<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_02_1317229</id>
	<title>Linux Patch Clears the Air For Use of Microsoft's FAT Filesystem</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246543320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ars Technica is reporting that a new kernel patch may provide a workaround to <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/vfat-linux-patch-could-circumvent-microsofts-patent-claims.ars">allow use of Microsoft's FAT file system</a> on Linux without paying licensing fees.  <i>"Andrew Tridgell, one of the lead developers behind the Samba project, published a patch last week that will alter the behavior of the Linux FAT implementation so that it will not generate both short and long filenames. In situations where the total filename fits within the 11-character limit, the filesystem will generate only a short name. When the filename exceeds that length, it will only generate a long name and will populate the short name value with 11 invalid characters so that it is ignored by the operating system."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars Technica is reporting that a new kernel patch may provide a workaround to allow use of Microsoft 's FAT file system on Linux without paying licensing fees .
" Andrew Tridgell , one of the lead developers behind the Samba project , published a patch last week that will alter the behavior of the Linux FAT implementation so that it will not generate both short and long filenames .
In situations where the total filename fits within the 11-character limit , the filesystem will generate only a short name .
When the filename exceeds that length , it will only generate a long name and will populate the short name value with 11 invalid characters so that it is ignored by the operating system .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars Technica is reporting that a new kernel patch may provide a workaround to allow use of Microsoft's FAT file system on Linux without paying licensing fees.
"Andrew Tridgell, one of the lead developers behind the Samba project, published a patch last week that will alter the behavior of the Linux FAT implementation so that it will not generate both short and long filenames.
In situations where the total filename fits within the 11-character limit, the filesystem will generate only a short name.
When the filename exceeds that length, it will only generate a long name and will populate the short name value with 11 invalid characters so that it is ignored by the operating system.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561119</id>
	<title>Still need a non-MSFT file system</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1246561440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Linux Foundation says that the best solution at this point is for vendors to ditch FAT and come up with a new vendor-neutral format that can be used without having to pay licensing fees.</i></p><p>I completely agree with this. Don't hack a quasi-FAT implementation; make a new file system that can be used for all devices because it's open source. Designs can be open source just as much as code, and that lets people use them to do things, instead of keeping us ghettoized within legal constraints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Linux Foundation says that the best solution at this point is for vendors to ditch FAT and come up with a new vendor-neutral format that can be used without having to pay licensing fees.I completely agree with this .
Do n't hack a quasi-FAT implementation ; make a new file system that can be used for all devices because it 's open source .
Designs can be open source just as much as code , and that lets people use them to do things , instead of keeping us ghettoized within legal constraints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Linux Foundation says that the best solution at this point is for vendors to ditch FAT and come up with a new vendor-neutral format that can be used without having to pay licensing fees.I completely agree with this.
Don't hack a quasi-FAT implementation; make a new file system that can be used for all devices because it's open source.
Designs can be open source just as much as code, and that lets people use them to do things, instead of keeping us ghettoized within legal constraints.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557349</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1246547880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, patents expire 20 years from the filing date.  This means that (A) they only last 20 years (with some possible term extension of a few years) and (B) "submarine" patents are basically a thing of the past.</p><p>Under the old law, patents expired 17 years from <i>issue</i> so you could keep an application going with continuations for 20 years at the PTO and still have a 17 year term.  Now if you kept an app going that long, you would come out with zero term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , patents expire 20 years from the filing date .
This means that ( A ) they only last 20 years ( with some possible term extension of a few years ) and ( B ) " submarine " patents are basically a thing of the past.Under the old law , patents expired 17 years from issue so you could keep an application going with continuations for 20 years at the PTO and still have a 17 year term .
Now if you kept an app going that long , you would come out with zero term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, patents expire 20 years from the filing date.
This means that (A) they only last 20 years (with some possible term extension of a few years) and (B) "submarine" patents are basically a thing of the past.Under the old law, patents expired 17 years from issue so you could keep an application going with continuations for 20 years at the PTO and still have a 17 year term.
Now if you kept an app going that long, you would come out with zero term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564777</id>
	<title>Re:In other words...</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1246530960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep seeing this "broken design" bullshit, but what they did is patent a method to maintain backward compatibility with a filesystem implementation that was initially designed to work on computers that various Unix implementations wouldn't even consider booting on.  It might be hard to remember when 10MB was a big hard drive, but that's the legacy of FAT.  Limited file names were a smart idea because it kept the bookkeeping small and predictable. Since Microsoft was extremely successful with DOS and many people created applications that various users needed to continue running, the VFAT implementation was a pretty good compromise to move forward while allowing things to keep working.</p><p>I guess if you spin it the zealot way it sounds worse, and I'll probably get accused of being a shill for not bashing Microsoft, but really there's just no need for the anger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep seeing this " broken design " bullshit , but what they did is patent a method to maintain backward compatibility with a filesystem implementation that was initially designed to work on computers that various Unix implementations would n't even consider booting on .
It might be hard to remember when 10MB was a big hard drive , but that 's the legacy of FAT .
Limited file names were a smart idea because it kept the bookkeeping small and predictable .
Since Microsoft was extremely successful with DOS and many people created applications that various users needed to continue running , the VFAT implementation was a pretty good compromise to move forward while allowing things to keep working.I guess if you spin it the zealot way it sounds worse , and I 'll probably get accused of being a shill for not bashing Microsoft , but really there 's just no need for the anger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep seeing this "broken design" bullshit, but what they did is patent a method to maintain backward compatibility with a filesystem implementation that was initially designed to work on computers that various Unix implementations wouldn't even consider booting on.
It might be hard to remember when 10MB was a big hard drive, but that's the legacy of FAT.
Limited file names were a smart idea because it kept the bookkeeping small and predictable.
Since Microsoft was extremely successful with DOS and many people created applications that various users needed to continue running, the VFAT implementation was a pretty good compromise to move forward while allowing things to keep working.I guess if you spin it the zealot way it sounds worse, and I'll probably get accused of being a shill for not bashing Microsoft, but really there's just no need for the anger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560403</id>
	<title>Re:MSFT can't give out VFAT, but can give out C#/M</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246559340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; why<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... would we trust them with C# ?<br><br>We don't.<br><br>&gt; What am I missing here ?<br><br>Perhaps you're missing the fact that there are only about a dozen people in the open-source community who want anything to do with Mono, for exactly this reason.  Nothing of any consequence uses it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; why ... would we trust them with C # ? We do n't. &gt; What am I missing here ? Perhaps you 're missing the fact that there are only about a dozen people in the open-source community who want anything to do with Mono , for exactly this reason .
Nothing of any consequence uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; why ... would we trust them with C# ?We don't.&gt; What am I missing here ?Perhaps you're missing the fact that there are only about a dozen people in the open-source community who want anything to do with Mono, for exactly this reason.
Nothing of any consequence uses it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559635</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246557240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of UDF implementations don't support random access in write mode.  Unless that changes, it's not really useful for most of the things FAT is used for.  Needing to erase the whole filesystem and rewrite it every time you change a file is totally unacceptable for a lot of applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of UDF implementations do n't support random access in write mode .
Unless that changes , it 's not really useful for most of the things FAT is used for .
Needing to erase the whole filesystem and rewrite it every time you change a file is totally unacceptable for a lot of applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of UDF implementations don't support random access in write mode.
Unless that changes, it's not really useful for most of the things FAT is used for.
Needing to erase the whole filesystem and rewrite it every time you change a file is totally unacceptable for a lot of applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558151</id>
	<title>Have you ever tried UDF on a USB flash drive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246551660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use FAT on my usb keys only because I want to be able to use them from Windows machines.<br>
But in Windows Vista+ you can also format USB flash drives to UDF (you&rsquo;ll have to use the command line FORMAT tool, the GUI frontend won&rsquo;t show UDF as an option).<br>
When formatted in UDF, the drive&rsquo;s performance improves dramatically: on my usb key, untarring the linux kernel and then deleting it changed from taking a few hours to taking a few minutes.<br>
UDF can be read/written under Linux and, unlike NTFS, it natively supports all UNIX features (including extended attributes), so for example you could boot Linux straight from a Windows-accessible USB drive without creating ext3 images on it, and without using userspace file system drivers.<br>
So it could be a nice solution for Linux/Windows interoperability... but sadly Windows stops liking UDF file systems if Linux creates files on them (I don&rsquo;t know what exactly makes Windows upset; when it happens, Windows&rsquo; CHKDSK says the file system is OK).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use FAT on my usb keys only because I want to be able to use them from Windows machines .
But in Windows Vista + you can also format USB flash drives to UDF ( you    ll have to use the command line FORMAT tool , the GUI frontend won    t show UDF as an option ) .
When formatted in UDF , the drive    s performance improves dramatically : on my usb key , untarring the linux kernel and then deleting it changed from taking a few hours to taking a few minutes .
UDF can be read/written under Linux and , unlike NTFS , it natively supports all UNIX features ( including extended attributes ) , so for example you could boot Linux straight from a Windows-accessible USB drive without creating ext3 images on it , and without using userspace file system drivers .
So it could be a nice solution for Linux/Windows interoperability... but sadly Windows stops liking UDF file systems if Linux creates files on them ( I don    t know what exactly makes Windows upset ; when it happens , Windows    CHKDSK says the file system is OK ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use FAT on my usb keys only because I want to be able to use them from Windows machines.
But in Windows Vista+ you can also format USB flash drives to UDF (you’ll have to use the command line FORMAT tool, the GUI frontend won’t show UDF as an option).
When formatted in UDF, the drive’s performance improves dramatically: on my usb key, untarring the linux kernel and then deleting it changed from taking a few hours to taking a few minutes.
UDF can be read/written under Linux and, unlike NTFS, it natively supports all UNIX features (including extended attributes), so for example you could boot Linux straight from a Windows-accessible USB drive without creating ext3 images on it, and without using userspace file system drivers.
So it could be a nice solution for Linux/Windows interoperability... but sadly Windows stops liking UDF file systems if Linux creates files on them (I don’t know what exactly makes Windows upset; when it happens, Windows’ CHKDSK says the file system is OK).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557293</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246547640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, they're almost like that in the USA.  You can't claim any damages that occurred between your becoming aware of infringement and filing suit.  Fortunately, not many FAT patents are still valid.  Patents last at most 20 years, so anything from the DOS days is gone.  The relevant ones here were included with Windows 95.  I presume MS filed them before releasing '95, possibly even before releasing the betas, so they should expire in the next few years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they 're almost like that in the USA .
You ca n't claim any damages that occurred between your becoming aware of infringement and filing suit .
Fortunately , not many FAT patents are still valid .
Patents last at most 20 years , so anything from the DOS days is gone .
The relevant ones here were included with Windows 95 .
I presume MS filed them before releasing '95 , possibly even before releasing the betas , so they should expire in the next few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they're almost like that in the USA.
You can't claim any damages that occurred between your becoming aware of infringement and filing suit.
Fortunately, not many FAT patents are still valid.
Patents last at most 20 years, so anything from the DOS days is gone.
The relevant ones here were included with Windows 95.
I presume MS filed them before releasing '95, possibly even before releasing the betas, so they should expire in the next few years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557479</id>
	<title>Who in their right mind would want to use Ext3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246548360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FAT is needed to support embedded hardware that presents itself as a USB mass storage device to the host, or that has to talk to flash memory devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FAT is needed to support embedded hardware that presents itself as a USB mass storage device to the host , or that has to talk to flash memory devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FAT is needed to support embedded hardware that presents itself as a USB mass storage device to the host, or that has to talk to flash memory devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558641</id>
	<title>Nice solution, but for how long?</title>
	<author>AK76</author>
	<datestamp>1246553760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anyone care to think what will happen if Microsoft decides to 'fix' their chkdsk.exe so it deletes all these 'corrupted' files with 'corrupted' short filenames?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone care to think what will happen if Microsoft decides to 'fix ' their chkdsk.exe so it deletes all these 'corrupted ' files with 'corrupted ' short filenames ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone care to think what will happen if Microsoft decides to 'fix' their chkdsk.exe so it deletes all these 'corrupted' files with 'corrupted' short filenames?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558155</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>ndege</author>
	<datestamp>1246551660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the "bug" exist in Windoze 7?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the " bug " exist in Windoze 7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the "bug" exist in Windoze 7?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557965</id>
	<title>Re:So avoid Mono?</title>
	<author>pentalive</author>
	<datestamp>1246550520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't one have a Linux distribution without mono?</p><p>so, no it's not "linux -its illegal" but it may be "mono - it's illegal"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't one have a Linux distribution without mono ? so , no it 's not " linux -its illegal " but it may be " mono - it 's illegal "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't one have a Linux distribution without mono?so, no it's not "linux -its illegal" but it may be "mono - it's illegal"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560749</id>
	<title>Re:So avoid Mono?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246560360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; What does that make Mono? A really really bad idea?<br><br>Mono would be a bad idea even if there were no such thing as software patents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What does that make Mono ?
