<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_1843201</id>
	<title>Judgement Against Microsoft Declares XML Editing Software To Be Worth $98?</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1243588260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Many people have written to tell us about the patent infringement lawsuit that resulted in a $200 million judgement against Microsoft by a small Toronto firm called i4i.  Techdirt has a <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090526/0238335008.shtml">line on the details of the suit</a> where the patent in question is for "separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document."  i4i argues that this covers basic XML editing to the tune of $98 per application.  <i>"It's quite troubling that doing something as simple as adding an XML editor should infringe on a patent, but what's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used. An XML editor. $98. And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people have written to tell us about the patent infringement lawsuit that resulted in a $ 200 million judgement against Microsoft by a small Toronto firm called i4i .
Techdirt has a line on the details of the suit where the patent in question is for " separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document .
" i4i argues that this covers basic XML editing to the tune of $ 98 per application .
" It 's quite troubling that doing something as simple as adding an XML editor should infringe on a patent , but what 's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $ 98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used .
An XML editor .
$ 98. And people say patent awards are n't out of sync with reality ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people have written to tell us about the patent infringement lawsuit that resulted in a $200 million judgement against Microsoft by a small Toronto firm called i4i.
Techdirt has a line on the details of the suit where the patent in question is for "separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document.
"  i4i argues that this covers basic XML editing to the tune of $98 per application.
"It's quite troubling that doing something as simple as adding an XML editor should infringe on a patent, but what's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used.
An XML editor.
$98. And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985</id>
	<title>Texas?  You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft Corp said on Wednesday a Texas federal jury<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>Texas?  You mean the state of <a href="http://overlawyered.com/2005/01/marshall-texas-patent-central/" title="overlawyered.com" rel="nofollow">Marshall, TX</a> [overlawyered.com] where Microsoft (and everyone else who wants to win) holds all of its prosecuting patent cases?  I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Corp said on Wednesday a Texas federal jury ... Texas ? You mean the state of Marshall , TX [ overlawyered.com ] where Microsoft ( and everyone else who wants to win ) holds all of its prosecuting patent cases ?
I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Corp said on Wednesday a Texas federal jury ... Texas?  You mean the state of Marshall, TX [overlawyered.com] where Microsoft (and everyone else who wants to win) holds all of its prosecuting patent cases?
I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139</id>
	<title>Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>Fantom42</author>
	<datestamp>1243592640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=5787449" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/patents?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=5787449</a> [google.com]</p><p>I have no idea what this patent is saying.</p><p>Abstract:</p><p>A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.</p><p>It sounds a bit like an embedded XSLT, more or less.    Maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/patents ? id = y8UkAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq = 5787449 [ google.com ] I have no idea what this patent is saying.Abstract : A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document , particularly for data representation and transformations .
The system , for use by computer software developers , removes dependency on document encoding technology .
A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document .
The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document .
The system allows of multiple views of the same content , the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content , storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.It sounds a bit like an embedded XSLT , more or less .
Maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/patents?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=5787449 [google.com]I have no idea what this patent is saying.Abstract:A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations.
The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology.
A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document.
The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document.
The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.It sounds a bit like an embedded XSLT, more or less.
Maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851</id>
	<title>Re:Filed in 1994</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you were to decide to consider allowing your eyes to accept light emitted from your screen after having navigated to a site where details of the case were located and then allowed your sensory equipment to interpret the light patterns in accordance to the conventions of the English language, you might find that i4i demonstrated its technology to Microsoft in 2001 with the hopes of licensing it for use in Microsoft Word. Microsoft declined, but with office 2003, they offered the same capabilities as that which i4i tried to license them. The case was filed in 2007, so it took them like 3-4 years to sue. There were also some emails they found that microsoft was discussing i4i and their patent prior to adding the office 2003 functionality. <br> <br>
So Basically the company was able to present evidence that Microsoft intentionally reviewed, and then disregarded the patent and implemented the same feature as the patent holder tried to sell them. That probably didn't sit very well with the jury. Microsoft should have been a good citizen and tried to strike down the ridiculous patent, rather than just ignore it and hope for the best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you were to decide to consider allowing your eyes to accept light emitted from your screen after having navigated to a site where details of the case were located and then allowed your sensory equipment to interpret the light patterns in accordance to the conventions of the English language , you might find that i4i demonstrated its technology to Microsoft in 2001 with the hopes of licensing it for use in Microsoft Word .
Microsoft declined , but with office 2003 , they offered the same capabilities as that which i4i tried to license them .
The case was filed in 2007 , so it took them like 3-4 years to sue .
There were also some emails they found that microsoft was discussing i4i and their patent prior to adding the office 2003 functionality .
So Basically the company was able to present evidence that Microsoft intentionally reviewed , and then disregarded the patent and implemented the same feature as the patent holder tried to sell them .
That probably did n't sit very well with the jury .
Microsoft should have been a good citizen and tried to strike down the ridiculous patent , rather than just ignore it and hope for the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you were to decide to consider allowing your eyes to accept light emitted from your screen after having navigated to a site where details of the case were located and then allowed your sensory equipment to interpret the light patterns in accordance to the conventions of the English language, you might find that i4i demonstrated its technology to Microsoft in 2001 with the hopes of licensing it for use in Microsoft Word.
Microsoft declined, but with office 2003, they offered the same capabilities as that which i4i tried to license them.
The case was filed in 2007, so it took them like 3-4 years to sue.
There were also some emails they found that microsoft was discussing i4i and their patent prior to adding the office 2003 functionality.
So Basically the company was able to present evidence that Microsoft intentionally reviewed, and then disregarded the patent and implemented the same feature as the patent holder tried to sell them.
That probably didn't sit very well with the jury.
Microsoft should have been a good citizen and tried to strike down the ridiculous patent, rather than just ignore it and hope for the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28156567</id>
	<title>Re:What about Open Office</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243762680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generic does not equal or imply obvious - sometimes quite the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generic does not equal or imply obvious - sometimes quite the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generic does not equal or imply obvious - sometimes quite the opposite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146669</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243612680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I am bored, I read it.</p><p>"I am a &lt;b&gt;sentence&lt;/b&gt;."</p><p>The patent say, bad! Horrible! Instead, use content + "metacode map":</p><p>"I am a sentence."</p><p>+</p><p>chars 0-7 : normal<br>chars 7-15: bold<br>chars 15-16: normal</p><p>This is somehow supposed to be dramatically better in every way. Every frickin memory structure ever invented to edit any kind of structured text did this first and did it better.</p><p>I'm quite surprised that anyone would ever be found in violation of this "patent", because it's a pretty stupid thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I am bored , I read it .
" I am a sentence .
" The patent say , bad !
Horrible ! Instead , use content + " metacode map " : " I am a sentence .
" + chars 0-7 : normalchars 7-15 : boldchars 15-16 : normalThis is somehow supposed to be dramatically better in every way .
Every frickin memory structure ever invented to edit any kind of structured text did this first and did it better.I 'm quite surprised that anyone would ever be found in violation of this " patent " , because it 's a pretty stupid thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I am bored, I read it.
"I am a sentence.
"The patent say, bad!
Horrible! Instead, use content + "metacode map":"I am a sentence.
"+chars 0-7 : normalchars 7-15: boldchars 15-16: normalThis is somehow supposed to be dramatically better in every way.
Every frickin memory structure ever invented to edit any kind of structured text did this first and did it better.I'm quite surprised that anyone would ever be found in violation of this "patent", because it's a pretty stupid thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144091</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>LMAO</htmltext>
<tokenext>LMAO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LMAO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147375</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243622220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to say i, albeit anonymously. I'm a patent attorney. I do mainly patent prosecution, but I also do some litigation, all of it on the defense side.  The problem is not trolls themselves - property, including intellectual property, should be completely alienable. A patent troll has as much right to buy a patent as someone that will do something with it.</p><p>The problem is Marshall fucking Texas, which is where all of my cases are tried. The judges down there built up an economy around patent cases. They are alleged experts in claim interpretation, but they always favor the plaintiff and they run their courtroom like the wild west - if one side has the judges best friend as counsel, it's not a conflict at all if the other side has the judge's second best frined on their side. The jurisdiction is very plaintiff friendly because the dumb hick juries there don't know their ass from their elbow and if the government gave someone a patent, well by golly the person shoulda got one. It is almost impossible to invalidate patents there due to this mentality. And if you want to actually TRY a case there, you have to use a Texan as lead counsel because they don't trust anyone that doesn't have a Texan accent. I fucking HATE Marshall Texas and the Eastern District in its entirety. It needs to be nuked from orbit so we can start over.</p><p>I know people think the PTO grants bogus patents.  I'm not that harsh. Some bad ones make it through, but there is a lot that doesn't.  And on here, people weep and gnash their teeth because they rely on the summary and don't RTFP on their own.  Of course everyone also thinks there is mountains of prior art available, when they couldn't produce one of these alleged references if their life depended on it.  Anyway, the point is while the PTO has some part in it, Marshal TX bears the bulk of the what-the-fuck-is-going-on with our patent system. See how many ridiculous outcomes come out of other courts.  It's simply mind-blowing the impact this backwater town has on our legal system. </p><p>/rant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to say i , albeit anonymously .
I 'm a patent attorney .
I do mainly patent prosecution , but I also do some litigation , all of it on the defense side .
The problem is not trolls themselves - property , including intellectual property , should be completely alienable .
A patent troll has as much right to buy a patent as someone that will do something with it.The problem is Marshall fucking Texas , which is where all of my cases are tried .
The judges down there built up an economy around patent cases .
They are alleged experts in claim interpretation , but they always favor the plaintiff and they run their courtroom like the wild west - if one side has the judges best friend as counsel , it 's not a conflict at all if the other side has the judge 's second best frined on their side .
The jurisdiction is very plaintiff friendly because the dumb hick juries there do n't know their ass from their elbow and if the government gave someone a patent , well by golly the person shoulda got one .
It is almost impossible to invalidate patents there due to this mentality .
And if you want to actually TRY a case there , you have to use a Texan as lead counsel because they do n't trust anyone that does n't have a Texan accent .
I fucking HATE Marshall Texas and the Eastern District in its entirety .
It needs to be nuked from orbit so we can start over.I know people think the PTO grants bogus patents .
I 'm not that harsh .
Some bad ones make it through , but there is a lot that does n't .
And on here , people weep and gnash their teeth because they rely on the summary and do n't RTFP on their own .
Of course everyone also thinks there is mountains of prior art available , when they could n't produce one of these alleged references if their life depended on it .
Anyway , the point is while the PTO has some part in it , Marshal TX bears the bulk of the what-the-fuck-is-going-on with our patent system .
See how many ridiculous outcomes come out of other courts .
It 's simply mind-blowing the impact this backwater town has on our legal system .
/rant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to say i, albeit anonymously.
I'm a patent attorney.
I do mainly patent prosecution, but I also do some litigation, all of it on the defense side.
The problem is not trolls themselves - property, including intellectual property, should be completely alienable.
A patent troll has as much right to buy a patent as someone that will do something with it.The problem is Marshall fucking Texas, which is where all of my cases are tried.
The judges down there built up an economy around patent cases.
They are alleged experts in claim interpretation, but they always favor the plaintiff and they run their courtroom like the wild west - if one side has the judges best friend as counsel, it's not a conflict at all if the other side has the judge's second best frined on their side.
The jurisdiction is very plaintiff friendly because the dumb hick juries there don't know their ass from their elbow and if the government gave someone a patent, well by golly the person shoulda got one.
It is almost impossible to invalidate patents there due to this mentality.
And if you want to actually TRY a case there, you have to use a Texan as lead counsel because they don't trust anyone that doesn't have a Texan accent.
I fucking HATE Marshall Texas and the Eastern District in its entirety.
It needs to be nuked from orbit so we can start over.I know people think the PTO grants bogus patents.
I'm not that harsh.
Some bad ones make it through, but there is a lot that doesn't.
And on here, people weep and gnash their teeth because they rely on the summary and don't RTFP on their own.
Of course everyone also thinks there is mountains of prior art available, when they couldn't produce one of these alleged references if their life depended on it.
Anyway, the point is while the PTO has some part in it, Marshal TX bears the bulk of the what-the-fuck-is-going-on with our patent system.
See how many ridiculous outcomes come out of other courts.
It's simply mind-blowing the impact this backwater town has on our legal system.
