<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_1649220</id>
	<title>SCO Sells Its UNIX Product Line To London Firm</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245257820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"SCO just <a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/105746,sco-finds-a-buyer-at-the-last-minute.aspx">forged a deal to sell its UNIX product line</a> to Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London.  Under the terms of the deal, SCO would continue to exist as a separate company helmed by Darl McBride, with its primary remaining assets being related to its mobile platform offerings.  However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be considered 'done' yet.  It could fall through as others have in the past."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " SCO just forged a deal to sell its UNIX product line to Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London .
Under the terms of the deal , SCO would continue to exist as a separate company helmed by Darl McBride , with its primary remaining assets being related to its mobile platform offerings .
However , it 's noted that this deal must be approved by the court , and should not be considered 'done ' yet .
It could fall through as others have in the past .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "SCO just forged a deal to sell its UNIX product line to Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London.
Under the terms of the deal, SCO would continue to exist as a separate company helmed by Darl McBride, with its primary remaining assets being related to its mobile platform offerings.
However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be considered 'done' yet.
It could fall through as others have in the past.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28367539</id>
	<title>Huh...</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1245240120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this be the beginning of the end for SCO?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be the beginning of the end for SCO ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be the beginning of the end for SCO?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363221</id>
	<title>A tale of two courts</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245261900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A while back a Judge ruled SCO does not own the UNIX(tm) copyrights.<br>((That would be SysV copyrights that were gutted by the BSD settlement, but that is a whole other story.))<br>SCO's argument in that case was that they could not run the UNIX business without the copyrights. And thus when they bought the business they must have bought the copyrights.</p><p>Now SCO is in BK court and in the processes of selling the business. The problem is they are also in the appeals court where their argument that the only way to sell the business is with the copyrights is being evaluated. So SCO is<br>a) selling the business without the copyrights in the BK court.<br>b) arguing that to buy the business you must get the copyrights in the appeals court.</p><p>It is supposed to be bad practice to argue different things in different courts at the same time.<br>But that does not stop SCO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back a Judge ruled SCO does not own the UNIX ( tm ) copyrights .
( ( That would be SysV copyrights that were gutted by the BSD settlement , but that is a whole other story .
) ) SCO 's argument in that case was that they could not run the UNIX business without the copyrights .
And thus when they bought the business they must have bought the copyrights.Now SCO is in BK court and in the processes of selling the business .
The problem is they are also in the appeals court where their argument that the only way to sell the business is with the copyrights is being evaluated .
So SCO isa ) selling the business without the copyrights in the BK court.b ) arguing that to buy the business you must get the copyrights in the appeals court.It is supposed to be bad practice to argue different things in different courts at the same time.But that does not stop SCO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back a Judge ruled SCO does not own the UNIX(tm) copyrights.
((That would be SysV copyrights that were gutted by the BSD settlement, but that is a whole other story.
))SCO's argument in that case was that they could not run the UNIX business without the copyrights.
And thus when they bought the business they must have bought the copyrights.Now SCO is in BK court and in the processes of selling the business.
The problem is they are also in the appeals court where their argument that the only way to sell the business is with the copyrights is being evaluated.
So SCO isa) selling the business without the copyrights in the BK court.b) arguing that to buy the business you must get the copyrights in the appeals court.It is supposed to be bad practice to argue different things in different courts at the same time.But that does not stop SCO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364405</id>
	<title>Re:A tale of two courts</title>
	<author>rdavidson3</author>
	<datestamp>1245267600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now SCO is in BK court</p></div><p>I've heard of kangaroo courts, but not burger king courts.... mmmm... getting hungry... what were we talking about it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now SCO is in BK courtI 've heard of kangaroo courts , but not burger king courts.... mmmm... getting hungry... what were we talking about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now SCO is in BK courtI've heard of kangaroo courts, but not burger king courts.... mmmm... getting hungry... what were we talking about it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28372497</id>
	<title>Wait till Darl find out he could win in Zimbabwe</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1245332880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of course if the opposing counsel finds out he could give a bigger bribe and then Darl would find himself in a gunfight with a machete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of course if the opposing counsel finds out he could give a bigger bribe and then Darl would find himself in a gunfight with a machete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course if the opposing counsel finds out he could give a bigger bribe and then Darl would find himself in a gunfight with a machete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363497</id>
	<title>What about Novell?</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1245263280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does SCO even have the right to sell their Unix business without the approval of Novell?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does SCO even have the right to sell their Unix business without the approval of Novell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does SCO even have the right to sell their Unix business without the approval of Novell?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363987</id>
	<title>Re:Someone probably wished for immortality</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1245265200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But their brand name is so corrupted from the terrible quality of their products, the ineptitude of their management and their shenannigans in court that the name would be a drag on any company associated with it...