A really really bad idea ? Mono would be a bad idea even if there were no such thing as software patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What does that make Mono?
A really really bad idea?Mono would be a bad idea even if there were no such thing as software patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559157</id>
	<title>Re:Who in their right mind would want to use FAT?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246555740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are several reasons to want to use FAT:<br><br>Multibooters store their files on FAT filesystems because they're supported by, in a word, everything.  Want to share your files between FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, BeOS, and OS/2?  FAT is your friend.  I still keep most of my data on a vfat filesystem for this reason even though I haven't used Windows in aeons.  When I switched from FreeBSD to Debian, I didn't have to worry about whether UFS support was included out of the box, or what package to install to get it, or whatever; all my data were on vfat, which is always available, always supported, on every OS.<br><br>People who carry data around on portable disks also use FAT, in case they need to access it from a friend's computer, a computer at work, a computer at the library, or cetera, which may not have the same operating system they use at home.  I carry around a small Flash-ROM-based USB 2.0 Mass Storage Device on a lanyard, which I have formatted vfat.  If I need to copy files onto it from a computer that's running an old version of Debian with no NTFS read/write support, I can.  If I need to take those files and copy them onto a computer that's running the Windows Seven RC, I can.  If I'm at a relative's house and they want to see the photos that I've got on there, and their computer is a Mac, it's no problem.<br><br>FAT is also simple, well documented, and well understood.  If you're the sort of nerd who wants to reserve the possibility, in case anything goes wrong (say, an untimely power blink), of looking at the block device for the disk directly and *finding* that lost file, it's not very hard with FAT.  (Yes, I actually did this a couple of times back in the DOS days.  Successfully.)<br><br>Finally, a lot of people have old disks sitting around, containing data they want to keep, on FAT filesystems in many cases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several reasons to want to use FAT : Multibooters store their files on FAT filesystems because they 're supported by , in a word , everything .
Want to share your files between FreeBSD , Linux , Windows , BeOS , and OS/2 ?
FAT is your friend .
I still keep most of my data on a vfat filesystem for this reason even though I have n't used Windows in aeons .
When I switched from FreeBSD to Debian , I did n't have to worry about whether UFS support was included out of the box , or what package to install to get it , or whatever ; all my data were on vfat , which is always available , always supported , on every OS.People who carry data around on portable disks also use FAT , in case they need to access it from a friend 's computer , a computer at work , a computer at the library , or cetera , which may not have the same operating system they use at home .
I carry around a small Flash-ROM-based USB 2.0 Mass Storage Device on a lanyard , which I have formatted vfat .
If I need to copy files onto it from a computer that 's running an old version of Debian with no NTFS read/write support , I can .
If I need to take those files and copy them onto a computer that 's running the Windows Seven RC , I can .
If I 'm at a relative 's house and they want to see the photos that I 've got on there , and their computer is a Mac , it 's no problem.FAT is also simple , well documented , and well understood .
If you 're the sort of nerd who wants to reserve the possibility , in case anything goes wrong ( say , an untimely power blink ) , of looking at the block device for the disk directly and * finding * that lost file , it 's not very hard with FAT .
( Yes , I actually did this a couple of times back in the DOS days .
Successfully. ) Finally , a lot of people have old disks sitting around , containing data they want to keep , on FAT filesystems in many cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several reasons to want to use FAT:Multibooters store their files on FAT filesystems because they're supported by, in a word, everything.
Want to share your files between FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, BeOS, and OS/2?
FAT is your friend.
I still keep most of my data on a vfat filesystem for this reason even though I haven't used Windows in aeons.
When I switched from FreeBSD to Debian, I didn't have to worry about whether UFS support was included out of the box, or what package to install to get it, or whatever; all my data were on vfat, which is always available, always supported, on every OS.People who carry data around on portable disks also use FAT, in case they need to access it from a friend's computer, a computer at work, a computer at the library, or cetera, which may not have the same operating system they use at home.
I carry around a small Flash-ROM-based USB 2.0 Mass Storage Device on a lanyard, which I have formatted vfat.
If I need to copy files onto it from a computer that's running an old version of Debian with no NTFS read/write support, I can.
If I need to take those files and copy them onto a computer that's running the Windows Seven RC, I can.
If I'm at a relative's house and they want to see the photos that I've got on there, and their computer is a Mac, it's no problem.FAT is also simple, well documented, and well understood.
If you're the sort of nerd who wants to reserve the possibility, in case anything goes wrong (say, an untimely power blink), of looking at the block device for the disk directly and *finding* that lost file, it's not very hard with FAT.
(Yes, I actually did this a couple of times back in the DOS days.
Successfully.)Finally, a lot of people have old disks sitting around, containing data they want to keep, on FAT filesystems in many cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560111</id>
	<title>Now we just need the Mono workaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246558560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mono is a virus introduced not by mosquitoes or fleas, but by coders whose ambitions conflict with the interests of their current host. When it dies, they will just move on to the next host without a care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mono is a virus introduced not by mosquitoes or fleas , but by coders whose ambitions conflict with the interests of their current host .
When it dies , they will just move on to the next host without a care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mono is a virus introduced not by mosquitoes or fleas, but by coders whose ambitions conflict with the interests of their current host.
When it dies, they will just move on to the next host without a care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515</id>
	<title>MSFT can't give out VFAT, but can give out C#/Mono</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246548480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One has to wonder if these are Microsoft's actions around something as simple as VFAT, why the f*** would we trust them with C# ??
<p>
What am I missing here ?
</p><p>
Will Groklaw one day be reporting about MSFT v. SPI ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One has to wonder if these are Microsoft 's actions around something as simple as VFAT , why the f * * * would we trust them with C # ? ?
What am I missing here ?
Will Groklaw one day be reporting about MSFT v. SPI ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One has to wonder if these are Microsoft's actions around something as simple as VFAT, why the f*** would we trust them with C# ??
What am I missing here ?
Will Groklaw one day be reporting about MSFT v. SPI ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567681</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>Green Salad</author>
	<datestamp>1246549620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because "it just works" and does so with just about everything.</p><p>Using more advanced file systems than FAT will limit your flexibility and sentence you to serious frustration when helping that person with Win98 or that semi-cute girl with a Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because " it just works " and does so with just about everything.Using more advanced file systems than FAT will limit your flexibility and sentence you to serious frustration when helping that person with Win98 or that semi-cute girl with a Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because "it just works" and does so with just about everything.Using more advanced file systems than FAT will limit your flexibility and sentence you to serious frustration when helping that person with Win98 or that semi-cute girl with a Mac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569397</id>
	<title>Usage vs distribution</title>
	<author>SgtChaireBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1246614060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>When I read this my first impression, though admittedly not an informed one, was "you mean people pay to use FAT?"</p></div><p>No they don't. At least, nobody I've ever heard of. Also, do US patents apply to imported software? Say, I download OpenBSD from [insert patent-free country here], then I use that to build my own product, am I infringing?</p></div><p>Yes. Because patents do not have anything to do with distribution.  That is governed by copyright.  So it does not matter if you buy it, download it or write it your self.  If it <b>does</b> what is described in the patent, you are infringing.  </p><p>
As far as 'little people' paying to use FAT?  Not directly.  Its not worth the time or the bad PR to hunt up every end-user and shake them down for some FAT money.  Their money is aggregated by device manufacturers.  Cameras, video players, mobile phones, etc all use FAT.  It's easier to shake down a few dozen manufacturers with deep pockets than a few hundreds of thousands of end users.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read this my first impression , though admittedly not an informed one , was " you mean people pay to use FAT ?
" No they do n't .
At least , nobody I 've ever heard of .
Also , do US patents apply to imported software ?
Say , I download OpenBSD from [ insert patent-free country here ] , then I use that to build my own product , am I infringing ? Yes .
Because patents do not have anything to do with distribution .
That is governed by copyright .
So it does not matter if you buy it , download it or write it your self .
If it does what is described in the patent , you are infringing .
As far as 'little people ' paying to use FAT ?
Not directly .
Its not worth the time or the bad PR to hunt up every end-user and shake them down for some FAT money .
Their money is aggregated by device manufacturers .
Cameras , video players , mobile phones , etc all use FAT .
It 's easier to shake down a few dozen manufacturers with deep pockets than a few hundreds of thousands of end users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read this my first impression, though admittedly not an informed one, was "you mean people pay to use FAT?
"No they don't.
At least, nobody I've ever heard of.
Also, do US patents apply to imported software?
Say, I download OpenBSD from [insert patent-free country here], then I use that to build my own product, am I infringing?Yes.
Because patents do not have anything to do with distribution.
That is governed by copyright.
So it does not matter if you buy it, download it or write it your self.
If it does what is described in the patent, you are infringing.
As far as 'little people' paying to use FAT?
Not directly.
Its not worth the time or the bad PR to hunt up every end-user and shake them down for some FAT money.
Their money is aggregated by device manufacturers.
Cameras, video players, mobile phones, etc all use FAT.
It's easier to shake down a few dozen manufacturers with deep pockets than a few hundreds of thousands of end users.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557861</id>
	<title>It's time to show MS the power of *nix</title>
	<author>DigitalReverend</author>
	<datestamp>1246550040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need to fight back and stop fulfilling http requests from anything Microsoft.  Hell even go deep enough to determin the OS.  If you run MS, good luck using the web.   Microsoft needs a smackdown, and there is enough of us out there that administer websites and such that we could have a huge impact.  It's time to tell Microsoft, "free FAT or no web for you!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to fight back and stop fulfilling http requests from anything Microsoft .
Hell even go deep enough to determin the OS .
If you run MS , good luck using the web .
Microsoft needs a smackdown , and there is enough of us out there that administer websites and such that we could have a huge impact .
It 's time to tell Microsoft , " free FAT or no web for you !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to fight back and stop fulfilling http requests from anything Microsoft.
Hell even go deep enough to determin the OS.
If you run MS, good luck using the web.
Microsoft needs a smackdown, and there is enough of us out there that administer websites and such that we could have a huge impact.
It's time to tell Microsoft, "free FAT or no web for you!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560683</id>
	<title>Re:Bad idea</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1246560180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; the real solution is to get the bogus patents invalidated.<br><br>We're talking about here about technology that was included in a product released in 1994.  They expire in less than five years.  Even if it were possible to win the court cases and get the patents thrown out, it would take most of the remaining patent lifespan to do so, if not longer (not to mention a large load of cash to feed the lawyers).<br><br>So, the real solution would be to drag the TomTom case out for a couple more years, so that there won't be enough time left afterward for Microsoft to sue anyone else over the same thing before the patent clock runs out.  (Oh, wait, too late...  they already settled.  Darn.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the real solution is to get the bogus patents invalidated.We 're talking about here about technology that was included in a product released in 1994 .
They expire in less than five years .
Even if it were possible to win the court cases and get the patents thrown out , it would take most of the remaining patent lifespan to do so , if not longer ( not to mention a large load of cash to feed the lawyers ) .So , the real solution would be to drag the TomTom case out for a couple more years , so that there wo n't be enough time left afterward for Microsoft to sue anyone else over the same thing before the patent clock runs out .
