait, the earlier PalmTungsten could do that with a bluetooth connection.

Going back, Sony CMD Z5 in 2000, yup, missed call, select, get details, call
back/txt (though had to use a scroll wheel, not a finger alas). But the treo
did all this in... 2003? With Handspring devices even earlier.

Touch screen, select, details, call. Trivial stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple too busy patenting to innovate
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:36 AM EDT
Clearly Apple has given up, like Microsoft. If they can't
control the market then they'll suck it dry, or die trying.(I
hope)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:50 AM EDT
USPTO, are you serious?! YOU GRANTED THESE PATENTS?!

All the more reason to burn every software patent in existence. They all need to
die, NOW.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:57 AM EDT
There aren't 10 million users of the Galaxy S4 (yet). Samsung has shipped that number to carriers, etc. As it clearly says in its own blogpost on the matter where it talks about "global channel sales".

Next: if you're condemning software patents, then for consistency why aren't you condemning Motorola for pursuing software patents against Microsoft and Apple? Those must be stupid too by your logic. So must be meritless, so should be disparaged too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:18 AM EDT
You know the drill.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewsPicks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:20 AM EDT
Please include a link to the article you
are referencing as they will roll off the main page.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:21 AM EDT


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"My plan is to keep writing until you give up." - NEVER
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:26 AM EDT
"Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, give up. Never give up. Never give up. Never give up."

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unlocking phone by gesture
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:07 AM EDT
"...The performance of the predefined gesture with respect to the unlock
image may include moving the unlock image to a predefined location and/or moving
the unlock image along a predefined path."

I believe moving specific images to specific locations in order to unlock
something was pretty much the script for many of the old Tomb Raider game
levels. "Image" corresponding to pushing movable blocks around,
placing items in specific locations, etc. I distinctly recall moving pillars
around in Tomb Raider III, released in 1998.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Madly making market make method
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:14 AM EDT
On information and belief, PJ may have patently protected the anglo-saxon gesture that would have expressed all and so, in the alternative, I review the following words from Apple:
Defendants also infringe those claims by selling Accused Instrumentalities their customers and encouraging those customers to use the products in a manner that meets each and every step of the charted claims.
Based on Apple’s current understanding, each element or limitation of each asserted claim of each asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except where explicitly indicated. To the extent that any element or limitation of the asserted claims is not found to have literal correspondence in the Accused Instrumentalities, Apple alleges, on information and belief, that any such elements or limitations are present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentalities.
From CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. (I am emboldened to embolden some words):
Accordingly, the basic steps in a patent-eligibility analysis can be summarized as follows. We must first ask whether the claimed invention is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If not, the claim is ineligible under § 101.

If the invention falls within one of the statutory categories, we must then determine whether any of the three judicial exceptions nonetheless bars such a claim—is the claim drawn to a patent-ineligible law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea? If so, the claim is not patent eligible. Only claims that pass both inquiries satisfy § 101.
If Apple's invention is a machine, then AT&T v. Microsoft tells us that it is only when the final software installation media is used to install the software on a general-purpose computer that an infringing machine is created.

However, Apple explain that the invention is not a machine. It is the users that infringe on the patent and they do not make, distribute, import or sell the accused devices. They are induced to infringe the patented method by the presence of machine functions in the accused devices.
[E]ach element or limitation of each asserted claim of each asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except where explicitly indicated.
From §100:
(b) The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
So, it is clear that Apple have invented a new method of using a known machine. What is Apple's patent-protected, method invention? Apple describes their invention as:
A data input technique for a computer that provides the user with a historical list of potential choices for the data input.
The known machine that the invented method uses must be built such as to remember prior inputs into the fields of a form presented by the machine to the user. The machine must be designed to compare new text being entered into a form with previously entered inputs.

This is not the patented method because it is a pre-existing function of the known machine. The machine must then offer the previously entered input as a potential, new field entry. This is, also, not the invented method because it is a function of the known machine.

The protected method is for the user to accept or reject the input offered by the machine into the field. The functionality on which the invented method depends for accepting or rejecting the offered input is a pre-existing function of the known machine.

You might think that the known machine providing a method for accepting or rejecting proposed input to a field based on prior inputting history might make the user technique of making a choice, obvious.

There is no post-solution activity (Flook). From Diehr:
A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment. Similarly, insignificant postsolution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.
The Apple 'invention' is an abstract idea of accepting or rejecting a possible contribution to the field of a form narrowed to the technological environment of a smartphone's general purpose computer.

All of the Apple claims are the pre-existing functions of the computer. They tell us that:
[E]ach element or limitation of each asserted claim of each asserted patent is literally present in the Accused Instrumentalities, except where explicitly indicated.
They are functions of a known machine and not steps in a process or method. The inventive concept is the 'data input technique' and that is wholly constrained by the functions of the known machine. No additional usage technique is claimed over and above that which is preordained by the known machine. Not even an abstract idea of a technique. No ideas of any sort have been invented. The patent is just a recitation of how the pre-existing functions of a particular known machine are intended to be used.