<p>
Which does suggest  a use for them. SCO could become a corporate katamari, rolling up all manner of odious scum into one gigantic ball of shit which could, at some point in the future, then be launched into space. They should start by acquiring those auto warranty scammers and the RIAA. Once they build up some momentum, they could clean the place up in no time. It might take a while before they're big enough to roll Microsoft up but the end result would definitely be worthwhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But their brand name is so corrupted from the terrible quality of their products , the ineptitude of their management and their shenannigans in court that the name would be a drag on any company associated with it.. . Which does suggest a use for them .
SCO could become a corporate katamari , rolling up all manner of odious scum into one gigantic ball of shit which could , at some point in the future , then be launched into space .
They should start by acquiring those auto warranty scammers and the RIAA .
Once they build up some momentum , they could clean the place up in no time .
It might take a while before they 're big enough to roll Microsoft up but the end result would definitely be worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But their brand name is so corrupted from the terrible quality of their products, the ineptitude of their management and their shenannigans in court that the name would be a drag on any company associated with it...

Which does suggest  a use for them.
SCO could become a corporate katamari, rolling up all manner of odious scum into one gigantic ball of shit which could, at some point in the future, then be launched into space.
They should start by acquiring those auto warranty scammers and the RIAA.
Once they build up some momentum, they could clean the place up in no time.
It might take a while before they're big enough to roll Microsoft up but the end result would definitely be worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368125</id>
	<title>Re:A wise man once said...</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245244740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A wise man once said:</p> </div><p>Unfortunately, there was a big gray box were his words were supposed to be, so no one could hear him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A wise man once said : Unfortunately , there was a big gray box were his words were supposed to be , so no one could hear him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A wise man once said: Unfortunately, there was a big gray box were his words were supposed to be, so no one could hear him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365019</id>
	<title>Re:Wait...</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245270120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Wonder where they'd be if the had put half as much effort into selling their products instead of lawyers fees.</i></p><p>If they put the same amount and <i>quality</i> of effort as they did into their legal arguments?</p><p>Probably same place they are now, in bankruptcy court, but instead of their creditors being Novel and a pipe fund, it'd be all the plaintiffs' owed damages when SCO was ruled liable for their servers exploding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder where they 'd be if the had put half as much effort into selling their products instead of lawyers fees.If they put the same amount and quality of effort as they did into their legal arguments ? Probably same place they are now , in bankruptcy court , but instead of their creditors being Novel and a pipe fund , it 'd be all the plaintiffs ' owed damages when SCO was ruled liable for their servers exploding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder where they'd be if the had put half as much effort into selling their products instead of lawyers fees.If they put the same amount and quality of effort as they did into their legal arguments?Probably same place they are now, in bankruptcy court, but instead of their creditors being Novel and a pipe fund, it'd be all the plaintiffs' owed damages when SCO was ruled liable for their servers exploding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363761</id>
	<title>Why did you headline this as a done deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be<br>&gt; considered 'done' yet.</p><p>Then why did you headline it as if it were?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; However , it 's noted that this deal must be approved by the court , and should not be &gt; considered 'done ' yet.Then why did you headline it as if it were ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be&gt; considered 'done' yet.Then why did you headline it as if it were?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366203</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>kaaposc</author>
	<datestamp>1245232860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone know who actually uses SCO products if any?</p></div><p>One of Russia's largest banks "Sberbank" in 2007 signed two year contract with SCO official dealers in Russia "Business Console Ltd." about licensing their ~1,500 servers running SCO OpenServer. This fall contract ends. What will they do with their OSes then? Let's wait and see!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know who actually uses SCO products if any ? One of Russia 's largest banks " Sberbank " in 2007 signed two year contract with SCO official dealers in Russia " Business Console Ltd. " about licensing their ~ 1,500 servers running SCO OpenServer .
This fall contract ends .
What will they do with their OSes then ?
Let 's wait and see !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know who actually uses SCO products if any?One of Russia's largest banks "Sberbank" in 2007 signed two year contract with SCO official dealers in Russia "Business Console Ltd." about licensing their ~1,500 servers running SCO OpenServer.
This fall contract ends.
What will they do with their OSes then?
Let's wait and see!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363195</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>Acapulco</author>
	<datestamp>1245261780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone know who actually uses SCO products if any?
<br> <br>
Who buys something that no one (or mostly no one) uses?
<br> <br>
Maybe lots of people use it that I'm unaware of. Care to enlighten me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know who actually uses SCO products if any ?
Who buys something that no one ( or mostly no one ) uses ?
Maybe lots of people use it that I 'm unaware of .
Care to enlighten me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know who actually uses SCO products if any?
Who buys something that no one (or mostly no one) uses?
Maybe lots of people use it that I'm unaware of.