( Oh , wait , too late... they already settled .
Darn. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the real solution is to get the bogus patents invalidated.We're talking about here about technology that was included in a product released in 1994.
They expire in less than five years.
Even if it were possible to win the court cases and get the patents thrown out, it would take most of the remaining patent lifespan to do so, if not longer (not to mention a large load of cash to feed the lawyers).So, the real solution would be to drag the TomTom case out for a couple more years, so that there won't be enough time left afterward for Microsoft to sue anyone else over the same thing before the patent clock runs out.
(Oh, wait, too late...  they already settled.
Darn.)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557161</id>
	<title>frist fat post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rule</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rule</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rule</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28562741</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>Beat The Odds</author>
	<datestamp>1246566660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability</i> <br>

interoperability is not trivial.</p></div><p>You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.<br>VFAT is fairly simple (clever maybe). It was not designed for interoperability. It's interoperable because it is simple and widely used.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability interoperability is not trivial.You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.VFAT is fairly simple ( clever maybe ) .
It was not designed for interoperability .
It 's interoperable because it is simple and widely used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability 

interoperability is not trivial.You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.VFAT is fairly simple (clever maybe).
It was not designed for interoperability.
It's interoperable because it is simple and widely used.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559137</id>
	<title>Be nice.</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1246555680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not FAT; it's just big-boned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not FAT ; it 's just big-boned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not FAT; it's just big-boned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572125</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1246638540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually, patents expire 20 years from the filing date. This means that (A) they only last 20 years (with some possible term extension of a few years) and (B) "submarine" patents are basically a thing of the past.</i></p><p>Not only that, but if you wish to file the patent internationally, the filing must also be published with 18 months of the filing date.  So if you wish to submarine your filing (and live with the decreased protection time once the patent is issued), you lose the ability to file the patent overseas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , patents expire 20 years from the filing date .
This means that ( A ) they only last 20 years ( with some possible term extension of a few years ) and ( B ) " submarine " patents are basically a thing of the past.Not only that , but if you wish to file the patent internationally , the filing must also be published with 18 months of the filing date .
So if you wish to submarine your filing ( and live with the decreased protection time once the patent is issued ) , you lose the ability to file the patent overseas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, patents expire 20 years from the filing date.
This means that (A) they only last 20 years (with some possible term extension of a few years) and (B) "submarine" patents are basically a thing of the past.Not only that, but if you wish to file the patent internationally, the filing must also be published with 18 months of the filing date.
So if you wish to submarine your filing (and live with the decreased protection time once the patent is issued), you lose the ability to file the patent overseas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189</id>
	<title>Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I read this my first impression, though admittedly not an informed one, was "you mean people pay to use FAT?"  I wish patents were more like trademarks, where if you don't vigorously defend them and instead let them go for a while, you lose them and they become public domain.  Wouldn't that be nice, to get rid of all these situations as well as all of the "submarine patents" in one fell swoop?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read this my first impression , though admittedly not an informed one , was " you mean people pay to use FAT ?
" I wish patents were more like trademarks , where if you do n't vigorously defend them and instead let them go for a while , you lose them and they become public domain .
Would n't that be nice , to get rid of all these situations as well as all of the " submarine patents " in one fell swoop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read this my first impression, though admittedly not an informed one, was "you mean people pay to use FAT?
"  I wish patents were more like trademarks, where if you don't vigorously defend them and instead let them go for a while, you lose them and they become public domain.
Wouldn't that be nice, to get rid of all these situations as well as all of the "submarine patents" in one fell swoop?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557729</id>
	<title>or heres a great idea</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1246549500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we stop using proprietary filesystems from microsoft, stop making them less lethal to linux, and start making it easier for normal everyday people to stop using them too!  a sanitizing program for thumb drives that converts your fat data to EXT perhaps?</htmltext>
<tokenext>we stop using proprietary filesystems from microsoft , stop making them less lethal to linux , and start making it easier for normal everyday people to stop using them too !
a sanitizing program for thumb drives that converts your fat data to EXT perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we stop using proprietary filesystems from microsoft, stop making them less lethal to linux, and start making it easier for normal everyday people to stop using them too!
a sanitizing program for thumb drives that converts your fat data to EXT perhaps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557651</id>
	<title>So avoid Mono?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246549140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm.  So we jump through hoops to work around Microsoft IP for an obsolete decades old thing like FAT.  What does that make Mono?  A really really bad idea?  A bug factory for future IP workaround and "you're sooo screwed" pain?  A "here's an arm and a neck - twist either whenever you wish"?  "Balmer, feudal lord of linux, we hereby place our lives and honor, and those of our descendants, into your hands, and those of your heirs"?  "Linux - it's illegal (but Microsoft is turning a blind eye to it this week)"?</p><p>Does anyone seriously think that if at some future time, arm twisting manufacturers and lying to customers isn't sufficient, Microsoft won't fight us using IP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
So we jump through hoops to work around Microsoft IP for an obsolete decades old thing like FAT .
What does that make Mono ?
A really really bad idea ?
A bug factory for future IP workaround and " you 're sooo screwed " pain ?
A " here 's an arm and a neck - twist either whenever you wish " ?
" Balmer , feudal lord of linux , we hereby place our lives and honor , and those of our descendants , into your hands , and those of your heirs " ?
" Linux - it 's illegal ( but Microsoft is turning a blind eye to it this week ) " ? Does anyone seriously think that if at some future time , arm twisting manufacturers and lying to customers is n't sufficient , Microsoft wo n't fight us using IP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
So we jump through hoops to work around Microsoft IP for an obsolete decades old thing like FAT.
What does that make Mono?
A really really bad idea?
A bug factory for future IP workaround and "you're sooo screwed" pain?
A "here's an arm and a neck - twist either whenever you wish"?
"Balmer, feudal lord of linux, we hereby place our lives and honor, and those of our descendants, into your hands, and those of your heirs"?
"Linux - it's illegal (but Microsoft is turning a blind eye to it this week)"?Does anyone seriously think that if at some future time, arm twisting manufacturers and lying to customers isn't sufficient, Microsoft won't fight us using IP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561637</id>
	<title>interop</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1246563180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does the "interop" argument work for patents? If you implement something for interop, does it infringe on patents? Nowadays all FAT uses are probably just for interop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does the " interop " argument work for patents ?
If you implement something for interop , does it infringe on patents ?
Nowadays all FAT uses are probably just for interop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does the "interop" argument work for patents?
If you implement something for interop, does it infringe on patents?
Nowadays all FAT uses are probably just for interop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28606575</id>
	<title>linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HAAAAAAAAAAA! Linux infringed a patent.<br>i am sure MS's other 200+ claims are also true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HAAAAAAAAAAA !
Linux infringed a patent.i am sure MS 's other 200 + claims are also true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAAAAAAAAAAA!
Linux infringed a patent.i am sure MS's other 200+ claims are also true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558079</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246551120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish copyrights were like patents and expired after 20 years instead of the unconstitutionally unlimited time thay do now. If patents were like trademarks they would be worse than copyright and never expire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish copyrights were like patents and expired after 20 years instead of the unconstitutionally unlimited time thay do now .
If patents were like trademarks they would be worse than copyright and never expire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish copyrights were like patents and expired after 20 years instead of the unconstitutionally unlimited time thay do now.
If patents were like trademarks they would be worse than copyright and never expire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558311</id>
	<title>Re:MSFT can't give out VFAT, but can give out C#/M</title>
	<author>torrija</author>
	<datestamp>1246552440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may be an strategic choice from MS. Preventing people from use other filesystems will lock you to Windows.

In the other hand, releasing a development kit to users for free (as in beer) would help them increase the user base, and thus selling more Windows copies.

A better explanation here:
<a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html" title="joelonsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html</a> [joelonsoftware.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be an strategic choice from MS. Preventing people from use other filesystems will lock you to Windows .
In the other hand , releasing a development kit to users for free ( as in beer ) would help them increase the user base , and thus selling more Windows copies .
A better explanation here : http : //www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html [ joelonsoftware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be an strategic choice from MS. Preventing people from use other filesystems will lock you to Windows.
In the other hand, releasing a development kit to users for free (as in beer) would help them increase the user base, and thus selling more Windows copies.
A better explanation here:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html [joelonsoftware.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561957</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246564320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://uhlik.sk/?page=swreadydriver" title="uhlik.sk" rel="nofollow">ReadyDriver</a> [uhlik.sk] allows you to bypass the F8 madness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ReadyDriver [ uhlik.sk ] allows you to bypass the F8 madness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ReadyDriver [uhlik.sk] allows you to bypass the F8 madness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558329</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246552500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ext2/3 supports the use of xattrs that are perfectly adequate for storing ACLs and other such. In fact, however rarely it is used, that's how ACLs are supported in Linux. xattrs are also used to store SELinux data.</p><p>It is true enough that there probably aren't many windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exes stored on ext2 other than for backup or sneakernet, but it does represent a needless limitation that appears to exist purely as an attempt to force 3rd parties to use MS's patented junk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ext2/3 supports the use of xattrs that are perfectly adequate for storing ACLs and other such .
In fact , however rarely it is used , that 's how ACLs are supported in Linux .
xattrs are also used to store SELinux data.It is true enough that there probably are n't many windows .exes stored on ext2 other than for backup or sneakernet , but it does represent a needless limitation that appears to exist purely as an attempt to force 3rd parties to use MS 's patented junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ext2/3 supports the use of xattrs that are perfectly adequate for storing ACLs and other such.
In fact, however rarely it is used, that's how ACLs are supported in Linux.
xattrs are also used to store SELinux data.It is true enough that there probably aren't many windows .exes stored on ext2 other than for backup or sneakernet, but it does represent a needless limitation that appears to exist purely as an attempt to force 3rd parties to use MS's patented junk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557355</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>Simon Rowe</author>
	<datestamp>1246547880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives?</p></div><p>Dozens of devices use it. Cameras, GPS, if it has files most likely it uses FAT.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives ? Dozens of devices use it .
Cameras , GPS , if it has files most likely it uses FAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives?Dozens of devices use it.
Cameras, GPS, if it has files most likely it uses FAT.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558451</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1246552980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>note however that anything older then vista do not have write support.</p><p>but its a interesting thought non the less...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>note however that anything older then vista do not have write support.but its a interesting thought non the less.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>note however that anything older then vista do not have write support.but its a interesting thought non the less...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561101</id>
	<title>Re:or heres a great idea</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1246561380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent only covers a way to make write long file names in a way they are unnoticed by devices that can't understand them, and short file names that are read instead.</p><p>
There aren't any patents on reading at all, and hence there would be no patent issues with reading an existing file system and writing it somewhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent only covers a way to make write long file names in a way they are unnoticed by devices that ca n't understand them , and short file names that are read instead .
There are n't any patents on reading at all , and hence there would be no patent issues with reading an existing file system and writing it somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent only covers a way to make write long file names in a way they are unnoticed by devices that can't understand them, and short file names that are read instead.
There aren't any patents on reading at all, and hence there would be no patent issues with reading an existing file system and writing it somewhere else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558945</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability</i> <p>
interoperability is not trivial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability interoperability is not trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability 
interoperability is not trivial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</id>
	<title>Can someone explain to me why this is important?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557929</id>
	<title>Re:or heres a great idea</title>
	<author>pentalive</author>
	<datestamp>1246550280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wouldn't the sanitizing program stand in violation of the patent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>would n't the sanitizing program stand in violation of the patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wouldn't the sanitizing program stand in violation of the patent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557485</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1246548360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not much, but "USB Drives" covers a lot of devices.  Most MP3 players and digital picture frames behave as USB drives, so do some satnav devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not much , but " USB Drives " covers a lot of devices .
Most MP3 players and digital picture frames behave as USB drives , so do some satnav devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not much, but "USB Drives" covers a lot of devices.