If Apple invented a new and useful set of functions and made a machine to do it, then that machine might be patentable. If they don't get a patent on that functionality, then anyone can make a machine with that functionality.

Paraphrasing CLS Bank v. Alice, 'Apple’s asserted claims were drawn to ineligible subject matter [a known machine] and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

U.S.C. 35 says that a new and useful invention might be patentable. It is silent on the patentability of non-inventions. My view is that they intended non-inventions to be non-patentable.

Let's consider what methods of using a known smartphone would not fail due to asserting claims drawn to a known machine. 'Swipe to lock and 'bounce-back' do fail. So does the method of using a phone that has the function of setting up a telephone session ID using math. So do codecs. Come to think of it, every software function fails because it is the function of a known machine. Well, there's a thing!

I have only been able to come up with one patentable method of using a smartphone. You hit the cashier of the 'Home and Loan' with a smartphone and steal the money. Now, that's new and useful! Mind you, it's almost as unethical as being a patent lawyer.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patented virus and resulted deaths
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:43 AM EDT
If you have patent for virus/method/any medical stuff and do
not allow anybody else to use it and can be shown that
people die because of that, then its massacre. Its very
simple. This is not a moral question. Your actions result to
death of people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Apple is claiming ownership of finger gestures"
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:55 AM EDT
I've got one for them.

---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"I'm surprised I have to explain these things." - JBB
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 08:12 AM EDT
Okay, remember when we all said that simply adding "on the internet"
or "on a computer" to a patent doesn't make it a new patent?

Well, "on a computer" includes "on a pen computer."

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

You know PJ is upset when she starts using the strong language
Authored by: rocky on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:41 AM EDT
"Are they blankety blank kidding?" I don't think that's strong enough
to have to wash your mouth out with soap--maybe just a rinse with some sparkling
water.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes, in 1995 it was new.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 12:56 PM EDT
"Seriously, Apple? Seriously? You want to be the only company in the world
that can do that? Seriously? The computer was built able to do that. It's in
there. The only change is some software, and software is abstract. If you don't
believe me, write a program that details a method or process on how to build a
house. Run the program. Do you get a house? Is there anyone in the modern world
that doesn't have drop down lists that show you stuff you earlier inputted? So
Apple gets to make everybody pay for something as obvious and essential as this
or block them from the marketplace? Seriously? What kind of patent law is
that?"

Yes, they invented it 18 years ago. Yes they want a patent on it. Apparently,
by it wide adoption, it must be a pretty big boon to mankind. Yet no one had
ever done it before. They invented it and were entitled to a patent for it.


If it had been done earlier, fine, just find an example and prove it. If it was
old, then you are right, the patent is not valid.

But don't rant that the patent should not have been allowed simply because it
covers a method.

There's a method for making a drug that keeps someone alive that's a bit less
silly than your cookie eating method. Not all methods are old known methods.
New methods are just as important as new devices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could another game be afoot here?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT
So far Apple's attacks appear to have been largely intended
to attack Samsung without getting Google involved. Good
strategy as people who file patent claims against Google
generally come out defeated.

Many of these new claims, as silly as they appear, look like
they could apply to any an android devices (or any device
for that matter).

I can't help but wonder whether Apple is trying to drag
Google into this deliberately - especially as Apple seems to
be getting all the 'luck' in this case, and might not get
the same 'luck' in another case with another judge.

It seems silly - patent claims made against Google normally
don't go well for the plaintiff, and the prior art is coming
out of the woodwork already [thanks PJ!] even without
Google's legendary prior art searches.

One thought that comes to mind is that, now Oracle's java
claims appear to have fizzled, that the one way to continue
the war against Google is to try and drag Google into this
quagmire.

Too paranoid?

[ Reply to This | # ]

No, not merely a list of missed calls. Read the claim again slowly.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
"Blah blah blah. There's more. Read it if you can stand to, or if you are
searching for prior art, which I hope you do. This was filed for in 2007.
Invented in 2007? Seriously, Apple? Seriously? A list of missed calls? You think
you should be the only one who is allowed to do that without paying Apple?
Seriously?"

The claim is very specific. There is a missed call number AND a link to other
or all contact information associated with the person of the missed call number.
When you click that second link, something very specific happens.

This is very easy to work around. For example, Instead of copying Apple,
Samsung could have made it one tap for return call and two taps to get to the
contact info. and no display of a second link.

....but Apples way is beeeettter....wee waaaana use it.... right, maybe it is...
that's why it was worthy of a patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Switch to Decaf....
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 02:32 PM EDT
You'll rant less.