/rant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144035</id>
	<title>8==P=A=T=E=N=T==P=E=N=D=I=N=G==D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>8==C=O=C=K==S=L=A=P==D<br>
<i>Patent Pending</i> <br> <br>
I hate, Jews, Sand Niggers, Regular Niggers, Spicks, White Trash, and Homosexuals (Apple Fans).<br> <br>
Also, I hate nerds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 = = C = O = C = K = = S = L = A = P = = D Patent Pending I hate , Jews , Sand Niggers , Regular Niggers , Spicks , White Trash , and Homosexuals ( Apple Fans ) .
Also , I hate nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8==C=O=C=K==S=L=A=P==D
Patent Pending  
I hate, Jews, Sand Niggers, Regular Niggers, Spicks, White Trash, and Homosexuals (Apple Fans).
Also, I hate nerds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144557</id>
	<title>Patent awards out of sync with reality? Hardy!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243594980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?</p></div></blockquote><p>Are you aware of how much genius it takes to come up with the idea of first parsing the XML file into an internal in-memory format, editing that, then flattening that back to an XML file? Nobody would have done anything different than re-parsing and modifying the XML <i>every time a minor change was made</i> in the editor, if it weren't for this insightful patent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And people say patent awards are n't out of sync with reality ? Are you aware of how much genius it takes to come up with the idea of first parsing the XML file into an internal in-memory format , editing that , then flattening that back to an XML file ?
Nobody would have done anything different than re-parsing and modifying the XML every time a minor change was made in the editor , if it were n't for this insightful patent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?Are you aware of how much genius it takes to come up with the idea of first parsing the XML file into an internal in-memory format, editing that, then flattening that back to an XML file?
Nobody would have done anything different than re-parsing and modifying the XML every time a minor change was made in the editor, if it weren't for this insightful patent.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049</id>
	<title>Fair Play</title>
	<author>DaMattster</author>
	<datestamp>1243592220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, Microsoft is one of the software patent trawlers.  They have to be careful about lobbying to hard for a legal weapon that could be used against them.  I don't feel sympathetic in the least.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , Microsoft is one of the software patent trawlers .
They have to be careful about lobbying to hard for a legal weapon that could be used against them .
I do n't feel sympathetic in the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, Microsoft is one of the software patent trawlers.
They have to be careful about lobbying to hard for a legal weapon that could be used against them.
I don't feel sympathetic in the least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145469</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>FooRat</author>
	<datestamp>1243600680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In this case, <b>Claim 1 is quite understandable</b> </p></div><p>Please tell me you were joking, and I missed it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that claim is about as opaque as a brick wall.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , Claim 1 is quite understandable Please tell me you were joking , and I missed it ... that claim is about as opaque as a brick wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, Claim 1 is quite understandable Please tell me you were joking, and I missed it ... that claim is about as opaque as a brick wall.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146763</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> How about SGML and SGML processors?   I think (but am not sure) that DSSSL predates it - certainly there are published versions of talks by James Clark on DSSSL dating from 1994.    That covers most of XML (since XML is really just a restriction of SGML) and XSLT (which is DSSSL in XML syntax).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about SGML and SGML processors ?
I think ( but am not sure ) that DSSSL predates it - certainly there are published versions of talks by James Clark on DSSSL dating from 1994 .
That covers most of XML ( since XML is really just a restriction of SGML ) and XSLT ( which is DSSSL in XML syntax ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How about SGML and SGML processors?
I think (but am not sure) that DSSSL predates it - certainly there are published versions of talks by James Clark on DSSSL dating from 1994.
That covers most of XML (since XML is really just a restriction of SGML) and XSLT (which is DSSSL in XML syntax).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148711</id>
	<title>an i4i, tooth for a tooth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243690620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an i4i, tooth for a tooth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an i4i , tooth for a tooth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an i4i, tooth for a tooth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144335</id>
	<title>Windows 7 ships without notepad</title>
	<author>Fuzzums</author>
	<datestamp>1243593720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saves you $100 in a blink of an eye<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saves you $ 100 in a blink of an eye : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saves you $100 in a blink of an eye :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28158635</id>
	<title>Re:Filed in 1994</title>
	<author>MarkKB</author>
	<datestamp>1243788360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft already had such a system then - Office 2000 implemented a kind of HTML-XML cross, first seen in a beta in 1998, with the intention of it becoming the default format for Office (that's the reason for all the proprietary stuff - they wanted to have full fidelity, they didn't intend for anyone to actually <i>make websites</i> with it).They didn't go all the way with it, however, and it was regulated to a "Save as HTML" option in the Save As dialog.</p><p>Incidentally, this format was actually a direct predecessor to the Office '03 XML formats (and thus OOXML).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft already had such a system then - Office 2000 implemented a kind of HTML-XML cross , first seen in a beta in 1998 , with the intention of it becoming the default format for Office ( that 's the reason for all the proprietary stuff - they wanted to have full fidelity , they did n't intend for anyone to actually make websites with it ) .They did n't go all the way with it , however , and it was regulated to a " Save as HTML " option in the Save As dialog.Incidentally , this format was actually a direct predecessor to the Office '03 XML formats ( and thus OOXML ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft already had such a system then - Office 2000 implemented a kind of HTML-XML cross, first seen in a beta in 1998, with the intention of it becoming the default format for Office (that's the reason for all the proprietary stuff - they wanted to have full fidelity, they didn't intend for anyone to actually make websites with it).They didn't go all the way with it, however, and it was regulated to a "Save as HTML" option in the Save As dialog.Incidentally, this format was actually a direct predecessor to the Office '03 XML formats (and thus OOXML).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144571</id>
	<title>Re:What about Open Office</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243595040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether the patent would be valid might well depend on when it was filed.  The mechanisms for editing XML are obvious if the XML spec is taken as background, but if the patent was in force when the XML spec was created and if those methods were covered by the patent, then XML would violate the patent (not the other way around).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether the patent would be valid might well depend on when it was filed .
The mechanisms for editing XML are obvious if the XML spec is taken as background , but if the patent was in force when the XML spec was created and if those methods were covered by the patent , then XML would violate the patent ( not the other way around ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether the patent would be valid might well depend on when it was filed.
The mechanisms for editing XML are obvious if the XML spec is taken as background, but if the patent was in force when the XML spec was created and if those methods were covered by the patent, then XML would violate the patent (not the other way around).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144193</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243593000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please reference one case where Microsoft was plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas (where Marshall resides) and won some huge award... I'm not holding my breath.<br>P.S. --&gt; A plaintiff is the party that brings a case, Microsoft was the defendant in this case.   Under Federal rules of civil procedure, plaintiff has a choice of forum (assuming there is personal jurisdiction and venue, but MS conducts business in all 50 states, and venue is often pretty easy to manufacture as well).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please reference one case where Microsoft was plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas ( where Marshall resides ) and won some huge award... I 'm not holding my breath.P.S .
-- &gt; A plaintiff is the party that brings a case , Microsoft was the defendant in this case .
Under Federal rules of civil procedure , plaintiff has a choice of forum ( assuming there is personal jurisdiction and venue , but MS conducts business in all 50 states , and venue is often pretty easy to manufacture as well ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please reference one case where Microsoft was plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas (where Marshall resides) and won some huge award... I'm not holding my breath.P.S.
--&gt; A plaintiff is the party that brings a case, Microsoft was the defendant in this case.
Under Federal rules of civil procedure, plaintiff has a choice of forum (assuming there is personal jurisdiction and venue, but MS conducts business in all 50 states, and venue is often pretty easy to manufacture as well).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146093</id>
	<title>patent is not about XML editing in general</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1243605900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>What the patent is about is associating formatting information with text by means other than embedding it.&nbsp; For example, instead of "&lt;b&gt;foo&lt;/b&gt;" you separately store the instructions "foo" and "make 0-3 bold"; it calls this "content" and "meta-codes".&nbsp; It's a bad idea, most software doesn't do it, and there should really be plenty of prior art before 1994.<br><br>I believe the reason Microsoft steps on this patent is because of their XML format, which uses such nonsense.&nbsp; I don't see how ODF infringes; it doesn't use such separation of content and "meta-codes" but codes everything in-line.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the patent is about is associating formatting information with text by means other than embedding it.   For example , instead of " foo " you separately store the instructions " foo " and " make 0-3 bold " ; it calls this " content " and " meta-codes " .   It 's a bad idea , most software does n't do it , and there should really be plenty of prior art before 1994.I believe the reason Microsoft steps on this patent is because of their XML format , which uses such nonsense.   I do n't see how ODF infringes ; it does n't use such separation of content and " meta-codes " but codes everything in-line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the patent is about is associating formatting information with text by means other than embedding it.  For example, instead of "foo" you separately store the instructions "foo" and "make 0-3 bold"; it calls this "content" and "meta-codes".  It's a bad idea, most software doesn't do it, and there should really be plenty of prior art before 1994.I believe the reason Microsoft steps on this patent is because of their XML format, which uses such nonsense.  I don't see how ODF infringes; it doesn't use such separation of content and "meta-codes" but codes everything in-line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145235</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>CrossCompiler</author>
	<datestamp>1243598940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two minor points.</p><p>#1 The patent application is from 1994. The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura, a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by Xerox (and subsequently purchased by Corel). The general idea and much of the exact format was borrowed from expensive, proprietary computerized typesetting equipment that was popular in the 70's.</p><p>#2: The person who "examined" the patent, a Jankus; Almis R, is now a <a href="http://www.patents.com/Almis-Jankus/Alexandria/VA/01-063198/attorneys/" title="patents.com" rel="nofollow">patent</a> [patents.com] <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2008/week37/TOC.htm" title="uspto.gov" rel="nofollow">agent</a> [uspto.gov]. I'm no longer amazed at how often bad patent applications are approved by law students, future patent attorneys and/or agents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two minor points. # 1 The patent application is from 1994 .
The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura , a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by Xerox ( and subsequently purchased by Corel ) .
The general idea and much of the exact format was borrowed from expensive , proprietary computerized typesetting equipment that was popular in the 70 's. # 2 : The person who " examined " the patent , a Jankus ; Almis R , is now a patent [ patents.com ] agent [ uspto.gov ] .
I 'm no longer amazed at how often bad patent applications are approved by law students , future patent attorneys and/or agents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two minor points.#1 The patent application is from 1994.
The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura, a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by Xerox (and subsequently purchased by Corel).
The general idea and much of the exact format was borrowed from expensive, proprietary computerized typesetting equipment that was popular in the 70's.#2: The person who "examined" the patent, a Jankus; Almis R, is now a patent [patents.com] agent [uspto.gov].
I'm no longer amazed at how often bad patent applications are approved by law students, future patent attorneys and/or agents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148841</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1243692540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The claims are interpreted in the light of the description however and so metacode would be given it's normal meaning as understood by a notional skilled practioner OR the meaning illucidated in the description. If "metacode" is misleading , the patent examiner should however of requested a change to the claims to avoid them being misconstrued.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The claims are interpreted in the light of the description however and so metacode would be given it 's normal meaning as understood by a notional skilled practioner OR the meaning illucidated in the description .
If " metacode " is misleading , the patent examiner should however of requested a change to the claims to avoid them being misconstrued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claims are interpreted in the light of the description however and so metacode would be given it's normal meaning as understood by a notional skilled practioner OR the meaning illucidated in the description.
If "metacode" is misleading , the patent examiner should however of requested a change to the claims to avoid them being misconstrued.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147077</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1243617540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is true:<p><div class="quote"><p>this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editing</p></div><p>Then "prior art" should take effect against this patent.  It should be overturned at the PTO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true : this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editingThen " prior art " should take effect against this patent .
It should be overturned at the PTO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true:this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editingThen "prior art" should take effect against this patent.
It should be overturned at the PTO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146015</id>
	<title>Was the case undefended? Default Judgment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243605000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was the case undefended? Default Judgment?</p><p>One would expect 1/2 competent lawyers to put in  a discovery motion that would slow things down.<br>MS should just ask the open source folk to identify prior art with a reward. They still assume they are pretty good at it - or don't or can't because their same Lawyers may spot some prior art MS is trying to claim.<br>Produce a list of 100 prior arts, and then ask for costs</p><p>Before computer 'editors' were mainstream on PC's, there were 'Editors' for newspaper layouts.<br>Now metadata - Hello rest of world, how do you think Asian Languages like Chinese and Japanese get rendered - yup metadata. Markup languages were on mainframes before PC's existed. Also Fujitsu did the same for programs and data with DSECT's. I expect Fujitsu / Digital are not enforcing their patents or that they have expired.</p><p>Note the US does not recognize foreign patents, and layers can weasel out of trouble claiming they are obscure, when things get tough and money is in the offering. Which is why the list of products made in the USA will cease if the BS prevails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was the case undefended ?
Default Judgment ? One would expect 1/2 competent lawyers to put in a discovery motion that would slow things down.MS should just ask the open source folk to identify prior art with a reward .
They still assume they are pretty good at it - or do n't or ca n't because their same Lawyers may spot some prior art MS is trying to claim.Produce a list of 100 prior arts , and then ask for costsBefore computer 'editors ' were mainstream on PC 's , there were 'Editors ' for newspaper layouts.Now metadata - Hello rest of world , how do you think Asian Languages like Chinese and Japanese get rendered - yup metadata .
Markup languages were on mainframes before PC 's existed .
Also Fujitsu did the same for programs and data with DSECT 's .
I expect Fujitsu / Digital are not enforcing their patents or that they have expired.Note the US does not recognize foreign patents , and layers can weasel out of trouble claiming they are obscure , when things get tough and money is in the offering .
Which is why the list of products made in the USA will cease if the BS prevails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was the case undefended?
Default Judgment?One would expect 1/2 competent lawyers to put in  a discovery motion that would slow things down.MS should just ask the open source folk to identify prior art with a reward.
They still assume they are pretty good at it - or don't or can't because their same Lawyers may spot some prior art MS is trying to claim.Produce a list of 100 prior arts, and then ask for costsBefore computer 'editors' were mainstream on PC's, there were 'Editors' for newspaper layouts.Now metadata - Hello rest of world, how do you think Asian Languages like Chinese and Japanese get rendered - yup metadata.
Markup languages were on mainframes before PC's existed.
Also Fujitsu did the same for programs and data with DSECT's.
I expect Fujitsu / Digital are not enforcing their patents or that they have expired.Note the US does not recognize foreign patents, and layers can weasel out of trouble claiming they are obscure, when things get tough and money is in the offering.
Which is why the list of products made in the USA will cease if the BS prevails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146127</id>
	<title>TFA is misleading; RTFP</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1243606200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML</i></p><p>Well, you should read it.  The patent is on associating properties with text without embedding the formatting codes directly.  Most XML formats don't do that.</p><p>It's about saying something like "in the text, make characters 17-21 bold face" separately from the text itself, instead of "{\bf hello}"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read the patent , but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of " WYSIWYG " editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format , not only XMLWell , you should read it .
The patent is on associating properties with text without embedding the formatting codes directly .
Most XML formats do n't do that.It 's about saying something like " in the text , make characters 17-21 bold face " separately from the text itself , instead of " { \ bf hello } "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XMLWell, you should read it.
The patent is on associating properties with text without embedding the formatting codes directly.
Most XML formats don't do that.It's about saying something like "in the text, make characters 17-21 bold face" separately from the text itself, instead of "{\bf hello}"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144033</id>
	<title>I feel sorry for Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which makes i4i Stalin Hitler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which makes i4i Stalin Hitler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which makes i4i Stalin Hitler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146359</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>dimeglio</author>
	<datestamp>1243608720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the document has no metacode then the patent doesn't apply. Otherwise, there is possible infringement. Let's wait and see how it plays out during the likely appeals before taking out our cheque books. Wonder if Postcript and PDF would also be infringing. SCO all over again... oh the humanity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the document has no metacode then the patent does n't apply .
Otherwise , there is possible infringement .
Let 's wait and see how it plays out during the likely appeals before taking out our cheque books .
Wonder if Postcript and PDF would also be infringing .
SCO all over again... oh the humanity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the document has no metacode then the patent doesn't apply.
Otherwise, there is possible infringement.
Let's wait and see how it plays out during the likely appeals before taking out our cheque books.
Wonder if Postcript and PDF would also be infringing.
SCO all over again... oh the humanity!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145165</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>TimothyDavis</author>
	<datestamp>1243598460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So to fill out a patent application, you first need to carefully document what the 'new' idea is, and then keep running it through computerized spoken language translations until all possible case specific meaning is lost?<br> <br>
IDNRTFPA (I did not read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... patent application) - but at least many of the patents of old had drawings of the concept so folks had a least a fucking clue as to what the patent applied to.<br> <br>
I can only imagine the poor guy who has to search through existing patents when checking to see if his idea is new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So to fill out a patent application , you first need to carefully document what the 'new ' idea is , and then keep running it through computerized spoken language translations until all possible case specific meaning is lost ?
IDNRTFPA ( I did not read ... patent application ) - but at least many of the patents of old had drawings of the concept so folks had a least a fucking clue as to what the patent applied to .
I can only imagine the poor guy who has to search through existing patents when checking to see if his idea is new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So to fill out a patent application, you first need to carefully document what the 'new' idea is, and then keep running it through computerized spoken language translations until all possible case specific meaning is lost?
IDNRTFPA (I did not read ... patent application) - but at least many of the patents of old had drawings of the concept so folks had a least a fucking clue as to what the patent applied to.
I can only imagine the poor guy who has to search through existing patents when checking to see if his idea is new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809</id>
	<title>Ridiculous.</title>
	<author>cdn-programmer</author>
	<datestamp>1243596360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just ridiculous.</p><p>The patent would apply to any markup language.  This is totally obvious and there are many implementations which have been around for more than 25 years.</p><p>There are several errors here.</p><p>1) the patent should not have been granted because to do something like this is obvious.</p><p>2) the court must be totally incompetent.</p><p>3) the defense must be incompetent as well.</p><p>Any database driven web page is an infringement.  It doesn't need to be XML.  In fact most databases have this and Oracle is an example.  PostgreSQL also has tools which do this.</p><p>Any templating software does this.</p><p>This illustrates just how bad the USA patent system is.</p><p>I hope it goes to appeal and that this gets straightened out.  The thing is we software developers are under attack these days  We will find that the 3rd world will eventually do all our software development.  I know I would not go into software development if I were back in my university days.  If a person does anything of any significance they can expect to be sued.  No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just ridiculous.The patent would apply to any markup language .
This is totally obvious and there are many implementations which have been around for more than 25 years.There are several errors here.1 ) the patent should not have been granted because to do something like this is obvious.2 ) the court must be totally incompetent.3 ) the defense must be incompetent as well.Any database driven web page is an infringement .
It does n't need to be XML .
In fact most databases have this and Oracle is an example .
PostgreSQL also has tools which do this.Any templating software does this.This illustrates just how bad the USA patent system is.I hope it goes to appeal and that this gets straightened out .
The thing is we software developers are under attack these days We will find that the 3rd world will eventually do all our software development .
I know I would not go into software development if I were back in my university days .
If a person does anything of any significance they can expect to be sued .
No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just ridiculous.The patent would apply to any markup language.
This is totally obvious and there are many implementations which have been around for more than 25 years.There are several errors here.1) the patent should not have been granted because to do something like this is obvious.2) the court must be totally incompetent.3) the defense must be incompetent as well.Any database driven web page is an infringement.
It doesn't need to be XML.
In fact most databases have this and Oracle is an example.
PostgreSQL also has tools which do this.Any templating software does this.This illustrates just how bad the USA patent system is.I hope it goes to appeal and that this gets straightened out.
The thing is we software developers are under attack these days  We will find that the 3rd world will eventually do all our software development.
I know I would not go into software development if I were back in my university days.
If a person does anything of any significance they can expect to be sued.
No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144871</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243596780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like any type of stylesheet-based editing.</p><p>That means office suites, HTML editors, vector graphics editors are all "infringing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like any type of stylesheet-based editing.That means office suites , HTML editors , vector graphics editors are all " infringing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like any type of stylesheet-based editing.That means office suites, HTML editors, vector graphics editors are all "infringing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146815</id>
	<title>i4i, eh?  Sounds like foreshadowing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next up, a company named 2th42th will be suing.</p><p>Patent trolls get Biblical in their vengeance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next up , a company named 2th42th will be suing.Patent trolls get Biblical in their vengeance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next up, a company named 2th42th will be suing.Patent trolls get Biblical in their vengeance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146819</id>
	<title>Re:Altova</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243614780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, $224 is for the Professional edition.  The Standard edition is $159 (though I don't quite know what the difference is).  Anyway, even $224 is not a lot of money if your job includes mucking around with XML documents daily.  For small companies, it might be a bit of a stretch.  For larger companies, not a problem.  I've actually used it a couple of times and it is quite capable and extremely easy to use.  I haven't used anything else so maybe there are decent alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , $ 224 is for the Professional edition .
The Standard edition is $ 159 ( though I do n't quite know what the difference is ) .
Anyway , even $ 224 is not a lot of money if your job includes mucking around with XML documents daily .
For small companies , it might be a bit of a stretch .
For larger companies , not a problem .
I 've actually used it a couple of times and it is quite capable and extremely easy to use .
I have n't used anything else so maybe there are decent alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, $224 is for the Professional edition.
The Standard edition is $159 (though I don't quite know what the difference is).
Anyway, even $224 is not a lot of money if your job includes mucking around with XML documents daily.
For small companies, it might be a bit of a stretch.
For larger companies, not a problem.
I've actually used it a couple of times and it is quite capable and extremely easy to use.
I haven't used anything else so maybe there are decent alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148257</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243681980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.</i> </p><p>You should inquire into the rates that anesthesiologists pay for malpractice insurance. It quickly becomes evident why they charge by the minute for their services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked .
You should inquire into the rates that anesthesiologists pay for malpractice insurance .
It quickly becomes evident why they charge by the minute for their services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.
You should inquire into the rates that anesthesiologists pay for malpractice insurance.
It quickly becomes evident why they charge by the minute for their services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144191</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Play</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't feel sympathetic in the least.</p></div></blockquote><p>Neither do I.  However, in the end, who ends up paying $98/copy to i4i?<br> <br>I'll give you a hint -- it's not Microsoft.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't feel sympathetic in the least.Neither do I. However , in the end , who ends up paying $ 98/copy to i4i ?
I 'll give you a hint -- it 's not Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't feel sympathetic in the least.Neither do I.  However, in the end, who ends up paying $98/copy to i4i?
I'll give you a hint -- it's not Microsoft.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144137</id>
	<title>Maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's a very fancy XML editor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a very fancy XML editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a very fancy XML editor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144079</id>
	<title>Since when...</title>
	<author>Stoner369</author>
	<datestamp>1243592400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...did notepad start costing $98?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...did notepad start costing $ 98 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...did notepad start costing $98?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147001</id>
	<title>Could someone hup rss.slashdot.org please?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243616760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The host rss.slashdot.org doesn't respond and that's friggin annoying. I can ping it no problem, but it doesn't respond at all to http requests, so the responsible process probably hung or segd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The host rss.slashdot.org does n't respond and that 's friggin annoying .
I can ping it no problem , but it does n't respond at all to http requests , so the responsible process probably hung or segd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The host rss.slashdot.org doesn't respond and that's friggin annoying.
I can ping it no problem, but it doesn't respond at all to http requests, so the responsible process probably hung or segd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144159</id>
	<title>tell the Obama Administration...</title>
	<author>ScubaS</author>
	<datestamp>1243592760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i hate these people who get awarded patents for things they did not invent then go and sue a big innocent company.

we need some serious patent reform

at least obama can hire COMPETENT software engineers to review software related patents

because this is rediculous how people get awarded patents for things that make a patent invalid - PRIOR ART and OBVIOUS</htmltext>
<tokenext>i hate these people who get awarded patents for things they did not invent then go and sue a big innocent company .
we need some serious patent reform at least obama can hire COMPETENT software engineers to review software related patents because this is rediculous how people get awarded patents for things that make a patent invalid - PRIOR ART and OBVIOUS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hate these people who get awarded patents for things they did not invent then go and sue a big innocent company.
we need some serious patent reform

at least obama can hire COMPETENT software engineers to review software related patents

because this is rediculous how people get awarded patents for things that make a patent invalid - PRIOR ART and OBVIOUS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144887</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1243596840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok. So you read the claim... it seems exactly like what someone "skilled in the arts" would do when presented with a document having a plurality of metacodes. There's nothing "novel" about what they're doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. So you read the claim... it seems exactly like what someone " skilled in the arts " would do when presented with a document having a plurality of metacodes .
There 's nothing " novel " about what they 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok. So you read the claim... it seems exactly like what someone "skilled in the arts" would do when presented with a document having a plurality of metacodes.
There's nothing "novel" about what they're doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145381</id>
	<title>Overheard while passing Balmer's office</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243600080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Balmer was upset because this patent was used incorrectly.</p><p>"Doesn't i4i know what they are doing? This patent should not have been used to get an outrageous one time payout. It should have been wielded like a large club to keep competitors in line and ensure the company's future monopoly status in the integrated XML editor market"<br>(throws chair across room)<br>"STUPID AMATEURS!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Balmer was upset because this patent was used incorrectly .
" Does n't i4i know what they are doing ?
This patent should not have been used to get an outrageous one time payout .
It should have been wielded like a large club to keep competitors in line and ensure the company 's future monopoly status in the integrated XML editor market " ( throws chair across room ) " STUPID AMATEURS ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Balmer was upset because this patent was used incorrectly.
"Doesn't i4i know what they are doing?
This patent should not have been used to get an outrageous one time payout.
It should have been wielded like a large club to keep competitors in line and ensure the company's future monopoly status in the integrated XML editor market"(throws chair across room)"STUPID AMATEURS!!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146101</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous.</title>
	<author>piemcfly</author>
	<datestamp>1243605960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.</p></div><p>Fuggedahboutit.<br>

You computer nerds got it easy. Me and my cousing Cesare are legitimate garbage disposal business professionals and not a week goes by without the Feds paying us a visit over some cooked up litigational issues.<br> <br>

How's an honest man to make a living disposing of chemical waste with these cacasodos all up in our business?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.Fuggedahboutit .
You computer nerds got it easy .
Me and my cousing Cesare are legitimate garbage disposal business professionals and not a week goes by without the Feds paying us a visit over some cooked up litigational issues .
How 's an honest man to make a living disposing of chemical waste with these cacasodos all up in our business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No other profession that I know of is attacked as we software developers are being attacked.Fuggedahboutit.
You computer nerds got it easy.
Me and my cousing Cesare are legitimate garbage disposal business professionals and not a week goes by without the Feds paying us a visit over some cooked up litigational issues.
How's an honest man to make a living disposing of chemical waste with these cacasodos all up in our business?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243593420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When reading patents, you always ignore most of the boilerplate and preamble. Just go for the Claims section.</p><p>In this case, Claim 1 is quite understandable:</p><p>1. A computer system for the manipulation of the architecture and content of a document having a plurality of metacodes and content by producing a first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content; said system comprising:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; metacode map distinct storage means;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; means for providing a menu of metacodes to said metacode storage means;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and means for compiling said metacodes of the menu by locating, detecting and addressing the metacodes in the document to constitute the map and storing the map in the metacode storage means; and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; means for resolving the content and the metacode map into the document.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When reading patents , you always ignore most of the boilerplate and preamble .
Just go for the Claims section.In this case , Claim 1 is quite understandable : 1 .
A computer system for the manipulation of the architecture and content of a document having a plurality of metacodes and content by producing a first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content ; said system comprising :         metacode map distinct storage means ;         means for providing a menu of metacodes to said metacode storage means ;         and means for compiling said metacodes of the menu by locating , detecting and addressing the metacodes in the document to constitute the map and storing the map in the metacode storage means ; and         means for resolving the content and the metacode map into the document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When reading patents, you always ignore most of the boilerplate and preamble.
Just go for the Claims section.In this case, Claim 1 is quite understandable:1.
A computer system for the manipulation of the architecture and content of a document having a plurality of metacodes and content by producing a first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content; said system comprising:
        metacode map distinct storage means;
        means for providing a menu of metacodes to said metacode storage means;
        and means for compiling said metacodes of the menu by locating, detecting and addressing the metacodes in the document to constitute the map and storing the map in the metacode storage means; and
        means for resolving the content and the metacode map into the document.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144021</id>
	<title>OOo</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1243592160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft Office may be worth $98 (what?  only $98?), but what about OOo?</p><p>Oh wait, OOo has more XML compatibility.  Perhaps it's worth more than MS Office?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft Office may be worth $ 98 ( what ?
only $ 98 ?
) , but what about OOo ? Oh wait , OOo has more XML compatibility .
Perhaps it 's worth more than MS Office ?
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft Office may be worth $98 (what?
only $98?
), but what about OOo?Oh wait, OOo has more XML compatibility.
Perhaps it's worth more than MS Office?
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145915</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243604160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document"</p><p>Not to mention there's prior art.  The Amiga's IFF format, for instance, was exactly that architecture, long before such things became trendy in Windows circles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document " Not to mention there 's prior art .
The Amiga 's IFF format , for instance , was exactly that architecture , long before such things became trendy in Windows circles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document"Not to mention there's prior art.
The Amiga's IFF format, for instance, was exactly that architecture, long before such things became trendy in Windows circles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144219</id>
	<title>Ignore this.</title>
	<author>Sybert42</author>
	<datestamp>1243593180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents will be moot post-Singularity.  It will be more about technology (encryption, maybe).  But, please don't even mod this.  Ignore it.  Thanks--the Singularity will happen even if you ignore this post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents will be moot post-Singularity .
It will be more about technology ( encryption , maybe ) .
But , please do n't even mod this .
Ignore it .
Thanks--the Singularity will happen even if you ignore this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents will be moot post-Singularity.
It will be more about technology (encryption, maybe).
But, please don't even mod this.
Ignore it.
Thanks--the Singularity will happen even if you ignore this post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144097</id>
	<title>If You Have a Repeat Offender, Increase Penalty?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but what's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used. An XML editor. $98. And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?</p></div><p>Well--and I stress that I am <i>not</i> defending this ruling--you could look at it like raising the stakes involved since there are so many patent cases.  <br> <br>

Example:  You steal a piece of fruit.  You are convicted in front of a jury and slapped on the wrist.  So you and everyone else does it again tomorrow.  To combat this they increase the penalty to a $70 fine and 4 days in jail.  In an ideal world, people stop stealing fruit.  <br> <br>

Of course, I'm told hands get chopped off for stealing in some countries (could be wrong on that one though).  I do know in Texas they're not opposed to electrocutin' ya for certain offenses though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe they are just on their way to try to get all these patent cases prevented?  <br> <br>

Doesn't make a lick of sense at all considering you can't throw a goddamn <a href="http://www.edn.com/article/CA6515594.html" title="edn.com" rel="nofollow">progress bar</a> [edn.com] on your application without risking litigation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but what 's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $ 98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used .
An XML editor .
$ 98. And people say patent awards are n't out of sync with reality ? Well--and I stress that I am not defending this ruling--you could look at it like raising the stakes involved since there are so many patent cases .
Example : You steal a piece of fruit .
You are convicted in front of a jury and slapped on the wrist .
So you and everyone else does it again tomorrow .
To combat this they increase the penalty to a $ 70 fine and 4 days in jail .
In an ideal world , people stop stealing fruit .
Of course , I 'm told hands get chopped off for stealing in some countries ( could be wrong on that one though ) .
I do know in Texas they 're not opposed to electrocutin ' ya for certain offenses though ... maybe they are just on their way to try to get all these patent cases prevented ?
Does n't make a lick of sense at all considering you ca n't throw a goddamn progress bar [ edn.com ] on your application without risking litigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... but what's even more troubling is that the court somehow ruled that such an editor was worth $98 in the copies of Microsoft Word where it was used.
An XML editor.
$98. And people say patent awards aren't out of sync with reality?Well--and I stress that I am not defending this ruling--you could look at it like raising the stakes involved since there are so many patent cases.
Example:  You steal a piece of fruit.
You are convicted in front of a jury and slapped on the wrist.
So you and everyone else does it again tomorrow.
To combat this they increase the penalty to a $70 fine and 4 days in jail.
In an ideal world, people stop stealing fruit.
Of course, I'm told hands get chopped off for stealing in some countries (could be wrong on that one though).
I do know in Texas they're not opposed to electrocutin' ya for certain offenses though ... maybe they are just on their way to try to get all these patent cases prevented?
Doesn't make a lick of sense at all considering you can't throw a goddamn progress bar [edn.com] on your application without risking litigation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144747</id>
	<title>Re:Patent awards out of sync with reality? Hardy!</title>
	<author>Spyder0101</author>
	<datestamp>1243596060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm afraid I am missing the sarcasm if it was present in that post... <br> <br>
You do know that <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">XML Specification</a> [w3.org] defines XML as a tree, a common structure in most (all?) programming languages.  It is obvious to anyone even remotely skilled in the art.  I wrote an XML editor as a toy project as a freshman in HS that would have violated this patent.  I guess I am that much of a genius, or just not as much as a dumbass as you.

**Listens for WOOSHING**</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid I am missing the sarcasm if it was present in that post.. . You do know that XML Specification [ w3.org ] defines XML as a tree , a common structure in most ( all ?
) programming languages .
It is obvious to anyone even remotely skilled in the art .
I wrote an XML editor as a toy project as a freshman in HS that would have violated this patent .
I guess I am that much of a genius , or just not as much as a dumbass as you .
* * Listens for WOOSHING * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid I am missing the sarcasm if it was present in that post...  
You do know that XML Specification [w3.org] defines XML as a tree, a common structure in most (all?
) programming languages.
It is obvious to anyone even remotely skilled in the art.
I wrote an XML editor as a toy project as a freshman in HS that would have violated this patent.
I guess I am that much of a genius, or just not as much as a dumbass as you.
**Listens for WOOSHING**</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28160751</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is misleading; RTFP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243761060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like taking an attribute table applied to the characters displayed on the screen, like, for example, a Sinclair ZX Spectrum where the screen is a pixel mapped as 1 pixel/bit but the attributes are stored in a separate section of memory, so that, say, characters (an 8x8 pixel square) 17-21 are in Blue on Yellow (to highlight them) as opposed to setting the pixel/palette to Blue on Yellow for them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like taking an attribute table applied to the characters displayed on the screen , like , for example , a Sinclair ZX Spectrum where the screen is a pixel mapped as 1 pixel/bit but the attributes are stored in a separate section of memory , so that , say , characters ( an 8x8 pixel square ) 17-21 are in Blue on Yellow ( to highlight them ) as opposed to setting the pixel/palette to Blue on Yellow for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like taking an attribute table applied to the characters displayed on the screen, like, for example, a Sinclair ZX Spectrum where the screen is a pixel mapped as 1 pixel/bit but the attributes are stored in a separate section of memory, so that, say, characters (an 8x8 pixel square) 17-21 are in Blue on Yellow (to highlight them) as opposed to setting the pixel/palette to Blue on Yellow for them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145995</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243604880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You talk crap. Put up or shut up, the patent is valid. Prove otherwise. Oh you can't can you? Loser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You talk crap .
Put up or shut up , the patent is valid .
Prove otherwise .
Oh you ca n't can you ?
Loser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You talk crap.
Put up or shut up, the patent is valid.
Prove otherwise.
Oh you can't can you?
Loser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146463</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just a bidirectional hash with a menu. It's sad that that held up in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just a bidirectional hash with a menu .
It 's sad that that held up in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just a bidirectional hash with a menu.
It's sad that that held up in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144331</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>capt.Hij</author>
	<datestamp>1243593660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From that vague wording it seems that using the XML::RPC module in Perl would violate the patent. You can use that module to separate your manipulation of the xml and the data that is represented in the xml. Then again, it seems to me that this is exactly what word processors have been doing since wordstar. The editor allows you to focus on the contents while the program manipulates the file under the hood. The fact that it uses XML is not really relevant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From that vague wording it seems that using the XML : : RPC module in Perl would violate the patent .
You can use that module to separate your manipulation of the xml and the data that is represented in the xml .
Then again , it seems to me that this is exactly what word processors have been doing since wordstar .
The editor allows you to focus on the contents while the program manipulates the file under the hood .
The fact that it uses XML is not really relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From that vague wording it seems that using the XML::RPC module in Perl would violate the patent.
You can use that module to separate your manipulation of the xml and the data that is represented in the xml.
Then again, it seems to me that this is exactly what word processors have been doing since wordstar.
The editor allows you to focus on the contents while the program manipulates the file under the hood.
The fact that it uses XML is not really relevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144167</id>
	<title>Altova</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XML Spy costs $224 for the basic edition. I don't know how/why that company is still in business</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XML Spy costs $ 224 for the basic edition .
I do n't know how/why that company is still in business</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XML Spy costs $224 for the basic edition.
I don't know how/why that company is still in business</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146317</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1243608180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I struggled through the patent when the story broke. It seemed to me that the proposal was to store the body text in one file (note: no markup) and to store the markup \_plus indexing information\_ in another file. So the second file would say somthing like "Char position 1: ; Char position 12:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>." Why this is a great idea was lost on me.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you're Microsoft, it's probably a great idea.  Make your data files even more complex by splitting data and markup up, so when those poor KOffice and OO.org guys go to reverse engineer your file formats, it's even more bizarre and difficult.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I struggled through the patent when the story broke .
It seemed to me that the proposal was to store the body text in one file ( note : no markup ) and to store the markup \ _plus indexing information \ _ in another file .
So the second file would say somthing like " Char position 1 : ; Char position 12 : .
" Why this is a great idea was lost on me.If you 're Microsoft , it 's probably a great idea .
Make your data files even more complex by splitting data and markup up , so when those poor KOffice and OO.org guys go to reverse engineer your file formats , it 's even more bizarre and difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I struggled through the patent when the story broke.
It seemed to me that the proposal was to store the body text in one file (note: no markup) and to store the markup \_plus indexing information\_ in another file.
So the second file would say somthing like "Char position 1: ; Char position 12: .
" Why this is a great idea was lost on me.If you're Microsoft, it's probably a great idea.
Make your data files even more complex by splitting data and markup up, so when those poor KOffice and OO.org guys go to reverse engineer your file formats, it's even more bizarre and difficult.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28156663</id>
	<title>Re:Filed in 1994</title>
	<author>Richard Kirk</author>
	<datestamp>1243764240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I would not have thought it possible to make me feel sorry for Microsoft, but by God, they've done it...
</p><p>
I used to work on patents and other R&amp;D matters for a large company (about 70 000 employees). The general rule was if someone sent you a letter describing a patent or an invention, then you should send it back, if possible unopened. If you read what is in the letter, and anyone, anywhere in your company happens to be working on something that infringes what is described, then your company is now 'knowingly infringing a patent' and the damages (if they win any) are tripled. In 1994 it was also becoming clear that software patents were going to be recognized in the US, which is a huge chunk of the technology market covered by a single patent in English. If you had something that you thought might be patentable, you filed a speculative patent of your own if your company could afford it (my one did). Even if your patent did not stand, you may well prevent anyone absolutely owning anything in the area.
</p><p>
I have also worked for smaller companies where large companies have claimed infringement of some very general patents without evidence, and demanded disclosure of any and all software in the company, so they could troll though and see if they could find anything. We managed to get this patent dismissed. They came up with a second. Then a third. Then a fourth. We were required to read each legal letter, and each letter made us liable to further knowing infringements. In the end, we had to licence a produce we did not use in order to avoid paying ever-increasing patent lawyers costs.
</p><p>
NB: the others in the company didn't tell me we had taken the licence until long after it had been done. I would have fought, but they were probably right. If you are in this position - reply to each letter as briefly as possible. Require them to itemize every case where they think you are infringing before you do any work checking it. Get them to do work and rack up costs where possible. Sit on each letter for a week at least. They may lose interest or look for a softer target.
</p><p>
In 1994, software patents were beginning to look possible. There was a lot of virgin patent territory out there, and some people laid claims to all sorts of things that they could not be said to own. There was no tradition of IP ownership in computing, and it was easy to patent things that could have been found in the library of Alexandria. The company sat on the patents until the idea of a software patent became a bit more solid, and then went to the biggest company they could find. Microsoft must get a lot of gold-diggers like these, and they cannot afford a patent lawyer for each. Their mistake was to talk to the company in the first place, though like my case of returning a letter unopened, it is hard to know what you ought to do until it is too late.
</p><p>
I think things are taking their natural course. Microsoft have probably saved money by not dealing with each gold-digger individually. This strategy means they have to deal with every one that makes it through to the final round without going bust. In the end, all software patent issues seem to be about spending money in legal fees. I have seen software patent battles from both sides, and the person with the deepest pockets always wins. Patents have their place, but they are restrictive rulings which take rights from everyone else when they grant the patent to an individual. This is something we should do sparingly where there is real need. In my opinion, there never was any need for software patents.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would not have thought it possible to make me feel sorry for Microsoft , but by God , they 've done it.. . I used to work on patents and other R&amp;D matters for a large company ( about 70 000 employees ) .
The general rule was if someone sent you a letter describing a patent or an invention , then you should send it back , if possible unopened .
If you read what is in the letter , and anyone , anywhere in your company happens to be working on something that infringes what is described , then your company is now 'knowingly infringing a patent ' and the damages ( if they win any ) are tripled .
In 1994 it was also becoming clear that software patents were going to be recognized in the US , which is a huge chunk of the technology market covered by a single patent in English .
If you had something that you thought might be patentable , you filed a speculative patent of your own if your company could afford it ( my one did ) .
Even if your patent did not stand , you may well prevent anyone absolutely owning anything in the area .
I have also worked for smaller companies where large companies have claimed infringement of some very general patents without evidence , and demanded disclosure of any and all software in the company , so they could troll though and see if they could find anything .
We managed to get this patent dismissed .
They came up with a second .
Then a third .
Then a fourth .
We were required to read each legal letter , and each letter made us liable to further knowing infringements .
In the end , we had to licence a produce we did not use in order to avoid paying ever-increasing patent lawyers costs .
NB : the others in the company did n't tell me we had taken the licence until long after it had been done .
I would have fought , but they were probably right .
If you are in this position - reply to each letter as briefly as possible .
Require them to itemize every case where they think you are infringing before you do any work checking it .
Get them to do work and rack up costs where possible .
Sit on each letter for a week at least .
They may lose interest or look for a softer target .
In 1994 , software patents were beginning to look possible .
There was a lot of virgin patent territory out there , and some people laid claims to all sorts of things that they could not be said to own .
There was no tradition of IP ownership in computing , and it was easy to patent things that could have been found in the library of Alexandria .
The company sat on the patents until the idea of a software patent became a bit more solid , and then went to the biggest company they could find .
Microsoft must get a lot of gold-diggers like these , and they can not afford a patent lawyer for each .
Their mistake was to talk to the company in the first place , though like my case of returning a letter unopened , it is hard to know what you ought to do until it is too late .
I think things are taking their natural course .
Microsoft have probably saved money by not dealing with each gold-digger individually .
This strategy means they have to deal with every one that makes it through to the final round without going bust .
In the end , all software patent issues seem to be about spending money in legal fees .
I have seen software patent battles from both sides , and the person with the deepest pockets always wins .
Patents have their place , but they are restrictive rulings which take rights from everyone else when they grant the patent to an individual .
This is something we should do sparingly where there is real need .
In my opinion , there never was any need for software patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I would not have thought it possible to make me feel sorry for Microsoft, but by God, they've done it...

I used to work on patents and other R&amp;D matters for a large company (about 70 000 employees).
The general rule was if someone sent you a letter describing a patent or an invention, then you should send it back, if possible unopened.
If you read what is in the letter, and anyone, anywhere in your company happens to be working on something that infringes what is described, then your company is now 'knowingly infringing a patent' and the damages (if they win any) are tripled.
In 1994 it was also becoming clear that software patents were going to be recognized in the US, which is a huge chunk of the technology market covered by a single patent in English.
If you had something that you thought might be patentable, you filed a speculative patent of your own if your company could afford it (my one did).
Even if your patent did not stand, you may well prevent anyone absolutely owning anything in the area.
I have also worked for smaller companies where large companies have claimed infringement of some very general patents without evidence, and demanded disclosure of any and all software in the company, so they could troll though and see if they could find anything.
We managed to get this patent dismissed.
They came up with a second.
Then a third.
Then a fourth.
We were required to read each legal letter, and each letter made us liable to further knowing infringements.
In the end, we had to licence a produce we did not use in order to avoid paying ever-increasing patent lawyers costs.
NB: the others in the company didn't tell me we had taken the licence until long after it had been done.
I would have fought, but they were probably right.
If you are in this position - reply to each letter as briefly as possible.
Require them to itemize every case where they think you are infringing before you do any work checking it.
Get them to do work and rack up costs where possible.
Sit on each letter for a week at least.
They may lose interest or look for a softer target.
In 1994, software patents were beginning to look possible.
There was a lot of virgin patent territory out there, and some people laid claims to all sorts of things that they could not be said to own.
There was no tradition of IP ownership in computing, and it was easy to patent things that could have been found in the library of Alexandria.
The company sat on the patents until the idea of a software patent became a bit more solid, and then went to the biggest company they could find.
Microsoft must get a lot of gold-diggers like these, and they cannot afford a patent lawyer for each.
Their mistake was to talk to the company in the first place, though like my case of returning a letter unopened, it is hard to know what you ought to do until it is too late.
I think things are taking their natural course.
Microsoft have probably saved money by not dealing with each gold-digger individually.
This strategy means they have to deal with every one that makes it through to the final round without going bust.
In the end, all software patent issues seem to be about spending money in legal fees.
I have seen software patent battles from both sides, and the person with the deepest pockets always wins.
Patents have their place, but they are restrictive rulings which take rights from everyone else when they grant the patent to an individual.
This is something we should do sparingly where there is real need.
In my opinion, there never was any need for software patents.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144921</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243597020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You make it sound like it's a good thing...</p><p>I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML ("separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document").</p></div><p>Not just WYSIWYG. There are TeX and laTeX templates that aim to separate content from structure, and have been for a long time. There are even elements of it in roff. Just how old was that patent?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sound like it 's a good thing...I have n't read the patent , but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of " WYSIWYG " editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format , not only XML ( " separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document " ) .Not just WYSIWYG .
There are TeX and laTeX templates that aim to separate content from structure , and have been for a long time .
There are even elements of it in roff .
Just how old was that patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sound like it's a good thing...I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML ("separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document").Not just WYSIWYG.
There are TeX and laTeX templates that aim to separate content from structure, and have been for a long time.
There are even elements of it in roff.
Just how old was that patent?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28149781</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>Artagel</author>
	<datestamp>1243702320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A means plus function claim. (35 U.S.C. Section 112, Paragraph 6), is not plain English.</p><p>For each means for performing the function, you have to go back to the specification, and identify the specific structure that performs that function and then plug it in to the "means for" part. Determining what details have to be included and not is the subject of quite a bit of litigation.</p><p>Then the claim covers that plus its equivalents as known to those of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention.</p><p>That is probably the least simple claim in the patent, though I have not looked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A means plus function claim .
( 35 U.S.C .
Section 112 , Paragraph 6 ) , is not plain English.For each means for performing the function , you have to go back to the specification , and identify the specific structure that performs that function and then plug it in to the " means for " part .
Determining what details have to be included and not is the subject of quite a bit of litigation.Then the claim covers that plus its equivalents as known to those of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention.That is probably the least simple claim in the patent , though I have not looked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A means plus function claim.
(35 U.S.C.
Section 112, Paragraph 6), is not plain English.For each means for performing the function, you have to go back to the specification, and identify the specific structure that performs that function and then plug it in to the "means for" part.
Determining what details have to be included and not is the subject of quite a bit of litigation.Then the claim covers that plus its equivalents as known to those of ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention.That is probably the least simple claim in the patent, though I have not looked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145933</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1243604340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In this case, Claim 1 is quite understandable:</i></p><p>Why isn't this modded funny?</p><p>I've spent a stupid amount of time reading patents, and this is one of the worst I've ever seen.  The third item in the list isn't even coherent, as it suddenly starts talking about storing some map in a "metacode storage means" which is hitherto undefined.</p><p>I defy anyone to show me a class diagram and pseudo-code that unambiguously instantiates this claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , Claim 1 is quite understandable : Why is n't this modded funny ? I 've spent a stupid amount of time reading patents , and this is one of the worst I 've ever seen .
The third item in the list is n't even coherent , as it suddenly starts talking about storing some map in a " metacode storage means " which is hitherto undefined.I defy anyone to show me a class diagram and pseudo-code that unambiguously instantiates this claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, Claim 1 is quite understandable:Why isn't this modded funny?I've spent a stupid amount of time reading patents, and this is one of the worst I've ever seen.
The third item in the list isn't even coherent, as it suddenly starts talking about storing some map in a "metacode storage means" which is hitherto undefined.I defy anyone to show me a class diagram and pseudo-code that unambiguously instantiates this claim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145315</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243599660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This patent does NOT apply to any markup language.  Markup languages are generally handled as:  [markup] some text [more markup] more text, etc.  In general, the markup is embedded in the text with appropriate identifiers to separate markup from content.</p><p>This patent is about removing the embedded nature of markup, so that the content is raw text, the markups are maintained as a list of markup codes with appropriate 'pointers' into the raw text.  This way a single document can have multiple views while having only a single copy of the content.  There is no 'transform' going on as others claim.</p><p>Was this 'obvious'? All markup languages to my knowledge used embedded codes, so this does seem to me to be a new concept, strikingly different from the existing art. I think a strong case can be made that the concept was enough different to be patentable.  Was there prior art? I don't know and won't spend the time to research it, thats the lawyers jobs.</p><p>How does this apply to XML editors?  I haven't read the court case, but if indeed the implementation of the editor stored the metadata separately with pointers into a raw content stream, then there is a potential lawsuit.  But it is NOT so cut and dried as to be considered 'ridiculous'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This patent does NOT apply to any markup language .
Markup languages are generally handled as : [ markup ] some text [ more markup ] more text , etc .
In general , the markup is embedded in the text with appropriate identifiers to separate markup from content.This patent is about removing the embedded nature of markup , so that the content is raw text , the markups are maintained as a list of markup codes with appropriate 'pointers ' into the raw text .
This way a single document can have multiple views while having only a single copy of the content .
There is no 'transform ' going on as others claim.Was this 'obvious ' ?
All markup languages to my knowledge used embedded codes , so this does seem to me to be a new concept , strikingly different from the existing art .
I think a strong case can be made that the concept was enough different to be patentable .
Was there prior art ?
I do n't know and wo n't spend the time to research it , thats the lawyers jobs.How does this apply to XML editors ?
I have n't read the court case , but if indeed the implementation of the editor stored the metadata separately with pointers into a raw content stream , then there is a potential lawsuit .
But it is NOT so cut and dried as to be considered 'ridiculous'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This patent does NOT apply to any markup language.
Markup languages are generally handled as:  [markup] some text [more markup] more text, etc.
In general, the markup is embedded in the text with appropriate identifiers to separate markup from content.This patent is about removing the embedded nature of markup, so that the content is raw text, the markups are maintained as a list of markup codes with appropriate 'pointers' into the raw text.
This way a single document can have multiple views while having only a single copy of the content.
There is no 'transform' going on as others claim.Was this 'obvious'?
All markup languages to my knowledge used embedded codes, so this does seem to me to be a new concept, strikingly different from the existing art.
I think a strong case can be made that the concept was enough different to be patentable.
Was there prior art?
I don't know and won't spend the time to research it, thats the lawyers jobs.How does this apply to XML editors?
I haven't read the court case, but if indeed the implementation of the editor stored the metadata separately with pointers into a raw content stream, then there is a potential lawsuit.
But it is NOT so cut and dried as to be considered 'ridiculous'...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144305</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>iamhigh</author>
	<datestamp>1243593600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or a database... or about anything else where you can structure data, work on the structure or work on the data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a database... or about anything else where you can structure data , work on the structure or work on the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a database... or about anything else where you can structure data, work on the structure or work on the data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148157</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is misleading; RTFP</title>
	<author>dna\_(c)(tm)(r)</author>
	<datestamp>1243679220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The patent is on associating properties with text without embedding the formatting codes directly.  Most XML formats don't do that.</p><p>It's about saying something like "in the text, make characters 17-21 bold face" separately from the text itself, instead of "{\bf hello}"</p></div><p>Of course 'XML' does not do that. XML + XML does that, e.g. an ODF file is a zip-container with several XML documents in it, some of which are:</p><ul> <li>content.xml</li><li>meta.xml</li><li>settings.xml</li><li>styles.xml</li></ul><p>so it's not only presentation(style) that is separated from content... But still, the entire document is self contained.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent is on associating properties with text without embedding the formatting codes directly .
Most XML formats do n't do that.It 's about saying something like " in the text , make characters 17-21 bold face " separately from the text itself , instead of " { \ bf hello } " Of course 'XML ' does not do that .
XML + XML does that , e.g .
an ODF file is a zip-container with several XML documents in it , some of which are : content.xmlmeta.xmlsettings.xmlstyles.xmlso it 's not only presentation ( style ) that is separated from content... But still , the entire document is self contained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The patent is on associating properties with text without embedding the formatting codes directly.
Most XML formats don't do that.It's about saying something like "in the text, make characters 17-21 bold face" separately from the text itself, instead of "{\bf hello}"Of course 'XML' does not do that.
XML + XML does that, e.g.
an ODF file is a zip-container with several XML documents in it, some of which are: content.xmlmeta.xmlsettings.xmlstyles.xmlso it's not only presentation(style) that is separated from content... But still, the entire document is self contained.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144119</id>
	<title>Filed in 1994</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1243592580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Granted in 1998.</p><p>It took them that long to sue MS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted in 1998.It took them that long to sue MS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted in 1998.It took them that long to sue MS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145559</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1243601220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Texas? You mean the state of Marshall, TX [overlawyered.com] where Microsoft (and everyone else who wants to win) holds all of its prosecuting patent cases? I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine</p></div></blockquote><p>What do you mean by "all of its"?  Do you know how many software patent cases Microsoft has been the plaintiff in before the TomTom case?  Zero.  (And BTW, Texas was convenient for TomTom, as that's where they have filed many of their suits against competing GPS companies).</p><p>Oh, and defendants have been winning more than plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas since early 2007.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Texas ?
You mean the state of Marshall , TX [ overlawyered.com ] where Microsoft ( and everyone else who wants to win ) holds all of its prosecuting patent cases ?
I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicineWhat do you mean by " all of its " ?
Do you know how many software patent cases Microsoft has been the plaintiff in before the TomTom case ?
Zero. ( And BTW , Texas was convenient for TomTom , as that 's where they have filed many of their suits against competing GPS companies ) .Oh , and defendants have been winning more than plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas since early 2007 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Texas?
You mean the state of Marshall, TX [overlawyered.com] where Microsoft (and everyone else who wants to win) holds all of its prosecuting patent cases?
I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicineWhat do you mean by "all of its"?
Do you know how many software patent cases Microsoft has been the plaintiff in before the TomTom case?
Zero.  (And BTW, Texas was convenient for TomTom, as that's where they have filed many of their suits against competing GPS companies).Oh, and defendants have been winning more than plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas since early 2007.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147171</id>
	<title>Re:That makes sense...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243618740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that took me a whole freaking 4 hours to write. The horror.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that took me a whole freaking 4 hours to write .
The horror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that took me a whole freaking 4 hours to write.
The horror.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147017</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243616940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS and IBM are the main ones jamming sw patents down our throats. There's a scenario where it leads to their justified destruction, since the whole point against sw patents is that no one or corporation can hope to patent every thought that might be useful (which is what sw patents are thought-patents). So even though they have more nukes than anyone else, they still get nuked themselves. And that's a good thing.</p><p>Developers everywhere are nearly universally in denial about what sw patents are and what they imply for those lines of code you wrote today. Every single one of us violates multiple sw patents every day. No software can be written that isn't assailable and no company can launch a product that isn't in violation of sw patents. No company except the behemoths can survive the ensuing legal judgment. The fact that it's not destroying every single company doesn't mean much, except that developers are lulled into believing they're safe.</p><p>The longer sw patents are permitted, the greater the contempt for the law becomes and the more widespread it becomes. Ultimately, contempt for law in this area will be total and absolute. And no, that's not a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS and IBM are the main ones jamming sw patents down our throats .
There 's a scenario where it leads to their justified destruction , since the whole point against sw patents is that no one or corporation can hope to patent every thought that might be useful ( which is what sw patents are thought-patents ) .
So even though they have more nukes than anyone else , they still get nuked themselves .
And that 's a good thing.Developers everywhere are nearly universally in denial about what sw patents are and what they imply for those lines of code you wrote today .
Every single one of us violates multiple sw patents every day .
No software can be written that is n't assailable and no company can launch a product that is n't in violation of sw patents .
No company except the behemoths can survive the ensuing legal judgment .
The fact that it 's not destroying every single company does n't mean much , except that developers are lulled into believing they 're safe.The longer sw patents are permitted , the greater the contempt for the law becomes and the more widespread it becomes .
Ultimately , contempt for law in this area will be total and absolute .
And no , that 's not a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS and IBM are the main ones jamming sw patents down our throats.
There's a scenario where it leads to their justified destruction, since the whole point against sw patents is that no one or corporation can hope to patent every thought that might be useful (which is what sw patents are thought-patents).
So even though they have more nukes than anyone else, they still get nuked themselves.
And that's a good thing.Developers everywhere are nearly universally in denial about what sw patents are and what they imply for those lines of code you wrote today.
Every single one of us violates multiple sw patents every day.
No software can be written that isn't assailable and no company can launch a product that isn't in violation of sw patents.
No company except the behemoths can survive the ensuing legal judgment.
The fact that it's not destroying every single company doesn't mean much, except that developers are lulled into believing they're safe.The longer sw patents are permitted, the greater the contempt for the law becomes and the more widespread it becomes.
Ultimately, contempt for law in this area will be total and absolute.
And no, that's not a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146471</id>
	<title>Re:Filed in 1994</title>
	<author>danomac</author>
	<datestamp>1243610160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I find odd is that Microsoft has a bunch of these stupid types of patents. There's prior art for even this, and now that it has come to this, even if they win they will basically make a large majority of their patents useless.<br> <br>

I just don't understand how Microsoft thinks (actually, I don't really want to know anyhow.) But this doesn't seem like a really smart move. They could wind up shooting themselves in the foot, in more ways than one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find odd is that Microsoft has a bunch of these stupid types of patents .
There 's prior art for even this , and now that it has come to this , even if they win they will basically make a large majority of their patents useless .
I just do n't understand how Microsoft thinks ( actually , I do n't really want to know anyhow .
) But this does n't seem like a really smart move .
They could wind up shooting themselves in the foot , in more ways than one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find odd is that Microsoft has a bunch of these stupid types of patents.
There's prior art for even this, and now that it has come to this, even if they win they will basically make a large majority of their patents useless.
I just don't understand how Microsoft thinks (actually, I don't really want to know anyhow.
) But this doesn't seem like a really smart move.
They could wind up shooting themselves in the foot, in more ways than one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144969</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Play</title>
	<author>wellingj</author>
	<datestamp>1243597320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the same kind of egalitarianism that's stifling nearly everything good in the US. Which is to say it's not very egalitarian at all because someone has some crack pot idea about how <i>thier</i> world should work and the ends justify the means in their mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same kind of egalitarianism that 's stifling nearly everything good in the US .
Which is to say it 's not very egalitarian at all because someone has some crack pot idea about how thier world should work and the ends justify the means in their mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same kind of egalitarianism that's stifling nearly everything good in the US.
Which is to say it's not very egalitarian at all because someone has some crack pot idea about how thier world should work and the ends justify the means in their mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146053</id>
	<title>eye-for-eye</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1243605480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great name for a patent troll company suing Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great name for a patent troll company suing Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great name for a patent troll company suing Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146849</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243615140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the local paper's story about MSFT...<br><a href="http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090520/NEWS08/905209980" title="tylerpaper.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090520/NEWS08/905209980</a> [tylerpaper.com]</p><p>Also, Yahoo! recently lost to the tune of $6.6 million! In the same damn courthouse!<br><a href="http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090521/NEWS08/905219967" title="tylerpaper.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090521/NEWS08/905219967</a> [tylerpaper.com]</p><p>It's not really Texas as much as East Texas in particular. The land where justice is bought and sold. Heck, now they're moving this crap up to the big city of Tyler.</p><p>The real reason they sue here is because we have the most corrupt courts in the land and the "good citizens" accept that as normal. Criminal or civil, you're screwed here if you don't have the right lawyer. But hey, what do you expect in a dry county that has the only XXX drive-in theater I've ever seen.</p><p>Heck, check out this suppressed book and bear in mind, we still have that same sheriff! Sigh.<br><a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Smith\_County\_Justice" title="wikileaks.org" rel="nofollow">http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Smith\_County\_Justice</a> [wikileaks.org]</p><p>And yes, I'm anonymous because I value my freedom. Just posting here could put me in jail. I suppose I should be using Tor too but it's alright, nobody here understands technical issues anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the local paper 's story about MSFT...http : //www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090520/NEWS08/905209980 [ tylerpaper.com ] Also , Yahoo !
recently lost to the tune of $ 6.6 million !
In the same damn courthouse ! http : //www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090521/NEWS08/905219967 [ tylerpaper.com ] It 's not really Texas as much as East Texas in particular .
The land where justice is bought and sold .
Heck , now they 're moving this crap up to the big city of Tyler.The real reason they sue here is because we have the most corrupt courts in the land and the " good citizens " accept that as normal .
Criminal or civil , you 're screwed here if you do n't have the right lawyer .
But hey , what do you expect in a dry county that has the only XXX drive-in theater I 've ever seen.Heck , check out this suppressed book and bear in mind , we still have that same sheriff !
Sigh.http : //wikileaks.org/wiki/Smith \ _County \ _Justice [ wikileaks.org ] And yes , I 'm anonymous because I value my freedom .
Just posting here could put me in jail .
I suppose I should be using Tor too but it 's alright , nobody here understands technical issues anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the local paper's story about MSFT...http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090520/NEWS08/905209980 [tylerpaper.com]Also, Yahoo!
recently lost to the tune of $6.6 million!
In the same damn courthouse!http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20090521/NEWS08/905219967 [tylerpaper.com]It's not really Texas as much as East Texas in particular.
The land where justice is bought and sold.
Heck, now they're moving this crap up to the big city of Tyler.The real reason they sue here is because we have the most corrupt courts in the land and the "good citizens" accept that as normal.
Criminal or civil, you're screwed here if you don't have the right lawyer.
But hey, what do you expect in a dry county that has the only XXX drive-in theater I've ever seen.Heck, check out this suppressed book and bear in mind, we still have that same sheriff!
Sigh.http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Smith\_County\_Justice [wikileaks.org]And yes, I'm anonymous because I value my freedom.
Just posting here could put me in jail.
I suppose I should be using Tor too but it's alright, nobody here understands technical issues anyhow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146339</id>
	<title>What pisses me off about this....</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1243608480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that it puts me in the uncomfortable and rare position of beeing on Micro$ofts side.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that it puts me in the uncomfortable and rare position of beeing on Micro $ ofts side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that it puts me in the uncomfortable and rare position of beeing on Micro$ofts side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146215</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243607340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I struggled through the patent when the story broke. It seemed to me that the proposal was to store the body text in one file (note: no markup) and to store the markup \_plus indexing information\_ in another file. So the second file would say somthing like "Char position 1: ; Char position 12:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>." Why this is a great idea was lost on me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I struggled through the patent when the story broke .
It seemed to me that the proposal was to store the body text in one file ( note : no markup ) and to store the markup \ _plus indexing information \ _ in another file .
So the second file would say somthing like " Char position 1 : ; Char position 12 : .
" Why this is a great idea was lost on me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I struggled through the patent when the story broke.
It seemed to me that the proposal was to store the body text in one file (note: no markup) and to store the markup \_plus indexing information\_ in another file.
So the second file would say somthing like "Char position 1: ; Char position 12: .
" Why this is a great idea was lost on me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148463</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1243685820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ofcourse there is the risk that MS will simply buy this company so that they can use the patent themselves...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ofcourse there is the risk that MS will simply buy this company so that they can use the patent themselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ofcourse there is the risk that MS will simply buy this company so that they can use the patent themselves...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28149527</id>
	<title>Only $98 ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243700100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it could have been $95 or $2007. We just got lucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it could have been $ 95 or $ 2007 .
We just got lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it could have been $95 or $2007.
We just got lucky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144179</id>
	<title>$98 isnt alot compared to RIAA/etc</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1243592880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe they were after RIAA sized multiples of damages</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe they were after RIAA sized multiples of damages</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe they were after RIAA sized multiples of damages</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147269</id>
	<title>Re:Altova</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1243620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, we have Altova installed where I work... but only a single license for our entire network.</p><p>Beats me as to why we have it.  The only time I ever use it is if I accidentally double-click an XML file in an Explorer view rather than opening it through my IDE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , we have Altova installed where I work... but only a single license for our entire network.Beats me as to why we have it .
The only time I ever use it is if I accidentally double-click an XML file in an Explorer view rather than opening it through my IDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, we have Altova installed where I work... but only a single license for our entire network.Beats me as to why we have it.
The only time I ever use it is if I accidentally double-click an XML file in an Explorer view rather than opening it through my IDE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144693</id>
	<title>Isn't this a patent for a style sheet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243595760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this a patent for a style sheet?</p><p>Separate document that covers the architecture from the content?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this a patent for a style sheet ? Separate document that covers the architecture from the content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this a patent for a style sheet?Separate document that covers the architecture from the content?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144523</id>
	<title>XML editing in WORD?!</title>
	<author>N!NJA</author>
	<datestamp>1243594800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$98 is too much even for Word itself! besides, how great is XML editing in Word 2007? on version 2003 it just looks like a lame-ass text editor. however, if the lawsuit referred to Microsoft's free XML Notepad 2006, i would understand the reason for *some* of the ado. it's a great utility. butit it isnt worth more than $20 either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 98 is too much even for Word itself !
besides , how great is XML editing in Word 2007 ?
on version 2003 it just looks like a lame-ass text editor .
however , if the lawsuit referred to Microsoft 's free XML Notepad 2006 , i would understand the reason for * some * of the ado .
it 's a great utility .
butit it isnt worth more than $ 20 either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$98 is too much even for Word itself!
besides, how great is XML editing in Word 2007?
on version 2003 it just looks like a lame-ass text editor.
however, if the lawsuit referred to Microsoft's free XML Notepad 2006, i would understand the reason for *some* of the ado.
it's a great utility.
butit it isnt worth more than $20 either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144291</id>
	<title>That makes sense...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243593540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only if you trying to program an XML parser without using an existing library.  Creating the XML file is easy.  Reading the damn thing back in is hard.  Something I found out during one of my programming classes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if you trying to program an XML parser without using an existing library .
Creating the XML file is easy .
Reading the damn thing back in is hard .
Something I found out during one of my programming classes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if you trying to program an XML parser without using an existing library.
Creating the XML file is easy.
Reading the damn thing back in is hard.
Something I found out during one of my programming classes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144015</id>
	<title>What about Open Office</title>
	<author>cbs4385</author>
	<datestamp>1243592100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't all the ODF documents just XML documents?  How much does Open Office have to pay for each download?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't all the ODF documents just XML documents ?
How much does Open Office have to pay for each download ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't all the ODF documents just XML documents?
How much does Open Office have to pay for each download?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144155</id>
	<title>Re:What about Open Office</title>
	<author>msobkow</author>
	<datestamp>1243592700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If it's an issue of editing XML documents in the sense of using XML to store structured data (such as Ooo documents), then the patent should be overturned.  The whole <i>point</i> of XML is to provide a <i>generic</i> (and thereby <i>obvious</i>) means of structuring and editing data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's an issue of editing XML documents in the sense of using XML to store structured data ( such as Ooo documents ) , then the patent should be overturned .
The whole point of XML is to provide a generic ( and thereby obvious ) means of structuring and editing data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If it's an issue of editing XML documents in the sense of using XML to store structured data (such as Ooo documents), then the patent should be overturned.
The whole point of XML is to provide a generic (and thereby obvious) means of structuring and editing data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144051</id>
	<title>Let's all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243592220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>write XML editors, and send the source code to the company using disposable email addresses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>write XML editors , and send the source code to the company using disposable email addresses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>write XML editors, and send the source code to the company using disposable email addresses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147629</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1243626540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You make it sound like it's a good thing..."</p><p>Well, since you mention it, YES, it's a good thing!!  What could possibly be better, than for a dozen winning suits against multi-billion dollar companies over frivolous patent suits?  When the idiocy begins to hurt the idiot who are so successful at lobbying Washington and other capitals around the world, THEN we might see some sanity forced into patent law.</p><p>Really, I want another dozen such suits brought against Microsoft quickly.  Each one of them worth a billion dollars or more.  Redmond will be RACING to Washington, to BEG Congress to invalidate the portfolios of patent trolls.  Of course, in the process, Microsoft's own trolls will be set adrift.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You make it sound like it 's a good thing... " Well , since you mention it , YES , it 's a good thing ! !
What could possibly be better , than for a dozen winning suits against multi-billion dollar companies over frivolous patent suits ?
When the idiocy begins to hurt the idiot who are so successful at lobbying Washington and other capitals around the world , THEN we might see some sanity forced into patent law.Really , I want another dozen such suits brought against Microsoft quickly .
Each one of them worth a billion dollars or more .
Redmond will be RACING to Washington , to BEG Congress to invalidate the portfolios of patent trolls .
Of course , in the process , Microsoft 's own trolls will be set adrift.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You make it sound like it's a good thing..."Well, since you mention it, YES, it's a good thing!!
What could possibly be better, than for a dozen winning suits against multi-billion dollar companies over frivolous patent suits?
When the idiocy begins to hurt the idiot who are so successful at lobbying Washington and other capitals around the world, THEN we might see some sanity forced into patent law.Really, I want another dozen such suits brought against Microsoft quickly.
Each one of them worth a billion dollars or more.
Redmond will be RACING to Washington, to BEG Congress to invalidate the portfolios of patent trolls.
Of course, in the process, Microsoft's own trolls will be set adrift.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147039</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243617120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura, a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by Xerox</p></div></blockquote><p>And, <a href="http://www.sgmlsource.com/" title="sgmlsource.com">Charles Goldfarb</a> [sgmlsource.com] says he invented SGML in '74, which means the amount of prior art to something like XML is huge.  The whole <em>point</em> was to separate content from layout, as well as (theoretically) allowing more automation on documents.</p><p>I utterly fail to see how this can possibly be something which can be patented by someone who filed an application in '94.</p><p>This sounds awfully fishy to me.</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura , a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by XeroxAnd , Charles Goldfarb [ sgmlsource.com ] says he invented SGML in '74 , which means the amount of prior art to something like XML is huge .
The whole point was to separate content from layout , as well as ( theoretically ) allowing more automation on documents.I utterly fail to see how this can possibly be something which can be patented by someone who filed an application in '94.This sounds awfully fishy to me.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The example in the patent looks like the same early-XML format used by Ventura, a desktop publishing program released in 1986 by XeroxAnd, Charles Goldfarb [sgmlsource.com] says he invented SGML in '74, which means the amount of prior art to something like XML is huge.
The whole point was to separate content from layout, as well as (theoretically) allowing more automation on documents.I utterly fail to see how this can possibly be something which can be patented by someone who filed an application in '94.This sounds awfully fishy to me.Cheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148191</id>
	<title>Re:Patent Makes My Head Asplode</title>
	<author>Morth</author>
	<datestamp>1243680480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the part "Summary of the invention" instead. It's quite undestandable</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the part " Summary of the invention " instead .
It 's quite undestandable</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the part "Summary of the invention" instead.
It's quite undestandable</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146743</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 ships without notepad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243613760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Saves you $100 in a blink of an eye<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>Are you sure it does?
My Win 7 RC has notepad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saves you $ 100 in a blink of an eye : ) Are you sure it does ?
My Win 7 RC has notepad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saves you $100 in a blink of an eye :)Are you sure it does?
My Win 7 RC has notepad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145285</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Play</title>
	<author>MonkWB</author>
	<datestamp>1243599420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>First they came for Microsoft...
<br>
But I was not Microsoft so I laughed at the irony.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for Microsoft.. . But I was not Microsoft so I laughed at the irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for Microsoft...