Most MP3 players and digital picture frames behave as USB drives, so do some satnav devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28610603</id>
	<title>Re:the 80's called</title>
	<author>SliceofPi</author>
	<datestamp>1246991220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And which Microsoft building do you work in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And which Microsoft building do you work in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And which Microsoft building do you work in?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557339</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>digitalunity</author>
	<datestamp>1246547820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Media players. Hard drives, in computers where there are multiple OS's. Industrial equipment controllers. I bet you even some satellites use FAT.</p><p>It's ubiquitous because it's simple and until the NTFS drivers were fixed(read:not trashing your data), FAT was one of the only convenient formats for sharing data between Windows and Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Media players .
Hard drives , in computers where there are multiple OS 's .
Industrial equipment controllers .
I bet you even some satellites use FAT.It 's ubiquitous because it 's simple and until the NTFS drivers were fixed ( read : not trashing your data ) , FAT was one of the only convenient formats for sharing data between Windows and Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Media players.
Hard drives, in computers where there are multiple OS's.
Industrial equipment controllers.
I bet you even some satellites use FAT.It's ubiquitous because it's simple and until the NTFS drivers were fixed(read:not trashing your data), FAT was one of the only convenient formats for sharing data between Windows and Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559533</id>
	<title>Compatibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246557000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see how Microsoft enforcing patents and having a proprietary file system is somehow being a monopoly.

If I'm driving a Ford, and I decide to put in another transmission, I'm not going to be able to go out and put a Chevy transmission in.  Should I sue Ford because I have to use a Ford transmission in it instead of being able to just put anything in it?  Of course not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how Microsoft enforcing patents and having a proprietary file system is somehow being a monopoly .
If I 'm driving a Ford , and I decide to put in another transmission , I 'm not going to be able to go out and put a Chevy transmission in .
Should I sue Ford because I have to use a Ford transmission in it instead of being able to just put anything in it ?
Of course not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how Microsoft enforcing patents and having a proprietary file system is somehow being a monopoly.
If I'm driving a Ford, and I decide to put in another transmission, I'm not going to be able to go out and put a Chevy transmission in.
Should I sue Ford because I have to use a Ford transmission in it instead of being able to just put anything in it?
Of course not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558837</id>
	<title>So what happens if Microsoft breaks compatibility?</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1246554540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's suppose a new version of Windows started <em>checking</em> whether files with long filenames also had short filenames - and when encountering such a file, popped up a dialog saying "your filesystem may be corrupt.  Please run scandisk" or whatever....  Wouldn't that be fun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's suppose a new version of Windows started checking whether files with long filenames also had short filenames - and when encountering such a file , popped up a dialog saying " your filesystem may be corrupt .
Please run scandisk " or whatever.... Would n't that be fun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's suppose a new version of Windows started checking whether files with long filenames also had short filenames - and when encountering such a file, popped up a dialog saying "your filesystem may be corrupt.
Please run scandisk" or whatever....  Wouldn't that be fun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557597</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>AceJohnny</author>
	<datestamp>1246548900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was initially skeptical because of your abusive use of "unpatented" all over the place, as if this is solely about patents. You don't provide any clear links here, but 2 clicks away, I found <a href="http://www.fs-driver.org/relnotes.html" title="fs-driver.org">this</a> [fs-driver.org]:</p><blockquote><div><p>The problem is caused by Vista's internals: There is some code that compares whether the name of the file system type is one of the following: "NTFS", "FAT", "FAT32", "CDFS", "NPFS", "MSFS" or "UDF". If there is a match, it is one of Microsoft's file system types and a lot of code is skipped in the Multiple UNC Provider (MUP) implementation of Vista. If the file system type is a third-party type, for example "Ext2", some code runs in the MUP of Vista that always generates an ERROR\_INVALID\_PARAMETER error status code due to a bug of Vista.</p></div></blockquote><p>Bug or on purpose? Who knows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was initially skeptical because of your abusive use of " unpatented " all over the place , as if this is solely about patents .
You do n't provide any clear links here , but 2 clicks away , I found this [ fs-driver.org ] : The problem is caused by Vista 's internals : There is some code that compares whether the name of the file system type is one of the following : " NTFS " , " FAT " , " FAT32 " , " CDFS " , " NPFS " , " MSFS " or " UDF " .
If there is a match , it is one of Microsoft 's file system types and a lot of code is skipped in the Multiple UNC Provider ( MUP ) implementation of Vista .
If the file system type is a third-party type , for example " Ext2 " , some code runs in the MUP of Vista that always generates an ERROR \ _INVALID \ _PARAMETER error status code due to a bug of Vista.Bug or on purpose ?
Who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was initially skeptical because of your abusive use of "unpatented" all over the place, as if this is solely about patents.
You don't provide any clear links here, but 2 clicks away, I found this [fs-driver.org]:The problem is caused by Vista's internals: There is some code that compares whether the name of the file system type is one of the following: "NTFS", "FAT", "FAT32", "CDFS", "NPFS", "MSFS" or "UDF".
If there is a match, it is one of Microsoft's file system types and a lot of code is skipped in the Multiple UNC Provider (MUP) implementation of Vista.
If the file system type is a third-party type, for example "Ext2", some code runs in the MUP of Vista that always generates an ERROR\_INVALID\_PARAMETER error status code due to a bug of Vista.Bug or on purpose?
Who knows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567653</id>
	<title>Re:other means of avoidance?</title>
	<author>shird</author>
	<datestamp>1246549440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact there is a windows register tweak you can do which prevents Windows from creating the 8.3 filename. I don't know why they are creating one with invalid characters. Just don't create it at all.</p><p>It's only needed for DOS compatibility, which is pretty hard to come across these days. It's rare enough that the few cases where it's used they could come to some other arrangement (using windows, hack the source, use old drivers etc). If they are creating invalid filenames, then they are breaking that compatibility anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact there is a windows register tweak you can do which prevents Windows from creating the 8.3 filename .
I do n't know why they are creating one with invalid characters .
Just do n't create it at all.It 's only needed for DOS compatibility , which is pretty hard to come across these days .
It 's rare enough that the few cases where it 's used they could come to some other arrangement ( using windows , hack the source , use old drivers etc ) .
If they are creating invalid filenames , then they are breaking that compatibility anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact there is a windows register tweak you can do which prevents Windows from creating the 8.3 filename.
I don't know why they are creating one with invalid characters.
Just don't create it at all.It's only needed for DOS compatibility, which is pretty hard to come across these days.
It's rare enough that the few cases where it's used they could come to some other arrangement (using windows, hack the source, use old drivers etc).
If they are creating invalid filenames, then they are breaking that compatibility anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569235</id>
	<title>Re:Not to worry.</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1246654620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately that doesn't cover instances where OEMs who have purchases the license implement the file system with a bug that doesn't surface until it hits a directory written to by this new driver. Bugs like that can hide for a long time, even in code that is otherwise good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately that does n't cover instances where OEMs who have purchases the license implement the file system with a bug that does n't surface until it hits a directory written to by this new driver .
Bugs like that can hide for a long time , even in code that is otherwise good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately that doesn't cover instances where OEMs who have purchases the license implement the file system with a bug that doesn't surface until it hits a directory written to by this new driver.
Bugs like that can hide for a long time, even in code that is otherwise good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558031</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1246550820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>File systems are a core part of an OS. The Internet Explorer rulings only apply because the courts ruled that was a separate product. When you buy Windows, part of the cost is going towards the licences for them.

If there was ever a court ruling saying they had to support rival file systems on their own OS it would open the floodgates for insane amounts of nuisance law suits from companies competing again ones with large market shares.</htmltext>
<tokenext>File systems are a core part of an OS .
The Internet Explorer rulings only apply because the courts ruled that was a separate product .
When you buy Windows , part of the cost is going towards the licences for them .
If there was ever a court ruling saying they had to support rival file systems on their own OS it would open the floodgates for insane amounts of nuisance law suits from companies competing again ones with large market shares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>File systems are a core part of an OS.
The Internet Explorer rulings only apply because the courts ruled that was a separate product.
When you buy Windows, part of the cost is going towards the licences for them.
If there was ever a court ruling saying they had to support rival file systems on their own OS it would open the floodgates for insane amounts of nuisance law suits from companies competing again ones with large market shares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955</id>
	<title>Re:the 80's called</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1246550400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come up with a replacement that allows reading and writing without any FS-specific actions to be taken by the user, has low administration overhead and has native first-class support by every operating system and we can talk about FAT being obsolete. Right now FAT32 is the most modern, most advanced file system in its class (the class of high-compatibility general-purpose filesystems, which consists entirely of FAT16 and FAT32).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come up with a replacement that allows reading and writing without any FS-specific actions to be taken by the user , has low administration overhead and has native first-class support by every operating system and we can talk about FAT being obsolete .
Right now FAT32 is the most modern , most advanced file system in its class ( the class of high-compatibility general-purpose filesystems , which consists entirely of FAT16 and FAT32 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come up with a replacement that allows reading and writing without any FS-specific actions to be taken by the user, has low administration overhead and has native first-class support by every operating system and we can talk about FAT being obsolete.
Right now FAT32 is the most modern, most advanced file system in its class (the class of high-compatibility general-purpose filesystems, which consists entirely of FAT16 and FAT32).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561503</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1246562760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Writing some bytes in a particular order is trivial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Writing some bytes in a particular order is trivial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Writing some bytes in a particular order is trivial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560191</id>
	<title>Re:the 80's called</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246558740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UDF?</p><p>And NTFS will provide read/write out of the box on Ubuntu, which leaves only one platform out -- and MacFuse just isn't that difficult to install.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UDF ? And NTFS will provide read/write out of the box on Ubuntu , which leaves only one platform out -- and MacFuse just is n't that difficult to install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UDF?And NTFS will provide read/write out of the box on Ubuntu, which leaves only one platform out -- and MacFuse just isn't that difficult to install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557937</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246550340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may want to ask the North American population that one, as FAT is a lot more common in the North American population than say, the European population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to ask the North American population that one , as FAT is a lot more common in the North American population than say , the European population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to ask the North American population that one, as FAT is a lot more common in the North American population than say, the European population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557321</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>digitalunity</author>
	<datestamp>1246547760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FAT is hardly a submarine patent. MS has sued MANY manufacturers over their use of FAT in electronic devices and most companies end up reaching a licensing agreement and the lawsuit is dropped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FAT is hardly a submarine patent .
MS has sued MANY manufacturers over their use of FAT in electronic devices and most companies end up reaching a licensing agreement and the lawsuit is dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FAT is hardly a submarine patent.
MS has sued MANY manufacturers over their use of FAT in electronic devices and most companies end up reaching a licensing agreement and the lawsuit is dropped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557289</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives?</p></div><p>You say that like that's a small thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives ? You say that like that 's a small thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is FAT used for anything other than USB drives?You say that like that's a small thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559293</id>
	<title>other means of avoidance?</title>
	<author>arkarumba</author>
	<datestamp>1246556220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(SFNDE = Short File Name Directory Entry)<br>.<br>Regarding the patent filed in 1993.<br>.<br>It seems that the aim is to implement a "different idea" than that expressed in Figure 6b. (free rego at freepatentsonline to see original PDF with figures)<br>.<br>What about all the references to "short filename including at most a maximum NUMBER OF CHARACTERS THAT IS PERMISSIBLE BY THE OPERATING SYSTEM."<br>Is the Linux Operating System limited to a only of 8.3 characters? To that effect, why does this patent apply to Linux at all?<br>.<br>I can't quite remember my history, but weren't long filenames (LFN) introduced with Windows 95 in 1995?  Wasn't Win95 just a GUI layer on top of DOS and so bound by the filename length contraint of the DOS "OPERATING SYSTEM"?   Wasn't it actually the Win95 GUI that interpreted and displayed the LFN?<br>Isn't Linux access to FAT different?<br>.<br>Even though the FAT filesystem was limited to 8.3 characters, don't you think that DOS was "hardcoded" to 8.3 characters.  Thus it was a constraint of the "Operating System" that this patent was addressing.  The Linux situation seems completely different.  Linux does not have this constraint, thus the Linux "idea" for implemeting dual directory entries is different than the "idea" for Windows GUI on DOS as expressed in the given patent - ie thus the "idea" for Linux is compatability, whereas the "idea" for Windows was to get around the 8.3 constraint.<br>.<br>Fig 2 shows LFNDE alongside SFNDE.  Is that required technically for compatability, or can they be stored apart?<br>Alternatively ONLY create long filename, then have some sweeper task come along and create the short filenames from the long ones.<br>.<br>It talks about only creating a LFN when it is longer than 8.3.<br>Well then, create a LFNDE "EVERY TIME".<br>.<br>The patent says "At a minimum, a short filename will be created."<br>Have linux do it differently, at a minimum create both a long and a short filename.<br>.<br>The patent describes using "both SFN APIs and LFN APIs".<br>Does linux have both or does it do it "differently" with just LFN APIs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( SFNDE = Short File Name Directory Entry ) .Regarding the patent filed in 1993..It seems that the aim is to implement a " different idea " than that expressed in Figure 6b .
( free rego at freepatentsonline to see original PDF with figures ) .What about all the references to " short filename including at most a maximum NUMBER OF CHARACTERS THAT IS PERMISSIBLE BY THE OPERATING SYSTEM .
" Is the Linux Operating System limited to a only of 8.3 characters ?
To that effect , why does this patent apply to Linux at all ? .I ca n't quite remember my history , but were n't long filenames ( LFN ) introduced with Windows 95 in 1995 ?
Was n't Win95 just a GUI layer on top of DOS and so bound by the filename length contraint of the DOS " OPERATING SYSTEM " ?
Was n't it actually the Win95 GUI that interpreted and displayed the LFN ? Is n't Linux access to FAT different ? .Even though the FAT filesystem was limited to 8.3 characters , do n't you think that DOS was " hardcoded " to 8.3 characters .
Thus it was a constraint of the " Operating System " that this patent was addressing .
The Linux situation seems completely different .
Linux does not have this constraint , thus the Linux " idea " for implemeting dual directory entries is different than the " idea " for Windows GUI on DOS as expressed in the given patent - ie thus the " idea " for Linux is compatability , whereas the " idea " for Windows was to get around the 8.3 constraint..Fig 2 shows LFNDE alongside SFNDE .
Is that required technically for compatability , or can they be stored apart ? Alternatively ONLY create long filename , then have some sweeper task come along and create the short filenames from the long ones..It talks about only creating a LFN when it is longer than 8.3.Well then , create a LFNDE " EVERY TIME " ..The patent says " At a minimum , a short filename will be created .
" Have linux do it differently , at a minimum create both a long and a short filename..The patent describes using " both SFN APIs and LFN APIs " .Does linux have both or does it do it " differently " with just LFN APIs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(SFNDE = Short File Name Directory Entry).Regarding the patent filed in 1993..It seems that the aim is to implement a "different idea" than that expressed in Figure 6b.
(free rego at freepatentsonline to see original PDF with figures).What about all the references to "short filename including at most a maximum NUMBER OF CHARACTERS THAT IS PERMISSIBLE BY THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
"Is the Linux Operating System limited to a only of 8.3 characters?
To that effect, why does this patent apply to Linux at all?.I can't quite remember my history, but weren't long filenames (LFN) introduced with Windows 95 in 1995?
Wasn't Win95 just a GUI layer on top of DOS and so bound by the filename length contraint of the DOS "OPERATING SYSTEM"?
Wasn't it actually the Win95 GUI that interpreted and displayed the LFN?Isn't Linux access to FAT different?.Even though the FAT filesystem was limited to 8.3 characters, don't you think that DOS was "hardcoded" to 8.3 characters.
Thus it was a constraint of the "Operating System" that this patent was addressing.
The Linux situation seems completely different.
Linux does not have this constraint, thus the Linux "idea" for implemeting dual directory entries is different than the "idea" for Windows GUI on DOS as expressed in the given patent - ie thus the "idea" for Linux is compatability, whereas the "idea" for Windows was to get around the 8.3 constraint..Fig 2 shows LFNDE alongside SFNDE.
Is that required technically for compatability, or can they be stored apart?Alternatively ONLY create long filename, then have some sweeper task come along and create the short filenames from the long ones..It talks about only creating a LFN when it is longer than 8.3.Well then, create a LFNDE "EVERY TIME"..The patent says "At a minimum, a short filename will be created.
"Have linux do it differently, at a minimum create both a long and a short filename..The patent describes using "both SFN APIs and LFN APIs".Does linux have both or does it do it "differently" with just LFN APIs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28563587</id>
	<title>Re:the 80's called</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246526160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Come up with a replacement that <b>all Microsoft products implement by default</b> we can talk about FAT being obsolete.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come up with a replacement that all Microsoft products implement by default we can talk about FAT being obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come up with a replacement that all Microsoft products implement by default we can talk about FAT being obsolete.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283</id>
	<title>Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As a long-time user of Linux who is currently using Microsoft Windows XP, the whole vfat (FAT with Win95 long file names) patent and how Microsoft has handled this patent makes me feel that maybe Microsoft is engaging in the same kind of monopolistic behavior that they engaged in when they destroyed Netscape in the 1990s.
</p><p>
I'm sure people know about Microsoft's patent violation lawsuit against TomTom; if you don't <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TomTom#Patent\_infringement\_lawsuit" title="wikipedia.org">the Wikipedia is your friend</a> [wikipedia.org].  What a lot of people <em>don't</em> know is that Microsoft made some changes to Vista so that you can no longer easily use an unpatented filesystem like ext2 (Linux's 1990s file system which nicely enough is supported in Windows with a couple of <a href="http://www.ext2fsd.com/" title="ext2fsd.com">different 3rd</a> [ext2fsd.com] <a href="http://www.fs-driver.org/" title="fs-driver.org">party drivers</a> [fs-driver.org]).
</p><p>
For me, it seems very suspicious that Microsoft made some changes to Vista that make it very difficult to use filesystems not patented by Microsoft around the same time they used licenses for their filesystems as a revenue source.
</p><p>
<a href="http://maradns.blogspot.com/2009/03/windows-fat-patent-rant-nanodns-bug.html" title="blogspot.com">I posted a blog about this back in March</a> [blogspot.com] and to quote that blog entry:</p><blockquote><div><p>it can be shown, with Vista, that Microsoft removed compatibility for non-patented filesystems, forcing people to license Microsoft's patents, not because the patents are novel, but because the patented filesystems must be used for interoperability purposes</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a long-time user of Linux who is currently using Microsoft Windows XP , the whole vfat ( FAT with Win95 long file names ) patent and how Microsoft has handled this patent makes me feel that maybe Microsoft is engaging in the same kind of monopolistic behavior that they engaged in when they destroyed Netscape in the 1990s .
I 'm sure people know about Microsoft 's patent violation lawsuit against TomTom ; if you do n't the Wikipedia is your friend [ wikipedia.org ] .
What a lot of people do n't know is that Microsoft made some changes to Vista so that you can no longer easily use an unpatented filesystem like ext2 ( Linux 's 1990s file system which nicely enough is supported in Windows with a couple of different 3rd [ ext2fsd.com ] party drivers [ fs-driver.org ] ) .
For me , it seems very suspicious that Microsoft made some changes to Vista that make it very difficult to use filesystems not patented by Microsoft around the same time they used licenses for their filesystems as a revenue source .
I posted a blog about this back in March [ blogspot.com ] and to quote that blog entry : it can be shown , with Vista , that Microsoft removed compatibility for non-patented filesystems , forcing people to license Microsoft 's patents , not because the patents are novel , but because the patented filesystems must be used for interoperability purposes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As a long-time user of Linux who is currently using Microsoft Windows XP, the whole vfat (FAT with Win95 long file names) patent and how Microsoft has handled this patent makes me feel that maybe Microsoft is engaging in the same kind of monopolistic behavior that they engaged in when they destroyed Netscape in the 1990s.
I'm sure people know about Microsoft's patent violation lawsuit against TomTom; if you don't the Wikipedia is your friend [wikipedia.org].
What a lot of people don't know is that Microsoft made some changes to Vista so that you can no longer easily use an unpatented filesystem like ext2 (Linux's 1990s file system which nicely enough is supported in Windows with a couple of different 3rd [ext2fsd.com] party drivers [fs-driver.org]).
For me, it seems very suspicious that Microsoft made some changes to Vista that make it very difficult to use filesystems not patented by Microsoft around the same time they used licenses for their filesystems as a revenue source.
I posted a blog about this back in March [blogspot.com] and to quote that blog entry:it can be shown, with Vista, that Microsoft removed compatibility for non-patented filesystems, forcing people to license Microsoft's patents, not because the patents are novel, but because the patented filesystems must be used for interoperability purposes
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557847</id>
	<title>I predict incompatabilities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246549980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds dangerous to me. What if someone uses this to write to an SSD card that they plug into some cheap portable device (a media player for example) that doesn't implement the "standard" properly and gets confused by the data in the short filename when a long one is present? Or refuses to read half the files because it only likes short names (some cheap Chinese import MP3 players just use the short filename in displays) and half the files have names too long? The user won't blame their crap cheap little portable device they paid $3 for on eBay, they'll blame that there Linux thing because their copy of Windows can write things so the player understands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds dangerous to me .
What if someone uses this to write to an SSD card that they plug into some cheap portable device ( a media player for example ) that does n't implement the " standard " properly and gets confused by the data in the short filename when a long one is present ?
Or refuses to read half the files because it only likes short names ( some cheap Chinese import MP3 players just use the short filename in displays ) and half the files have names too long ?
The user wo n't blame their crap cheap little portable device they paid $ 3 for on eBay , they 'll blame that there Linux thing because their copy of Windows can write things so the player understands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds dangerous to me.
What if someone uses this to write to an SSD card that they plug into some cheap portable device (a media player for example) that doesn't implement the "standard" properly and gets confused by the data in the short filename when a long one is present?
Or refuses to read half the files because it only likes short names (some cheap Chinese import MP3 players just use the short filename in displays) and half the files have names too long?
The user won't blame their crap cheap little portable device they paid $3 for on eBay, they'll blame that there Linux thing because their copy of Windows can write things so the player understands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28568133</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>anton\_kg</author>
	<datestamp>1246553700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FAT32 and bellow is not designed for flash media.
I would prefer to see the same Linux workaround for exFAT or FAT64 instead
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>FAT32 and bellow is not designed for flash media .
I would prefer to see the same Linux workaround for exFAT or FAT64 instead http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FAT32 and bellow is not designed for flash media.
I would prefer to see the same Linux workaround for exFAT or FAT64 instead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557497</id>
	<title>A future bug</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246548420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this patch is ever widely deployed, Microsoft will change their operating system to recognize and reject it.  They won't admit to any intention even after the fact -- it was only a bug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this patch is ever widely deployed , Microsoft will change their operating system to recognize and reject it .
They wo n't admit to any intention even after the fact -- it was only a bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this patch is ever widely deployed, Microsoft will change their operating system to recognize and reject it.
They won't admit to any intention even after the fact -- it was only a bug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557627</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>MojoRilla</author>
	<datestamp>1246549080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bottom line is that Microsoft is using its monopoly position as an operating system vendor to force third parties to license trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability.
<br> <br>
If that isn't abuse of their monopoly, I don't know what is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom line is that Microsoft is using its monopoly position as an operating system vendor to force third parties to license trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability .
If that is n't abuse of their monopoly , I do n't know what is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom line is that Microsoft is using its monopoly position as an operating system vendor to force third parties to license trivial but patented VFAT technology that is only useful for interoperability.
If that isn't abuse of their monopoly, I don't know what is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557147</id>
	<title>May I be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good Work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good Work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good Work!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567879</id>
	<title>Re:the 80's called</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1246551540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about UDF (suggested by an earlier comment)? Basically everything can read CDs and DVDs now, so they've already got support for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about UDF ( suggested by an earlier comment ) ?
Basically everything can read CDs and DVDs now , so they 've already got support for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about UDF (suggested by an earlier comment)?
Basically everything can read CDs and DVDs now, so they've already got support for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567937</id>
	<title>Re:May I be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1246552080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like it - random numbers allow for the slight chance of collisions. Also they are not userfriendly if you use a FAT implementation which ignores the long filenames. This is quite common in media players - e.g. DVDs with a USB interface quite often don't handle long filenames. A USB stick that had been written with this patch would be unusable in such a system.</p><p>Here's how I'd do it.</p><p>Take a few characters from the long filename which are representable in 7 bit ASCII and fill the first slots of the short filename. Then end with a hex number which is the position of the short filename in the directory.</p><p>So Readme.txt would end up with a short filename of READMF6C.TXT or READA567.TXT. Ok, it sucks but for shortish names it is is usable. If I had a folder called Music I could find it. Oddly enough on some systems once you get that far they use the ID3 information so all is ok.</p><p>The rationale is that FAT only allows 65535 directory entries and in practice directories will be much smaller. In hex that is four digits (base 36 would be slightly more compact in practice but the worst case is still 4 digits). Now naively that should not require searching the directory. Unfortunately you can't be absolutely sure that this won't generate a collision - someone might create files called READA567.TXT for example so you need to check for duplicates anyway.</p><p>Now it has to be said that Windows NT uses a similar scheme for FAT filenames - it uses the patented algorithm for the first few and then switches to a hash later for performance reasons. I don't know if this is patented or not, but I'd make sure my hash algorithm was different and then publish it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like it - random numbers allow for the slight chance of collisions .
Also they are not userfriendly if you use a FAT implementation which ignores the long filenames .
This is quite common in media players - e.g .
DVDs with a USB interface quite often do n't handle long filenames .
A USB stick that had been written with this patch would be unusable in such a system.Here 's how I 'd do it.Take a few characters from the long filename which are representable in 7 bit ASCII and fill the first slots of the short filename .
Then end with a hex number which is the position of the short filename in the directory.So Readme.txt would end up with a short filename of READMF6C.TXT or READA567.TXT .
Ok , it sucks but for shortish names it is is usable .
If I had a folder called Music I could find it .
Oddly enough on some systems once you get that far they use the ID3 information so all is ok.The rationale is that FAT only allows 65535 directory entries and in practice directories will be much smaller .
In hex that is four digits ( base 36 would be slightly more compact in practice but the worst case is still 4 digits ) .
Now naively that should not require searching the directory .
Unfortunately you ca n't be absolutely sure that this wo n't generate a collision - someone might create files called READA567.TXT for example so you need to check for duplicates anyway.Now it has to be said that Windows NT uses a similar scheme for FAT filenames - it uses the patented algorithm for the first few and then switches to a hash later for performance reasons .
I do n't know if this is patented or not , but I 'd make sure my hash algorithm was different and then publish it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like it - random numbers allow for the slight chance of collisions.
Also they are not userfriendly if you use a FAT implementation which ignores the long filenames.
This is quite common in media players - e.g.
DVDs with a USB interface quite often don't handle long filenames.
A USB stick that had been written with this patch would be unusable in such a system.Here's how I'd do it.Take a few characters from the long filename which are representable in 7 bit ASCII and fill the first slots of the short filename.
Then end with a hex number which is the position of the short filename in the directory.So Readme.txt would end up with a short filename of READMF6C.TXT or READA567.TXT.
Ok, it sucks but for shortish names it is is usable.
If I had a folder called Music I could find it.
Oddly enough on some systems once you get that far they use the ID3 information so all is ok.The rationale is that FAT only allows 65535 directory entries and in practice directories will be much smaller.
In hex that is four digits (base 36 would be slightly more compact in practice but the worst case is still 4 digits).
Now naively that should not require searching the directory.
Unfortunately you can't be absolutely sure that this won't generate a collision - someone might create files called READA567.TXT for example so you need to check for duplicates anyway.Now it has to be said that Windows NT uses a similar scheme for FAT filenames - it uses the patented algorithm for the first few and then switches to a hash later for performance reasons.
I don't know if this is patented or not, but I'd make sure my hash algorithm was different and then publish it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560523</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>watermodem</author>
	<datestamp>1246559700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember accessing FAT in Linux before the dates these patents were filed.
So...  how can they be vaild Patents?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember accessing FAT in Linux before the dates these patents were filed .
So... how can they be vaild Patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember accessing FAT in Linux before the dates these patents were filed.
So...  how can they be vaild Patents?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559303</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>slazzy</author>
	<datestamp>1246556280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure~1</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure ~ 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure~1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564447</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1246529520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What? I only use ext3. What is this FAT you speak of?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
I only use ext3 .
What is this FAT you speak of ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
I only use ext3.
What is this FAT you speak of?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561501</id>
	<title>Not to worry.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246562760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What if someone uses this to write to an SSD card that they plug into some cheap portable device (a media player for example) that doesn't implement the "standard" properly</i> </p><p>The OEM buys a license for FAT - capped at $250K, last I heard.</p><p> FAT is so common and so useful, that, from his point of view, it's money well spent.</p><p> If you are SONY or Panasonic and bought the license in 2003 your costs are a small fraction of a penny per unit. You don't need the hack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if someone uses this to write to an SSD card that they plug into some cheap portable device ( a media player for example ) that does n't implement the " standard " properly The OEM buys a license for FAT - capped at $ 250K , last I heard .
FAT is so common and so useful , that , from his point of view , it 's money well spent .
If you are SONY or Panasonic and bought the license in 2003 your costs are a small fraction of a penny per unit .
You do n't need the hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if someone uses this to write to an SSD card that they plug into some cheap portable device (a media player for example) that doesn't implement the "standard" properly The OEM buys a license for FAT - capped at $250K, last I heard.
FAT is so common and so useful, that, from his point of view, it's money well spent.
If you are SONY or Panasonic and bought the license in 2003 your costs are a small fraction of a penny per unit.
You don't need the hack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572599</id>
	<title>Re:The best solution for whom?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's self-centred to promote actions to keep away from a known patent aggressor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's self-centred to promote actions to keep away from a known patent aggressor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's self-centred to promote actions to keep away from a known patent aggressor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564323</id>
	<title>Re:the 80's called</title>
	<author>Tired and Emotional</author>
	<datestamp>1246528980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its not their file system - its from CP/M80. The only bit they added was the long file name support, and its hard to see exactly where the originality is in that claim. Didn't Burroughs B system use variable numbers of fixed length slots for variable length file names? The idea of having multpile names for one file has, of course, been part of Unux for as long as I have used it (1984-ish). Actually I think you could do that on DOS360.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not their file system - its from CP/M80 .
The only bit they added was the long file name support , and its hard to see exactly where the originality is in that claim .
Did n't Burroughs B system use variable numbers of fixed length slots for variable length file names ?
The idea of having multpile names for one file has , of course , been part of Unux for as long as I have used it ( 1984-ish ) .
Actually I think you could do that on DOS360 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not their file system - its from CP/M80.
The only bit they added was the long file name support, and its hard to see exactly where the originality is in that claim.
Didn't Burroughs B system use variable numbers of fixed length slots for variable length file names?
The idea of having multpile names for one file has, of course, been part of Unux for as long as I have used it (1984-ish).
Actually I think you could do that on DOS360.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572199</id>
	<title>Re:MSFT can't give out VFAT, but can give out C#/M</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1246638960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>why the f*** would we trust them with C# ?? </i></p><p>Maybe because:</p><p>a) the patents on VFAT actually exist, while the patents on C#, at this point, don't seem to actually exist (I've yet to see either a patent or a filing covering C#, the language, or the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework, and not a single Mono opponent I've come across has been able to cite one),</p><p>b) given that, they can't exist because you can't retroactively patent a published invention, and</p><p>c) thus the only possibility is MS deliberately submarining their filings, which would disallow them from filing their patents overseas and would shorten the protection time, which makes it incredibly unlikely that such patents actually exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why the f * * * would we trust them with C # ? ?
Maybe because : a ) the patents on VFAT actually exist , while the patents on C # , at this point , do n't seem to actually exist ( I 've yet to see either a patent or a filing covering C # , the language , or the .NET framework , and not a single Mono opponent I 've come across has been able to cite one ) ,b ) given that , they ca n't exist because you ca n't retroactively patent a published invention , andc ) thus the only possibility is MS deliberately submarining their filings , which would disallow them from filing their patents overseas and would shorten the protection time , which makes it incredibly unlikely that such patents actually exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why the f*** would we trust them with C# ??
Maybe because:a) the patents on VFAT actually exist, while the patents on C#, at this point, don't seem to actually exist (I've yet to see either a patent or a filing covering C#, the language, or the .NET framework, and not a single Mono opponent I've come across has been able to cite one),b) given that, they can't exist because you can't retroactively patent a published invention, andc) thus the only possibility is MS deliberately submarining their filings, which would disallow them from filing their patents overseas and would shorten the protection time, which makes it incredibly unlikely that such patents actually exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557447</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1246548180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you honestly that dense? That's like asking if CD drives are used for anything other than CDs.</p><p>Flash drives have replaced floppies as the primary small rewritable data storage medium. Not supporting them is as egregious as not supporting DVDs, which incidentally have issues that are on sturdier legal ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you honestly that dense ?
That 's like asking if CD drives are used for anything other than CDs.Flash drives have replaced floppies as the primary small rewritable data storage medium .
Not supporting them is as egregious as not supporting DVDs , which incidentally have issues that are on sturdier legal ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you honestly that dense?
That's like asking if CD drives are used for anything other than CDs.Flash drives have replaced floppies as the primary small rewritable data storage medium.
Not supporting them is as egregious as not supporting DVDs, which incidentally have issues that are on sturdier legal ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559961</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246558140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i don't think it is accurate to describe that as a significant issue. i don't know many people who keep substantial quantities of windows executables on their linux drives.</p></div><p>Many cross-platform<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net/Mono developers would like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't think it is accurate to describe that as a significant issue .
i do n't know many people who keep substantial quantities of windows executables on their linux drives.Many cross-platform .Net/Mono developers would like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't think it is accurate to describe that as a significant issue.
i don't know many people who keep substantial quantities of windows executables on their linux drives.Many cross-platform .Net/Mono developers would like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558169</id>
	<title>Bad idea</title>
	<author>marcansoft</author>
	<datestamp>1246551720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will break the myriad of read-only implementations out there that only use short names, which is a lot more than you'd think. This means this can't be enabled by default on your average Linux.</p><p>It might help TomTom and the like, but it's not a cure for the patented portions of FAT. It's just a hack that might help some specific implementors. Kudos to the kernel developers for doing their best, but the real solution is to get the bogus patents invalidated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will break the myriad of read-only implementations out there that only use short names , which is a lot more than you 'd think .
This means this ca n't be enabled by default on your average Linux.It might help TomTom and the like , but it 's not a cure for the patented portions of FAT .
It 's just a hack that might help some specific implementors .
Kudos to the kernel developers for doing their best , but the real solution is to get the bogus patents invalidated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will break the myriad of read-only implementations out there that only use short names, which is a lot more than you'd think.
This means this can't be enabled by default on your average Linux.It might help TomTom and the like, but it's not a cure for the patented portions of FAT.
It's just a hack that might help some specific implementors.
Kudos to the kernel developers for doing their best, but the real solution is to get the bogus patents invalidated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558365</id>
	<title>Re:So avoid Mono?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1246552620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>for an obsolete decades old thing like FAT.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If it's so old, the patent will be expiring soon anyway, right? 2015 is what I hear. That's under 6 years from now - an eternity in computing years, but once it's gone it's gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for an obsolete decades old thing like FAT .
      If it 's so old , the patent will be expiring soon anyway , right ?
2015 is what I hear .
That 's under 6 years from now - an eternity in computing years , but once it 's gone it 's gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for an obsolete decades old thing like FAT.
      If it's so old, the patent will be expiring soon anyway, right?
2015 is what I hear.