FYI backing one corporation over another is never a good strategy. You might
want to focus instead on changing the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yea.... I don't infringe P.J.'s Oreo cookie eating method
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:05 PM EDT

I do a couple things different:

    Instead of waiting till the end, I put the cookies and milk away after I've got the set I want.
    I don't separate the cookies and like the filling off before dipping in milk..... the cold milk stiffens the filling :)
But... I'm sure some patent Lawyer will easily argue each of the claims in themselves is also protected by patent law so I do infringe the claim where I go to the store and buy cookies and milk.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's a patent story to curl your hair:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT
PJ linked the BBC's story on coronavirus. I've been watching this story for some weeks, and I wasn't really surprised when this latest twist arrived. I've been around so long I'm no longer surprised at human stupidity, nor when art meets life. I'll continue to say that Apple is like a sideshow freak, you can laugh and pass on by. The world outside that funny little country between Canada and Mexico is doing quite well for smartphones without Apple, thank you. The real problem is that funny little country encourages mad scientists to patent their killer virus before they take over the world with it. A sample was sent from Saudia Arabia to Holland for testing, where the Dutch promptly filed their patent application, saying they had an ethical obligation to patent it, it was a normal thing to do, sparking lurid headlines.

What's that got to do with the US? Just that it's been   going on   for quite   a while.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pen gestures go much earlier than 1990...
Authored by: veatnik on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM EDT

The following pulled verbatum from: A Brief History of Human Computer Interaction Technology An article from CMU.

"4. Up-and-Coming Areas Gesture Recognition: The first pen-based input device, the RAND tablet, was funded by ARPA. Sketchpad used light-pen gestures (1963). Teitelman in 1964 developed the first trainable gesture recognizer. A very early demonstration of gesture recognition was Tom Ellis' GRAIL system on the RAND tablet (1964, ARPA funded). It was quite common in light-pen-based systems to include some gesture recognition, for example in the AMBIT/G system (1968 -- ARPA funded). A gesture-based text editor using proof-reading symbols was developed at CMU by Michael Coleman in 1969. Bill Buxton at the University of Toronto has been studying gesture-based interactions since 1980. Gesture recognition has been used in commercial CAD systems since the 1970s, and came to universal notice with the Apple Newton in 1992."

Lets see, the Apple Newton is mentioned as happening 29 years after the first example of the tech was created.

I found this when I was looking up some other examples of graphics systems with gestures, the Garnet and Amulet projects, that I believe predate Apple's entry into the area. This paper also mentions those projects.

[ Reply to This | # ]

'Read the statute' (Rader). You might be surprised what you don't find.
Authored by: macliam on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 07:29 PM EDT

Chief Judge Rader of the Federal Circuit, and those who think like him, allege that, when it comes to determining the scope of patentable (or, in their jargon, patent-eligible) subject matter, the wording of section 101 of the patent statute must be interpreted according to what they deem to be its literal meaning (or indeed even more expansively to incorporate “onrushing technology”) and that the ‘common-law exceptions’ for laws of nature, natural phenomena, products of nature and abstract ideas don't have any meaningful existence (or, if forced to defer to Supreme Court jurisprudence, claim that such 'exceptions' should be construed as narrowly as possible), because the plain words of the statute (in their eyes) make it clear that “everything under the sun” is patentable. Thus in their eyes, because these types of non-patentable subject matter are not referred to in the statute, they have no place in modern patent law.

So there is no place for common-law patent doctrines in modern patent law? What about, for example, the Doctrine of Exhaustion. The case, Bowman v. Monsanto, recently decided by the Supreme Court, turned on the extent to which the sale of genetically-modified soya beans to grain elevators exhausted Monsanto's rights in those beans and their progeny. Try hunting for a statement of this doctrine in Title 35 of the U.S. Code.

The nearest I can find is the following in Section 253:

(d) EXHAUSTION OF RIGHTS.—Notwithstanding subsection (e)(1), the sale or other disposition of a useful end result by a person entitled to assert a defense under this section in connection with a patent with respect to that useful end result shall exhaust the patent owner’s rights under the patent to the extent that such rights would have been exhausted had such sale or other disposition been made by the patent owner.

This begs the question: to what extent would such rights have been exhausted had the sale or other disposition been made by the patent owner? To the best of my knowledge, the statute (Title 35 of the U.S.C.) is silent on the matter.

Or, one might consult the statute to identify the statutory basis for the Doctrine of Equivalents. If so, the statute might give you the impression that equivalents are only relevant for means plus function claims that fall within the scope of section 112(f).