Care to enlighten me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365359</id>
	<title>All joking aside, what inspired this?</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1245271680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have trouble believing Microsoft are pulling the strings here - I'd have thought they'd have realised by now that this was a complete waste of time.</p><p>Unless, of course, their aim isn't to destabilise Linux completely but just give their salesmen a bargaining chip in large negotiations - in which case there <b>may</b> be a return on investment.</p><p>Assuming Microsoft aren't pulling the strings, what on Earth would possess any company to even consider this?  Even the tiniest bit of due diligence - so tiny that you don't even read the IT press to get the IT world's view on it - would show that SCO have been doing this for five years without so much as an iota of success and quite a lot of defeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have trouble believing Microsoft are pulling the strings here - I 'd have thought they 'd have realised by now that this was a complete waste of time.Unless , of course , their aim is n't to destabilise Linux completely but just give their salesmen a bargaining chip in large negotiations - in which case there may be a return on investment.Assuming Microsoft are n't pulling the strings , what on Earth would possess any company to even consider this ?
Even the tiniest bit of due diligence - so tiny that you do n't even read the IT press to get the IT world 's view on it - would show that SCO have been doing this for five years without so much as an iota of success and quite a lot of defeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have trouble believing Microsoft are pulling the strings here - I'd have thought they'd have realised by now that this was a complete waste of time.Unless, of course, their aim isn't to destabilise Linux completely but just give their salesmen a bargaining chip in large negotiations - in which case there may be a return on investment.Assuming Microsoft aren't pulling the strings, what on Earth would possess any company to even consider this?
Even the tiniest bit of due diligence - so tiny that you don't even read the IT press to get the IT world's view on it - would show that SCO have been doing this for five years without so much as an iota of success and quite a lot of defeat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28369003</id>
	<title>Because the managers are doing a great job</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1245253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scox-scam is nothing but 1\% of msft's ongoing fud campaign against linux. Why do you think msft sponsored the entire thing? Why do you think they are suing ibm? IBM does not even have a linux distribution.</p><p>IBM contributed to linux, and that scared msft. So msft wanted (and still wants) it to be know that if you contribute to linux, you may be served with a bogus lawsuit. The entire point of the lawsuit is to have a chilling effect on potential linux contributers. And possibly linux users, since linux users were told they would have to pay scox $699 per CPU, or scox would sue them as well.</p><p>In such a lawsuit, it does not matter if you in the right, if you can not afford the lawsuit, you lose as soon as the suit is filed, just ask TomTom.</p><p>Scox has never had a profitable quarter, not once in their entire existence. Scox would have been out of business five years ago, if not for the generous contributions from Redmond. Seriously, research scox's financial situation before scox filed the suit.</p><p>Msft paid some hicks in Utah to file a bogus lawsuit, and the deal has worked out nicely for msft, and the Utah hicks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scox-scam is nothing but 1 \ % of msft 's ongoing fud campaign against linux .
Why do you think msft sponsored the entire thing ?
Why do you think they are suing ibm ?
IBM does not even have a linux distribution.IBM contributed to linux , and that scared msft .
So msft wanted ( and still wants ) it to be know that if you contribute to linux , you may be served with a bogus lawsuit .
The entire point of the lawsuit is to have a chilling effect on potential linux contributers .
And possibly linux users , since linux users were told they would have to pay scox $ 699 per CPU , or scox would sue them as well.In such a lawsuit , it does not matter if you in the right , if you can not afford the lawsuit , you lose as soon as the suit is filed , just ask TomTom.Scox has never had a profitable quarter , not once in their entire existence .
Scox would have been out of business five years ago , if not for the generous contributions from Redmond .
Seriously , research scox 's financial situation before scox filed the suit.Msft paid some hicks in Utah to file a bogus lawsuit , and the deal has worked out nicely for msft , and the Utah hicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scox-scam is nothing but 1\% of msft's ongoing fud campaign against linux.
Why do you think msft sponsored the entire thing?
Why do you think they are suing ibm?
IBM does not even have a linux distribution.IBM contributed to linux, and that scared msft.
So msft wanted (and still wants) it to be know that if you contribute to linux, you may be served with a bogus lawsuit.
The entire point of the lawsuit is to have a chilling effect on potential linux contributers.
And possibly linux users, since linux users were told they would have to pay scox $699 per CPU, or scox would sue them as well.In such a lawsuit, it does not matter if you in the right, if you can not afford the lawsuit, you lose as soon as the suit is filed, just ask TomTom.Scox has never had a profitable quarter, not once in their entire existence.
Scox would have been out of business five years ago, if not for the generous contributions from Redmond.
Seriously, research scox's financial situation before scox filed the suit.Msft paid some hicks in Utah to file a bogus lawsuit, and the deal has worked out nicely for msft, and the Utah hicks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28369053</id>
	<title>given M$ behind the scenes</title>
	<author>alizard</author>
	<datestamp>1245253860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this actually makes sense. If Win7 does <b>not</b> save M$, a fallback position with a proprietary *nix with virtualization and XP built in by default with their flagship apps ported to Win-IX with its introduction and their less important apps ported to -ix as fast as their programmers can work might be a Very Good Thing for them to have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this actually makes sense .
If Win7 does not save M $ , a fallback position with a proprietary * nix with virtualization and XP built in by default with their flagship apps ported to Win-IX with its introduction and their less important apps ported to -ix as fast as their programmers can work might be a Very Good Thing for them to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this actually makes sense.
If Win7 does not save M$, a fallback position with a proprietary *nix with virtualization and XP built in by default with their flagship apps ported to Win-IX with its introduction and their less important apps ported to -ix as fast as their programmers can work might be a Very Good Thing for them to have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366567</id>
	<title>Re:A tale of two courts</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1245234540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It is supposed to be bad practice to argue different things in different courts at the same time.</i></p><p>Huh?</p><p>Heck:  Sometimes it's good practice to argue different (and contradictory) things in the SAME court at the same time.  It's called "pleading the alternative".</p><p>Granted it's usually used in criminal law (where the prosecution has to prove ALL the points of the crime and the defendant only has to show that the prosecution failed to prove one of them).  But I see no reason SCO shouldn't try both these approaches (though I wish they'd lose, die, and get it over with - without creating a successor that could carry on the battle).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is supposed to be bad practice to argue different things in different courts at the same time.Huh ? Heck : Sometimes it 's good practice to argue different ( and contradictory ) things in the SAME court at the same time .
It 's called " pleading the alternative " .Granted it 's usually used in criminal law ( where the prosecution has to prove ALL the points of the crime and the defendant only has to show that the prosecution failed to prove one of them ) .
But I see no reason SCO should n't try both these approaches ( though I wish they 'd lose , die , and get it over with - without creating a successor that could carry on the battle ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is supposed to be bad practice to argue different things in different courts at the same time.Huh?Heck:  Sometimes it's good practice to argue different (and contradictory) things in the SAME court at the same time.
It's called "pleading the alternative".Granted it's usually used in criminal law (where the prosecution has to prove ALL the points of the crime and the defendant only has to show that the prosecution failed to prove one of them).
But I see no reason SCO shouldn't try both these approaches (though I wish they'd lose, die, and get it over with - without creating a successor that could carry on the battle).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28369765</id>
	<title>Re:A wise man once said...</title>
	<author>ClickOnThis</author>
	<datestamp>1245260940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A wise man once said...</p></div><p>To be specific, it was said by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's\_a\_sucker\_born\_every\_minute" title="wikipedia.org">David Hannum</a> [wikipedia.org] as a cynical twist on P. T. Barnum's credo "there's a customer born every minute" after an exhibit of Barnum's was exposed as a fake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A wise man once said...To be specific , it was said by David Hannum [ wikipedia.org ] as a cynical twist on P. T. Barnum 's credo " there 's a customer born every minute " after an exhibit of Barnum 's was exposed as a fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A wise man once said...To be specific, it was said by David Hannum [wikipedia.org] as a cynical twist on P. T. Barnum's credo "there's a customer born every minute" after an exhibit of Barnum's was exposed as a fake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365719</id>
	<title>Re:Who?</title>
	<author>hurfy</author>
	<datestamp>1245230340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some specialty accounting systems and such are written for it. Ours included the hardware and OpenServer. However, I think there were only a few hundred copies of this program sold split between AIX and Openserver and is not pushed any longer by the multinational that bought the national corp that bought the local company we bought the program from....</p><p>That company only accounts for a hundred or two SCO sales. While there are similar systems using it many have similar numbers. I just don't see much value there. We bought ours 5 years ago and doubt there have been but a handful of sales since then for this particular program.</p><p>I have no idea if we represent any ongoing revenue, we pay nothing directly and there is no interaction with the O/S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some specialty accounting systems and such are written for it .
Ours included the hardware and OpenServer .
However , I think there were only a few hundred copies of this program sold split between AIX and Openserver and is not pushed any longer by the multinational that bought the national corp that bought the local company we bought the program from....That company only accounts for a hundred or two SCO sales .
While there are similar systems using it many have similar numbers .
I just do n't see much value there .
We bought ours 5 years ago and doubt there have been but a handful of sales since then for this particular program.I have no idea if we represent any ongoing revenue , we pay nothing directly and there is no interaction with the O/S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some specialty accounting systems and such are written for it.
Ours included the hardware and OpenServer.
However, I think there were only a few hundred copies of this program sold split between AIX and Openserver and is not pushed any longer by the multinational that bought the national corp that bought the local company we bought the program from....That company only accounts for a hundred or two SCO sales.
While there are similar systems using it many have similar numbers.
I just don't see much value there.
We bought ours 5 years ago and doubt there have been but a handful of sales since then for this particular program.I have no idea if we represent any ongoing revenue, we pay nothing directly and there is no interaction with the O/S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28370843</id>
	<title>Re:Gulf Capital Partners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245316440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Third possibility: Some friend (as in enemy of my enemy) of SCO, who shall remain unnamed, knows someone that doesn't mind losing some pocket money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Third possibility : Some friend ( as in enemy of my enemy ) of SCO , who shall remain unnamed , knows someone that does n't mind losing some pocket money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Third possibility: Some friend (as in enemy of my enemy) of SCO, who shall remain unnamed, knows someone that doesn't mind losing some pocket money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365511</id>
	<title>Bridge for sale</title>
	<author>Citizen of Earth</author>
	<datestamp>1245229320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a Slackware 3.3 disc for sale to this London company.  Its OS is much better than SCOs and I'm willing to part with it for only $5-million.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Slackware 3.3 disc for sale to this London company .
Its OS is much better than SCOs and I 'm willing to part with it for only $ 5-million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Slackware 3.3 disc for sale to this London company.
Its OS is much better than SCOs and I'm willing to part with it for only $5-million.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363433</id>
	<title>Worst thing to come out of this SCO mess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the huge stain splashed on the open source community by PJ and her gang of thugs at Groklaw. Bullying and intimidation of the IT press and individuals was all you ever got from Groklaw... well, that, and a lot of amateur legal advice.</p><p>If you read groklaw and you don't think any of this is true, please keep in mind that groklaw is a heavily censored forum, unlike<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the huge stain splashed on the open source community by PJ and her gang of thugs at Groklaw .
Bullying and intimidation of the IT press and individuals was all you ever got from Groklaw... well , that , and a lot of amateur legal advice.If you read groklaw and you do n't think any of this is true , please keep in mind that groklaw is a heavily censored forum , unlike / .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the huge stain splashed on the open source community by PJ and her gang of thugs at Groklaw.
Bullying and intimidation of the IT press and individuals was all you ever got from Groklaw... well, that, and a lot of amateur legal advice.If you read groklaw and you don't think any of this is true, please keep in mind that groklaw is a heavily censored forum, unlike /.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368233</id>
	<title>Re:Gulf Capital Partners</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1245245520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They're an investment banking firm.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, that is Gulf Capital Partners, Inc, of Houston.  There is also a Gulf Capital, of London, but they are a consultancy firm specialising in Iraq and other emerging markets in the Middle East. So my guess is that this is a new company formed specifically for this transaction, perhaps taking advantage of the other similarly named companies as a smokescreen to give this transaction the credibility it needs to buy a delay in the bankruptcy proceedings. Unfortunately the UK government have decided that their company register only needs to be available from 7am to midnight UK time (WTF? Are they using Mechanical Turk on the backend or something?), so I can't confirm any of this.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're an investment banking firm .
No , that is Gulf Capital Partners , Inc , of Houston .
There is also a Gulf Capital , of London , but they are a consultancy firm specialising in Iraq and other emerging markets in the Middle East .
So my guess is that this is a new company formed specifically for this transaction , perhaps taking advantage of the other similarly named companies as a smokescreen to give this transaction the credibility it needs to buy a delay in the bankruptcy proceedings .
Unfortunately the UK government have decided that their company register only needs to be available from 7am to midnight UK time ( WTF ?
Are they using Mechanical Turk on the backend or something ?
) , so I ca n't confirm any of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're an investment banking firm.
No, that is Gulf Capital Partners, Inc, of Houston.
There is also a Gulf Capital, of London, but they are a consultancy firm specialising in Iraq and other emerging markets in the Middle East.
So my guess is that this is a new company formed specifically for this transaction, perhaps taking advantage of the other similarly named companies as a smokescreen to give this transaction the credibility it needs to buy a delay in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Unfortunately the UK government have decided that their company register only needs to be available from 7am to midnight UK time (WTF?
Are they using Mechanical Turk on the backend or something?
), so I can't confirm any of this.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363343</id>
	<title>Someone probably wished for immortality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and didn't specify whom to make immortal. SCO was the receiver of that power and we have to live with the consequences of that wish. Fact: You can't kill SCO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and did n't specify whom to make immortal .
SCO was the receiver of that power and we have to live with the consequences of that wish .
Fact : You ca n't kill SCO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and didn't specify whom to make immortal.
SCO was the receiver of that power and we have to live with the consequences of that wish.
Fact: You can't kill SCO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366213</id>
	<title>Re:What about Novell?</title>
	<author>drgould</author>
	<datestamp>1245232860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does SCO even have the right to sell their Unix business without the approval of Novell?</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't think SCO requires Novell's approval, I don't think the original SCO required Novell's approval to sell their Unix business to then Caldera, but I admit I could be wrong.</p><p>But they most definitely require the bankruptcy court's approval.</p><p>And if it's anything like SCO's last "deal", Novell, IBM and the US Trustee are going to have a lot to say about it in court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does SCO even have the right to sell their Unix business without the approval of Novell ? I do n't think SCO requires Novell 's approval , I do n't think the original SCO required Novell 's approval to sell their Unix business to then Caldera , but I admit I could be wrong.But they most definitely require the bankruptcy court 's approval.And if it 's anything like SCO 's last " deal " , Novell , IBM and the US Trustee are going to have a lot to say about it in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does SCO even have the right to sell their Unix business without the approval of Novell?I don't think SCO requires Novell's approval, I don't think the original SCO required Novell's approval to sell their Unix business to then Caldera, but I admit I could be wrong.But they most definitely require the bankruptcy court's approval.And if it's anything like SCO's last "deal", Novell, IBM and the US Trustee are going to have a lot to say about it in court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365401</id>
	<title>Re:Why did you headline this as a done deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245271860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That headline says "sells", as in the 'ongoing' present tense, not "sold".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That headline says " sells " , as in the 'ongoing ' present tense , not " sold " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That headline says "sells", as in the 'ongoing' present tense, not "sold".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363455</id>
	<title>What does this mean?</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1245263100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fresh cash to persue copyright violations?  Is Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London a cover for someone like Microsoft?  Why would someone want to purchase SCO properties?  SCO the Unix business is almost completely dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fresh cash to persue copyright violations ?
Is Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London a cover for someone like Microsoft ?
Why would someone want to purchase SCO properties ?
SCO the Unix business is almost completely dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fresh cash to persue copyright violations?
Is Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London a cover for someone like Microsoft?
Why would someone want to purchase SCO properties?
SCO the Unix business is almost completely dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364347</id>
	<title>Re:products?</title>
	<author>eclectro</author>
	<datestamp>1245267300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>SCO have products? when did this happen?</p></div><p>Yes, now that they have sold the SCO product line, they are planning to use the money to create and sell a Linux distribution called <i>Caldera</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SCO have products ?
when did this happen ? Yes , now that they have sold the SCO product line , they are planning to use the money to create and sell a Linux distribution called Caldera</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCO have products?
when did this happen?Yes, now that they have sold the SCO product line, they are planning to use the money to create and sell a Linux distribution called Caldera
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363995</id>
	<title>why doesn't the board fire the managers?</title>
	<author>astrashe</author>
	<datestamp>1245265260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing how they keep going, and going and going.  And how a management team can fly the plane into the side of a mountain and keep their jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how they keep going , and going and going .
And how a management team can fly the plane into the side of a mountain and keep their jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how they keep going, and going and going.
And how a management team can fly the plane into the side of a mountain and keep their jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363445</id>
	<title>Nearly had a heart attack</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1245263040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8102467.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">This article</a> [bbc.co.uk] on the BBC news website was pointed to by a link saying "China lends SCO $10bn". Turns out it was a different SCO. Thank all the gods (and ceiling cat)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article [ bbc.co.uk ] on the BBC news website was pointed to by a link saying " China lends SCO $ 10bn " .
Turns out it was a different SCO .
Thank all the gods ( and ceiling cat ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article [bbc.co.uk] on the BBC news website was pointed to by a link saying "China lends SCO $10bn".
Turns out it was a different SCO.
Thank all the gods (and ceiling cat)!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363193</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1245261780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SCO actually had a product line?  And apparently more than one?</p><p>Wonder where they'd be if the had put half as much effort into selling their products instead of lawyers fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SCO actually had a product line ?
And apparently more than one ? Wonder where they 'd be if the had put half as much effort into selling their products instead of lawyers fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCO actually had a product line?
And apparently more than one?Wonder where they'd be if the had put half as much effort into selling their products instead of lawyers fees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28367159</id>
	<title>But you can have fun trying!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245237480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Fact: You can't kill SCO.</p><p>Doesn't matter.  You can have a lot of fun trying!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Fact : You ca n't kill SCO.Does n't matter .
You can have a lot of fun trying !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Fact: You can't kill SCO.Doesn't matter.
You can have a lot of fun trying!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366685</id>
	<title>Re:Gulf Capital Partners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245235140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple, they're thinking they'll profit since Microsoft is probably the money behind it, and will pay anything reasonable to keep this FUD going on, as long as it's hard to tie back to them.  They already spend millions on astroturfers.  So, you need an intermediary in some country with different disclosure regulations and so on -- and what do we see here?</p><p>No investor who did even 10\% of the normal due diligence would buy anything SCO related.  So, that's not what we have here,  that should be obvious.  An investor that stupid wouldn't have the money anymore anyway -- they'd have never made any, or lost any they found by now.  So this is something else entirely, a party or two for whom this is lunch money, but potentially profitable if it holds back their main competition might find this a "good deal" in some sense of the word "good" that has nothing to do with "moral".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple , they 're thinking they 'll profit since Microsoft is probably the money behind it , and will pay anything reasonable to keep this FUD going on , as long as it 's hard to tie back to them .
They already spend millions on astroturfers .
So , you need an intermediary in some country with different disclosure regulations and so on -- and what do we see here ? No investor who did even 10 \ % of the normal due diligence would buy anything SCO related .
So , that 's not what we have here , that should be obvious .
An investor that stupid would n't have the money anymore anyway -- they 'd have never made any , or lost any they found by now .
So this is something else entirely , a party or two for whom this is lunch money , but potentially profitable if it holds back their main competition might find this a " good deal " in some sense of the word " good " that has nothing to do with " moral " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple, they're thinking they'll profit since Microsoft is probably the money behind it, and will pay anything reasonable to keep this FUD going on, as long as it's hard to tie back to them.
They already spend millions on astroturfers.
So, you need an intermediary in some country with different disclosure regulations and so on -- and what do we see here?No investor who did even 10\% of the normal due diligence would buy anything SCO related.
So, that's not what we have here,  that should be obvious.
An investor that stupid wouldn't have the money anymore anyway -- they'd have never made any, or lost any they found by now.
So this is something else entirely, a party or two for whom this is lunch money, but potentially profitable if it holds back their main competition might find this a "good deal" in some sense of the word "good" that has nothing to do with "moral".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363943</id>
	<title>Re:Nearly had a heart attack</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1245265080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SCO can sue them for trademark infringement then, can't it? New lawsuit, new revenue, new life!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SCO can sue them for trademark infringement then , ca n't it ?
New lawsuit , new revenue , new life !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCO can sue them for trademark infringement then, can't it?
New lawsuit, new revenue, new life!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366879</id>
	<title>Yup.  I used to use them...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day (circa 1998) I worked for a small-potatoes ISP, and we used SCO Unix for our two key servers (mail and web).  Why you ask?  Well, the bosses were into getting things on the free side of cheap, so they applied to be a reseller for SCO products.  As a result they were given an "evaluation" copy of the OS, and our servers were born.  We did discover that we had to keep the boxes off the same subnet or they would find each other and cease to function.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day ( circa 1998 ) I worked for a small-potatoes ISP , and we used SCO Unix for our two key servers ( mail and web ) .
Why you ask ?
Well , the bosses were into getting things on the free side of cheap , so they applied to be a reseller for SCO products .
As a result they were given an " evaluation " copy of the OS , and our servers were born .
We did discover that we had to keep the boxes off the same subnet or they would find each other and cease to function .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day (circa 1998) I worked for a small-potatoes ISP, and we used SCO Unix for our two key servers (mail and web).
Why you ask?
Well, the bosses were into getting things on the free side of cheap, so they applied to be a reseller for SCO products.
As a result they were given an "evaluation" copy of the OS, and our servers were born.
We did discover that we had to keep the boxes off the same subnet or they would find each other and cease to function.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363383</id>
	<title>Why not ask Obama for Money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245262740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they should ask the Obama Government for a hand out, hmm, I mean a bail out package.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they should ask the Obama Government for a hand out , hmm , I mean a bail out package .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they should ask the Obama Government for a hand out, hmm, I mean a bail out package.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363157</id>
	<title>And what did they get for it?  $1.98??????</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245261600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365955</id>
	<title>Re:why doesn't the board fire the managers?</title>
	<author>nizo</author>
	<datestamp>1245231660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The weird thing is they somehow keep reassembling the plane and immediately crashing it again and again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The weird thing is they somehow keep reassembling the plane and immediately crashing it again and again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The weird thing is they somehow keep reassembling the plane and immediately crashing it again and again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368917</id>
	<title>Care to be specific?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1245252540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is the huge stain splashed on the open source community by PJ and her gang of thugs at Groklaw. Bullying and intimidation of the IT press and individuals was all you ever got from Groklaw... well, that, and a lot of amateur legal advice.</p></div><p>Please give a specific, verifiable example?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the huge stain splashed on the open source community by PJ and her gang of thugs at Groklaw .
Bullying and intimidation of the IT press and individuals was all you ever got from Groklaw... well , that , and a lot of amateur legal advice.Please give a specific , verifiable example ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the huge stain splashed on the open source community by PJ and her gang of thugs at Groklaw.
Bullying and intimidation of the IT press and individuals was all you ever got from Groklaw... well, that, and a lot of amateur legal advice.Please give a specific, verifiable example?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364125</id>
	<title>Re:A tale of two courts</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1245265860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Various music labels have argued that anything more than a 2x penalty for commercial copyright infringement is unconstitutional, when they themselves got caught selling albums featuring music to which they hold no license.  Meanwhile, they argue in court that 4000x penalties are FINE for non-commercial infringement, and in fact, are lobbying Congress HARD to bump that up from 4000x to 150,000x.  Hasn't gone poorly for them, I'm not so sure it's a bad practice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Various music labels have argued that anything more than a 2x penalty for commercial copyright infringement is unconstitutional , when they themselves got caught selling albums featuring music to which they hold no license .
Meanwhile , they argue in court that 4000x penalties are FINE for non-commercial infringement , and in fact , are lobbying Congress HARD to bump that up from 4000x to 150,000x .
Has n't gone poorly for them , I 'm not so sure it 's a bad practice ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Various music labels have argued that anything more than a 2x penalty for commercial copyright infringement is unconstitutional, when they themselves got caught selling albums featuring music to which they hold no license.
Meanwhile, they argue in court that 4000x penalties are FINE for non-commercial infringement, and in fact, are lobbying Congress HARD to bump that up from 4000x to 150,000x.
Hasn't gone poorly for them, I'm not so sure it's a bad practice ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363499</id>
	<title>POS</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1245263280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The subject line is deliberately ambiguous, and I could probably support just about any interpretation you make, but my understanding is that SCO UNIX is still used in some embedded point-of-sale (POS) systems.  There was also, IIRC, some noise in one of their recent filings about its popularity in Russia, so I guess it can be handy for controlling botnets or something.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The subject line is deliberately ambiguous , and I could probably support just about any interpretation you make , but my understanding is that SCO UNIX is still used in some embedded point-of-sale ( POS ) systems .
There was also , IIRC , some noise in one of their recent filings about its popularity in Russia , so I guess it can be handy for controlling botnets or something .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subject line is deliberately ambiguous, and I could probably support just about any interpretation you make, but my understanding is that SCO UNIX is still used in some embedded point-of-sale (POS) systems.
There was also, IIRC, some noise in one of their recent filings about its popularity in Russia, so I guess it can be handy for controlling botnets or something.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363219</id>
	<title>A wise man once said...</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1245261900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...there is a sucker born every minute!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...there is a sucker born every minute !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...there is a sucker born every minute!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363151</id>
	<title>products?</title>
	<author>conspirator57</author>
	<datestamp>1245261600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SCO have products?  when did this happen?  i thought all they did was patent troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SCO have products ?
when did this happen ?
i thought all they did was patent troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCO have products?
when did this happen?
i thought all they did was patent troll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364537</id>
	<title>This IS news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SCO has products?</p><p>Who knew?</p><p>I thought they main product was the ability to hire lawyers and try (emphasis on "try") to sue yourself some profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SCO has products ? Who knew ? I thought they main product was the ability to hire lawyers and try ( emphasis on " try " ) to sue yourself some profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SCO has products?Who knew?I thought they main product was the ability to hire lawyers and try (emphasis on "try") to sue yourself some profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363451</id>
	<title>Gulf Capital Partners</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1245263100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're an investment banking firm.  I see two possibilities:  either SCO managed to convince them that if they only had enough funds, they could turn their flavor of UNIX into a hugely profitable product, or Gulf Capital Partners is already one of SCO's few customers and they want to make sure they don't lose support when the company shuts its doors.</p><p>The latter would surprise me.</p><p>Maybe somebody should ask them what the hell they're thinking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're an investment banking firm .
I see two possibilities : either SCO managed to convince them that if they only had enough funds , they could turn their flavor of UNIX into a hugely profitable product , or Gulf Capital Partners is already one of SCO 's few customers and they want to make sure they do n't lose support when the company shuts its doors.The latter would surprise me.Maybe somebody should ask them what the hell they 're thinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're an investment banking firm.
I see two possibilities:  either SCO managed to convince them that if they only had enough funds, they could turn their flavor of UNIX into a hugely profitable product, or Gulf Capital Partners is already one of SCO's few customers and they want to make sure they don't lose support when the company shuts its doors.The latter would surprise me.Maybe somebody should ask them what the hell they're thinking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364269</id>
	<title>Re:Worst thing to come out of this SCO mess</title>
	<author>mr\_mischief</author>
	<datestamp>1245266820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if they are censoring the bad posts, then what's the matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if they are censoring the bad posts , then what 's the matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if they are censoring the bad posts, then what's the matter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363433</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28369003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28367159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28370843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28369765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1649220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28370843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28369003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28369053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28369765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28368917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28367159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28364347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28366203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1649220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28363193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1649220.28365019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