That's under 6 years from now - an eternity in computing years, but once it's gone it's gone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557893</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246550220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, we're dealing with<br>US#5,579,517<br>http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=cLAkAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=5579517</p><p>and<br>US#5,758,352<br>http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=bUohAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=5758352</p><p>issued in 1996 and 1998 respectively. (17 year expirations in 2013 and 2017, respectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , we 're dealing withUS # 5,579,517http : //www.google.com/patents/about ? id = cLAkAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq = 5579517andUS # 5,758,352http : //www.google.com/patents/about ? id = bUohAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq = 5758352issued in 1996 and 1998 respectively .
( 17 year expirations in 2013 and 2017 , respectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, we're dealing withUS#5,579,517http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=cLAkAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=5579517andUS#5,758,352http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=bUohAAAAEBAJ&amp;dq=5758352issued in 1996 and 1998 respectively.
(17 year expirations in 2013 and 2017, respectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557287</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>daid303</author>
	<datestamp>1246547580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To allow USB drives, cameras, SD cards and more to work out of the box under Linux. With this patch you can distribute Linux without the fear of Microsoft suing you (like the did with TomTom)</htmltext>
<tokenext>To allow USB drives , cameras , SD cards and more to work out of the box under Linux .
With this patch you can distribute Linux without the fear of Microsoft suing you ( like the did with TomTom )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To allow USB drives, cameras, SD cards and more to work out of the box under Linux.
With this patch you can distribute Linux without the fear of Microsoft suing you (like the did with TomTom)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557669</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>croddy</author>
	<datestamp>1246549260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ext2fsd and fs-driver both work on vista. and they'll both mount my ext3 filesystems, as long as i formatted them with the right inode size.</p><p>the issue you (eventually) link to basically says that all ext2/3 filesystems mounted on vista are the equivalent of <tt>noexec</tt>. i don't think it is accurate to describe that as a significant issue. i don't know many people who keep substantial quantities of windows executables on their linux drives. the permissions system on ext2/3 is totally wrong for windows anyway, so you'd never use it for, say, \%ProgramFiles\% or \%SystemRoot\%.</p><p>do not disable UAC.</p><p>the problem i have with vista's driver support is that on amd64 it requires them to be cryptographically signed by some sort of extortion outfit, or i have to press F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 up up enter every time i boot the system in order to get it to load the drivers i need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ext2fsd and fs-driver both work on vista .
and they 'll both mount my ext3 filesystems , as long as i formatted them with the right inode size.the issue you ( eventually ) link to basically says that all ext2/3 filesystems mounted on vista are the equivalent of noexec .
i do n't think it is accurate to describe that as a significant issue .
i do n't know many people who keep substantial quantities of windows executables on their linux drives .
the permissions system on ext2/3 is totally wrong for windows anyway , so you 'd never use it for , say , \ % ProgramFiles \ % or \ % SystemRoot \ % .do not disable UAC.the problem i have with vista 's driver support is that on amd64 it requires them to be cryptographically signed by some sort of extortion outfit , or i have to press F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 up up enter every time i boot the system in order to get it to load the drivers i need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ext2fsd and fs-driver both work on vista.
and they'll both mount my ext3 filesystems, as long as i formatted them with the right inode size.the issue you (eventually) link to basically says that all ext2/3 filesystems mounted on vista are the equivalent of noexec.
i don't think it is accurate to describe that as a significant issue.
i don't know many people who keep substantial quantities of windows executables on their linux drives.
the permissions system on ext2/3 is totally wrong for windows anyway, so you'd never use it for, say, \%ProgramFiles\% or \%SystemRoot\%.do not disable UAC.the problem i have with vista's driver support is that on amd64 it requires them to be cryptographically signed by some sort of extortion outfit, or i have to press F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 F8 up up enter every time i boot the system in order to get it to load the drivers i need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557833</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>cowbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1246549920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully, soon, we can start using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal\_Disk\_Format#Native\_OS\_support" title="wikipedia.org">UDF</a> [wikipedia.org] instead of FAT. Cross-OS compatibility is pretty much there, though FAT's support is still the most broad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully , soon , we can start using UDF [ wikipedia.org ] instead of FAT .
Cross-OS compatibility is pretty much there , though FAT 's support is still the most broad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully, soon, we can start using UDF [wikipedia.org] instead of FAT.
Cross-OS compatibility is pretty much there, though FAT's support is still the most broad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449</id>
	<title>the 80's called</title>
	<author>wardk</author>
	<datestamp>1246548240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they want their obsolete file system back</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they want their obsolete file system back</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they want their obsolete file system back</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557413</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1246548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I read this my first impression, though admittedly not an informed one, was "you mean people pay to use FAT?"</p></div><p>No they don't. At least, nobody I've ever heard of. Also, do US patents apply to imported software? Say, I download OpenBSD from [insert patent-free country here], then I use that to build my own product, am I infringing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read this my first impression , though admittedly not an informed one , was " you mean people pay to use FAT ?
" No they do n't .
At least , nobody I 've ever heard of .
Also , do US patents apply to imported software ?
Say , I download OpenBSD from [ insert patent-free country here ] , then I use that to build my own product , am I infringing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read this my first impression, though admittedly not an informed one, was "you mean people pay to use FAT?
"No they don't.
At least, nobody I've ever heard of.
Also, do US patents apply to imported software?
Say, I download OpenBSD from [insert patent-free country here], then I use that to build my own product, am I infringing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560739</id>
	<title>fat</title>
	<author>r45d15</author>
	<datestamp>1246560300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another reason to not use any fat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason to not use any fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason to not use any fat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557981</id>
	<title>Re:or heres a great idea</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1246550580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That will work exactly when Microsoft decides to make ext* a first-class filesystem for Windows and Apple decides to do the same for OS X. Until then you can use ext* all you want; I'll use a filesystem that means people besides me can mount my thumb drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That will work exactly when Microsoft decides to make ext * a first-class filesystem for Windows and Apple decides to do the same for OS X. Until then you can use ext * all you want ; I 'll use a filesystem that means people besides me can mount my thumb drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That will work exactly when Microsoft decides to make ext* a first-class filesystem for Windows and Apple decides to do the same for OS X. Until then you can use ext* all you want; I'll use a filesystem that means people besides me can mount my thumb drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559835</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>haifastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1246557840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Media players. Hard drives, in computers where there are multiple OS's. Industrial equipment controllers. I bet you even some satellites use FAT.</p><p>It's ubiquitous because it's simple and until the NTFS drivers were fixed(read:not trashing your data), FAT was one of the only convenient formats for sharing data between Windows and Linux.</p></div><p>My university's satellite uses ext2. I only know that because I had the chance to play with the mock satellite (full sized copy of the one in orbit) recently. But as the sat is running embedded Linux, it makes sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Media players .
Hard drives , in computers where there are multiple OS 's .
Industrial equipment controllers .
I bet you even some satellites use FAT.It 's ubiquitous because it 's simple and until the NTFS drivers were fixed ( read : not trashing your data ) , FAT was one of the only convenient formats for sharing data between Windows and Linux.My university 's satellite uses ext2 .
I only know that because I had the chance to play with the mock satellite ( full sized copy of the one in orbit ) recently .
But as the sat is running embedded Linux , it makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Media players.
Hard drives, in computers where there are multiple OS's.
Industrial equipment controllers.
I bet you even some satellites use FAT.It's ubiquitous because it's simple and until the NTFS drivers were fixed(read:not trashing your data), FAT was one of the only convenient formats for sharing data between Windows and Linux.My university's satellite uses ext2.
I only know that because I had the chance to play with the mock satellite (full sized copy of the one in orbit) recently.
But as the sat is running embedded Linux, it makes sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558733</id>
	<title>Re:It's time to show MS the power of *nix</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1246554120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me guess.. you are in your teens/early 20's..<br>
<br>
You do realize that in the real world people play the <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/" title="stanford.edu">prisoner's dilemma</a> [stanford.edu], right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess.. you are in your teens/early 20 's. . You do realize that in the real world people play the prisoner 's dilemma [ stanford.edu ] , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess.. you are in your teens/early 20's..

You do realize that in the real world people play the prisoner's dilemma [stanford.edu], right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28600819</id>
	<title>Linux's new FAT filesystem</title>
	<author>t3chn0n3rd</author>
	<datestamp>1246880220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be good if you could use the windows FAT file system.  Currently the best i do is use the WINE emulator .

I also use dual boot, but it is awkward to reboot, when you want to switch between operating systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be good if you could use the windows FAT file system .
Currently the best i do is use the WINE emulator .
I also use dual boot , but it is awkward to reboot , when you want to switch between operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be good if you could use the windows FAT file system.
Currently the best i do is use the WINE emulator .
I also use dual boot, but it is awkward to reboot, when you want to switch between operating systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557989</id>
	<title>Re:A future bug</title>
	<author>pentalive</author>
	<datestamp>1246550640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the user only writes short file names to the media, then it will look like any other<br>media with only short file names.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the user only writes short file names to the media , then it will look like any othermedia with only short file names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the user only writes short file names to the media, then it will look like any othermedia with only short file names.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557665</id>
	<title>In other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246549260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... they patented a workaround for their own broken design (!), used their monopoly power to force everyone into using it as well, and are suing people over that now. Damn, these people are smart!</p><p>Unrelatedly, doesn't anyone else find this part a little frightening: "The garbage string is generated with random bytes in a manner that is intended to minimize the risk of triggering that bug."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... they patented a workaround for their own broken design ( !
) , used their monopoly power to force everyone into using it as well , and are suing people over that now .
Damn , these people are smart ! Unrelatedly , does n't anyone else find this part a little frightening : " The garbage string is generated with random bytes in a manner that is intended to minimize the risk of triggering that bug .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they patented a workaround for their own broken design (!
), used their monopoly power to force everyone into using it as well, and are suing people over that now.
Damn, these people are smart!Unrelatedly, doesn't anyone else find this part a little frightening: "The garbage string is generated with random bytes in a manner that is intended to minimize the risk of triggering that bug.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179</id>
	<title>Who in their right mind would want to use FAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe, maybe for something like a thumb drive, but on a hard drive?</p><p>Or maybe I'm just scarred by microsoft's implementation of it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , maybe for something like a thumb drive , but on a hard drive ? Or maybe I 'm just scarred by microsoft 's implementation of it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, maybe for something like a thumb drive, but on a hard drive?Or maybe I'm just scarred by microsoft's implementation of it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28573081</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>MercTech</author>
	<datestamp>1246644360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every storage media uses a FAT.  The word is an acronym for File Allocation Table.  I guess you mean the MSDOS FAT system that Microsoft made ubiquitous back in the day.  NTFS is a type of FAT.  UDF is a type of FAT designed for optical media.<br>Microsoft tried to copyright their type of FAT and even copyright the acronym but there was too much prior art to pull it off.<br>Just another skirmish in the battle of compatibility vs proprietary.<br>The evolution of file allocation algorithms has been to be able to address larger and larger volumes and with more descriptive file names.<br>CP/M (and MSDOS) started with a 6+3 scheme and UNIX (Linux) with an 8+4 scheme for naming files. (file name plus type extension)</p><p>Remember your basics...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every storage media uses a FAT .
The word is an acronym for File Allocation Table .
I guess you mean the MSDOS FAT system that Microsoft made ubiquitous back in the day .
NTFS is a type of FAT .
UDF is a type of FAT designed for optical media.Microsoft tried to copyright their type of FAT and even copyright the acronym but there was too much prior art to pull it off.Just another skirmish in the battle of compatibility vs proprietary.The evolution of file allocation algorithms has been to be able to address larger and larger volumes and with more descriptive file names.CP/M ( and MSDOS ) started with a 6 + 3 scheme and UNIX ( Linux ) with an 8 + 4 scheme for naming files .
( file name plus type extension ) Remember your basics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every storage media uses a FAT.
The word is an acronym for File Allocation Table.
I guess you mean the MSDOS FAT system that Microsoft made ubiquitous back in the day.
NTFS is a type of FAT.
UDF is a type of FAT designed for optical media.Microsoft tried to copyright their type of FAT and even copyright the acronym but there was too much prior art to pull it off.Just another skirmish in the battle of compatibility vs proprietary.The evolution of file allocation algorithms has been to be able to address larger and larger volumes and with more descriptive file names.CP/M (and MSDOS) started with a 6+3 scheme and UNIX (Linux) with an 8+4 scheme for naming files.
(file name plus type extension)Remember your basics...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558699</id>
	<title>Re:Who in their right mind would want to use FAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe, maybe for something like a thumb drive, but on a hard drive?</p><p>Or maybe I'm just scarred by microsoft's implementation of it...</p></div><p>Or on SD media cards. Ever heard of TomTom?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , maybe for something like a thumb drive , but on a hard drive ? Or maybe I 'm just scarred by microsoft 's implementation of it...Or on SD media cards .
Ever heard of TomTom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, maybe for something like a thumb drive, but on a hard drive?Or maybe I'm just scarred by microsoft's implementation of it...Or on SD media cards.
Ever heard of TomTom?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559917</id>
	<title>Don't understand how this works around the patent</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1246558020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The patent is (or should not be) on the <i>obvious</i> parts of the system. There <i>is</i> a clever thing in VFAT, in that they use hidden "volume label" directory entries to store the long name, and this work-around does not change that.</p><p>This is not just long filenames (unless the patent system is broken much worse than anybody thinks). It is blatently obvious how to add long filename support to a file system that has short filenames. However the "obvious" solution would be to use a single hidden file to store all the names. Microsoft chose another solution, and for a good reason (their solution has an advantage that if an "old" system deletes all the files in a directory, the directory looks empty. A hidden file would either be too easy to delete by accident or would be "locked" and thus the old system would be unable to empty the directory).</p><p>It is also blatently obvious that an 8.3 replacement filename must be made for the file, so that can't be patented. They may have patented the pattern but I'm fairly certain that any unique pattern of characters with the same extension would not break any software (they could have made a system where "part" of the long filename is stored in the 8.3 name, but they did not because they were probably worried about handling collisions of these short names, or just rushed with their implementation).</p><p>So I really don't see how this works around the actually patentable part of this, since the use of volume label directory entries is still being done.</p><p>It also appears that *reading* the long filenames is allowed without a license. So anybody can read these disks.</p><p>My suggestion would be to use a new method to store the long names. Users of Windows looking at the disk would see only the short names. People say that the users will blame Linux for that, but they are seriously underestimating the stupidity of users, they will blame the Windows machine, since when they put the disk back in the Linux machine the filenames work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The patent is ( or should not be ) on the obvious parts of the system .
There is a clever thing in VFAT , in that they use hidden " volume label " directory entries to store the long name , and this work-around does not change that.This is not just long filenames ( unless the patent system is broken much worse than anybody thinks ) .
It is blatently obvious how to add long filename support to a file system that has short filenames .
However the " obvious " solution would be to use a single hidden file to store all the names .
Microsoft chose another solution , and for a good reason ( their solution has an advantage that if an " old " system deletes all the files in a directory , the directory looks empty .
A hidden file would either be too easy to delete by accident or would be " locked " and thus the old system would be unable to empty the directory ) .It is also blatently obvious that an 8.3 replacement filename must be made for the file , so that ca n't be patented .
They may have patented the pattern but I 'm fairly certain that any unique pattern of characters with the same extension would not break any software ( they could have made a system where " part " of the long filename is stored in the 8.3 name , but they did not because they were probably worried about handling collisions of these short names , or just rushed with their implementation ) .So I really do n't see how this works around the actually patentable part of this , since the use of volume label directory entries is still being done.It also appears that * reading * the long filenames is allowed without a license .
So anybody can read these disks.My suggestion would be to use a new method to store the long names .
Users of Windows looking at the disk would see only the short names .
People say that the users will blame Linux for that , but they are seriously underestimating the stupidity of users , they will blame the Windows machine , since when they put the disk back in the Linux machine the filenames work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The patent is (or should not be) on the obvious parts of the system.
There is a clever thing in VFAT, in that they use hidden "volume label" directory entries to store the long name, and this work-around does not change that.This is not just long filenames (unless the patent system is broken much worse than anybody thinks).
It is blatently obvious how to add long filename support to a file system that has short filenames.
However the "obvious" solution would be to use a single hidden file to store all the names.
Microsoft chose another solution, and for a good reason (their solution has an advantage that if an "old" system deletes all the files in a directory, the directory looks empty.
A hidden file would either be too easy to delete by accident or would be "locked" and thus the old system would be unable to empty the directory).It is also blatently obvious that an 8.3 replacement filename must be made for the file, so that can't be patented.
They may have patented the pattern but I'm fairly certain that any unique pattern of characters with the same extension would not break any software (they could have made a system where "part" of the long filename is stored in the 8.3 name, but they did not because they were probably worried about handling collisions of these short names, or just rushed with their implementation).So I really don't see how this works around the actually patentable part of this, since the use of volume label directory entries is still being done.It also appears that *reading* the long filenames is allowed without a license.
So anybody can read these disks.My suggestion would be to use a new method to store the long names.
Users of Windows looking at the disk would see only the short names.
People say that the users will blame Linux for that, but they are seriously underestimating the stupidity of users, they will blame the Windows machine, since when they put the disk back in the Linux machine the filenames work!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557557</id>
	<title>Good fix but</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1246548660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It shouldn't have had to be done.<br>This patent really smells of anti-trust to me since the only good reason to use it is for compatibility with Microsoft's products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should n't have had to be done.This patent really smells of anti-trust to me since the only good reason to use it is for compatibility with Microsoft 's products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It shouldn't have had to be done.This patent really smells of anti-trust to me since the only good reason to use it is for compatibility with Microsoft's products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569861</id>
	<title>Re:Patents and Trademarks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how pathetically moronic is that to allow to patent:<br>1) data format such as FAT<br>2) the backward compatibility feature such as long filenames interchanging with short names</p><p>glad to see Linux evolving without caring about backwardness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how pathetically moronic is that to allow to patent : 1 ) data format such as FAT2 ) the backward compatibility feature such as long filenames interchanging with short namesglad to see Linux evolving without caring about backwardness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how pathetically moronic is that to allow to patent:1) data format such as FAT2) the backward compatibility feature such as long filenames interchanging with short namesglad to see Linux evolving without caring about backwardness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557921</id>
	<title>Re:MSFT can't give out VFAT, but can give out C#/M</title>
	<author>\_32nHz</author>
	<datestamp>1246550280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents cover independently derived solutions. Most of the c# patents probably cover Java anyway. MS also hold a host of patents related to HTML. I am not planning to stop using it till they sue me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents cover independently derived solutions .
Most of the c # patents probably cover Java anyway .
MS also hold a host of patents related to HTML .
I am not planning to stop using it till they sue me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents cover independently derived solutions.
Most of the c# patents probably cover Java anyway.
MS also hold a host of patents related to HTML.
I am not planning to stop using it till they sue me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559785</id>
	<title>The best solution for whom?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1246557720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like someone has forgotten that what is good for one's self is not necessarily good for everyone else.</p><blockquote><div><p>The Linux Foundation says that the best solution at this point is for vendors to ditch FAT and come up with a new vendor-neutral format that can be used without having to pay licensing fees.</p><p>An industry-wide shift towards an open royalty-free format in the hardware space could potentially liberate device makers from this dependence on Microsoft's encumbered technology.</p></div></blockquote><p>It may be the best solution for Linux advocates, but it is probably not the best solution for the device manufacturers. 90\% of their market uses Windows. If the manufacturers moved to a "new vendor-neutral format", they would break the automatic compatibility with 90\% of their market and they would also have to ship driver disks to install the drivers needed to read and write the new format with every device. This would increase the cost of manufacturing and packaging as well as make it harder to use the devices.</p><p>Perhaps Linux supporters should stop being so self-centered and start thinking of the larger picture before making such statements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like someone has forgotten that what is good for one 's self is not necessarily good for everyone else.The Linux Foundation says that the best solution at this point is for vendors to ditch FAT and come up with a new vendor-neutral format that can be used without having to pay licensing fees.An industry-wide shift towards an open royalty-free format in the hardware space could potentially liberate device makers from this dependence on Microsoft 's encumbered technology.It may be the best solution for Linux advocates , but it is probably not the best solution for the device manufacturers .
90 \ % of their market uses Windows .
If the manufacturers moved to a " new vendor-neutral format " , they would break the automatic compatibility with 90 \ % of their market and they would also have to ship driver disks to install the drivers needed to read and write the new format with every device .
This would increase the cost of manufacturing and packaging as well as make it harder to use the devices.Perhaps Linux supporters should stop being so self-centered and start thinking of the larger picture before making such statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like someone has forgotten that what is good for one's self is not necessarily good for everyone else.The Linux Foundation says that the best solution at this point is for vendors to ditch FAT and come up with a new vendor-neutral format that can be used without having to pay licensing fees.An industry-wide shift towards an open royalty-free format in the hardware space could potentially liberate device makers from this dependence on Microsoft's encumbered technology.It may be the best solution for Linux advocates, but it is probably not the best solution for the device manufacturers.
90\% of their market uses Windows.
If the manufacturers moved to a "new vendor-neutral format", they would break the automatic compatibility with 90\% of their market and they would also have to ship driver disks to install the drivers needed to read and write the new format with every device.
This would increase the cost of manufacturing and packaging as well as make it harder to use the devices.Perhaps Linux supporters should stop being so self-centered and start thinking of the larger picture before making such statements.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567193</id>
	<title>Re:Is Microsoft engaging in their 90s behavior?</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1246545060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will file system formats be the next format war? And why not, you do want your old hard disks and flash drives readable 20 years in the future.<br>After the fiasco over office document formats, the following trends have appeared:<br>1. Microsoft will take notice if an entire government makes a specific requirement for its own internal use.<br>2. You \_can\_ compromise an entire standards organization completely. Apparently quite cheaply too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will file system formats be the next format war ?
And why not , you do want your old hard disks and flash drives readable 20 years in the future.After the fiasco over office document formats , the following trends have appeared : 1 .
Microsoft will take notice if an entire government makes a specific requirement for its own internal use.2 .
You \ _can \ _ compromise an entire standards organization completely .
Apparently quite cheaply too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will file system formats be the next format war?
And why not, you do want your old hard disks and flash drives readable 20 years in the future.After the fiasco over office document formats, the following trends have appeared:1.
Microsoft will take notice if an entire government makes a specific requirement for its own internal use.2.
You \_can\_ compromise an entire standards organization completely.
Apparently quite cheaply too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561545</id>
	<title>Ponintless</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1246562880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current implementation works perfectly well. No one gains anything by writing junk data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current implementation works perfectly well .
No one gains anything by writing junk data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current implementation works perfectly well.
No one gains anything by writing junk data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561937</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone explain to me why this is important</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1246564200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>UDF is big and complex.  FAT is small and simple.<br><br>Thus FAT gets used on embedded systems, and UDF doesn't get used much anywhere, except general purpose operating systems, and even then generally only read support.  If you want compatibility you need to stick to the early versions of UDF, the versions without the interesting features, leaving you with something not significantly better than the more ubiquitous ISO-9660.</htmltext>
<tokenext>UDF is big and complex .
FAT is small and simple.Thus FAT gets used on embedded systems , and UDF does n't get used much anywhere , except general purpose operating systems , and even then generally only read support .
If you want compatibility you need to stick to the early versions of UDF , the versions without the interesting features , leaving you with something not significantly better than the more ubiquitous ISO-9660 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UDF is big and complex.
FAT is small and simple.Thus FAT gets used on embedded systems, and UDF doesn't get used much anywhere, except general purpose operating systems, and even then generally only read support.
If you want compatibility you need to stick to the early versions of UDF, the versions without the interesting features, leaving you with something not significantly better than the more ubiquitous ISO-9660.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557833</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28573081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28610603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28563587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28568133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28562741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_02_1317229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28568133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557833
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561937
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559635
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28573081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558945
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28561503
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28562741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557955
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28610603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28563587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28564323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28559293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28567653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_02_1317229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28560523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28569397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28557349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28572125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_02_1317229.28558079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