But I was not Microsoft so I laughed at the irony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147479</id>
	<title>retribution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243624260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An i4i, and a tooth4tooth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An i4i , and a tooth4tooth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An i4i, and a tooth4tooth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145139</id>
	<title>Re:Fair Play</title>
	<author>rzekson</author>
	<datestamp>1243598280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't become a patent troll by simply acquiring lots of obvious patents. You become a troll by using those patents to harass others. Lots of companies big and small file patents for DEFENSIVE reasons. Once you have a patent, it's much harder to sue you for infringement; after all, the patent office already agreed that you're doing something innovative. So as long as the patent office awards patents for obvious stuff, filing for such patents for defensive reasons is not only fair, but essentially required. You don't want to risk investing lots of money to develop and market a new product only to find out later that you've been sued by some stupid patent-squatter. Instead of blaming the big players, who only exercise their common sense right to protect their investment, the community should exert pressure on the patent office to start uniformly rejecting ALL such applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't become a patent troll by simply acquiring lots of obvious patents .
You become a troll by using those patents to harass others .
Lots of companies big and small file patents for DEFENSIVE reasons .
Once you have a patent , it 's much harder to sue you for infringement ; after all , the patent office already agreed that you 're doing something innovative .
So as long as the patent office awards patents for obvious stuff , filing for such patents for defensive reasons is not only fair , but essentially required .
You do n't want to risk investing lots of money to develop and market a new product only to find out later that you 've been sued by some stupid patent-squatter .
Instead of blaming the big players , who only exercise their common sense right to protect their investment , the community should exert pressure on the patent office to start uniformly rejecting ALL such applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't become a patent troll by simply acquiring lots of obvious patents.
You become a troll by using those patents to harass others.
Lots of companies big and small file patents for DEFENSIVE reasons.
Once you have a patent, it's much harder to sue you for infringement; after all, the patent office already agreed that you're doing something innovative.
So as long as the patent office awards patents for obvious stuff, filing for such patents for defensive reasons is not only fair, but essentially required.
You don't want to risk investing lots of money to develop and market a new product only to find out later that you've been sued by some stupid patent-squatter.
Instead of blaming the big players, who only exercise their common sense right to protect their investment, the community should exert pressure on the patent office to start uniformly rejecting ALL such applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145033</id>
	<title>$98 is a Bargain...</title>
	<author>Hercules Peanut</author>
	<datestamp>1243597680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...If you consider some poor sucker is paying <a href="http://www.pcconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=7321122" title="pcconnection.com">$655.52</a> [pcconnection.com] for the whole office package. I'd rather pay $98 for an xml editor than $557.52 for MS Office sans editor. Not that the xml editor is that important but I'd rather throw away $98 than throw away ~$600.<br>
<br>
Perhaps this is a little poetic justice for MS's fleecing of their own customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...If you consider some poor sucker is paying $ 655.52 [ pcconnection.com ] for the whole office package .
I 'd rather pay $ 98 for an xml editor than $ 557.52 for MS Office sans editor .
Not that the xml editor is that important but I 'd rather throw away $ 98 than throw away ~ $ 600 .
Perhaps this is a little poetic justice for MS 's fleecing of their own customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...If you consider some poor sucker is paying $655.52 [pcconnection.com] for the whole office package.
I'd rather pay $98 for an xml editor than $557.52 for MS Office sans editor.
Not that the xml editor is that important but I'd rather throw away $98 than throw away ~$600.
Perhaps this is a little poetic justice for MS's fleecing of their own customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28149217</id>
	<title>Prior art?</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1243697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 1980s called. They want their SGML editors back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1980s called .
They want their SGML editors back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1980s called.
They want their SGML editors back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146377</id>
	<title>Re:Filed in 1994</title>
	<author>Decameron81</author>
	<datestamp>1243608840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So Basically the company was able to present evidence that Microsoft intentionally reviewed, and then disregarded the patent and implemented the same feature as the patent holder tried to sell them. That probably didn't sit very well with the jury. Microsoft should have been a good citizen and tried to strike down the ridiculous patent, rather than just ignore it and hope for the best.</p></div><p>That's a very good point, but what's so wrong about copying the idea?  Is the idea THAT good that it needs to be patented and protected as such?<br> <br>

It's not like this particular idea is doing any good for us all... so why grant the patent?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Basically the company was able to present evidence that Microsoft intentionally reviewed , and then disregarded the patent and implemented the same feature as the patent holder tried to sell them .
That probably did n't sit very well with the jury .
Microsoft should have been a good citizen and tried to strike down the ridiculous patent , rather than just ignore it and hope for the best.That 's a very good point , but what 's so wrong about copying the idea ?
Is the idea THAT good that it needs to be patented and protected as such ?
It 's not like this particular idea is doing any good for us all... so why grant the patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Basically the company was able to present evidence that Microsoft intentionally reviewed, and then disregarded the patent and implemented the same feature as the patent holder tried to sell them.
That probably didn't sit very well with the jury.
Microsoft should have been a good citizen and tried to strike down the ridiculous patent, rather than just ignore it and hope for the best.That's a very good point, but what's so wrong about copying the idea?
Is the idea THAT good that it needs to be patented and protected as such?
It's not like this particular idea is doing any good for us all... so why grant the patent?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779</id>
	<title>Re:Texas? You Don't Say!</title>
	<author>xlotlu</author>
	<datestamp>1243596180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine!</p></div><p>You make it sound like it's a good thing...</p><p>I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML ("separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document").</p><p>Besides the obvious implications for software like OpenOffice, this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editing: spreadsheets, UML diagrams, math formulas, MS's Visio/Project outputs, the list goes on. Hell, all modern browsers support a WYSIWYG HTML editor. Do they infringe this patent?</p><p>This is absolutely terrible. The only good thing about it is that Microsoft has the money to overturn this joke of a patent, and can get enough media coverage to point out how broken the U.S. patent system is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine ! You make it sound like it 's a good thing...I have n't read the patent , but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of " WYSIWYG " editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format , not only XML ( " separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document " ) .Besides the obvious implications for software like OpenOffice , this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editing : spreadsheets , UML diagrams , math formulas , MS 's Visio/Project outputs , the list goes on .
Hell , all modern browsers support a WYSIWYG HTML editor .
Do they infringe this patent ? This is absolutely terrible .
The only good thing about it is that Microsoft has the money to overturn this joke of a patent , and can get enough media coverage to point out how broken the U.S. patent system is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do believe Microsoft may be getting a taste of its own medicine!You make it sound like it's a good thing...I haven't read the patent, but TFA makes it sound like it applies to any kind of "WYSIWYG" editing of a document that gets saved in a structured format, not only XML ("separating the manipulation of content from the architecture of the document").Besides the obvious implications for software like OpenOffice, this covers pretty much any type of WYSIWYG editing: spreadsheets, UML diagrams, math formulas, MS's Visio/Project outputs, the list goes on.
Hell, all modern browsers support a WYSIWYG HTML editor.
Do they infringe this patent?This is absolutely terrible.
The only good thing about it is that Microsoft has the money to overturn this joke of a patent, and can get enough media coverage to point out how broken the U.S. patent system is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28156663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28160751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28149781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28158635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28156567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_1843201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28156663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28158635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28156567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28149781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145933
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28143985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145235
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147039
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28160751
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28148463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28147269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28145139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28146743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_1843201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_1843201.28144079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