So there appear to be at least two significant common-law doctrines applied in modern patent law that appear to have no grounding in the statute. Thus I would ask: on what basis do Chief Judge Rader and those who think like him allege that the fact that the ‘subject-matter’ exceptions to patentability, if acknowledged at all, must be interpreted as having the smallest possible scope, simply because they are not mentioned in the statute? Why should these particular common-law doctrines be nullified simply because (then patent attorney) Giles S. Rich and (patent examiner) P. J. Federico did not bother to codify these exceptions to patentability in their drafting of the 1952 statute? And on what legal basis does Rader (and before him Rich) assert that considerations of ‘obviousness’ and the state of the art at the time of the purported invention must not have any bearing in the application of such doctrines. What basis is there for claiming that the Three Doors doctrine requires assessment of patentability of a claimed invention to follow an algorithm in which 101, 102 and 103 analyses are sequential and entirely independent of one another? The Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus had no difficulty with the proposition that the necessary analysis relevant to applying the law of nature exception (or any other such exception) might overlap with the scope of the (section 103) ‘obviousness’ enquiry. Patent lawyers who take as gospel the doctrines of (deceased) Judge Rich declare, ad nauseam, that the 101 enquiry must be distinct and independent from the 103 enquiry. But why should the precise layout of a statute following a revision intended to tidy up the then existing law determine the application of case law going back around 150 years?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stupid Patents It Wants to Use Against Samsung's Galaxy S4 ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 08:56 PM EDT
I agree that generally speaking, software patents are
totally stupid. That said (I am a senior systems engineer
for a tier-one tech company and write software for a living
for 30 years), there are some software "inventions" that do
measure up to the requirements of a patent, and I think that
one I am the sole author of is such - allowing the
definition/creation of new classes of objects and extending
existing classes of objects in a binary-compiled application
without programming or compiling the new code, for objects,
properties, and methods. IE, extension through
specification. It is a key part of what I call adaptive
systems - software that can automatically adapt to changing
environmental factors. This was novel, non-obvious, and
pretty much game-changing. In fact, this tech is in use by
most major tech manufacturers today, such as Samsung,
Seagate, IBM, Motorola, and others. It is part of their
secret manufacturing sauce that they don't talk about
publicly. Unfortunately, the patent is owned by one of the
major semiconductor equipment vendors, and I don't get a
dime from its use... :-) However, it is on my resume, and
as stated, I am listed on the patent papers as the sole
inventor.

All that chest-thumping aside, reading most of these
software patent applications makes me want to gag! Most of
this cruft is just obfuscating the obvious to the point
where the poor patent examiner, who probably doesn't know a
function from a process or procedure, simply gives up and
grants it anyway, hoping that someone will point out the
obviousness of it all!

The old saw about hardware being easy, and software hard
comes to mind. Pure and simple, software is mostly math and
logic. I learned more from my freshman philosophy course in
formal logic that applies to my software engineering career
than I ever learned in engineering or computer programming
courses! If someone were to apply strict boolean logic to
these applications, they would soon find that 1+1 != 2, and
everything == 0...

[ Reply to This | # ]

An alternative view
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 02:26 AM EDT
Has anyone asked themselves this question?

Did Samsung deliberately include stuff in the S4 that would make Apple take this
action?

Perhaps a decision was made in Korea along the lines of
'Let us include this Apple Patented tech in the S4. Even if we lose the law suit
in the USA, our profits from this phone in the interim will more than compensate
for any likely damages we would have to pay. We will also come to totally
dominate the Smartphone market and soon Apple will be nothing more than a minor
player. Everyone in the world will be using a Samsung Phone.

Then we will assimilate them into the Samsung Borg (only joking)

The 'Ok, then sue us, we can afford it' stance has been used before.

I know that none of us here don't like patents but for companies like Samsung
and Apple this is all 'just business'. They don't care about the anti-patent
lobby at all. I am sure that Samsung would do exactly the same if the boot were
on the other foot. I also feel that Samsung is getting a little too big in far
too many areas of tech for me.

Personally, I don't see what the must have attraction of the S4 is(apart from
the shiny-shiny), or any smartphone for that matter. I use very little of what
are the major features of something like an S4. I've ditched my smartphone and
gone back to a basic Nokia without even a camera.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Human-Computer Interaction
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 03:06 AM EDT
I have sitting on my shelves a book called "Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction", Editor: Martin Helander. Published 1988.

Chapter 22 Input Devices............................495
________22.2 Design Considerations..................496
_____________Touch Screen Devices...................496
_____________Touch Screen Applications..............499

The book itself is over 1100 pages long and I quote
The 4,506 manuscript pages of the fifty-two chapters consituting the Handbook were written by seventy-three people. In addition there is about 1,000 pages of (not visible) code.
Maybe this should be a reference to use for any of these challenges.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patents are not stupid
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 04:16 PM EDT
Patents are not stupid.

The validity of a patent can only be determined by a lawsuit.

Thus, inventors who own patents can only protect their intellectual property by

suing.

Lawyers, of course, love patents. It makes them a lot of money.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )